Scram Review

[tom_d]

Ran across this review in Forbes. Nice to see more writers being exposed to and appreciating the practical aspect of motorcycles built for the Indian market.

Ride Review: The Royal Enfield Scram 411 Is The Safest Motorcycle I’ve Ever Ridden

Riders outside of India might think a 411 cc single an odd choice, but the fun-loving and stylish Scram's capabilities and charms should not be overlooked.

www.forbes.com

 

[Bluestrom13]

Nice to see more writers being exposed to and appreciating the practical aspect of motorcycles built for the Indian market.

" The Royal Enfield Scram 411 Is The Safest Motorcycle I’ve Ever Ridden "


" It’s no sportbike, but you can still get daring in the twisties, the peg feelers [] touching down lightly to remind you of approaching limits. "

" the Scram is stable and predictable, with traditional forks-and-twin shocks suspension [ ] moving through a generous bit of travel that soaks up road imperfections with ease. Only the rear boingers are adjustable for preload."

Did the writer and the bike ever meet, I wonder?

 

[tom_d]

I wondered about the peg feelers, missed the twin stock suspension part. I thought he did grok that these bikes have a different purpose and focus than most.

About the comment that it is safe, the slow and stead way the power come on does give confidence in rainy conditions.

 

[Scramjet]

Just had a quick read through a MCN review, not dated but probably when they were first released, and my thoughts were also have they actually ridden it, as apart from the usual front brake complaint the reviewer complained about the rev counter letting water in?

If it doesn't have over a 100bhp and cost over £10k the majority of reviewers seem to read other reports and cut and paste. Or their written by AI.

 

[Turbofurball]

On MCN the real reviews are done in the comments sections. I don't think any of their staff knows how to ride off road either ... on their youtube channel there was a little 125 trailie being reviewed and for the "off road" part of the test they literally took it on a flat bit of gravel road for about 100 meters and concluded that it was really good. I rode the "ADV" version of the same bike and found that it was shite off road because the first gear was far too long and the motor had no power below 7K so the only way to make progress was to rev it like crazy and punish the clutch. Their review of the Classic 350 says it's obviously well made because the frame paint is shiny.

In summary, I don't think they know about the majority of motorcycles.

 

[2LZ]

I pay zero attention to the modern motorcycle media reviews. I like watching YT vids when I'm interested in a particular bike but It's not like it was, compared to a Dirt Bike or Cycle World magazine reviews of old. Seems everyone wants to be an internet star as opposed to making the bike the center point.
For starters, most of these bikes aren't broke-in yet. The bikes change dramatically over the first 1500 miles in both engine and suspension personality. Besides, five guys swapping the same bike around for a day isn't really a review. Ride it for a long-term review and then get back to me.

 

[Laserman]

watching Noraly ride her Himalayan was enough for me to forget every bad review I ever read about it

 

[Turbofurball]

Yeah, it's quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff when you know what to look for. Nathan the Postman or Itchy Boots does a few thousand km on a bike and then you can hear what they have to say, bod borrows a bike from a dealership for an hour and makes a video of it parked in a layby listing the specs and you know it's not going to be helpful.