First Gear Torgue Question on 05 RT1200

[sdaley]

Having come from a 2003 RT I'm finding the torque on my 2005 RT in first gear to be not as low,is anyone having this problem?TIA, S.D.

[Whip]

The Rt12 is my first beemer........it does need to be reved-up a little to get going...not like my FJR

[ShovelStrokeEd]

You are going to have to examine specifications for the two bikes with regards to primary, transmission and rear drive gearing as well as rear tire circumference to determine what the overall gear reduction is, in first gear and then contrast that with the weight of the two bikes and the relative torque output of the two engines to come up with any intelligent comparison between the two bikes. Might be a bit difficult since torque output is seldom measured below 3K RPM on motorcycles.

 

There is a thread on clutch control started by Fernando Belair that is the best illustration of clutch technique I have ever read. You might want to examine it.

[RichEdwards]

First gear is rather tall on the new GS. My KLR lets me rev it up quite a bit in first gear (with little or no clutch control) when riding thru rough terrain. The GS requires mucho clutch control to negotiate the same road surface.

[codinn]

I am a bit puzzled as to why the bike has such a tall first gear. Just a little lower would have been nice for slow speed manuvering and starting up on inclines.

 

Perhaps "slow speed manuvering" was considered a non-issue on this bike .

 

Anyone know the rationale for such a tall first gear? It's a six speed for pete's sake!

 

Co

[BFish]

you hit the nail on the head...pete (sake) was a "tall" german engineer so he made 1st gear tall to match. simple.

[Catbird]

Having come from a 2003 RT I'm finding the torque on my 2005 RT in first gear to be not as low,is anyone having this problem?TIA, S.D.

I guess it's just a matter of what we're used to. I found that 1st gear on my '96 RT was a tad too low/torquey. I kinda like my '05 RT's 1st gear a bit better and don't consider it to be a "problem" at all. I suppose if I had to frequently negotiate steep grades with a full load and/or two-up, I may feel differently.

[R4ND0M_AX3]

I kinda like my '05 RT's 1st gear a bit better and don't consider it to be a "problem" at all. I suppose if I had to frequently negotiate steep grades with a full load and/or two-up, I may feel differently.

Agreed. I wouldn't want it this way for hill climbs but on the ST it's nice to be rolling in traffic and still be able to use 1st.

[jackflash]

I too wonder why such a tall first gear. I find it difficult to start out on a significant incline to the point I think it is a design defect considering the amount of torque the engine has. I've owned mostly manual transmisions on cars and am used to using a clutch on several cars and bikes but the 1200RT is just too tall in first gear to me. 2 cents...

 

I am a bit puzzled as to why the bike has such a tall first gear. Just a little lower would have been nice for slow speed manuvering and starting up on inclines.

 

Perhaps "slow speed manuvering" was considered a non-issue on this bike .

 

Anyone know the rationale for such a tall first gear? It's a six speed for pete's sake!

 

Co

[ShovelStrokeEd]

A comment and observation.

 

The original 5 speed transmission had a pretty stiff first gear and, in fact, the RT's had a pretty low ratio rear drive as well. Everybody bitched. "Clunky shifts" (wide ratio spread). "Too many revs at highway speed" (not actually but, most new BMW riders came from cruisers and did not think 5K RPM was appropriate at 70 mph, the bike never minded.)

 

Out comes the 6 speed. "Still clunky". 6th gear is now useless below 65 mph but, that's what the folks want, we'll deal with the carbon buildup later.

 

My 1100S with its 2.05:1 first gear as opposed to the 2.40:1 first in an RT is the smoothest shifting BMW I have ever run into. It has no trouble spinning the rear tire at launch so I would say that it is geared pretty well. It also has a much taller rear drive ratio than any of the RT's. I have no trouble moving from a standing start with it, even two up with one of my 190 lb friends on the back, I'm 235 or so. Overall weight would be similar to the RT.

 

I repeat, look up 'Nando's post. He really does hit the nail on the head.

[codinn]

Ed,

 

98% of the time it is not an issue. Actually it is nice to have a first gear that is useable to downshift into on the road. Parking lot practice has helped quite a bit, as has reviewing the post by Fernando Belair.

 

The hardest part to deal with are the speeds BELOW full engagement of the clutch at idle. Any time spent there however long or short involves clutch slippage or disengagement (or rear wheel braking with throttle up). Examples: slow speed maneuvering such as full lock circles, figure 8s and the like or starting from stop on steep inclines.

 

A small reduction in gearing in first gear might help with the slow speed stuff while keeping the gearing useful while driving.

 

That said, having to choose between driving tractability and shifting on the road vs. parking lot tractability and the occasional start on an incline I'd choose the former.

 

Come to think of it, the higher minimum speed in parking lot maneuvers is forcing me to be a better rider. Perhaps I should be grateful!

 

Co

[Joe_Rocket]

Hi,

 

I searched the entire forum on every keyword I could think of but couldn't locate Fernando's post. Could you possibly post a link to it?

 

Thanks,

 

Joe

 

You are going to have to examine specifications for the two bikes with regards to primary, transmission and rear drive gearing as well as rear tire circumference to determine what the overall gear reduction is, in first gear and then contrast that with the weight of the two bikes and the relative torque output of the two engines to come up with any intelligent comparison between the two bikes. Might be a bit difficult since torque output is seldom measured below 3K RPM on motorcycles.

 

There is a thread on clutch control started by Fernando Belair that is the best illustration of clutch technique I have ever read. You might want to examine it.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Well, Co,

 

Maybe there is where we disagree. I find no problems at all with the higer gearing during slow speed stuff. I actually find the tighter gearing hurts my throttle control. I do feet up, full lock U-turns, figure 8's and circles all the time with all my bikes. Its part of my "drills" to maintain profficency. I never feel the need to use the clutch on any of these. I would say generally that if your using the clutch, you probably are doing so because you are having trouble modulating the throttle rather than the bike be in any danger of stalling. My bikes idle at exactly 1K RPM and I can lug them down to 800 or so and pull away with no problems.

 

Try this, get an O-ring, about 1.25" OD and 3/16 thick. Size is 320 if your are looking. Remove your bar end weight and install the O-ring between the bar end weight and the throttle. You are going to find your throttle transitions get much smoother and riding slowly will be a good deal easier. A caution here, the O-ring is going to inhibit the self closing action of your throttle. It might even jam it depending on your bikes mechanical configuration. Test this first before riding off. Become a bit familiar with it lest you injure yourself or others.

[codinn]

Ed,

 

Zipped up to Windy Ridge on Mt. St. Helens this morning. On the way home stopped by the ol' parking lot. Idle was 1100 RPM and speed at idle was an indicated 7-9 mph. Where the parking lot is flat the exercises were smooth. Where there are drainage inclines the motor tends to jerk a bit on the uphill.

 

I admit that the more I practice, the better it gets. Funny how that works...

 

I like the o-ring idea. Makes throttle movement necessarily deliberate. Sounds like a good idea. I'll mind the caveats. Thanks for the tip. I'll report back here once I've given it a try.

 

Co

[codinn]

Well, Co,

 

Maybe there is where we disagree. I find no problems at all with the higer gearing during slow speed stuff. I actually find the tighter gearing hurts my throttle control. I do feet up, full lock U-turns, figure 8's and circles all the time with all my bikes. Its part of my "drills" to maintain profficency. I never feel the need to use the clutch on any of these. I would say generally that if your using the clutch, you probably are doing so because you are having trouble modulating the throttle rather than the bike be in any danger of stalling. My bikes idle at exactly 1K RPM and I can lug them down to 800 or so and pull away with no problems.

 

Try this, get an O-ring, about 1.25" OD and 3/16 thick. Size is 320 if your are looking. Remove your bar end weight and install the O-ring between the bar end weight and the throttle. You are going to find your throttle transitions get much smoother and riding slowly will be a good deal easier. A caution here, the O-ring is going to inhibit the self closing action of your throttle. It might even jam it depending on your bikes mechanical configuration. Test this first before riding off. Become a bit familiar with it lest you injure yourself or others.

 

Got the 320 O-ring. Way too big for this configuration. But quite instructive. Riding around with a VERY sticky throttle made me very aware of throttle-off.

 

Saw another thread which makes me think it isn't just my imagination:

From Sacramento R100RS: I love BMW bikes. But I didn't like the slow speed characteristics of the new boxer twin 1200. Too lurchy for me in every aspect. I found the throttle too punchy at slow speeds and the lack of smootness of power delivery of the R1200RT made me feel like a rookie. I really liked the K1200GT if it only got down into the turns as fast as the R1200RT, or FJR...and if the RT was as smooth in power delivery as the K1200GT...or the FJR.

 

That said, practice makes perfect and the circles and figure eights are getting quite tight and lock to lock swerves around targets are no problemo.

 

Thanks for the tips, Ed.

 

Co