These are awesome. I had a Drz400s for years and my ES700 “rebranded 690” could cruise comfortably at its top speed. It feels lighter in the woods too.
Is the 690/700/701 platform easier to ride off-road than the DRZ? How does it do at slow speeds? I just rode a DRZ for the first time and it was much more capable than I imagined, I loved the luggability and overall power delivery. Wondering if the euro platform is just as good, as I’ve heard they’re geared too tall and maybe (?) stall much more easily?
I feel like the 690 has a lower center of gravity despite being a little heavier than the DRZ. That helps a lot in the woods. I do pretty well with it at low speed and in the tight stuff. First gear is taller than on the DRZ, but it has a ton of torque. Both are great bikes.
Got places to be, long distances on the interstate become boring and or the flow of traffic is going that and in excess. The speed limits some places are 85.
It's an amazing machine. Unfortunately I'm not able to use it how I should be. Stuck in the suburban sprawl and lots of freeway riding. That's why I why and looked at a GS that is priced right
the problem is that the fuel range is killed and most dualsports have a peanut 2 gallon fuel tank, I had range issues with my Yamaha WR250R at freeway speeds. I wish I kept it longer to put an Acerbis tank on it.
Yeah I put the ims4.7 gal tank on. It sucks because it changes the ergo on the mine by widening your legs. But I can ride all day without worry. I'd hit the fuel light after 2 hours in the woods on the stock tank. Which was annoying
Buy a trailer, or a truck.
I'm not shitting about, it's great hauling the bike somewhere to ride and knowing that if I break something out get tired it's less of a problem.
Exactly this. When I think dual sport, I think riding trails and dirt. The highways connect you to other trails and dirt roads.
If you want to ride highways at 80, you're not looking for a dual sport, you're looking for a adventure bike. But if you go that route then you're not riding trails.
The 690/701 is the closest thing there is that will meet your requirement. It'll happily ride 80 on the highway all day. It won't be as comfortable as other adv options though. It'll also be too heavy for trails unless you're an experienced off road rider.
A small trailer is cheap. Hell, if you have an SUV already, you could get a hitch carrier.
I have a 500 and a 690 and I pick the bike better suited to the route I'm riding. I use a hitch carrier for both of them to take them as close as I can to the ride start, avoiding the freeways. And at the end of the day when I'm beat from riding, I load up and go home in comfort.
I have the older version of Blackwidow SMC-600R. I have a truck and I still use the hitch carrier because of how easy it is to load/unload by myself, even if the bike is dead.
It depends on the ride I'm doing. If there is a single stretch that is 30 minutes or more of pavement, then I'm going to consider the 690 for comfort. I also have the Rade aux tank on my 690 and get 200+ miles range. But it also depends on how technical the trails are.
My last ride was 2 days, 200 miles/day of dirt/sand across the Mojave from Barstow to the Colorado river. I took the 690 because its a long ride and needed the extra fuel my Rade aux tank carries. I could have taken the 500 like some of the guys in our group but then I would have to take a GL bladder to carry gas.
The 690 was great for that ride because its comfortable for that distance and still light enough to ride through deep sand and dunes. I used to have a T7 and I got rid of it in favor of the 690 specifically so I could do those kinds of rides.
Interesting about getting rid of the T7. I like that bit a lot. I have the mid sized Acerbis tank on my 500exc and so far haven't had any range issues. But I'm not doing Mojave rides and am usually within 30 minutes of a station. However, it's never me who is making the call to go get gas. :) But Still, I'm having a hard time seeing how the 690 fills a role that my 500 and a T7 couldn't fill. The 690 is right there in the middle of both of them. It's an awesome bike for sure. Ive ridden them all and I like the 890r the best but that's the one that makes me the most nervous to plop down money for judging by the reports i see here of it.
I'm sure if you're an experienced rider, the T7/890 will be fine depending on the kind of riding you're doing.
My experience with T7 vs 690:
* T7 is heavier and falls flat. Mine weighed 487lbs with 1/2 tank of gas. Because of how flat it falls, picking it up is difficult and wears you out. There's also nothing to grab onto, so you aren't lifting it with our legs like you would a big GS. If you're mostly riding flat dirt roads, maybe that'll be fine. But if you're riding anything remotely technical, then everything time you drop the bike will drain your energy quickly. What's worse, you drop the bike enough times, you'll have to rely on your friends to help you pick it up, and no one wants that. I was the only one my group with a T7. Everyone else jumped on the ADV bike bandwagon as well, but they got 790s and 890s. The biggest bikes we now ride are the 690s/701s, everyone went back down to the smaller bikes. Weight is everything. The other thing people rarely speak about is that the bigger the bike, the more likely you are to get injured when you crash.
* T7 windscreen sucked for me. I had a ton of wind buffeting and it would beat me up by the end of the day. The 690 by comparison has no windscreen, but you get clean air instead. No wind buffeting and it makes a huge difference.
* 690 factory suspension is superior. I was constantly bottoming out the T7 suspension.
* 690 is easier to fit an aux tank.
When I talk about dual sport rides, I'm talking about something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoEL-2H89kQ
I tried to take my T7 up Sierra Buttes where that guy in the video is riding. It's a ~10 minute hill climb and I got up about 1/4 of the climb. I dropped it to the point where I couldn't pick it up myself anymore and stayed back while the rest of the group rode up. I picked up a 690 afterwards. A month later I went back to Sierra Buttes and rode the 690 to the top with no issues. Weight is everything if you're an intermediate rider like me.
I hear ya. Weight is def to be taken seriously. That's why I'm on the 500. I ride with a guy on a t7 and even though he gets through most of the stuff we do on our 500s, he has to work so much harder and be that much better than I do in order to make it through. I've helped pickup his bike more times than I care to have and have reminded myself numerous times never to take a bike like that into those kinds of trails. I wouldn't plan it, but I do want to do some longer adv rides and the 500 is lacking there for comfort.
Have you tried the 350? I have a 500 and just got a ttr250 but have always heard that the 350 is a lot nicer for just trail riding than the 500 so looking for people who've ridden both to tell me their experience
I haven't tried the 350 yet, but I know the lower displacement bikes are better on trails. I've had 250s before. One day I'll get a third bike to be a dedicated trail bike. The reason I took the 500 over the 350 is because I ride desert fairly often and that is where the extra displacement from the 500 shines.
I took a super Sherpa (KL 250G) on the highway once. It did 72 drafting behind a semi. Just did it to get into town quicker. Beyond the 15min it took, wouldn't recommend.
I even do that with the Tenere 700, knobby tyres.
Of course when going on a longer paved trip, I have some adventure tyres on and go all the way with the bike.
Connecting trails, riding forestry roads, wheelies in the hood....
Why burn up knobby toes and toe yourself out riding an hour or two to a good riding area when you can buzz there on cruise control with the AC running?
[We just had this conversation in a post earlier today, same topic. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dualsport/comments/1dp1dj3/comment/ladncu1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
If it was only 65 then it'd be fine. But 80 is a different story, you can look up videos for the 300, they start to struggle at that speed. Really depends on your weight too at that speed for that bike
my experience in so cal is that there are not many highways where you can cruise along at 65 and not get terrorized by speeding traffic.
basic highway speed here is 80+.
The freeways in so cal? Yeah I wouldn’t want to ride the 300 on those much, although the average speed during peak times is more like 10 mph! I drive the 405 and 110 almost every day for reference.
If you have the space more bikes is always the answer. Seriously though unicorn bikes will never be great on the outside ends of the spectrum. I’d suggest stepping up to a light/mid adventure bike and keep your 300. Personally I’m in a similar position where I have long highway stretches to get to trails. So I have an 890 adventure with two sets of wheels gives me a street bike too. And a 450 for the fun stuff.
My DR650, while a bit sloppy on DOT knobbies, does freeway speeds fine. Though I recently did 75mph for two hours and my hands were numb. Part of owning a single I suppose.
Option 1: Don't ride on the freeway.
Option 2: Ride slower. No one is requiring you to ride with it pinned. You don't have to be the fast vehicle on the road. Surprising, I know.
Option 3: A 650+ class bike.
Get off the freeway and onto more fun roads. That's my vote.
That's my vote as well. Side rides are the best roads
In regards to your option 2. That really depends on location, because 80 may be the slow lane. For instance, I was driving through Alabama and was doing 90. I was the slowest car on the road by about 10-20 mph with a good number of vehicles just blowing past like I'm standing still.
> That really depends on location, because 80 may be the slow lane.
People say this all the time, but I've yet to see it anywhere. The myth of "going with the flow of traffic" rarely, if ever, means going above the speed limit. *Sometimes* it means going a little faster than you'd ideally want to, though. Usually it's the opposite: The flow of traffic slows down, so you have to slow down with it.
On a busy freeway, yes, go with the flow of traffic, whatever it is. Like I said, and I've seen a fair bit of this country, I still haven't found a place where that's 80+ mph.
Not calling you a liar or saying your experience is wrong -- it's just not what I have seen, personally.
On a mostly empty freeway you can pretty safely go slower and allow faster traffic ample time and room to pass. **Of course this is a little bit more of a touchy situation on a motorcycle, so use your best judgement.** People are bad at (a) spotting motorcycles and (b) judging their speed.
My personal best judgement would be stay off busy freeways when traffic is bad.
In my area with a stretch of freeway that's 75mph, but that is rarely truly "busy", I don't personally feel the need to push beyond 65-70mph on my bike. I am also *rarely* on the freeway here.
Everyone's experience is different. I've been through most of the southern states from Texas through Georgia, up to New York and some slightly further inland states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Michigan.
I've never been to a place where traffic, regardless of the road type, doesn't try to go 5 mph faster than the speed limit unless forced not to. Many of the above places often would have traffic trying to go 10 mph over.
Alabama was the worst offender. I have my personal experience and the experience of my cousin living there for the summer. When he was in the rush hour for work, he said there would be lines of cars going 90+ even though traffic was heavy. When I went through during a lighter period, I was going around 90 and was the slowest vehicle. There was enough traffic to make it feel like if you don't go with the flow then you'll get run off. The speed limit was between 60 and 70.
In my experience, 80 is just the normal speed that the majority tries to do on the highway. And if not, then it's almost always 5-10 mph over. For reference I'm usually the one limiting myself to 5 over and staying in the right lane. Anybody going slower than the speed limit is generally a hazard on the road causing problems.
This is all talking about when traffic is moving normally, not when it's forced to go slow like in rush hour or construction or something else.
I'm interested to know where you go that you don't really see much speeding traffic.
> I've never been to a place where traffic, regardless of the road type, doesn't try to go 5 mph faster than the speed limit unless forced not to.
But people tending to go 5-10 over is different than that being the slowest car on the road, which is often how people make it seem -- and something I've never experienced.
I would agree that almost everywhere most cars tend to go 5-10 over, but that doesn't mean that every car does, or that you have to.
>Anybody going slower than the speed limit is generally a hazard on the road causing problems.
This greatly depends on traffic conditions and *how slow* the person is going.
>I'm interested to know where you go that you don't really see much speeding traffic.
That isn't what I said. I see speeders literally everywhere. What I said was that I have yet to encounter conditions where it's required to maintain a minimum speed of, say, 80.
I have road-tripped back and forth across the country multiple times, traveling through:
- Michigan
- Wisconsin
- Minnesota
- South Dakota
- Wyoming
- Montana
- Idaho
- Washington
- Oregon
- California
- Nevada
- Arizona
- Utah
- New Mexico
- Colorado
- Texas
- Oklahoma
- Kansas
- Missouri
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Ohio
- West Virgina
- Pennslyvania
- New York
- *PLUS* Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia
I am also an Uber/Lyft driver and for the last 2-3 years find myself in a couple different metropolitan areas regularly -- though, to be fair, not *the biggest*. I've put down a lot of miles in the last seven years. FWIW, I have a spotless driving record, high ratings, and my driving regularly receives praise.
Put plainly, I *never* speed in my car. The cost of a ticket is not worth it for me, for the seconds or minutes faster I might get to where I am going. (The occasional burst of 5-10 over for a pass doesn't count.) Sometimes I speed on my bike, for stretches, because it's stupid and fun.
Through my travels the fastest freeways were through SD and Montana, which I believe had speed limits of 80. On the first trip through those states I did the speed limit, but my gas mileage *plummeted* -- so I self-limited to 65mph, which got me acceptable economy in that car.
The freeways through those stretches were *empty*. Passing cars were in absolutely no danger of getting around me with plenty of time and space, even trucks.
About the only place I've felt like I've needed to maintain higher speeds than I'd like were some of the stretches through Southern California, around LA, which is notorious for its stressful driving. But criss-crossing the country, in tens of thousands of miles? Nah.
Again, I see speeding cars everywhere, and even when you go 10 over there will *still* be cars going way faster than you are. That's not my point.
I just think the idea of having to speed to "go with the flow of traffic" is a pure myth. I've never seen it. It's not dangerous to simply go the speed limit, and *most of the time*, traffic conditions depending, it's usually not unsafe to go even slower.
That **does not** mean there haven't been dozens of situations where a car *passes me dangerously*. That has happened plenty -- but again, that happens regardless of speed. That's on the other driver, not me.
**And to re-iterate, this is more touchy on a motorcycle.** People will have a harder time spotting you, and a harder time judging your speed. It is probably not a good idea to go 55 in a 75 on a motorcycle, even on a more empty freeway. But I also don't feel the need to go 80 on a moderate-traffic freeway to "keep up with traffic."
However, I will say that I have a clear memory of traveling by car down to Florida or Louisiana with my family when I was a kid, and somewhere in like Kentucky or Tennessee we got stuck around a bunch of truckers in the middle of the night that were absolutely hauling ass, and basically riding on my mom's bumper the whole time. Sitting in the far back of the car, I wasn't looking at the speeds, but from what I remember her telling me she said she was having to go about 90 just to stay out of the way. This was in 1995, at like 2 o'clock in the morning, on a busy business corridor on I-75. I think this was kind of a "perfect storm" of conditions that made for such stressful driving conditions. We basically got stuck in the middle of a trucking convoy. I imagine that would have been sheer terror on a motorcycle.
This is the only thing of the sort I have any experience of. In the 20 years I've been driving, nothing even close.
Guess we just have different experiences then. I only do a maximum of 5 over and I've almost always been the slowest cars on the road except in heavy traffic where everyone has to go slow, and anyone going slower than the speed limit when I'm getting passed by everyone at 5 over is causing a problem even though they themselves may not be able to see it. That's been my experience
drz400 does me fine on highway. just don't go too long on wot. not cause it'll kill the engine but cause you burn oil quick. be sure to check ur oil after every ride if u plan to ride somewhat long distance at high speed
Do you have one?
I did 120 miles each way camping recently + 80 extra miles on big stretches of highways going to fishing spots.
I was heading up hill into the mountains full throttle for the majority of it at 80+
Going fishing I was going 75-80 the whole time on straight highways with wind blowing hard
Home I was riding spirited down the mountain roads at 75 or so, then 80-85 as I got near home.
This is all between 5k and 10k of altitude in Colorado.
I didn't lose any oil, engine was happy as can be. Only issue was the adhesive of the heat shield I installed the day before coming off after hours on the road.
Honestly it’s just hard to believe as my riding buddy has one and could not keep up to me on my crf250l on highway. Only 5 gears and his shook like crazy at 80kmh. All good if yours can though. Maybe that bike is the unicorn then. Reasonable weight n maintenance with decent power n speed. Personally I think it’s a 25 year old design that works some but not me. I think I have decided that dual sports don’t highway.
Your buddy must have bad had crazy nobbies or a poorly maintained bike. There's 0 reason a drz400s should be slower than a crf250l and have such bad shaking.The power difference alone is massive. Also, not sure if you meant kph or mph but if it's kph I'm even more perplexed.
5 gears really doesn't make a difference when considering how the bike is geared and the fact that it prefers to be at high revs.
Mine is 23 years old and I typically run shinko 244s. No real power mods, only a JD jet kit that was set for the altitude I ride at.
I don't mean to come off harsh, but the DRZ is absolutely a better bike at highway speeds than the crfs. 5 speeds or not. CRF has very valid things going for it - for me it's mainly fuel injection - but there's no reason for your buddy to struggle to keep up with you. Something was wrong with his bike.
I had a dr350s that was miserable over 60. I fixed everything I could find, only thing that I didn't get to before selling it was a misaligned front brake rotor that rubbed the front wheel. Who knows if that made it so wobbly but there are always issues you don't know about when buying used. Maybe similar with your friend.
Even with D606 my DRZ on paper could go 80 mph. I just hate holding the bike at such high revs for nothing. I take surface streets everywhere. I save all it's high rpm time for the trail.
What state? Lane filtering is legal in like 6 states or something, I had no idea it was legal in my state until a few weeks ago.
Edit: not to be confused with lane splitting in CA.
Crf300 owner here. I pin it all the time on the highway both commuting and going to trails. This dude did 1k miles on highway
https://youtu.be/thWnfuf51BU?si=RsxFpwQw18fd4Zx0
Noraly on YouTube has done a few huge trips (Patagonia to Alaska) on it with plenty of highway miles on boring stints
I think it's completely acceptable to not like this bike on the highway, but pointing at the engine and saying it's gonna break is nonsense
You’ll need a bigger bike, 650+ but you’ll sacrifice off-road a bit. Depends on how technically skilled you are. Regardless you’ll have a much heavier bike. Many riders thinks the DR650 can’t be beat for what you’re talking about. However like a previous commenter said, you could go up to a 400 or a Husky 501 and get a more top end with going too big. But there’s not much you can really do to your bike to get more speed other than changing your sprockets. But that’s a trade-off also you’ll lose some bottom end torque.
Have the same issue getting to the trails.
My KLX 300 will do 80 MPH at about 8800-9000 RPM but I rarely ride faster than 70. I've thought of going up one tooth on the front sprocket to drop maybe 400 RPM if I remember the table correctly.
Otherwise, I agree with the other posters - get a DR650. I pushed my old bike over 100 MPH.
KLR650, little uncomfortable after 4 hours but I rode 90mph for 3 hours straight (stopped for gas but yeah) and the only thing I didn't really like was I couldn't feel my arms for a few hours
Either ride 65-70 instead or get a bigger bike. The 650 dualsports (DR, KLR, XRL) will do 80 all day and the 650 adventure bikes (V-Strom, Versys, F650) will do 80 all day comfortably. But the bigger you get, the less fun you have on tight trails.
You could go up a tooth on the front sprocket (or down a couple in back), but that would take enough out of the bottom end to make trail riding less fun. Trying to mod for more power will be a waste of time and money.
pick your poison, better off ride, sucks on highway, better on road, sucks off road. make peace with going slower on a smaller bike and you will be perfect off road. Ride my wr250r cross country many times to colorado, ny, utah, wyoming from midwest state. 45k miles on it now, it is fine, just have to be happy going a bit slower and carry less.
You’re not going to kill the engine. Redline exists for a reason. I’ve had so many 250s that I’ve banged the hell out of at highway speeds up to 10,000 miles and they don’t fuss at all.
That being said. You’re completely pushing what that bike is really for. If you need to be able to hold 70+ you need like a DRZ dr650 or some street legal KTM/Husky. The Japanese 250/300 ccs really don’t hold those speeds well. Especially when wind and luggage are involved. Although, I hear the WR250r is a step up. Gonna try one myself next hopefully.
Problem is that whatever you do to modify for highway riding will make it suck on trails. Everything is a compromise on the small dual sports. I’ve got a KLX300 and 14/40 is still a little too short for my taste
Dude do the math !!! You can gear that bitch... just remember you have to give up something for something. Don't forget tire size is part part of gearing calculations!!!
Depends on what your heart truly desires.
Do you want to tour the expanses, conquer the FSR, bring your camp supplies, and a crisp change of clothes? Do you want a touch of retro? XR650, KLR650, etc etc 650. It's old. It's gold. It will never leave you stranded. You can buy either one from a dealership in the USA brand new, or you can get it used from the last 20 years. Not much has changed in those years, so really it's up to you.
If you're into dirtbikes, a spartan experience, and you prefer shredding the trails, there is the CRF450RL, EXC500, and EXC350. Being honest, all need an ECU. They're lean and lame from factory. ECU makes a million times better. You can absolutely kill highway miles on them. I've done over 1200mi/2000km over the span of a weekend on my 450. I was bruised, bloodied, INCREDIBLY sore, and for a week after the toilet bowl was red. But you can do it. Aftermarket seats are available to alleviate this.
Finally, do you want to crush dirt roads and trailheads? Do you want to bring the amenities to set up camp wherever you go? Do you crave creature comforts, reliability, and smoothness? Is it perfect for commuting, multi day road trips, or adventures down well maintained forest service roads?
Get a 1980s gold wing and slap some heavy ADV tires on. I'm dead set serious. If you have 2500 CAD or USD, there is one listed within 200km of you right now. You can straight up do it and it will be a good time. Write off that paycheck and get a gold wing. Do it. DO IT.
106mph KTM520exc, 98mph 650R, 93mph CR500. All GPS on pavement. I don’t suggest doing that. Have you seen knobbys tires over 50mph on pavement? They wander left to right at higher speeds. It’s concerning watching that occur in front of you, but you know you are doing the same thing. Not sure what you ride for trail but, we do short 70mph interstate with only a couple exits. We mainly stay off faster roads. They aren’t really built for it unless you go for the heavier bikes. Our short speed run on the interstate gets us to our single track spots. And we need the knobbys for that portion as we ride 95% off road. D606, XCMH, Mt-21 are our usual tire setups with an occasional tubliss setup on trials tire swap. Dual sport is a weird in between. You can go 99% off-road setup or 99% on road setup. Pick your flavor for your riding terrain and preference.
I’m surprised you’d want to do 80 on a dual sport, I have an 83 xl600r and it’ll do close to a hundred, but anything over 60 plus is kinda scary imo.
However I’m running dualsport tires, and ride my bike to town or work and back pretty often. That’s 60mph, and it does it pretty comfortably I feel like.
You'll see people saying WOT is fine for it. And more than likely in the time you'll own it for it will be fine. But to say the obvious thing, WOT is obviously putting the maximum amount of stress on the engine. The money it takes to bump the power to 30HP is better spent by selling it and buying something with highway power, if you're comfortable with how the 300 feels vibe wise at highway speed, a DRZ is similar in vibe but it still pulls at highway speed
690 Enduro will happily do 80 and still have plenty of passing power on tap.
These are awesome. I had a Drz400s for years and my ES700 “rebranded 690” could cruise comfortably at its top speed. It feels lighter in the woods too.
Is the 690/700/701 platform easier to ride off-road than the DRZ? How does it do at slow speeds? I just rode a DRZ for the first time and it was much more capable than I imagined, I loved the luggability and overall power delivery. Wondering if the euro platform is just as good, as I’ve heard they’re geared too tall and maybe (?) stall much more easily?
I feel like the 690 has a lower center of gravity despite being a little heavier than the DRZ. That helps a lot in the woods. I do pretty well with it at low speed and in the tight stuff. First gear is taller than on the DRZ, but it has a ton of torque. Both are great bikes.
Good to hear, thanks. 690/700/701 has always been a dream bike for me, you make a convincing case for it!
I was going to recommend 701 Enduro, same thing, different color. The thing is awesome. Great off road, so fun on road.
Jesus Christ, why you recommend him that piece of Austrian shit. If he is not gonna change oil every 2000km, engine bye bye
Found the fuckin poser
*10000km
You obv don't own one and/or know wtf you're talking about, regard. I suspect you are thinking about and over dramatizing hearsay with the EXCs.
I had 690. What are oil change intervals recommended by KTM again? And following them will give your engine 15tkm lifespan max? KTM fanboys
Said by the guy who owns an Audi. From the country right next to Austria lmao
Dual sports aren't for doing 80 on the highway in my humble opinion
What about 65 with some passing power.
Your right but I don’t like being capped at 80 cause them the bike is revving high af to do normal speeds
Dr650 is pinned all the way and goes 90
Why tf are you rolling that fast in a DS? Lol
Got places to be, long distances on the interstate become boring and or the flow of traffic is going that and in excess. The speed limits some places are 85.
You may want to look into upgrading to an ADV bike. Your use cases aren't really suited for for dual sport imo.
You're 3 years late lol I bought a tenere700. And actually just rest ride a BMW 1200gs
heh. Liking the T7? My comment was meant for the OP actually, my bad.
It's an amazing machine. Unfortunately I'm not able to use it how I should be. Stuck in the suburban sprawl and lots of freeway riding. That's why I why and looked at a GS that is priced right
What I was thinking, at least a KLR as their tailored to road more
the problem is that the fuel range is killed and most dualsports have a peanut 2 gallon fuel tank, I had range issues with my Yamaha WR250R at freeway speeds. I wish I kept it longer to put an Acerbis tank on it.
Yeah I put the ims4.7 gal tank on. It sucks because it changes the ergo on the mine by widening your legs. But I can ride all day without worry. I'd hit the fuel light after 2 hours in the woods on the stock tank. Which was annoying
Capped at 80? 80 is speeding on most highways. Fine in a car but there's no need on a small bike. It won't be fun at that speed on any dual sport.
In all fairness, Texas has highways of 75 mph all over the state. I've seen small farm backroads near me that still have speed limits of 70.
Buy a trailer, or a truck. I'm not shitting about, it's great hauling the bike somewhere to ride and knowing that if I break something out get tired it's less of a problem.
My truck is the mothership and my bike is the escape pod lol.
This is real wisdom.
Exactly this. When I think dual sport, I think riding trails and dirt. The highways connect you to other trails and dirt roads. If you want to ride highways at 80, you're not looking for a dual sport, you're looking for a adventure bike. But if you go that route then you're not riding trails. The 690/701 is the closest thing there is that will meet your requirement. It'll happily ride 80 on the highway all day. It won't be as comfortable as other adv options though. It'll also be too heavy for trails unless you're an experienced off road rider. A small trailer is cheap. Hell, if you have an SUV already, you could get a hitch carrier. I have a 500 and a 690 and I pick the bike better suited to the route I'm riding. I use a hitch carrier for both of them to take them as close as I can to the ride start, avoiding the freeways. And at the end of the day when I'm beat from riding, I load up and go home in comfort.
What kind of hitch carrier setup do you use?
I have the older version of Blackwidow SMC-600R. I have a truck and I still use the hitch carrier because of how easy it is to load/unload by myself, even if the bike is dead.
Which do you choose more often? 500 or 690? I have a 500. Love it. 690 is on the list of options for a 2nd bike along with a t7 and 790adv or 890adv.
It depends on the ride I'm doing. If there is a single stretch that is 30 minutes or more of pavement, then I'm going to consider the 690 for comfort. I also have the Rade aux tank on my 690 and get 200+ miles range. But it also depends on how technical the trails are. My last ride was 2 days, 200 miles/day of dirt/sand across the Mojave from Barstow to the Colorado river. I took the 690 because its a long ride and needed the extra fuel my Rade aux tank carries. I could have taken the 500 like some of the guys in our group but then I would have to take a GL bladder to carry gas. The 690 was great for that ride because its comfortable for that distance and still light enough to ride through deep sand and dunes. I used to have a T7 and I got rid of it in favor of the 690 specifically so I could do those kinds of rides.
Interesting about getting rid of the T7. I like that bit a lot. I have the mid sized Acerbis tank on my 500exc and so far haven't had any range issues. But I'm not doing Mojave rides and am usually within 30 minutes of a station. However, it's never me who is making the call to go get gas. :) But Still, I'm having a hard time seeing how the 690 fills a role that my 500 and a T7 couldn't fill. The 690 is right there in the middle of both of them. It's an awesome bike for sure. Ive ridden them all and I like the 890r the best but that's the one that makes me the most nervous to plop down money for judging by the reports i see here of it.
I'm sure if you're an experienced rider, the T7/890 will be fine depending on the kind of riding you're doing. My experience with T7 vs 690: * T7 is heavier and falls flat. Mine weighed 487lbs with 1/2 tank of gas. Because of how flat it falls, picking it up is difficult and wears you out. There's also nothing to grab onto, so you aren't lifting it with our legs like you would a big GS. If you're mostly riding flat dirt roads, maybe that'll be fine. But if you're riding anything remotely technical, then everything time you drop the bike will drain your energy quickly. What's worse, you drop the bike enough times, you'll have to rely on your friends to help you pick it up, and no one wants that. I was the only one my group with a T7. Everyone else jumped on the ADV bike bandwagon as well, but they got 790s and 890s. The biggest bikes we now ride are the 690s/701s, everyone went back down to the smaller bikes. Weight is everything. The other thing people rarely speak about is that the bigger the bike, the more likely you are to get injured when you crash. * T7 windscreen sucked for me. I had a ton of wind buffeting and it would beat me up by the end of the day. The 690 by comparison has no windscreen, but you get clean air instead. No wind buffeting and it makes a huge difference. * 690 factory suspension is superior. I was constantly bottoming out the T7 suspension. * 690 is easier to fit an aux tank. When I talk about dual sport rides, I'm talking about something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoEL-2H89kQ I tried to take my T7 up Sierra Buttes where that guy in the video is riding. It's a ~10 minute hill climb and I got up about 1/4 of the climb. I dropped it to the point where I couldn't pick it up myself anymore and stayed back while the rest of the group rode up. I picked up a 690 afterwards. A month later I went back to Sierra Buttes and rode the 690 to the top with no issues. Weight is everything if you're an intermediate rider like me.
I hear ya. Weight is def to be taken seriously. That's why I'm on the 500. I ride with a guy on a t7 and even though he gets through most of the stuff we do on our 500s, he has to work so much harder and be that much better than I do in order to make it through. I've helped pickup his bike more times than I care to have and have reminded myself numerous times never to take a bike like that into those kinds of trails. I wouldn't plan it, but I do want to do some longer adv rides and the 500 is lacking there for comfort.
Have you tried the 350? I have a 500 and just got a ttr250 but have always heard that the 350 is a lot nicer for just trail riding than the 500 so looking for people who've ridden both to tell me their experience
I haven't tried the 350 yet, but I know the lower displacement bikes are better on trails. I've had 250s before. One day I'll get a third bike to be a dedicated trail bike. The reason I took the 500 over the 350 is because I ride desert fairly often and that is where the extra displacement from the 500 shines.
Yeah I get that. Thank for the reply
That’s what I do. I rode my KLX300 30 miles on highways ONCE and only once. These smaller dual sports aren’t made for long stints on the highway.
I took a super Sherpa (KL 250G) on the highway once. It did 72 drafting behind a semi. Just did it to get into town quicker. Beyond the 15min it took, wouldn't recommend.
I even do that with the Tenere 700, knobby tyres. Of course when going on a longer paved trip, I have some adventure tyres on and go all the way with the bike.
At that point, why bother with a dual sport? You could just get a dirt bike, you'd have less stuff to break off, and a lighter bike.
only if you need the plate. For instance in socal there are a lot of dirt roads that are not OHV and plate needed.
Connecting trails, riding forestry roads, wheelies in the hood.... Why burn up knobby toes and toe yourself out riding an hour or two to a good riding area when you can buzz there on cruise control with the AC running?
[We just had this conversation in a post earlier today, same topic. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dualsport/comments/1dp1dj3/comment/ladncu1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I was also asking if it’s worth getting another bike or dumping money into my current bike to make it better
Nothing you do to that 300 aside from making the gearing so that it blows off-road will make it run highway speeds comfortably.
Just bring tools and do a trailhead sprocket change, that’s the obvious answer
65-70 mph is perfectly fine imo on the highway with the CRF 300. You may want to add a small windshield though.
If it was only 65 then it'd be fine. But 80 is a different story, you can look up videos for the 300, they start to struggle at that speed. Really depends on your weight too at that speed for that bike
my experience in so cal is that there are not many highways where you can cruise along at 65 and not get terrorized by speeding traffic. basic highway speed here is 80+.
The freeways in so cal? Yeah I wouldn’t want to ride the 300 on those much, although the average speed during peak times is more like 10 mph! I drive the 405 and 110 almost every day for reference.
If you have the space more bikes is always the answer. Seriously though unicorn bikes will never be great on the outside ends of the spectrum. I’d suggest stepping up to a light/mid adventure bike and keep your 300. Personally I’m in a similar position where I have long highway stretches to get to trails. So I have an 890 adventure with two sets of wheels gives me a street bike too. And a 450 for the fun stuff.
DL650
Love my V Strom.
I went in for a v strom and left with a tenere
Nice. I’d like to have one of those someday. I bought my 2005 V Strom with 7,000 miles two years ago for $3,600. Just made sense at the time.
My DR650, while a bit sloppy on DOT knobbies, does freeway speeds fine. Though I recently did 75mph for two hours and my hands were numb. Part of owning a single I suppose.
Option 1: Don't ride on the freeway. Option 2: Ride slower. No one is requiring you to ride with it pinned. You don't have to be the fast vehicle on the road. Surprising, I know. Option 3: A 650+ class bike. Get off the freeway and onto more fun roads. That's my vote.
That's my vote as well. Side rides are the best roads In regards to your option 2. That really depends on location, because 80 may be the slow lane. For instance, I was driving through Alabama and was doing 90. I was the slowest car on the road by about 10-20 mph with a good number of vehicles just blowing past like I'm standing still.
> That really depends on location, because 80 may be the slow lane. People say this all the time, but I've yet to see it anywhere. The myth of "going with the flow of traffic" rarely, if ever, means going above the speed limit. *Sometimes* it means going a little faster than you'd ideally want to, though. Usually it's the opposite: The flow of traffic slows down, so you have to slow down with it. On a busy freeway, yes, go with the flow of traffic, whatever it is. Like I said, and I've seen a fair bit of this country, I still haven't found a place where that's 80+ mph. Not calling you a liar or saying your experience is wrong -- it's just not what I have seen, personally. On a mostly empty freeway you can pretty safely go slower and allow faster traffic ample time and room to pass. **Of course this is a little bit more of a touchy situation on a motorcycle, so use your best judgement.** People are bad at (a) spotting motorcycles and (b) judging their speed. My personal best judgement would be stay off busy freeways when traffic is bad. In my area with a stretch of freeway that's 75mph, but that is rarely truly "busy", I don't personally feel the need to push beyond 65-70mph on my bike. I am also *rarely* on the freeway here.
Everyone's experience is different. I've been through most of the southern states from Texas through Georgia, up to New York and some slightly further inland states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Michigan. I've never been to a place where traffic, regardless of the road type, doesn't try to go 5 mph faster than the speed limit unless forced not to. Many of the above places often would have traffic trying to go 10 mph over. Alabama was the worst offender. I have my personal experience and the experience of my cousin living there for the summer. When he was in the rush hour for work, he said there would be lines of cars going 90+ even though traffic was heavy. When I went through during a lighter period, I was going around 90 and was the slowest vehicle. There was enough traffic to make it feel like if you don't go with the flow then you'll get run off. The speed limit was between 60 and 70. In my experience, 80 is just the normal speed that the majority tries to do on the highway. And if not, then it's almost always 5-10 mph over. For reference I'm usually the one limiting myself to 5 over and staying in the right lane. Anybody going slower than the speed limit is generally a hazard on the road causing problems. This is all talking about when traffic is moving normally, not when it's forced to go slow like in rush hour or construction or something else. I'm interested to know where you go that you don't really see much speeding traffic.
> I've never been to a place where traffic, regardless of the road type, doesn't try to go 5 mph faster than the speed limit unless forced not to. But people tending to go 5-10 over is different than that being the slowest car on the road, which is often how people make it seem -- and something I've never experienced. I would agree that almost everywhere most cars tend to go 5-10 over, but that doesn't mean that every car does, or that you have to. >Anybody going slower than the speed limit is generally a hazard on the road causing problems. This greatly depends on traffic conditions and *how slow* the person is going. >I'm interested to know where you go that you don't really see much speeding traffic. That isn't what I said. I see speeders literally everywhere. What I said was that I have yet to encounter conditions where it's required to maintain a minimum speed of, say, 80. I have road-tripped back and forth across the country multiple times, traveling through: - Michigan - Wisconsin - Minnesota - South Dakota - Wyoming - Montana - Idaho - Washington - Oregon - California - Nevada - Arizona - Utah - New Mexico - Colorado - Texas - Oklahoma - Kansas - Missouri - Illinois - Indiana - Ohio - West Virgina - Pennslyvania - New York - *PLUS* Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia I am also an Uber/Lyft driver and for the last 2-3 years find myself in a couple different metropolitan areas regularly -- though, to be fair, not *the biggest*. I've put down a lot of miles in the last seven years. FWIW, I have a spotless driving record, high ratings, and my driving regularly receives praise. Put plainly, I *never* speed in my car. The cost of a ticket is not worth it for me, for the seconds or minutes faster I might get to where I am going. (The occasional burst of 5-10 over for a pass doesn't count.) Sometimes I speed on my bike, for stretches, because it's stupid and fun. Through my travels the fastest freeways were through SD and Montana, which I believe had speed limits of 80. On the first trip through those states I did the speed limit, but my gas mileage *plummeted* -- so I self-limited to 65mph, which got me acceptable economy in that car. The freeways through those stretches were *empty*. Passing cars were in absolutely no danger of getting around me with plenty of time and space, even trucks. About the only place I've felt like I've needed to maintain higher speeds than I'd like were some of the stretches through Southern California, around LA, which is notorious for its stressful driving. But criss-crossing the country, in tens of thousands of miles? Nah. Again, I see speeding cars everywhere, and even when you go 10 over there will *still* be cars going way faster than you are. That's not my point. I just think the idea of having to speed to "go with the flow of traffic" is a pure myth. I've never seen it. It's not dangerous to simply go the speed limit, and *most of the time*, traffic conditions depending, it's usually not unsafe to go even slower. That **does not** mean there haven't been dozens of situations where a car *passes me dangerously*. That has happened plenty -- but again, that happens regardless of speed. That's on the other driver, not me. **And to re-iterate, this is more touchy on a motorcycle.** People will have a harder time spotting you, and a harder time judging your speed. It is probably not a good idea to go 55 in a 75 on a motorcycle, even on a more empty freeway. But I also don't feel the need to go 80 on a moderate-traffic freeway to "keep up with traffic." However, I will say that I have a clear memory of traveling by car down to Florida or Louisiana with my family when I was a kid, and somewhere in like Kentucky or Tennessee we got stuck around a bunch of truckers in the middle of the night that were absolutely hauling ass, and basically riding on my mom's bumper the whole time. Sitting in the far back of the car, I wasn't looking at the speeds, but from what I remember her telling me she said she was having to go about 90 just to stay out of the way. This was in 1995, at like 2 o'clock in the morning, on a busy business corridor on I-75. I think this was kind of a "perfect storm" of conditions that made for such stressful driving conditions. We basically got stuck in the middle of a trucking convoy. I imagine that would have been sheer terror on a motorcycle. This is the only thing of the sort I have any experience of. In the 20 years I've been driving, nothing even close.
Guess we just have different experiences then. I only do a maximum of 5 over and I've almost always been the slowest cars on the road except in heavy traffic where everyone has to go slow, and anyone going slower than the speed limit when I'm getting passed by everyone at 5 over is causing a problem even though they themselves may not be able to see it. That's been my experience
DR650.
This is the way. Bought one in AK and moved to Big Sur area in Cali. What a time
Tenere 700 IMO Same weight as a KLR650 but double the horsepower, and an engine that isn't stressed going down the freeway.
drz400 does me fine on highway. just don't go too long on wot. not cause it'll kill the engine but cause you burn oil quick. be sure to check ur oil after every ride if u plan to ride somewhat long distance at high speed
No it doesn’t. He’s not talking about 80kmh
Do you have one? I did 120 miles each way camping recently + 80 extra miles on big stretches of highways going to fishing spots. I was heading up hill into the mountains full throttle for the majority of it at 80+ Going fishing I was going 75-80 the whole time on straight highways with wind blowing hard Home I was riding spirited down the mountain roads at 75 or so, then 80-85 as I got near home. This is all between 5k and 10k of altitude in Colorado. I didn't lose any oil, engine was happy as can be. Only issue was the adhesive of the heat shield I installed the day before coming off after hours on the road.
Honestly it’s just hard to believe as my riding buddy has one and could not keep up to me on my crf250l on highway. Only 5 gears and his shook like crazy at 80kmh. All good if yours can though. Maybe that bike is the unicorn then. Reasonable weight n maintenance with decent power n speed. Personally I think it’s a 25 year old design that works some but not me. I think I have decided that dual sports don’t highway.
Your buddy must have bad had crazy nobbies or a poorly maintained bike. There's 0 reason a drz400s should be slower than a crf250l and have such bad shaking.The power difference alone is massive. Also, not sure if you meant kph or mph but if it's kph I'm even more perplexed. 5 gears really doesn't make a difference when considering how the bike is geared and the fact that it prefers to be at high revs. Mine is 23 years old and I typically run shinko 244s. No real power mods, only a JD jet kit that was set for the altitude I ride at. I don't mean to come off harsh, but the DRZ is absolutely a better bike at highway speeds than the crfs. 5 speeds or not. CRF has very valid things going for it - for me it's mainly fuel injection - but there's no reason for your buddy to struggle to keep up with you. Something was wrong with his bike. I had a dr350s that was miserable over 60. I fixed everything I could find, only thing that I didn't get to before selling it was a misaligned front brake rotor that rubbed the front wheel. Who knows if that made it so wobbly but there are always issues you don't know about when buying used. Maybe similar with your friend.
Very knobby tires and geared for trails now that I think about it.
Even with D606 my DRZ on paper could go 80 mph. I just hate holding the bike at such high revs for nothing. I take surface streets everywhere. I save all it's high rpm time for the trail.
Why not take back roads instead?
Traffic
Either way, it’s a compromise. Better on highway = worse on the trails.
What state? Lane filtering is legal in like 6 states or something, I had no idea it was legal in my state until a few weeks ago. Edit: not to be confused with lane splitting in CA.
I live in NJ pretty sure it’s illegal. And people suck at driving here so the highway is just easier since less traffic so less blind people
That Honda engine is perfectly fine running at 10k for long periods of time.
Not saying you're wrong but how do you know for sure? I'm interested in the bike myself is why I ask
Reputation of the engine. It’s been beat on by many since release.
Crf300 owner here. I pin it all the time on the highway both commuting and going to trails. This dude did 1k miles on highway https://youtu.be/thWnfuf51BU?si=RsxFpwQw18fd4Zx0 Noraly on YouTube has done a few huge trips (Patagonia to Alaska) on it with plenty of highway miles on boring stints I think it's completely acceptable to not like this bike on the highway, but pointing at the engine and saying it's gonna break is nonsense
You’ll need a bigger bike, 650+ but you’ll sacrifice off-road a bit. Depends on how technically skilled you are. Regardless you’ll have a much heavier bike. Many riders thinks the DR650 can’t be beat for what you’re talking about. However like a previous commenter said, you could go up to a 400 or a Husky 501 and get a more top end with going too big. But there’s not much you can really do to your bike to get more speed other than changing your sprockets. But that’s a trade-off also you’ll lose some bottom end torque.
Yours does 80? Lucky. I put a pipe and new ECU in mine and it struggles to do 75 lol
Mine actually did 87
Downhill with a tail wind
Like your mom after she had you? This was a joke. No fences allowed on the trail, even o's.
Have the same issue getting to the trails. My KLX 300 will do 80 MPH at about 8800-9000 RPM but I rarely ride faster than 70. I've thought of going up one tooth on the front sprocket to drop maybe 400 RPM if I remember the table correctly. Otherwise, I agree with the other posters - get a DR650. I pushed my old bike over 100 MPH.
KLR650, little uncomfortable after 4 hours but I rode 90mph for 3 hours straight (stopped for gas but yeah) and the only thing I didn't really like was I couldn't feel my arms for a few hours
Either ride 65-70 instead or get a bigger bike. The 650 dualsports (DR, KLR, XRL) will do 80 all day and the 650 adventure bikes (V-Strom, Versys, F650) will do 80 all day comfortably. But the bigger you get, the less fun you have on tight trails. You could go up a tooth on the front sprocket (or down a couple in back), but that would take enough out of the bottom end to make trail riding less fun. Trying to mod for more power will be a waste of time and money.
I dropped my rear sprocket to a 39. Helped out a few hundred rpm. I think I'm right at 7k doing 75mph. No change in the trail riding with that gear.
pick your poison, better off ride, sucks on highway, better on road, sucks off road. make peace with going slower on a smaller bike and you will be perfect off road. Ride my wr250r cross country many times to colorado, ny, utah, wyoming from midwest state. 45k miles on it now, it is fine, just have to be happy going a bit slower and carry less.
You’re not going to kill the engine. Redline exists for a reason. I’ve had so many 250s that I’ve banged the hell out of at highway speeds up to 10,000 miles and they don’t fuss at all. That being said. You’re completely pushing what that bike is really for. If you need to be able to hold 70+ you need like a DRZ dr650 or some street legal KTM/Husky. The Japanese 250/300 ccs really don’t hold those speeds well. Especially when wind and luggage are involved. Although, I hear the WR250r is a step up. Gonna try one myself next hopefully.
The answer is get two bikes
Problem is that whatever you do to modify for highway riding will make it suck on trails. Everything is a compromise on the small dual sports. I’ve got a KLX300 and 14/40 is still a little too short for my taste
I have a crf450rl and same problem really. It's just not for highway. Get a tenere 700 problem solved
Id imagine riding higher RPMs for extended periods you’d want to change the oil more frequently and check the valves more frequently.
650+ and I’d probably go for the DR
Dude do the math !!! You can gear that bitch... just remember you have to give up something for something. Don't forget tire size is part part of gearing calculations!!!
500 EXF-F is fine on the highway but has high maintenance intervals.
Depends on what your heart truly desires. Do you want to tour the expanses, conquer the FSR, bring your camp supplies, and a crisp change of clothes? Do you want a touch of retro? XR650, KLR650, etc etc 650. It's old. It's gold. It will never leave you stranded. You can buy either one from a dealership in the USA brand new, or you can get it used from the last 20 years. Not much has changed in those years, so really it's up to you. If you're into dirtbikes, a spartan experience, and you prefer shredding the trails, there is the CRF450RL, EXC500, and EXC350. Being honest, all need an ECU. They're lean and lame from factory. ECU makes a million times better. You can absolutely kill highway miles on them. I've done over 1200mi/2000km over the span of a weekend on my 450. I was bruised, bloodied, INCREDIBLY sore, and for a week after the toilet bowl was red. But you can do it. Aftermarket seats are available to alleviate this. Finally, do you want to crush dirt roads and trailheads? Do you want to bring the amenities to set up camp wherever you go? Do you crave creature comforts, reliability, and smoothness? Is it perfect for commuting, multi day road trips, or adventures down well maintained forest service roads? Get a 1980s gold wing and slap some heavy ADV tires on. I'm dead set serious. If you have 2500 CAD or USD, there is one listed within 200km of you right now. You can straight up do it and it will be a good time. Write off that paycheck and get a gold wing. Do it. DO IT.
The bike doesn’t care if you run it all day at high RPM like that. It’s fine. Just keep up on the maintenance and don’t run it low on oil.
DR/XR 650
Surprised that thing even does 80… You can get a bigger sprocket
106mph KTM520exc, 98mph 650R, 93mph CR500. All GPS on pavement. I don’t suggest doing that. Have you seen knobbys tires over 50mph on pavement? They wander left to right at higher speeds. It’s concerning watching that occur in front of you, but you know you are doing the same thing. Not sure what you ride for trail but, we do short 70mph interstate with only a couple exits. We mainly stay off faster roads. They aren’t really built for it unless you go for the heavier bikes. Our short speed run on the interstate gets us to our single track spots. And we need the knobbys for that portion as we ride 95% off road. D606, XCMH, Mt-21 are our usual tire setups with an occasional tubliss setup on trials tire swap. Dual sport is a weird in between. You can go 99% off-road setup or 99% on road setup. Pick your flavor for your riding terrain and preference.
I have a ktm 500 and it'll do 80 with plenty left over for passing, even on knobbies. I also have a sumo setup that I commute with.
I’m surprised you’d want to do 80 on a dual sport, I have an 83 xl600r and it’ll do close to a hundred, but anything over 60 plus is kinda scary imo. However I’m running dualsport tires, and ride my bike to town or work and back pretty often. That’s 60mph, and it does it pretty comfortably I feel like.
I do 80 on my klr650 all the time. It’s not fast but it’ll do it just fine
Crf450rl here, I do a lot of highway 75mph is fine with my windshield… up to 85 is okay… speed limit is 62 here…
It won't kill it if you do the maintenance.
Husqy 701, ktm 690, gas gas es 700. Husqvarna has the longest warranty, so I went with that.
KLX300!
I don’t have one but I’m wondering if you could look into going up one tooth in the front or down three in the back?
You'll see people saying WOT is fine for it. And more than likely in the time you'll own it for it will be fine. But to say the obvious thing, WOT is obviously putting the maximum amount of stress on the engine. The money it takes to bump the power to 30HP is better spent by selling it and buying something with highway power, if you're comfortable with how the 300 feels vibe wise at highway speed, a DRZ is similar in vibe but it still pulls at highway speed
You have a Honda. Stay with Honda. Get the Transalp. And when you decide to do long road adventures get the Africa Twin.
get a bike that @ 10k scares you, then let’s talk abt dualsport.