New R and RS

[markgoodrich]

Here's a Cycle World ride report on the R:

 

http://tinyurl.com/ppyv2ms

[dhanson]

LOL, I had the tech, but it didn't make me forget about the rain!

[tom collins]

bmw has always had trouble selling the r-rs models. my personal view is that when you option them like an rt, in the past, they have cost as much as an rt. also, in the past, the last iteration of the bike was badly compromised with rubber mounted grips and a windshield that flopped around at highway speeds. on the plus side, it did weigh about 50 lbs less than the rt. having had both, i would say that it was not a good value proposition and thus, languished on the showroom floor. i hope the new bike is a better effort.

[tallman]

tom,

 

you have some good points wrt $$.

 

The RT outsold the RS 2 to 1, but the RS did sell.

My RSL didn't have any windscreen issues and I had different sizes, nor did I have a problem w/the rubber bar mounts.

Perhaps an individual thing or the dynamics of a particular bike.

 

I too had hoped the ST would be a better RS, and was disappointed.

The RS should have been closer to the R in pricing.

 

Without an R "S" model, it looks like BMW has made the RS mmore in line w/the old S than the new RT.

Guessing as I've not seen in person.

YMMV

[Sweendog]

I don't know about you guys, but I really like the looks of the white and read color scheme on the R.

[TEWKS]

Did ya notice it was the first pic in the thread? It's bold but I love it!

 

Pat

[randy]

it is interesting how different people "define" touring vrs sport riding, but I will give my definition

 

Touring = BMW K1600GTL weight 590+, wheelbase 62.5+, 300+ mile range, 95% coverage from elements, lots of two up and carrying capacity, 100% pavement, lots of highway riding.

 

touringsport = BMW R1200RT weight 525 - 575, wheelbase 58.5 - 61, 250+ mile range. 75% coverage from elements, 50% two up and significant carrying capacity, 90% pavement, and 50 / 50 highway/backroad riding.

 

sporttouring BMW ????? weight 490 - 505, wheelbase 57.0 - 58.5, 215 mile range, 50% coverage from elements, emergency two up only, moderate carry capacity, 80% pavement, and 30 - 70 highway vs backroad riding.

 

Sport bike = BMW S1000RR weight 435 - 465, wheelbase 55.4 - 56.3, 135 mile range 20% coverage from elements, no two up, and minimal if any carring capacity.

 

Adv bike = BWM R1200GS weight 525 - 575, 280+ mile range, 0 - 30% coverage from elements. Incredible carrying capacity, some two up. who knows with these riders they are crazy anyway :-)

 

just my opinion, not a definitive answer :-) But based upon my opinion, the new RS leans much closer to touringsport vs sporttouring. As noted above, by other posters', based upon pricing, features, and just how good the R1200RT is, my first guess is a lot of potential buyers will look towards the RT vs the RS after test rides and price evaluation.

 

I will be taking a test ride. I had the R1200ST 05 model and ranked it as one of my favorite bikes. However I still wanted a lighter weight and slightly shorter wheelbase sporttouring bike. I did notice the long wheelbase on the 05 R1200ST. So I ended up on a 2007 Tuono. Other than coverage from the elements, for my usage, it ranks as one of the very best sporttourning bikes I have owned.

 

 

 

[Lone_RT_rider]

touringsport = BMW R1200RT weight 525 - 575, wheelbase 58.5 - 61, 250+ mile range. 75% coverage from elements, 50% two up and significant carrying capacity, 90% pavement, and 50 / 50 highway/backroad riding.

 

sporttouring BMW ????? weight 490 - 505, wheelbase 57.0 - 58.5, 215 mile range, 50% coverage from elements, emergency two up only, moderate carry capacity, 80% pavement, and 30 - 70 highway vs backroad riding.

 

One small disagreement (IMHO). The R1100RT vs the R1150RT/R1200RT. The chassis and suspension geometry on the R1100RT is such that it is as nimble if not more so that the R1100S (I've owned both). Therefore IMO the R1100RT is a sport touring bike.

 

BMW called it such until the change to the R1150RT at which time they updated their literature to call it a touring bike. The R1200RT, though it has wonderful amounts of power is not near as nimble as the R1100RT. I have added Wilbers to my R1200RT as well as my R1100RT and given a nice tight set of twisties such as Deal's Gap or any similar road in that area, I could out corner my R1200RT with my R1100RT.

 

Just my thoughts....nothing more.

 

Shawn

[Ponch]

Your weights are a bit off. The GTL is way over 700lbs. The new RT is a little over 600lbs.

[lkraus]

I have not ridden any of the 1600's but all reports say the RT has more wind protection than a GT or GTL, not less. Differences seem to be mostly in the hand and arm areas.

 

The BMW website shows the the RT as having a payload of 221kg vs. the GTL at 212kg. I think they use the same panniers & top box, so volumes should be equal.

 

Reported fuel consumption on fuelly.com shows the RT in the mid to upper 40mpg range, and the GTL in the upper 30's to low 40's. I doubt the extra 1.5 liter of gas the GTL carries will give it the greater range.

 

...my first guess is a lot of potential buyers will look towards the RT vs the RS after test rides and price evaluation.

+1. The RS styling is attractive, but usable, real-world performance differences will likely be insignificant, with the RT's comfort and value coming out ahead.

 

I think RT's placement in the touring/sport spectrum is determined mainly by the rider's abilities and preferences.

[Ponch]

 

 

[markgoodrich]

I have not ridden any of the 1600's but all reports say the RT has more wind protection than a GT or GTL, not less. Differences seem to be mostly in the hand and arm areas.

 

The BMW website shows the the RT as having a payload of 221kg vs. the GTL at 212kg. I think they use the same panniers & top box, so volumes should be equal.

 

Reported fuel consumption on fuelly.com shows the RT in the mid to upper 40mpg range, and the GTL in the upper 30's to low 40's. I doubt the extra 1.5 liter of gas the GTL carries will give it the greater range.

 

...my first guess is a lot of potential buyers will look towards the RT vs the RS after test rides and price evaluation.

+1. The RS styling is attractive, but usable, real-world performance differences will likely be insignificant, with the RT's comfort and value coming out ahead.

 

I think RT's placement in the touring/sport spectrum is determined mainly by the rider's abilities and preferences.

 

I've had the R1200RT and now have a K1600GT. I prefer the K over the RT for: touring, two up or solo; sport riding, two up or solo. I prefer the RT for ease of moving around in the garage. The GTL does not have the same top box as the RT. The RT box has more useable space than my GT. I'm unsure the GT and GTL are the same. All of which has nothing to do with the R/RS. The R/RS models look fantastic in photos, but I'd think of it as as "county bike." I bet it sells well.

[Matts_12GS]

One small disagreement (IMHO). The R1100RT vs the R1150RT/R1200RT. The chassis and suspension geometry on the R1100RT is such that it is as nimble if not more so that the R1100S (I've owned both). Therefore IMO the R1100RT is a sport touring bike.

 

 

I too, have had R1100RT, RSL and R1100S bikes and believe that the RT is as good on a backroad as either of the others. What it gives up in weight to the others, it makes up in balance. Quite honestly, until I rode my 12GS, I didn't think there was a better BMW built than the 1100RT.

[DougM]

I understand folks saying that the RT is a better "value" compared to the new RS, if they are indeed priced similarly, as people tend to equate more stuff (more/bigger fairing, electrically adjustable windscreen, central locking, TPM, radio, etc.) as being better.

 

If BMW had asked me I would have said make it an R1250RS, lose some weight (CF and titanium bits) and equip it with a non-ESA premium Ohlins suspension. A simpler and lighter sport-touring platform is what I value, and I'd pay as much as an RT for that.

 

But I'm probably the minority.

[randy]

As I get older I really like a lower weight easy to handle bike. I stated in another thread, and many said numbers do not always add up, my biggest issue with the RS is, it's weight at that time it was suggested 525, rake and trail. As Shawn noted yes sometimes a bike seems to supersede its specs. Despite no longer enjoying the weight of the 1100RT I agree with Shawn, it just worked. I currently ride a Tuono, and before that the R1200st. When the RS was first announced I called BMW of Atlanta and said I get first test ride. Then more and more specs came out and it seemed it would not really take the place of my Tuono. But I will take it for a test ride, and try to keep an open mind :-)

[fourteenfour]

fun factor followed by weight has become my deciding factor as of late, hence I ended up with a R9T. For the last ten years I have had RTs and GTs with a few Cs just for kicks. I like the simplicity and lack of plastic now.

[randy]

has anyone actually seen an RS in the US yet? Have any arrived?

[marcopolo]

has anyone actually seen an RS in the US yet? Have any arrived?

 

Saw one at the D.C. bike show last weekend. Nice bike, just not for my needs/wants. As I understood it, may not be in dealer showrooms until June (don't quote me on that).

[Fathom]

I reached out to Morton's on the RS, and they said likely to be in the showroom in May. Based on the demand they've already seen, they don't expect a demo for awhile after that. <<<>>>

 

I saw the bike -- and Mark -- at the bike show in DC last weekend, and it's singing to me in a big way. I think BMW nailed it with this one.

 

To be fair, I think the point (which Mark also made in our conversation) should be stated that an RT will likely be much more comfortable / rider friendly on long trips. The RS has much less wind protection, and while certainly not a full-on sportbike, does require a bit more lean-forward than the RT. In its favor is the fact that its 15 hp up (on my '13 RT) while weighing in at 120 lbs less. Add in a lower seat height (at 5'10 / 32" inseam, I flatfooted the bike, no problem) and what feels like it will be significantly increased flickability, and the decision really will come down to what percentage of your riding really is of the long haul variety. If most of your rides are 4 - 6 hours in duration, the RS should be very livable indeed. If on the other hand you're regularly putting in 8 - 11 hour days, I think you would miss the added wind / weather protection that an RT or a GT/GTL affords.

 

[cris nitro]

I reached out to Morton's on the RS, and they said likely to be in the showroom in May. Based on the demand they've already seen, they don't expect a demo for awhile after that. <<<>>>

 

I saw the bike -- and Mark -- at the bike show in DC last weekend, and it's singing to me in a big way. I think BMW nailed it with this one.

 

To be fair, I think the point (which Mark also made in our conversation) should be stated that an RT will likely be much more comfortable / rider friendly on long trips. The RS has much less wind protection, and while certainly not a full-on sportbike, does require a bit more lean-forward than the RT. In its favor is the fact that its 15 hp up (on my '13 RT) while weighing in at 120 lbs less. Add in a lower seat height (at 5'10 / 32" inseam, I flatfooted the bike, no problem) and what feels like it will be significantly increased flickability, and the decision really will come down to what percentage of your riding really is of the long haul variety. If most of your rides are 4 - 6 hours in duration, the RS should be very livable indeed. If on the other hand you're regularly putting in 8 - 11 hour days, I think you would miss the added wind / weather protection that an RT or a GT/GTL affords.

 

Well put. I have owned both RS and RT's and have struggled with the allure/sexiness/sportiness of an RS vs. the comfort and bells/whistles of the RT. RT won. Age has something to do with that as well as the long touring days. For sprinting around the local back roads, the V Strom does the trick and the KTM is my other passion as well. Can't live with just one bike, or two!

[fourteenfour]

 

To be fair, I think the point (which Mark also made in our conversation) should be stated that an RT will likely be much more comfortable / rider friendly on long trips. The RS has much less wind protection, and while certainly not a full-on sportbike, does require a bit more lean-forward than the RT. In its favor is the fact that its 15 hp up (on my '13 RT) while weighing in at 120 lbs less. Add in a lower seat height (at 5'10 / 32" inseam, I flatfooted the bike, no problem) and what feels like it will be significantly increased flickability, and the decision really will come down to what percentage of your riding really is of the long haul variety. If most of your rides are 4 - 6 hours in duration, the RS should be very livable indeed. If on the other hand you're regularly putting in 8 - 11 hour days, I think you would miss the added wind / weather protection that an RT or a GT/GTL affords.

 

What I like is that I don't have a sail in front of me, large fairings have become a turn off for me. I would love the luggage of the RT, just give me a paired down fairing that offers some protection without being in my way.