Honestly, horses for course.
The Triumph revs like a sports bike, you can keep it on the boil and really hammer corners in a manner that’s quite impressive for something that is effectively a large tourer with hard luggage etc.
The BMW is all torque, with it’s lower revving boxer making for incredibly tractible power, especially at low speeds. It’s also got a lower centre of gravity, which just makes handling it so much nicer.
If I was purchasing again, I’d probably go the BMW and sacrifice the performance for servicability.
It absolutely is not. The KLR is terrible at everything, so it has 100% consistency. I bet your inferior bike is actually GOOD at some things. That means it’s an uneven design. I rest my case.
The Triumph, because it’s mine. ;-)
Honestly, horses for course.
The Triumph revs like a sports bike, you can keep it on the boil and really hammer corners in a manner that’s quite impressive for something that is effectively a large tourer with hard luggage etc.
The BMW is all torque, with it’s lower revving boxer making for incredibly tractible power, especially at low speeds. It’s also got a lower centre of gravity, which just makes handling it so much nicer.
If I was purchasing again, I’d probably go the BMW and sacrifice the performance for servicability.
Yes but… is it better than a KLR 650? ;)
deleted by creator
At nearly 3 times the price, it better be! (It’s not)
It absolutely is not. The KLR is terrible at everything, so it has 100% consistency. I bet your inferior bike is actually GOOD at some things. That means it’s an uneven design. I rest my case.