Adventure bike power
 

How much power do you "really " need for a proper:: Adventure Bike ? :scooter: 50 70 85 .... no more :scooter:

50 bhp has got me to all of the places I have been to, sometimes with a passenger.

Probably a lot less than that now as both of my BMWs have done nearly 200,000 miles and no amount of rebuilding restores them to factory original.

For most "adventure" bike riders you do not need 100bhp +

George Wyman crossed the Continental United States with 1.5HP
Ted Simons's Jupiter had 40-ish
Plenty of long rides on 6HP C90's
Nutty Nick Sanders took 130HP to get his pictures in the paper.

18HP in a Bullet gives less performance than in an XT225 due to weight, but then aerodynamics might change perception of even that.

Another jam or cream first conversation.

Andy

met some guys in atlas 3 years ago, dressed in dinner jks.
off road on monkey bikes ............ from New zealand !

so think about 70 bhp is about left ( right )

I've done long trips with 10bhp (= not enough (but 15 would have been ok)) and with 120bhp (= too big, too heavy and you're a slave to the bike). The 'sweet spot' for me is somewhere between about 30 (solo on a light bike) and 60 (solo on a heavier (180kg max) one.

There's more to it though than just bhp numbers, there's how the engine produces that power. A 125 producing 30bhp at 12,000 rpm and nothing under 10,000 isn't going to be my first choice for a 5000 mile trip (although I did once consider something similar - with a pillion!) A 1500cc engine producing 30bhp at 1200rpm is going to make me wish I'd taken a bus.

If you ride with a pillion though that changes the equation as two (normal sized) people on a light bike isn't that pleasant over a long distance and you might need a physically larger bike. That usually means a bigger engine and more power to compensate. Go much more and the weight overwhelms the ride so you're chasing your tail.

It's all very variable though - I know someone with around 300,000 miles on a couple of MZ 250s. He's obviously found what works for him. If you disagree and think 150bhp is entry level, remember it's all opinion.

as you say its one persons opinion..
Dont think a 150 hp big is a suitable adventure bike
I wouldnt be seen dead on a monster like that !
Thats my opinion after many years of off roading and adventuere bikes !

you need 40 of these for 150 hp !!:scooter: :scooter: :scooter: :scooter: :scooter: :scooter: :scooter: etc !

I've done my share on 12HP and 10 inch wheels - it will get you anywhere around the world, even with a hefty load, and even some off road stuff.

That much said - more HP is better, and 50HP is plenty for most.

last year i went to my beloved maroc on a cb 500 and did 6.000 miles . would say the perfect bike for morocco , but.................. think 70 hp is about the ideal amount of power. .... and you dont have to use it all !
.so which bike do i love the most ? (7 )

beer:clap:beer
Hello

Please, first define what a proper adventure bike is...
Then also define what an adventure is...

I open the bidding with 1HP (1 human power, take a bicycle).
Enough to have an adventure (personal view) in parts of the world that others call there homeland.

beer:clap:beer

cheers
sushi


P.S.
I'm bored too

Careful with questions like that! You can only prod a bear with a stick so many times :rofl::rofl:

Personally I think 1hp may well be too many :rofl: Most of my recent 'adventures' (in the sense I took it on just to see what it would be like) have been done with whatever my legs produce - a couple of hundred watts if I'm lucky. What am I talking about? - stuff like this :

https://www.thresholdtrailseries.com...to-the-stones/

As they call it "the ultimate 100km adventure" I guess it qualifies.

'So what' you might ask, 'what's that got to do with bikes?' My point is that trying to optimise or even define these things is as, err, pointless as it's ever been - and this topic has been done to death here and on just about every other forum or magazine or any other medium of information exchange I've looked at over the last 50yrs. 'Adventures' are in the head of the beholder and cover just about every aspect of the human experience from birth to beyond the grave (remember Peter Pan's take on mortality?).

Trying to optimise what is essentially a tarted up touring bike is an equally fruitless task - your two wheeled meat may well be my underpowered poison if you're taking the T.A.T to L.A. and I'm on Route 66. I've been as happy trundling down the back roads of Italy on my 10bhp Suzuki as I've been parking the GoldWing outside a Waffle House diner in the US and spending 20mins hearing the waitress's life story.

Much of the time these 'which is best' discussions are about as helpful as abandoning the RTTS 100km run because I can't decide which running shoes to use. Just pick one and get going. If you've chosen badly you won't make that mistake again.

No such thing as an adventure bike, only adventurous people and their definition of adventure varies considerably, so will their need/want/desire for power.

If you’re really talking about an overland bike then that too has too many variables - time, budget, route, accommodation etc......

As a general question it's impossible to answer. There are over 7.5 billion people in the world and every single one is different, even identical twins are different. Time and time again I hear “I don’t understand why people do this or do that”. No one knows why we’re different so no one has to understand, we just have to accept it.

As a specific question........ At the moment 110 bhp, with lots of torque, is perfect for me. If I get the opportunity to circumvent Africa then 25-35 bhp will be my choice.

I’ve read lots of posts like this and they nearly always descend into a big v small bike argument. The trouble is the bike is only one factor of a trip. You don’t sit in a bar crying with laughter with a bike, a bike doesn’t share a campsite meal or a cold beer round a campfire, a bike doesn’t help you when you’ve got a problem - the rider does, whatever the power of their bike.

Vive la difference
bier

Define 'proper' please.

I really don't get why people are so dead bendy on questioning what an adventure bike is - seems like a hazzle having to define it all the time, than just assuming the most accepted definition when the term is used - most often the style or form, not the use. I think most of us have a stereotypical image in our mind, much like when someone talks about SUVs (cars), or touring bikes, crotch rockets, cafe racers, etc.

Sure people have done adventures on anything from Vespas to Harleys... When people talk about adventure bikes, those are among the last that comes to mind.

BMW F650GS Dakar, the funduro, the F800GSA, 1200 GSA The Teneres, The Transalps and Dominators, the African Twins - they all come to mind.

Bikes out of the factory that have greater than 19" front wheels, bash plate, long suspension travel, upright sitting position, strong subframe to hold panniers, preferably spoked wheels with innertubes, windscreen, decent seat (not mx style) hand protectors, tyres that are ok off-road and onroad, quite tall... I'm sure you can think of other images. General consensus that the bike is typically 30/70 off-road/onroad, built for long distance travel (think RTW), more than 600cc (most often), some popular modern choices being upwards 1250cc, long range.

A dual sport on the other hand, is a lighter more sportier version, lacking creature comforts, built for shorter trips and more off-road oriented 70/30 or 50/50. Ride to the fun stuff rather than having two bikes and having to put your off-road bike on a trailer to get to where you want to ride it. Usually 250 - 700 cc, one cylinder, etc... Many farkled for thousands with adventure bike properties to get a bike that is somewhere in-between (light weight adventure bike). Add long range tanks, better seat, center stand, tall wind screen, strengthened sub frame and panniers.


The most ideal bike for an adventure is not necessarily an adventure bike - it depends on the ”adventure”.

Also, I guess that when people talk about adventure motorcycling in a forum like this, I think most of us assume long trips with road conditions that are not all perfect, in places where a tow truck can't allways be called to your location in a jiffy, in places where there might not be a dealer for your brand of bikes for a thousand kms or more away, or in places where you can't pay with plastic at every vendor, where fuel isn't always great or even readily available - in places that does not have a lot of businesses every where tailored around motorcycle travel, and so forth.

When people talk about touring, cruising or adventure motorcycling, I have very different images in my head... Even if one guy's commute is another guy's adventure...

I've had adventures on 125s and on 800s, and many sizes in between.

50 to 80 HP and some offroad ability :scooter:

Depends on where to drive
 

What roads, distances.....


I used a 24 hp Royal Enfield Himalaya in Nepal.
It was perfect for that.
The roads and the traffic puts so much limit on the speed that you can travel.
That I never used those hp. But I liked the low end torque.
You do not have to change gear often and rev the engine.

I used a Moto Guzzi with 68 hp.
It was pergect for travelling in Europe with good roads. Two persons including camping equipment. 130 km/h crusing on larger roads.

I look for a 250 with 20 hp (or Himalayan) to drive gravel roads in Europe.
Where weight is more important than HP.

Travellling South America. 10-15 hp would be enough. Getting up those mountains. For example a Honda Cargo with 15 hp. And the luggage rack where the passenger normaly sits. A pizza delevery bike
https://www.honda.com.br/motos/cg-160-cargo
Or an Apache 160 cc with 15 hp
https://www.tvsmotos.com/motos/apache/apache-rtr-160

Simon used a 125 cc version of this with 12 hp around South America.

Ed used his C90 with 6 hp from Malaysia to UK.

I guess that below 3-4 ho it is no longer a bike. But a moped.
So there is mybe the limit.
If there is a limit at all

=
But is also nice to go on a long trip adventure with 150 hp
If you have roads to use that
=

Cape Town to Nairobi on a Vespa PX200EFL, 10" wheels, and 12 HP. Then again on the 9000 km Budapest to Bamako Enduro Rally (also offroad bits like the moroccan deserts, the beaches of Mauritania, pistes under construction, etc).

I've also done a fair bit of travel on a Yamaha 50 CC DTR.

I still don't consider any of those adventure bikes - they are capable, but unsuitable - and they don't fit with the most agreed upon form factor concept (factory ready bikes advertised as adventure bikes). My Yamaha WR250, or the Honda CBR 600 F - same thing. Their intended use is completely different - though no doubt thay adventurously could take me just about anywhere if I was so perversely inclined. My old BMW F600GS Dakar on the other hand, fits well within the most agreed upon concept as of what a factory ready adventure bike is... as would the Yamaha XT 660 Z Tenere that I currently have my eyes on.

Although interesting to have a discussion about trying to define the term - I find that when questions such as "what is the best adventure bike", quickly turns into a rethorical debate rather than simply trying to answer the question within the most agreed upon definition of the term - the one the poster probably thinks of (otherwise the poster would most likely have supplied; a broader definition of the term, a different definition alltogether, or ask for the definition to be challenged???

So to answer the question of the poster - as most modern factory ready adventure bikes seem to start at 50 HP (one cylindered thumpers) - with few severe complaints as far as I can see, I would say 50HP for one person is more than enough. And as for those riding two up and hauling a ton of stuff - usually finding a larger bike more accomodating for two up - usually having bike choice reduced to options with more than one cyclinder and more than 70HP. I believe approx 85-110 HP is more common choice than 70, with for instance the F800GS starting at 85 and the R1250GS delivering a whopping 136. I've never heard any complaints of having too much power, and I have not heard any serious complaints of from someone only having 85 HP either. I frequently hear complaints of the bike being too heavy or big.

Now, sinking thousands into kitting for instance a WR250R (30HP) could make a great adventure bike (enough power to get you over tall mountains, ride off road, do ok on the highways - and keeping the weight low). But - it isn't a factory ready adventure bike.

So, 30 HP for one person, and 70 for rider plus pilion - seems more than enough - though most selections would probably start at 50/85 HP for 1 or two people. You could still probably cut that in half and still have enough - but why would you if you didn't make any significant gains in other places? No point in actually trying to find a weak bike?

The 70 vs 85 HP does make a significant difference when riding two up, especially on faster roads where you need to pass other vehicles, etc. But I don't need a bike so powerful that the pilion will fall off if a twist the throttle all the way.

So, for me, the lower limit would be 30 hp for a kitted dual sport (one person), 50 hp for a factory ready adventure bike (one person), and 85 for a factory ready bike for two people (seing few arguments of trying to kit a non factory ready adventure bike for two people).

Speed for travelling
 

To bemore into facts what is realistic.
Rather than possible.


Ted Simon, that knows what he is talking about.
Said that a good speed fro traveling is 50 mph= 80km/h.
Of course if road and other conditions permitts.
It is a compromise between having time to look around.
And to get to knew places within decent time.

So if a bike can cruze without problem at that speed.
Given the load it has to carry.
It has enough power.

Sure, but how many HP is that? High altitude, going up hill, with a pillion and luggage for two?

How much power? I'd say enough power to do 4th gear wheelie fully loaded :thumbup1:

you need the new Ducati ... 170 hp ! when will it stop ! 200:eek3:

Bruce
I have had loads of adventures on all sizes around the world and there was no engine involved at all :innocent:

Last year I did 8,000km in India and Nepal on a Hero Impulse 150, think Honda XR150 built in India with a passenger and our luggage and it did the job even at altitude in Nepal, although 60-70kph was more like it going up hill in the mountains. A great bike and great fun and I think around 15bhp.

but we're talking here about adventure with pants on.

Am thinking adventures without would b far more interesting and less contentious.......but may result in a number of bans among those that post . :ban:

FWIW: We rode around the world, as did many, two up on an R80G/S, with 50 hp. It was fine! The only time I REALLY wanted more was on the Autobahn, where it's top comfortable cruising speed of around 125-130kph was slooow. Everywhere else it had all I needed, sometimes a little patience when I wanted to pass a slower vehicle, but it was okay. Also kept me from getting impatient and pushing the limits...
Would I have been happy with less? Probably not, but I think you just need to adjust your riding and your patience if you have less.

On our return I put a 1000cc top end on it, mostly because I could, and for "at home" highway use. That had 60 hp, but the engine just wasn't as "nice" - more vibes, but more grunt for sure. The limitation then was more the R80G/S gearing and the lower rev limit of the 1000cc top end compared to the R80. But it got there quick! Relatively speaking... :)

Our current travel/touring bike is a 2007 R1200GSA which has exactly double the R80, at 100hp. Is it better? On local highways and to make my right wrist happy, absolutely, but is it NEEDED for travel? No.

Well Grant .
you have hit the nail on the head with your post !
For one person 70 hp is all you need !
K

MORE than enough - we were two up!

Kinda makes u wonder where Ducati is going with the v4 multi.....I'm guessing because they can .

Yamaha have proved it with there new 700 tenere ! You do not need 100+ power .............. let alone 170 !

These big bikes should be re classed into gravel bikes !

Ditto ditto, 12,00km's around India top to bottom including Napel on a 150 Hero Hunk back in 2011. Was it an adventure, of course yes. Did I need more grunt, maybe..!!! Do I have fond memories........ :thumbup1:

I have now since scratch built a purposeful overlanding bike that has 75hp, my ideal speed is up to 50mph and 70mph on highways/open roads. The concept of my build was based on durability and function not performance or looks. As someone mentioned, the bike is the tool that enables adventure, so much more to it than BHP....!!!! :scooter::thumbup1:

You make a valid point.

Well that’s what they are. Big adventure bikes are Super tourers that you can take on and ‘adventure’ ride around the world on bitumen and gravel ROADS.....

People simply buy the wrong tool for the job.
Travelling Australia? Big Bike = good bike. GS / Africa Twin / Multistrada
Travelling Peru? Little Bike = good bike. CRF250 / Himalayan / HunterCub
Travelling the everywhere? Middle bike = good bike.

:)

Wot he said. :thumbup1: It's not about the bike.

'Adventure Bike' is largely a marketing tag/slogan and in the same way that all the yummy-mummies around here 'must' have a Porsche/BMW/Merc. SUV to run their little darlings to and from school each day, there are those who 'know' that the only bike capable of surviving their weekly one-up/55mph run around the usual 70 mile loop, on sunny, summer Sundays, is 250kg of 1000cc+ 'Adventure Bike', preferably fitted with aluminium panniers, a GPS/plotter, bike to bike intercom system and any other bell or whistle which the marketing department waves in front of them. For preference it needs to be this years model and you should certainly be attired in a flip-front helmet and gortex clothing capable of withstanding any & all weather conditions between a -40C Blizzard and a +50C sand storm.
Twenty years ago you barely saw anything resembling an 'Adventure Bike', in the car parks at Box Hill, Cat & Fiddle or Hawes, they were instead full of FireBlades, ThunderRaces and 916 Dukes, with their riders adorned in colour matched-leathers & race-replica crash helmets; I suspect that they're all the same guys, but the knees, backs and reaction times just need something a little more forgiving nowadays.

That said, if they're happy and enjoying the weekly 'adventure' that they want, then good luck to them.

I'm prepared to bet that the number of times you wished for 'more grunt' would've been far outweighed by the number of times you would've been wishing for 'less weight' had you done that same trip on 250kg of 'proper' Adventure Bike?
I've long held the opinion that the best all-around bike for travelling one-up beyond the easy reach of roadside recovery trucks and main-dealers is one based on the Honda OHV125cc engine that first appeared in the CG125 back in the 1970s; 40-odd years of proving itself and copies/clones (including the hero hunk) all around the world under a variety of badges - we once spotted seven different ones in less than an hour along the motorbike shops street in Cartagena, Columbia! - they're light enough to lift onto a pick-up truck (or even push) and repairable anywhere.

I've never ever wanted less power.

But I've always wished for more. Why wouldn't you ?

But extra power usually means extra weight. And when it doesn't mean extra weight, it means less reliability.

So the question 'how much power do you need' really depends on the type of bike.

Adventure bike power
 

In much of the world you will not be travelling at over 60mph, so power as such is not that important, torque is good MPG is good, and low weight is very good for mud and sand and the costs of transporting your bike by air or sea. Size is also good when you want to bring the bike into your hostal.



So for me, around 50 BHP/60 MPG and a wet weight of under 200Kgs without luggage, less would be better.

I've never ridden a bike in my life that I wish I had less power. Why would you ?

However, power usually comes with either weight or less reliability. Or both.

So, like all of us , you will have to find the bike that gives you the correct balance of power/weight/reliability that suits what YOU want to do.

So why do all these Behemoths come with ASR (marketed as "traction control")?

OK, wrong choice of rider/tyre/throttle to RPM ratio, but once power is beyond manageable levels it does seem rather pointless. Pointless power comes with weight and the combination requires further management. A downward spiral some designs seem to have hit.

My BMW R1100 had too much power. Extremely easy to ride past yellow boxes fast enough to pay for the pleasure, too heavy to be a pleasure any other way. Of course a bigger rider may take the threshold of pleasure to pain higher, but it is there IMHO.

Andy

BobnLesley
It's a good job they do as I'd never sell any clothing or accessories :innocent:doh

I also think you'll find that most of ur power rangers are now riding Super Duke R s + Streetfighters ..........and occasionally Mt10 s if our customer base is anything to go by :scooter:
.

Its of course great fun to have lots of power available but what about the old saying «Its more fun riding a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow»

I have an old acquaintance who had an obsession for old Kawasaki triple twostroke bikes. And he had a nice collection of those. We always admired the H2 750 cc, sometimes the H1 500 cc too. But he told me honestly he liked to ride the 350 cc best as he could open the throttle max now and then without risking being throwed into the surroundings by sheer power. Twisting the throttle max on the 750 was just too wild and dangerous.

So I wonder when todays big Advbikes that have more than twice the power of the old H2, what will they be like if you really open the throttle max now and then? But I do understand there are and must be (?) several censors and systems onboard that controls all these enourmous amount of power.

I wouldnt mind a bike with a nice bit of power to ride on paved roads and firm gravel. But for a travel/overland bike power numbers are not that important to me. Rideability, torque, reliability and economy are much more important - and then I adjust to the bike....

To answer ur question about what happens when u turn the electronics off....Jeremy McWilliams developed said Super Duke R and he described it as nearly unrideable with everything switched off :mchappy: Years ago I spoke to John Reynolds about his Crescent Suzuki bsb bike.....he had the power lowered as it was too powerful for the circuit at Thruxton........therefore I would humbly suggest that most riders couldn't use 100bhp fully if they were honest . A quik look at most of the telemetry stored on certain modern bikes suggests this is def the case except on a track possibly , so what on earth u do with 170bhp I have no idea ?c?

spot on. !!....at last there is another proper adventure rider !

But weight is also an issue, a 250kg dry weight would never make an adventure bike


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No such beast, they're just 'bikes' and the 'adventure' bit's simply a marketing tag. If you want confirmation, just consider what proportion of all those 'Adventure Bikes' sold undertake anything more adventurous than 70-miles of familiar roads on sunny Sunday's in summer, stopping off at some scenic gathering spot to allow their owners can talk the talk about the big trip that they're going to make... 'in a couple of years time'.

Hold on a minute, who said this and where is this set in stone or where has science proved this..?? Conversations like this tend to go round in circles and at the end of the day it's only our individual opinions. If two people want to share the same adventure using one bike then the 'light is right' approach goes out the window but the two said people still go on to have live the adventure on the bike that they chose. There simply isn't a right or wrong here....

You definitely need an appropriate bike. For instance this guy, Gareth Jones, seems to have got it nailed:

https://adventureriderradio.com/adve...e-the-possible

andn so it goes on ..............
one mans bike is a tarmac thing !!! ( err !!)
another is a very small bike good for not a lot !!
and .............................................. the perfect combination is ... around 650 ish and 70 bhp !. :scooter:..................:scooter:........... :scooter::...:scooter:

My answer to that question is questioning myself how much power can I handle and effectively use that these 2wheeled chunk of metal takes me and my luggage to where I want?

There are much more characteristics existing a bike should have to be most suitable to me, to my skills and to the route I want to ride it than power. This is approved by a number of travel reports with a large variety of bikes I know.

I always get a big grin when I read statements from the motorcycle industry telling me:
"Neither the elements of nature nor the borders on the map can hold you back because you are driven by wanderlust and your bike by enduring power and reliable technology."

Sadly my experience proofs that my individual riding skills are a stronger limiting factor than the enduring power of any bike. And Yes, I am aware that for "real adv riding" it is absolutely required that something during the trip must go horrible wrong to full proof the quality of an adventure!

The more I read in forums or watch youtube or listen and read "adventure reports" I am aware that there are as many different rider personality characteristics existing as there are seen adv bikes on travel routes.

So It´s up to me to find a bike what will blend well with my chararcteristic of skills and wishes to the route. In this decision power is an argument which I scale on the last and which doesn`t depend only a certain number of hp.

I wouldn’t take a big heavy bike, because they become a pain in the arse to ride through sand and mud, being taken up a few steps into your Hostal, to put into the hold of an aircraft, to to be lifted over the side rails of a boat. These are things that had to be done when I did my RTW trip. I would also prefer a bike that isn’t a magnet for any thieves that might fancy a go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I rode a heavy cruiser with about 85 HP but most of it between 2-3,000 rpm. went from US to Argentina and not on the PanAm. Nothing like powering up the Andies passes as if you are on flat land. Carries a typical amount of gear as if it's not there and needs nothing but oil, brake and tire changes. If I were designing a proper long distance travel bike I would build a version of that with some more suspension travel and maybe a physically smaller engine.

@Rapax...

Sure there are people who have not only gone arround the world on all sorts of bikes, but also having visited every country in the world. Helge Pedersen took a BMW R80GS htrough the Darian Gap, Emilio Scotto visited every country in the world on a Honda Goldwing, Peter and Kay Forwood did the same two up on a Harley, Giorgio Betinelli on a Vespa... Jenny Graham did an RTW on a bicycle in only 128 days (a healthy human has 1.2 horses)... there are countless stories of people doing it on Honda Cubs, and what not. I have done my share of adventure motorcycling myself - on everything from Classic Vespas to Dakar bikes.

Now, what others have done before does not give testament to what is actually suitable. Capable? - a kickbike is capable! Suitable, that is an entirely different thing. And power is one of the most sought after attributes in terms of "suitability"

There is something as too much power, but in terms of typical adventure bikes - for most, it is not releavnt. Too little power however, that is a totally different matter. In the adventure bike segment, more power and torque is usually better. At what power to weight ratio is the tipping point? It depends on a lot of personal factors. But, for a bike that weighs approximately 200 kgs loaded, I would assume that for most of us, the tipping point is somewhere arround 50 hp. Start creeping below 40, and many will often feel as the bike lacking in power. Come above 60, and many will become delighted. Come below 30 and many will often feel discontent. Come above 70 and many will feel excited. Torque is also factor ofcourse - but one which on most bikes can be significantly altered to one's preferences through a simple and inexpensive change of sprocket in the front and/or rear i.e. (-1 tooth in the front, or +2 to+4 in the rear).

Weight or size on the other hand is not so straight forward. There are just as many merits to having a heavy bike for an RTW as there are merits to having a light bike - it depends on your riding style, your route, what you are carrying, your experience... and a lot of other factors. Saying that an adventure bike ought to be light is simply not valid - it depends.

I hear over and over this argument, which I find kind of ridiculous - that "there is no such thing as an adventure bike", and that the label is stupid - that an adventure bike is whatever bike you take on a trip which is an adventure to you, and that the "adventure bike" label is something which is a marketing gimmic. I think it is a crock of turd.

I can use a rock as a hammer, it doesn't make it one. I can put a plough and other tractor implements on my old Landrover, and plow a field - it doesn't make it a tractor. I can ride my Vespa on a motorcross track - it doesn't make it into a mx bike. When you talk about a trial bike, an mx bike, enduro bike, a dual sport, an adventure bike, a touring bike, or a cruiser - there is a set of utilitarian attributes we have in mind.

When it comes to an adventure bike, we think of something which is somewhere between a dual sport and a touring bike. We assume the enduro bike to be 100% offroad, the dual sport to be 50/50 road/offroad, the adventure bike to be 70/30 road/offroad, and the touring bike to be 100% road. The most important attributes on an adventure bike being:

• high ground clearance
• large wheels
• dual sport tires, usually road biased
• shock travel. Offroad capable, but road biased set up
• good ergonomics for standing up and offroad riding, but road biased
• wind protection
• Implements for electronics such as GPS and phone mounts
• luggage carrying suitability
• low end torque
• long distance riding comfort
• bike protection (crash bars, radiator protection, hand guards, etc)
• Spoked wheels (depends)
• Road biased size and weight (+ 175 kgs?)
• etc

Now, for riders that want a lighter offroad capable bike, they will find themselves shopping in the dual sport market or something inbetween - with the consequent trade offs. To some this may be the ideal compromise. To others it may simply be a budget compromise. To most however, that have the financial means - the adventure bike segment will be most suitable for an RTW or the likes. Reasons for this is that (for most), the predominant hours is spendt on decent roads and terrain, with so much extra weight and volume carried that the benefits of a lighter bike is eaten up - and power and other weight gaining features becomes more valuable.

When I say SUV - you don't think of a sportscar - you have a very particular type of car in mind? When you say "adventure bike" you similarily have a particular type of bike in mind.

That much said - a light weight and kitted out 250 dual sport should put a smile on the face of many RTW travellers. But, for me, and I assume the most of us - if one had gone RTW once on a WR250R, and once on a Tenere 700 - and were to say which made for the most pleasurable trip - I think most would lean towards the T7. If you were to add a Himalyan into the mix, I think that one would come in last (neither bird nor fish).

So, my default advice to most - if I had nothing else to go by - start looking at the "adventure bike" segment and adjust from there - all according to personal preferences and budget. Very few of these have low HP.

:rofl: Having just come back from a 5 mile hill training run I'd have been very happy to have 1.2 horses powering me up the slopes. Most of the time though it felt like one of the nags had trotted off somewhere else.

This discussion is a bit like those tyre characteristics diagrams where all the attributes - wet grip, noise etc - are arranged in a circle and each tyre's good and bad points distorts it in or out. Here we have a circle of desirable attributes being distorted in or out by people's preferences and / or experience. Optimising the circle just gives us a jack of all trades but master of none two wheeler.

There's a discussion to be had not so much about which bike best forms your own circle but, in the travel arena, what bikes are for at all. When you travel what is the bike doing for you (other than kicking in a few extra horses when the hill appear). I get the bit about more horsepower = less trouble on hills but if the hills (for example) are what you've travelled to see then then the extra horsepower is counterproductive. You just get through them quicker. There's no doubt I see more in the order: walking - running - cycling - my 125 bike - some 100bhp thing, but I also have more trouble with distance and, in particular, other traffic if I'm using the roads in that order as well.

If the roads were totally empty how many people would take a 100bhp bike if travel was their primary interest. If riding the bike is what you want to do and travel just happens to be where you end up while riding it then fine, but that's not how it works for me. Bigger bike = more carrying capacity is a bit of a red herring. Packpackers manage to stuff it all into a rucksack that their 1.2hp (:rolleyes2:) can manage. Bigger bike usually ends up as more junk I could actually do without but is handy to have. Having said that I'm not actually some kind of hair shirt minimalist but sometimes I think the bikes we choose may be optimal but for something else other than travel.

This made me curious enough to do a Google search:
When considering human-powered equipment, a healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp (0.89 kW) briefly (see orders of magnitude) and sustain about 0.1 hp (0.075 kW) indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp (1.9 kW) briefly and 0.35 hp (0.26 kW) for a period of several hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsep...everal%20hours.

Funny theory!

A world class rider of the tour de france is able for 20 - 40 min to press a power of 5 or 6 watts per kg bodyweight.

Steven Kruijswijk of Team Jumbo-Visma(2016) was pressing 330 watt at the mountain pass Col de la Lombarde/France (incline 6,7-11%) which means he did 5,16 watt per kg bodyweight(63kg).

These athletes need daily 6000 to 10000 kalories to burn in energy and they drink a minimum of 500ml an hour.

As a hobby summer racing bicycle rider my average cadence is 60 per minute with a speed of 23km/h. This means 67 watt or 0.9 watt per kg bodyweight or 0,09 hp and it burns 250 kcal/hr.

After 15yrs I guess I count as a 'trained athlete'. I'm just not a very good one. :rofl:

I teach this stuff - but as it's to the over 60's we're not exactly talking Olympic level performance.

Tour de France riders may well glow in the dark with the energy levels they can expend but comparing them to 'average' athletes, never mind non athletes, is like comparing F1 drivers with the local Deliveroo scooter rider. My rule of thumb has been that we produce about 100 watts as a base level ie when doing nothing (I guess that counts as 'indefinitely), 3-400 watts while aerobically (= sustainably) exercising and maybe double that when you add in anaerobic capacity. But anaerobic output is very short term - maybe 30-40 seconds before it starts to hurt.

So 1/2 a horse on a long run and maybe 1 horse for a minute or so. And that's for people with enough training to be able to exercise aerobically - most people who don't do any training have very little surplus aerobic ability. A glance at the couch to 5k training schedule for complete beginners will show that.

People have gone RTW on that 250/300 watts. Makes my 12kW Suzuki (10bhp) look positively decadent.

Power to weight ratio
 

It seems that the covid lock down is having terrible effects on my personal power to weight ratio. The recommended body service regime is not being followed, and I am giving it terrible fuel. As a consequence my power continues to dwindle, and the weight continues to add on. I definitely have lost a lot of torque in the low end. As for the mid or high end ranges - I wouldn't know. I have not really tested it much above idle lately. :rofl:

Personal fitness, as well as skills, plays a major role in terms of what type of bike is most ideal for the individual trip.

I think you can wing it when you're younger but the more years I see on my personal clock the more effort I have to put in to cope with the rigours of a long trip.

I have to agree with you....( no fun in getting old ! )
I can still do a 250 mile trip in a day, but next day i dont want to even look at the bike !.
any ideas ?

I managed to get my hair cut yesterday - first time since last August so you can imagine what it was like - and my wife says I look 10yrs younger as a result. If only it was true ... :rofl: