I don't wish to sound too cynical but looking around on this and other sites I'm beginning to get the impression that some potential overland travellers are choosing bikes on the grounds that they have a huge aftermarket back up offering all the parts you need to overcome the manufacturers shortcomings. Not only does it cost a small fortune to do the essentials such as a fuel tank that holds more than 10 litres and suspension that doesn't collapse but a second fortune can be spent on all the gismos that make it look like a dakar competitor.

It seems to me that just getting on it and riding it is a thing of the past where BMW and Honda (and probably others) made bikes that were virtually ready to go and you could even fix them at the roadside (no, I'm not talking about carbs vs. FI). Yes, I'm well aware that these ancient models now have a long list of essential mods. that you must fit before setting out, however, I know from my own experience that most of these are far from essential on a well maintained bike.

Money is usually the missing ingredient for anyone planning a RTW and it seems a shame that it's become more about the bike than the journey.

I am not sure what the exact point is with this post ... but it seems to be a criticism of anyone who wants to have a well thought out, built for purpose decent adventure bike. Is that correct?

Thre is nothing wrong with someone wanting to travel RTW on a 20 year old Africa Twin or a 25 year old BMW boxer. Just as there is nothing wrong with people who want to travel RTW with a bike that is 70 kgs lighter, 50% more economical, handles 20 times better at 3 times the speed off road. There is the opportunity in this day and age to build a bike that does the job many times better than factory bikes from 25 years ago. Whats wrong with someone doing just that?

Why would you choose to criticise people for wanting to have a bike which does the job better? It seems like a little bit of jealousy.

Some people, myself included, feel that yes I want the pleasure of travelling to remote places, I want the experience of mixing with people that have never seen westerners before, but I also get a huge kick out of actually RIDING THE BIKE. For some, the bike is not just a platform to convey you to these places. For some the riding (particularly the off road riding) is also allowed to be a huge pleasure. I dont "endure" the tough stretches, I actually LOVE them. Why cant I, or anyone else who builds a similar kind of bike, actually build a bike that is designed to handle travel in those kind of conditions? Instead of being a horrible pig i those conditions. Why is that bad? Not everyone likes adventuring on good roads.

That is allowed, isnt it?

__________________

Sadly, I have friends who have joined, and since left Horizons Unlimited, because they felt there was an overriding culture of "you must have a crap old bike or else you are a bad human being and dont belong here". It's a mentality I would very much like to see driven out of the site.

I think its a shame moto travellers who do enjoy the bike side as much as the journey side, are being driven away from the site.

If someone is into triumph scramblers and want to ride around the world in one, why not?

If someone is into Harleys and want to heavily modify one and ride it to Magadan, why not?

If someone is into old DR350s and want to ride one round the world because Austin did, then why not?

Why should we tell any of these people to stop focussing on the bike, and focus only on the journey?

Why cant people enjoy the bike side too? And why is an appreciation of the bike side, or a motorcycle modified for purpose, incompatible with Horizons Unlimited?

__________________

I moved the thread into the HU Bar area, because it seems to be more an expression of a personal opinion rather than a question.

__________________
The electric monk always has faith.

Very well said. I often don't come here as my built up vtwin seems to discourage folks. Riding a very capable off road wild beast doesn't appeal to everyone, but to me it's a crazy wild ride while out exploring new places. Both parts are equally gratifying to me.

If that bike was built out of the box that would be great but it's not, so we build a bike that can handle aggressive off road riding and make it capable of long distance travel. Too me that's a part of the fun. Plan, build, ride and explore

__________________
www.GravelTravel.ca
"I had a dream that I couldn't sleep"

Sorry if I implied criticism. If I am being critical of anyone it is the bike manufacturers. They obviously do their market research and from this they can see that the percentage of buyers of a given adventure model that are going on an extended overland trip is very small. That said, it seems to be big enough market for the likes of Touratech and other suppliers to make a business out of it.

I certainly don't advocate setting off on a long trip on a 20 year old bike, however, my point was that these bikes came from the factory much nearer 'ready to go' than the bikes that are being produced today. Manufacturers have, in my opinion, extended the 'Adventure' themed bikes to the point that they are so complex and heavy that they are not really viable for a trip with significant off road content (or very remote places without support). Bikes around 650cc seem to be much more suitable but apart from the Tenere there isn't anything available straight out of the crate.

So who cares? Well, my original point was that the need to modify even basic things on the bike makes the bike extremely expensive. Some of the wish lists I see on here and elsewhere just give me the impression that it's more about bolting on every conceivable part to make the bike perfect and then at the end of it all not having enough money left to travel - again, just my perception.

I have always enjoyed modifying bikes to make them 'fit for purpose'. We are generally much more demanding these days in terms of suspension, brakes, protection etc. so I can understand that the fit for purpose bar has been raised but my view is still that just because it's in the catalogue it doesn't make it essential.

I'm with you on this one. I've been looking for a Bonneville replacement. I can buy a Tenere and spend the first week of ownership stuffing bit of inner tube into the cush drive. I can get a Tiger and get someone to remap the FI. The thread about F800's is long. Consumable bikes for a consumer society.

Andy

Apologies for jumping on this one, but as I mentioned, the atmosphere that sometimes comes thru here of "old bike, do it cheap or you're a wanker" has become a real pet peeve of mine. I mentioned I knew several people who have abandoned the site because of that prevailing mentality and that feeling is also confirmed by deadly99 above.

I agree with you that the manufacturers have moved away from built for purpose bikes. But I disagree with you in the reference to Dakar bikes. The bikes were in the past a lot closer to purpose as long distance, off road capable travelling machines precisely because Honda, Yamaha, Cagiva, BMW and more recently KTM all based their adventure bikes in the 80s and 90s on Dakar bikes. The reason the modern bikes are less fit for purpose is because they have moved away from that Dakar / rallye bike capability. Building bikes that are strong enough, light enough, handle well enough and carry enough fuel to be rally worthy is also building bikes that are more adventure worthy. In my opinion there is a pretty close relationship between a good adventure bike and a rally bike, apart from the state of tune of the engine. That implies that to make a better off road capable, long distance capable adventure bike, you have to modify a standard bike in the direction of a rally bike. That goes for either if you start with a larger less off road capable bike, or a lighter off road bike that lacks durability.

I agree that its unfortunate that building a capable bike aftermarket is 20 times more expensive that if the OEM bike was specced with the same components. Then again, the manufacturers have the market research ... the segment is growing precisely because they are focussing on what the market wants. Big, heavy, bikes that are a real handful off-road and that dont really warrant good off-road capable suspension.

KTM keeps lowering the off road capabilities of its 990 model ... every second year it comes out with a more revvy engine, lower suspension travel, weaker rims ... and yet they keep selling them. Their 640 Adventure similarly was gradually diluted in terms its off road capabilities throughout its lifetime, and a replacement for it has been deemed not a priority for the last 4 years. I think there is just not a viable market for adventure bikes that are as capable off road as they are on road. You have to make them yourself.

__________________

Well, ...is it fit "for purpose" or, ...fit "for YOUR purpose"? I had a real eye opening experience reading Edde Mendes ride report around the world on a Plain Jane K75...

...so, the definition of "fit for purpose", in my book, is a very individual thing. No right, no wrong

__________________
Thomas

"Hey, ...I'm just ridin' shotgun"