My comments on leg reach were not aimed the Himalayan or any other particular bike, just at tall seat height travel bikes in general.

I used to photograph MX professionally and I've seen plenty of people using buckets as steps to get on their bikes or being lifted on (kids) and seen their legs dangling 6" off the ground. It made for some interesting start line incidents sometimes but the payback came (for those brave enough anyway) in the unbelievable height jumps they could get away with. So yes, those bikes have evolved because they're the fastest way round the tracks for those able to make use of them. If you can't reach the ground then either 'compensate' or give up (or take up pre '65 mx where their old clunker suspension only has about 2" travel) was the 'take no prisoners' approach to riding them.

That's a whole different ball game to overlanding. I spent years riding an XR600 Honda up and down to London (for work purposes) and had to use every tall bike + short legs technique to survive in traffic. Yes it's possible to slide off the side or find a kerb or lean the bike against a wall while you climb off the other side but it's increasingly wearying to do that and the longer the trip the less you want to bother. So after a while you don't stop to take pictures because the picture isn't worth the effort it'll take. And you don't stop for a break because your hip still hurts from the muscle strain you got climbing onto the bike earlier (that's one for us oldies ). And it's a lot worse if the bike in question has a high centre of gravity as your 'lean leeway' before you can't hold it is less.

And that's on tarmac. Venture onto dirt, or worse, snow, and sooner or later it'll go wrong. I rode down to the Alps a few years ago in the winter and did the last 7-8 miles of hard packed and rutted ice on two wheels and two 'outrigger' legs at 10mph. That would have been impossible had I not been able to flat foot on both sides (I wasn't on the XR!). I've done a lot of winter rallies and I would never go on a bike I couldn't flat foot. And my experience in sand tells me that it's just ice that doesn't melt.

'Your mileage may vary' as they say and if you're happy heading off on a long trip on a bike with your feet dangling then I wish you well. It's not for me though. There's enough other issues to have to deal without worrying whether I can get back on the bike after a fuel stop and not have the whole thing tip over because the forecourt is covered in diesel with an adverse camber (fuel station in Ceuta).

Hi Eric - this seems like a good question for the OP that you raise.

We all travel differently don’t we. When i was travelling through Africa this was a non-issue 90% of the time. But I unexpectedly/unavoidably spent a week longer than planned in the western cape and then had to do 850kms in a day on a paved road to catch up and get to a charity commitment in Zimbabwe.

You’ve been great in helping me with my TET plans this year . I expect I’ll just blast through western Europe at 70mph to get to Sweden, because I am there regularly and i want to maximise the time I have in Sweden, Norway and Finland. I found riding in the US to be like this too.

These are the compromises i make as my trips are not open ended (3 months for Africa, a month this summer) as i have work and family commitments too.

If one does not have to do this, this is not a consideration in a bike purchase. If one does it is factor to take into account (albeit probably a minor one for most people).

I would not seek out 70+ but I also don't know that I could avoid 65+ road speeds entirely.

The goal is to buy the Bike in California, head down to Mexico, spend a couple months wandering, then either continue south or head back to the states depending on how things unfold.

Completely avoiding 65+ mph traffic from Northern California down to Mexico sounds unrealistic, I have not traveled in Mexico, so I'm unclear what the normal road speeds are down there, but I'm guessing it'll be a lot easier to mostly or entirely avoid 65+ traffic, or at least I hope be a driving culture where drivers are more used to underpowered motorcycles and overloaded trucks puttering along. But honestly, I've no idea, and have not yet done the research (beyond a brief search of what bikes are popular down there and seeing some low displacement models).

For me, I do not have a set itinerary, I do not have a hard end date (though I'm only intending to spend a couple months), so I have the luxury of flexibility and not needing
to get anywhere in a rush (though there is always an opportunity cost to going slower (or faster for that matter)). So (I think) I'm willing to exchange a little speed, a little long distance comfort, for other things. I suppose like most things in life there are unavoidable tradeoffs.

I'm too new to know exactly what I want/need, but my thinking is something light-ish, low-ish, 60+ mpg, 60+ mph on flat ground, decent range, capable of carrying 180lb rider + maybe 40-60lbs of gear/luggage/tools (just a guess, not sure if its realistic, high or low), cheap, not difficult to find parts or service.

It sounds like there may not be a bike that can achieve all of this.

• XT is low and light and capable offroad with great fuel economy, but may fall short in speed/comfort on highway, and fall short in carrying capacity. Small fuel tank but an aftermarket tank or rotopax would mitigate that. Limited aftermarket
• Himalayan is a good all-rounder, good fuel economy, low, beginner friendly in most ways apart from technical offroad situations, capable enough at low to moderate highway speeds, but heavy and bulky and not ideal offroad. Limited aftermarket.
• CRF Rally probably the best compromise between all the factors. Biggest shortcomings (for me) are 35"+ seat height and limited availability and at the edge of my budget. Good on gas, decent range, capable of low to moderate highway speeds, capable offroad, capable of carrying a moderate load, decent aftermarket.
• CRF 250/300L mostly the same pros/cons as the Rally, but a little lower, a little more limited range, and a no windscreen.

Does this ^ seem like a pretty okay summary?




--


I'm finding all of your advice and feedback helpful, even (maybe especially) the conflicting/contrasting opinions and different points of view.

The question was about "wandering around Mexico".
I do not think that if the bike capable of 70 mph or is not an issue for that.

But that is my view....

Fair comment Eric. I’ve not been to Mexico (sadly/yet) so will defer to you and others on that aspect, as I don’t know the terrain.

What would you consider a reasonable "minimum maximum speed" for Mexico.



By 'minimum maximum' I'm asking what you would consider the lowest reasonable maximum speed and max comfortable cruising speed for a bike in Mexico. (hope that makes sense)

When I've rode in Mexico, a bike that can maintain a steady 100 kph is plenty, and frankly a bit overkill unless you are on a toll road.

__________________
Bruce Clarke - 2020 Yamaha XV250

Agreed! Actually 80-90 km/h would be fine unless planning to ride a lot on those tollroads and all the bikes TS mentiones in his opening post will do 90 km/h - 55 mph with ease and still be fuel efficient and relatively relaxed. At 70 mph (112 km/h) as TS mentiones in his opening post its different - although all the bikes he mentioned is capable to go 70 mph none of them will do it easily and they will not be very fuel efficent at that speed either.

__________________
In the end everything will be fine. If its not fine its not the end....

It is good to have a little extra to go on and never use it. You will put less strain on your bike if you don't have to max it out all the time.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel