Easy answer.

Ouch. :( Hope the monocep works OK.

I've pulled muscles often enough to know when to let go. It does not come naturally though (same as not jumping up like a resurrected Pacman and using newly found super strength to right the bike, applying the same ten second rule you might to dropped food). It happens a lot less on a light, lightly loaded, low bikes.

There are always Ural's if anyone really needs a reverse gear :rofl:

I think you can actually have too low a seat, even if the riding part works. The Old Boy had cruisers and the small ones with 26 inch seat height gave a bent leg that's not as strong as a straight one. It is of course very easy to raise a seat unless some nut job fitted the foot boards out ahead of the engine. I was loaned a BMW R1200C that was worse than any GS.

You need to try before you buy. It's about time the manufacturers were forced to include more adjustment too, can you imagine them trying to sell cars 52% of the population can't fit into?

Andy

@ Mark, I probably should show more respect..., and I do respect the opinions of others on this matter even if it doesn't show... at least most of the people for the most part. I could list a thousand things that makes reach a preferable asset to have. But often those thousand things doesn't stack up against some other single tradeoff.


I guess what bothers me is that too many, that have neither experienced nor observed the extent even noobs can both handle and enjoy a bike that is "too tall", warns against such bikes like it is detrimental. This group is so large that it drowns out the voices of the much smaller group that is far more familiar dealing with reach issues.

There are just so many riders that are so short that the availability of bikes for their purpose becomes extremely limited - if being able to flat foot is a must. For these people, I think that the better advice is to say - yes it makes a difference, but maybe not as great as you might think, and maybe the better bike for you might be the one you can't flat foot - at least consider it.

Maybe you have a limited budget, and need to get a low mileage, second hand, and almost fully equipped bike? There are not a whole lot of those to be found in any given area to begin with. Shave off all the medium tall and up, and you might find that you have to spend a whole lot more or go without. Also, for some routes there is a limit to how much you can compromise on bike height before that becomes a greater handicap than a slight reach issue.

Horses for courses?
--------
Personally I am looking to increase the seat height on my T7 for more comfort and improved ergonomics, fully aware that it will negatively affect my reach.

My GF, even as a beginner and not being able to flat foot her current bike, has on her own come to similar conclusions for her bike - the stock seat is like a narrow wooden board. She is already getting comfortable riding my horse that she can only tippy toe - and is considering getting a heavier and talker bike than the one she's got (probably will in the next two years).

She started learning privately on a tall bike and didn't get to try a bike that she could flat foot until it got close to take her exam. For a while, tall bikes was the only thing she knew, and now has no problems with either tall or short. For her, full reach is an attribute far less important than a whole lot of other bike attributes that she appreciates more - the ones that usually comes in a stereotypical dual sport or adventure bike with more than 50 hp.

Myself I no longer struggle much with reach - on just about any bike. That has not always been the case. My first bike experience started at 6 yrs old, with a 80 cc MX bike I couldn't even tippy toe. My growth spurt came late, and it was not until adulthood that I could enjoy good reach on the bikes I loved. I am by no means a great rider, nor an expert even though I started early. All I know is that I have thaught and inspired my handful of beginners to ride the taller bikes (often mine) - and most of them end up with the bike they fancy, irrespectively if they can flat foot it or not.

There's yer problem right there Andy - it's a five second rule! Your stomach will thank me :rofl:


So just how long are your legs then Wheelie?

It's nice to be able to flat foot, but just not that important.[/QUOTE]

I guess it comes down to the old skool of hard knocks, don’t ask questions, just go out and learn for yourself what works for you.

After all it is just an opinion, not gospel.

Sometimes it feels as though "flat footing" is a gospel, and the only "true gospel" handed down by the only real god... and that the religion's deciples conscideres it blasphemous when the tiny minority of heedens (or atheists) voice that there are in fact other considerations, and sometimes more important, to take into account when deciding which bike to get - outright disregarding all and any evidence that is contradictory to their "gospel":

1. Those that are in need of particular attributes that low bikes in their market (or any market) simply doesn't afford them
2. That some bikers simply lacks the means to buy, modify and equip the "proper bike" (one that can be flat footed).
3. All those riders that do really well with a bike that is "too tall" (can't flat foot) - even novices that venture off road and are loving their ride
4. All those who's first bike they ever rode and learned on was "too tall" - because that was the bike that was available to them - many who even did so with a pillion
5. All those riders that keeps on preferring the bike that is "too tall", enough that even their next bike also ends up being one that is "too tall"
6. All those who have gone RTW with bikes that were both "too heavy" and "too tall", and would do it all over again
7. The relative differences in difficulty from fully flat foot with bent knees, to barely flat foot, to balls of feet, to toes, to tippy toes, to only one foot down, to dangling - conscidering anything less than flat foot as insanity (when in fact for many, going from flat foot to balls of their feet isn't much of a problem)
8. And a collection of a whole lot of other evidence, that not too seldom - points to the "too tall" option as being the better compromize for a particular situation

So, if I had to adhere to a gospel of my own, it would be: "don't outright disregard a bike that is "too tall", but conscider all your needs and the collective attributes of each type of bike available to you... and disregard any fanatic that tries to frighten you into only conscidering bikes that you can flat foot".

I would like to present the opposite: namely that almost all biker groups (online and IRL), motorcycle media, reviews, videos, replies to comments on Facebook etc, say that people with small bikes are only using them until they graduate to a "real" motorcycle.

The pressure to always upsize your bike feels ever present, especially in areas with more American users, and puts many new riders on unsuitable bikes. The other day I helped two old guys up after they rode their BMW 1200s into the back of a 4x4 who did an emergency stop - neither of them could handle their own bike, and I'd be willing to bet something smaller would make for a better riding experience for them.

To take your case in point, my first bike was a '78 KE100. My Dad swapped the back shocks to shorter ones but it still felt massive to me, and it held back my riding a lot. Conversely a friend got a 70cc stepthrough and she was off and enjoying herself from day 1 ... I later had a stepthrough for a bit and I have to say it was the bee's knees.

There's a lot to agree with in that. I have a range of bikes from my 90kg 125 Suzuki right up to my 1800 Gold Wing and the Suzuki is the easiest and most relaxing bike of the lot to ride. It does however 'not qualify' as a real bike - I've been asked 'why do you ride it' (or words to that effect) more often than all the rest of the bikes put together. I don't (or rarely anyway) get 'brotherhood of bikers' waved at on the road (something I'm quite pleased about) and get ignored in gatherings (or failing that, patronised as a beginner or asked where my 'L' plates are / have you passed your test). If I ride any of the other bikes none of that happens. A 125 is something you ride until you can afford a bigger bike.

There's internal pressure as well. I spent a day riding with a lady on a 125 Honda a few weeks ago and despite the fact that her build was perfect for that bike she kept apologising for the bike - 'sorry I'm so slow. As soon as I pass my test I'm going to get something bigger' - that kind of thing. If she does I suspect she'll struggle with the weight.

And as with small bikes and beginners, so with experienced riders on middleweights - 500cc or so. When I first started a 500cc bike was firmly in the big bike category. Now they're twice the power (some anyway) and entry level in many markets. If you're looking for a post learner 'real' bike you'll find very little under 500cc from any of the big names - a few trail bikes with step ladder seat heights and a few other oddballs, but the glamour stuff is all way up there in capacity - and of course weight / bulk comes along with that. That, I suppose, is marketing - there's more profit in a big bike than a small one and it's an easier sell with brochures / the bike press pushing power, speed, glamour etc - the sizzle rather than the sausage. Unlike cars, we (the bike buying public in general) buy bikes with our hearts rather than our heads and pay the inevitable price.

I guess it also depends on what kind of riding you do and for what reasons.

I do a lot of international travel. I constantly stop on my bike to take quick pictures, ask for directions, put warmer gloves on, stop at borders etc.

Having a tall bike in these situations seems like a huge pain in the ass. Much rather be able to plant both my feat comfortably and keep my hands free without the risk of tipping over.

flat foot
 

I never thought of it but someone mentioned the right hight is being able to back your bike up a slight incline or uneven pavement 30in. inseam and I can do my F700 with minimal effort with the comfort seat the rally seat is even easier I can't image what it is like doing this on a Africa Twin with a full tank of gas. Im sold on this theory although I bottom my suspension quite bit but that's fine the skid plate works good

You mean, with a full tank of gas because returning the rental bike at the end of a trip...on a steep, cobblestoned hill which turns out to be blocked off for a parade...before drinking sufficient coffee and without sufficient sleep? I dropped an AT under exactly those circumstances, and once it started to go on the downhill side I had no hope of keeping it upright.

Fun bike, and I could tiptoe it adequately and rode through some reasonably rough terrain, but that one drop--entirely my fault and definitely preventable had I been more alert--bent some parts and cost me some money. Embarrassing, too, and I needed help picking it back up (since unwilling to spin it around on the cobblestones). Had it been two inches shorter I'd have been fine.

The next bike I rented on that trip was too short and made my knees hurt. The third, in Armenia, was a stock KLR, and its seat height was perfect.

I agree. But I also see a change coming with the new generation - influenced by social media influencers more than marketers. Also, it may very well be more a US thing (the six years I lived there I hardly ever saw a 125 cc, and even less so a moped, whereas in the rest of the world they are all over the place).

"Smaller, lighter and affordable", are often portrayed as the superior choice for just about every "mission". They are also portrayed as being more fun and cooler than "fat" bikes, and also as carrying more status and respect - in a greater number of circles. And in the majority of moto sports, they come out on top. The Farkled out, super premium bikes, with huge engines on the other hand??? These are more and more portrayed as "penis enlargers" - ownership which has more to do with compensating for personality flaws than it does utility. Ofcourse all bikes have their rightful place somewhere - but we cannot get arround that general stigma affects decisions. Wheras the puns were mostly directed at the puny bikes before, I believe the tables are turning. (Personally I love all flavors of motorcycles).

As a result the industry is now giving us an ever growing selection of smaller bikes, especially for adventure motorcycling.


Getting back on track!
For the sake of the discussion. I think it better to separate "height" from "power", "size" (girth) and "weight". They all affect the bike's rideability, but you can have a tall bike that is both light and is of little girth, with small to medium power - i.e. most dual sports and many adventure bikes. For riding in the rough stuff, there are some features that trumps all others - the ones that inadvertedly ends up making the bike tall.

The more offroad capable a bike is to be made, the taller it has to end up - there is a direct correlation. You can have a very capable offroad vehicle, of any sort, of any weight and size, with any engine displacement (all within reason) - as long as it has the following: large wheels, long suspension travel, and a high ground clearance. For every cm you shave off any of these, the performance is reduced exponentially. For someone going on long trips with plenty of rough stuff, this is an important conscideration - and one where shorter people may end up having to compromise.

However, the point I've been trying to make is that many will not need to compromise as much as they think they do. Many make a poorer choice simply out of unjustifiable; fear, wrongful predispositions, or not knowing how much a difference just a little bit of regular practice will make.

At some unexpected moment we will all be faced with reach deficiency - no matter how long our legs are, or how ever low the bike sits. Having practiced regularily gives you more options in terms of dealing with these problems - with less effort. A tiny investment goes a loooooooong way.


My general advice (that entails offroad travel) - is to take the tallest (and preferably also light) purpose built bike you are comfortable riding (aka a dual sport or "adventure" bike). Now, if for lack of experience one has negative predispositions against riding a slightly taller bike than one is used to - then maybe get some practice/training and put those predispositions to the test before making your final choice?

Counter offroad reach deficiency with training on pavement:
In the first week of every season I go out and practice aweekend or two on tarmac (seasons here are short, and I get really rusty during the winter months).Beyond your typical emergency braking etc, I also practice:

• Walking arround the bike, off its stand- balancing it with only a two finger grip.
  
• Starting and stopping with both legs off to the same side (rather than straddling the saddle) - lifting and lowering the side stand and getting in/out of the saddle as I accelerate or come to a stop.
  
• Riding sharp circles on an incline - mounting and unmounting with the bike facing horizontally across the slope (turning in both directions). It is a difficult, but very useful exercise for both practicing reach deficiency scenarios and for preparing for off road.
  
• Walking the bike with and without engine power - walking on both sides of the bike. I aslo practice walking and turning the bike on an incline, as well as up and down a flight of stairs (up - under power). These are all great exercizes for offroad simulation.
  
• Turning the bike arround on its side stand - fully loaded.
  
• Dead-lifting the bike lying on its side - using a few different techniques.
  
• Starting, stopping, mounting and unmounting on a ridge - simulating an offroad reach deficiency scenario (This reach deficiency exercize is carried out by riding up on a kerb or a series of boards). This exercize is especially challenging because the side stand won't reach. Also, you have to be able to do it all while keeping the bike on a narrow line. I also practice dabbing on a ridge, as well as walking the bike.

It is only after refreshing skills on tarmac that I venture out to play and practice in terrain.



Even with my really light weight step throughs, it is a chore paddling it in any direction when I park in my flat gravel highway. A slight incline on pavement - same thing. Wheras I do get why it is nice to have a bike that is easy to paddle, I hardly think it is an important attribute to impact a purchasing deciscion - only a bonus feature.

For many reasons, I try to make it a habit to man-handle the bike out of the saddle rather than in - and strategize so I don't have to neither in the first place. For one thing, it is both easier and less risky. Also, it plays into the whole thing of training to handle a bike under very difficult conditions - including situations where reach deficiency is a factor.

I do get that you are sometimes left with no choice other than to back up a bike - like when the bike simply can't be turned arround to face the right direction - not even on the side stand (which btw can usually be done with even a fuly loaded 1200 GS without popping a single blood vein). But still, I buy a bike for how well it moves under it's own power - not for how easily I can back paddle it. I don't buy a bike any more than I do a car - for how easy it is to push in reverse. I simply don't think this "feature" ought to be a conscideration at all when buying a bike (except for maybe pizza delivery guys in the inner city... who has to park 20 times a day, with their wheel to the kerb, inbetween cars, with no room to manouver or walk next to the bike).

I don't think you'll ever be persuaded, however if you ever visit Barçelona you'll need to scoot your bike a lot in order to park in most places, lol

As for practice, I used a DR350 that I had to drop off the side of the seat to touch the ground at all for about 10,000km. It got dropped a lot, and I only sold it regretfully, but my XR250R that I could tiptoe both sides on was much better for me.

flat foot
 

dr350 I recently sat on one and the suspension sagged to where I found it comfortable I I would love to have this machine it wouldn't be a issue dropping it or picking it up This moto is perfect for what I like to do
Most underrated bike out there

I disagree that a machine with off road potential has to be tall.

You want ground clearance, so angle or shorten the engine. There is no need for the current stacks of engine-fuel tank or seat-battery.

How high is the seat on a trials bike in proportion to the wheel base and ground clearance?

Current bikes are tall because the designers havn't had an original idea since 1971 and buyers are both reactionary and highly conservative

Andy