I haven't ridden one but I have paid attention to the reviews and specs. My take when compared to a KLR?
- it's cheap.....even cheaper than a KLR which is hard to imagine!
- it's a nice looking bike IMO
- relatively simple compared to other ADV bikes
- 21" front spoked rim like the KLR
- low seat height
- it's different....not one on every street corner.
- power; it's 25hp/23.6 ft lbs falls far short of the KLR's 34hp/31 ft lbs.....and it isn't as though the KLR is a powerhouse.
- weight; comparible to a Gen2, 22 lbs heavier than a Gen1. for a 400cc bike it's heavy.
- 7.8 and 7.0" inches of undersprung suspension travel....fairly close to the Gen2 KLR but not great
- ....and the biggy: parts availability - 140,000 KLR's sold in the last 31 years of production have guaranteed a large supply of OEM and aftermarket parts that are readily available everywhere. My town has two large Kawasaki dealers and there are two more within a 45 minute drive....Royal Enfield? Nope, I think there is one in Calgary - an 8hr drive from here.
I think it's a decent entry level bike for the guy that want's something different.......but for actual adventure riding, a used KLR is easy to find at the same price or even lower and the KLR has more capability, potential and would be far easier to fix on route due to the parts issue.
I applaud the idea of a bike that is inexpensive, simple and has a "UJM" look and feel.....there are far to many 500+ lb, 75+hp ADV bikes on the market and not enough of bikes like this....but I won't be buying one as my modified Gen1 KLR is simply a better bike than the Himalayan