RE: BMW 1200GS: Review
Discussion
off_again said:
As an owner of an "adventure bike" I can answer that question easily - a couple of reasons:
1) Comfort
2) Luggage / carry capacity
3) Ease of riding
They are almost always softly suspended and ride well and that makes them great at soaking up British roads. They usually have a proliferation of luggage options and can carry a good amount of luggage. Finally, they are often with bigger engines which are tuned for torque and not top-end power, making them easy to roll-on and off the throttle.
Its like the old discussion around cars and SUV's I suppose. But for me (I am 6'5") and what I use a bike for, I need comfort and ease of use. I look a berk on a 675 Daytona and sports bikes in general make my wrists ache after 30 minutes. I often ride 200 miles in a day and I need to have something that is going to work for me. I could never do this on a naked bike and a tourer would be OK, but I find them heavier and wider and sometimes I dont want to carry around my luggage all of the time.
I am off to Scotland at the weekend and really looking forward to it. I am not daunted by the 450 miles to get there as I know I can take it in my stride. And I have a 100 mile ride home from the airport later today, so I would like to do so in reasonable comfort. Could I do the same on something else? Yeah, probably, but for me at the moment, an "adventure bike" is the right mix. And no, I have absolutely NO intention of going off road. I never bought the bike to go off road and its got crap tyres for off-road anyway. A dusty car park is about as far as I will be going...
Whilst i didn't dislike the article I found your post more entertaining cause i totally get it. 1) Comfort
2) Luggage / carry capacity
3) Ease of riding
They are almost always softly suspended and ride well and that makes them great at soaking up British roads. They usually have a proliferation of luggage options and can carry a good amount of luggage. Finally, they are often with bigger engines which are tuned for torque and not top-end power, making them easy to roll-on and off the throttle.
Its like the old discussion around cars and SUV's I suppose. But for me (I am 6'5") and what I use a bike for, I need comfort and ease of use. I look a berk on a 675 Daytona and sports bikes in general make my wrists ache after 30 minutes. I often ride 200 miles in a day and I need to have something that is going to work for me. I could never do this on a naked bike and a tourer would be OK, but I find them heavier and wider and sometimes I dont want to carry around my luggage all of the time.
I am off to Scotland at the weekend and really looking forward to it. I am not daunted by the 450 miles to get there as I know I can take it in my stride. And I have a 100 mile ride home from the airport later today, so I would like to do so in reasonable comfort. Could I do the same on something else? Yeah, probably, but for me at the moment, an "adventure bike" is the right mix. And no, I have absolutely NO intention of going off road. I never bought the bike to go off road and its got crap tyres for off-road anyway. A dusty car park is about as far as I will be going...
Hooli said:
Why does everyone like digital speedos? they are horrible things.
As I mentioned after the test-ride in the other thread, the speedo and the screen were the only two things I'd want to change. I too found the speedo really cluttered and hard to read, whereas a nice big digital readout would give you all the information you need at a glance. Someone then mentioned that you can do just that via the settings, so that's one of the flaws sorted out as far as I'm concerned.Steve Evil said:
Hooli said:
Why does everyone like digital speedos? they are horrible things.
As I mentioned after the test-ride in the other thread, the speedo and the screen were the only two things I'd want to change. I too found the speedo really cluttered and hard to read, whereas a nice big digital readout would give you all the information you need at a glance. Someone then mentioned that you can do just that via the settings, so that's one of the flaws sorted out as far as I'm concerned.4 cyl engine
Shaft drive
Long service intervals (at least 8000m)
Top build quality
Lots of torque
DCT gearbox (added this after a test ride)
Silver993tt said:
Agree. I recently bought a Honda VFR1200X Cross Tourer with the 1250 V4 engine. Fantastic bike, comfortable, fast, loads of torque and all day riding not an issue. Even has a DCT gerbox which is amazing and sure to be seen on may bikes over the next 5 years, including sports bikes.
Valid points for some of the bikes and I understand what you are saying about comfort and easy nice handling. But for some bikes, like the Honda at 285kg, its not exactly light - in fact a Pan European is 2kg lighter. A bike of that type I would expect max of 230kg. For me the 1200GS is heavier than it need be at 238kg although acceptable if I wasn't using it off road - but then I wouldn't have it 
Anyway, everyone to their own thing
carlosbutler said:
Valid points for some of the bikes, but at 285kg for your bike, its not exactly light - in fact a Pan European is 2kg lighter. A bike of that type I would expect max of 230kg. For me the 1200GS is heavier than it need be at 238kg although acceptable if I wasn't using it off road - but then I wouldn't have it
Have you ridden a CT? Sure it's not a light bike, non of this class are. However, once moving you don't notice the weight as the CoG is low down. It also has the V4 engine, not a lighter twin and produces lots of low down torque. I find it perfect for long tours and tackling alpine roads, hairpins etc. I tested the BMW, Ducati MS but they seemed too agricultural. The KTM didn't make my short list as it doesn't have shaft drive.Silver993tt said:
ave you ridden a CT? Sure it's not a light bike, non of this class are. However, once moving you don't notice the weight as the CoG is low down. It also has the V4 engine, not a lighter twin and produces lots of low down torque. I find it perfect for long tours and tackling alpine roads, hairpins etc. I tested the BMW, Ducati MS but they seemed too agricultural. The KTM didn't make my short list as it doesn't have shaft drive.
Nor does the Multistrada, yet you tested that.Silver993tt said:
Steve Evil said:
Hooli said:
Why does everyone like digital speedos? they are horrible things.
As I mentioned after the test-ride in the other thread, the speedo and the screen were the only two things I'd want to change. I too found the speedo really cluttered and hard to read, whereas a nice big digital readout would give you all the information you need at a glance. Someone then mentioned that you can do just that via the settings, so that's one of the flaws sorted out as far as I'm concerned.4 cyl engine
Shaft drive
Long service intervals (at least 8000m)
Top build quality
Lots of torque
DCT gearbox (added this after a test ride)
I don't have a problem with digital readouts.
In fact, on my car (Audi A6) I tend to have the computer readout in the middle of the speedo set to show me my speed in MPH as I find it a lot easier and quicker to see the speed at which I am travelling, definitely quicker than reading the needle. This can only be a good thing on a bike IMO.
In fact, on my car (Audi A6) I tend to have the computer readout in the middle of the speedo set to show me my speed in MPH as I find it a lot easier and quicker to see the speed at which I am travelling, definitely quicker than reading the needle. This can only be a good thing on a bike IMO.
I too went and bought a Crosstourer after many years on a GS and I certainly don't regret it.
Firstly the engine is stonking. Absolutely perfect for the style of bike it is. Loads of grunt and super smooth. And secondly build quality. After a year of ownership and 10k miles there has not been one fault or imperfection in the slightest. My experience of the GS was a little different.
It's not perfect though. Yes it's on the heavy side (but feels no different to the GS) and the front suspension isn't the best. oh, and the standard screen is crap but aren't they all. Apart from the weight the faults are easily fixed.
The best bit though is that it's not a GS. It's bizarre that I've had many a GS owner ask me what engine my bikes got. Which tells me that before they bought their bike they must have done absolutely no research into the adventure bike market and just bought a GS cause it's a GS. How sad is that and what does it say about the average owner.
Firstly the engine is stonking. Absolutely perfect for the style of bike it is. Loads of grunt and super smooth. And secondly build quality. After a year of ownership and 10k miles there has not been one fault or imperfection in the slightest. My experience of the GS was a little different.
It's not perfect though. Yes it's on the heavy side (but feels no different to the GS) and the front suspension isn't the best. oh, and the standard screen is crap but aren't they all. Apart from the weight the faults are easily fixed.
The best bit though is that it's not a GS. It's bizarre that I've had many a GS owner ask me what engine my bikes got. Which tells me that before they bought their bike they must have done absolutely no research into the adventure bike market and just bought a GS cause it's a GS. How sad is that and what does it say about the average owner.
Hooli said:
I agree with half your list. But I find digi dashs horrible to use, makes the bike feel like they are trying to recreate Outrun rather than build a real machine to me.
Well, I've used it now for nearly 5000kms and it's great, nice and clear. also I can switch between kmh/mph by simply pressing a button which is very useful for continental riding. Nice big digits on display.Harry H said:
The best bit though is that it's not a GS. It's bizarre that I've had many a GS owner ask me what engine my bikes got. Which tells me that before they bought their bike they must have done absolutely no research into the adventure bike market and just bought a GS cause it's a GS. How sad is that and what does it say about the average owner.
Shocking! carlosbutler said:
I don't understand why people buy this bike, or the 800GS, or the KTM 1190 or 990 and just never use them off-road. It's pointless having this bike, you are better off having either a touring bike or a sports bike or even a naked/roadster bike.
I have nothing against this bike or those mentioned since I do own one but I actually use it off-road for what is mainly designed for.
And more specific to this bike, it's getting beyond heavy now for off-road use, especially if by yourself as its neigh on impossible to pick up if you dropped it on even a slight decline and with slippy mud i.e. where you are most likely to drop it in the UK.
It is the 2 wheeled version of a Range Rover / X5 et al. It has to be able to go off road, Charley Boorman stylee, but it never will! It has to do well in the tests or it may appear to be just a fashion statement I have nothing against this bike or those mentioned since I do own one but I actually use it off-road for what is mainly designed for.
And more specific to this bike, it's getting beyond heavy now for off-road use, especially if by yourself as its neigh on impossible to pick up if you dropped it on even a slight decline and with slippy mud i.e. where you are most likely to drop it in the UK.
That is why I am confused why the have liquid cooled the ting. Two radiators, one each side, that will fail if the bike is dropped at ant pace. that will strand our Charley and then there will be posing issues. IMHO.
BMW, surely to keep the bike true to its conception, simplicity and durability is key? With surprisingly good handling it is a potent mix, so why frill it up like a cheap frock?
phatgixer said:
It is the 2 wheeled version of a Range Rover / X5 et al. It has to be able to go off road, Charley Boorman stylee, but it never will! It has to do well in the tests or it may appear to be just a fashion statement
Not really a fair comparison. Unlike with a car, the features that make a bike suitable for off road antics such as upright seating position and good low speed handling are exactly what you need for going to work. Having said that, the R1200R perhaps with a screen added tempts me more than the GS.
Sports bikes tend to be chain drive and ludicrously uncomfortable, and tourers can be unnecessarily heavy and bulky for urban use.
There really aren't many non chain driven choices if you don't want a bulky tourer.
VFR1200, but difficult to make a case for it over the crosstourer. BMW800GT. Some Moto Guzzis.
Other than that 'adventure bikes'.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff