C
CRUISIN
Guest
finally! words from a pro.
I was wondering when someone with lots of experience and knowledge of torque vs. HP would clarify the point that I attempted to make earlier. Wish I could say it the way you do Paul. I've been touting the importance of torque almost since I first bought my cruiser but to few care about torque and are totally obessed with HP. I also like your point about judgements based on reading reviews vs actual experience. Even two-hour test rides don't give a person a real appreciation for the true capabilities of the R1200C. I currently have close to 120K miles on them and grow to appreciate the cruiser a little more every time I ride it.
beemerdon,
One point I picked up on after re-reading these replies is that there is a big difference between choosing to ride a certain way and having to ride that way. Like the difference between having to keep up with commuting traffic at 85mph and choosing to ride that way because it's what you want to do. Makes a lot of difference in the level of enjoyment for most folks.
Most (not all) of the folks who concluded the cruiser had too little "power" reached that conclusion reading magazines and the internet while riding their armchair instead of by riding the bike. While I don't think BMW got it quite right, they did what Harley has done for years: designed and tuned an engine for lots of torque at the expense of peak horsepower. Since peak horsepower is relevant primarily at one high rpm point somewhere near redline, while torque is felt at every stop light, within a fairly broad range peak HP only gives ill informed moto journalists something to chirp about and one more little thing to put in their charts. For pure sport bikes it is relevant because they are operated often at high rpm - but for cruisers keying on the horsepower number instead of the torque number is simply misinformed balderdash.
Some of you will remember some of the experiments performed on his R1100RS by (the late and sorely missed) Rob Lentini. Alterations of the timing; using the GS air tubes; substituting cat code plugs, and other things too, for example. The timing changes and GS air tubes did not DETUNE the engine. They RETUNED the engine to provide more mid-range torque, at the expense of peak horsepower. And in an equally deliberate way BMW retuned the 1200 motor in the cruiser to provide gobs of torque - hp at redline be damned.
Since most of the press writers - sport bikers by nature - couldn't understand it very well, all they did was write about the peak HP number. And then lots of BMW riders parroted what they had read. Which is actually pretty funny, because if they really cared about peak horsepower they would be riding a CBRXX, Hyabusa, of some similar bike instead of a BMW boxer twin.
I was wondering when someone with lots of experience and knowledge of torque vs. HP would clarify the point that I attempted to make earlier. Wish I could say it the way you do Paul. I've been touting the importance of torque almost since I first bought my cruiser but to few care about torque and are totally obessed with HP. I also like your point about judgements based on reading reviews vs actual experience. Even two-hour test rides don't give a person a real appreciation for the true capabilities of the R1200C. I currently have close to 120K miles on them and grow to appreciate the cruiser a little more every time I ride it.
beemerdon,
One point I picked up on after re-reading these replies is that there is a big difference between choosing to ride a certain way and having to ride that way. Like the difference between having to keep up with commuting traffic at 85mph and choosing to ride that way because it's what you want to do. Makes a lot of difference in the level of enjoyment for most folks.