>>993879>>993915Really anons, really?
An oil change interval of 600 miles makes a bike nearly completely useless for long distance. I've done trips of that distance each way. I don't even put up with service intervals that short for my bicycle.
Mileage of 30-50k isn't anywhere near high. That's not really the point though. If you have one engine that cruises around at 3k rpm, and another at 6+k rpm, then all other things being equal the second one is going to have parts start to wear out at least twice as fast. Small engines on the highway? High revving as fuck. Race bikes don't enter into the comparison since they're intentionally built with the lightest and therefore flimsiest components, optimising for weight instead of longevity.
Second anon, please don't try and say that "smaller bikes can't keep up with traffic" is bullshit when as you can see with
>>993847, it is literally correct. You also don't need to bring up 1250cc bikes since I think we're all in agreement that they have more power than anyone but Germans have a road legal use for.
As for world tripping on a 250cc, again it's a case of it being possible but distinctly suboptimal. Load one up with a ton of luggage or a pillion passenger and point it towards a hill, and you're gonna have a real slow time.
To use your own words, there is nothing wrong with wanting to ride a smaller bike. Hell, I get around on a bicycle at the moment and I wouldn't mind getting a 125cc or 5kW electric motorbike to make trips around the city where I live easier. But medium sized bikes serve a legitimate purpose on the highway that small bikes can't match. Some are even just as fuel efficient as a 250cc. Big (>800cc) bikes are bullshit though.
