They are moving in the right direction. Kawasaki is the first motorcycle manufacturer to acknowledge that the other half of the world’s possible motorcycle riders even exist.
The 2023 Kawasaki KLX230 S
They have spent the necessary R&D time to make a properly suspended low-seat height all-purpose motorcycle that will fit most short-inseam riders all over the world.
Finally, someone is getting the idea that there is an expansive segment of riders that are not comfortable with the standard seat height of motorcycles. I have been reporting this huge oversight to the motorcycle manufacturers since Honda adopted my original design modifications for their trail bike many years ago, leading to the first two-wheeled ATV.
Enter Kawasaki’s KLX230 S for 2023 which has adopted some of the ideas I presented in my 2016 Smaller Adult Motorcycles: Long Awaited New Market Segment book. I am pleased that someone answered the call. This should lead to making the motorcycle market more accessible to riders who have waited in the wings for a more safe-feeling ride on a bike that will accommodate a shorter inseam.
The official word from the Kawasaki team is, “A deeper dive into the data showed an opportunity to satisfy more potential customers by prioritizing lower seat height. With this, we also recognized that it was critical to stay authentic to the KLX concept by offering a lower seat height while maintaining true dual-sport capability.”
They also took another look at the off-road suspension system and conducted a redesign of it to mitigate the spectrum of small bumps in the road as well as rugged off-road terrain challenges affecting both front and rear suspension.
Cycle News field tested and featured the 2023 Kawasaki KLX230 S in its January 24, 2023, issue and demonstrated its ability to enthusiastically impress an avid rider with a 31.5-inch inseam.
Following is the road test from Cycle News that tells all about it:
According to the reviewer, “The KLX230 is certainly a beginner’s friend,” adding that it will appeal to advanced riders as well because, “the devil horns will pop out real quick and the progressive suspension will invite you to push harder.” Adding that, the bike will offer a thrilling experience for “more experienced riders who perhaps don’t have the mobility to throw a leg over an XR400.”
Now what Kawasaki needs to do is make a dedicated frame for their motorcycles built for smaller adults. By making this move, they can have a fully plush seat height of 28 inches and easily provide for almost all of us short-inseam people.
Herb Uhl reviews UBCO’s Electric Trail Adventure Bike. The new company sought Uhl’s opinion of their latest model as he was the inventor of the first 2-wheeled ATV in the fifties. Herb’s design spawned a whole series of trail bikes from Honda.
Herb Uhl’s review follows:
I got to try out UBCO’s 2-wheel drive trail-utility bike with an electric motor in each wheel. The brand manufactures their units in New Zealand.
Their electric trail bike had enough battery for 2 to 3 hours of trail use, depending on how hard you ride it.
The bike was very well built with beautiful welds and well worked out controls.
What I most liked about both wheels pulling is that no leaning was necessary and at almost 0 speed, I could pick my way around most trail junk with almost no effort.
Most of the weight of the bike was that stupid battery.
Electric in-wheel is perfect for a trail bike, just like electric power to all wheels makes sense in a car or pickup. What does not make sense is getting electric power from a battery.
I know you have all seen lightning, so we all know we are surrounded with electric power. Since it exists, it can be harvested.
There are two problems with that; 1) No one has figured out a way to charge us for all that free power, 2) It would add to our freedom, and that must be squelched at all costs.
One of the first things to change when society goes the way of the do do bird, is we will be able to harvest that unlimited energy at the point of use.
My research shows that a small module that weighs 5 pounds or less would provide all the energy a trail bike needs, and you would never run out of fuel.
You think it’s not possible?
Nikola Tesla introduces battery-free electric powered car in 1931
In 1931 Nikola Tesla ran a Pierce-arrow that had been converted to a Westinghouse electric motor, around the Buffalo/New York-area for several hours, sometimes at speeds of up to 90 miles per hour.
The car had no batteries allowed and a witness said Nicola only took a rather large black box with him, hooked up some wires, and away they went.
Do you suppose Dr. Tesla was harvesting electrical energy at the point of use?
10 years before Tesla, brothers introduce electric car powered by atmospheric energy.
Electric cars running on atmospheric electricity were introduced as early as 1921, ten years before the Tesla run.
Tesla’s first experimental electric car project was built in 1897, did not have a storage battery, and never had to stop at a service station. The only mechanical moving parts in his car were the wheels and steering apparatus. Tesla used a new kind of primary battery. The battery could power the car for 500 miles, then could be simply roadside replaced in less than a minute.
The only thing that keeps us from harvesting energy at our homes or on vehicles now is various varieties of greed.
According to stats from UBCO, the all-wheel drive 2×2 electric bike weighs in a 330 lbs., has a 75-mile range, and can operate up to 6 hours with its 3.1kWh battery on a full charge.
Given that Honda and Yamaha’s earliest attempts at racing machinery were designed to be used on the rugged dirt-surfaced courses in Japan like Asama Mountain, they were off-roaders as much as road racleers – street scramblers, if you like, and often shod with knobby tires.
The German Adler Cross scrambler may or may not have provided the inspiration for the Honda RC70 – it depends who you ask. This particular restoration belongs to Dutch spare parts company, CMS. Photography by CMS
It was not until the early ‘60s that the designs became slightly more refined (coincidentally with the increased popularity of motocross in Japan as a result of Australian Tim Gibbes’ Racing Schools conducted there from 1963). But back in 1957, what Honda offered the budding racer was what the factory termed the RC70F, a 250cc twin using the C70 (and later C71) engine, which had the “rotary” gear box favored by several of the Japanese manufacturers. This had first gear at the bottom of the shift pattern, followed by neutral, followed (if the rider kept pressing downwards) top gear and so on.
The RC70 was offered for sale in Japan as early as 1958, and one school of thought has it that the overall look was influenced by the German Adler Cross Scrambler. The two certainly shared many similarities, notably the long-travel leading-link front suspension and the wide cradle tubular steel frame. The frame itself is remarkably similar to the Adler. The RC70 was available with or without lighting.
Of course, the late ‘50s was also the period when Honda was keenly eyeing the U.S. market, taking the significant step of setting up their own distribution center in California-American-Honda in early 1960.
Herb Uhl Herco Engineering, Boise
However, prior to that, at least four examples of the production RC70 found their way to the USA. Two went to Herb Uhl, who had a motorcycle dealership in Boise, Idaho, and who had competed in the International Six Days Trial in Europe on two occasions, riding with his brother Bill who was an Expert-class flat track rider. Herb noted later, “I imported a couple of RC70 off-road bikes from Honda Japan in early 1959 and they had excellent leading-arm forks.
About the same time, another pair of RC70s was sent to Alan D’Alo in California. D’Alo was an amateur racer from Norwalk, California, who annually competed in the Catalina Island “Grand Prix” on an MV Agusta. The Hondas were imported ostensibly to test the market, and came with basic C70 250cc Dream engines.
Local racers were still wrestling with the left-side sift gear levers on these early Hondas, because many of the European racing bikes came with right-side shift transmission selectors. Having to remember which side of the engine to change gears with, as well as coping with the “rotary” gearbox function, was more than most riders wanted to deal with back then.
The “fix” for the RC70 riders was to commandeer engine assemblies from the 1959 CE7ts, once they were released for sale through the fledgling AHMC distributorship. The electric-start CE71 was Honda’s U.S.-spec “dream Super Sport” model, which featured a conventional return-shift transmission, a larger 24mm carburetor (vs. 22mm carburetors that were stock on Dream engines) and a horsepower upgrade due to higher compression pistons and more aggressive camshaft timing.
One of the RC70s was assigned to budding motocross rider Preston Petty, who later founded the plastic mudguard revolution that found a ready market in the booming off-road scene. Petty won several local Southern California races on the RC70F, which later had a CE7t engine fitted. As the Honda was developed, some reports say Petty trimmed off the factory-installed leading-link suspension front end and machined up a new steering head which could hold British AJS telescopic front forks and a wider, smaller 18-inch front wheel in place of the standard 2.75 x 19-inch front tire.
The RC70F varied slightly in specification during the period of its cataloged existence, some being fitted with a high-level exhaust pipe with a substantial muffler on the right-hand side, others with straight-through pipes exiting in front of the right-hand rear shock absorber, and others with low road-style pipes and muffler. There were also dry-sump versions available.
The 1960-61 pre-production Honda 250 Scrambler prototypes also came with single-carb Dream engines, but with return shift transmissions. When the 1961 CN72 Hawk, sport bikes were released, the first thing that happened to the “next generation” 250 Scrambler was again a motor transplant, but this time from a CB72, which had dual carbs, even higher compression pistons and a 10,000 rpm redline.
In fairness to Honda, they were not the only ones who offered “rotary gearboxes” to the public. Early Yamahas, the Bridgestone 175s and Litac motorcycles also had this feature for a few years, among other now-extinct manufactured models. Honda continued to offer the rotary-gearbox option of domestic 250-305cc Dreams and CYP77 Police bikes into the mid-1960s, but no other “larger” models were so equipped after that.
The Honda CT125 is back/new for 2021. Turns out Herb was onto something all those years ago.
Herb Uhl Herco Engineering Boise ID
Back in 1960, there was a Honda dealer in Boise who was selling far more Honda 50 step-thru motorcycles than a dealer nestled in the mountainous ranges of Idaho had any right to.
That man, Herb Uhl, had noticed the rugged ability of Honda’s 50 before even Honda had. (To be fair, Honda had only been in the U.S. for one year at that point.) And he had been taking The Little Bike That Could and throwing a few choice mods at it, like knobby tires, removing the leg guards, and fitting a larger rear sprocket to turn it into a trail bike.
Buyers were snapping these things up left and right, and it eventually came to the attention of Honda in California, so Herb sent one of his creations to the U.S. HQ for a bit of analysis by Honda’s Jack McCormack, then sales manager of American Honda.
It was a brilliant little machine,” McCormack said to writer Aaron Frank in his book. Honda Motorcycles. “It worked so well because it was light and with the automatic clutch, you could climb logs. To do that on a big bike, you had to have a certain amount of skill. I saw lots of possibilities for something like Herb was doing, selling it as a bike that you could go in the woods and hunt or fish with.
McCormack was so enthused about Uhl’s 50 that he sent it back to Honda’s home base in Japan demanding a production version. Honda, being the small and nimble company they once were before becoming the conglomerate they are today, obliged and created the CA100T Trail 50 for the 1961 model year.
Like the Cun/SuperCub, the ST became a motorcycle that could take you to the farthest reaches of the earth on barely the smell of an old rag. In the 60 years since the first CA100T Trail 50 landed here in the U.S., there’s only been five model updates – 1964 for the CT200 Trail 90, 1969’s CT70 Trail 70, 1981 saw the introduction of the CT110, and 2021 for the new CT125 Trail 125 ABS.
The bones of 60 years of CT’s still reside in the 125. The ride position has barely changed in 40 years.
The CT110 saw the longest model run of almost any production bike ever created and has a special place in my heart as the motorcycle the postman came to deliver our mail on each day while I was growing up in Australia.
The new version in the 125 Trail 125 ABS (silly name, I know), was first shown to the public at the 2019 Tokyo Motor Show and borrows heavily from the Super Cub that was released in the U.S. that year.
The Super Cub’s two-valve, single overhead camshell, fuel-injected, 125cc single cylinder motor has been donated, although the CT gets a longer intake and a different exhaust which helps better low-end power, as well as a three-tooth larger rear sprocket, and the CT still retains the trademark heel/toe four-speed auto clutch gearshift.
The SuoerCub’s frame has been used as the blueprint for the CT’s but there’s some pretty big differences between the two.
First, the wheelbase is 0.5 inches longer at 19.4 inches, the front suspension has got 0.4 inches extra wheel travel to 4.3 inches, ground clearance is increased by 11 inches, and the seat height has been raised 0.9 inches to 31.5 inches.
The headpipe has been reinforced, there’s different handlebars with a much sharper upsweep and there are17-inch knobby tires mounted on rims with stainless steel spokes.
Disc brakes front and rear have been fitted to replace the CT110’s drum brake setup, and the gas tank gets an extra 0.4 gallons of capacity to register 1.4 gallons. Finally, there’s a step guard to protect the bottom of the motor.
Riding the CT125, it really doesn’t feel that far gone from the CT110, and that’s a good thing. This is about as unintimidating a motorcycle as you can possibly buy, with the 125cc motor good for (in my hands) a whopping 50 mpg with a downhill and a tailwind. This is a bike designed to get you to faraway places, and one made in such a way you could fix most problems with a Swiss army knife.
The power is enough that it keeps up with traffic on back roads but, like the Super Cub, don’t go taking this on any freeways unless you want to become someone’s hood ornament.
The braking performance is better than I remember from when I had my
In designing a motorcycle there are several critical measurements that must first be finalized.
From watching customers decide which bike to buy, over the years, and from my own riding experience, the first and most important measurement to be locked in should be the seat height. After all, these machines should be built to fit people and people come with various inseam lengths, within certain ranges.
Currently, go anywhere all-purpose motorcycles called “adventure bikes” seem to be built for people who are in the 32 through 36-inch inseam range. There simply are no all-purpose motorcycles built for the 25 inch through 30-inch inseam range.
In reality what this means is approximately 60% of the world’s population can’t buy a “go anywhere adventure type motorcycle” to fit their body at any price. The only motorcycles available to them are some of the cruiser models and motorcycles built for young children to learn on.
To put this into perspective the adventure type bike is the popular two-wheel equivalent of the crossover style car that’s the biggest seller now in the automotive market.
It seems to me there is a huge chunk of business available to the company who takes the time to develop a line of go-anywhere motorcycles to fit the 25-inch through 30-inch inseam range of people. With all the millions of short people, which includes most females and a huge percentage of males available as customers, that market could be larger than the current motorcycle market we see now.
Some original design work will have to be done for sure, but the prize available in the end will be a whole new market for motorcycles every bit as large as the current market or larger.
To see if you would be a customer in this new market segment simply measure your inseam length.
It’s an often ignored safety issue, but the closer you can come to being able to touch the ground flat-footed at stops or in panic situations, the more control you have over your motorcycle.
My motorcycle passion has always been in trail riding and off-highway competition. To do that with my 27-inch inseam length, I’ve always had to build my own special motorcycle frames with components from various bikes to achieve the control and comfort I desired. One thing I learned early on, was that the maximum suspension travel I could use with my inseam length was 7 inches.
My effort then became to experiment with various 7-inch travel forks to see which ones gave me the control, handling, comfort and safety trail riding and off-road racing required, with my inseam length. The best handling and smoothest riding ones were leading link forks from Dot, Greeves and Sachs.
1964 DOT leading forks
1967 Greeves leading link fork
Sachs/DKW leading link forks
Both Dot and Greeves had relatively useless Villiers engines, so I simply used their forks, which were great, with much higher tech engines from other makers in my modified 29-inch seat height frames. With about 2 inches of suspension sag, as my weight found the seat, I could put my feet flat on the ground. With my race clothes on, and ready to ride, my weight was right in the 160-pound range so it didn’t take huge engines to make me very competitive overall.
So there I was racing through the forest, or the desert, in relative comfort as most of those around me were wearing themselves out on motorcycles that didn’t fit them and certainly didn’t ride as good as mine.
Motorcycle testers for the various motorcycle magazines all over the world ignore one of the main considerations most people have when they are shopping for a new bike. Will it fit me?
That all starts with being able to touch the ground flat-footed while sitting on the bike. Of course, a motorcycle enthusiast will climb on a box, if necessary, to get on a bike just to get another ride so seat height means very little to him. He simply does whatever acrobatics it takes to ride it, but he will never be as good on it as he would be if it fit him.
To eventually get to be an enthusiast you first have to ride bikes that fit your body. Inseam length is the deciding factor in making a bike fit you.
In testing Honda’s Africa Twin, Cycle World magazine said: “Moreover, using a parallel twin gave the bike a narrow waist that makes it easy for the rider to get his feet flat on the ground”. That model Honda has a seat height of 33.5 to 34.3 inches. In this case, the motorcycle tester knows it’s desirable to put your feet flat on the ground when sitting on your bike, but having him assume riders have a minimum of a 34-inch inseam is not that easy to forgive. After all, I am a rider, who has a 27-inch inseam.
I recently read a short article in Cycle News online magazine about the new Beta 125 RR – S, a trail bike targeted at the new rider and the author says as follows: “It has a low 35.5-inch seat height”.
That seat height can only be low to someone with a 36 inch or longer inseam. So the bike must be made for beginners close to 6 foot or taller. It is certainly not made for the bulk of the people, both men and ladies, whose inseam’s range from around 25 to 30 inches.
To most people a 27-inch seat height would be more in the ballpark, then the majority of us could more or less sit on the bike flat-footed.
If the motorcycle testers were serious about really doing their job, they would have people with various inseam lengths sit on the bikes to test and actually see what would be the shortest inseam a rider could have and still touch the ground flat-footed. That way when you go shopping for a bike you would know which models to start looking at first.
Actually racing could do much to improve our bikes if racers and manufacturers were allowed to innovate.
Smokey Yunick
If you have followed racing of all types down through the years you probably recognize the name Smokey Yunick. He was known for making improvements in engine and chassis design that netted him more power better fuel mileage better handling etc. Smokey never did anything that was actually against the rules, he simply did all kinds of things the rulebook didn’t prohibit to give his cars a racing edge. In other words, he was a champion of innovation.
Do you think he was applauded for his design improvements? Actually far from it! Race organizers and sanctioning bodies go out of their way to enforce the status quo and consider improvements cheating.
So yes, racing could improve our bikes if improvements were allowed to happen.
Following are major breakthroughs in motorcycle design in recent years that were squelched by the sanctioning bodies. The first breakthrough happened in the US and was squelched by the AMA, the American Motorcycle Association. The second breakthrough happened in Japan and was squelched by the FIM, the Federation International Motorcyclist. The third one was shelved because the second one was squelched.
1 – In 1971 Lars Larson raced a titanium framed Husqvarna 400cc motocross bike and he won the championship that year. Using titanium for the frame, axles, and a few other components, Lars got the weight down to 189 pounds. That was a savings of 25 pounds from stock. We all know the lighter a bike is the easier it is to handle, and the better fuel mileage it gets.
The AMA outlawed titanium frames for competition the next season. If they had kept out of it, all the other companies would have had to go titanium also to remain competitive and we would be the winners. No matter what your dirt bike weighs now it would be about 25 pounds lighter and somewhat stronger if the AMA had not made that shortsighted move. These actions are always taken to try to do the impossible – – keep down the cost of racing.
If the innovators are not allowed to do something simple like that which would’ve benefited all of us, they’ll just have to do several sneaky things that benefit no one but them and probably raise the cost of racing even more.
2 – In 1980 Honda made an effort to revolutionize motocross by designing a 125 two cylinder two stroke motocross bike that put out 35 hp. at 13,000 RPM however the FIM sanctioning body banned two cylinder bikes from motocross competition in 1981.
Because of that we still only have single cylinder motocross bikes, rather than the much better performing twin cylinder bikes that the industry is capable of providing.
3 – In 1980 Honda was also pioneering a revolutionary leading link fork that got stiffer the further it moved into its travel, leading to vastly improved control on a motocross course or any other unimproved riding area. Since their twin cylinder motocross bike was rejected by the sanctioning body they simply shelved their whole design effort.
The manufacturers don’t like a ban on innovation either, because if designers and engineers lack a challenge the entire line of products suffers.
In affect the FIM effort to protect the status quo has deprived us of motorcycles that are a lot safer and more fun to ride.
So let’s encourage the motorcycle manufacturers to ignore the race sanctioning organizations and build better lighter more fun motorcycles for us to enjoy. We all know from past experience that if someone wants to race anything an organization will start up which encourages that form of racing, so the sanctioning body’s rules are simply a paper tiger.
Cost-cutting rules about racing have never kept the cost down yet, so I don’t suppose we will actually ever see that happen anyway.
In racing, there should always be a manufacturer’s class where innovation is encouraged so they can actually improve our bikes.
There should also be a more or less stock class where individuals can innovate to improve our current crop of machines.
Spec classes should also be run where all the bikes are kept on a par for that so-called affordable racing we keep hearing about.
So which manufacturer is going to do titanium frames, modern front suspension and make the lightweight bikes that have been possible since 1971? They should be even easier to do now with 45 years more accumulated experience using titanium in aerospace production and so forth.
Perhaps manufacturers should make both the plain-vanilla models that satisfy sanctioning bodies, and the up to date models most of us really want to buy.
The telescopic fork is being asked to do a job that physics and common sense won’t allow it to do no matter how many thousands of dollars they continue to throw at its development. It has already had millions wasted on trying to perfect it.
Here’s the problem. – – When you ride it forward against a bump the movable part of the fork, whether it is a male or female slider, is violently shoved straight back towards the motorcycle, and only after that happens does it start to slide upward on or in its tubes that are attached to the handlebars. Therefore you have one set of tubes prying against the other set of tubes as they try to slide in or on each other. No matter what is done to make them more slippery there is no way those basic facts of mechanical action can be changed.
Even though the telescopic fork looks cool and simple and the effect is not noticed much when you’re sitting still and working your beautiful smooth front fork up and down, it does not have the same effect when you’re riding the bike and run into a bump.
That is why it takes 12 or 14 inches of up-and-down travel to get a good ride over unimproved terrain with telescopic forks.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the shock spring units being made to telescope, it is simply that they have to be attached in such a way that impacts do not hit them directly and put them in any kind of a bind.
The answer of course is to use some kind of a hinged unit that separates the impact from the shock spring unit just like on the modern car. There have been many types of hinged front suspensions used on motorcycle forks. In fact one of the first multi-cylinder motorcycles had one used on it in 1895.
In one form or another leading or trailing link suspensions, as they are called, have been used on one model or another by most motorcycle manufacturers. Up until now these link type suspensions have been slightly heavier than a telescopic fork. Now titanium can be used in their manufacture and affect a 20% weight savings, finally making them completely practical, and perhaps slightly lighter than equivalent telescopic forks. So 121 years later technology has finally caught up with the design and they are practical for top-of-the-line motorcycles.
The practical results of changing over to a leading link design are;
1. No suspension binding either on impact or braking.
2. Better and safer braking because the front of the bike doesn’t dive during braking thereby taking weight off the rear wheel.
3. A much smoother ride needing only one-half of the travel because binding doesn’t compromise shock action.
4. Much longer life out of spring shock units.
5. Because of the way the impacts are absorbed there is less stress on the frame of the motorcycle allowing for overall lighter weight and longer service life.
6. A lower seat height with way better comfort and safety. It usually only takes one good ride to make you happy you made the leading link suspension choice.
7. In essence the leading link fork has an action similar to that used on today’s supercars and they are constantly being tested at speeds of over 200 mph.
Is there a downside to using the leading link type front fork? Yes there is, you’ll have to get used to the fork looking a little bit different.
I’ve personally raced several thousands of off-highway miles on leading link front fork equipped motorcycles and I have been able to perform well above my skill level because of their forgiving nature.
As you may know, the crossover segment in the auto industry is the fastest-growing segment of their business. These cars have a little more ground clearance, all-wheel-drive usually and better visibility so they are not limited to driving on highways.
The motorcycle industry also has such a segment and they are called adventure bikes. They can be ridden on the streets, highways and almost anywhere else regardless of roads or terrain. Currently, four of the major companies are building some form of adventure bike and most of the rest are building something similar but they are not there yet.
In riding motorcycles, however, you can’t just slide the seat back and forth to fit different size bodies. The motorcycles actually have to be designed for different general leg length (inseam) so the riders can set both feet on the ground when the motorcycle is not in motion.
Problem: Because suspension technology has not progressed with the rest of the motorcycle technology the only way to currently get a smooth ride over uneven terrain is to have 12 inches to 14 inches of suspension travel on a telescopic type front fork. Thus if you intend to get a smooth ride you must have a seat height from the ground that only more or less fits about 40% of the potential motorcycle riders. Those riders must have an inseam length of 34 inches or more to safely touch the ground with both feet.
Conclusion: It is absurd that an entire industry would only cater to 40% of their available customers. It’s as if the manufacturers had a meeting somewhere and decided that all motorcycle riders have a 34 inch or longer inseam, so that’s all we’re going to build. I guess they decided anyone with less than a 34-inch inseam must be a child so we will make some basic beginner models for them and if any short adults want to ride they can stand on a stool to mount the bike or ride a children’s bike. The problem with using a stool to mount the bike is how do you have the stool at a stop light when it turns red?
There is an exception: The cruiser models. The way they made them sit lower was to take away suspension travel, rather than re-engineer the suspension to give them a good ride. One of them has just over 1 ½ inches of movement on their rear suspension rather than the 12 inches to 14 inches of movement on the best off-road bikes. As you can easily see the cruisers need roads almost as smooth as a tabletop to be able to ride them comfortably. How many roads like that are there? So the result is a 27-inch inseam cruiser rider can’t explore like a 34-inch inseam person can on an adventure bike.
Now modern materials and systems are available to get the same kind of compliance and a smooth ride with only 6 inches or 7 inches of travel.
I simply propose a complete line of smaller adult motorcycles from adventure bikes clear down to the cruisers be designed around this new technology to fit the other approximately 60% of the population. I see no reason why cruisers should have to ride like farm equipment or adventure bikes should require a ladder for the majority of people to climb on board.
Most of the rest of today’s motorcycle technology will need very little modification to satisfy these many new fans.
“It’s a modern Sportsman’s best friend all the way!”
says Idaho sportsman, “Never, never… will I go hunting without my new Trail ’50’. Recently I packed out two strapping deer from Idaho’s toughest timberland and witnessed two more hunters bringing in four more – also on Trail ’50’s (one of them was a 5-point 250 lb, trophy buck). I was able to scout ten times as much hunting area as on foot, also used my ’50’ for hauling water, dragging firewood logs, and general around-camp errands.
“This year’s hunting was the best yet… thanks mainly to a little critter called a Honda Trail ’50’!”
Herb Uhl, President
Herco Engineering Co.
Boise, Idaho
Mr. Uhl’s enthusiasm is typical of the many hundreds of outdoorsmen who have purchased and hunted with a Honda Trail “50”.
Trail “50”s are sold in America by the American Honda MotorCo., Inc.
Bill Uhl, Evel Knievel and Mike Uhl prior to the Snake River jump in Twin Falls, Idaho
