R1200/1250RS??

[Tribal Chestnut]

Anyone on here got one?

What do you think of it?

Seems like, potentially, the perfect do it all bike.

Seriously considering a test ride.

[Iminquarantine]

Test rode one; in hindsight should have bought it. Only didn’t buy it as the riding position is too sporty for me in standard spec. I researched and you can fix that with a bar riser and peg lower kit. A lot of the ones I see around have the car risers.

Met police special escort group use them.

[airsafari87]

I had an extended test ride of a R1250 some while ago and loved it.

It was comfortable, reasonably quick, handled well, braked well and most importantly, it was fun to ride. The Mrs even liked it on the back too.

Only thing that stopped me from buying it was the price, but they had only just come out so buying new was the only option at that time.

[Mr Dendrite]

I’ll let you know, I’m picking up an r1250rs in a couple of weeks time
I tried the rs and the gs. I prefer the more lent forward position of the rs. It also feels a lot smaller than a gs, my god they are big old beasts. I know the GS is what everyone buys but for me the rs feels better. I wasn’t planning to buy until next year but there was a deal to be done so bought it now. Planing some uk tours and hopefully over to Spain next year. I love my Thruxton but it really is a fun, 150mile sunny day bimble sort of bike. Have done quite lot of test rides and the BMW just feels right.

There was a chap on here in the picture thread taking a 1200 around Scotland he answered my question in that thread.
Edit to add: page 489 on standard page layout, 10th august.

Edited by Mr Dendrite on Monday 30th August 10:51

[Tribal Chestnut]

Thanks chaps, replies appreciated.

Having spent a few days ‘touring’ it’s got me thinking that I’d like something that can easily do multiple days on the road & shaft drive really appeals for the winter.

My MT10 was good, really comfy apart from my arse, but the tank range was a nuisance, though I did manage to get 135 to the fuel light on the M6.

The real rest will be filtering and whether I can cope with it on my commute.

[nordboy]

I have a 1250rs in work. It's fantastic, love riding it, all day comfy and quick enough.

The 1250 engine is very smooth compared to the older 1200, the 1200 isn't a bad bike by any stretch mind you.

If I could afford one for myself I'd happily buy one.

[FazerBoy]

I test-rode an R1250RS and found the riding position a touch too sporty for the way I ride most of the time.

I bought the R1250R instead. Same engine with a more upright riding position and a cleaner look.

I’m very happy with it. I don’t do a great deal of touring but it’s fine for cruising at 80mph all day with just a small windscreen in it. I commute into London on it and it slips through the traffic fine.

[airsafari87]

Tribal Chestnut said:

The real rest will be filtering and whether I can cope with it on my commute.

Iirc the bars / mirrors are the widest points on the bike so it shouldn't be any worse than any other bike for filtering.

[black-k1]

I test rode thd R1200RS a couple of years ago. While it was a reasonable bike it lacked top end and felt a bit wheezy when pushed. A VFR800 offered just as much get ul and go from 400cc less. It was comfortable though while still being a sports tourer.

I've not yet ridden the 1250 but hear they are significantly better.

[hiccy18]

I've got an R1200RS, had it since the end of May and chucked a few miles on, including the aforementioned NC500+ two-up run. I was really tempted by the 1250 but it was a lot more for incremental improvements, mostly the engine, headlights and dash, and the 1200 I've got is basically fully loaded with loads of toys I probably wouldn't have paid for and now really like.

The 1200 engine doesn't really have a top end rush, I think the 1250 is better in this regard, but I don't really miss it as it's got plenty of oomph so I stick it in gear and flow in and out of corners on the torque. The bike is great in medium and high speed sweepers, both solo and two up, but I get the centre stand down before the pegs when two up.

I wouldn't call the bike "exciting", it just gets on and does what you ask of it, and does it very well. The gearbox is agricultural but the QS works well on the upper gears, less so on the lower ones. Commuting is dead easy even though it's a fairly large bike, the weight is held low and the mirrors are the widest point. Comfy as hell: we did nine hours riding on our first day away and, although I was tired that night, I had no aches and got up and did five or six hours each day for the next five days; the missus was just as comfy. The fairing undoubtedly helped prevent fatigue as did the smooth ride and lack of vibration.

I did quite fancy an R too, but I prefer the riding position on the RS.

[sjwb]

I have read with interest the comments of those who have experienced or owned the RS. As ever, opinions being opinions, there will be disparities. For my two cents worth, I have owned from new an R1200RS since introduction in 2015.

“Wheezy at the top end”? I’m not sure what that means, especially with the reference to the VFR800 which had less power. Granted, the VFR is slightly faster flat out - probably due to aerodynamics. But then again when does one ride ‘at the top end’?

The transmission is NOT agricultural at all, what gets in the way is changing gear (conventionally) without the shift assist unless patience is applied. Just use the shift assist and it is fine, especially coming down the box. First gear engagement from neutral on mine is appalling, which I think can be variable between individual bikes. There is much debate about why and how to fix, most of which is rubbish.

Regarding the commonality between 1200 and 1250 they are extremely comfortable, capable, well equipped and well finished motorcycles.

As for the differences, I have the following observations.
The 1250 engine is definitely quieter, a little less secure at idle than the current LC 1200, but thankfully one can engage first gear without (current LC) graunching. Clutch and transmission are pretty much as present, with perhaps the software controlling the shift assist being slightly improved. But still nowhere near as good as the S1000 types. Going back to the idle quality of the demonstrator that I rode, I believed that miles and time would sort it out. The calibration was just about spot on whether in traffic, pottering down country lanes, or on open road.
I was told that torque and drivability were greatly improved and were nothing short of astonishing. I didn’t find it to be enormously so.

If you asked me to say that the 1250 was the new wunderkind I would decline. Different yes, better in small increments yes - but not a huge step-change.
If the RS is your choice, 1200 or 1250 you will not be disappointed. Perhaps the TFT dash and different styling swaying some towards the 1250.

I could not justify the added cost to deliver so little so stuck with the 1200.

[Iminquarantine]

hiccy18 said:

I did quite fancy an R too, but I prefer the riding position on the RS.

I researched the riding position as I'm still thinking of the RS as my next bike. You can fit the R bars on the RS. Somebody (Touratech maybe, can't remember) also make bars for the RS which fix the too sporty riding position. Also bar risers for the standard bars which bring them upwards and back.

[black-k1]

sjwb said:

...
If the RS is your choice, 1200 or 1250 you will not be disappointed. Perhaps the TFT dash and different styling swaying some towards the 1250.

I have owned a good number of BMW RSs over the years and totally "buy into" the ethos of the RS as a sporty bike that can take hard luggage and a pillion. At the time (1976) the original RS (the R100RS) was launched, it's performance was not far off what the quickest/fastest bikes of the day were delivering. When the K100RS was launched (1983 I think) it too was not far short performance wise of what was available elsewhere.

Even the 16v 1000cc "brick" engine in 1989, when released of it's 100bhp Euro limitation with a replacement chip, was not far short on performance compared to the pretty much every other bike on the road, including the leading Japanese sports bikes of the day.

I so want a modern RS to be built to the same ethos. Ducati and KTM can build 160bhp+ twins that are usable and reliable so why can't BMW? The R1200RS was no where near the performance of the Ducati or KTM and, for me, was a total disappointment. It was a nice enough bike to ride but, for me, it did not deserve to wear the RS badge. As I said, it offered similar performance to a VFR800 which would have been fine had the BMW been 800 - 900ccs. The R1200RS actually offers no additional performance when compared to my old K100RS 16v despite an extra 200ccs and almost 25 years of additional development.

If you are saying that the 1250 is not significantly better then I will again be bitterly disappointed.

[outnumbered]

There have been lower performing R-RS bikes for a long time though. I had an R1150RS 20 years ago, which was obviously much less powerful than the K12RS.

I've not ridden a recent R-RS, but I thought the engine on a recent loaner R1250R was way stronger than my R12GS, just so torquey and flexible. So I'd expect the R1250RS not to lack much in real world performance.

And if you want a faster and more powerful sports tourer, there's always the XR...

[nordboy]

I've been following a S1000RR and a S1000XR the last few weeks on courses (and I can assure you we're moving). At no point did the R1250RS I was riding feel like it needed more power in the real world than either of those two.
On paper though it would certainly not be in the same power/ speed league as either of them.

[Mr Dendrite]

Thought this picture might be of interest. My rs waiting for collection parked next to a gs triple black. What struck me was the difference in the height of the cylinder heads! Ok they are on side stands so slightly exaggerates the difference.

[seveb]

nordboy said:

I've been following a S1000RR and a S1000XR the last few weeks on courses (and I can assure you we're moving). At no point did the R1250RS I was riding feel like it needed more power in the real world than either of those two.
On paper though it would certainly not be in the same power/ speed league as either of them.

Not picking on you but the general concept you express which is quite common these days on PH. Who rides a bike because it's just as much bike as they *need*. Nobody *needs* a bike, we can all get by with a VW Polo 1.0 diesel, that's all most of us *need*. Or a Dullville - that's a perfectly good bike and all we need.

I ride bikes because they are farkling fast and accelerate like a rocket and I can smell the anticipation in the hills when I pass though. I don't want a R1200 or R1250 which is capable of keeping up in the real world with a S1000RR. I want a torque and power monster which can feel like it's ripping my arms off and yes, I do ride that fast on t'road, occasionally, as well as riding normally/sensibly when people are around.

And the what bike question is usually, in most cases, answered with "T'orange one mister"

[seveb]

sjwb said:

Regarding the commonality between 1200 and 1250 they are extremely comfortable, capable, well equipped and well finished motorcycles.

As was the Rover 90 2.6 litre. Smelled like a gentleman's leather chaps, looked like his old Aunt and went like his Grandma in a knitting competition.

Exciting it was not. BMW are in the same trap.

[Daithelimp]

Had my R1200R for 6 years now. Fantastic bike, toured Scotland, Ireland, been to the IOM TT a few times on it. Arrive in comfort, clip off the luggage and can do a few laps over the mountain. Surprisingly quick and manoeuvrable with the quick shifter and dynamic suspension. Thought I might miss my hypermotard handling or sports bike fun but I don't at all.

[Daithelimp]