2013 KTM Adventure 1190

Bitchin' . All it needs now is a little v-twin...




.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

You are correct the 690 ticks all the boxes except the reliability one. The LC8 properly setup is very reliable. After 4 years and many attempts by forum members to make it (690) great we still see lots of reports of fueling, ECU and electrical issues. I got rid of mine and went to a heavier beast that I could count on. Look at Crankshaft and how much effort he is putting into making the bike what it should've been from the factory. I personally know guys who's 690's spent more time at the dealer or in their garage pulled apart than they have been ridden. At least one was almost brand new and sat all summer waiting for F/I issues to be resolved. The fairing and other bits are unnecessary in most cases.

All that said I'm getting close to trying to see if H2W will sell me mine back....

and a gear box that makes sense....

Roger that.
Many 690 owners feel that KTM has made us beta testers.
The fueling sucks and the fuel pump doesn't.
The first 8,000 were miles great with 3 CDR's.
The last year fuel pump and fueling issues have
reduced riding to local only.

I'll ride my 990 anywhere and do, but not the 690.
It would be nice to have a light well sorted V twin that could
be fitted to the 690 running gear.

Max

Sweet bike. that rear rack is CRAZY!

The 690 not reliabel? You guys must be unlucky then. Why did KTM increase the service intervals if it wasnt reliabel?
My 690 has been rock solid. I've used it for touring, commuting, supermotard, gravelroads, single-track, motocross-track, off the track and snow.
GF's bike been used the same way. But she's not so aggresive to it
Our rally's are like a sea of orange. Most of them 690's
The bike is troublefree.
This is also the reason why I want to order a 1190 now ( still saving up, but hoping). I'm not concerned about 1. Generation problems. The 690 proved to be reliable from the start. Evidence is all the people I know who ride one.
So don't believe the Internett trolls

How did a discussion about a cool new adventure touring bike turn into a thumper wannabe rally bike wienerfest?

Wannabe rally rider wieners

Probably because the Adventure started out as a Rally bike wannabe before KTM lost the plot.

Yeah - that's it.

I take full responsibility for the train wreck this thread has become...

Back to the 1190! I'm sure it will make a great street-bike for lots of good people!

When I'm ready for a road bike, I may look at one. That or a used Buell Ulysses.

Awwwww yeah.....

So if they apply that same to a new 750-800cc v-twin Adventure bike but keep the chassis more offroad biased (think current 990 but even lighter yet), I'm in. I have no interest in more power (fun but usually goes unused, potential for higher insurance (due to engine size not hp rating) and, even though 20% better mileage than the old 990, think of mpg if the engine remained 999cc rather than around 1200). Take a good offroad biased chassis, 800cc with good power, long service intervals and EASY service, and good gas mileage (means better range and carrying less gas and weight).

I do love the new 1190 for what it is...which is yet another 1200cc Adventure Tourer with a purpose the same as all the rest in that catagory. I'm sure that will be good for sales, but it means we just lost a choice for something different, which was a lighter and more offroad capable big bike. I'll anxiously wait to see what they come up with in the 800cc class.

Doesn't dictate gas milage. My GS1200 was way better on gas than my XRL 650. About 20% better. Fuel injected bikes are usually much better than carburated. The newer they are, the better the milage in most cases, same as cars and trucks. My insurance is the same for all bikes. Cheap for PL/PD only.

on the Italian KTM web site (ktm.it) there it is, a big friggin tease, on this side of the pond.... squat (plus a few other models we don't)

MOOooooooooOOOOO...

Moo Cow has much higher ground clearance. Kidding , just kidding.

All other things being equal, smaller engine displacement (and the associated reduction in hp) usually does have a beneficial impact on mpg. I'm not comparing FI vs. carbs or different bikes (with different weights, final drive rations, and, importantly, aerodynamics) or different engine configurations (number of cylinders, bore vs. stroke, etc).

I'm simply saying that the same bike with the same engine design but a smaller cc and corresponding hp reduction will burn less fuel. Much like pickup truck engines when, in the early 2000s they were uping the hp rating by 10 - 20% every few years but getting the same gas mileage. I think I was in the minority when I said 280hp is plenty for my 1/2 ton and the towing that I do. I would have rather the advancing technology given me 10%+ improvment in mileage over the additional 30hp with the same mileage. Extra hp wasn't benefiting me day to day (how many times a day was I going to be wide open throttle at that peak rpm) where the mileage improvement would have. For me, it's the same in this bike category. More hp AND more efficient is great...but if the hp was already plenty, adding 40% more is wasted and if the hp rating would have been kept the same, presumeably even more than a 20% efficiency gain could have been realized.

In reality, much of the hp wars are driven by the bike magazines using that as a deciding factor on how much they like one bike over another and it's weighted far too much in this catagory of bike. The motorcycle magazines would compare the 1/4 mile times and hp numbers and more often than not, the more powerful and fastest 1/4 times were given the nod. Armed with those numbers, the human factor and the "mine is better than yours" factor would kick in and we all know that we can't stand to have less hp or slower 1/4 times than the next guy, no matter the catagory of bike!

From an engineering perspective, I like that the 1190 is more efficient AND more powerful. Personally, I don't care much about the additional hp and would prefer the additional efficiency. That way, we have to carry around less weight in the form of fuel carried in a tank with a high center of gravity. What easier way to keep the wet weight of a bike lower. Raise the fuel efficiency so you can carry 2 less gallons of fuel and get the same range. Or, keep the fuel capacity (and potential extra weight) and have a much longer fuel range on the same amount of fuel.

I'm good with the guys that say then can never have enough hp and agree it's a thrill to ride, just saying that for me, personally, for this bike catagory, 70 - 90hp is plenty for what I want to use this type of bike for and, besides thrill, it would be a rare instance that not having 100+hp would be an issue even for 2up and loaded with gear. Heck, a Vstrom 650 and similar mid-sized bikes tour just fine at 80mph all day long. So that boils down to a "excitement" factor, which is important, but a varying level of importance depending on the rider.

In my experience, engine size has impacted my insurance rates within the same category of bikes. Lot's of variables there, but in the 4 states I've lived in, there has been a fair spread in insurance costs comparing a 250 to 650 to 1000 to 1200cc bikes within a category (not comparing crotch rockets to dual sports; all within a catagory of bike). Other states and riders might not have similar experience, but in mine, 1200cc is going to cost more per year than a smaller bike. Not a huge amount, but it's there. So I'll be paying for those extra cc in three ways; insurance, gas mileage, and weight (needing to carry more gas for the same fuel range).

As much as I'd love to have one of the bikes in the 1200cc Adventure Tourer category, I just find that for me and my girlfriend riding two up, we spend more time on gravel roads, jeep trails, and even ATV trails than asphalt. Note that when I'm talking time, it's just that. Time and not miles. We might burn through 50 miles of asphalt in less than an hour but then spend 5+ hours riding 20 or 30 miles of trails or a couple hours doing the same distance on gravel. For our use, more ground clearance and lighter weight will come in handy for those 5+ hours. A slightly less highway friendly bike will only be noticed for 1 hour of that ride so time plays a bigger role than mileage when talking about dirt riding. We both ride small dual sports, too, but when we go for longer rides and camping, it's usually two up and loaded down and on the trail we ride, ground clearance is a huge factor (rocks, ruts, waterbars, etc).

I realize that we have access to, and ride, trails that most of the U.S. does not. If our riding was limited to gravel roads and asphalt, like many of those shopping this category, then the new 1190 will be a great, fun, and presumably capable Adventure Tourer. I really like the look. I like the look of the 990 better, but they are two different subcatagories with a slightly different focus. That is splitting hairs, but really there are the guys that value the extra suspension, ground clearance and offroad capabilities over lower seat height, hp etc.

In the end, for most situation, there probably is less real world capability difference between the 990 and 1190 than most people will notice in 90% of their dirt riding. More of the shock probably had to do with the change in the look and styling. Less offroad looking. Cosmetics plays a large role in the opinions on the new bike it seems. I'll be more anxious to hear the real world dirt riding reviews of the 1190 once it's released and how it compares to the other now-very similar bikes in the catagory (1200GS, Super Tenere, Tiger, etc.).