Adventure Bike Rider Forum

There is no link--simply that changing the wheels to spoked is better for offroad (and will give a bit more ground clearance)----and a 310 cc fuel injected bike leaves less of a CO2 footprint etc.

catcitrus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:02 am There is no link--simply that changing the wheels to spoked is better for offroad (and will give a bit more ground clearance)----and a 310 cc fuel injected bike leaves less of a CO2 footprint etc.

I agree, surely they should be encouraging us to keep our bikes longer. That would help the environment far more. Euro 4 or 5 (god knows what they are up to now) is a con, the first thing folk do is strip off the cat and get the bike re mapped so it run's as intended. The worlds gone mad!

captinktm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:21 am Why have they gone to a parallel twin?

I think its purely down to emission regs, its easier (ie cheaper) for them to manufacture a compliant twin than a big single.

captinktm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:21 am Why have they gone to a parallel twin?

When I have read about it, it seems a parallel twin is much easier to produce than a V which from an engineering perspective makes sense. Its also easier to cool (the rear on a V can be problematic) and a PT gives more room around the bike, a V shape is a pig to fit into the frame.

I used to be skeptical but now I own a GS800 I rather like the PT, I don't see whats wrong with them.

I'm keeping my 990r till it dies. Like the look of the 790. But why is it so bulbous at the front?

I'm not sure about this latest mid size adventure bike thing, I was hoping for some 180kg-ish at the most bikes, but they all don't seem to have lost much weight over stuff like the Africa Twin
Too heavy for me.

See my earlier pic of the Rally Raid 310 GS concept--there is an interesting interview with the guy that owns and runs Rally Raid in the latest issue of RUST magazine (on line)--basically on the future direction of "adventure" bikes--he thinks that they have gone up a bit of a blind ally with too much performance , cost and weight. He started his business as a side line as he was already working with CNC machines and plastic moulding--and went with full on Rally conversion for the KTM 690 (he rallied himself until very recently, so has the experience)--but thats a very specialist and low volume market---he seems to have hit the spot with the CB500X Rally Raid conversion--very popular, and they DO WORK for real world adventure travel. (its a parallel twin to!). He is doing stuff for the Honda Africa twin but sees a real market in a sensibly priced conversion for the 310 GS--and I tend to agree with him--I had a KTM 640 adventure for over 40k miles, and that was the last of the genuine PRODUCTION rally and long distance capable bikes sold--at a sensible price and needing NO CONVERSION. I did sell it because a) I'm short and b) I'm well past pensionable age--and it was a tall bugger!
ps I see that we can now get ABR for a few pence on line!(like RUST-but which is actually free!)

Here's my personal blueprint for a good adventure bike:

1) Definitely less than 160kgs wet weight including a tank of fuel. Preferably nearer 140.

2) That probably means it's a single cylinder, but don't mind a twin.

3) At least 450cc but the bigger the better as long as the above weight limit still applies

4) Quality suspension and ground clearance genuinely capable of tackling 90% of commonly found trails. Off road ability is paramount.

5) Seat height preferably no more than 900mm

6) Able to cruise comfortably on the road at 120kmh returning at least 50mpg - probably 6 gears and obviously fuel injection these days

7) A seat comfortable enough to do a few hours of touring at a time

8) A sub-frame butch enough to take luggage/tent etc

9) Tank range capable of 250kms at least standard, with a longer range tank upgrade cheaply available

10) Tough, reliable and as simple to maintain as reasonably possible, but at the same time modern and really good off-road.


Is this too much to ask??

What gets me is there have been spy shots of this bike as a prototype for a year now, then they unveil the prototype? Seems mad.

I'd be perfectly happy with a lower powered LIGHTER bike that is as capable as the 950/990 was. I've got an old Enduro bike for trail riding so it'd be nice to have a bike similar the CB500X but made to actually work off tarmac. I've no interest in 3 second 0-100 times, I just want a good quality nice to ride bike that's not going to cost a huge amount to run or maintain.
Looks like I'll be having to look into making a CRF250/500 hybrid!

Steve

I have rattled on on here before about torque, this is what makes a bike easier to ride. Example. I had a young lady on a tour with three guys, and when they divided up the bikes they insisted she (cos she's girl) should have the 250. Well it took us 4 hours to do the first 8 km and a few tears. Every time I returned to the group one of the guys ( I assumed boy friend) would be telling her what she was doing wrong and how she needed to do this and that to get better. In the end I told him to such the f.. up and put her on his 525. She was transformed and off we went. Torque and the lack of it was the problem, she simply could n't or did not want to rev the 250 to get it moving. The 525 will of course pull away at tick over, and chug along in the wrong gear, yes it can be stalled but you have to try very hard. So this is my point, bigger cc bikes make more torque and here's the important bit they make it earlier in the rev range. So they will be much easier to ride, look at the popularity of Triumph's high torque engine. While your off road and on a loaded adv bike you don't want to constantly searching for drive/torque, it needs to be there right off the bottom. This is the problem with parallel twins they don't make much torque compared to a v twin and when they do it's father up the rev range. The AT is of course guilty of this, and even MCN after singing it's praises tried in vain to get some go out of the engine. This of course was not such a big problem before fuel inject which because of the snatchy ness they have had to further dull the power delivery of new bikes. For me anything less than the 950 would be boring on a long trip. So I would say the ideal bike would have to have 100 bhp 70 lbf ft torque both delivered before 8000 rpm and inside 200 kg this way you have a frame that can handle the extra weight and still deliver an exciting ride.