Why so many KTM 690's for Sale?

[Omninorm]

Some posts here really sums it up well.
I can see the truth in the statement that to some the travel of 1000km to get to somewhere because others won't want to take the 700km Road as it may be too rough on big bikes, and the won't want to do the 700km on a 650 or under class bike either.

The one bunch likes touring but not technical the other bunch likes technical but don't want to tour.
so yeah,  getting a 690 makes sense if you compromise everywhere and I think that's what Wolf Skaap is saying as well.  I don't mean this "compromise"  in a negative way. If you want a bike that you an go with both bunch of mates,  the 690 is going to be the one,  but each group of mates are going to wait for you.
For mere mortals and riding skills being more or less equal.... the guys on the 450's waits for you int the technical stuff but don't really want to do tar,  and the  ones on 1200's waits for you on the long haul tar and don't want to go ride technical.

[Ganjora]

the 690 is the very best bike ever made in the big thumper class.
i agree with 2SD in that it is too much bike for most people,  and that most 'adventure riders' have gone soft.
wind protection,  hard seat etc...
it is an expensive bike,  but you get a lot of bike for your money.

[wolf skaap]

The one bunch likes touring but not technical the other bunch likes technical but don't want to tour.
so yeah,  getting a 690 makes sense if you compromise everywhere and I think that's what Wolf Skaap is saying as well.  I don't mean this "compromise"  in a negative way. If you want a bike that you an go with both bunch of mates,  the 690 is going to be the one,  but each group of mates are going to wait for you.
For mere mortals and riding skills being more or less equal.... the guys on the 450's waits for you int the technical stuff but don't really want to do tar,  and the  ones on 1200's waits for you on the long haul tar and don't want to go ride technical.

Exactly 

[2StrokeDan]

Some posts here really sums it up well.
I can see the truth in the statement that to some the travel of 1000km to get to somewhere because others won't want to take the 700km Road as it may be too rough on big bikes, and the won't want to do the 700km on a 650 or under class bike either.

The one bunch likes touring but not technical the other bunch likes technical but don't want to tour.
so yeah,  getting a 690 makes sense if you compromise everywhere and I think that's what Wolf Skaap is saying as well.  I don't mean this "compromise"  in a negative way. If you want a bike that you an go with both bunch of mates,  the 690 is going to be the one,  but each group of mates are going to wait for you.
For mere mortals and riding skills being more or less equal.... the guys on the 450's waits for you int the technical stuff but don't really want to do tar,  and the  ones on 1200's waits for you on the long haul tar and don't want to go ride technical.

This is why you very seldom, if ever, see a Harley Davidson riding with a superbike group.

If you are a group rider, then compromise and fit in with what the group rides. This makes sense, because to try and cover a 1000kays on 1200's, and then having to
accomodate a 600cc bike is not good. Unless you obey the law and do not exceed the national speed limit, then any 600 class bike will easily keep up.
Of course, who obeys the law?

[Omninorm]

Good point.
Now if only we can get the cagers and trucks to also obey the speed limits then we are all good to go and we can all go for the 650 Thumper,  hell why stop there when a 450 can go 120kph and do even better on the dirt.

[Acajou]

the 690 is the very best bike ever made in the big thumper class.

That's quite a bold statement, especially coming from an XRR owner. I don't want to stir a big debate (or maybe I do) but do you think the 690 is the "pinnacle" of the big thumper class of bikes? I know you rode a DR for a long time; do you think the 690 is the same type of bike but better, or has it become a different type of bike completely?

[WildWood]

For starts the 690 is not a thumper. It's a short stroke high revving performance type motor , v a long lazy stroke of a thumper.
Even though I love the 690 I still believe the thumpers ( DR, XT, XR ) make better adventure tourers. I think the DR650 is the best all round adventure/ dual sport around and it's a travesty we can't get them anymore. I noted the 2016 has been unveiled in the USA with huge changes. A new color grey.

[Ganjora]

For starts the 690 is not a thumper. It's a short stroke high revving performance type motor , v a long lazy stroke of a thumper.

my understanding is that a thumper is a large bore,  single cylinder,  4 stroke.

the 690 is the very best bike ever made in the big thumper class.

That's quite a bold statement, especially coming from an XRR owner. I don't want to stir a big debate (or maybe I do) but do you think the 690 is the "pinnacle" of the big thumper class of bikes? I know you rode a DR for a long time; do you think the 690 is the same type of bike but better, or has it become a different type of bike completely?

i do think the 690 is the pinnacle.
imo the KLR,  DR,  XT,  XR & 690are all essentially the same type of bike: big bore,  single cylinder,  DS bike.
until the 690,  the XRR was the boss.
as much as i like my XRR,  i think the 690 is a superior bike:  better suspension,  better performance,  better fuel economy,  bigger service intervals.

[wolf skaap]

Bigger service intervals means nothing if its not nearly as reliable an the xrr.
The concept of a thumper is a long stroke single, not big bore single.

Example is the 2003 YZ450 vs the later models. The 2003 model still made over 50hp but did so at muuuch lower revvs , meaning its longer stroke made it much less of a screamer and more of a thumper.By contrast, my 2010 YZ started making its power long after the 2003 YZ singed off.
2010 has a bigger bore, shorter stroke.

690 is a screamer, compared to DR/XR.

[2StrokeDan]

The 690 has taken bike of the year. Have you guys heard?

This will settle all argument.

[2StrokeDan]

Bigger service intervals means nothing if its not nearly as reliable an the xrr.
The concept of a thumper is a long stroke single, not big bore single.

Example is the 2003 YZ450 vs the later models. The 2003 model still made over 50hp but did so at muuuch lower revvs , meaning its longer stroke made it much less of a screamer and more of a thumper.

690 is a screamer, compared to DR/XR.

The 690 revs out at about 8000rpm, which is really not much of a screamer, the XR-R will do in the same region. The XR-L and DR's will top out at around 6000rpm.

The term "Thumper" originates from the sound a certain engine makes. Only a biggish bore, slowish-revving 4stroke single can pass you going doef-doef doef while being entirely happy at those revs.

[jaybiker]

The virtue of a long stroke engine is it's doef-doef engine note, if this what you like, and that's all.
It does not produce greater torque due to the length of the stroke, that's a fallacy. Nor will it be any more reliable or require any less servicing.
Fact is, it will tend to be higher stressed than its shorter stroke counterpart due to the piston speed at mid stroke being higher for any given RPM, and the thrust loading between piston and bore being higher. Also the inertia loading on the conrod is higher at the top and bottom of the stroke. The power and torque characteristics of the engine are more dependent on things like compression ratio, valve timing, and inlet port size, than bore/stroke ratio.

Oh, and BTW, Rotax also make a pretty good 652cc single. It's bore is greater than the stroke, but it can still go doef-doef.

[boland]

Bigger service intervals means nothing if its not nearly as reliable an the xrr.
The concept of a thumper is a long stroke single, not big bore single.

Example is the 2003 YZ450 vs the later models. The 2003 model still made over 50hp but did so at muuuch lower revvs , meaning its longer stroke made it much less of a screamer and more of a thumper.By contrast, my 2010 YZ started making its power long after the 2003 YZ singed off.
2010 has a bigger bore, shorter stroke.

690 is a screamer, compared to DR/XR.

I'm not going to debate reliability, but I think you must take into account how 690's that break was ridden.

My bike is currently on 42 000 km, has only had it services every 10k and is still in perfect condition.

[Bill the Bong]

My 690 only comes out the month or so before Amageza.  The 12 000 odd km was essentially either Amageza or training/set-up runs.  I don't change the oil midway through the race and change the air filter after 3 - 4 days.  I've drowned it twice during big water crossings.  Still runs like a top.  Its essentially stone-axe reliable.

I'm expecting to be able to rent this bike out as an Amageza bike for at least 3 more years after this year's event before I need to look at rebuilding the motor.

Not many bikes that will do that.

[Acajou]

For starts the 690 is not a thumper. It's a short stroke high revving performance type motor , v a long lazy stroke of a thumper.

my understanding is that a thumper is a large bore,  single cylinder,  4 stroke.

the 690 is the very best bike ever made in the big thumper class.

That's quite a bold statement, especially coming from an XRR owner. I don't want to stir a big debate (or maybe I do) but do you think the 690 is the "pinnacle" of the big thumper class of bikes? I know you rode a DR for a long time; do you think the 690 is the same type of bike but better, or has it become a different type of bike completely?

i do think the 690 is the pinnacle.
imo the KLR,  DR,  XT,  XR & 690are all essentially the same type of bike: big bore,  single cylinder,  DS bike.
until the 690,  the XRR was the boss.
as much as i like my XRR,  i think the 690 is a superior bike:  better suspension,  better performance,  better fuel economy,  bigger service intervals.

That's what I've been thinking too, but I can't speak from experience on the matter. I love my DR and will ride it for a long time, but if it comes time to upgrade (and it will), I will probably end up getting a 690.

But does the 690 put hair on your chest like an XRR? 

[Ganjora]

That's what I've been thinking too, but I can't speak from experience on the matter. I love my DR and will ride it for a long time, but if it comes time to upgrade (and it will), I will probably end up getting a 690.

But does the 690 put hair on your chest like an XRR? 

you will love the 690,  and regret not having bought one sooner.
the XRR is something different: the legend.
maybe in time the 690 will steal that crown...

[Buddy]

6 pages of furiously defending the KTM 690..... My word! This is getting like a BMW site   

[wolf skaap]

6 pages of furiously defending the KTM 690..... My word! This is getting like a BMW site   

Well I can see why.
Depending on how it gets utilized, it really is an awesome bike.

[2StrokeDan]

6 pages of furiously defending the KTM 690..... My word! This is getting like a BMW site   

Without the recalls.

[SchalkL]

My 690 only comes out the month or so before Amageza.  The 12 000 odd km was essentially either Amageza or training/set-up runs.  I don't change the oil midway through the race and change the air filter after 3 - 4 days.  I've drowned it twice during big water crossings.  Still runs like a top.  Its essentially stone-axe reliable.

I'm expecting to be able to rent this bike out as an Amageza bike for at least 3 more years after this year's event before I need to look at rebuilding the motor.

Not many bikes that will do that.

Note to myself: Don't buy this bike when it comes up for sale...................................