Total Motorcycle Community Forums

ZooTech wrote:Smaller country, smaller cities, smaller roads...thus smaller cars and smaller bikes. It's easy to understand, however, this forum's audience is far more reaching than the culture of the U.K. (despite your government's best efforts) so please bear in mind a lot of the members have a different view of engine displacement and, around here especially, a >1200cc bike is hardly considered excessive. In fact, for two-up purposes, the bigger the better.

I dont get it, I just dont get it... I missed the boat on this one - the boat sailed and I wasnt on the "procreating" boat!!! Explain this to me??? Are Americans really so supersized that anything under 2ltr's is too gosh small to haul you around???

Just what kind of displacement is needed to haul two people and their gear for the weekend at the national speedlimit - over here pretty much anything over 250cc's will haul two people and their kit.

Anything in the 400cc and above range should not even notice that it has two people and all their kit on it and accelerate past the speedlimit to licence losing speeds...

I am trying to understand why, dear gods why, anything smaller than 650cc's is considered too small to ride!

I mean come on. What kind of weight are we hauling here? Its not like you are attempting to tow a Buick at 110mph, is it???

So please explain it to me, because right now I dont understand.

Sub 650cc bikes with more pulling power than Jorden in a disco;

F650CS
103mph
50bhp

Raptor 650
117mph
72bhp

M620
115mph
60bhp

Multistrada 620
115mph
87bhp

CB600F
150mph
96bhp

NT650Deauville
115mph
56bhp

KLE500
120mph
48bhp

Ninja ZX-6RR
160mph
125bhp

Sachs 650 Roadster
100mph
50bhp

SV650
132mph
69bhp

Speed Four
140mph
97bhp

FZ6
136mph
98bhp

Wow, I inspired an entire thread?! I feel so honored.

Well, keep in mind that as you beat your head against the wall trying to figure out what our obsession is with big bikes, I too am trying to figure out what your fetish is with small ones. Maybe it's the $8.00 per gallon of petrol, maybe it's the tiny little roads, maybe it's the high cost of insurance, or maybe it's because Britain is still stuck in the 1970's when a 350 was a "big" engine. I dunno, I don't care to speculate, and I see nothing excessive about my bike. If anything, I'd like to make it more powerful next year. All I do know for sure is what I've experienced...and that is smaller bikes are more difficult and dangerous to ride two-up because the closer the passenger weight gets to the bike's weight the more you are able to upset the handling and suspension. My best friend removed the passenger seat from his 883 because with its lighter weight and hella short wheelbase, taking passengers was less than enjoyable for him. My bike, on the other hand, barely notices when a passenger is aboard.

Bottom line is, neither of us is wrong. What may be "right" for you, may not be right for me, and vice-versa. I am enjoying my "big" bike immensely, and don't see myself buying anything smaller than a 1000 in the future.

Kal, I'm with you on this one. I started riding on a 22 year old 650cc Suzuki, and I just upgraded this year to a 2005 650cc Kawasaki (KLR650)

I've taken passengers and loads of gear on my old 650 without any problems at all. The bike handled well (as well as could be expected with 22 year old suspension) and I had more than enough power to pass traffic on the freeway.

I haven't loaded my new bike out yet with all my luggage, but that will happen at some point in the near future (I hope), but it also has lots of power and easily carries me along at highway speeds.

I do a lot of long distance riding, but I also do a lot of city riding, and a 700+lb tank of a bike has zero appeal to me.

one thing that may surprise a lot of big bike owners is that while they have a lot of power on tap, they don't have as much carrying capacity as they might think. Here's a table from Ron Ayres' book "Going the Extra Mile", comparing carrying capacities of several different motorcycles

Kawasaki Concours 1118cc 500lbs
BMW K1200LT 1171cc 488lbs
GL1800 1832cc 488lbs
R1150GS Adventure 1130cc 478lbs
FJR1300 1298cc 460lbs
Ducati Monster 618cc 457lbs
BMW R1150RT 1130cc 435lbs
YZF-R1 998cc 432lbs
Road Star Warrior 1670cc 405lbs
ZX-12R 1199cc 399lbs
GSXR1000 998cc 396lbs
ST1300ABS 1261cc 381lbs


As you can see, some of the big displacement bikes don't have much carrying capacity at all, when you consider that the load rating listed is for the rider, passenger and their attendant baggage. The Ducati Monster 620 actually has a greater carrying capacity than several bikes with double its displacement.

Here's the specs for my current bike:

2005 KLR650 651cc 401lbs

Again, more carrying capacity than several bigger bikes.

bottom line? Having a bigger bike doesn't mean that it is better able to handle bigger loads.

In the United Kingdom(including Northern Ireland), there is, (according to 1999 stats, which are the only ones I could find) a total road network of 392,109 km which are paved, I could not find a number that included non-paved roads.

As opposed to 6,393,603 km of highways in the USA 4,180,053 km of which are paved.

Now if I was going to travel in Great Britain, I can see how a smaller bike would suffice, but if I was to pop down across the border with some serious riding in mind, I think a far more comfortable larger bike would be my choice.


And that doesn't include the almost 1,000,000 km of paved roads in Canada...

Most of us are just plain nuts. Some suffer from the "mine is bigger than yours" syndrome. Mostly it's mental illness, though. I can't help it, I almost always order a Double Whopper at Burger King. BIG. Oink.

Actually, the "big" syndrome encompasses a whole range of sociological factors that get tedious and boring in recitation. It's better to just believe there's something wrong with us. Greedy and consumptive R us. And none of it means anything unless we can show off to someone who has less. So we're insensitive and sadistic, too.

dr_bar wrote:In the United Kingdom(including Northern Ireland), there is, (according to 1999 stats, which are the only ones I could find) a total road network of 392,109 km which are paved, I could not find a number that included non-paved roads.

As opposed to 6,393,603 km of highways in the USA 4,180,053 km of which are paved.

Now if I was going to travel in Great Britain, I can see how a smaller bike would suffice, but if I was to pop down across the border with some serious riding in mind, I think a far more comfortable larger bike would be my choice.


And that doesn't include the almost 1,000,000 km of paved roads in Canada...

Large capacity bikes haven't exactly been embraced by Australia either and we have one or two kilometers of open road to play with.

There is a big difference between what you need and what you think you need.

I think I'll go ahead and place my order for the Boss Hoss with the 502. That oughta be about right--bigger is better, ya know.

oldnslo wrote:I think I'll go ahead and place my order for the Boss Hoss with the 502. That oughta be about right--bigger is better, ya know.

Whoaaa, wicked coup de gras there, oldnslow!