[shancz]

A quick glance over this thread and seems like the OP is overthinking his bike purchase decision short of taking test rides and getting a feel of it in person, IMHO.

Motorcycles aren't an equation where if you have populated all the variables with the required values, you'll get the perfect motorcycle.
It's very subjective and unique to each rider and the feel of the bike matters most than whatever others say about it.

Coming to the question of light vs heavy, it isn't very straightforward too as the power characteristics of the bike vary a lot. Example if you're riding the Classic 350 then the peak power is pointless to pursue because it peaks at an rpm you'll not be typically riding a Classic 350 at and if you do please consider something else.
Assuming a more generic discussion about weights, a heavier motorcycle with good balance will feel more planted on the highway at a certain speed but that will work against you in the hills and corners. A lighter motorcycle will feel the crosswinds more but will be a delight in the hills. But the most popular tourer/ADVs like the 1200GS, Versys, VStrom aren't light

My suggestions :
1. Get your concrete requirements set like the budget, manufacturers, service reach, maintenance costs, usage and some grey areas like FE, weight etc.
2. Then start by creating a shortlist of bikes which fulfil your concrete requirements
3. Test ride the bikes and then come to us if you want to double check or in doubt.

Hope it helps.


Although long but I do recommend a watch of this which might clear some thoughts:
Credits to Providers :

YouTube : MotorInc

[Auto_guy_101]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

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'm no rider, but I've been to Manali, kasol, kulu, areas on a Himalayan and a classic 350 as a pillion. I've also been a pillion on some REs on various routes and for the mountains I'd pick the Himalayan, similar to what many other's on the forum suggest.

Coming to the weight, we took some steep climbs to nagar fort, solang valley, Sisu with a pillion and light luggage (rucksack/ backpacks) and some of it was during heavy downpour. Both the REs did fine.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by AulusGabinius

Yes to both. The bike really had to be throttled hard in first on the steeper slopes, and at one point my pillion did have to get off. I thought there was also a top box in your luggage, sorry.

Somehow I feel a top box will offset the balance of the bike quite a bit. I am sure others manage fine, but it seems weird to me to be loading up the bike at the back.
Also, I am not planning to carry any youtube video making equipment, so I imagine that will be quite a bit of weight saving.
That said, it's disappointing to see that you had to face the issues that you did. I don't mind slow at all. But having to worry about the bike making it to the top is sure a killjoy.

Mainly because even three torques can make quite a bit of difference, and it's torque is available lower in the rev range than the J-series engine.

Very interesting. I really hadn't thought of that. On paper it always seemed a negligible figure, pardon my ignorance
And thanks for pointing this out, as I actually went in to the specifications again and noticed some useful things.
Here's the figure for the RE CL 350: 27Nm @ 4000 rpm.
And for the CB 350: 30N-m @ 3000 rpm.
It'll be useful to see the actual torque curve of these bikes, but it sure looks like the Honda has a significant advantage. Of course, this becomes quite significant once we take into account the 14 kg weight advantage of the Honda!
You're the first person to have brought all this to my attention, so thanks for this
Unless other members feel differently, I think this dimension promises to shift the balance decisively in favour of the Honda.

The tall gearing will actually work in your favour, as it's much better for touring. I don't think that needs to be a concern as such.

Again, an interesting point. I am guessing you mean to say that it'll allow me to cruise between 80-90 kmph at lower rpms than the CL 350.
I am also thinking here that it could be an advantage on steep climbs too. I mean it might give me the ability to hold a gear and keep going on in the same gear. I imagine on regular mountain roads such as the ones you get in Himachal, one could start a steep climb in 2nd and need to shift to 3rd only when you reach the top.

I suggested the Dominar mainly based on price, since it's vastly cheaper than the KTM, and because of that it's possible you could get used to it. They both have nearly no low-end torque, a high end of 37 N-m, and pillion comfort might be an issue. You're right, you need low end torque for comfortable climbing.

Wow, "nearly no low-end torque." That's quite damning. I did test ride the Duke 390 years ago. It reminded me of my old RX100 in spirit. But that's not what I want at the moment.
In fact, speaking of torque, I'd appreciate it if someone could post the torque curves of all three motorcycles--the CL 350, CB 350, and the KTM 390.
I think I also never took to this design element on contemporary bikes where the rear points skywards. I think it's a chassis thing and can't really be "rectified," but it's hard to move away from the horizontal chassis on which the seats sit on old standard motorcycles.
I also feel uncomfortable about this because it likely makes for weird (dangerous?) riding dynamics when the heights of the rider and pillion are not matched and the pillion is taller than the rider.

I would say the Himalayan does pull like a donkey though, slowly but surely. Our Bhutan day ride with a total load of nearly 190 kg was easily handled, but you should really get the touring seat for comfort. Pillion should be fine with stops. It isn't fast, but it is relaxing and definitely a hoot. Only on the steep 40 degree slopes did I find it lacking in power.

Thanks for sharing this bit of info. At this point I am not seriously considering the Himalayan, and I am mostly interested in the CL 350. And that, as you've clearly pointed out, is likely to make for a not pleasant experience in the mountains.
I could consider the Himalayan 450 LS when it's launched, but I wasn't too keen on the old one either. It seemed too heavy for my tastes. From experience I know that it's always comforting to know that you can handle the bike with your feet, as and when it's needed. This is India, and at random places there is gravel or moss or just slippery surfaces where you end up relying on your feet quite a bit.
Thanks!

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by BlackMambaXX

For touring the most important thing is the riders triangle. 390 adv will has slightly rearset footpegs meaning your legs take majority of the brunt.
The classic or tb might feel comfortable initially but over longer distances your lower back will start cursing you.

Oh, I see. I always thought that the stance of the forward pegs and straight-backed rider on the CL 350 is kind of the best for long-distance riding.
In fact, the KTM kind of stance, which is quite common these days, doesn't quite appeal to me. It always feels like your legs are not relaxed, and there may be often be more weight on the handlebars.
I take it to mean that you are saying slightly rear set pegs are better because they make you lean forward?

On the other hand weight is a factor that shouldn’t be the deciding factor after a certain weight all bikes will be heavy to pickup if dropped. I have dropped both the my Himalayan and 390 adv and have struggled to pickup especially at high altitudes.
I would advise ride the bikes for a considerable distance. If possible rent it out for a day and then decide. I loved the 390adv as long as I had it. It was a great highway mile muncher but it on the hills it was hectic due to constant gear shifts and half clutching. Happy motorcycling!

Yeah, I can see that. But there is something too cumbersome about a near-200 kg bike. I feel quite comfortable with an overall weight of 181 kg or less. It does make the bike somewhat flickable too.
I am planning to carry only two saddle bags (~ 20 kg each) so the total weight shouldn't be too much. Hopefully, that's make for a relatively light combo, and not make the riding experience too "boring."
Yes, that'll be ideal. But I don't have spare time to test ride over long distances at the moment. I am hoping to draw upon the accumulated experience of the members here, and then TD for longish duration once I've narrowed down my choices. So far, it's been quite useful to hear from you guys

[AulusGabinius]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Again, an interesting point. I am guessing you mean to say that it'll allow me to cruise between 80-90 kmph at lower rpms than the CL 350. I am also thinking here that it could be an advantage on steep climbs too. I mean it might give me the ability to hold a gear and keep going on in the same gear. I imagine on regular mountain roads such as the ones you get in Himachal, one could start a steep climb in 2nd and need to shift to 3rd only when you reach the top.

Yes, that is what I had in mind, and on the occasion you have a level to slightly steep section, the Honda will go through it like a breeze.

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

Wow, "nearly no low-end torque." That's quite damning. I did test ride the Duke 390 years ago. It reminded me of my old RX100 in spirit. But that's not what I want at the moment.

Consider their torque just out of half-clutch and at about 10% of the throttle. Both the Honda and the Classic will start pulling at the handle, and the second you ease off the clutch they will start pulling ahead. The KTM and the Dominar only start doing this at about 25% of the throttle, and then not all that much. Under 4000 rpm, the long stroke always wins on torque.

But honestly, this much analysis will eventually become trivial, compared to feeling. So, go with the one that seems practical, and the one that plasters a grin on your face as you come out of the twisties!

You're welcome, and happy touring!

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by AulusGabinius

Yes, that is what I had in mind, and on the occasion you have a level to slightly steep section, the Honda will go through it like a breeze.

Consider their torque just out of half-clutch and at about 10% of the throttle. Both the Honda and the Classic will start pulling at the handle, and the second you ease off the clutch they will start pulling ahead. The KTM and the Dominar only start doing this at about 25% of the throttle, and then not all that much. Under 4000 rpm, the long stroke always wins on torque.

But honestly, this much analysis will eventually become trivial, compared to feeling. So, go with the one that seems practical, and the one that plasters a grin on your face as you come out of the twisties!

You're welcome, and happy touring!

Thanks! I need to test ride the CB and the RE Classic at length now : )

[krishnakumar]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

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!

In my opinion, the time of Classic 350s are gone from a touring perspective. They continue to carry value only from a cult/nostalgia perspective!

These heavy bikes were popular among long distance tourers simply because there was no better option in the entry level stage. Purpose built tourers (like the Tiger or Africa Twin) were (and are) extremely expensive, leaving no choice for common folks to buy a good touring bike.

But the last couple of years have seen a flurry of entry level purpose built tourers, trend started off with Himalayan and then quickly followed by KTM with the 390Adv (which to me is still the benchmark for an entry level tourer, may be biased because I own one ).

The Classic 350 will not be good tourer because:

1. You can barely go at 80kph (even that is a stretch) because of the vibrations. Even though the new ones are better, the vibrations are still worse off than something like a smooth KTM engine. Vibrations will single-handedly make the touring very tiring.

2. Ground clearance and suspension travel is much lower compared to the tourers

3. The heft is felt, quite a lot, on highways. You actually do not want this as it seriously affects the handling and dynamics.

4. The power figures (comparing to 390Adv) are much lower. Quick overtakes (which are essential on mountain roads) will be difficult with the Classic 350.

If you want something for touring, look at the KTM 390Adv to start with. If that fits within the budget, go ahead with it. Else, that bike should be your benchmark and compare other tourers against those.

Also, the 390Adv is not “light” by any means. But the weight management is so good that it feels like an FZ on streets while still giving you considerable highway stability.

[The_Medic]

Why are you not considering the BMW GS310? It has much better low end, av very good suspension and good off-road capabilities. I love my KTMs but right now, the GS is easily the most sorted ADV on the market. Hopefully the Himalayan 450 makes things right.

[RenuKumar]

KTM, manufactured by Bajaj is definitely not reliable! Himalayan is purposeful but has its niggles.

Yamaha is sleeping and the Suzuki V-strom 250 is not very powerful

BMW G310GS is a good tourer but service may be an issue

You are left with Hero Xpulse 4xx which is launching soon

[The_Medic]

Wow, went through the series of replies and found way too many armchair enthusiasts talking out of their exhaust pipes. I mean, almost everyone keeps saying that adv390 lacks bottom end torque. It's not technically true. Have a look at dyno charts for the torque outputs of adv 390 compared to meteor 350 amd the Himalayan 411. Very similar output at lower rpm and gets better as the revs climb. And despite the myth, it's a flat-ish torque curve amd hence friendly to approach as well. What people are referring to is the engine not being fully comfortable in the lower rpms. That doesn't mean it'll not do it. It is just rev happy. It'll compensate by idling higher, reaching upper revs faster and giving you it's torque band easily.
And then there's the fact that adv390 is the lightest bike amongst them all (except the BMW GS 310). Trust me, once you get the hang of it (maybe only a couple of visits to your nearest hill road), you will be comfortable on most mountain roads on the adv390. And it'll obliterate everything as a highway bike. You can sit at 120-130kph all day long if you feel the need to.
Don't listen blindly to anyone, not even me. Go out and test ride these bikes.
Good luck

[JayPrashanth]

Originally Posted by The_Medic

Wow, went through the series of replies and found way too many armchair enthusiasts talking out of their exhaust pipes. I mean, almost everyone keeps saying that adv390 lacks bottom end torque. It's not technically true. Have a look at dyno charts for the torque outputs of adv 390 compared to meteor 350 amd the Himalayan 411. Very similar output at lower rpm and gets better as the revs climb. And despite the myth, it's a flat-ish torque curve amd hence friendly to approach as well. What people are referring to is the engine not being fully comfortable in the lower rpms. That doesn't mean it'll not do it. It is just rev happy. It'll compensate by idling higher, reaching upper revs faster and giving you it's torque band easily.
And then there's the fact that adv390 is the lightest bike amongst them all (except the BMW GS 310). Trust me, once you get the hang of it (maybe only a couple of visits to your nearest hill road), you will be comfortable on most mountain roads on the adv390. And it'll obliterate everything as a highway bike. You can sit at 120-130kph all day long if you feel the need to.
Don't listen blindly to anyone, not even me. Go out and test ride these bikes.
Good luck

+1. It's plain rubbish that the ADV 390 doesn't have low end torque. Too many people have been perpetuating this myth. The ADV 390 has more than adequate torque for all kinds of riding.

PS: The ADV390 is NOT a Royal Enfield Cast Iron 350!

Cheers,

Jay

[WhiskeyTangoFox]

Talk about perfect timing, Bulu Patnaik just posted this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th1IKPMR3e0

[masterChief007]

Originally Posted by JayPrashanth

+1. It's plain rubbish that the ADV 390 doesn't have low end torque. Too many people have been perpetuating this myth. The ADV 390 has more than adequate torque for all kinds of riding.

Just back from a spiti ride in KTM 390 Adv (though without luggage which was carried in a backup van). I can say with quite a confidence that KTM 390 Adv is a superb bike, not once I had any issues with low end torque, and that too in wet steep u-turns, water crossings and what not. In first gear it will easily climb up any steep uphill and much faster than the innumerable bullets that I overtook. Not even a single false neutral ! Also seating position is also quite good.

I am quite impressed by the bike, it's so easy to ride (though I dropped the bike a 2-3 times while trying to park as my feet were not reaching ground at right time). A detailed travelogue is coming soon

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by 2wheelsvaga

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!

110% academic

If you have core strength and strong back, all are fine! If you don't, solve that first.

I have toured to / above 3500m altitude on a 99cc caliber, 180cc pulsar and now 250cc CBR250R which is way heavier.

People who love bullets, tour on them like its a tobu cycle

With love and fitness, anything is possible

This is not science sir - it is matters of the heart! No right answer, except the one that makes you curl up in bed before sleeping, with a smile!

[nitro.1000bhp]

Originally Posted by JayPrashanth

+1. It's plain rubbish that the ADV 390 doesn't have low end torque. Too many people have been perpetuating this myth. The ADV 390 has more than adequate torque for all kinds of riding.

PS: The ADV390 is NOT a Royal Enfield Cast Iron 350!

Cheers,

Jay

I think what these "experts" are moaning about is the ultra light crank on the 390 and are misinterpreting it as a lack of low end torque. The problem here is they're used to a certain way of riding a motorcycle and they think that is the norm. On a heavy crank bike like most RE bikes you can short shift and the weight of the crank will help you shift the next gear even if you haven't gone past the peak torque whereas, on a ktm you have to get it to a certain rpm before you can upshift.

A decade ago I used to lend my 1st gen 390 to my friends and most of them stalled the bike while shifting gears. It's because they're lazy while shifting. On a light crank bike you have to shift gears in mere milliseconds and not on a geological scale. But they never understood what I said and simply deemed it a poor bike. I didn't give a hoot anyhows. Some people either get it or don't.