1200gs

[srad]

Well, just turned 40   traded in my zx12 and 998s and got a new 1200gs grey.

My ratings so far

Comfort 9/10 -great seating position and ergonomics. Comfortable padding.

Power 9/10 - No top end like my previous bikes but power is more useable and real-world. More accessible power 98% of the time. Fantastic torque characteristics.

Sound 9/10 very quite but with visor up the purr of the boxer is very satisfying

Fun Factor 10/10 easily the most fun I''ve had in over 20 years of riding.

Commuting 9/10 likes commuting, doesn't seem to overheat in the Oz summer.

Mountain roads 9/10 can rip around bumpy mountain roads like a demon. Suspension soaks up roads that would kill a sportbike

Lanesplitting 5/10 very wide bike makes for slightly nervous lane splitting, use the emergency lanes instead

Highway 9/10 High riding position gives commanding view on the hway. Engine has a great feel at hway speeds

Handling 9/10 in my opinion better than the 998

Stealth factor 10/10 drags off pretty well anything at the lights if required but you are not 'expected' to go fast. Take-off's very rapid and hassle free

Looks 9/10 I love the cylinders on display and the insane look, many people coming up to ask questions.

Offroad ? Don't know as yet TBA

Brakes 10/10 powerful brakes (brembo) easily as good as 998 + ABS which I have activated a few times.

Wet weather riding 9/10 great feedback from the front end

Wind protection 8/10 Under 120kmh can leave your visor up.



Such a different bike to a traditional sportster or tourer. Awesome machine

[Global Rider]

Now you know why I own 4 BMW GS models of different years. You know you've found the perfect bike when you refuse to trade them in or sell them.

[Capirex]

 

Pics please.

[CPB]

I concur.  The GS is a great bike.  With the right rubber, the GS can be very capable offroad.  Enjoy the new bike!  

[cbsnbiker]

Congrats, and welcome!

[DangerMoney]

srad,
Replace the OEM windscreen with something like a Cee Bailey's +4 +2 and turbulence induced by it goes away.

[MarcS]

The GS is only 6-8" wider than the latest sportbikes (without luggage). And the handlebars are high enough that they are more likely to miss something. Sure, it's not a cruiser with ape-hangers, but it's doable...

The buffeting is bothersome. Either get a HUGE shield that keeps you entirely out of the wind, or remove it and put a token shield on for looks/protection of the gauges.

[BMW-Fahrer]

I wonder if for someone who never goes off-road the R1200R might be even better than the mighty GS?!Less weight and another 10 horses without sacrificing any torque...
And of course the ability to put on some really sticky buns.

[CPB]

I wonder if for someone who never goes off-road the R1200R might be even better than the mighty GS?!Less weight and another 10 horses without sacrificing any torque...
And of course the ability to put on some really sticky buns.

Good point.  I think that if you are not going to do any off-roading, the R12R should be considered.  I really like the looks of the R (but then I think the GS is good looking) and would love the extra ponies.

The R is truly a great "do it all" bike.  Just not for dirt.  

I like getting off-road and I really like the seat height of the GS.  Suspension travel of the GS is good for the crummy New England roads.  

[BBB]

The only problem with the R1200R is the riding position is more restrictive for taller riders. It felt cramped compared to my GS. The smaller fuel tank at 18 litres is not ideal, although I can see that BMW have done that because the R1200 hexhead engines are more fuel efficient than the 1100/1150 oilhead engines.

[Global Rider]

The smaller fuel tank at 18 litres is not ideal, although I can see that BMW have done that because the R1200 hexhead engines are more fuel efficient than the 1100/1150 oilhead engines.

But not fuel efficient enough to make up for the ever decreasing gas tank size. The oilhead GSes started out with a 25 liter tank, then 22 liters and now 20 liters.

R1200 GS: 5.5l/100 kms.
R1150 GS: 5.7l/100 kms.
R1100 GS: ?

[BBB]

But not fuel efficient enough to make up for the ever decreasing gas tank size. The oilhead GSes started out with a 25 liter tank, then 22 liters and now 20 liters.

R1200 GS: 5.5l/100 kms.
R1150 GS: 5.7l/100 kms.
R1100 GS: ?

And your experience of riding the R1200GS in the real world is?

[Global Rider]

And your experience of riding the R1200GS in the real world is?

That data was taken from a source that is far better than what your average person can determine in the real world...and you know what, BMW is near spot on. Or better still, they're spot on and my calculations are pretty near spot on to what they're claiming.

Why, what are you getting at a steady speed, on level ground and in a no wind condition. Most wouldn't even think about taking that into account.

[BBB]

Why, what are you getting at a steady speed, on level ground and in a no wind condition. Most wouldn't even think about taking that into account.

And that's where all the figures the manufacturers publish fall down. Its all very well to publish a figure obtained in ideal conditions but who drives in those ideal conditions? I certainly don't, much as I would prefer to. The figures that people obtain in the real world are a more accurate reflection than any figures that the manufacturers are obliged to publish to comply with legislation.

My own experience tells me that my R1200GS is a far more fuel efficient machine than the R1150GS that I had before it. On my old commute to work on the 1150, it averaged 43mpg. On changing to the R1200GS, this immediately returned an average of 48mpg in the same conditions.

So, back to my original question. What real world experience of the R1200GS do you have to compare against the figures you achieve on your R1150GS?

[srad]

I get roughly 5.5l/100km so far. If you ease along you could probably get close to 400km. Adventure was too much for me as most of my time is on sealed roads.

[Global Rider]

And that's where all the figures the manufacturers publish fall down. Its all very well to publish a figure obtained in ideal conditions but who drives in those ideal conditions? I certainly don't, much as I would prefer to. The figures that people obtain in the real world are a more accurate reflection than any figures that the manufacturers are obliged to publish to comply with legislation.

Well that is all we have to go on when making comparisons. Having one rider come up with an MPG with a strong headwind and then comparing it to another rider coming up with an MPG with a strong tailwind obviously isn't going to work...so you use manufacturers figures when making head to head comparisons...because it applies to all riders under those conditions.

My own experience tells me that my R1200GS is a far more fuel efficient machine than the R1150GS that I had before it. On my old commute to work on the 1150, it averaged 43mpg. On changing to the R1200GS, this immediately returned an average of 48mpg in the same conditions.

That it is, a bit more. How are you driving to get a piddly 43 MPGs on your old R1150 GS? I get a tight average of 53 MPG. Thats at a constant 120 km/hr ± a bit...some sections a bit more...some sections a bit less. Thats a bit more than the BMW published 5.7 liters/100 km or 49.5 MPGs.

So, back to my original question. What real world experience of the R1200GS do you have to compare against the figures you achieve on your R1150GS?

I don't, not that it would make a difference. Funny how the published fuel numbers for my cars and bikes seem to work for me. If anything, I get a bit better as I've shown.

And sure enough, the poster above is claiming a 5.5l/100 km consumption. If you slow it down to 90 km/hr, and who can without going nuts, I'm sure he could get over 400 kms on the tank.

[BBB]

Well that is all we have to go on when making comparisons. Having one rider come up with an MPG with a strong headwind and then comparing it to another rider coming up with an MPG with a strong tailwind obviously isn't going to work...so you use manufacturers figures when making head to head comparisons...because it applies to all riders under those conditions.

But you have used your own figures obtained from your own bike in this comparison, so that tends to negate what you said above.  

That it is, a bit more. How are you driving to get a piddly 43 MPGs on your old R1150 GS? I get a tight average of 53 MPG. Thats at a constant 120 km/hr ± a bit...some sections a bit more...some sections a bit less. Thats a bit more than the BMW published 5.7 liters/100 km or 49.5 MPGs.

The figures I quoted were on my commute to work in London traffic. The 1150 would average 43mpg in those conditions and the 1200 48. That's an improvement of 11% which is hardly piddly. On a holiday to Norway in 2003, my 1150 averaged just a touch under 49mpg over a distance of 3000 miles. Not bad, but my 1200 would easily better that in the same conditions.

I don't, not that it would make a difference. Funny how the published fuel numbers for my cars and bikes seem to work for me. If anything, I get a bit better as I've shown.

Yes, you must be one of the few people out there who's own figures actually match the claims made by the manufacturers. Quite remarkable!

You seem to have a problem accepting the fact that the R1200GS is more economical than its predecessor. That is my finding, and it is also the finding of numerous owners who have gone from the 1150 to the 1200. You can argue to the cows come home about the BMW claimed figures but when numerous owners are reporting that the fuel consumption on their 1200's is better than their 1150's it can't be ignored.

[Global Rider]

But you have used your own figures obtained from your own bike in this comparison, so that tends to negate what you said above.

How is that negating anything? I am stating that I am getting BMW's published claims and so are a few others.

The figures I quoted were on my commute to work in London traffic. The 1150 would average 43mpg in those conditions and the 1200 48. That's an improvement of 11% which is hardly piddly. On a holiday to Norway in 2003, my 1150 averaged just a touch under 49mpg over a distance of 3000 miles. Not bad, but my 1200 would easily better that in the same conditions.

Well if it is in stop and go traffic, then I can understand your high fuel consumption on the R1150 GS. There are no carefully measured specs for stop and go riding in traffic, but you'll find that at 90 km/hr the R1200 burns a mere 4.3 l/100 km compared to the R1150 GS at 4.5 l/100 km. The "piddly" I was refering to was the low mileage you were getting on the R1150 GS when I am getting 53 MPG, but then you didn't state you were in city traffic.

Yes, you must be one of the few people out there who's own figures actually match the claims made by the manufacturers. Quite remarkable!

Not really. All you have to be is smoooooth, because when a manufacturer makes a claim at 120 km/hr, thats what it means...not hammering through the gears up and down on the back roads.

You seem to have a problem accepting the fact that the R1200GS is more economical than its predecessor.

I don't have any trouble accepting the facts...and the facts that I have stated are BMW's claimed fuel consumption figures. Nowhere did I say the R1200 GS gets worse mileage than the R1150 GS.

From my post above...and it shows the R1200 GS getting better mileage. These numbers at 120 km/hr.

But not fuel efficient enough to make up for the ever decreasing gas tank size. The oilhead GSes started out with a 25 liter tank, then 22 liters and now 20 liters.

R1200 GS: 5.5l/100 kms.
R1150 GS: 5.7l/100 kms.
R1100 GS: ?

So where exactly am I stating that the older model is more efficient in those numbers above? By the way, you've got a 20 liter gas tank, not the 18 liters you stated in a post further up.

And since I was talking about range in my quote above, the older model goes further despite being slightly less fuel efficient becuase of the slightly bigger gas tank in the older model.

But that must be a BMW trend. They have a 9.5 liter gas tank in the new G series. Where the hell am I supposed to go with that thing...the front door of my house to where I park my bikes in the adjacent garage?  

[BBB]

How is that negating anything? I am stating that I am getting BMW's published claims and so are a few others.

But those quoted figures are for steady speeds. How many people are actually able to ride at a constant speed for any length of time? Its certainly not possible in the south of England. So to say that people are getting published claims is nonsense. People are getting a certain fuel consumption whilst riding their bikes over a range of speeds and conditions but not because they are able to ride at a constant 56 or 75 mph constantly.

Not really. All you have to be is smoooooth, because when a manufacturer makes a claim at 120 km/hr, thats what it means...not hammering through the gears up and down on the back roads.

Really? I'd never have known that without your explanation

I don't have any trouble accepting the facts...and the facts that I have stated are BMW's claimed fuel consumption figures. Nowhere did I say the R1200 GS gets worse mileage than the R1150 GS.

I did see a thread on UKGSer.com where you said otherwise.

So where exactly am I stating that the older model is more efficient in those numbers above? By the way, you've got a 20 liter gas tank, not the 18 liters you stated in a post further up.

I know I've got a 20 litre petrol tank, the 18 litres I quoted relates to the petrol tank on the R1200R, which if you re-read it you will see.. And I refer you to the thread on UKGSer.com in relation to where you have claimed the fuel consumption on the 1200 is inferior to your 1150.

And since I was talking about range in my quote above, the older model goes further despite being slightly less fuel efficient becuase of the slightly bigger gas tank in the older model.

Not so. My old 1150 in London traffic conditions at 43mpg will go 208 miles on a full tank (22 litres). The R1200GS at 48 mpg in the same conditions will go 211 miles (20 litre tank).

But that must be a BMW trend. They have a 9.5 liter gas tank in the new G series. Where the hell am I supposed to go with that thing...the front door of my house to where I park my bikes in the adjacent garage?  

The 1200 Adventure does have a larger tank than its 1150 predecessor, so with the improved fuel consumption of the 1200 that should extend the range of that model quite nicely

[Global Rider]

But those quoted figures are for steady speeds. How many people are actually able to ride at a constant speed for any length of time? Its certainly not possible in the south of England. So to say that people are getting published claims is nonsense. People are getting a certain fuel consumption whilst riding their bikes over a range of speeds and conditions but not because they are able to ride at a constant 56 or 75 mph constantly.

Exactly. How do you want a company to rate fuel consumption...based on their own company rider of whom I or you know nothing about their riding habits?

Of course people can get published claims....at the published speeds. Trust me, in this competitive world, a manufacturer will publish the best figures that are attainable by 95% of their production lot. Why wouldn't they want to look as good as they can?

Not so. My old 1150 in London traffic conditions at 43mpg will go 208 miles on a full tank (22 litres). The R1200GS at 48 mpg in the same conditions will go 211 miles (20 litre tank).

Was that at 90 km/hr or 120 km/hr? I think not. So what you get in traffic is of little consequence to me and most riders that buy a BMW for long distance touring...usually above 100 km/hr. When I buy a bike, the first two things I look at are fuel quantity and fuel consumption...because we all know what pitifull range 90% of motorcycles have. In any case, you had one very bad R1150 GS and have one very good R1200 GS. I guess I'm lucky with my Adventure seeing as I get in the mid 300s on 30 liters of gas at a good clip.

The 1200 Adventure does have a larger tank than its 1150 predecessor, so with the improved fuel consumption of the 1200 that should extend the range of that model quite nicely

Yup, 3 liters larger for a whole 9 extra miles at the published speed of 120 km/hr. The new Adventure takes a nose dive in fuel efficiency compared to the regular GS...lots of drag. And so that we don't ping pong further...like I've always said, you R1200 GS has better numbers based on what I believe, the BMW published claims. You might do better or worse (obviously) depending on your riding style. Too bad they keep reducing the fuel tank size for an overall shorter range. My friend wished his R1150 GS had the 25 liter tank of the previous model...so do many owners.

[BBB]

Was that at 90 km/hr or 120 km/hr? I think not. So what you get in traffic is of little consequence to me and most riders that buy a BMW for long distance touring...usually above 100 km/hr. When I buy a bike, the first two things I look at are fuel quantity and fuel consumption...because we all know what pitifull range 90% of motorcycles have. In any case, you had one very bad R1150 GS and have one very good R1200 GS. I guess I'm lucky with my Adventure seeing as I get in the mid 300s on 30 liters of gas at a good clip.

It doesn't matter a jot what speed it was at, it was the consumption that I recorded in the conditions that I encountered on my regular commute to work. As for suggesting my 1150 was "bad", the figures I was obtaining in London traffic conditions compare with a number of other 1150 owners who find themselves commuting in similar conditions. In fact there are others out there with 1150's who were recording less than 40mpg in similar conditions.

Yup, 3 liters larger for a whole 9 extra miles at the published speed of 120 km/hr. The new Adventure takes a nose dive in fuel efficiency compared to the regular GS...lots of drag. And so that we don't ping pong further...like I've always said, you R1200 GS has better numbers based on what I believe, the BMW published claims. You might do better or worse (obviously) depending on your riding style. Too bad they keep reducing the fuel tank size for an overall shorter range. My friend wished his R1150 GS had the 25 liter tank of the previous model...so do many owners.

I think you'll find the 1200 Adventure will go a lot further than 9 miles more than the 1150 predecessor. That is the experience of owners who have them. Perhaps when you go out and buy a 1200 Adventure, put the miles on it and then get your own figures you'll be in a stronger position to comment, but right now, your experience of the 1200 is zero, so it doesn't really give you a strong platform to compare. I think I will listen to the 1200 Adventure owners who report that the fuel consumption on their new bikes is superior to their old 1150. They are in a much better position than you to relate their experiences.

[twist]

My own experience tells me that my R1200GS is a far more fuel efficient machine than the R1150GS that I had before it. On my old commute to work on the 1150, it averaged 43mpg. On changing to the R1200GS, this immediately returned an average of 48mpg in the same conditions.

So, back to my original question. What real world experience of the R1200GS do you have to compare against the figures you achieve on your R1150GS?

I get about 40mpg on my standard 1200GS.  If you can get 48, you must not be twisting the throttle enough

[Global Rider]

I think you'll find the 1200 Adventure will go a lot further than 9 miles more than the 1150 predecessor.

I strongly suggest two things:

1) you go to school and take math,
2) stop drinking warm beer.

[RussL]

I get about 40mpg on my standard 1200GS.  If you can get 48, you must not be twisting the throttle enough

I have a friend at work that says he has gotten as much as 65mpg on his '07 GS which I find near impossible to believe, even if he's driving the speed limit. The best I've ever gotten was about 42 and I normally get around 39mpg, but then I'm usually thrashing it pretty hard.

The GS is an excellent all round bike with plenty of torque and usable power. It won't set any speed records, but that's okay with me. I had it at the track a couple of weeks ago. One of these days I'm actually going to take it off road.  

[BBB]

I strongly suggest two things:

1) you go to school and take math,
2) stop drinking warm beer.

I strongly suggest one thing:

Get a R1200GS Adventure and ride it and measure the fuel consumption figures for yourself. That will give you credibility (which you are severely lacking right now) when you start talking about the fuel consumption of that model.

I get about 40mpg on my standard 1200GS.  If you can get 48, you must not be twisting the throttle enough

If that is 40mpg US then that is equal to just under 48mpg UK (US gallon = 3.8 litres, UK gallon = 4.54 litres)
I guess we are both opening the throttle about the same amount

[BBB]

I just received the following private message from our good friend Global Rider in relation to this thread:-

"Buddy, you're not related to that inbred Bob Southgate are you? Inbreeding is the cause of not getting off a tiny island.

Do some math and crunch some numbers. Why is it you dumb Brits only think a set of numbers applies to one model but not the other?

Follow along if your brain cells allow it:

R1200 GSA: (33/6.1) * 100 = 540.9 kms.
R1150 GSA: (30/5.7) * 100 = 526.3 kms.

And if you don't think 6.1 and 5.7 apply, go and argue with BMW AG. They'll be happy to know some island monkey knows better than them."

When someone resorts to personal insults it's usually a sign that they are losing the argument. It also gives an insight into the type of person they are. In Global Riders case I think you can draw your own conclusions.