1200RS

[bensonga]

Is anyone here thinking about getting the new 1200RS? I owned a 2003 1150RS for a few years and enjoyed it, but ultimately decided to part with it. I didn't really care for the power assisted brakes. The new 1200RS looks quite good however, so I'm seriously considering it. I'm inclined to skip the Dynamic ESA and go with a relatively basic setup. This would eventually be my primary bike in retirement...when I finally get to leave Alaska and move to a place with a much longer riding season!

 

Your thoughts on this new RS?

 

Gary Benson

Eagle River, Alaska

[EffBee]

The basic setup is around $16,900, plus bags, so figure it's gonna retail for $18K if you don't get a top case. As the argument goes, that's $4K less than an RT. OK, but is it an $18K bike? That's something only you can decide.

 

It should be lighter and more flickable, not to mention quicker because of the lesser weight and perhaps faster on top end because of the smaller frontal area. But as a first-year bike, and a pricey one at that, what happens to its residual value (assuming you care) if it doesn't become popular? R1200ST anyone?

 

If you have the time, I'd sleep on it for a year. Initial demand will have died down. BMW and its dealers may or may not be overstocked with them. Incentives may be substantial if they are moving slowly, and you might even find a used one for $15K. But then again, that's me. YMMV.

 

[mneblett]

I would also suggest a test ride. While the bike carries the "RS" moniker, it does not appear to have the wind protection of an R1150RS or R100RS.

 

I once purchased a "modern" version of a bike expecting the riding experience of the previous generation, and ended up trading it in a short while later -- in part because of a mechanical issue, but aIso in part because I didn't "get" the "experience" I had wanted (shame on me for not doing a thorough test ride). An easy (and rather expensive) mistake that can be avoided with a test ride.

[DUBLINCHRIS]

As a very happy ST owner from new ( and bought in the first few months of its launch date)- the RS is what I have been waiting for. The pricing issue is relevant agreed and the ST was not competitively priced against the RT to convince enough people to see the light back in the day but I for one have a great light weight bike that carries the same luggage as the RT. It has good weather protection with its body work and out performs the GS/RT on fuel consumption over identical conditions. I leave luggage off except when touring and have a fine sports bike for the weekends. The RS seems to be better positioned price wise against the RT.

I had the opportunity to sit on the RS back in November and it felt good. I think it will win more customers with its up to date package - its very like a more rideable version of the HP2S. Time will tell but after BM dropped the ST and S they left a gap in the R range with no sports option.

[Guest Kakugo]

Just to chime in on what Effbee said: both the R and the RS will come with a slightly detuned version of the Wethead engine. The BMW press release gave top power of 80kW vs the 92kW of the unit used on the RT/GS/GS-A. It's about the same power as a Camhead engine but should rev better, have more torque everywhere, lower fuel consumption and be less maintenance intensive.

Though this reduction in power is probably achieved through nothing more than a different setting for the BMS-X engine management system, it still begs the question: why has BMW gone through the trouble of reducing power? Given how good the engine used on models already available, I seriously doubt it was done solely to improve torque down in the rev range.

 

Just something else to consider.

[TedG]

The BMW press release gave top power of 80kW vs the 92kW of the unit used on the RT/GS/GS-A.

Umm,the BMW Motorrad USA website is quoting 92KW (125 HP) for the 1200RS, as is every press report I've seen so far. Maybe the material you saw was in error?

[SAAB93driver]

First impression it doesn't really hit me as an oilhead RS replacement. What's with the upswept pipe? Hard to say about the ergos without sitting on it, it looks like the bars have no adjustment like the RS does. I'd miss the Telelever, at least I think I would, some others here probably don't agree as I have read. The styling is less classic, more racer like, not to my taste. I'd prefer analog tach and speedo, more like the RT has at least. If I have to give up the Telelever I might take a chance on the shaky dealer network and jump ship to a Moto Guzzi Norge if a test ride proved out. Or I'd look at something I said I said I'd never consider - an RT

[Fathom]

 

The RS is calling to me in a big way, though I might have to wait a year, as EffBee has suggested. Personally, I can hardly wait to test ride this bike, and am very much hoping that it will be at the DC bike show this weekend. Has anyone seen it making the rounds at this year's winter show?

[DUBLINCHRIS]

Just to chime in on what Effbee said: both the R and the RS will come with a slightly detuned version of the Wethead engine. The BMW press release gave top power of 80kW vs the 92kW of the unit used on the RT/GS/GS-A. It's about the same power as a Camhead engine but should rev better, have more torque everywhere, lower fuel consumption and be less maintenance intensive.

Though this reduction in power is probably achieved through nothing more than a different setting for the BMS-X engine management system, it still begs the question: why has BMW gone through the trouble of reducing power? Given how good the engine used on models already available, I seriously doubt it was done solely to improve torque down in the rev range.

 

Just something else to consider.

 

The European sales pitch is quoting MaX Output 125hp - 92kW @ 7750rpm & Max Torque 125nM @ 6500RPM. The riding position is a bit more upright than the ST. It has gained some weight over the ST @ 236kg fully fuelled.