K1200RS

[Rampant]

what is maintenance like on these bikes? how much can you do yourself?

[DaveTheAffable]

Generally pretty reliable. Dreaded "rear main seal" issue is typical at around 35k - 45k miles.

 

Whizzy brakes (linked) in later models.

 

A LOT of info over at I-BMW and K-Bikes.

 

I've had a 2002 for about 3 years. I like it..but it's down right now.

[tallman]

Ok I know you're looking at used BMW's right now, and want some feedback, which is great.

Perhaps if you tell us a bit about the type of riding you do, have done, and plan on using the bike for in the future.

Present/previous bikes?

Budget, wrenching experience?

Your size/build as different BMW bikes have some differing ergos.

This would help as you've asked about 3-4 bikes now and I don't recall much info.

 

Now the K1200 RS came in 2 versions.

The "flying brick" intro'd in 97 and carried on until 2004 in the USA.

This bike was basically the same until 2002 when some changes in the fairing/turn signals and adjustable grips/pegs were available.

After this point cruise and heated grips pretty common although they may be on earlier bikes.

The RS has a 2 possition windscreen.

The GT version of '03/04/05 had electric screen heated seats and came w/color matched bags.

The RS could have bags added.

Seat and grips were different on the RS and GT.

I've seen high mileage K bikes and they run well.

The flying brick was around 25 years in one form or another.

Pretty reliable.

Later a K 1200 R Sport with the new K engine came along.

[cali_beemer]

cruise control was only available on 2002 and newer. Personally I would buy an 02 or newer. improved winshield and doesnt flop down at high speeds and better windflow IMO. I have had a 03 GT and now an 02 RS. I have alo owned a 99 RS beofre as well. Personally I prefer the RS between the 2 so make sure you ride both if you consoder a GT. DOnt be sold on the idea the GT is just a better version of the RS. The seat on the GT was too soft, the bars are painfully uncomfortable to me and not adjustable like on the RS, the handling didnt seem near as good as the RS, the wind protection on the GT is too much for this bike in my opinion. All very opinionated but thats my .02 cents. I found the GT's adjustable windshield is virtually useless as the travel is so limited, nothing like on an RT. The heated seats were nice but your rear end doesnt make alot of contact to the seat like bikes that sit upright. I am not sure why my GT never could handle like my RS could. I have heard some say its the bars, some say its the additional weight up high but the one that makes the most sense is that the GT came with the 5.5 inch rim vs my RS has the 5 inch rim. While many seem to be into the idea that wider is better and gives more traction, there is a growing number of people that have switched to the 5 inch rim with 170 rear tires and are seeing a huge improvement over the so called better 5.5 inch rim in terms of handling. All in all the RS is a great bike. Stable in winds, power built for the real world and usable features. SOme will disagree with me but the servo brakes are some of the best brakes i have ever used as well. I give the 2 thumbs up for the RS. If you count my GT then this is my third so you could say I like it.

[tallman]

Actually the European and US version of GT have different bars.

The handguards work well on the European version as the bars are lower and more forward.

The US version GT bars are close to the RS bars in full back position, not too different.

There are barbacks for both so adjustability is available to suit most riders.

"Soft" seats, like windscreens are relative and subjective.

Each would need to determine suitability based on personal experience, IMO.

Windprotection again depends on size and ride.

I know that 5-600 miles with cold and rain meant I was glad there was a reasonable amount of weather protection.

By changing a windscreen the K bike can go from airflow that almost supports you to most of the airflow above helmet.

Heated seat is wonderful in the winter.

Plenty of benefit.

I found the mirrors better on the RS and switched to them.

As you can see, different strokes and all that...

[cali_beemer]

Actually the European and US version of GT have different bars.

The handguards work well on the European version as the bars are lower and more forward.

The US version GT bars are close to the RS bars in full back position, not too different.

There are barbacks for both so adjustability is available to suit most riders.

"Soft" seats, like windscreens are relative and subjective.

Each would need to determine suitability based on personal experience, IMO.

Windprotection again depends on size and ride.

I know that 5-600 miles with cold and rain meant I was glad there was a reasonable amount of weather protection.

By changing a windscreen the K bike can go from airflow that almost supports you to most of the airflow above helmet.

Heated seat is wonderful in the winter.

Plenty of benefit.

I found the mirrors better on the RS and switched to them.

As you can see, different strokes and all that...

 

I did note that my thoughts are very opinionated, simply to let the OP ride both and see which is better for him. I bought my GT thinking it was just a better RS only to find I didnt like very much about the changes from the RS. The RS to me feels more like the bike should be (of course thats the way the bike was originally designed) while the GT felt like poorly implemented afterthoughts (and just about every change to the GT is an afterthought from the RS). The riding position of the RS/GT to me requires some airflow to help support your upper body. The GT took all that away ruined the comfort level IMO. Definatelty differnt strokes for different folks. If we all had the same taste, we would all ride the same bike. The OP may find the GT is the better bike for him. I am only expressing my thoughts and the dissapointment I found in the GT, only so the OP may ride both. Its very easy to be blinded by the idea that more features is better and on paper the GT is more bang for the buck for certain.

[cali_beemer]

Actually the European and US version of GT have different bars.

The handguards work well on the European version as the bars are lower and more forward.

The US version GT bars are close to the RS bars in full back position, not too different.

There are barbacks for both so adjustability is available to suit most riders.

 

I should claify that the bars of the RS feel as if they have more of an angle to them while the GT felt like a flatter more horizontal feel. The angle of the RS feels alot more comfortable to me. You can put barbacks on a GT, which I did and that only amplified the painfull feel of the bars. The RS chassis doesnt respond well to an umpright riding position. Thats heavily discussed on the K-bike forums. Most people you will find that have put risers on take them off almost immediately and with the GT most risers require a brake line change and gets expensive very fast.

[tallman]

Not discounting your opinion just pointing out that many folks like different bikes.

Bar reach and angle would be a factor of build and sleeve length so it definitely varies.

Your comment about barbacks however, that isn't quite correct.

The GT has plenty of room for almost all of the barbacks available.

Actually don't recall having to add new lines for one and we put more than a few on GT's.

Perhaps the biggest one available might require it but the small and medium doesn't.

Only cost was the riser/barback.

Now, the new K's are a different story.

 

Coming back to the OP, the advice to sit, check out and ride each model is certainly on target.

[cali_beemer]

Not discounting your opinion just pointing out that many folks like different bikes.

Bar reach and angle would be a factor of build and sleeve length so it definitely varies.

Your comment about barbacks however, that isn't quite correct.

The GT has plenty of room for almost all of the barbacks available.

Actually don't recall having to add new lines for one and we put more than a few on GT's.

Perhaps the biggest one available might require it but the small and medium doesn't.

Only cost was the riser/barback.

Now, the new K's are a different story.

 

Coming back to the OP, the advice to sit, check out and ride each model is certainly on target.

 

Its a matter of model year with the GT brake lines. The earlier GT's had longer front brake lines. The later models of the first gen got shortened. You can do a trick of moving the brake line under the bar back but it puts a stress point in the line and the cable gets tight at full lock. I never felt comfortable with that but to each their own. Many poeple I have talked to with GT barbacks that like them end up swapping the brake line for one from the LT if I remember right. Again, this is my experience, yours may vary (and it sounds like it does). Although the difference in model years for brake lines is noted on the K bike forums.