Watercooled R1200GS unveiled

[radon222]

 People choose them because they don't have to be babied on bad roads, they offer a comfortable upright seating position, they can hold a lot of gear, and they are designed for real sized people.

YES-YES-YES AND YES!!  I never really appreciated how pliant the suspension on my Wee-strom and GSA were until I rode my wife's new RT.  Good GAWD...I never knew half those bumps ruts and nubs even existed...and that was just in my neighborhood lol!!

[Royal Tiger]

Even 20 pounds heavier it's still lighter then the Super Tenere.

http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/02/07/bmw-r1200gs-vs-ktm-990-adventure-vs-yamaha-super-tenere-comparison-test/4/

[james_g]

I just can't get over the boxer engine. It's unnecessarily complex for the power you get. It's an homage to their past and they need to let it go.

Isn't that exactly what is said about the Desmo motor too though? Frankly if it were based on maint costs alone then the GS would win hands down. Luckily there are a lot of things to go into our purchase decisions.

I'm not a GS, Vstrom, MTS etc fan but I can appreciate why they are popular.

james

[eye.surgeon]

Isn't that exactly what is said about the Desmo motor too though? Frankly if it were based on maint costs alone then the GS would win hands down.

Not the desmo in the current multistrada. 15k valve intervals, 7500k oil change intervals. One of the reasons I jumped from BMW to the Multistrada.

[R Doug]

I just can't get over the boxer engine. It's unnecessarily complex for the power you get. It's an homage to their past and they need to let it go.

   



At 110 HP and a whooping 89 lbs of torque, my BMW R1200RT puts out more HP (and most importantly, toque) than previous big twins I've owned:  2008 KTM 990 Adventure (90 HP with 62 lbs of torque) and 2005 Ducati ST3 (78 HP with 74 lbs of torque).


I find my little tractor of a mill to be simply brilliant in the twisties.  Torque rules, especially when the torque curve is nearly flat.  

[Royal Tiger]

Maintenance costs was one of the reasons for my switch from a Ducati ST3 to a BMW R1200ST.  Belts HAD to be done every 2 years unless you like blown up motors.  The Boxer is also a much better engine overall.  At least to me.  The Duc was hell below 4k rpm.  Felt like it was going to grenade itself.  I wrote a review of the two bikes.  I realize the new Multi is more advanced then the ST bikes, but we have more then a few in our Ducati Owner's Club which I still belong to.  I would hesitate to call their ownership experiences as "glowing".

[sagerat]

The boxer with the engine weight so low makes the bike a lot easier to maneuver, especially at low speeds.  My GSA has better balance than I do, which is what keeps us from falling over off-road.    

[chiltech500]

It's an homage to their past

 

they need to let it go

 

[blueridgerider]

I had a BMW before I got my GS, and fell in love with the suspension system.  The telelever front suspension was the best real world riding suspension I had encountered in my then 20+ years of riding.

I did not however, want a GS.  I wanted an RT.  Just so o you know I was getting rid of a K1200LT to get my new bike.

There were a couple of reasons I wanted the RT.  The fact that it was a touring bike was one, and a friend had given me one as a long term loan and I liked it's weight/handling and practical power enging.

I did NOT want a GS.  First of all I did not see the need for a GS - I was not an off road or frequent gravel road rider.   Second of all The Long Way Round made me not want a GS more (Bought mine in 2007 height of the series Popularity).  Sort of a Knee-Jerk reaction against it's growing popularity as an Urban ADV.

So what changed my mind?  My best friend did.  He went on a multi week motorcycle tour in Europe and the company he went with had him on a GS.  The day after he came back,  out he went and bought himself a GS.  He told me it was the BEST bike he had ever ridden.  He let me borrow his (this is the same guy that gave me a long-term loan of the RT - GREAT friend), and I came to the same conclusion.

It was so good at what I wanted in a Bike that I eventually got rid of all my other bikes (had 3) because I was no longer using them.

It is my favorite bike ever.  It is just IMO such a practical real world bike.   It is super comfortable, plenty of power (with such a nice flat torque curve), eats up asphalt - new and rough, practical suspension allows for late braking in emergency corner situations without any drama, and easy to work on at home.

I really cannot think of a better bike for my purposes.

This new one looks interesting.  Not sure about the form before function comment.  I do not really see any wasted real estate on the bike, or any real impractical design exercises.  Looks like a straight forward design to me.

This is a revolution that looks in some ways like an evolution.  We will have to see if the changes pay off for BMW.

[eye.surgeon]

What I mean when I say the GS engine is an homage to the past is based on my ownership of a couple K1200GTs. The more conventional water cooled k engines had the same displacement as the GS but left the 1200 boxer engine in the dust in every respect. Soooooooo much more power. Riding one and then the other makes you realize what you're missing engine-wise. I don't know or even understand about the difference in balance (have you ever fallen over on a moving motorcycle because you lost your balance  ) but I'm quite sure my GT didn't give up any handling to the GS based on the engine difference.

It's like the air cooled Porsche guys. You can show them how superior the water cooled 911 variants are, how much more power, more efficient, better economy, better emissions...but they always come back with balance and character etc.

Regardless, BMW has obviously seen the light, helped along by emissions requirements and the fact that other bikes in the class were running circles around the air cooled boxer.

The germans have always had a love affair with air cooling. Porsche and VW were the only volume makers in the modern era of air cooled autos.

[Royal Tiger]

What I mean when I say the GS engine is an homage to the past is based on my ownership of a couple K1200GTs. The more conventional water cooled k engines had the same displacement as the GS but left the 1200 boxer engine in the dust in every respect. Soooooooo much more power. Riding one and then the other makes you realize what you're missing engine-wise. I don't know or even understand about the difference in balance (have you ever fallen over on a moving motorcycle because you lost your balance  )

It's like the air cooled Porsche guys. You can show them how superior the water cooled 911 variants are, how much more power, more efficient, better economy, better emissions...but they always come back with balance and character etc.

Regardless, BMW has obviously seen the light, helped along by emissions requirements and the fact that other bikes in the class were running circles around the air cooled boxer.

Agreed.  I'm a former water cooled Porsche owner myself (928S).  But when you are in the middle of nowhere, not having a blown radiator hose or seized water pump are attributes.

[chesthing]

 I don't know or even understand about the difference in balance (have you ever fallen over on a moving motorcycle because you lost your balance  )

It's like the air cooled Porsche guys. You can show them how superior the water cooled 911 variants are, how much more power, more efficient, better economy, better emissions...but they always come back with balance and character etc.

The balance of the RT makes low speed handling much easier than other bikes I've ridden. I never have to put a foot down at a stop sign unless I need to yield the right of way, and I can hold a complete stop for a second or 2 easily. I could do that sometimes with other bikes, but not every time with absolutely no effort like with the RT.
The best thing about the air cooled engine is the complete lack of engine heat. If the new liquid cooled RTs have it then that's a huge strike against owning one vs the competition.

[eye.surgeon]

I can appreciate the spectacle of not putting your foot down at a traffic light, but I'd rather opt for the extra 30 HP while riding and live with the shame of a  foot down when I stop  

[chesthing]

Well, it's a good thing it is so well balanced - this bike is fuggin tall!

[falconati]

I can appreciate the spectacle of not putting your foot down at a traffic light, but I'd rather opt for the extra 30 HP while riding and live with the shame of a  foot down when I stop  

I'd rather have the fuel efficiency of the R bike.  The K bike doesn't fair as well, and I don't need the extra horsepower.  The torque of the R bike is soooooooooo perfect.  I've never found myself wanting for power.

[Neub]

 link=topic=74519.msg1735888#msg1735888 date=1350007293]


I'd rather have the fuel efficiency of the R bike.  The K bike doesn't fair as well, and I don't need the extra horsepower.  The torque of the R bike is soooooooooo perfect.  I've never found myself wanting for power.
[/quote]

Not sure what mileage your R bike returns but I couldn't ask for more than the 47mpg that I get consistently with my K1300s going 70-75 and it has +45 hp.  Even a very tough flogging doesn't drop it below 42.

[Fourstring]

What happens when a big tough ADV rider drops this bike on one of its side-mounted radiators during their awesome adventures?  It looks like it's just protected by plastic.  

[Cablebandit]

What happens when a big tough ADV rider drops this bike on one of its side-mounted radiators during their awesome adventures?  It looks like it's just protected by plastic.  

That would have to be a decent drop.  Normally they just rest on the jugs.  If you drop it on a big rock it might be an issue but 99.9% of these bikes won't see that type of road.

[R Doug]

I can appreciate the spectacle of not putting your foot down at a traffic light, but I'd rather opt for the extra 30 HP while riding and live with the shame of a  foot down when I stop  

It has more to do with engine efficiency and weight distribution.  

My point has everything to do with the different characteristics associated with K and R mills.  I don't need the HP on the road.  I'll take the low end torque any day of the week.  As an owner of a K1200S and R1200RT, I much prefer the R for a road bike over the higher HP provided by the K.  But, there's a reason BMW puts out both kinds.  We riders have different criteria on motor characteristics which fit our preferred type of riding experience.  

[Lawn Dart]

Having put 47,000 miles on a 2007 R12GS I can say that it's the right bike for the right person.  It truly is the "one bike for everything" mentality.  Comfortable, easy to ride, good motor.  

People who bag on the bike likely haven't spent much time on one.  It's a good platform.  

What makes the bike special is the Attitude it conveys.  Get on one and you truly feel like you can go anywhere...and you somehow want to explore it as well.  It's a true "Adventure" feeling.  True, 95% of GS's never see dirt - but it capable enough for a 500+# bike.  Get on the bike and somehow you just want to point it North...or South...run over a few curbs...suck small children into the wheelwells and cats into the air intake.  The drop well, crash well, carry well.

It's a good platform.  The upgrades are a good thing.

On the whole dry clutch thing - the old clutch could easily last 150k miles.  There was nothing wrong with that design.  If any particular part is durable enough and doesn't fail, then access isn't important.

Just to satisfy the haters, please note that the Final Drive is a very exposed and easily accessible location.