What do they really weigh?

[Django Loco]

A few key bikes you seemed to have missed:

Yamaha XTZ Tenere' (Europe only)
Various other XT's that use the 660 motor ... none imported to USA

Current Triumph Tiger ... from 2007 onward. Claimed DRY weight is 436 lbs.

Husqvarna TE610, TE450 an TE250. ALL street legal dual sports, all left out,
of at least one category. The 250 is listed but not in all categories. The 610 never showed up.

The KTM 530 and 525 EXC's are all street legal since about 2007.
You also left out the 640 enduro and Adventure.

BMW X Challenge and X Country (X Challenge now discontinued)

Honda Varadero and Africa Twin. (AT discontinued since '05, Varadero since
'07) Both Euro only.

Kawasaki ER 6n new to USA. More a mild super moto, not dual sport.
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/24sep...09klx_er6n.htm

Should keep you busy for a while!!

Most of the above bike I listed are current, modern bikes.

For me at least .... and just "IMO", I don't really care much about bikes
before about 1985, even less so regards bikes from the 1970's.
Maybe a separate category for "vintage" bikes?

90% of users of your Data will be looking up bikes less than 15 years old!
I love the different listings, great way to do it. The easiest and fastest to reference is the manufactures categories. NICE!

[cyclegeo]

Weighed my BMW X-challenge today by the bathroom scale method. It has an after market titanium muffler and a slipstream screen ,other wise stock. it weighed 353 lbs. full of gas.

[Ruffus]

Originally Posted by Django Loco

A few key bikes you seemed to have missed:
Honda Varadero and Africa Twin. (AT discontinued since '05, Varadero since
'07) Both Euro only.

Also available in Canada

[montesa_vr]

Thanks for reading so carefully! Responses below:

Originally Posted by Django Loco

A few key bikes you seemed to have missed:
Yamaha XTZ Tenere' (Europe only)
Not doing any Europe only bikes, mainly because I can't get a comparable weight on them. The Tenere is very much like the KLR650 and probably weighs as much.

Current Triumph Tiger ... from 2007 onward. Claimed DRY weight is 436 lbs.
Yeah, I don't know how I missed that. Cycle World did a big preview feature on it in their November 2006 issue but I can't find a road test.
Edit: found it -- 512 lbs
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/roadtests/122_0707_2007_ducati_triumph_comparison/triumph_dyno.html


Husqvarna TE610, TE450 an TE250. ALL street legal dual sports, all left out,
of at least one category. The 250 is listed but not in all categories. The 610 never showed up.
The two missing motorcycles that frustrate me the most are the TE610 and the Suzuki DRZ400S. I've never seen a full road test of either. I expect they both come in around 325-335 lbs. Look again for the TE250 and you'll see it's on all three lists.

The KTM 530 and 525 EXC's are all street legal since about 2007.
You also left out the 640 enduro and Adventure.
I presume the 525 and 530 are comparable to the 450 in weight. I doubt the 640 Adventure weighed much different from the 620. Can't find road tests.

BMW X Challenge and X Country (X Challenge now discontinued)
XMoto should be in the ball park.

Honda Varadero and Africa Twin. (AT discontinued since '05, Varadero since
'07) Both Euro only.
Again, no Euro only bikes.

Kawasaki ER 6n new to USA. More a mild super moto, not dual sport.
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/24sep...09klx_er6n.htm
I'll watch for a test

Should keep you busy for a while!!

For me at least .... and just "IMO", I don't really care much about bikes
before about 1985, even less so regards bikes from the 1970's.
Maybe a separate category for "vintage" bikes? 90% of users of your Data will be looking up bikes less than 15 years old!
There are three reasons I include the old bikes:

1. I'm old, and I like to compare the bikes I started with to the new ones
2. I get tired of hearing ignorant comments about how some bike is "heavy for a 250." Modern 250 dual sports like the WR250R and KLX250S are right in the middle of the historical weight range, which is astonishing considering all the modern advances they carry.
3. I have a huge collection of ancient motorcycle magazines and therefore have access to data most people couldn't find. Publishing here makes it available to anyone with a computer.

However, if you can get enough ADVriders to join you, I'll kick the old bikes onto another list.

I love the different listings, great way to do it. The easiest and fastest to reference is the manufactures categories. NICE!

You can thank fellow ADVrider KilLer Kawasaki for the alpha listing. It was his doing. Of course, he hasn't volunteered to maintain it when I add new bikes.

[johnwesley]

do you have the info on the ktm 950 super enduro?

[montesa_vr]

Originally Posted by johnwesley

do you have the info on the ktm 950 super enduro?

Sorry, no. But the 2007 KTM 950 R Supermoto weighs 449 lbs. according to Motorcyclist.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ro...0_r_specs.html
Spose I should add that to the list.

[Nowwhat]

Thank you for the great thread....

[Echo1]

Originally Posted by montesa_vr

Thanks for reading so carefully! Responses below:The two missing motorcycles that frustrate me the most are the TE610 and the Suzuki DRZ400S. I've never seen a full road test of either. I expect they both come in around 325-335 lbs. Look again for the TE250 and you'll see it's on all three lists.

Suzuki now lists the curb weight (ready to ride weight with a full gas tank - 2.6 gals) for the 2009 DRZ400S at 317lbs.

[montesa_vr]

Originally Posted by Echo1

Suzuki now lists the curb weight (ready to ride weight with a full gas tank - 2.6 gals) for the 2009 DRZ400S at 317lbs.

It's nice that the manufacturers are finally getting within 50 lbs of actual weight instead of publishing the fantasy numbers they used in the past. I still find manufacturer specifications useful for one purpose only, and that is comparing motorcycles of the same model year from the same maker. So if you compared Suzuki's claimed weight for the DRZ400S and DRZ400SM, and then compared the claimed weight of the SM to the actual weight in the lists, you might get an even more accurate guess on the weight of the S.

[Echo1]

Originally Posted by montesa_vr

It's nice that the manufacturers are finally getting within 50 lbs of actual weight instead of publishing the fantasy numbers they used in the past. I still find manufacturer specifications useful for one purpose only, and that is comparing motorcycles of the same model year from the same maker. So if you compared Suzuki's claimed weight for the DRZ400S and DRZ400SM, and then compared the claimed weight of the SM to the actual weight in the lists, you might get an even more accurate guess on the weight of the S.

I think the curb weight spec is pretty accurate. I'd be surprised if you found a stock bike that weighs much more than the spec.

Regarding the DRZ400SM, you listed the weight = 322lbs, Suzuki listed curb weight is 321lbs for the 2009.

[montesa_vr]

Originally Posted by Echo1

I think the curb weight spec is pretty accurate. I'd be surprised if you found a stock bike that weighs much more than the spec.

I checked the weight of some Suzukis on the web site compared with my numbers and I'll give Suzuki a gold star for honesty. But note this statement on their web site:

To provide the most accurate information to you the consumer, beginning with 2009 model year motorcycles and ATVs, Suzuki lists "Curb Weight" rather than dry weight. "Curb Weight" is the weight of the machine as you would ride it on the street or trail factoring in all necessary fluids including oil, battery acid, brake fluid and a full tank of fuel.

So A, this is brand new for 2009, and B, not every manufacturer is being as honest as Suzuki. It'll be a while before I learn to trust the numbers from the manufacturer. After 39+ years of being fed fantasy numbers, one year of honesty isn't gonna earn my trust.

[gybeman]

Just checked my street legal 2006 GasGas 300EC. All street equipment (turnsignals, horn, mirror, factory speedo/computer), EE handguards, skidplate, 10litres of fuel in a 13litre tank, gps mount, ready to ride. 268 lbs.

[Django Loco]

Originally Posted by montesa_vr

Thanks for reading so carefully! Responses below:

There are three reasons I include the old bikes:
I'm old, and I like to compare the bikes I started with to the new ones
I get tired of hearing ignorant comments about how some bike is "heavy for a 250." Modern 250 dual sports like the WR250R and KLX250S are right in the middle of the historical weight range, which is astonishing considering all the modern advances they carry.
I have a huge collection of ancient motorcycle magazines and therefore have access to data most people couldn't find. Publishing here makes it available to anyone with a computer.
However, if you can get enough ADVriders to join you, I'll kick the old bikes onto another list.

I started riding at about age 12, in about 1960. Riding older friend's Vespa's and home built scooters. My first bike was a 195? 200cc Triumph Cub.

50 (or so) bikes later I still remember the early bikes. I saw them all .... mostly from hanging around the local Triumph dealer and a couple independent shops in the L.A. area. So I know the old bikes, just not as nostalgic as you are.

I think it's fine to include them. But I would separate them into Vintage bike list. Where you draw the line is up to you. Young guys think bikes from the
late 80's are "vintage". For me, it's more like pre 1970. YMMV.

The Euro bikes are important .... well at least the adventure/dual sport ones we do not get in the USA. Take the Tenere'. There is HUGE interest here for that bike .... and trust me, it is NOTHING AT ALL like a KLR!

If you start reading the big Tenere' thread here on ADV, you'll discover what an important bike this is.

Cheers!

[Nowwhat]

Originally Posted by Django Loco

I started riding at about age 12, in about 1960. Riding older friend's Vespa's and home built scooters. My first bike was a 195? 200cc Triumph Cub.

50 (or so) bikes later I still remember the early bikes. I saw them all .... mostly from hanging around the local Triumph dealer and a couple independent shops in the L.A. area. So I know the old bikes, just not as nostalgic as you are.

I think it's fine to include them. But I would separate them into Vintage bike list. Where you draw the line is up to you. Young guys think bikes from the
late 80's are "vintage". For me, it's more like pre 1970. YMMV.

The Euro bikes are important .... well at least the adventure/dual sport ones we do not get in the USA. Take the Tenere'. There is HUGE interest here for that bike .... and trust me, it is NOTHING AT ALL like a KLR!

If you start reading the big Tenere' thread here on ADV, you'll discover what an important bike this is.

Cheers!

Why don't you start your own thread....I like this one just fine...

[montesa_vr]

So far the voting is one ADVrider who would like to see the old iron shoveled off to a different place and one ADVrider who likes the list the way it is and maybe a couple thousand ADVriders who don't read this thread anyway so they really don't care. I think I'll leave it alone for a while.