[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!

[SidharthaN]

I have done mountain touring on a RE Thunderbird and and XPulse 4v. Both are around 18bhp, but the difference in torque is felt.
On straight tarmac highways the Thunderbird sits at 80 all day long with tons of luggage, no issues. The Xpulse also sits at 80 but with a higher rpm range and engine working lesser torque.
Crosswinds on tarmac highways do not unsettle the TB, Xpulse does get effected a bit.
On tarmac mountains the difference in torque is felt. The TB just chugs along, Xpulse needs to be worked through the gears.
On off-road, bad patches this is where the Xpulse suspension shines and one makes quick progress. The TB trundles through but the rider is jolted around. And yes weight is definately felt in manouervering.The XPulse is just so convenient. And God forbid if there is a fall the RE will be a difficult ball game to pick in comparison to the XPulse.
I am strictly talking one up touring. For two up, on YouTube was watching a Nepali guy Biker Haru who was doing Mustang with a pillion, you can check.
Two up RE is better with luggage, you need to keep it slow.
I am doing Dharamkot in May and will have a pillion join there in the hills, will see how the Xpulse performs.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by SidharthaN

On straight tarmac highways the Thunderbird sits at 80 all day long with tons of luggage, no issues. The Xpulse also sits at 80 but with a higher rpm range and engine working lesser torque.

Yeah, that's what I am interested in too

Crosswinds on tarmac highways do not unsettle the TB, Xpulse does get effected a bit.

Actually, this may be only a big issue above 90 kmph. Below that the weight of the bike shouldn't make a big difference. Or, so I think.

And yes weight is definately felt in manouervering.The XPulse is just so convenient. And God forbid if there is a fall the RE will be a difficult ball game to pick in comparison to the XPulse.

Yes, that's weighing on my mind. But is it only an issue while maneouvering at low speed?
In fact, I shudder to even think of how a rider will handle a puncture.

I am strictly talking one up touring. For two up, on YouTube was watching a Nepali guy Biker Haru who was doing Mustang with a pillion, you can check.

Thanks, I will!

Two up RE is better with luggage, you need to keep it slow.

You mean less than 70 kmph on the main highway? What about when one is actually in the mountains? Speeds go down anyway, so maybe this doesn't become so much of an issue in the mountains.

I am doing Dharamkot in May and will have a pillion join there in the hills, will see how the Xpulse performs.

Enjoy!

[sandeepmohan]

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!

The Himalayan is my pick. I have not owned one though. Just a brief test ride which was enough to understand the capabilities of the motorcycle. The engine is lazy but can tour all day around 90-95Kmph. Anything more than this isn't its comfort zone. When it comes to seat comfort, riding posture and luggage carrying capabilities, the Himalayan has no competition. The only reason you'd not want a Himalayan is if you are challenged by the seat height and you end up tip toeing.

I did own a 390 Duke. You can tour on it, with a lot of compromises. Its a cramped ride and seat comfort can be punishing over longer distances. While I have seen many stash a whole lot of luggage on a 390 and modifying every nut and bolt to make it compatible, this bike isn't designed for going off road or on mountain trails. This is a bike with a potent engine and best suited for on road use. The 390 Adventure might be better but its still a compact motorcycle.

Weight is subjective. Some like the feel of a heavy motorcycle and some prefer light. That said, I have seen motorcycles like the Honda CRF300 make a laughing stock out of some of the bigger 1000cc Adventure machines. It is so nimble and agile.

[amitayu]

Like any vehicle, the torque/weight ratio is critical.

What an RE offers in terms of sheering 'lugging power' makes it a more reliable vehicle for touring, even though it is deadweight when you are trying to park it, or simply making an u turn!

I prefer heavier bikes as they usually give a more pliant ride. But then I have not done off-roading in 2 wheelers and hence would desist from commenting on that.

[kaushalswarup]

I have done the Himalayan circuit a couple of times. Once on a thunderbird 500 and once on a Himalayan. I’ve ridden the 390 on long highway stretches as well.

If your requirement is to have a bike with luggage and a pillion, and if your options are between the classic, Himalayan, and 390, I’d suggest you choose the Himalayan. It’s the best for the mountains, and is quite happy on the highways cruising at 90-95kmph.
Punctures are a big headache, but using a sealant or inner tape like outex should help to ease the workload.

In the even you’re able to get a 390adventure, I’d suggest you go for that, as you’ve got the best of both worlds; good longer-travel suspension, alloys, good power, safety net of electronics, decent/good seating positions, and an overall better package.

[gauravanekar]

It al depends on your riding style.

If you are dynamic on the saddle, who enjoys to maintaining higher speed on potholes/ obstacles by lifting your butt off the seat, a bike like KTM or Vstrom 250 would be great.

If you are the kind who would likes to sit on the saddle and slow down its better to go for a high torque RE.

The same goes for cornering also, Are you the type who likes to use the sides of the tyre or use the middle patch.

Once you slow down it requires a lot of torque to reach medium speeds, which is available in REs, but in the same RE if you try to run roughly on a deep pothole, it will shake your bones.

[VijayAnand1]

Let me add in a few cents worth, staring with the light bikes/heavy bikes.

A light bike is one that's equal too or lesser than 150 kgs kerb, and middleweight are the ones that weight above 170 not exceeding 180. Bikes exceeding 190 and more, kerb, are considered heavy.

A heavy bike in any case, is always a trouble when stranded or for that matter the rider getting himself in tight situations. Case in point almost all the RE bikes. Stability doesn't ultimately come from the vehicle being heavy. Stability comes for varied yet crucial important engineering aspects at play. A heavy bike designed poorly with poor tires and poor weight distribution, brakes etc will still be unnerving to ride as opposed to a lighter to medium weighing motorcycle that has its dynamics and stability factors sorted well.

RE's are heavy and they don't have good handling characteristics. In most cases, their own weight end up as detriments rather than merits. The ADV390 is a middle-weight bike with good enough handling, braking, and excellent chassis dynamics, yet not too heavy that it rests itself inside a grotto.

Key takeaways here are.

Weight doesn't necessarily mean a stable motorcycle and light doesn't necessary mean it's not sure footed one either. One of my primary reasons for me selling the Himalayan was it own weight coupled coupled with not too much great a build quality.

Ride the bikes you've wanted to feel, and then make an informed decision.

Good luck.

Cheers!
VJ

[Sabrish]

A few questions that may answer you

How often do you use it - Daily / Weekends / Rare Occasions / Just to unwind
How comfortable are you with the handling - Heavy Bikes need some effort
What's the ratio of utilization (City / Highways / a Proper Hybrid etc.)
Maximum Distance you intend to cover / Average Long ride distances
Easy on the pocket - Maintenance
Cost of Acquisition
Road Conditions around you etc...

Not necessarily in the same order but you can jot down based on your priority. These should clearly give a logical answer vs. an emotionally driven answer

I'm thankful I did this so ended up buying an XPulse 200 4V. While this is best suited for me, I am sure the answers once you put them down will give you an insight on what makes your rides better!

All bikes are good - Just check if its got what you are looking for

[VellVector]

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!

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.

[adrian]

Originally Posted by VijayAnand1

Weight doesn't necessarily mean a stable motorcycle and light doesn't necessary mean it's not sure footed one either.

Agree with the statement. However, it is prone to change when the load carried is brought in to the equation.

Just for the purpose of making the point : Consider two motorcycles - a bajaj CT 100 and a bullet 350. The amount of luggage you can strap on to these motorcycles strategically will vary. If you strap on a load to the CT 100 unscientifically (most of the times strapping on luggage to keep the CG of the motorcycle is practically difficult), it would make it top heavy and lighten up it's already feather weight front end. On a bullet, it would be much forgiving as it is already a heavier motorcycle. Of the two motorcycles loaded up, IMHO, the heavier one will be the more stable. More like a triangle resting on it's base (heavier bike) and a triangle resting on it's apex (lighter motorcycle). And as always, feel free to shoot

regards adrian

[tarmacnaut]

Originally Posted by adrian

Agree with the statement. However, it is prone to change when the load carried is brought in to the equation.

Just for the purpose of making the point : Consider two motorcycles - a bajaj CT 100 and a bullet 350. The amount of luggage you can strap on to these motorcycles strategically will vary. If you strap on a load to the CT 100 unscientifically (most of the times strapping on luggage to keep the CG of the motorcycle is practically difficult), it would make it top heavy and lighten up it's already feather weight front end. On a bullet, it would be much forgiving as it is already a heavier motorcycle. Of the two motorcycles loaded up, IMHO, the heavier one will be the more stable. More like a triangle resting on it's base (heavier bike) and a triangle resting on it's apex (lighter motorcycle). And as always, feel free to shoot

regards adrian

Considering the loading up, when riding two up with a pillion the weight is always on top. Not all CT100s topple with instability when riding with a pillion, heck in many rural areas the entire family of 3/4 rides in CT100. It is no different from a loaded up Bullet. So vehicle weight does not translate to stability. And the luggage you load for touring should not be more than a healthy pillion of 70kgs, in most cases.

Attributes like wheelbase, tyre size/width/profile, chassis dynamics contribute much more to stability that just weight. And the weight distribution also plays a major role, top heavy motorcycles are inherently unstable.

[adrian]

Originally Posted by tarmacnaut

Considering the loading up, when riding two up with a pillion the weight is always on top. Not all CT100s topple with instability when riding with a pillion, heck in many rural areas the entire family of 3/4 rides in CT100. It is no different from a loaded up Bullet. So vehicle weight does not translate to stability. And the luggage you load for touring should not be more than a healthy pillion of 70kgs, in most cases.

Attributes like wheelbase, tyre size/width/profile, chassis dynamics contribute much more to stability that just weight. And the weight distribution also plays a major role, top heavy motorcycles are inherently unstable.

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.

[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
.
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.

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.

[2wheelsvaga]

Originally Posted by sandeepmohan

The Himalayan is my pick. I have not owned one though. Just a brief test ride which was enough to understand the capabilities of the motorcycle. The engine is lazy but can tour all day around 90-95Kmph. Anything more than this isn't its comfort zone. When it comes to seat comfort, riding posture and luggage carrying capabilities, the Himalayan has no competition. The only reason you'd not want a Himalayan is if you are challenged by the seat height and you end up tip toeing.

No issues with the seat height etc. since I am tall. I actually test rode the Himalayan years ago, but wasn't too impressed. Nothing to do with the bike or its specs, which seemed good. But it was just the feel--the wheelbase was too long and it felt not easily manoeuvrable. Then the engine didn't seem to have any character and felt like any other 4-stroke. It did pull well, but the engine was noisy and the exhaust note uninteresting.
Then of course there were all those reliability issues, and I kind of stopped noticing the Himalayan after that. Another reason was that I have little plans of doing proper off-roading, and certainly not at high speed. The main aim is to go through the usual routes (and mild off-roading) into the high mountains.
Which is why a standard bullet always seemed like the more comfortable and reliable option.
That said, I am open to looking at the Himalayan if it offers what I need for my purposes. It might just be that that long wheelbase will serve well when the bike is loaded up and I have a pillion behind me. I'll go test ride the new Himalayan as soon as it is launched

I did own a 390 Duke. You can tour on it, with a lot of compromises. Its a cramped ride and seat comfort can be punishing over longer distances. While I have seen many stash a whole lot of luggage on a 390 and modifying every nut and bolt to make it compatible, this bike isn't designed for going off road or on mountain trails. This is a bike with a potent engine and best suited for on road use. The 390 Adventure might be better but its still a compact motorcycle.

Well said. I was seeing some diehard Duke fans make fun of RE and how they are too heavy. It set me thinking so It's useful to hear of your experience. In any case, I can't see how a bike that demands to be revved with a not too good bottom end of torque will be comfortable in the high mountains. I am obviously looking for something that will not let me down, and will reduce my fatigue.

Weight is subjective. Some like the feel of a heavy motorcycle and some prefer light. That said, I have seen motorcycles like the Honda CRF300 make a laughing stock out of some of the bigger 1000cc Adventure machines. It is so nimble and agile.

True that. I think for normal touring a weighty bike is likely a better idea. If loaded up with luggage and two riders, a lighter bike (Duke?) might not feel too stable. 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.
Thanks!

Originally Posted by amitayu

Like any vehicle, the torque/weight ratio is critical.

What an RE offers in terms of sheering 'lugging power' makes it a more reliable vehicle for touring, even though it is deadweight when you are trying to park it, or simply making an u turn!

I prefer heavier bikes as they usually give a more pliant ride. But then I have not done off-roading in 2 wheelers and hence would desist from commenting on that.

That's true. In fact that is why a 195 kg Classic 350 J series seems not a bad option. Its reasonably compact and turning should be much of an issue, at least on engine power. Comparatively speaking the Himalayan or the CB 350 with their longer wheelbases are likely more cumbersome.
I am sure a heavier weight is better for long-distance touring between 80-90 kmph. But it might be a big detracting factor on semi-off-road conditions where your feet might slip on gravel or where you need to keep stabilising the bike. I don't know for sure, but it does seem this could be the case.

Originally Posted by kaushalswarup

In the even you’re able to get a 390adventure, I’d suggest you go for that, as you’ve got the best of both worlds; good longer-travel suspension, alloys, good power, safety net of electronics, decent/good seating positions, and an overall better package.

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!

Originally Posted by gauravanekar

Once you slow down it requires a lot of torque to reach medium speeds, which is available in REs, but in the same RE if you try to run roughly on a deep pothole, it will shake your bones.

Great points. But how much of a difference should one expect between the classic 350 with pillion and luggage, and the Himalyan?
I will fall in the latter category, i.e. I'd like to slow down a bit and enjoy the scene, whether on good roads or bad ones.

Originally Posted by VijayAnand1

Ride the bikes you've wanted to feel, and then make an informed decision.

Great points, VijayAnand1. The thing is I find it difficult to see myself going with a pillion and luggage panniers on the KTM. The seat and the riding posture (especially for the pillion) seem all wrong.
On the other hand, I really feel overtly heavy bikes are in general a burden, and quite like the weight categories you talk about.
My sense is I'd like something between 165 to 180 kgs, with lots of bottom end-torque, and a relaxed seating posture. Not sure there's anything that fits the bill at the moment though HaHa!
In fact, the old CI Bullet 350s were around 167 kg, quite a nice weight if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Sabrish

All bikes are good - Just check if its got what you are looking for

Well, for me it'll be occasional city use. It'll be mostly for touring on highways and side-roads at speeds less than 90 kmph. I'd like to use it to take long rides and mostly for longer trips into the mountains etc. And I plan to mostly stick to roads with a bit of off-road use as necessary.
Initial high costs are okay, but the maintenance costs shouldn't be too high. I think the KTMs don't do too well there.
Which is why I am leaning to the classic 350, even though there are many issues there too.

Originally Posted by VellVector

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?