Originally Posted by messenger13
"Haven't compared other brands, but have a hunch they wouldn't fare as well, based of experience."
My point is; who governs or regulates what "max payload" is? Seems to me like BMW can slap any number they want on there...yes? No? Why not? The fact that BMW allows the LT to have a payload of 487 pounds proves my point. Those OEM shocks SUCK to high heaven, and we all know it. But BMW tells you that you can load the LT that heavy, because they know anything less would be unacceptable.
The only spec that EVER is important to me is wet weight. And that's only for the sake of comparing bikes, and putting them in categories according to their respective wet weights.
Those of you who do not labor under the attainment of 'THE GOOD LIFE' might not have any reason to even think about GVW or max payload.
Me? It is one of the 1st things I need to look at when considering a bike. There are too many bikes out there with specifications that do not allow me to ride them, one-up! For many of the smaller bikes, I outweigh the bike!
Max payload, and thus GVWR, is concerned with the ability of the transmission to get the bike going, the brakes to stop the bike, the tires to keep the bike off the rims, the suspension to keep it handling properly, the engine to enable acceptable mobility, the frame to deal with flex, etc, etc.
Is there a standard? I don't know.
Are the numbers absolute? I doubt it. The lawyers wouldn't accept that!
Are the numbers useful for bike-to-bike comparisons? I presume so. In fact, I would suggest that is the ONLY valid comparison. I would not consider a bike with a 275 # payload if I expected to use it for 2-up riding. I would think long and hard for solo riding, too, unless I lost a lot of weight!
You got to ask yourself one question. Do you feel like filing a lawsuit if the bike can't handle the pressure? Well, do ya', lightweight?