[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by VellVector

Don't get bogged down in the technicalities while selecting a bike. Ride both and see what suits you better.

I have ridden a lot of the Himalayas - the tarmac parts and where no road exists on my 1250 GSA. Most people would say its too big and heavy for a lot of the places it's gone and has no business going anywhere around there.

More important than the bike, in these situations is the skill of the rider. I would suggest that you practice / get training at an off-road track before going to the mountains. It makes a world of a difference.

Oh yeah, I am sure specialist training makes a big difference. Can you recommend any places in Delhi and Bombay?

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by Suresh Stephen

In the past close to 40 years, I have been touring around this country,also to Nepal and Bhutan with Yezdis, Rx 100, a Vintage Bullet 350, for some time a Royal Enfield interceptor and now a Himalayan. Most of my travel was with a fully loaded bike and some times with my wife also.

Among the bikes I have listed above, Himalayan was the most comfortable for long touring including mountains and extremely bad roads with a pillion and fully loaded. But it is heavy when fully loaded. If the bike fall in a good road, though it is a handful, it can be lifted by a single person, But if it falls in a very bad terrain, it can be a pain to lift it up

Yes, and that's something which bothers me. I don't like these bulky bikes. And it seems like too much defeats the purpose of going on a motorcycle. It becomes un-manoeuvrable.

Yezdi 250 was a light and very handy bike , Rx 100 was like a toy, Extremely reliable and no nonsense bike, My Bullet 350 ( 70 model) was a delight, but a pain to maintain.

Interesting that you should praise the old Bullet 350. While it had many limitations I too always felt it was a good compromise between different factors. If I remember correctly it was also a "lighter" weight at 167 kg. It was heavy but you could pick it up without much difficulty.
But what makes you say the old bullet was a delight, but the new ones are not? Have you ridden the new classic 350? It has a better engine, so I guess you mean the extra weight is the deal-breaker for you.

If you are travelling alone, It may be wiser to go for a lighter bike like Xpulse or Vstrom 250. Again, if you are not looking at pushing your bike in extreme roads like Annapurna trail in Nepal, A good Standard Royal Enfield 350 is very comfortable to carry your luggage and pillion. Also though it is almost as heavy as Himalayan, because of better weight distribution, it is lot more easier to lift up , in case it falls. For that matter, interceptor is also not a bad option.

Well, I am not sure. I thought the Himalayan is much more heavier than the old CI 350 bullets.
Interesting that you should say that the old bullet had a better weight distribution than the new Enfields! I've tested the classic and Himalayan but it wasn't immediately obvious to me that their weight distribution is not as good as the old bullet.

[tarmacnaut]

Originally Posted by adrian

Please don't get offended. No offence was meant for CT owners. The CT 100 is a great motorcycle. I picked the CT 100 for the example because it has a feather weight front end and always wheeled up when starting up from a steep gradient (if you are not careful with the clutch), especially when a pillion is present.

I don't own a CT100, it is just a fact that weight has little to do with stability, that's what I ascertained. Sure, weight can help a bit, but wheelbase, tyre size/width/profile, chassis dynamics matter more than outright weight.

While we are there, weight does not directly translate to ruggedness or build quality as well, a common misconception popular among RE fans, stating their bikes are more of metal than plastic. The prime examples are RE Himalayan and Interceptor, despite being "heavy", due to poor engineering their frames/chassis break which does not even happen in abused xl100s, splendors, ct100s and other run of the mill commuters.

https://youtu.be/zZ6g9Gy-82U

https://youtube.com/watch?v=eL8dsr657RM

[kaushalswarup]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Thanks for sharing your view. It's interesting that you cut out the classic. Would you recommend it more if it was only the rider and no pillion? I always felt it had a sufficiently long wheelbase to make for a comfy ride.
Comfort and fatigue-free riding is definitely top of my list!

Comfort is extremely subjective, I would say. The classic is definitely comfy at moderate speeds, and with the accessory wider foot pegs, and touring seats, should be quite comfy over long distances.

I suggested the Himalayan or the 390adv, as I personally find the adventure bike riding posture to be the most comfortable. You have the option of standing up on the pegs from time to time to stretch, and can have small adjustments in seating position without being uncomfortable. The longer-travel suspension is always an added benefit to tackle the rough stuff too.

The classic, has always been a great option for a ‘do-it-all’ bike, even when there were other options available. With the J-series, it might have lost the thump, but has gained loads of refinement.

If you’re interested in the classic, I’d also suggest having a look at the Honda H’ness/CB350. Very similar, with the added benefits of Honda’s reliability and servicing, as well as the additional features (TC, Bluetooth, All led, etc).

Given your high importance on comfort, your best bet is to rent out all the options that you feel might be good, and do a few days riding in different conditions, to understand what suits you & your pillion best.

[sandeepmohan]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

On the other hand, a 195 kg RE might create serious issues in the mountains. e.g. there are so many times when you want to use your feet and the bike might slip a bit on gravel or other rough surfaces, where you want to stabilise it with your feet. I feel a heavier bike's weight will really work against the rider in such cases.

It depends on the balance or distribution of that weight. The Himalayan and Scram are well balanced motorcycles. If while seated, you can place your shoes flat on the ground, its unlikely the bike will tip over. This can happen only due to excess weight you are carrying (or luggage weight). Not due to bikes weight alone.

You run the risk of slipping and sliding on any gravel surface, regardless of the motorcycle. Care must be taken in such riding conditions.

[Suresh Stephen]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Yes, and that's something which bothers me. I don't like these bulky bikes. And it seems like too much defeats the purpose of going on a motorcycle. It becomes un-manoeuvrable.

Interesting that you should praise the old Bullet 350. While it had many limitations I too always felt it was a good compromise between different factors. If I remember correctly it was also a "lighter" weight at 167 kg. It was heavy but you could pick it up without much difficulty.
But what makes you say the old bullet was a delight, but the new ones are not? Have you ridden the new classic 350? It has a better engine, so I guess you mean the extra weight is the deal-breaker for you.

Well, I am not sure. I thought the Himalayan is much more heavier than the old CI 350 bullets.
Interesting that you should say that the old bullet had a better weight distribution than the new Enfields! I've tested the classic and Himalayan but it wasn't immediately obvious to me that their weight distribution is not as good as the old bullet.

Iam not undermining the current generation of 350 Royal Enfields, they are definitely good. May be my old school thinking made me say that the old bullet was a delight to drive.
I said that bullet 350 in general has a better weight distribution compared to Himalayan, Not limited to the old 350. I am not too sure of the weight of an old bullet now but I don't think it was only 167kg ( some one can confirm). I have driven the new 350 for long distances also . No doubt, It is a very good bike. If you see my suggestion for a you, I have indicated that also provided you don't intent to go to extreme roads. but be aware, the suspension of a Himalayan is far more comfortable than a 350 and that pushed me to a Himalayan for my long drives.
I agree with you, When on motion all these bikes are well balanced, But at very slow speeds/Stand still, if the road is not very flat and perfect, The chances of a Himalayan falling down is more. It is my personal experience and neither I am short( 5ft 11 inches) nor a newbie on motorcycles . I suspect that the configuration of bike pushes its CG up and if the bikes are fully loaded having the total weight the same, comparatively a Himalayan will be difficult to lift than a 350.

[nitro.1000bhp]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Hi all. I’m looking to hear your experiences of touring in the mountains (with saddle bags and a pillion) on different weight categories of motorcycles.

I’ve been hearing contrasting views when it comes to choosing between a lighter or heavier motorcycle for touring purposes (especially in the mountains). I mainly have in mind a comparison between the RE motorcycles—in particular, the Classic 350 (Std Bullet, Himalayan)—and the much lighter KTM 390. On the one hand, it seems a 195 kg RE will do a better job of being stable at highway speeds with a full load. But then isn’t this going to be detriment on the broken roads or twisting turns of the Himalayas? On the other hand, a lighter bike should be much more easier to handle on the mountain twisties, or so it seems. But won’t it get bounced around much more than the heavier bike, making for an overall more fatiguing experience?

If you have been to the mountains or done a good bit of highway touring on both these bikes, then do share your personal experiences. Thanks!

If you are riding on we'll tarmaced mountain roads then nothing comes close to a duke 390 for sheer smiles per miles but if the roads are bad or non existent then the Duke will become painful to ride with it's limited suspension travel and hard ride.

The classics and old 350/500 bullets stamped their authority on the Himalayas mainly because of their higher torque engines and simplicity of maintenance. As one climbed to higher altitude the low torque, high revving 125/1500cc bikes that were the norm during the last decade were woefully underpowered up there as you may know that higher one climbed the lower the oxygen level and therefore the engine made proportionally lower power/torque. It was ok if you travelled solo and packed light but the bullets could chug along and climb all day with a kitchen sink and a pillion tied to the back . It also helped that everything was made of steel when if something broke it could be welded back on.

The Himalayan was conceived to be a mountain goat by design right from the start and it is fundamentally better than a classic/bullet on bad roads and the high torque engines made sure you could climb at altitude with minimal effort. A friend recently took an xpulse up to uttarakhand and he was highly disappointed with the power. He said it felt like a 100cc up there and had to really ring its neck to make it climb some of the high passes. He said it was even dangerous at times since he had to carry more speeds in the corners in order to climb the inclines that followed afterwards.

To conclude, it really depends on the altitude and condition of the road to pick the right bike for the intended ride. If you can only afford one, the Himalayan is it.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by Suresh Stephen

I said that bullet 350 in general has a better weight distribution compared to Himalayan, Not limited to the old 350.

Ah, yes. That means you likely include the Classic 350 here. It'll be interesting to see how much the upcoming Std. 350 J series Bullet weighs. Maybe they can trim down 10 kg for a total weight of 185 kg.

I am not too sure of the weight of an old bullet now but I don't think it was only 167kg ( some one can confirm).

Good to hear that. I am sure that the classic has many compromises. But the thing is I am looking for something that is an all-rounder. I certainly don't have plans to go for any extensive off-roading. And the old feet stretched-out-a-bit position appeals to me.

When on motion all these bikes are well balanced, But at very slow speeds/Stand still, if the road is not very flat and perfect.

Interesting to hear this! I remember not feeling at home when I test-rode the Himalayan. Frankly, unless one wants bikes for a special purpose, I feel standard motorcycles can easily suffice.
I am also tall, but somehow these bigger and larger bikes don't hold much appeal to me too.
In fact, it is as you say, in that in a place like India, there is a high chance of not managing your footwork well and slipping. I once slipped a bit at low speeds in Goa, and that was on the Yamaha FZ!

Originally Posted by nitro.1000bhp

If you are riding on we'll tarmaced mountain roads then nothing comes close to a duke 390 for sheer smiles per miles but if the roads are bad or non existent then the Duke will become painful to ride with it's limited suspension travel and hard ride.

Great points, these. I know of some who had gone into Ladakh back before it became a cool thing to do. They all used the Std. 350 CIs. Obviously, there were limitations but as you say the essentials were spot on.
The Duke is obviously a great bike, but I've heard it has a not-good low-end torque. Loaded up, I suspect it'll keep heating up, not to mention need frequent changes of gear.
Then there is the seat. I've test ridden it and it was hard. I wonder how one can get around this issue. The classic or Std. RE on the other hand has a relaxed riding position and comfy seats, pretty important for me.
The point about needing to carry more speed into corners etc. is important. In fact, that's one reason I am getting put off by the CB 350 Honda, an otherwise nice bike that will fit the bill for me. I feel in the mountains it'll need to be used in 2 and 3 gears all the time. The RE's, I suspect, will be able to handle a higher gear.

[masterChief007]

Let me tell you my point of view. I am also in dilemma but mostly it's sorted now. I have been a std 350 ci rider, so didn't feel the interceptor too much heavy (it is heavier than my std sure). KTM 390 adv is a very light and tall bike if you are 174 cms or more it wont be an issue.

First let me tell you my use case: I want to do leh-ladakh, spiti and north-east tour in next 3-4 years. I will prefer groups but mostly be ending up doing solo riding these destinations. Also I like long rides nearby my city.

Heart Vs Mind: Heart is all in for interceptor 650, mind is also voting for 650 for its engine refinement and gear shifts but not voting for the interceptor for solo northeast/leh ladakh part.

The problem with interceptor for a solo first timer in high altitude is falling off and breakdowns and slushy/rocky patches. This being a heavy bike in slush etc you may need help from fellow riders in pushing it through (since I might end up doing solo this help won't be available to me).

KTM however if required I might be able to shove it around myself without anyone helping. If I would have been group-riding I would have just chosen the interceptor 650, but 80% chance is there that I will have to do solo i will go for the KTM for now.

However in future (say 5 year), I will switch over to the best 650 (std/classic/interceptor) by trading in my adv 390 and maybe my std 350 too, by the time I would have completed my offroad checklist

So this is my thought process. 390 Adv just for the extreme solo rides (fling and affair), and the 650 the happily lived forever after (the wife). Hope this helps.

[Shubhendra]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Hi all. I’m looking to hear your experiences of touring in the mountains (with saddle bags and a pillion) on different weight categories of motorcycles.

If you have been to the mountains or done a good bit of highway touring on both these bikes, then do share your personal experiences. Thanks!

I was fortunate to tour many parts of the India and own the bikes mentioned above plus a few oldies.

1. RE Thunderbird 350: a reasonable bike, little underpowered for 2 up riding with luggage on hills but manageable. BUT, not good for the bad roads with luggage.
2. Himalayan: best bet currently with enough power to do 90-100 KMPH throughout the day or go to bad roads, trails etc. Its low end torque comes handy while riding on hills. Easy availability of parts in remote areas is a boon plus it has bare minimum electronics
3. XPulse200 is good for the weekend fun and trail riding. Not at all good for highway and not good for 2 up riding on hills. its underpowered
4. KTM 390: Nice bike on the highway with electronic aids but in hills with 2 up riding you will have to keep it in correct RPM band to extract power. Suspension is stiffer than Himalayan which would be more evident on bad roads while riding alone. Too much electronics and limited after sales support in remote area is a concern

[100Kmphormore]

Great thread, and in time too, as I am seriously considering the 2023 Adv 390 with tubeless spokes/VStrom 650 XT same order of priority.
The VStrom 650 twin, more power, more weight - translates to better trail and expressway riding but might be stranded offroad when going solo and offroading. As said above will need specialized training from an offroading school. I have seen several Knox videos showing the Himalayan and Adventure 390 offroading and that guy is insanely skilled. He rides both like an Impulse and cares for no stone/sand in his path!
Where the Himalayan shines is in lesser weight (216 vs 200, not much i know!) overall ride quality, suspension and loads of low end torque and ease of service compared to the Wee. I own one since a year and 15000 km and those are the brilliant points. Lousy top end, tube tyres, brakes, and has required a suspension and brake overhaul if used regularly in city, which is why i am looking for more power >40hp, amazing brakes with ABS, TC optional as anyway dont need on such low power, lighter clutch, quickshifter if possible - the ADV 390 offers all of this at 4.5L on road Bengaluru. But will require spokes as i have started and intend to learn and do offroading.

[ajay0612]

Originally Posted by 100Kmphormore

Where the Himalayan shines is in lesser weight (216 vs 200, not much i know!)

Just compare Hunter and RE classic. Hunter is only lighter by 12-13 Kg but feels much much lighter and manageable for a lean person.
Perhaps in this case, more than the absolute weight, 'where the weight is' matters more.

[AulusGabinius]

I'd have to say that a heavy bike is manageable if it has enough power. Case in point my old TB 500, which I was comfortable picking up if dropped, and maneuvering out of tight parkings, especially if I used the engine to help. I also did the Dehradun Ghar on a TB 350 with total load of self and pillion at 250 kgs, and yes it felt underpowered, but not too heavy. I think it's more a matter of getting used to the feel and weight, and as long as you're in decent shape, lifting the bike isn't so much of an issue. The Himalayan is extremely comfortable though, especially with the touring seat. I've yet to drive the 390 Adv, but I think I'll quite like that one too. However, given the vast price difference, I'd suggest go with the one that fits your use case better, with the Himalayan for mountain touring as it has better pull in the twisties, and the KTM 390 Adv for straighter road where the speed is more important and you don't have to change gears as much.

[kozhissery]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Hi all. I’m looking to hear your experiences of touring in the mountains (with saddle bags and a pillion) on different weight categories of motorcycles.

I don't have experience in off-roading nor have used light weight bikes on mountains and I always ride single (never carry a pillion).

But I have done few trips to mountains viz to Leh/Ladakh/Bhutan in TB350, Nepal/Tibet in TB500 and Spiti on V-Strom 650.
These bikes are heavy and if you tip over (have done it a lot of times) it is very difficult to bring it up, so riding single might be a challenge in remote locations.

Said that, I've only felt once that the bike should have been lighter when the tyre got stuck while crossing a stream somewhere in Leh (in TB350). All of us got stuck and had to cross one by one (the rider would sit, one person would pull and other person would push). In this case Honda Unicorn was easier than mine. But all other places during the same trip, TB350 was lot better. In all other trips that I've made, my team mates either had the same bike (RE) or a bigger bike.
I've felt at ease on V-Strom than other bikes, may be due to better torque or may be more experience.

From my point of view, if you are not planning for a proper off-roading, bigger bikes would be easier as the so called off-roading in all the above-mentioned places (Leh/Spiti) would hardly come to 1% of total distance traveled.

[SidharthaN]

What is needed in the mountains in low and mid range torque, loads of it to pull seamlessly. The UCEs (have not ridden the J series) just keep going at consistent speeds without much gear changes, even if loaded like a truck. Other bikes do not produce that amount of torque.
As far as off-road, no road situation the RE trundles through. The weight keeps it going if you are in the right gear, and know to keep the correct momentum.
For your requirement get a Meteor. Your pillion will be comfortable and the semi cruiser stance will keep you relaxed. Classic will be better in managing water crossing etc because of the stance, but one can make the Meteor do the same once you get a hold of it. Spares, service will not be an issue.
If you are into older REs get a TB500 or any 500. You can say goodbye to all doubts of carrying pillion and luggage in mountains. The 500 UCE will keep going.
Providing suggestions based on my current ownership of a TB350 at 1,27,000 kms on the odo.
I have a Xpulse which feels underpowered on straight tarmac roads, forget mountains.