[JustPlainBill0]

Andrew P. Collins at Lanesplitter blog posted a very informative chart comparing the CRF-AT to 10 other Adventure bikes on useful features (HP, torque, wet weight, fuel capacity, etc).
http://lanesplitter.jalopnik.com/we-kept-hearing-how-light-it-is-but-at-the-middle-of-i-1720079797

I tried to copy and paste the chart but this site increases font size and causes the rows to wrap around - making it unintelligible. Good stuff though -- good site too.

 

[TommyBwell]

I saw that too and it was very interesting. It almost looks like they were aiming at the 800's when you look at all the specs.

 

[JustPlainBill0]

I saw that too and it was very interesting. It almost looks like they were aiming at the 800's when you look at all the specs.

You could say that, or judge it as a middle of the pack adventure bike.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how many CRF-AT's show up at AMA sanctioned dirt races to decide whether it is as good off-road as the riders in Video #6 seemed to suggest. >

 

[Nessuno]

IMO, they wouldn't of designated it CRF if it wasn't capable off pavement..

 

[Midwest Mike]

I agree, for the most part, with Wes' assessment of the current field of Adv/Touring bikes. I've thrown a leg over most of the mentioned models, with the exception of the Triumphs and of course the Honda, and I tend to lean towards the AT as the most promising candidate for my next motorcycle.

 

[Nessuno]

I agree, for the most part, with Wes' assessment of the current field of Adv/Touring bikes. I've thrown a leg over most of the mentioned models, with the exception of the Triumphs and of course the Honda, and I tend to lean towards the AT as the most promising candidate for my next motorcycle.

Especially if its as slender as Honda is saying. Its supposed to be slim in the middle like a MX