Lower Center of Gravity? How?

[Stan Walker]

You here it here all the time. The wethead RT has a lower center of gravity than the earlier RTs. But is it true or is simply hype?

 

If it is true, what changed? Did BMW lower the engine in the frame and compromise lean angles? Or did they do something else?

 

All opinions welcome, facts would be appreciated too!!!!

 

Stan

[realshelby]

I don't know about facts. I can confirm that the Wethead does not feel like it is going into an unrecoverable tip over when it leans off center a few degrees when stopped! The '04 RT I had was a very heavy handful if you allowed it to tip a bit off center. But, that can be because the new Wethead is a LOT more narrow between where your legs are situated. Which gives a lot easier reach to the ground, which adds to the "less top heavy feel". The new RT is lighter ( Oilhead specs did not include luggage ), seat height is lower, all adding to a more manageable feel. Once moving, I do think the Wethead is easier to flick from side to side in twisties. Maybe that means less top heavy? But the important thing is that most people relate top heavy to a bike that feels like it is going to fall over easily. The Wethead is less like that than the Oilhead.

[Mike]

The seat is about .8" lower than the previous RT. I'm not sure what other changes may have been involved.

[lkchris]

The whole bike is lower than the previous version. There is no "low chassis" version, as various seat designs accomplish the goal. I speculate this is because there are all the time more female police officers.

[Bob H.]

I had an 04RT and now have a 14RT and there is definitely a difference in the center of gravity I don't know how they did it but they did . On my 04RT there was definitely what I refer to as a tipping point , after the bike reached a certain lean angle it felt like a sudden drop of a few degrees , once you knew it was coming it was no big deal just like getting used to the brakes on an 04RT . I know the 14RT is roughly 100 lbs. lighter than the 04RT some of this weight reduction could be in the engine and may explain the lower center of gravity.

[dirtrider]

You here it here all the time. The wethead RT has a lower center of gravity than the earlier RTs. But is it true or is simply hype?

 

If it is true, what changed? Did BMW lower the engine in the frame and compromise lean angles? Or did they do something else?

 

All opinions welcome, facts would be appreciated too!!!!

 

Evening Stan

 

One of the things that lowered the C/G was the elimination of that heavy alternator on top of the engine with it moved to inside the engine. The battery might be a little lower also.

[WBinDE]

I had an 04RT and now have a 14RT and there is definitely a difference in the center of gravity I don't know how they did it but they did . On my 04RT there was definitely what I refer to as a tipping point , after the bike reached a certain lean angle it felt like a sudden drop of a few degrees , once you knew it was coming it was no big deal just like getting used to the brakes on an 04RT . I know the 14RT is roughly 100 lbs. lighter than the 04RT some of this weight reduction could be in the engine and may explain the lower center of gravity.

 

I do think the lower seat plus narrower "waist" make it easier to put your legs out further from the centerline so it's easier to stabilize it, or recover from minor instability. So you wouldn't feel like it's as close to the point of no return.

 

The RTW still has a definite tipping point though, once you pass it it's going over no matter what you do. DAMHIK

[Stan Walker]

I know the 14RT is roughly 100 lbs. lighter than the 04RT

 

Not according to BMW. The Motorrad web page shows the wethead RT as weighing 604 pounds. The R1150RT weighed 614 pounds. My math shows that as only a 10 pound difference. In fact, Cycle World lists the RT wethead as weighing 629 pounds (probably with all the options possible).

 

Stan

[realshelby]

I know the 14RT is roughly 100 lbs. lighter than the 04RT

 

Not according to BMW. The Motorrad web page shows the wethead RT as weighing 604 pounds. The R1150RT weighed 614 pounds. My math shows that as only a 10 pound difference. In fact, Cycle World lists the RT wethead as weighing 629 pounds (probably with all the options possible).

 

Stan

 

I think the old RT was weighed WITHOUT luggage. Not sure about fuel level. New RT's are weighed with luggage ready to ride. Just pushing them around the Wethead feels lighter also. No matter, ride both back to back and there is no argument.

[Bob H.]

I stand corrected.

[Skywagon]

the new RT is weighed with luggage and 90% of it's 7 gallon tank full...or in other words 38 lbs of fuel.

[Stan Walker]

the new RT is weighed with luggage and 90% of it's 7 gallon tank full...or in other words 38 lbs of fuel

 

The R1150RT was also weighed with 90% of it's fuel (both are specified with 6.6 gal, both hold closer to 7). Whether the bags were included isn't specified on the R1150RT (also not specified on the wethead at least not on the Motorrad site). Still i'll give you 5 lbs. for each bag.

 

Seems to me the bottom line is that it feels less top heavy. DR is right they did move the alternator down to the engine. They also eliminated the old fashioned coil. Also I suspect the brake servo is lighter. Other than that it's pretty much the same size / weight bike.

 

Someday I probably should go sit on one at the dealer and see how far I can lean it before it gets away from me and crashes to the floor!!!!!

 

Thanks everyone for all your answers.

 

Stan

[gordiet]

the new RT is weighed with luggage and 90% of it's 7 gallon tank full...or in other words 38 lbs of fuel

 

The R1150RT was also weighed with 90% of it's fuel (both are specified with 6.6 gal, both hold closer to 7). Whether the bags were included isn't specified on the R1150RT (also not specified on the wethead at least not on the Motorrad site). Still i'll give you 5 lbs. for each bag.

 

Seems to me the bottom line is that it feels less top heavy. DR is right they did move the alternator down to the engine. They also eliminated the old fashioned coil. Also I suspect the brake servo is lighter. Other than that it's pretty much the same size / weight bike.

 

Someday I probably should go sit on one at the dealer and see how far I can lean it before it gets away from me and crashes to the floor!!!!!

 

Thanks everyone for all your answers.

 

Stan

 

If you haven't ridden one...you don't know! There is a huge difference.

 

GT

[Skywagon]

Stan...does include bags on wet. Here is text right out of my OM

 

604 lbs (274 kg), DIN weight, ready for use, fuel tank 90 % full, inc. panniers

[Stan Walker]

If you haven't ridden one...you don't know! There is a huge difference.

 

I'll give you that.

 

More acceleration but I don't use all that I currently have.

 

More speed but my F800GT is even faster based on police evaluation. Not that I use it.

 

Better handling but again my F800GT outclassed the wethead in a police evaluation. But as a "smell the roses" type of rider my foot peg feelers are in no danger!

 

More toys. You got me there!

Clutch less shifting: A bad habit that I don't want to learn.

 

Hill Hold: I thought that was what the rear brake was for.

 

Tire pressure sensors: That's one I really like on my F800GT. I've ordered that parts to add it to my R1150RT from Garmin.

 

Cruise Control: Only want it if it's adaptive, i.e. monitors the speed of the vehicle in front of me and adjusts mine to match even applying the brake if needed. That's what my Jeep does and I really like it. Before that I never used Cruise Control in a car. The constant fiddling with the speed needed to adapt to traffic drove me nuts.

 

Adjustable on the fly shocks: The F800GT has some of that. Don't adjust it very often.

 

Did I miss any?

 

Stan

[PadG]

What nobody have mentioned so far (unless I had missed it somehow) is the the "rotating mass" of the engine had been increased by quite a bit, to smooth out the twins, but that also have a very big effect of lowering the CG!

[dirtrider]

What nobody have mentioned so far (unless I had missed it somehow) is the the "rotating mass" of the engine had been increased by quite a bit, to smooth out the twins, but that also have a very big effect of lowering the CG!

 

Morning PadG

 

I'm pretty sure they had to add more internal rotating mass (flywheel) as they removed a large diameter fairly heavy rotating mass when they eliminated the dry clutch, clutch housing/pressure plate assembly. (probably about a wash)

[gordiet]

If you haven't ridden one...you don't know! There is a huge difference.

 

I'll give you that.

 

More acceleration but I don't use all that I currently have.

 

More speed but my F800GT is even faster based on police evaluation. Not that I use it.

 

Better handling but again my F800GT outclassed the wethead in a police evaluation. But as a "smell the roses" type of rider my foot peg feelers are in no danger!

 

More toys. You got me there!

Clutch less shifting: A bad habit that I don't want to learn.

 

Hill Hold: I thought that was what the rear brake was for.

 

Tire pressure sensors: That's one I really like on my F800GT. I've ordered that parts to add it to my R1150RT from Garmin.

 

Cruise Control: Only want it if it's adaptive, i.e. monitors the speed of the vehicle in front of me and adjusts mine to match even applying the brake if needed. That's what my Jeep does and I really like it. Before that I never used Cruise Control in a car. The constant fiddling with the speed needed to adapt to traffic drove me nuts.

 

Adjustable on the fly shocks: The F800GT has some of that. Don't adjust it very often.

 

Did I miss any?

 

Stan

You still don't know!

[JamesW]

I recently while at my local (sort of) BMW dealer I sat on a new RT and right now I noticed what I thought was a lower center of gravity. I didn't take it for a ride although I was invited to because I was afraid I would want one. On my '04RT I have a Russell Day Long saddle and I would want one if I owned a new wethead and I'm not sure but what that would effect what I perceived as a lower center of gravity by just making it harder to touch the ground which would mean my feet would be closer together which would lessen my sense of balance and maybe what I perceived as a lower center of gravity. If all that makes any sense.

 

Forgot to ask but what is the front and rear wheel diameter on the wethead RT?

[gordiet]

17"

[Stan Walker]

You still don't know!

 

I guess not.... Perhaps you could tell me what I am missing?

 

Please try to be specific, it doesn't convey any information to just say "it's way better". I need to know what features you believe that I would really appreciate.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Stan

[JamesW]

Hi Stan, You sound like me. I put my '04RT on eBay and I'm already having second thoughts. We sure have had some great rides on the blue beast. The dealer said he would give me about $3.5K on a trade but won't take it at all because of ABS removal. Big deal, 3.5K on a 21K motorcycle?? Whoop dee do! Therefore, I should maybe just keep her and do a little updating like new better shocks. And so what if I loose an input trans shaft since 1.5K beats 21K every time. I agree with you on the subject of cruise control, I never use it and most of the time I forget I even have it on my car. I'm an old airhead guy and imo simple is better on two wheels. My R1150RT is a sweet smooth running bike with all the power I need and then some. Might be a bit top heavy but even that got better when I tossed the ABS modulator.

 

One more thing. If I keep the '04 I'll spend $13 for a pair of shoe heel boosters (0.6") from Amazon and maybe compensate a bit for any perceived top heaviness. 21K buys a lot of shoe heel boosters.

[gordiet]

Well....I've owned three RTs and a K1600. An 05, 08 and now a 15. I've ridden a 1150 a bunch as well. To begin with the wet head is way easier to to move around in the garage. It is a lot more nimble on the road and goes like hell. My 1600 is super fun bike but I take the RT on long trips. I would bet that once you use the CC you will be hooked. It makes long trips comfortable. I could go on and on but you just need to ride one and see for yourself. GT

[Stan Walker]

It is a lot more nimble on the road and goes like hell

 

You keep coming back to this telling me it's what I should value, but it's not what I want in my touring bike. I want solid, predictable, stable, dependable. I want a bike that when I'm riding in Kansas with 50+ mph cross winds that I know what it will do.

 

I would bet that once you use the CC you will be hooked

 

As I've already said, I don't use standard cruise control on a car. Why would I use it on a bike? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.

 

To begin with the wet head is way easier to move around in the garage.

 

I don't buy bikes to push around in the garage! Spending $20,000 to make it easier to do so is not in my budget.

 

==================

 

Anyway this exchange is getting nowhere. I will post no more on it.

 

Stan

 

 

 

 

[gordiet]

Then I would suggest you don't buy one! How do you know how it's going to handle in a cross wind if you don't try one out. Your looking for a silver bullet without knowing what you're talking about! Stick with your Mustang.

 

GT

[realshelby]

Stan, you keep trying to convince yourself that you either don't want or wouldn't use the cruise control. Since you don't seem easily convinced unless there are hard facts, here is why you will appreciate and use the cruise control on the newer RT's:

 

Unlike a car, your hand and wrist are in constant tension holding the throttle open. Your foot can "lay" on the cars throttle pedal, and like you I can drive for hours without any thought of cruise control in a car. BUT....the Wethead seems to have a fairly strong spring built into the throttle ( even though it is drive by wire ) and I will BET that you will be using the cruise control to rest your wrist on long rides!

[JamesW]

On the subject of cruise control. Not all of us live in areas, like Texas, where one can use a cruise control for more than a few seconds literally. The closest 4 lane to me is about 60 miles which is the wet coast major north south freeway. Unless one is traveling I5 at 3AM there is absolutely no way no how a cruise control is practical. The traffic on I5 is just plain ridiculous! Western (west of Cascade Mts.) Oregon/Washington has become overrun with people driving cars, motor homes, and heavy trucks and often times aggressively. It is to the point where I hate to go anywhere I don't have to go by road. Then add to the mix the freeking idiots on cell phones and what have you got? No place I want to be! Cruise control on a motorcycle? You have to be nuts! In fact you almost have to be a little nuts to even ride at all, imo of course.

 

Oh, I'll keep my Mustang thank you.

[szurszewski]

I rarely use cruise control in a car, and have never had it on a bike until now. I just flew down last month to Vegas and rode a bike back up - it had cruise control. It might be that I'm out of shape for long trips (well, it definitely is), but I REALLY appreciated the cruise control on the long stretches of I-5 in CA and whatever cross highways I was on coming from Vegas to I-5. I don't see myself using it w/in 60 miles of the metro area here, except maybe on my way to VERY early meeting in Salem...but on a CC tour, across the plains and such...yeah, I'll be using it then.

[CWRoady]

Use my cruise a lot ... I often set it when I come into a little town where limits drop from 65 to 30mph ... just to make sure I don't end up funding town maintenance 😉

[AndyS]

Hi Stan.

I have the 1150.

I have ridden the Wethead a lot.

The bike feels lighter, and is way more agile.

It has loads of goodies too.

But I can say for me, my 1150 suits me better.

I was going to shell out the money on one a couple of months ago, but after a ride (with wife on the back) we both decided that the 1150 was better for us. It was way more comfortable, it had a plusher ride, it was less harsh. It had way more storage space.

Now, I am not putting the new bike and its owners down, as I may be one of them in the future, but for me, at this point in time, I am hooked on my Oilhead RT. It sounds as if you are not convinced either. But that is not what this forum is about.

Enjoy what you have.

[strataj]

Hi Stan.

I have the 1150.

I have ridden the Wethead a lot.

The bike feels lighter, and is way more agile.

It has loads of goodies too.

But I can say for me, my 1150 suits me better.

I was going to shell out the money on one a couple of months ago, but after a ride (with wife on the back) we both decided that the 1150 was better for us. It was way more comfortable, it had a plusher ride, it was less harsh. It had way more storage space.

Now, I am not putting the new bike and its owners down, as I may be one of them in the future, but for me, at this point in time, I am hooked on my Oilhead RT. It sounds as if you are not convinced either. But that is not what this forum is about.

Enjoy what you have.

 

Andy,

 

I went from 02R1150RT to the 14RT, my wife doesn't ride much with me so I wouldn't factor her in. She told me one good and one bad between the two bikes. Her legs are tighter on the Wethead, not good she has bad knees, the seats on the 1150 are level she could only look to the side with the Wethead she can now look over my shoulder. Since we don't take a longer ride then to breakfast she prefers the new wethead RT.

 

Jay