There's Just One Thing Moto Manufacturers Should Do To Get More Riders on Bikes

[Lightcycle]

Forum Sponsor

I have no issue with people preferring certain aesthetics. I do have an issue with the argument that every ADV-styled bike needs to have full-on off-road bonafides. To me it's like arguing that every cruiser-styled bike needs to be a V-twin, that every 911 needs to have a manual transmission, or that every Range Rover needs to be able to handle off road in Africa for their existence in the marketplace to be validated.

But as I mentioned, there are other options on the market if you don't want the tall seat, 21" front, long-travel suspension.

However, if you do like the looks of that tall-seated, 21" fronted, long-traveled suspension, realize that these are there for a purpose, even if you personally are not the target demographic for those purposes.

There are tons of options to personalize that ADV-looking bike for non-ADV purposes. You can get a smaller front wheel, lowering links, lowered seat, scads of wind-blockage winglets, tall windshields, etc. Everything to turn that ADV into a Goldwing.

Like it or not, at the end of the day, you *are* buying an ADVenture travel bike that is marketed and intended to go off-road in far-away places. If you decide *not* to take it off-road, then the onus should be on you to turn it into a street-worthy bike. Not on off-road riders to be forced to start on a street-oriented bike and have to buy aftermarket suspension, rally seat, short windshield to make it off-road worthy. Because, as mentioned before, there are already bikes like that available in the marketplace for the first type of rider.

Just arguing the other side of the coin here. I realize there are more riders on here that think like you than like me...

 

[GreyGhost]

But as I mentioned, there are other options on the market if you don't want the tall seat, 21" front, long-travel suspension.

However, if you do like the looks of that tall-seated, 21" fronted, long-traveled suspension, realize that these are there for a purpose, even if you personally are not the target demographic for those purposes.

There are tons of options to personalize that ADV-looking bike for non-ADV purposes. You can get smaller front wheel, lowering links, lowered seat, scads of wind-blockage winglets, tall windshields, etc. Everything to turn that ADV into a Goldwing.

Like it or not, at the end of the day, you *are* buying an ADVenture travel bike that is marketed and intended to go off-road in far-away places. If you decide *not* to take it off-road, then the onus should be on you to turn it into a street-worthy bike. Not on off-road riders to be forced to start on a street-oriented bike and have to buy aftermarket suspension, rally seat, short windshield to make it off-road worthy.

Just arguing the other side of the coin here. I realize there are more riders on here that think like you than like me...

While I take adv bikes offroad, they are heavy pigs and I appreciate the exploration aspect but don't find them all that fun when off road (especially compared to much much lighter bikes). Where I find they really shine is the crap roads we have. Long travel suspension really helps suck up garbage when leaned over in a corner.

I want my legs underneath me (too many years on bicycles) but the Alligator bike seemed interesting. Super low seat height and you could easily spin up a long-travel variant.

 

[Lightcycle]

While I take adv bikes offroad, they are heavy pigs and I appreciate the exploration aspect but don't find them all that fun when off road (especially compared to much much lighter bikes).

Been arguing that forever. I think the manufacturers are under the gun a bit having to comply with ever-tightening safety and emissions regulations, all which have made retrofitting their existing engines and bikes heavier.

KTM and a host of manufacturers went the easier route and when Euro 5 rules came about, all they did was increase the bore/stroke of their old 790 engine to keep the new 890 the same power/weight ratio, despite the overall wet weight increasing. That was the lazy way of doing it and doesn't benefit the rider at all.

I see Ducati coming out with a brand-new engine that makes the exact same horsepower as the outgoing non-Euro 5+ approved mill. But it's 13 lbs lighter! *THAT'S* the proper the way of doing it. Expensive. But proper.

 

[Baggsy]

I could argue the opposite:
Bikes are made for little people.
I tuck on a small sport bike and my head is two feet in front of the windscreen.
Every stock seat is narrow and uncomfortable in front, so that short legged people can get a foot down. Every stock windshield blows wind into my face or chest.

Triumph has/had something like six or seven versions of the Tiger, meant to accommodate different body types and needs.

At some point, we need to adapt and adjust to a suitable or close to suitable bike.

During Covid I found it difficult to get test rides at dealerships, period, never mind with optional accessories that were back ordered.

 

[Lightcycle]

Bikes are made for little people.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Some are.

Especially the sportbikes you talked about. They're made to be as aerodynamically slippery as possible, and most of the big salaried competition crotch-rocket jockeys are 5'6" and shorter, so they can tuck right in behind a smaller cockpit and windshield.

However, most ADVs and some cruisers are definitely made for 6'+ riders. I absolutely love the V-Rod, but sitting on it, I was keenly aware I'm not the target proportions for that bike. I either needed the seat to be 6" closer to the bars and pegs, or I needed to buy and install Harley'$ extended reach control$$$. I get it. Most HD riders aren't shaped like me.

Everyone's built differently. It would be nice if every motorcycle came in S/M/L/XXXXL flavours, but the way I look at it, you gotta look at the intended purpose for the bike and either work around it or modify it to fit you if you're not in the target demographic or not using the motorcycle as intended.

 

[Gaoler]

There's one thing I don't think will ever happen to increase bike sales...
Cost.
I bet there are a lot if people who might get interested in riding, but once they realize how much a new bike costs.... they decide against it.

 

[Mad Mike]

I think this author is off the mark, I read the article as a bit of a rant and appeal to cater more to special needs riders. I don’t that see how making bikes fit a 26” inseam would be meaningful in Getting More Riders on Bikes

Getting riders more on bikes seems simple to me, offer a <$3000 ( inexpensive) 150cc motorcycle.

I remember Honda trying this with the CB125r a few years ago. If I recall, they sold out their first few allocations. I don’t have data, but based on what I saw, these were purchased mostly by new riders, and a lot of girls (my wife learned on speedier Repsol version).

Every major manufacturer already builds and sells these at these prices almost everywhere but Canada and the USA.

 

[timtune]

KLR has an S model. It's lower than normal.

 

[Ash]

I remember Honda trying this with the CB125r a few years ago. If I recall, they sold out their first few allocations. I don’t have data, but based on what I saw, these were purchased mostly by new riders, and a lot of girls (my wife learned on speedier Repsol version).

As I recall, the CBR125R was initially offered with a full set of cheap Joe Rocket gear. Jacket, gloves, pants and low boots: Canadian Motorcycle Guide Online - Test Ride

 

[timtune]

either work around it or modify it to fit you

That's a nice big eff you to shorter people.

 

[xrljoel]

I have no issue with people preferring certain aesthetics. I do have an issue with the argument that every ADV-styled bike needs to have full-on off-road bonafides. To me it's like arguing that every cruiser-styled bike needs to be a V-twin, that every 911 needs to have a manual transmission, or that every Range Rover needs to be able to handle off road in Africa for their existence in the marketplace to be validated.

There's nothing wrong with someone buying a bike (or an SUV, or a because they like the way it looks - hell, I bet most of us are guilty of it - and I'm more than OK if the market provides us options that don't tick all the purists boxes. More so in an environment when a prominent maker of ADV bikes is struggling . If the market gives us bikes of a certain styling that are only used to go to Starbucks and aren't ideal for the purists' purposes, so be it.

The thing is, would one of the ADV bikes REALLY suffer in off road performance with a couple inches shorter suspension and ground clearance?

I think a lot of the towering seat heights is because of the current styling trends. The back end of the bike is angled up to accentuate the notion that this heavy street bike had off road pretensions.

 

[xrljoel]

While I take adv bikes offroad, they are heavy pigs and I appreciate the exploration aspect but don't find them all that fun when off road (especially compared to much much lighter bikes). Where I find they really shine is the crap roads we have. Long travel suspension really helps suck up garbage when leaned over in a corner.

I want my legs underneath me (too many years on bicycles) but the Alligator bike seemed interesting. Super low seat height and you could easily spin up a long-travel variant.

I remember that thing! It was designed by Dan Gurney and powered by an XR650L single.

It would have been an interesting ride for sure.

 

[xrljoel]

Another win for klr. Just dump it, drag the front wheel around and stand it up again. Done.

I've done that plenty of times in the past, but only grudgingly.

 

[Ash]

I've purchased a spare seat off eBay for every street bike I've ever owned and built custom seats. It would be really nice if more bikes offered adjustable seats as standard, but building my own seat is just something that I roll into the purchase budget now.

Kawasaki is probably taking the right approach by putting a very low seat by default on their smaller models, and offering an accessory tall seat which isn't too expensive: https://www.kawasaki.ca/en-ca/shop/...e/er400dlf/20181/ergo_fit-extended-reach-seat

I'm totally average height, but I've raised the seats on all my bikes by at least an inch. On the Ninja 300 track bike I discarded the seat entirely and bolted on some plywood and foam to raise it probably three inches over stock.

 

[timtune]

I've done that plenty of times in the past, but only grudgingly.

Same here only willingly.

 

[ReSTored]

The PO of my Tracer GT put Yamaha lowering links on the bike. It's about an inch lower, but I still find the seat high. Cost for the parts was about $100, pretty cheap IMO.

Most often I goosestep onto the bike. I can also step onto the left peg and then swing right leg over if no dry bag on the seat.

Overall, I'd prefer a lower seat, but pretty limited options in the sport touring range of bikes available..

 

[xrljoel]

Same here only willingly.

LOL. It was usually when scouting trails and normally we'd be at least 40 minutes into something really good only to come upon an insurmountable obstacle. Often after crossing (mostly stinky) water that came up to the bottom of the tank.

Good times....for the most part.

 

[Gaoler]

Another win for klr. Just dump it, drag the front wheel around and stand it up again. Done.

Well... 'Same could e said for lots of bikes.

 

[NuggyBuggy]

Well... 'Same could e said for lots of bikes.

That's a guy who had to go bad.

 

[NuggyBuggy]

But as I mentioned, there are other options on the market if you don't want the tall seat, 21" front, long-travel suspension.

However, if you do like the looks of that tall-seated, 21" fronted, long-traveled suspension, realize that these are there for a purpose, even if you personally are not the target demographic for those purposes.

I have no argument with either paragraph. I went into my own Multistrada purchase with eyes wide open.

The flip side of your coin is, if you don't like (say) the bike with ADV styling and 19" wheels and lower travel suspension, realize that you may not be the target demographic. And that target demographic's existence is just as valid as any other. Especially when there are tall, 21", long travel suspension options available. Because options outside the purpose-built ideals are created explicitly to target identified demographics - not to satisfy said ideals.

To argue from the extreme: Fashion designers design clothes to look good on models for women who are probably 6' tall, size 0 or 1, and for men somewhere between 6' and 6'5" - with an average 32" waist.

Imagine if those clothes were only available for people that they were - literally - designed for: how would people of different dimensions feel, and perhaps more importantly, how much money would makers of these clothes stand to leave on the table?

Would we be arguing that the wearers need to adopt to the clothes? Would we be faulting designers for making concessions to make those clothes more accessible to people of more common dimensions?

Or would we all be happily dressing ourselves at the big and large store or the short person store?

Forum Sponsor