• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

New BMW Water-Cooled Boxer

I think BMW will do just fine with liquid cooled boxers. They'll need to look good, and not be too heavy, but that shouldn't be a problem.

I just wish they'd subcontract the external design work to Ital Design.
 
I too think BMW will do just fine with a water cooled Boxer.

I hope they will take advantage of a new engine to rething how they design and package the R bikes. I hope they get bact to their roots where bikes we under 500lbs...some where well under that.

I hope they also make their bike toward a more average human scale...ie the average male/female rider of 5'5' to 5' 10" can sit on the bike with their feet flat on the ground. This would help their sales IMO...and make the bikes more of a pleasure to own.

I also think they should work hard to get their center of gravity lower like the had in the days of the R100s etc. This would make the bike more agile at speed and less top heavy
.
This means the GS bikes an the road bike would really have different frames
 
I seriously doubt that the vasserbeemer will be lighter than current models. CG issues don't bother me all that much and my 06RT is low enough with stock suspension for me to duck-walk it around the shop now and then. I can flat foot it at intersections and I'm only 5'8".
 
I hope they also make their bike toward a more average human scale...ie the average male/female rider of 5'5' to 5' 10" can sit on the bike with their feet flat on the ground. This would help their sales IMO...and make the bikes more of a pleasure to own.

I also think they should work hard to get their center of gravity lower like the had in the days of the R100s etc. This would make the bike more agile at speed and less top heavy
I believe you can see this already starting to happen -- the current bikes are become lighter than their predecessors (the different between the R12RT and the R11x0RT is frankly, amazing), the CG's are getting lower (witness the K-wedge bikes' 55 degree forward cylinder bank cant), and the seat heights are starting to get lower (the K16GTL's 29.5" seat is nice for the inseam challenged).
 
I hope they will take advantage of a new engine to rething how they design and package the R bikes. I hope they get bact to their roots where bikes we under 500lbs...some where well under that.

I don't understand what you mean. Have a look at this link, for example:
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/26576/Buyers-Guide-Specifications/2011-BMW-R1200R.aspx

The R1200R weighs 437 lbs. dry. That's about what my 1981 R65 weighs, and less than my 1975 R90S.

The same source,
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/26714/Buyers-Guide-Specifications/2011-BMW-R1200GS.aspx
says that the GS weighs 447 lbs. dry.

I hope they also make their bike toward a more average human scale...ie the average male/female rider of 5'5' to 5' 10" can sit on the bike with their feet flat on the ground. This would help their sales IMO...and make the bikes more of a pleasure to own.

Try out the R12R, it's pretty low to the ground. I have a 30" inseam and can easily flatfoot that bike. Not everyone has to own a GSA.

I also think they should work hard to get their center of gravity lower like the had in the days of the R100s etc. This would make the bike more agile at speed and less top heavy.

Read my posting above. The engines have to be higher up in order to get more lean angle. It's the nature of a longitudinal boxer motor. I don't think there's any way that BMW is going to give up what precious lean angle they have.
 
But the inline 6 provides a much smoother engine. The inline 6 is intrinsically balanced. The V6 on the other hand, is a shaky jake, and needs stuff like balance shafts to get it reasonably smooth enough for a luxury car.

So there is a technical reason for the straight 6.

I agree, my supercharged BMW M Roadster is very smooth.
 
The engines have to be higher up in order to get more lean angle. It's the nature of a longitudinal boxer motor. I don't think there's any way that BMW is going to give up what precious lean angle they have.

You mean a transverse boxer motor, don't you?
 
You mean a transverse boxer motor, don't you?

No, I don't think so. The adjective usually describes the alignment of the crankshaft. So a transverse four describes the usual UJM (and new K bike) arrangement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_engine

A transverse boxer would be like the old Douglas motorcycles, or more well known here, the Victoria KR I of 1920, which employed a BMW motor in a transverse arrangement.
 
No, I don't think so. The adjective usually describes the alignment of the crankshaft. So a transverse four describes the usual UJM (and new K bike) arrangement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_engine

A transverse boxer would be like the old Douglas motorcycles, or more well known here, the Victoria KR I of 1920, which employed a BMW motor in a transverse arrangement.

I stand corrected. I was thinking of cylinder alignment, not crankshaft orientation.
But then, I've always been a nonconformist. :D
 
Close. I thought the Porsche crowd wouldn't buy an engine that wasn't hung out the rear, not an engine that was water-cooled. Turns out they *will* buy a car with a water-cooled engine, but only if the engine is hung out the back (like the 911), but not if the engine is out front (like the 924, 944, and 928).

Don't give porchephiles so much credit for loyalty to mechanical traditions. The Cayenne is a hulking SUV with a guzzling V8 ( out front! ) and the faithful snatched it up to the tune of 50% of US sales for a while. Maybe they all just bought one for their significant others.

As for a water boxer, it probably is more marketing than practicality. That sounds like HD's philosophy. But the harley faithful are firmly established throughout the age spectrum, and the boxer loyalist seem to getting older, and older, and older......
 
I'm fairly new to motorcycles and I've owned my 2010 GSA for only about 6 months.

I always thought the opposed configuration engine was cool looking. But now that I've owned one for a while, I don't see a technical justification for it. The longitudinal configuration doesn't really promote stability. Revving the engine torques the bike left to right. The cylinder heads are hanging out there where they can hit obstacles on the road or trail, or hit the ground if the bike gets dropped.

On the other hand, I still think it looks cool. :p

My Suzuki Burgman 650 has an inline two cylinder engine, water cooled. The engine is canted forward, so the heads point at the top of the front tire. There is no torque reaction from the engine, since it is transversely mounted. It has a balance shaft and it runs smoothly and quietly. Even though the Burgman weighs a whopping 60lbs more than my R1200GS-Adv, the CG is so low that the bike is very easy to maneuver. It's also far easier to pick up than the GSA.

As far as scale goes, I bought the GSA *because* it is so tall. I'm tall guy and I can easily flat-foot the GSA with the seat on the highest setting and still have some bend in my knee! Out of all the motorcycles I looked at, the GSA fit me ergonomically the best. I can ride it, stock seat and all, for long periods without feeling cramped up.

Not sure if a water-cooled boxer is a great idea or not. It is an iconic configuration. I would almost suggest that BMW revert the boxer to simple-as-dirt pushrod, air-cooled configuration. It wouldn't make as much power, but it would shrink the cylinder deck-height (engine-width) and harken back to the idea of a "runs forever and goes anywhere" kind of bike. But that's probably why I'm not in marketing. ;)
 
...I don't see a technical justification for it...larrysb

Well, the original justification was to put the hottest part of the engine out in the breeze, but that hasn't been a factor since 1993. I suppose another reason may have been to reduce the effect of primary and secondary forces, however the Lanchester counter balance shaft has been around since 1904.

The main justification, as we all know, is marketing. :D

And don't worry about hurting your cylinder heads if you drop the bike...:D
 
BMW can't sit back like Harley and simply produce the same dated design forever if it expects to stay competitive beyond the market of the BMW loyals.

Stay competitive? Harley-Davidson, while producing "the same dated design forever," sold over twice as many motorcycles worldwide than BMW Motorad and did this during a bad year for them.
 
That's because they keep breaking down... ;)
BMW's just keep going on.

Well, there was a time when this may have been the answer, but I can honestly say the last couple of HD bikes I owned (2007 and 2008 models) were rock-solid reliable and didn't leak a drop of oil. That said, my RT is the best motorcycle riding experience I ever had.

My point was/is that Harley-Davidson has built their business around tradition, not with being in the vanguard of anything "cutting edge" and they've been doing so quite successfully for a long time. Whatever you think of their bikes, you can't take this away from them.
 
HD is not a motorcycle manufacturing success story, it is a marketing success story. The image they sell works for them and the demographic they want to reach. Unfortunately I still have a "bad taste in my mouth" from the time period when AMF bought the brand and that was their warranty "Adios Mother F***er" the bikes were absolute trash.
 
I have to think that Harley's audience is ageing, and I don't see anything in the product line up for younger riders.
 
pain purifies

Don't give porchephiles so much credit for loyalty to mechanical traditions. The Cayenne is a hulking SUV with a guzzling V8 ( out front! ) and the faithful snatched it up to the tune of 50% of US sales for a while. Maybe they all just bought one for their significant others.

As for a water boxer, it probably is more marketing than practicality. That sounds like HD's philosophy. But the harley faithful are firmly established throughout the age spectrum, and the boxer loyalist seem to getting older, and older, and older......


my porsche has no water. both my bmw and harley are twins. i am surrounded by purity and good karma. most won't live to be as old as i am now.

P1010014.jpg
 
I'm fairly new to motorcycles and I've owned my 2010 GSA for only about 6 months.


My Suzuki Burgman 650 has an inline two cylinder engine, water cooled. The engine is canted forward, so the heads point at the top of the front tire. There is no torque reaction from the engine, since it is transversely mounted. It has a balance shaft and it runs smoothly and quietly. Even though the Burgman weighs a whopping 60lbs more than my R1200GS-Adv, the CG is so low that the bike is very easy to maneuver. It's also far easier to pick up than the GSA.
/QUOTE]

Just for grins, where is the radiator on your bergman, and do you feel any heat from it.

Rod
 
The cylinder heads are hanging out there where they can hit obstacles on the road or trail, or hit the ground if the bike gets dropped.

You misunderstand. Those opposed cylinders are built-in leg protectors, and serve to keep the bike off of you in a lowside spill.

With today's high price of gasoline, I'd like to see BMW increase fuel economy. I'll test ride an F800ST, but with my long legs (36" inseam) I may have to stick with my '03 RT with adjustable (and raised with shims) seat.

How about a water-cooled RT with a diesel that gets 100 mpg? :ear

Harry
 
Back
Top