I will ta.
1200cc too big same issue as bmw, caponord, strom 1000, etc Super tenere in my mind would have a TDM engine in!

BMW is the only middle man hear really unles you look at old heavy africa's and stuff.. grr... at least I'm closer to having to rule out singles now with pillion pulling power needed

Just another thought with regards to making a 650 single better suited to long trips, I put a smaller rear sprocket on my Pegaso which made a big difference in revs at cruising (about 75mph) hence lower fuel consumption and to be honest off-road I hardly noticed the loss of slower speed ooomph as the peg and most singles have so much compression any torque you can use them in second gear without and throttle (just powered on the over run without stalling).

Also, why are there no/few single 650's with six gears, this would solve the issue once and for all. I just find im always in the want for one more gear just to cruise with.

Trav

I picked up a second hand XT660 a few weeks ago, I kept going around in circles so I jumped in boots and all as the saying goes and XT is a wonderful bike, actually I have enjoyed riding it more than I thought I would. A bit of back ground may help qualify this, I recently sold my KTM 640 SM, I really wanted to like it as it was probably the ‘best’ of the road oriented supermotards but it was just too narrowly focused for me. It was a blast to ride hard on tight twisty roads but the rest of the time it wasn’t much fun and it sat in the garage not being used much. The XT is just the opposite I look for excuses to go out on it, just down the road or a whole days riding. It is remarkably smooth for a single, it will do 80 mph happily on the motorway, (personally I find motorways terminally boring and only use them as a last resort) I took the XT on a 4,000 km, (2,500 mile) 2 week trip around Scotland and it was perfect, I find it very comfortable, 6 – 8 hour riding days are no problems, even through it only has a 15 litre fuel tank at the 40 – 60 mph speeds we were riding at most of the time the fuel light came on around 130 miles, there is 5 litres left which means it would do just over 200 miles on a thankful.. One of the big attractions for my is the riding position which feels like a dirt bike so it really encourages off road exploring, the 17” wheels and road tires do limit the off road performance but as long as it was dry and I didn’t try and ride at “proper dirt bike” speeds I never had any problems. Obviously some 17” adventure tyres would help improve the capability but this highlights another point. Even through it has road tyres on it, it is still very capable off road, as long as you are realistic. I saw some old photos recently of 1940s and 1950s Harleys axle deep in snow, motorcyclists were tougher back than but the point is they weren’t concerned about have the prefect bike or the “right” tyres, they just got out there and went riding for the sheer enjoyment of it.
Before I got the XT I was concerned about the weight but it really isn’t a big deal, yes on the spec sheet it looks heavy and under powered but out there in the real world it is a much better bike than it would appear to be, somehow it brings out the essence of motorcycling, the simple pleasure of just going for a ride for the sake of it and enjoying the freedom that it brings. The XT is cheap, reliable, fun to ride and, for me any way, it brought back the simple pleasures of motorcycling, riding and exploring just because you can. This isn’t mean to be a “XT660 is the best bike in the world” rant, it hopefully will just help to inspire others that the bike doesn’t matter, it’s the getting out there and riding that puts the smile on our faces. Would I still like a twin? Sure, why not. But in the mean time I hope to wear out many sets of tyres enjoying the single cylinder Yamaha. How where are my keys, its warm and sunny so I’m going riding . . . . .

I totally agree with KiwiBruce on this. I am curious though, whether KiwiBruce would trade your XT660R for the new XT 660Z Tenere?

I also really enjoy reading this thread. I think mid-size adventure type bikes will be, if not already, the next battle ground for bike makers. Most of the challenges that the manufacturers face, I believe, have been raised in this thread.

In particular, weight is one factor I am struggling with because weight is related to so many other factors of the bike. That is why it's interesting you mention that your R drives lighter than what the specs say. On one hand, we want a lighter bike because it is better off-road. On the other hand, a light bike would likely be less stable than a heavier bike on highway. Also, a single would normally be lighter than a twin, but then it may suffer on power and smoothness that a twin normally offers. Moreover, a larger tank would add more weight even it serves the purpose of long adventure biking but would take away the handling aspect on offroad. So for the 'all-purpose adventure' type bikes, at what weight would be the happy medium? I am not necessarily looking for a magic answer, I am just interested in hearing you all what you think.

Beemers
 

Totally agree, it is a good thread.

Apart from the all-up weight factor, there is also the issue of how that weight is distributed in the overall design of the bike. The "old" F650GS single cyl BMW is often quoted as being heavy compared with some other singles. But, in my case, I find the bike handles lighter than its' gross weight suggests - much lighter in fact. I attribute this to the low centre of gravity (CG) caused by the design that puts the fuel tank down low.
Maybe the new 650 twin cyl feels as light?

The big boxer twins also appear to be lighter than they look: despite those big, sticking-out cylinders on each side. The low cyls results in a lower CG for the boxer twin than other engine configurations of similar sized capacity.

I'm starting to think you need one of each. The actual ride dictates which bike will be better suited. I ride two venues, North America and Central America although I'll soon be pushing south. When in North America I want the twin, the roads are great and I love the twisties. Rain, snow or sunshine, I ride. I carry my house and kitchen on the bike and I love wideness areas, logging roads in BC being my favorite, There's a lot of wideness in Norte America I want to see it all. Big open areas where you can burn through all the petrol you can afford as fast as you have the balls to ride. I love covering ground and a twin damn sure burns it up. But yet the right twin will get you back in the woods so you can set up a home and cook some dinner. And if you break, savvy dealers are well acquainted with complex bikes.

But when in Central America, I need a single and for more reasons than one. One reason nobody mentions much is ease of repair. You can't get a complicated double fixed in these countries unless it's in the top shop in the capital city (even then it's iffy). But suppose you break down in the boonies, those country boys may look at a double with amazement but they'll flat out tear a single down and rebuild it on the side of the road and that means a lot. Another factor is the traffic and traffic laws, there are none if you're riding a bike, there's only one rule....squeeze through if you'll fit...the narrower the bike the better. Also gas, it's expensive and it can be hard to come by, big tank, thrifty motor. Besides, Central America countries are small, no need to go over 110kph

Many of ya'll ride a different style than me in different venues than me. It's all good.

But I'm finally starting to realize...I need one of each ;-)

We all go for bike decision. How about a thread fuel consumption friendly bikes !
The problem with boxer twins are fuel consuption and weight issue.
Othervise HP2 should be in somewhere else IMHO.

For me range is more important then mileage, but of course to get god range your mileage can’t be too bad.

When I drive my boxer with singles I typically get 16,7 km/l, when I drive alone I typically get 15,5 km/l.
That gives me a range of at least 650 km, range is barely an issue.