BMW K1600GT review [ashonbikes.com]

[UFO]

Kevin Ash has had a chance to throw a leg over BMW's new uber-tourer and write up his thoughts for us.  There's a snippet below as well as a link to the entire review on his website.

BMW has trodden a narrow line in its extensive build-up to the new K1600GT and K1600GTL models.

The Germans haven’t quite told us – as Honda did with the VFR1200F – that the new six-cylinder machines were going to change motorcycling for the next decade, but simply by listing and explaining the array of new technology the bikes can boats, they’ve managed to whet appetites, fuel excitement and more pragmatically, generate quite a few orders already,



The question I can address now is, having ridden both the GT and the GTL, are those trusting early adopters going to get what they’re expecting? The K1600GT uses the new, inline six-cylinder engine first seen in the Concept 6 concept naked bike in autumn 2009. It’s designed as a touring and sports touring engine rather than high performance one with an emphasis on torque more than outright power. This has allowed the use of a relatively long stroke of 67.5mm compared with the 72mm bore (most modern engines have more oversquare dimensions), which in turn has helped keep this potentially very wide power unit narrow. In addition, the cylinders are spaced just 5mm apart and no ancillaries are carried outboard of the crankshaft, resulting in an overall weight of 226lb (102.6kg).

Aside from its sextet of cylinders there’s nothing too unusual about the K1600GT engine. The valve gear is based more on the older flat four K-Series design, built to similar length restrictions, while the engine management is a full ride-by-wire system, the first on a motorcycle in fact to have no direct mechanical fail-safe – the rest all have a cable which will pull the throttle closed regardless of what the computer is telling the system to do). It is of course still covered by a multitude of electronic fail safe systems, just as well when it makes 158bhp (160PS, 118kW) at 7,750rpm, and a maximum torque of 129lb.ft (17.8kgm, 175Nm) at 5,250rpm.

Read the entire review here:
http://www.ashonbikes.com/content/bmw-k1600gt-review

[atadaskew]

Given the fat torque curve you’d hope to be able to snick the smooth-changing transmission into top and leave it there until you switch off at the end of the day, but in practice typical 50-70mph (80-110kph) overtakes demand a couple of downchanges if you’re going to despatch with slower traffic rapidly. And that’s solo, with a passenger, full luggage and steep mountain roads to negotiate (which is the point of a bike like this) you’ll be using the gearbox a fair bit more than you might have expected.

Bit of a bummer really, cuz isn't the point of having a monster motor being able to just twist the throttle and go?
This is what happens when you build a 700lb + touring bike, not a 500 lb + touring bike.

I did see this on the BMW site though:

Presale Program to Close Early Due to Extraordinary Customer Response

That's gotta kill companies like Honda who can't move their latest and greatest.

[RiderCoach]

To be honest, didn't expect to hear it was gonna be 700+ lbs. We have enough sport tourers in that category already don't we?

Sure it sounds like a great bike with gobs of torque and hp, but I use to ride an st1300 at about 730 lbs. Not going back to something that heavy again myself.

The fjr is as heavy as I'm doing, and it can be a beast to move around at 80 or so lbs lighter.

[GilaMonster]

Bit of a bummer really, cuz isn't the point of having a monster motor being able to just twist the throttle and go?
This is what happens when you build a 700lb + touring bike, not a 500 lb + touring bike.

I absolutely agree.  That's why I got off an '04 K 1200 GT flying brick and bought a new '06 K 1200 S.  Yes, the S has more power, but my main reason for the change was the loss of over 150 lbs.

[McHack]

OH Geez,  I have to down shift to get some ZOOM ZOOM....   If you dont wanna shift,  get a Harley.  

[three west]

I dunno, I just have trouble even considering a 1600cc bike because that seems like such LT/wing territory

I love the tech;  I'd love to have the display & the led lighting on my K12GT, but just don't know if I could consider something that "big"

[cruisin]

   I just don't get this deal about not wanting to use the transmission these days.  It takes all of a tenth of second to down-shift and a smidgeon of skill to do it properly and at the right time -- can someone splain to me why there is such widespread aversion to using the transmission for it's intended purpose?

heck, you can have a blast on a 250 if you know how and when to shift.

[atadaskew]

   I just don't get this deal about not wanting to use the transmission these days.

Simple.

They did not build a high revving 400cc motor.

They built an all new 1600cc 6 cylinder motor with a relatively low red line.  So one would naturally assume the reason for that was to have eyeball flattening torque.  Otherwise, why bother?  A downshift to pass at fwy speeds? Really? Remind me again what all those cylinders and engine capacity was for?

 

[Orson]

me thinks that 6th gear overtakes might still be possible

just not at the warp speed gonzo-journalists seem to demand  

[eng943]

Glad  I snapped up a '10 K13GT after reading that. Kind of validates some concerns I had and others I would not have expected.

[atadaskew]

me thinks that 6th gear overtakes might still be possible

just not at the warp speed gonzo-journalists seem to demand  

Any top gear overtakes on my Vespa PX are done in 4th gear.  Apparently the same as this new BMW.

So there is that.
 

[Bug R]

Hey may be County has a axe to grind.
1600cc and you have to change down twice to overtake

If I changed down twice and cracked the throttle on my FJR I'd be in 3 figure territory even before I reach the car I was trying to pass

Chris

[Geoff]

OH Geez,  I have to down shift to get some ZOOM ZOOM....   If you dont wanna shift,  get a Harley.  

LOL!

They're FJR 1300AE riders. Give 'em a break.  

[mcrider007]

I think you may need to give BMW a break on this issue since it sounds like they finally geared a touring bike like a touring bike.  I test rode a K1300GT a year ago and the ultra low 6th gear was a deal breaker for me, if I want an engine to be turning 4,000 rpms at 65 mph (indicated) in 6th gear, I would save my money and buy a 750.

http://ashonbikes.com/content/bmw-k1600gt-torque-comparison

[Aero]

Here's the MCN launch video report:

           http://bcove.me/y5ycecko

Seems to get down the road quickly enough, and I love the sound!  

[McHack]

LOL!

They're FJR 1300AE riders. Give 'em a break.  

LOL

[swimmer]

It has 6 cylinders.   Why would someone expect that configuration in a small engine to have a lot of torque?

[atadaskew]

It has 6 cylinders.   Why would someone expect that configuration in a small engine to have a lot of torque?

Cuz other 6 cylinder motor bike engines do/did.

Kawi KZ
Honda CBX
Honda Wing 1500/1800

And this motor is obviously much much more recent than those dinosaurs.

[GS1100GK]

Hey may be County has a axe to grind.
1600cc and you have to change down twice to overtake

If I changed down twice and cracked the throttle on my FJR I'd be in 3 figure territory even before I reach the car I was trying to pass

Chris

Same for my C-14, except that the front wheel may be off the ground too!!!

[birdrunner]

Simple.

They did not build a high revving 400cc motor.

They built an all new 1600cc 6 cylinder motor with a relatively low red line.  So one would naturally assume the reason for that was to have eyeball flattening torque.  Otherwise, why bother?  A downshift to pass at fwy speeds? Really? Remind me again what all those cylinders and engine capacity was for?

 

Exactly,   tell me again what the advantages are of this motor  or the VFR to my old XX?   NONE,  . They're heavier, slower, more complicated and more money.  Not what I'd expect with 13 years to improve the breed.  The real improvements seem to be with the adjustable suspension we're seeing.



I'm all for the Ducati approach ... handling starts with weight.

[Major 662]

Exactly,   tell me again what the advantages are of this motor  or the VFR to my old XX?   NONE,  . They're heavier, slower, more complicated and more money.  Not what I'd expect with 13 years to improve the breed.  The real improvements seem to be with the adjustable suspension we're seeing.

I'm all for the Ducati approach ... handling starts with weight.

While I'm all in favor of the Ducati approach, if you're comparing the K16 motor to the Blackbird's, the BMW has +25 HP, +51 ft lb of torque, better fuel economy, & I'm guessing more torque @ low RPMs.

If you're comparing bikes, the 175 HP K1300S would be a better match.

[birdrunner]

While I'm all in favor of the Ducati approach, if you're comparing the K16 motor to the Blackbird's, the BMW has +25 HP, +51 ft lb of torque, better fuel economy, & I'm guessing more torque @ low RPMs.

If you're comparing bikes, the 175 HP K1300S would be a better match.

I'm saying that they've adding weight, power and complexity, and are charging a surplus for it, yet my 11 yr old XX out performs it.  I'm saying that adding couple comfort mods to an ZX14, Busa or K1300 would give a superior ride.  I'm not sure what they were trying for with this bike.  

[Major 662]

I'm saying that they've adding weight, power and complexity, and are charging a surplus for it, yet my 11 yr old XX out performs it.  I'm saying that adding couple comfort mods to an ZX14, Busa or K1300 would give a superior ride.  I'm not sure what they were trying for with this bike.  

Here's where I think BMW is going with the K-bikes:

K1300S - Nürburgring racer, gentleman's hyperbike, more comfy than a track bike for longer rides (esp. with integrated hard bags, ESA suspension, ABS, heated grips, longer wheel base, etc.)

K1600GT - for the rider that does more touring than day rides in the canyon.  More places to store things, plug in, mount extras.  More adjustments.  More weather protection.  Better for 2-up  Mega-torquey motor to move it all.

K1600GTL - Max comfort and capacity, but more nimble than a Goldwing.

With that lineup plus the RT and GS options, they've got touring in nearly every flavor.

Personally, I love the XX.  If they had it in a color besides black in 2004, I might have bought one instead of the Duc ST3.  Honda was ahead of their time with that bike.  That's why I have a K13S now -- same general philosophy and I'm OK with a 14-hr day on it.

[birdrunner]

I wonder if you can notice the torque with the extra 150 lbs?  Just seems counter productive to me, and this just isn't a BMW thing ...  VFR anyone????

I can't wait till a friend buys one and lets me try it out.

[staedtler]

fo ok,... just listen to that soundtrack   (just skip to the 3:30 mrk)

[cruisin]

interesting that so many are expecting a 767lb touring bike (and it's slightly sportier cousin; GT) to perform like a hyped up sport bike.   I'm betting the GTL and GT will perform exactly the way they were designed by the BMW engineers. If you want sport bike performance, then buy a sport bike not a touring bike.

[McHack]

interesting that so many are expecting a 767lb touring bike (and it's slightly sportier cousin; GT) to perform like a hyped up sport bike.   I'm betting the GTL and GT will perform exactly the way they were designed by the BMW engineers. If you want sport bike performance, then buy a sport bike not a touring bike.

Whats this?   Common sense?  It cant be, or can it?

[tdeboeser]

Whats this?   Common sense?  It cant be, or can it?

I disagree with the "common sense", I would say you have lots of cylinders, lots of torque and lots of power.  One would expect something akin to a 330ci or M3/M5 (auto GT) type performance.  Down shifting twice doesn't seem to fit the promise of the motor.  Common sense would dictate a motor like that should pull mountains.  

I'm betting the GTL and GT will perform exactly the way they were designed by the BMW engineers.

No engineer gets what they want, except the F1 guys...

[MacGyver]

I'll just rip that soundtrack to my ipod so I can listen to it while puttering along in my Vstrom.   Want the bike. Not the invoice.

[tigertom1965]

What they seem to want is a BMW that is geared for American roads and not geared for the Autobahn. My R1200RT has a top gear that is supposed to be used at speeds above 55 or it will not be in the powerband. I don't mind shifting. I ride a motorcycle for the ability to shift and fly by someone and for the fun factor. They built a strong motor that is smooth, sporty, and gets decent gas mileage at autobahn speeds.  I know many of you have bikes that can go 186 or better but what kind of gas mileage do you get when you are fully loaded with luggage at those speeds? I think they just made sure the bike wasn't buzzy at Autobahn speeds and didn't worry so much about whether you can pass someone in top gear at 65 taking 2 seconds to get to 100. If they don't like shifting drive a car and stop whining like a 2 year old. Jeesh!!!

[atadaskew]

fo ok,... just listen to that soundtrack   (just skip to the 3:30 mrk)

Dang.  Forget complaining about shifting.  Anything to keep the revs up to hear that!

Anyone have a similar sound capture from the VFR12?  Seriously.  I'd love to hear that in comparison.

[cruisin]

 If they don't like shifting drive a car and stop whining like a 2 year old. Jeesh!!!

 

[McHack]

If they don't like shifting drive a car and stop whining like a 2 year old. Jeesh!!!

I'm thinking those that whine about shifting,  should just go ahead & buy a DN-01.

[BBB]

I had a brief 20 minute ride on the 1600GT a few weeks ago and I have no idea where kevin Ash gets the idea that the bike needs to be downshifted to get decent acceleration for overtakes. I found that the bike pulled strongly from 30mph in 6th gear. The acceleration was something else and was far better than my old K1200S which had a race can and a power commander with a custom map in that department. The difference between my 2010 1200RT and the 1600GT in this area was considerable.

For those who are believing the Ash report I would suggest you go and take a ride on one and see for yourself.

[McHack]

I came THIIIS >< close to buying a used K1200GT,  until I read the review on motorcyclistonline.com...  

I am NOW,  paying down on my last bit of debt aggressively... so I can consider one of these next spring.!!!!

[MacGyver]

I did the BMW Demo ride last saturday and I was on a stripper model K1600GT right behind the ride leader.   Several times on the ride, he gave me the signal to punch and punch it we did.  
Boys and girls... It has blackbird levels of acceleration.  Wound it out through 3rd gear and it was absolutely laser smooth.  If you have the money for the bike, it is worth the price of admission.  Lots of happy campers at the end of the demo ride.

Test ride one... trust me!  Most BMW shops have a K1600GT ready for you to demo.

[atdrs]

I'm thinking those that whine about shifting,  should just go ahead & buy a DN-01.

I test rode the GTL but found out that you still have to lean the bike while cornering. What were they thinking?

[three west]

I did the BMW Demo ride last saturday and I was on a stripper model K1600GT right behind the ride leader.   Several times on the ride, he gave me the signal to punch and punch it we did.  
Boys and girls... It has blackbird levels of acceleration.  Wound it out through 3rd gear and it was absolutely laser smooth.  If you have the money for the bike, it is worth the price of admission.  Lots of happy campers at the end of the demo ride.

Test ride one... trust me!  Most BMW shops have a K1600GT ready for you to demo.

my GT was in for service a couple weeks back, dealer didn't have a single GT in the building, but had 5? GTLs!

[bmwone]

I rented one in Germany for two weeks - lots of time in the Alps, autobahn, autostrada, trip to Mugello for the Italian GP, etc.

Bottom line - too big for the Alps, perfect for American roads, regardless of what they are. Would I buy it? Maaaaaaaaybe .........

[RBEmerson]

Was that a GT or GTL?

[atadaskew]

Bottom line - too big for the Alps

Would you consider the R1200RT too big for the Alps in comparison?

[Bain Dramage]

With all the complaints about the deficiencies of BMW's new touring flagship, I'm surprised that nobody has complained about it not being a good dual-sport.

Or did I miss a post???  

[BBB]

Would you consider the R1200RT too big for the Alps in comparison?

Having done a tour last year that took in the Alps, Dolomites and the Grossglockner in Austria on a 2010 1200RT I would say the answer is no. Even two up and fully loaded the bike was a blast and so agile.

[atadaskew]

Having done a tour last year that took in the Alps, Dolomites and the Grossglockner in Austria on a 2010 1200RT I would say the answer is no. Even two up and fully loaded the bike was a blast and so agile.

Thanks.  I've always like the idea of BMWs as boxer twins.
Guess it makes sense the R12RT is much more agile as it is several hundred pounds lighter.

[BBB]

I think the weight difference is in the region of 66kg,  or 145 pounds.

[RBEmerson]

[...]"several hundred pounds[...]    Er, how heavy do you think these bikes are?  

[tigertom1965]

Headscratch [...]"several hundred pounds[...]    Er, how heavy do you think these bikes are?  

The new K1600GT bikes are over 700 lbs. The R1200RT is 571 lbs wet and the K1200GT bike was what 630 ish.
The 145 lb weight diff is about right but not several hundred lbs difference.

[atadaskew]

The new K1600GT bikes are over 700 lbs. The R1200RT is 571 lbs wet and the K1200GT bike was what 630 ish.
The 145 lb weight diff is about right but not several hundred lbs difference.

Ok, 145lbs.

Not small potatoes...

[technut]

Well folks I happen to own one and can tell you, I do not have to downshift to overtake anyone. In fact you can run this bike down to about 30 mph in sixth gear, crack open the throttle and she is off no hesitation at all. Someone said you still have to lean the bike to turn. Really what bike does not lean when you turn. I also have several sportbikes ie gsxr1000, zx6r, sv650, zx12 and can say while this bike is no much for my gsxr in the twisties it handles very well. Suprisingly well. As far as leaning the bike to turn, physics tells us if you counter-steer into turns it will lean itself. It also will turn quicker that way than moving your weight around. Some of you need to read a book called "A Twist Of The Wrist"

[BBB]

Well folks I happen to own one and can tell you, I do not have to downshift to overtake anyone. In fact you can run this bike down to about 30 mph in sixth gear, crack open the throttle and she is off no hesitation at all. Someone said you still have to lean the bike to turn. Really what bike does not lean when you turn. I also have several sportbikes ie gsxr1000, zx6r, sv650, zx12 and can say while this bike is no much for my gsxr in the twisties it handles very well. Suprisingly well. As far as leaning the bike to turn, physics tells us if you counter-steer into turns it will lean itself. It also will turn quicker that way than moving your weight around. Some of you need to read a book called "A Twist Of The Wrist"

Are you referring to the K1600 or the R1200RT?

[technut]

K1600

[BBB]

Technut,

I found the same as you after two test rides on the K1600. It would really haul ass in 6th gear from 30 mph and downshifts were not necessary.

[OU812]

I test rode a GTL last month. Very impressive bike overall! Handles like a 600lb bike. All the engine heat is sent to your lower legs. That was not impressive but the rest, WOW!

[Z50a]

I had a brief 20 minute ride on the 1600GT a few weeks ago and I have no idea where kevin Ash gets the idea that the bike needs to be downshifted to get decent acceleration for overtakes. I found that the bike pulled strongly from 30mph in 6th gear. The acceleration was something else and was far better than my old K1200S which had a race can and a power commander with a custom map in that department. The difference between my 2010 1200RT and the 1600GT in this area was considerable.

For those who are believing the Ash report I would suggest you go and take a ride on one and see for yourself.

Ya can't believe everything you read (on here as well....     'duh) !  
Most of it, is people's opinions..., just like what I am posting is my opinion.

I did a demo ride on the K1600GTL, this past Saturday.  
I went there for the sole purpose of wanting to ride a K1600GT, but they didn't have a GT, so without hesitation - jumped on the GTL.

The bike impressed the $&*# out of me !  
I generally prefer naked R1200R / Ducati Monster 1100S - type bikes, but have ridden everything from S1000RRs to Ducati 848s to Yamaha R1s to R1200GS to Harleys and a boat-load of bikes in-between and The K1600GTL impressed the $&*# out of me !   I wasn't expecting an S1000RR engine or an R1200R (or an R1200GS) type ride.  Earlier that day got to ride an R1200RT, before getting on the K.

It was a 45 minute group / dealer lead & dealer riding sweep ride.  I was the last customer before the sweep rider, he was giving me plenty of space, so I had some room to play.  At one point I got stuck at an intersection and had a mile or so, to catch up.... I twisted it up, nailed every shift and the flippin' bike can move !    I don't care what anyone says or I read in any magazine, if you know how to ride... the bike moves.  The ESA II, the Electronic Throttle Control and Multiple Drive modes works flawlessly.  If your in "Road" or "Rain" mode the throttle response is different than "Dynamic".  I played around with the settings, but with the drive mode set to "Dynamic" and the ESA set to "Sport", the bike rocks.  I had some room and came up to and rode a nice long sweeper @ about 70-75 mph and was surprised that my toe was scrapping the ground !  The bike impressed the $&*# out of me !  

If you don't like this "type" of bike, don't like (or want to like) BMWs, that's one thing....  I don't know how you can say the engineers in Munich; did not nail it !

[Bain Dramage]

I agree with Z50a.

I have ridden both of the new 1600 models extensively now, and BMW has a winner. It goes from 40 MPH - 90 MPH (no shifting) like a rocket.

It is heavier - and seems to carry its weight up higher than my RT, but it is one fantastic machine.

If I didn't already own my RT, I would buy the GT version without hesitation.

If I were going to do flat-slab interstate travel - and nothing more - choosing between a GTL and the new Gold Wing would be tough, but for touring a combination of two-lanes, twisties, and interstate, I think the nod would go to the BMW.

[Silverbird]

I disagree with the "common sense", I would say you have lots of cylinders, lots of torque and lots of power.  One would expect something akin to a 330ci or M3/M5 (auto GT) type performance.  Down shifting twice doesn't seem to fit the promise of the motor.  Common sense would dictate a motor like that should pull mountains.  



No engineer gets what they want, except the F1 guys...

Yea right, F1 has more rules than the NFL

[chesthing]

The new K1600GT bikes are over 700 lbs. The R1200RT is 571 lbs wet and the K1200GT bike was what 630 ish.
The 145 lb weight diff is about right but not several hundred lbs difference.

Bullshit. MCN lists wet weight of 625 for the R12RT. This is an independent mag that actually weighs and dynos every bike they test. I understand why BMW consistenly lies about the weight and hp of it's bikes, what I don't understand is why so many believe their claimed numbers?

[cruisin]

Well folks I happen to own one . . .

Any chance you could run it across a scale somewhere with nothing in the luggage and a full tank of gas so we can get an accurate weight?  Maybe a nearby elevator or scrap yard or something similar.  Inquiring minds want to know.

[BBB]

Bullshit. MCN lists wet weight of 625 for the R12RT. This is an independent mag that actually weighs and dynos every bike they test. I understand why BMW consistenly lies about the weight and hp of it's bikes, what I don't understand is why so many believe their claimed numbers?

Do you have the link to the MCN test that shows a wet weight of 625 for the RT?

[chesthing]

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/JuneBmwR1200RT3.pdf
1/11 issue included a performance index, giving weight, hp, 1/4 mile etc for pretty much every bike since 1998. I kept it for reference, the hp and weights are typically 10-15% off what BMW claims in their literature even factoring in dyno at the engine/rear wheel differences. I guess this optimism sells bikes to those who like to believe in fairy tales?

[BBB]

http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/model_eval/JuneBmwR1200RT3.pdf
1/11 issue included a performance index, giving weight, hp, 1/4 mile etc for pretty much every bike since 1998. I kept it for reference, the hp and weights are typically 10-15% off what BMW claims in their literature even factoring in dyno at the engine/rear wheel differences. I guess this optimism sells bikes to those who like to believe in fairy tales?

Having seen the link you kindly provided I would be sceptical of the weight recorded by MCN, given they have given the wrong front tyre size and also listed the valve check as every 12000 miles when in fact it is every 6k. They also list a high/low MPG of 47.2/63.9 yet the average is shown as 42.4, which just doesn't add up. They have also listed one of the covers as piedmont gray when it should have been piedmont red. And listing as a criticism the time it takes to clean the bike is just ridiculous. If they are unable to get a few basic easily verifiable facts right then why should we believe the weight they measured?

As for power outputs, BMW are not alone in listing figures at the crank which are always going to be different to rear wheel horsepower. A RWHP figure of 96.5 is a 12% drop on the claimed figure, which is what you would expect.

[atadaskew]

Having seen the link you kindly provided I would be sceptical of the weight recorded by MCN

Motorcyclist magazine measured the r1200rt at 631lbs wet:

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/roadtests/122_0510_la_laguna_seca/bmw_r1200rt.html

Even pushing 631 pounds soaking wet, Munich's steamiest boxer hammers out an impressive stream of smooth, useable thrust from 4000 to 8000 rpm.

Read more: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/roadtests/122_0510_la_laguna_seca/viewall.html#ixzz1hrwxnpHT

[chesthing]

Having seen the link you kindly provided I would be sceptical of the weight recorded by MCN, given they have given the wrong front tyre size and also listed the valve check as every 12000 miles when in fact it is every 6k. They also list a high/low MPG of 47.2/63.9 yet the average is shown as 42.4, which just doesn't add up. They have also listed one of the covers as piedmont gray when it should have been piedmont red. And listing as a criticism the time it takes to clean the bike is just ridiculous. If they are unable to get a few basic easily verifiable facts right then why should we believe the weight they measured?

As for power outputs, BMW are not alone in listing figures at the crank which are always going to be different to rear wheel horsepower. A RWHP figure of 96.5 is a 12% drop on the claimed figure, which is what you would expect.

I took a short test ride on a 12RT. Immediately after sitting on it I knew BMW numbers were bogus. You really believe your bike is within 10 lbs of a Blackbird? c'mon.
I could go on and on about how much BMW fibs, but I'll take just one example and be done with it. Hp measured at the crank is a stupid way to publish power, when every independent test takes it at the wheel. This in itself is misleading at best. What I don't get though is how BMW just adds hp on top of that just because they feel like it. Lets take the R1200RT - they publish 110 hp. MCN dynoed it at 95 at the wheel. This is reasonable, and is a rare example of BMW being honest. That's 15 hp it takes to turn the wheel. It's going to take approx 15 hp for an engine to turn the wheel of any shaft driven motorcycle - why on earth would you take 15% of an engine's power to do that calculation? why would it take, for example, 25 hp on a 167 hp K1200S to turn the wheel, but only 15 hp to turn the R1200RT wheel?
Going on common sense now and deducting 15 hp from engine to the rear wheel power, BMW's claimed 167 hp for the K1200S calculates to 152 rwhp. MCN dynoed this bike at 134 hp though, exactly the same as the Blackbird. Even if you were to calculate 15% off the claimed 167hp (which is completely stupid to do so) you get 142, almost 10 hp off of reality. This is just one example of many where BMW lies their asses off, why they haven't lost credibility with their buyers who knows? I know I'd be ticked to spend 20k on a bike only to discover I was lied to by the salesman and BMW.

[Silverbird]

I can't imagine a tire that could stay round for more than 1000 miles ridden like that on a bike that heavy.

[Cablebandit]

I can't imagine a tire that could stay round for more than 1000 miles ridden like that on a bike that heavy.

Please report to the car tire thread.  

[miles]

I took a short test ride on a 12RT. Immediately after sitting on it I knew BMW numbers were bogus. You really believe your bike is within 10 lbs of a Blackbird? c'mon.
I could go on and on about how much BMW fibs, but I'll take just one example and be done with it. Hp measured at the crank is a stupid way to publish power, when every independent test takes it at the wheel. This in itself is misleading at best. What I don't get though is how BMW just adds hp on top of that just because they feel like it. Lets take the R1200RT - they publish 110 hp. MCN dynoed it at 95 at the wheel. This is reasonable, and is a rare example of BMW being honest. That's 15 hp it takes to turn the wheel. It's going to take approx 15 hp for an engine to turn the wheel of any shaft driven motorcycle - why on earth would you take 15% of an engine's power to do that calculation? why would it take, for example, 25 hp on a 167 hp K1200S to turn the wheel, but only 15 hp to turn the R1200RT wheel?
Going on common sense now and deducting 15 hp from engine to the rear wheel power, BMW's claimed 167 hp for the K1200S calculates to 152 rwhp. MCN dynoed this bike at 134 hp though, exactly the same as the Blackbird. Even if you were to calculate 15% off the claimed 167hp (which is completely stupid to do so) you get 142, almost 10 hp off of reality. This is just one example of many where BMW lies their asses off, why they haven't lost credibility with their buyers who knows? I know I'd be ticked to spend 20k on a bike only to discover I was lied to by the salesman and BMW.

BMW claims 160 crank horsepower (all manufacturers use crank horsepower because it's higher, and all magazines use rear wheel power, because that's what they can test).  The magazines test it at around 133 RWHP.  That is a 17% loss, which is believable for a shaft drive bike.

[chesthing]

BMW claims 167 hp.
Please explain your reasoning behind applying a percentage of engine hp when converting rear wheel to/from the crank? Why would a 200hp engine lose more hp at the wheel than a 100hp engine? if you had a 1000 hp engine, would you expect to see a 150 hp difference between the crank and wheel? or would you expect to see the same hp loss with the exact same car with a 300 hp engine?
Sorry, applying a percentage makes absolutely no sense. Neither do dry weights or crank hp figures, it's just completely useless info. The reason BMW doesn't use rear wheel power figures is because they have found an easy way to make their products look better than they are compared to the competition. The facts are out there, but most buyers don't bother to look - they would rather go around believing what the BMW brochure says - it helps rationalize the overpricing. I've got a couple riding friends that absolutely believe their K1200GTs have 152 hp and are convinced they are significantly more powerful than the FJR (Yamaha lists an accurate 140 hp at the crank). It doesn't matter that I've told them this bike dynos at 124 at the wheel same as the FJR, they just look at me with clueless looks in their eyes.

[miles]

BMW claims 167 hp.

Link?  All I've seen says 160.

Please explain your reasoning behind applying a percentage of engine hp when converting rear wheel to/from the crank? Why would a 200hp engine lose more hp at the wheel than a 100hp engine? if you had a 1000 hp engine, would you expect to see a 150 hp difference between the crank and wheel? or would you expect to see the same hp loss with the exact same car with a 300 hp engine?

Here's a lengthier and better answer than I would have written:
http://rusubaru.com/drivetrain-loss/

Sorry, applying a percentage makes absolutely no sense.

Read the info in the link.

Neither do dry weights or crank hp figures, it's just completely useless info. The reason BMW doesn't use rear wheel power figures is because they have found an easy way to make their products look better than they are compared to the competition.

All the manufacturers post dry weights and crank HP.  They do that to make the bikes seem lighter and stronger than they are, but it does in fact serve as a good apples-to-apples comparison, because, like I mentioned, they all do it.

The facts are out there, but most buyers don't bother to look - they would rather go around believing what the BMW brochure says - it helps rationalize the overpricing. I've got a couple riding friends that absolutely believe their K1200GTs have 152 hp and are convinced they are significantly more powerful than the FJR (Yamaha lists an accurate 140 hp at the crank). It doesn't matter that I've told them this bike dynos at 124 at the wheel same as the FJR, they just look at me with clueless looks in their eyes.

Sure.

[chesthing]

I guess I'd like to see a link showing 160hp, all I can pull up is 167. Either way it's a bullshit number pulled out of the ass of a rich German.
Sorry I'm not going to read your link. If it contradicts what I'm saying it's not worth reading and if it confirms it what's the point?

[miles]

Sorry I'm not going to read your link. If it contradicts what I'm saying it's not worth reading and if it confirms it what's the point?

QFT.  That's sig line material right there.

[UFO]

I guess I'd like to see a link showing 160hp, all I can pull up is 167. Either way it's a bullshit number pulled out of the ass of a rich German.
Sorry I'm not going to read your link. If it contradicts what I'm saying it's not worth reading and if it confirms it what's the point?

You must be a joy to hang around.

You're just spouting unsubstantiated opinion as well.  

[chesthing]

I'm actually alright. Something about this forum brings out the worst in me - just so many non-thinkers in one place. Not everyone, there are a lot of cool people that post here too.

[three west]

Sorry I'm not going to read your link. If it contradicts what I'm saying it's not worth reading and if it confirms it what's the point?

+

 just so many non-thinkers in one place.

= funny

[BBB]

I took a short test ride on a 12RT. Immediately after sitting on it I knew BMW numbers were bogus. You really believe your bike is within 10 lbs of a Blackbird? c'mon.

I do indeed, judging from the feel of the bike and also having followed a Blackbird through the Dolomites and Alps last summer. The Blackbird rider was very impressed by the handling of the RT.

I could go on and on about how much BMW fibs, but I'll take just one example and be done with it. Hp measured at the crank is a stupid way to publish power, when every independent test takes it at the wheel. This in itself is misleading at best. What I don't get though is how BMW just adds hp on top of that just because they feel like it. Lets take the R1200RT - they publish 110 hp. MCN dynoed it at 95 at the wheel. This is reasonable, and is a rare example of BMW being honest. That's 15 hp it takes to turn the wheel. It's going to take approx 15 hp for an engine to turn the wheel of any shaft driven motorcycle - why on earth would you take 15% of an engine's power to do that calculation? why would it take, for example, 25 hp on a 167 hp K1200S to turn the wheel, but only 15 hp to turn the R1200RT wheel?
Going on common sense now and deducting 15 hp from engine to the rear wheel power, BMW's claimed 167 hp for the K1200S calculates to 152 rwhp. MCN dynoed this bike at 134 hp though, exactly the same as the Blackbird. Even if you were to calculate 15% off the claimed 167hp (which is completely stupid to do so) you get 142, almost 10 hp off of reality. This is just one example of many where BMW lies their asses off, why they haven't lost credibility with their buyers who knows? I know I'd be ticked to spend 20k on a bike only to discover I was lied to by the salesman and BMW.

That's how all the manufacturers publish their HP figures, at the crank.

So if the Blackbird only dynoed at 134bhp, they were way off the Honda  claimed 162bhp too. Honda were therefore lieing their asses off.

 When I had my last K1200S on the dyno it came up with 153 rwhp, so it was right where it should have been and confirmed the figures claimed by BMW. I also had my old R1150GS dynoed a few years back. It had a Remus cat eliminator, a BB powerchip and a Remus silencer but no other mods. It recorded 84 rwhp, which was 1 bhp down on the claimed 85 at the crank. I know it was also tested by UK magazines at 79 rwhp in standard form, so only 6 down on the claimed crank figure.

Bike magazine also got 184 rwhp on the s1000RR against the claimed at the crank 193bhp.

[falconati]

Sorry I'm not going to read your link. If it contradicts what I'm saying it's not worth reading and if it confirms it what's the point?

Oh my god  

[RBEmerson]

What a pissing contest...  

[cruisin]

What a pissing contest...  

no kidding.  I did a little surfing around on the other brand sections and didn't see the BMW guys going over there bashing them.  Makes me wonder if all the others are using this BMW bashing thing sort of like the Harley crowd uses loud pipes; to compensate for something else they lack.  

[Orson]

people try bashing Guzzis...but trying to bash 1950s technology is like trying to beat up water with a baseball bat  

we just laugh at 'em and they go away wondering how they got it wrong  

[RBEmerson]

I enjoyed my ride on the GTL.  That said, based on my experience with my K1200RS, I can see the GTL and GT being relatively high maintenance in the sense of the complex systems (e.g., headlight aiming).  And I really was disappointed in the speedo and tach - they weren't easy to read.  This is a comment I've seen (after I took my test ride) from reviewers.  All of that said, I enjoyed the ride and might try to scrounge another ride just for the fun of it.  But if someone gave me one, I'd think seriously about the cost of keeping it tuned and serviced.  

[BBB]

I think the servicing costs will be on a par with the K12/1300 slant fours. The big service will be the 18k but the 6 and 12K are nothing more than oil and filter changes.

[cbsnbiker]

QFT.  That's sig line material right there.

Why yes -- yes, it is.