BMW K1600GT review [ashonbikes.com]

[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.