Do you need an adventure bike to have an adventure?

Courtesy of www.hdwallpapersinn.com

Looks cool doesn't it?

But is it really necessary to have a £15,000, 270 kg bike that has more whizzes and gadgets than the average spaceship? Do you really need heated seats, grips and clothing? Do you need ABS and traction control? What about electronic adjustable suspension? I mean sure, if you're into all of that stuff than fair enough, but is it really necessary? Could you live without it?

Will a 2013 Bmw R1200Gs get you to Vietnam and back? Yes. Will a 1987 Honda C90 Cub be able to cope with the same trip? Of course it would.

Obviously, the bike which you choose will adjust the difficulty of your trip. But it could also adjust the fun. For instance, you could tour the world on an R1 which will obviously not be as economical on fuel and tyres, it will be very uncomfortable and luggage space is limited. But would you have a hoot? Probably more so than some dull, lifeless, built-for-the-job workhorse. 

Then again, you could travel the world on an old 80s Dt125 and you'll be breaking down frequently and requiring rebuilds etc... You'll have a top speed of 65mph and will struggle up hills, but the delays and the hard bits are what make a trip memorable. Which brings me onto my next question;

'Is buying a bike made for touring the best thing to tour on?'

Maybe, depends on how tough you are. Can you handle having to travel at 40mph on a scooter in the bitter cold rain with no heated grips or big, wide fairing to take all the impact? Or do you find that idea a true adventure?

I'm not saying a GS or a Pan European etc... are dull, boring bikes. I'm sure there're owners out there that love them, and I don't have any particular hatred towards them. I'd just like to open the new narrow-minded view of 'I need a GS to have an adventure' a little bit further.

Because it's simply not true.