What attribute make a good/great ADV bike

A european thumper somewhere between 450-650 cc.

A euro thumper somewhere around 450-650 cc, depending on your idea of nimble.

I'd probably pass on that, it's expensive and takes a lot of time, blood, sweat and tears to create a monster...for what, a heavy bike that might not work as well as you imagined?

Really though, there's many good single cylinder adv platforms available that just need a simple fairing and minor modifications to be more comfortable on the long rides.

I like Noah's bike for instance. You could put one together in a few weekends and be done with it.

I wish Suzuki would EFI the DRZ and make it either a 6 speed or a wide ratio 5 speed. Or Yamaha would bump the WR250 to a 350. I would buy either of those bikes in a heartbeat.

I'll agree for the most part but, I'll leave the liquid cooling behind for simplicity and ease of maint. and weight reduction...I understand the L.C. is needed for those who want increased performace per CC but, I don't need that much power. (a mellow 35hp is just fine)
And they need the old 91 DR650's 5+ gallon gas tank and seat.

Amen!! Every riders "adventure" is different. Ride what you brought.

And often the bike causes the adventure.

Or something similarly simple, practical, reliable, and economical.

I posted this in "some assembly required" because it seemed to fit that heading best in my mind. It was moved to this location and from the thread, I am not so sure that this is the right place, but what do I know?
I originally thought the replies would be a discussion on what is the right size gas tank, engine displacement, shaft or chain, windshield or small fairing, ect..... Instead, it went another direction (X bike + a,b,c,d, components), which is alright. I have my own ideas what would make the ideal ADV bike, which is based on the bikes I have ridden in the past and my yearly mileage since 1970. I had a low of 10,000 miles the first year to a six year run of 44,000+ miles a year, but even to this day, I am a steady 25,000 mile a year rider. I have never commuted on a motorcycle. The miles were all ridden on the weekend and vacation. That means I have had a lot of saddle time to think about likes and dislikes and what could be improved.
There is another thread on tank size elsewhere and bigger is better seems to be the general concensus. What about engine layout? Twins are popular, the big GS specifically, but you could easily fit a narrow four in the space of a horizontally opposed twin. Triumphs Tiger triple is capitalizeing on that, but is it better than the twin? This is the direction I thought the thread would go.

One made'a rubber so it don't break when ya drop it!!!

I hear you.

Yet, the issue is in the word "adventure"; and what that means to each of us, individualists.

You envision an adventure that places demands on the machine; if not entirely dependent of the machine.
To many adventure is what happens on the road, in whatever way it comes. The machine, not so important. Wind in the hair and all that, you know... It suffices to be a twowheeler.
Check out Ride Reports and see that the reports with a huge following feature a wide array of motorcycles. Many of these might be considered absolutely unsuited for "adventure"...

So, indeed. This thread may attract a wide array of replies.

+1

My personal idea of a perfect "adventure" bike would be mostly street oriented but capable of some light offroading much like the Moto Morini Scrambler. I know it's quite different than most people's, but I love traveling on roads and highways and do very little to no offroading on my adventures



But since they don't sell them here...
If I had the time and money I'd get a naked mid-weight street bike with some decent torque down low, increase the suspension travel, bigger wheel on front, a few other mods to protect the bike and my hands and put on some road oriented dual sport tires so I can put on some serious road miles but still take on fire roads and easy trails when I feel the call

Now THAT is a nice bike! 1,200 cc, 120 hp....all without looking like a fat pig. Please bring 'em to the US.

Precisely!!!

:huh

<IFRAME height=315 src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yjBrpN9nmZQ" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

Harkens back to a time when there were just motorcycles and you didn't care which pigeon hole it came from,

Edit - embedded instead of linked.

It does harken back to the day when a motorcycle was a do all machine, but the R1 is not one of them! That was just a stunt, kind of like when a person hunts dangerous game with a bow.

If you knew much about Mr. Sjaak I don't believe you would call it a stunt. He likes the performance provided by large displacement sport bikes and is willing to make sacrifices in some areas in order to ride the kind of bike he enjoys.

It all started with a 6 month trip to Australia in the mid '90s on a Honda 900 Fireblade that turned into a three year tour of forty countries.


He didn't get the R1 until five years later and that's been his ride of choice ever since. Almost twenty years doing just a stunt.

What prevents an R1 from being a do all machine beyond the limits of the rider's imagination? It has two wheels, a reliable engine, a seat, and handlebars. Modify it a bit to handle a load and off you go. It may not offer the comfort of a GS 1200 but not everybody needs or wants a comfy couch.

Somebody says they are taking their HD up to the Arctic Circle and nobody blinks an eye.



The same person (minus the pirate costume) says they're riding an R1 up the Dempster Highway and people call it a stunt.

Let's see, same fuel capacity, half the weight, larger diameter rear tire, same ground clearance, and $10,000 cheaper.

Edit - An R1 with 100 pounds of gear is still lighter than an empty BMW R 1200 GS Adventure.

The time taken to do the stunt, be it ten minutes or ten years, makes it no less of a stunt. When the R1 is modified to make it more suitable for the adverse conditions for RTW, (ie. bars, tires ect..) it takes the narrow focus of the R1 away so that it is no longer an R1! Personally, I love seeing people use a motorcycle that was not designed for the purpose of RTW, use it for such. Riding a Harley to the Artic circle is not the same thing as riding the Dempster on a R1.
My hat is off to Mr. Sjaak and I will now read more about his exploits.

For me the pigeon holes differentiating Dual Sport and Adventure bikes are separated where single track gets steep and unpaved double-track begins.

IMHO, the ADV bike is the one to comfortably pound out hours in the saddle, day after day, carrying what you need along. The ADV bike is prepared to rough it at a moments notice. It can have its arm twisted to do single track, but because it is a pig in comparison to something like a DRZ or KLR single it will never be able to perform as well there. ADV bikes will not be thumpers.

The Dual Sport won't like long days on the slab making time between exploring jeep tracks and mountain passes as much as an ADV bike will. Sure, you can do it, but it can be harder on the engine and not as comfortable in those situations where the ability to move a little more mass and employ more horsepower are desired. Dual Sports will mostly be mono-cylinderic.

You can go around the world having an adventure on either flavor, just depends on which blades you want to have at the ready on your Swiss Army Knife of a motorcycle.

It will be a challenge full of compromise to settle on a single bike that does it all. Possibly resulting in a ride that fits in neither pigeon hole as well as you might have hoped it would.

Very well said, sir!