Thinking of buying an RT

[Max Wedge]

But a lot of people did not get stranded with their 2010's. Plus the FD vent is a plus and you get stainless steel bananas on the gas tank!

[Sport-Touring]

[RBEmerson]

At the moment, I'm riding a loaner from Hermy's - 1100RT of indeterminate age with 101,350 on the clock. I put 130 miles on it today, riding from Hermy's to a friend's house near Bath, PA, via the town of Jim Thorpe, and from there back home. I still prefer my K1200RS' horizontal four, but the boxer motor is growing on me. The bike needs a lot of shifting to keep it happy, but it does go like stink. On a back road straight, I put the boot to it and got the speedo to 100 before I backed off. The speedo is something like 5-10 MPH on the optimistic side, but even so, at 80-90, the bike was still pulling and felt very stable.

The 5-speed gear box does need to be stirred to keep the engine at about 3000 or better. Slower than that, the engine lugs and the engine feel rough. If I were to buy this bike, two things would have to change. 1: the effing saddle (an after-market monstrosity that's supposed to make time in the saddle better - f*** that! The seating position sucks and forces me to slide forward, jamming "the boys" into the horn on the saddle; the forced riding postion is a pain in the back), 2: the side stand is a) much too short and b) has an interlock that won't allow starting the engine unless the side stand is up. What's up with that??? Point one is, of course, not a BMW-caused item, point two may be a problem with the switch or a poor execution. Either way, it's the pits.

But that being said, I do like the bike a lot. Now if it only had cruise control...  

[FJRider]

I too was thinking of replacing my FJR with an RT in a few years. Less weight would be nice on my aging legs. But after reading of the mechanical problems I am not so sure. In all the years I've owned Yamaha's not once did I have to walk. I expected to hear that BMW's are bullet proof. So what gives?

[cruisin]

At the moment, I'm riding a loaner from Hermy's - 1100RT of indeterminate age with 101,350 on the clock. I put 130 miles on it today, riding from Hermy's . . .  on the optimistic side, but even so, at 80-90, the bike was still pulling and felt very stable.

The 5-speed gear box does need to be stirred to keep the engine at about 3000 or better. Slower than that, the engine lugs and the engine feel rough. If I were to buy this bike, two things would have to change. 1: the effing saddle (an after-market monstrosity that's supposed to make time in the saddle better - f*** that! The seating position sucks and forces me to slide forward, jamming "the boys" into the horn on the saddle; the forced riding postion is a pain in the back), 2: the side stand is a) much too short and b) has an interlock that won't allow starting the engine unless the side stand is up. What's up with that??? Point one is, of course, not a BMW-caused item, point two may be a problem with the switch or a poor execution. Either way, it's the pits.

But that being said, I do like the bike a lot. Now if it only had cruise control...  

I'm now on my second 1100RT; I put close to 100K on the first one and now over 21K on the current 2000 model.  A properly tuned 1100 should easily push the speedometer to the 130 mark and I have occasionally seen 135+, (actual speeds probably 125 to 130).  I don't do that often but once in a while it's nice let it run until it no longer accelerates.  They are extremely stable at high speed and flick through the twisty roads much more easily than one would expect for a bike of its' weight.  

As for the factory seats; yep they pretty much suck, but there are a lot of options for modifications of angle, height and/or replacement with much more comfortable seats.  I built my own then had them professionally covered at a local upholstery shop.  The wife and I have done trips as long as 8 days without a problem.  Another big plus is the weather protection; if you can keep it over 50mph only the bottoms of your boots, helmet and shoulders will get wet in moderate rain.  I'm planning on running the current one well past 100K and possibly 200K before I'm done with it.  

I'm not likely to ever buy another BMW newer than 2001 but do have my sights set squarely on the new Triumph Trophy in a couple of years.

hijack over; carry on.

[RBEmerson]

I wish I knew where the saddle that's on this RT came from. I demoed a K1200GT that also had a custom ([/retch gag hurl]) saddle. It felt like sitting on a squishy marshmellow that raised the seating to the point where flat-footing the back was an issue. And I have 34" inseam.

All of that said, I'm liking this RT more than any of the others I've ridden. The odd thing about this particular bike is that even Hermy's says this bike does better than others in their loaner fleet that have fewer miles on them. Go figure.

[cruisin]

I wish I knew where the saddle that's on this RT came from. I demoed a K1200GT that also had a custom ([/retch gag hurl]) saddle. It felt like sitting on a squishy marshmellow that raised the seating to the point where flat-footing the back was an issue. And I have 34" inseam.

yeah soft seats are horrible for long distance riding.  After making some errors, I got mine right with some very firm, closed cell foam.

All of that said, I'm liking this RT more than any of the others I've ridden. The odd thing about this particular bike is that even Hermy's says this bike does better than others in their loaner fleet that have fewer miles on them. Go figure.

well the 1100RT wasn't named the best sport-touring bike in the world four years in a row by being a slouch.

[RBEmerson]

I'm finding that out. It's going to be the middle to end of next week before I get my KRS back. Other than the damn custom saddle and the wonky clutch interlock switch, I'm lovin' it

[cruisin]

yeppers, boxers have a "character" all their own.  I'm sneaking up on 340K miles on boxers now and don't see ever veering away except maybe to taste the triple in the new Triumph Trohpy.  

[kltk1]

I'm a little late to this party, but, just my .02 cents as an '11 RT owner. If you get the opportunity, you  might wanna ride pre 2010 RT(Hexhead) and the 2010+(Camhead). Some say they can't tell the difference. I did within seconds of riding mine off the lot. I find the camhead to be smoother and more refined than the hexhead. You really can't go wrong with either.

Regarding shocks. You've got a few options if you have an ESA equipped bike. Ohlins, Wilbers, Hyperpro and, I think, Racetech have units that can be tailored to your body weight and riding style. Check out Ted's Beemershop. He's got some vids on making the swap.

Hope this helps.

[RBEmerson]

400+ miles later, I've given the RT back to Hermy's and settled back into my K1200RS. FWIW, a few ramblings...

After picking up the KRS, we (Gunther, on a R1200RT, and I) headed up PA 61 (not a particularly nice road in places) to find Centralia (there's coal mine fire under the town, and the chances of it being put out are not unlike those of a snowball in hell). It's about 30 minutes north of Port Clinton. Anyway, the point here is riding on a mix of varying construction-enhanced   roads, crowded roads, and some significant changes in elevation with sweepers. On the RT, I'd have been gear-jamming like crazy. On the KRS, I occasionally dropped back to fifth from sixth and back up, but mostly I stayed in sixth without lugging the engine. The KRS has a set of Öhlens that firm the ride up, so any comparison with the RT would somewhat unfair. I think the ride would have been a little more cushy. Maybe not.

The other big difference between the RT and KRS (again an unfair comparison, but I'll make it) is the KRS is turbine smooth, while there is simply no speed (engine or road) that would completely dampen the vibration from the engine. This is something I don't get about RT's and RT owners. I keep hearing about how smooth they are. Compared to what??? A Harley? A single cylinder "thumper"? I'm sorry, dear RT folk, but I have yet to ride a boxer that's smooth. Sure, they're a lot less obnoxious than V twins and parallel twins, but smooth in the dictionary sense? No, 'fraid not. I asked Hermy's to re-torque the motor mount bolts as the bike was starting to feel a little "buzzy" at speed. 200 miles later, the re-torquing cured the buzz and the RT still ain't smooth and never, IMHO, will be. It'll be less obnoxious than other twins, and that's as far as I'll go.

Again an unfair comparison, the RT's handling isn't quite as precise as the KRS, but the difference isn't a deal breaker. Braking is another interesting comparison. The RT's brakes do work well. I didn't have an occasion to test the ABS in a "live fire exercise", but it's comforting to know something's there to keep the wheels from locking up. The KRS has ABS, too (works just fine, thanks). But I do love the linked brakes - grab the handle up front and all the binders go to work. The RT's brakes aren't linked. Some people like that, and hate linked brakes. Haters gotta hate, I guess.

On a good day, the KRS gets about 40-45 MPG. I didn't compute the RT's consumption but Gunther typically gets 50-55 MPG two-up. Two cylinders drink less than four, eh? That means the RT has legs, while the KRS gets thirsty about 160 miles out.

We got to Centralia, expecting to see smoke coming out of the ground, abandoned houses, and general scenes of being on the edge of a fire. Nothing. Well, there are no houses on what remains of the side streets, everything is overgrown, or generally in a not too subtle state of decay. We did several U-turns, looking something more exciting than buckling sidewalks and overgrown yards. Call it a tie. The RT and KRS both did their low speed ubies well.

We then took the long, non-PA 61 (there are stickers saying "Pray for me- I drive PA 61" - I get it now) way back to Gunther's house. Lots of up and down and left and right, fast and slow, etc., etc. The big discovery here is that grey saddle I disparaged of? It was a little softer on my butt than the KRS' saddle. Well, well, well... But I still wouldn't get near one on my bike. The saddle shape makes an utter hash of the ergos, makes shifting weight on fast tight turns almost impossible, and jams "the boys". But day-uhm, I do like a little softness.

At the end of all this natter, the bottom line is I could live with the RT without feeling really robbed, but I much prefer my KRS.  Dunno what all of that contributes to the thread, but there it is.

[b quark]

kltk, RBE,

Thank you both for your input!

I'm still thinking through - took another RT for a test ride last weekend and really, really enjoyed it. 

Though all the praise for the K1300RS, both here and elsewhere certainly makes it seem worth trying one, at a minimum for comparison.

To add a bit of doubt to the whole endeavor, on Tuesday afternoon I took the Sprint RS out and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Just had a blast.  Light, nimble, responsive.  Can put that bike exactly where I want it.  Plus that triple exhaust note is hard to beat.

Plus, the new water cooled R1200RT (GT?) is due out this fall...

Ah, decisions.

Thanks everyone for lots of great input!

[b quark]

cruisin,

Thanks for your insights as well!

[cide1]

I love my trophy....definitely worth taking a look at them.  Every feature in the book, gobs of power, great looks, not many out there, hard to beat for a touring bike with some great sportiness.  The triple torque and power band of the triple is incredibly wide.  10,000 mile service intervals are nice too.

[falconati]

400+ miles later, I've given the RT back to Hermy's and settled back into my K1200RS. FWIW, a few ramblings...

After picking up the KRS, we (Gunther, on a R1200RT, and I) headed up PA 61 (not a particularly nice road in places) to find Centralia (there's coal mine fire under the town, and the chances of it being put out are not unlike those of a snowball in hell). It's about 30 minutes north of Port Clinton. Anyway, the point here is riding on a mix of varying construction-enhanced   roads, crowded roads, and some significant changes in elevation with sweepers. On the RT, I'd have been gear-jamming like crazy. On the KRS, I occasionally dropped back to fifth from sixth and back up, but mostly I stayed in sixth without lugging the engine. The KRS has a set of Öhlens that firm the ride up, so any comparison with the RT would somewhat unfair. I think the ride would have been a little more cushy. Maybe not.

The other big difference between the RT and KRS (again an unfair comparison, but I'll make it) is the KRS is turbine smooth, while there is simply no speed (engine or road) that would completely dampen the vibration from the engine. This is something I don't get about RT's and RT owners. I keep hearing about how smooth they are. Compared to what??? A Harley? A single cylinder "thumper"? I'm sorry, dear RT folk, but I have yet to ride a boxer that's smooth. Sure, they're a lot less obnoxious than V twins and parallel twins, but smooth in the dictionary sense? No, 'fraid not. I asked Hermy's to re-torque the motor mount bolts as the bike was starting to feel a little "buzzy" at speed. 200 miles later, the re-torquing cured the buzz and the RT still ain't smooth and never, IMHO, will be. It'll be less obnoxious than other twins, and that's as far as I'll go.

Again an unfair comparison, the RT's handling isn't quite as precise as the KRS, but the difference isn't a deal breaker. Braking is another interesting comparison. The RT's brakes do work well. I didn't have an occasion to test the ABS in a "live fire exercise", but it's comforting to know something's there to keep the wheels from locking up. The KRS has ABS, too (works just fine, thanks). But I do love the linked brakes - grab the handle up front and all the binders go to work. The RT's brakes aren't linked. Some people like that, and hate linked brakes. Haters gotta hate, I guess.

On a good day, the KRS gets about 40-45 MPG. I didn't compute the RT's consumption but Gunther typically gets 50-55 MPG two-up. Two cylinders drink less than four, eh? That means the RT has legs, while the KRS gets thirsty about 160 miles out.

We got to Centralia, expecting to see smoke coming out of the ground, abandoned houses, and general scenes of being on the edge of a fire. Nothing. Well, there are no houses on what remains of the side streets, everything is overgrown, or generally in a not too subtle state of decay. We did several U-turns, looking something more exciting than buckling sidewalks and overgrown yards. Call it a tie. The RT and KRS both did their low speed ubies well.

We then took the long, non-PA 61 (there are stickers saying "Pray for me- I drive PA 61" - I get it now) way back to Gunther's house. Lots of up and down and left and right, fast and slow, etc., etc. The big discovery here is that grey saddle I disparaged of? It was a little softer on my butt than the KRS' saddle. Well, well, well... But I still wouldn't get near one on my bike. The saddle shape makes an utter hash of the ergos, makes shifting weight on fast tight turns almost impossible, and jams "the boys". But day-uhm, I do like a little softness.

At the end of all this natter, the bottom line is I could live with the RT without feeling really robbed, but I much prefer my KRS.  Dunno what all of that contributes to the thread, but there it is.

Thanks for your thoughts, the RS is a fantastic bike.  I agree that comparing the smoothness of any four cylinder engine to any two-cylinder engine is probably silly.  If you think an RT isn't smooth, just wait till you get on a Ducati!    Seriously, the RT is amazingly smooth for a two-cylinder engine.  It's just not going to be as smooth as a four-banger.

[zzrwood]

Thanks, good input.  I appreciate it.

Hmmm, '07-'09 are looking even better - especially since they're cheaper on the used market, too.  Who needs an extra 3 ft-lbs, anyway? 

I've owned both a 2007 and a 2011 - and ridden both of them around Europe, 2-up, for over 20,000kms each.

Forget the similar figures, the 2011 is a significantly better bike...

Cheers from Oz

[zzrwood]

Again an unfair comparison, the RT's handling isn't quite as precise as the KRS, but the difference isn't a deal breaker.

I have owned a K1200RS, and a 2007 and 2011 RT.  The K bike had a wonderfully smooth, turbine-like engine but was long and very heavy - beautifully planted and great in the sweepers, but the RT would leave it for dead in the tight and twisty stuff. No way could anyone say the KRS was a better handling bike. The extra 50 kilos of the KRS pits basic physics against it.

Also, the ergos of the KRS felt like it was designed for orangutans...  :-). Still loved the look of it though!

There's probably a good reason that the brick engine is long gone, and the boxers sell more than every other BMW added together.

Cheers from Oz

[zzrwood]

Though all the praise for the K1300RS, both here and elsewhere certainly makes it seem worth trying one, at a minimum for comparison.

Just to clear up any confusion, there is no such thing as a K1300RS - there is a current model K1300S (slant 4), aka "Rocketship", and there used to be a K1200RS (flat four) they stopped making about 8 years ago, which was more of a "Gentleman's Express".  These are very different bikes, and the K1300S doesn't have much in common with the R1200RT at all.

Cheers from Oz

[RBEmerson]

I have owned a K1200RS, and a 2007 and 2011 RT.  The K bike had a wonderfully smooth, turbine-like engine but was long and very heavy - beautifully planted and great in the sweepers, but the RT would leave it for dead in the tight and twisty stuff. No way could anyone say the KRS was a better handling bike. The extra 50 kilos of the KRS pits basic physics against it.

Also, the ergos of the KRS felt like it was designed for orangutans...  :-). Still loved the look of it though!

There's probably a good reason that the brick engine is long gone, and the boxers sell more than every other BMW added together.

Cheers from Oz

Um, I'll say it in a New York minute. BTDT. The RS center of gravity is lower (overall design and ergos), to say nothing of the overall intent of the design being oriented to not just going in a straight line. RS is from Renn Sport (racing sport) is quite literally the name of the game. Which isn't to say the RT won't also do well in the twisties. BTDT, too. But to say the K1200RS is somehow lacking in this regard is ...ah... not quite how it is. And, while the four cylinder engine may now be transverse, BMW has hardly given up on fours (K1300GT, K1600GT[L], and the KS').

On the matter of KRS ergos, what fits me might well not fit you. Sobeit. For me (6'1", wearing normal, not "long" jackets, etc.), the design works well enough to do 200-300 mile rides without requiring the services of a chiropractor afterwards. Again, it's a matter of what fits who.

[Stripes]

And, while the four cylinder engine may now be transverse, BMW has hardly given up on fours (K1300GT, K1600GT[L], and the KS').

My K1600GT is an inline 6 cylinder!    

[RBEmerson]

Well duh. You're quite right.