What Engine size do you like to ride your D/S ?

[mrtt]

I like it mine just like my beers

 

http://www.topgalleryphoto.com/coors-light-beer-6382-hd-wallpaper-pictures  355cc

http://www.usgoods.eu/en/budweiser-16oz-473ml-aluminum-bottle-24pack  473cc

http://onlinecashandcarry.co.uk/budweiser-beer-can-500ml-case-of-24.html  500cc

http://espanol.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18259240-budweiser-big-710ml-can.php  710cc

 

 

Edited October 31, 2014 by mrtt

[michigan400]

For DS I like mid size thumpers. 350 to 650 cc best. Good size for 50/50 DS. More off road a little smaller more on road a little bigger.

For beer I just drink Miller Lite. LOL!! I like tequila and rum better than beer anyway.

[mrtt]

For DS I like mid size thumpers. 350 to 650 cc best. Good size for 50/50 DS. More off road a little smaller more on road a little bigger.

For beer I just drink Miller Lite. LOL!! I like tequila and rum better than beer anyway.

well, those beer cans are about the same size that I like the D/S bikes come in.

If only the japan bike makers follow those volume size.

The KTM D/S came in very close to the beer sizes of 355, 500 nd 710cc, KTM makes 350, 500 EXC and 690R

[SteveThe Snakes]

I like 800cc as in a F800GS

or 300cc of Tequila and 500cc of mix = 800cc

Edited November 1, 2014 by stevethe

[wvdualsport]

450.

[wallrat]

It really is more of a power/weight ratio than just strictly displacement.  My wife's old DR200 weighed more than my 450 EXC (which technically is a 565 now).  Give me enough power to climb any sand hill on a light enough frame that I don't get a hernia from picking it up after a nap.

[XRandWRRider]

My ideal would be a factory dual-sport legal 600cc e-start, fuel injected 270lb bike with 60+ rwhp for < $7k.  I'll just keep dreaming

[mrtt]

My ideal would be a factory dual-sport legal 600cc e-start, fuel injected 270lb bike with 60+ rwhp for < $7k.  I'll just keep dreaming

you are asking for 4.5 lb/hp machine at $116/hp?

you have to sleep for a long time ?

[DR.billZ]

990...

[vagabondmatt]

Two-fiddy, in my case a WR250R. Cruise along 65mpg no problem, yet taker her off into the tight/technical/etc with great handling and ample power, and can actually pick the thing up by myself no problem when I drop it. Good all around bike for actual dual sporting. If I was just doing more adventure touring stuff, I'd probably would also have a larger bike for longer trips. Oh, and I like my beers dark and stouty.

[mrtt]

Two-fiddy, in my case a WR250R. Cruise along 65mpg no problem, yet taker her off into the tight/technical/etc with great handling and ample power, and can actually pick the thing up by myself no problem when I drop it. Good all around bike for actual dual sporting. If I was just doing more adventure touring stuff, I'd probably would also have a larger bike for longer trips. Oh, and I like my beers dark and stouty.

36.5" seat height rule out a lot of potential riders.

[vagabondmatt]

36.5" seat height rule out a lot of potential riders.

Not a problem. I have mine lowered with the stock setting, plus a Yamalink, so I can now flat foot with both feet, and I have a 30" inseam. Only one inch taller than the CRF230L that I had before this one, and that bike was crazy low. Stock unadjusted full height - Yeah, a bit too tall. But I have it down low and it's perfect.

Edited December 3, 2014 by vagabondmatt

[mrtt]

Not a problem. I have mine lowered with the stock setting, plus a Yamalink, so I can now flat foot with both feet, and I have a 30" inseam. Only one inch taller than the CRF230L that I had before this one, and that bike was crazy low. Stock unadjusted full height - Yeah, a bit too tall. But I have it down low and it's perfect.

the published seat height for 230L is 31.9 inch. Are you saying with yamalink, you lowered the WR250R to 32.9 inch? That's 3.7" inch drop from factory 36.6 inch of WR250R.   Quite a feat

[vagabondmatt]

the published seat height for 230L is 31.9 inch. Are you saying with yamalink, you lowered the WR250R to 32.9 inch? That's 3.7" inch drop from factory 36.6 inch of WR250R.   Quite a feat

That is correct, sir, but my CRF had some big knobbies which raised the height slighlty more than stock. Not just the Yamalink, but lowering the built-in adjustments as well. You can raise and lower the 'sag' on the spring quite a bit, which allows you to sink the bike different amounts when you sit on it, and you can also adjust compression and rebound settings. I had the two side by side before I sold the CRF, and measured the difference, and I got the WRR to be one inch higher than my CRF230, and that's without me sitting on either one. I know there's a lot of debate about whether you should be able to touch the ground or not, i.e. with tall bikes like the WRR, but I personally not only like to touch the ground, but with both feet! I can flat foot my WRR with both feet, which is nice when I come to a stop, or when I get into the gnarly stuff on the trail. The suspension is good in my opinion, i.e. since you can adjust it and lower it like mine, although a lot of WRR folks go on about how the stock suspension sucks. The first WRR that I test road was all the way up to full height, and I fell over seveal times just trying to stop the damn thing, and could barely tippy-toe one foot when I came to a stop!

Edited December 3, 2014 by vagabondmatt

[mrtt]

That is correct, sir, but my CRF had some big knobbies which raised the height slighlty more than stock. Not just the Yamalink, but lowering the built-in adjustments as well. You can raise and lower the 'sag' on the spring quite a bit, which allows you to sink the bike different amounts when you sit on it, and you can also adjust compression and rebound settings. I had the two side by side before I sold the CRF, and measured the difference, and I got the WRR to be one inch higher than my CRF230, and that's without me sitting on either one. I know there's a lot of debate about whether you should be able to touch the ground or not, i.e. with tall bikes like the WRR, but I personally not only like to touch the ground, but with both feet! I can flat foot my WRR with both feet, which is nice when I come to a stop, or when I get into the gnarly stuff on the trail. The suspension is good in my opinion, i.e. since you can adjust it and lower it like mine, although a lot of WRR folks go on about how the stock suspension sucks. The first WRR that I test road was all the way up to full height, and I fell over seveal times just trying to stop the damn thing, and could barely tippy-toe one foot when I came to a stop!

thanks, i'll consider a WR250R.  A modded seat height between 33-34.5" is very do-able for me.

[gemeniguy]

650, but a DR650 being the only DS I've ever been on I have nothing to compare it to. But knowing what the DR650 can do I probably wouldn't be satisfied with a smaller engine. I'm 65 years old on meds so my reflexes are slow. I only do low traffic Adirondack backwoods paved roads and logging roads roughly 50/50. Assuming a bike's weight is generally proportional to engine size, I probably wouldn't want a larger engine. With a wet weight of 360 pounds, the DR650 is close to hitting the upper limit to what I can pick up. I'm 5'10" 180 pounds. But engine size is only one consideration. I have a 30" inseam and I understand there are not a lot of 650's out there where you can easily lower seat height. With factory lowering and the OEM gel seat, seat height is 31.9" where I can  flat foot it. The DR650 probably turned out to be the most ideal bike for my purposes- power, seat height, weight, and 50/50 on and off road with standard factory configuration. No need for me to change tires or other mods for what I do. A DR650 is the perfect bike for an old retired coot like me who lives out in the sticks in the middle of nowhere.  

[just_puttering]

I have a dr350. I would like a 450, possible a ktm. I don't want to go to a 650, as I want to use it primarilly for trails

[wallrat]

My dad had a WR250R and it is a pretty solid bike, albeit underpowered.  Keep in mind though that I'm riding on a bored out KTM 450 EXC (now a 565) so I have more power than I know what to do with.  You can get the WR anywhere with a bit of work but I found its power a bit, well, dull.  Not helping it is that it's mostly top end power so it always felt to me like it wanted to go fast but just couldn't.  I didn't like it much for slower, technical riding which is ironic since most WR owners say they got it for trails.  My dad, who is a much less experienced rider than I am, agreed that he had a hard time with power delivery when going slow through technical areas.  When you could get it into the open it was a fun bike, and admittedly, it was more comfortable on the freeway than my KTM.  I hated it in sand however, where the lack of power and heavy weight made it extremely difficult to keep the front wheel floating.  It just plowed and plowed even with the Trackmaster II rear and Parker DT front - tires I've run on my own bikes with only typical sand misbehavior.  My KTM has a trials tire on the rear and I can keep the front end on top of the sand 100x easier than I could on the WR.  A steering damper is probably a necessity if you ride much sand.  We didn't get one, and my dad had a nasty spill when he hit some deep sand while following me at about 30mph.  11 fractures and a punctured lung.  He sold the bike and stopped riding.

 

We also lowered his via the lowering link, shock adjustment, and a seat concepts low seat but once we added some decent knobs I could touch both feet comfortably, but not flat foot with my 30" inseam.  It's just a hair over 300lbs which is still lighter than the (also underpowered) CRF250L.  I will admit though that the WR doesn't feel like a 300lb bike when your riding it, but boy does it when you have to pick it up!  Again, keep in mind that I'm used to my KTM which is almost 50 lbs less.  I'd challenge anyone considering the WR to check out the KTM 350 EXC.  Unless you're planning on slapping on soft bags and turning it into a cross-country mini adventure bike I think the 350EXC is the better bike.  At 70lbs less weight, it doesn't just feel light.  It is light.  Yes it costs more, but when you look at all the things you'd have to do to the WR (suspension, tires, exhaust, big bore, rotors, brake lines, hydraulic clutch, etc) to get the WR on a level playing field, the cost difference is negligible.  With the 350 you're looking at a skid plate and larger fuel tank as being the only necessary add ons - both of which you'd also need to purchase for the WR.

Edited December 17, 2014 by wallrat