Sportbike World banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Damn! I could handle that.....:D
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
Having never ridden a Beemer, my only problem with them in the past was cosmetic. I am not a fan of the boxer engine design, and think it looks sloppy sticking out the sides. With this one being an inline I am much more likely to consider it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
170 HP claimed! yowza!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
spicersh said:
Having never ridden a Beemer, my only problem with them in the past was cosmetic. I am not a fan of the boxer engine design, and think it looks sloppy sticking out the sides. With this one being an inline I am much more likely to consider it.
Not sure if you knew it but BMW has had inline's with 3 and 4 cylenders since about 1985 in the US, it was just that they were to heavy and underpowered to compete with Sportbikes.

Originally posted by Smitty
I think(?) when one gets down to the final price that will kill most prospective buyers.
I suspect that you are very correct Smitty.

Originally posted by RSVRick 170 HP claimed! yowza! [/B]
The K1200RS which has been out for some years had only something around the 148 HP mark, so this a serious step up for them.

James.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
jamesjweg said:
The K1200RS which has been out for some years had only something around the 148 HP mark, so this a serious step up for them.

James. [/B]
Not to mention, its about 100 lbs lighter!
 

·
S370HSSV 0773H
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
jamesjweg said:
Not sure if you knew it but BMW has had inline's with 3 and 4 cylenders since about 1985 in the US, it was just that they were to heavy and underpowered to compete with Sportbikes.
I didn't know that, but since I've only been riding since 2000 I didn't look into it much. I did look at BMW a bit, but as Smitty brought up, finances came into the picture. It's the same thing when looking at bikes like MV Agusta, Benelli, even Ducati and Aprilia. Why pay $20,000 or more for something when I can get one that is arguably as good or better for between $8,000-$10,000?

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
I read somewhere that BMW invented the telescopic fork that is prevalent in most motorcycles? So why do they insist on not using it?
It seems that the wheelbase will extend under braking, making its less stoppie prone, but it will also completly kill the idea of braking into a corner to reduce wheel base (i am told that this manuver is used extensivly in racing). this bike would turn in better under gas.

Can anyone post the weight of this creature?

It looks very nice, in that calm european sort of way. I dont know if I would consider this a supersport, but it would make for a nice sport tourer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,400 Posts
Some of you are a bit young to what went on some years back. Still being a mite older I can feed you some more accurate info.

After major wars many of the winning countires will try to help the loosers as they did after WWI. One of the things the Brits did was gave BMW was the Douglas design of the flat opposed engine. Only Dougals, for some yrs, ran one pot to the front & one to the rear. BMW put it to present flat opposed use as we see them.

BMW like to claim they have always been ahead of other makers & countries so be prepared for a bit of propaganda in their ads

The tele forks were designed by the Brits like Scott & Rudge being two leaders so they were on Brit irons prior to WWII prior to BMW with them on their bikes prior to WWII as well.

The Brits came out with the Earls Fork linkage system. Well BSA had it & offered it as an optional on some of the better Ariel bikes ONLY it did not sell well in the 50s. BMW copied it & calls it something else.

In truth BMW have worked hard on offering a better suspension system then the outdated tele system used on most m/cs & one has to give them credit.

In looking at the latest system on the Beemer four it immediately reminds me of the improvement Phil Vincent offered on his famous VincentHRD bikes. Sort of a Girder system with linkage like on the Beemer, a mass of alloy in place of the tubed Girders & rather then the boing-boing spring in the center it was a hydraulic shock. Look at the Beemer & it is somewhat along the same line, bar the additional linkage higher up so there is more to it then we can see.

My first VincentHRD Rapid C had the normal Girder forks (for they were trusty things & yes for flat tracking or dirt hill climbing that is what I put on those comp irons instead of flimpsy tele forks that buckeled & bent during comp spills) & by next yr I shifted over to his latest solid forks with the hydraulic shock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,798 Posts
ok, so the strange lever system that bmw may or may not have invented worked better then the early forks.

Does it work better then the current forks? I mentioned my concern on braking into corners, however it would appear that it would handle panic stops better.

Any thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,400 Posts
Really no one honks along at an amazing speed, from start to finish, on anything bar an actual road racing bike on the circuits. No one sees anything beyond tele forks. True at the rare boxer race where it is Beemer against Beemer.

So for us on sportbikes there is no fret. BMW is keen on offering the public ABS brakes, & all the other tricks they can dream up. After all to some rider/buyers these are reasons they will pay the big dollars for a Beemer.

If you have ever watched the Paris to Dakar Rally of a few yrs ago (yet it is every yr for over 26 yrs now) & when BMW was the hot bike to rally racing. They had two works riders on two of the 900cc flat opposed twins & four on the tele forked 650cc singles. With the latter winning for them all the time & once in a while a 900 would pull in 2nd or 3rd place.

The amazing variations of front end set-ups, the ABS brakes or such do not attract me to the BMW m/cs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
A few random facts:
  • The current K1200GT and RS make 130hp at the crank according to the BMW website. Rider Magazine dynoed a GT at 114hp.
  • The K1200S brochure lists power as 167hp, which should translate to the 140+ range when tested on a rear-wheel dyno here in the US.
  • Full-tank, ready-to-ride weight is 545lb--indeed 100lb under the current K, and about the same as the Busa.
  • The front suspension, called "Duolever" by BMW, is actually a 30-year-old design called "Hossack" after its Scottish inventor. It was previously used in the mid-90s on the Britten V1000 racebike.
The '95 BMW R1100RS I used to have was equipped with the current front-end design, which BMW calls "Telelever". Like Duolever, it keeps braking loads off the spring and directs them instead into the frame via the leading links. The front suspension compresses very little under braking, and it easily soaks up bumps encountered on the brakes.

I loved Telelever instantly. It was confidence inspiring on good roads and made bad roads more bearable. I suppose a roadracer who doesn't have to worry about bumpy roads and trail brakes to steepen front end geometry and quicken steering would find it strange, but for real-world sport riding it's great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
DataDan said:
A few random facts:
  • The current K1200GT and RS make 130hp at the crank according to the BMW website. Rider Magazine dynoed a GT at 114hp.


  • --snipe--

    Was that 114 at the tire? That's would not be too bad to only loose 16 HP in the trany/final on a shaft drive.

    Smitty, I wanted to send you a PM or E-mail to say thanks for your input, some of us really appreciate the input from someone who has been ridding for so long, but you have them disabled.

    James.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
Actually Vash you can design their Hossack style front end to do anything under braking from increasing, staying the same or decreasing wheel base. As far as I know they have it set up so wheel base is essentially uneffected. You may also mean that hard braking and placing the bike on its nose decreases "trail" rather than wheel base. Decreasing trail will make a bike steer faster but not necessarily better. One of the biggest changes they seem interested in is a loss in dive under braking which they have succeeded at. They actually designed in a little dive since most people expect it and freak out if the bike doesn't dive while braking. By not diving on the brakes the suspension isn't compressed and firmmed up so it can be supple over bumps and do it's job. The problem with tele forks is stiction and dive IMHO.


:2cents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,400 Posts
I was a die hard believer of Leading Link suspension like that used by DOT, Greeves & a few others.

There was no diving when one hit the brakes, though a minor lifting up feeling when on pavement, though most of my work with LL was dirt comp.

One draw back to a LL was the extra weight compared to a set of tele forks. Mind you many Observed Trials major events were won by Greeves & when it came to MX then believe me the forks could stand anything in the way of abuse.

Fact is in the latter yrs of Greeves they came out with a LL slang-called "bannana forks" & I had them on my last Greeves built for Enduros along with aluminium petrol tank of 1.5 gal, also a thick f/glass one of 2.5 gal & finally a monster f/glass, as used in International Six Days Enduro, of FOUR GALLONS.

So one dabbled a bit in dirt comp or were in it full chat & costs came second for you could either afford it or could not.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top