Tiresome DR vs KLR comparisons

[rok-the-boat]

My DR500 (1982) is far from perfect but it runs bloody great and always attracts questions. I had a DR250 before, which was really pokey, but the 500 is far better to ride on the road. I have recently fitted a 16 tooth front sprocket as I ride it 99% on the road and it has made a massive difference to cruising and it still storms ahead in top at 100km/h.

I have ridden both the new DR650 - it's too nice, not rough enough, but still very good - and a KLR, which seemed ponderous in comparison to mine. Certainly no point selling mine to get either of those. I would like to try a KTM520 though.

[GaZBur]

Let's settle this once and for all.
......
Hang on a mo tho.................
If we settle the question once and for all, we won't have any more threads like this one!!!!!


Nah..... that could never happen................as you were. Carry on.

Kindergarden Sand Pit rules Apply to this type of thread, so nah nah nin nah nah.

I am not sure if the whole point of this thread is complain about tiresome comparrisons because they are tiresome and boring or promote a non tiresome bitch slapping fist fighting pistols at 10 paces scrap. If it's the latter yahoo!
A responsible answer would be that the bikes are slightly different and you choose which one is for you by your needs and riding requirements.
But my answer is my my needs far exceed my financial ability to buy a suitable bike and the DR is the only bike in my price range that can cope with the demands. I would love to see more KLR's and DR's being used inappropriatley, where is the fun unless they are pushed to and beyond thier limits.

So - mine is faster than yours!!

[nallac]

Bloody Here here, Bloody EU trying to throw their weight around.!!

The more I ride my DR the more I like it, The DR is a good honest, simple, dual purpose bike, Nothing fancy or over complicated with gadgets.
I looked at buying a KLR, but the bike looked out of proportion, visualy to much weight up to high over the front wheel, that made it look a bit ungainly, a bit like half an elephants arse trying to climb off the front of the bike.

geeze a new klr makes a multistrada look good.......

[nallac]

[QUOTE= So - my DR is faster than your KLR!! [/QUOTE]

you forgot to mention better looking

[Tony W]

I think the Suzuki XF 650 Freewind ticks all the boxes for the needs of the disadvantaged DR/KLX riders.

Why have you discounted this lovely bike ? It has everything your respective mounts, have not !!! You should ALL be riding one.









Nordie mini-space













Just imagine.... peace would reign....and massive Freewind-love-ins, masquerading as adventure rides, would be organised...

[merv]

Yeah just buy the one you want and can afford and ride the thing to its limit.

Oscar what were you going to say about gearboxes?

As for the Freewind can you still buy them new? Problem I saw with them is they didn't look great.

As for the KLR for a little fellah like me, too bloody heavy.

[Tony W]

Yeah just buy the one you want and can afford and ride the thing to its limit.



As for the Freewind ...they didn't look great.

They are a "10" compared to the KLR

[Crisis management]

They are a "10" compared to the KLR

Are they really?

The engines nice, but it's a DR650 engine isn't it so it must be (gearboxes?), the seats better but it's got a little front wheel.....surely not another bike requiring modification to make it a "real" adventure bike???

[Tony W]

Are they really?

The engines nice, but it's a DR650 engine isn't it so it must be (gearboxes?), the seats better but it's got a little front wheel.....surely not another bike requiring modification to make it a "real" adventure bike???

19" is not "little"

I'm tired of hearing from people (not you) who have heard from other people that front wheel DIAMETER is important.

Have they ever noticed that with every inch decrease in the wheel diameter, the tyre WIDTH grows with that particular fitment.

It's the tyre width that screws everything up, as the fatter the tyre, the more it "floats" on the surface, does not "dig in" and causes "problems".

These "problems" are largely psychological, as most people who don't know, believe it to be true, so it is...

Just fit a skinnier, knobblier tyre, if you think you are going to have problems.

[warewolf]

I'm tired of hearing from people (not you) who have heard from other people that front wheel DIAMETER is important.

How important is up to you, but you can't discount it as a factor to be considered. Larger diameter wheels don't sink in to holes as much as smaller diameter wheels, and they climb over bumps easier, providing a much nicer ride on rough surfaces and possibly more control.

If 19" worked better in the rough, then why has the industry pretty much standardised on 21" for off-road bikes? Over the years pretty much every diameter from 17 to 23 (24?) has been tried.

[Tony W]

How important is up to you, but you can't discount it as a factor to be considered. Larger diameter wheels don't sink in to holes as much as smaller diameter wheels, and they climb over bumps easier, providing a much nicer ride on rough surfaces and possibly more control.

If 19" worked better in the rough, then why has the industry pretty much standardised on 21" for off-road bikes? Over the years pretty much every diameter from 17 to 23 (24?) has been tried.

I do not disagree with you, but following the popular logic, a 23" would be better.

Look at kids' bikes. They have front wheels ranging from 10" to 19".
They seem to go ok. To my knowledge, noone feels the need to put 21s on those

[Woodman]

KLR's are not ugly, in fact from some perspectives they are quite pretty, they are ok in gnarly parts with the right tyres, they can be backed into corners, and crossed up coming out of corners,wheelstanded over obstacles, jumped and even slightly crossed up in the air (sometimes deliberately) and only heavy when you need to pick them up. (and some of the above).

Whats wrong with that???

BTW has anyone actually ever met anyone who has had a doohickey roger their engine??

[Oscar]

I do not disagree with you, but following the popular logic, a 23" would be better.

Look at kids' bikes. They have front wheels ranging from 10" to 19".
They seem to go ok. To my knowledge, noone feels the need to put 21s on those

19" was very common front wheel diameter for trail bikes in the 70's, 21" was tried and was better, 23" was tried and was not noticeably better, so was abandoned.

Similarly, all sorts of diameters were tried for GP/MotoGP bikes, but they settled at 16.5".

[Tony W]

19" was very common front wheel diameter for trail bikes in the 70's, 21" was tried and was better, 23" was tried and was not noticeably better, so was abandoned.

Similarly, all sorts of diameters were tried for GP/MotoGP bikes, but they settled at 16.5".

How do you feel about front tyre widths ?

[merv]

... and I thought Oscar might tell us about gearboxes.

Tyre width, the thinner the better on the front wheel on loose gravel.

Knobblies are best in my opinion too for gravel, the road type adventure tyres just roll over the stones and make you really loose (nah ...not like in Trudes cheating thread).