2013 KTM Adventure 1190

[MookieBlaylock]

Originally Posted by TheMuffinMan

Maybe not a lot of cash for you but $1,000 for rally raid tanks and then another $1,500 for the fairing kit is expensive in my opinion.

of course, but a 690 adv would be pricier than those upgrades

[Geek]

Originally Posted by wilmar13

You need to go test ride a 800XC*... then you will understand the irony of this post in context.

*- heavy, underpowered, close ratio transmission (yah that makes sense for adventure bike???), terrible suspension... it is an awesome commercial(for Icon and for Triumph), but when you get to the end and see the sponsor credits you realize those bikes have $10k+ in upgrades, and more to the point are piloted by talented riders. You can ride anything, anywhere if you want to bad enough, and if your measuring stick is the 800XC then anything KTM makes has more potential.

The irony was intended.

Our 9x0's kick the 800's ass... but what competes with the 800 when the 1190 is the new adventure?


....as for riding anything anywhere....



I miss that VT500 sometimes

[mountain eagle]

Another perspective from an 1190 thread on another form, shared with permission....... This is a friend who's been in the "industry" working for major dealers on both coasts......

Originally Posted by stiles

.... KTM wants to broaden the appeal of the adventure, and they really need to. Consider that out of 2011 annual worldwide sales of 85,000 units (about what they sold worldwide in 2006), 79% of those were dirtbikes. That leaves 19,000 annual streetbike sales, or about what Guzzi or MV Agusta sells. This matters because the world dirtbike market has been flatlined since 2008, and falling at 25% per year in the US, every year since 2008. The big streetbike market by contrast is a growth category, and the high prices in that market contribute to profit. The good sales numbers and continuing strength of the big adventure bike market has been noticed by every manufacturer, and they want in. Witness the success of the Multistrada, and all the new, very competent entries from Yamaha and Triumph.

I can tell you that the 990 adv simply didn't sell well in NY and in the east bay compared to the competition IME, and it wasn't because we didn't have dirt customers in the east bay - we sold a fair number of KTM dirt bikes. Your small minority of hardcore offroad users (or those who wanted to be viewed as such) and super tall guys bought it, nearly everyone else who sat on one bought a Multistrada or Tiger 800/1050 instead, often because they could get their feet on the ground on those and couldn't on the 990. The intimidation factor of such a tall bike matters, as does the wacky and aggressively weird styling of all of KTM's streetbike models (Duke/690 supermoto/RC8, etc).

KTM really needs to diversify their sales (while keeping their dirt cred) by increasing streetbike sales and this is a step in the right direction. Continuing to pin your company to a market in sales freefall for 4 years straight with no end in sight is a recipe for failure, particularly when your competitors are aggressively and successfully increasing sales and market share by diversifying (BMW sold a record 104,000 motorcycles in 2011, and the S1000rr is their top selling bike. Ducati has doubled their market share since 2006 and posting record-breaking sales numbers this year on top of three years of solid and consistent large sales gains - 2011 sales were about 42,000 units)

also,

Originally Posted by stiles

Also, we on this board are not the target market for motorcycle manufacturers, or even dealers, really. How many new bikes have any of us bought (I have bought exactly two new bikes out of more than 25 owned in my 24 years of riding), and how often do we buy new bikes? How much do we spend on service at a dealership? Hell, how much in factory branded clothes and accessories did we buy from dealerships on any given year?

Not a lot, probably. Remember, just as in the car world, sales to non-hardcore enthusiasts keep the companies in business, whether you're talking Jeeps, Harleys, Porsches or Ducatis. I'd be willing to bet that KTM's streetbike operations lose money, and that's just not an option anymore in this economy.

And this does fit me. I've bought two bikes from dealers either a demo leftover (ktm525exc) or leftover deep discount (husky TE610) and almost never have been serviced at a dealer on any bike. And I certainly don't buy gear from dealers, so there's really no need to worry about what I like as I don't spend money with them anyways.......

[jerdog53]

Originally Posted by Geek

Surely KTM's gotta make something to compete with this...

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aTvYAcJOx3s" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

That is a lot of fun!

[Hayduke]

Originally Posted by mountain eagle

Another perspective from an 1190 thread on another form, shared with permission....... This is a friend who's been in the "industry" working for major dealers on both coasts......



also,



And this does fit me. I've bought two bikes from dealers either a demo leftover (ktm525exc) or leftover deep discount (husky TE610) and almost never have been serviced at a dealer on any bike. And I certainly don't buy gear from dealers, so there's really no need to worry about what I like as I don't spend money with them anyways.......

Damn. If you can't put your feet down on a non-R 990, you must really be short. I mean, Bonnie Abbzug short. They are pretty damn low.

And I see their point; I never buy new bikes, and I never take them to a dealer for service, either. I will likely keep the 950 for a long time... especially if the only options are going to be 1190's/Multistradas/Vstroms/superTeneres.

[TheMuffinMan]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

Damn. If you can't put your feet down on a non-R 990, you must really be short. I mean, Bonnie Abbzug short. They are pretty damn low.

And I see their point; I never buy new bikes, and I never take them to a dealer for service, either. I will likely keep the 950 for a long time... especially if the only options are going to be 1190's/Multistradas/Vstroms/superTeneres.

I can understand the feet thing, granted I have a raised 950 (225mm) which is a schmidgin north of 35" seat height, and I have a 29.5" inseam. Honestly it sucks to ride in the city and in traffic when you can only get 1/2 of one foot down. I deal with it because I love the bike but I can see many people not wanting to put up with the hassle. I dream of a high clearance, long travel adventure bike with a 33" seat height.

The population is getting shorter too in the US, not taller; something to keep in mind.

[stiles]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

Damn. If you can't put your feet down on a non-R 990, you must really be short. I mean, Bonnie Abbzug short. They are pretty damn low.

Seat height for a non-R 2012 990 adventure is listed at 34", and 35" for '09-'10 models, checked on multiple websites. That's not what I would call low. Experienced (and taller) riders take this sort of thing for granted but not being able to flat foot both feet at a stop is often a big deal for people looking to buy a new bike, particularly if they're moving up in size and price.

It gets even more important as you add luggage and a passenger - all weight up high - or when you're taking a loaded bike off a centerstand or turning around on a cambered road. Even though the seat height numbers are similar (but seat shapes and suspension sack are different), I can flat foot a 2012 Tiger Explorer and a new Multistrada 1200 but not a 2009/10 990, and I am 6 foot, with a 32" inseam. The average height of all male Americans is about 5 foot 10 inches, according to Wikipedia.

It is good and necessary for KTM to lower the seat height of that bike in order to make it fit more potential customers. With adjustable height seats becoming more common, going up is dead easy to engineer in for the tall people, at nearly no cost.

[crazybrit]

Originally Posted by stiles

Seat height for a non-R 2012 990 adventure is listed at 34"

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. The above spec is unloaded. Loaded (static sag) it's going to be a lot less than this.

Either way I have a 29" inseam and I don't have any issues with my 2006 950. You have 32" inseam and you have an issue with the standard 990?

The point you seem to be missing is that previously on the 9x0 seat height is a function of suspension length and ground clearance. Obviously it's easy to raise the seat height by adding more foam or making it adjustable.

[The Griz]

Originally Posted by gbravo

I for one am glad I went with a 2012 990 Adventure R. Ground clearance is better. Bigger wheels. More capable off road. The platform is more worked out. Etc.

I look at the new 1190 and think: wow that is a HUGE and low-hanging exhaust.... some of the parts seem a bit more vulnerable/exposed....smaller wheels.... less of a rally bike look.... it's not for me.

Glad I'm on a 990.

[stiles]

Originally Posted by crazybrit

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. The above spec is unloaded. Loaded (static sag) it's going to be a lot less than this.

Either way I have a 29" inseam and I don't have any issues with my 2006 950. If I had a 32" inseam I'd be sorted.

The point you seem to be missing is that previously on the 9x0 seat height is a function of suspension length and ground clearance. Obviously it's easy to raise the seat height by adding more foam or making it adjustable.

The point is that a 34" to 35" seat height isn't "pretty darn low", and that KTM is broadening the appeal of the bike by lowering it a bit. I am well aware that static sag varies by rider weight (I'm thin) and that seat shape matters too, thanks.

We sold maybe 4 of these a year (compared to around 25 KTM dirtbikes, 15 Tiger 800s and 20 Multistradas), and I have personally witnessed at least that number - 4 - of customers climb on in the showroom or the parking lot, not be able to put both feet down, comment about the bike being too tall, get off and buy a Multistrada 1200 instead. Evidently KTM agrees with my opinion FWIW, since they lowered the seat height on the new models. Doing so removes a significant showroom stumbling block that negatively affects a big chunk of potential customers.

[Bonsai Elephant]

Seeing that composite of the four together the 990R really stands out as a damned good looking bike!

[crazybrit]

Originally Posted by stiles

We sold maybe 4 of these a year, and I have personally witnessed at least that number of customers climb on in the showroom or the parking lot, not be able to put both feet down, comment about the bike being too tall to the salesman, get off and buy a Multistrada 1200 instead.

If they need to have both feet down at all times, I'd have sent them over to Starbucks. I've heard they have nice low seats.

[Navin]

Seat height is an issue but what you don't allow for is a narrow rider ergo that would give you a straighter shot to the ground. This is one area the 950-990 could have been improved on, have you ever straddled one without tanks on it? The damn tanks were great ten years ago but a full blown subframe tank with thin extensions forward to a filler would have been great.

Like I have said, the R&D went into stuff I have no need for and missed areas that could have made it better for everyone.

[stiles]

Originally Posted by crazybrit

If they need to have both feet down at all times, I'd have sent them over to Starbucks. I've heard they have nice low seats.

You're right, why would KTM want to sell more new bikes?

[MookieBlaylock]

Originally Posted by stiles

lowered the seat height on the new models. Doing so removes a significant showroom stumbling block that negatively affects a big chunk of potential customers.

if you add 50 horsepower it now is capable of going really fast, and at those speeds there is a reason that bikes are lower. I like my 950 w/ the long suspension on dirt tracks back roads and up to a certain point on the freeway. This thing might be a whole different experience from 80 to 130, that is something that either floats your boat or it doesn't