Transalp or TDM?

I've been looking at a new sit up and beg style of bike. Of the Versys,
Vstrom650, GS650(800!) and Transalp: it is the Transalp that is currently
most appealing. But it's about 25-30kg heavier than my current KLE500 (both
wet weights).

Casting my net further I read that the TDM is some 10kg lighter than the
Transalp. Well, Yamaha give 192kg dry and Honda 219kg wet, so I estimated
20kg to wet a TDM.

Other than price, is there any reason to avoid buying the TDM?

John

 

I think the 900cc engine of the TDM would swing it for me. I owned one of
the later 850cc ones and really liked it.

Just beware that TDMs depreciate rapidly in year 1. Consider buying a used
or heavily discounted pre-reg one.

 

dunno much about bikes, only had about 5 or 6 in my life, and the one before
the transalp was a yamaha virago!!

but i love my transalp, never really looked at much else, appart from the
kle500... but the plank seat put me off,

the saddle on the transalp is almost the most comfortable one i've ever sat
on, i still get a sore arse, but that's got i got a fecked up back, even the
corbin saddle i put on my virago didnt feel as good as the stock transalp
seat.... i feel i could do some half decent touring on the transalp.

i like the sit up and beg riding position, i'm 6 foot and dont get any
buffeting till over 90mph,
the bike is pretty flickable i find, but i've not really had a bike before
that can be thrown about like the transalp can, so what do i know.

she feels a heavy bike first couple of times you sit on her, but i dont
notice it now, it feels pretty well balanced, not too top heavy as i thought
it would feel coming from a low down cruiser style bike.

mines just turned 1900 miles, and i'm getting 51mpg out of her, doesnt seem
to matter how i ride it i get around 50mpg, can get another 10 mpg
apparantly by cutting the oxidising cat box out of the zorst, something i'll
do when the warrenty runs out, or i can get a price for a set of custom
headers.

engine has plenty of low down torque, but again this is the most powerfull
bike i've ridden to date, V twin motor is fairly smooth, been told it gets a
lot smoother when 6000 miles is clocked up, but it's deffo smoother than the
viragos V twin was,

I went for the transalp cos i've always liked the look of them, and didnt
want an engine any bigger than a 650 for fuel economy reasons, but of course
you may prefer bigger engined bikes.

<waits for the barage of abuse to start for my opinions>

 

None whatsoever. Btw, yes, they are pricey, but they age very well.

 

Depreciation, and generally iffy duild quality on the 850s.

I've never rated the 850, despite what Wessie says. Insubstantial and
with a feel like a big Honda Super Dream circa 1979. The 900 might be a
better bike: I've never ridden one.

They're easier to find, used, than the Transalp.

Were it my choice, I wouldn't buy either: my money would go to Triumph
for a Tiger, but of these two, I think I'd prefer the Transalp.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

You need a different adjective. There is nothing *insubstantial* about a
TDM850. You should see the chunk it took out of the shed door, and the
bruise on my leg, when it decided to take a little rest.

The 900 in white with red trim looks quite nice.

Well, I'd agree with the first part of this sentence. Go large.

I'm not convinced by the Transalp though. Even with the new 700cc engine,
it's still going to be hard work on a long trip. The bike needs a another
20bhp.

Of course the OP is coming from a zoom lolly KLE. The Transalp will feel
wonderful after that abomination.

Best bet is to sit on the bikes to see if your feet touch the floor, blag a
test ride then haggle.

 

<snigger>

 

<flounce>

 

forget what TOG says on this one - I'd take the TDM over a Transplant
any day of the week - buy an 18month old 900 - you'll get a lot of
bike for the money.

Having said that, TOG is correct about big traillies - buy the
biggest, fastest one you can. I'd offer to sell you my Tiger, but I
already have a prospective buyer (assuming the deposit cheque arrives
at some point).

 

Well it's perhaps not _the_ most exciting bike to ride, but
insubstantial it ain't, and while the power may be a little linear
it's certainly got a damn sight more to it than the wheezy little
thing in the Transalp. I mean, it's the same engine they use in the
Dullsville, FFS, utterly, utterly gutless.

Likewise, but it does seem to have lost some soul in its efforts to
compete with the Varadero, v-strom etc. Not sure I'd like it as much.

But why? You haven't said a good word about it?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

he's losing it.

I still think it's hilarious that Tog reckoned the dark, fatty meat we
had on the Friday night in France was veal. It was clearly horse.

 

I meant the build quality, not the weight of the thing.

I think this is true. For solo use, the Transalp is probably fine, but
(like my Duke) it would struggle with a heavy load.

 

I've had horse, and that wasn't it. Well, not a cut I recognise.

 

I've ridden Transalps, and I just like them. They're not gutless.
They're softly tuned, granted, but the prob with the Dullsville is that
it's basically a Gold Wing sized bike with a small engine - the Transalp
is much less bulky.

They're incredibly well made, and the engine is just nice and torquey.
Fast isn't everything. They're genuinely good bikes but, as Wessie says,
they might struggle two-up.

A million Frenchmen can't be wrong. Can they?

 

As a used bike, yes, agree absolutely, but the OP was talking about new
bikes. And a Transalp is a fair bit cheaper. But a used TDM900 is
definitely a good buy, as the things depreciate like a breeze block
dropped down a well.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in

The build quality of the original TDM was not very good, like most Yamahas
of that era. The 2nd generation, post 1996, TDM seemed to be built much
better.

I ran one for 3 years and 16k miles without any issue. The bike was used
all year. The chap that bought it from me was very surprised at the
condition of the bike, as he was locked into the "Yamaha build quality is
crap" mindset.

 

Mine (1992 model, from new) was fine. Even the paintwork was good,
fairing panels all nicely fitted, never the slightest problem with,
err, anything, actually.

Mine did 15k in two years and the only problems were a couple of
scratches where it had fallen over (onto a wheelbarrow) in the garage.

ISTR I got nearly the new price back for it, as "car tax" had just
been applied to bikes, so my discounted new price was about 70% of the
new price two years later.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

I mis-read the "new" requirement. I don't really hold with buying
bikes new, myself.

 

To eat?

 

TBH, I can't remember it at all.