buying a second bike to keep bmw company, klr or dedicated trail
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:56 am
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:37:38 -0000 "snowymountainsmick"
writes:
<><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><> Snowymountainsmick, I'll suggest to you the ST rear suspension isn't as good at the KLR's rear suspension. But that's with me not having ridden an ST, so I'm just guessing here. The guys on the Airlist that ride STs think they're great and very capable. It'd be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the two on wash board roads or a sand or mud section. I suppose you're probably correct in the ST being pushed will do the same sections a KLR will do. And the KLR might need to be pushed a bit too. Both are probably too heavy to be used regularly for single track by most riders. And the ones that could be successful at it have a better bike available for a more enjoyable ride. If you are looking at doing long distance touring or adventure type riding and figure on doing a section of pavement to get to dirt and then return... well, the KLR has the fuel capacity and road manners that make it a pretty good bike for that kind of riding. It's easy to change gearing (a little) by swapping front sprockets when you get to dirt and back again when you're ready to return. You're not gonna do that with a ST or the Adventurer. But if you plan on riding the KLR where serious dirt bikes go... well, you're probably already aware you be working hard at it on a KLR, ST, Adventurer etc. In the Black Hills the KLR is a great bike. It's very nice and capable on the pavement and can keep up with anything doing even close to the legal speed. When I turn off pavement onto logging or fire roads, two tracks or sometimes single track it works well for me. But I've geared mine down for this kind of riding. A lighter bike would be even better off pavement but I think I'd lose a lot on pavement. Just like life, it's a compromise. A few weeks ago I took a Sunday afternoon ride with three other bikes. All three were 1200 GSs and I was on my KLR. I could tell the GSs really had it over the KLR on acceleration on pavement. But it wasn't enough of a difference that it was an issue. I probably ride just a little slower than those guys do anyway. But off pavement we got into some interesting logging, fire, dirt roads. The GSs had to stop and lower tire pressures and only one guy was able to move along on that section. I'm sure it was the riders just a bit but everyone rides regularly and has been around on and off pavement. But this one guy has been riding for 45 years here I'd guess, rides all but maybe two weeks a year and could ride a Goldwing over the stuff we were on. He's just a very very good rider. The KLR wasn't held back even a little bit on this stuff compared with the GSs. But they all made it too. If you've got a pretty good handle on off pavement riding why not consider putting the KLR money towards the Adventurer and getting it a bit sooner. I don't think you'll find it enough of a difference from the KLR to make it worth having both. And if you're gonna get into something that is pretty tough it might save you some misery by making you think twice before you get in over your head. I think the power, suspension and brakes on the Adventurer would be way fun. Best, Jeff Saline ABC # 4412 South Dakota Airmarshal Airheads Beemer Club www.airheads.org The Beautiful Black Hills of South Dakota 75 R90/6, 03 KLR650, 79 R100RT> I have a 1984 R80ST and am thinking about getting a dirt bike as > well. > > I am drawn to the KLRs, but am thinking I'd be better off getting a > > more dirt capable bike like the Husky 610 or Gas Gas 450. I feel > that > the KLR won;t do much the R80ST couldne't do in a pinch. I know you > > guys are biased, but what do you feel?????????????? > > PS, the reason I am thinking serious dirt bike is I will probably > buy > a BMW Adventurer next year.