R1300R?

[Paddler]

Kind of excited for this bike.  Any guesses how long it will be before BMW trickles down the changes on the R1300GS to the other models?

[profbodryak]

Maybe a year? If I recall correctly, RT is a year behind the GS. R should be about the same? Scared to imagine what the headlight will look like 😂

[Paddler]

1 hour ago, profbodryak said:

Maybe a year? If I recall correctly, RT is a year behind the GS. R should be about the same? Scared to imagine what the headlight will look like 😂

Yeah, the new GS headlight is going to take some getting used to.  Those crazy Germans. 

 

Many years ago, an article in Cycle World, I think, was discussing the "controversial" styling of the instrument cluster of the newly introduced R1100R.  Their explanation was that the designers had finished up on the cars, then said, "All right, then, let's get liquored up and start on the bikes." 

[profbodryak]

10 minutes ago, Paddler said:

Yeah, the new GS headlight is going to take some getting used to.  Those crazy Germans. 

 

Many years ago, an article in Cycle World, I think, was discussing the "controversial" styling of the instrument cluster of the newly introduced R1100R.  Their explanation was that the designers had finished up on the cars, then said, "All right, then, let's get liquored up and start on the bikes." 

I agree on the design of the 1100/1150 but then it turned out great on the liquid cooled GS! Must have changed what they were drinking. 

[Paddler]

1 hour ago, profbodryak said:

I agree on the design of the 1100/1150 but then it turned out great on the liquid cooled GS! Must have changed what they were drinking. 

Acutally, by the time 1998 rolled around they'd cleaned up the instrument cluster on the R1100R.  On the 1994 it was pretty bizarre looking, kind of Flash Gordon stuff.  Hard to find good pictures of it, but you get the idea:

 

https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/bmw/bmw-r1100r-94.html

 

 

[profbodryak]

17 minutes ago, Paddler said:

Acutally, by the time 1998 rolled around they'd cleaned up the instrument cluster on the R1100R.  On the 1994 it was pretty bizarre looking, kind of Flash Gordon stuff.  Hard to find good pictures of it, but you get the idea:

 

https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/bmw/bmw-r1100r-94.html

 

 

Oh yeah, I remember seeing these here and there. I never personally owned anything prior to 2003 which was my first RT. 

[JCtx]

I honestly don't think an even more potent R makes any sense. It's already more potent that it needs to be IMO. Maybe for the RS it'd make more sense, but I have no intention of trading my  R for a heavier and more powerful version.

[Paddler]

2 hours ago, JCtx said:

I honestly don't think an even more potent R makes any sense. It's already more potent that it needs to be IMO. Maybe for the RS it'd make more sense, but I have no intention of trading my  R for a heavier and more powerful version.

 

Except that the new GS is lighter than the current version by something like 22#-26#.  And it's not an either/or proposition. 

[JCtx]

That sounds nice, so obviously something else is changing. The only possibility for that is aluminum frame  and sub-frame, so that's probably happening. The engine has to be heavier, especially if it's full water cooled now, which I believe to be the case. Now I'm curious about the changes, and the real weight difference, since I don't believe BMW. Ha ha. The only drawback is the frame will have to be thicker/wider, to have the same  rigidity as the steel one... so hopefully not too much. I assume all Rs would eventually move to the new frame/engine, so it's only a matter of time until even the R is changed. But with the low sales numbers of the R and RS, I'm surprised BMW hasn't dropped at least one of the 2 models (if not both). Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

[dirtrider]

11 hours ago, JCtx said:

That sounds nice, so obviously something else is changing. The only possibility for that is aluminum frame  and sub-frame, so that's probably happening. The engine has to be heavier, especially if it's full water cooled now, which I believe to be the case. Now I'm curious about the changes, and the real weight difference, since I don't believe BMW. Ha ha. The only drawback is the frame will have to be thicker/wider, to have the same  rigidity as the steel one... so hopefully not too much. I assume all Rs would eventually move to the new frame/engine, so it's only a matter of time until even the R is changed. But with the low sales numbers of the R and RS, I'm surprised BMW hasn't dropped at least one of the 2 models (if not both). Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

Morning JCtx

 

The only possibility is not an aluminum (alloy)  frame, I believe it has a stamped steel frame. This can be lighter as it can be strong in areas that has to be & can be a lot lighter in areas where strength isn't needed. The one big benefit to a stamped frame is it can be designed & then formed to encompass (formed around) accessories & vital add-on components rather than the need for a number of add-on brackets & extra bolts to attach the remote components. If designed & formed correctly there can a be a pretty decent weight saving with a stamped frame over a tube type frame with tabs & brackets attached to mount components. 

 

I do believe the rear (tail frame) is alloy but if properly designed that can also be lighter than a tube type welded tail frame with add-on pieces as it can be strong where it needs to be & much lighter in areas where strength isn't required. (with tube frames it is strong (& heavy) even where it doesn't need to be)

 

The 1300gs  that I sat on sure felt narrower in the front seat area than the current 1250GS.  Engine on the 1300 is shorter & farther forward.  To me (just sitting on it) it feels much lighter than the specs show (probably a lot to do with the transmission now being lower & under the engine).

 

The one I sat on didn't have the bags on it yet so that might be some of the lighter feel but definitely not all of the lighter feel. 

[Paddler]

By report, the powertrain weighs 14.3# less than before, part of that is due to shorter transmission shafts.  Stamped sheet metal frame with an alumium subframe.  Can't wait to see the R version.  

[JCtx]

I didn't imagine stamped steel being that much lighter, so that's why I want to see real life weight measurements between old and new models. But if the engine/tranny is actually lighter, which seems to be the case, then the difference between the frames would make sense. At any rate, seems like BMW is pulling the best of both worlds with the new changes, so it'll be interesting to see all final 1300 revisions. I wonder if the engine and especially transmission, will be less reliable after those changes. Only time will tell. I like how bulletproof the 1250s (and 1200s too) seem to be right now. Interesting times indeed. Thank you for all of those reports.

[dirtrider]

4 minutes ago, JCtx said:

I wonder if the engine and especially transmission, will be less reliable after those changes. Only time will tell. I like how bulletproof the 1250s (and 1200s too) seem to be right now. Interesting times indeed. Thank you for all of those reports.

Afternoon  JCtx

 

If we look at BMW's motorcycle past history (at least from the fuel injected era) the first year in a new model is typically filled with problems & numerous future revisions. 

 

BMW has figured out that it can get riders to actually pay them good money to beta test their newly released models. Takes a year off of their product development & shortens their final product validation.  

[Paddler]

I figure that any powertrrain issues will be resolved by the time they release the R1300R.  How many problems have the R1250s had?

[JCtx]

Interesting that the 1300 will remain air/water cooled; wasn't expecting that. So seems that it was just a displacement increase. Just got a Motorrad email announcing the 1300GS, and power figures are listed at 145 and 110, so an increase of 9HP and 5 ft-lbs. I don't like how the aluminum frame looks, but maybe that's just me. Weight of the GS is listed at 524 lbs (just 3 less than my 1250R), but don't know how much it was before. And maybe it also has less equipment standard, like center stand and such, which would be a deceiving way to characterize the lower weight. That's why until a magazine or owner weighs one with the same equipment, we'll know. I honestly don't think that new frame will look good on the R especially, but will have to wait to see one. I have zero interest in trading mine, but always curious about new stuff.

[Paddler]

15 hours ago, JCtx said:

Interesting that the 1300 will remain air/water cooled; wasn't expecting that. So seems that it was just a displacement increase. Just got a Motorrad email announcing the 1300GS, and power figures are listed at 145 and 110, so an increase of 9HP and 5 ft-lbs. I don't like how the aluminum frame looks, but maybe that's just me. Weight of the GS is listed at 524 lbs (just 3 less than my 1250R), but don't know how much it was before. And maybe it also has less equipment standard, like center stand and such, which would be a deceiving way to characterize the lower weight. That's why until a magazine or owner weighs one with the same equipment, we'll know. I honestly don't think that new frame will look good on the R especially, but will have to wait to see one. I have zero interest in trading mine, but always curious about new stuff.

 

The new one is 12kg lighter than the 1250, so if the new R is similarly lighter it will be just over 500#.  Also, the engine is more oversquare, with a 4mm larger bore and a 3mm shorter stroke.  The begs the question of why is the redline the same, as that means the piston speed is reduced.  It will be interesting to see the new R.

[JCtx]

Yeah, that being the case, redline could have been increased a litttle (maybe 500 rpm), but keeping it the same reduces stress a little instead, so not a bad decision. But I bet the real reason to keep it the same was that increasing it, would have probably meant changing something on the valve train, and BMW didn't want to spend any more money on that. Minimizing costs is always a factor, unfortunately. Finally, curious about fuel economy on the revised 1300; it's hard to believe the 1250 is that good. But since the 1250 is already borderline lean, a larger engine must use more fuel, even if just a little more. But we'll find  out soon enough.

[Paddler]

On 10/28/2023 at 11:54 AM, JCtx said:

Yeah, that being the case, redline could have been increased a litttle (maybe 500 rpm), but keeping it the same reduces stress a little instead, so not a bad decision. But I bet the real reason to keep it the same was that increasing it, would have probably meant changing something on the valve train, and BMW didn't want to spend any more money on that. Minimizing costs is always a factor, unfortunately. Finally, curious about fuel economy on the revised 1300; it's hard to believe the 1250 is that good. But since the 1250 is already borderline lean, a larger engine must use more fuel, even if just a little more. But we'll find  out soon enough.

 Only a few connectors are carried over from the 1250.  The valve train has changed, larger valves revised cams, heads, etc.  Maybe the larger valves are also heavier?

 

I don't think the 1300 will be less fuel efficient, as at any speed the engine will likely turn slower than the 1250.  I find that speed has the largest impact on MPG.  At 60MPH I get 60MPG, but it drops to the low 50's at 70MPH. 

 

I read the GS review in Rider magazine, and am even more excited about the R.

[Troppo]

Will be very interesting to see....

[JCtx]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:01 PM, Paddler said:

I don't think the 1300 will be less fuel efficient, as at any speed the engine will likely turn slower than the 1250.

That'd be key. We'd only know by comparing 6th gear and final drive ratios. But 6th gear could absolutely be a little bit taller even on the 1250; it'd have even better highway mileage. The rpm are not bad at 4.5K @ 80 mph, but 4K would be even better, with 2-5 spaced a little better (1st gear is fine as it is IMO). I have no complaints about my R, which gets 200 miles without the reserve being on, which is awesome. On my MT-10, the most I could get was 160, and on fumes (deep into reserve). Finally, our 1254 engine would be considered a 1300 with any other brand, so the jump is very little, since it doesn't even get to 1300, for what I remember seeing (129x). But better to wait for the 2nd year IMO. I have zero interest to switch, since mine has everything I could ask for. It's only missing an optional heated seat, but I don't ride in winter (it's a naked. Ha ha), so would never use it anyway. Also curious how it looks with the bigger (aluminum) frame, which I doubt would look as cool as our trellis in naked form. I doubt it'll come out in '25, since the RT has to be first, so maybe '26 at the earliest, no? I'm honestly surprised BMW keeps making the R, due to its very low sales. It probably sells less than the RS, or any other R bike, no?