What was wrong with the Criusers?

beemerdons · Dec 21, 2007

Still think that the BMW Cruiser is a really good looking motorcycle; Power Was Poor!

I bought my 1996 R1100GS in October of 1995 and it's still around with 110,000 miles on it; and shows no signs of getting tired. I was excited when the R1200C came out and I was going to add one to my collection, that is until I tested one.

I still think that this a great looking BMW motorcycle, with a lot going on for itself.

I join the majority of the other posters here, in the seat of the pants view, that it was underpowered; and it had no reason to be, if BMW had their thinking cap on!

Motorcycle Consumer News is the most accurate and truthful magazine out there, they take no advertising and they tell it like it is. On page 29 it shows the real deal, regardless of talk about torque, and the R12C is a lot slower than my R11GS.

In MCN Volume 39 of January 2008 the R11GS runs the 1/4 at 12.53 at 104.20 and the R12C is at 13.61 and 93.79. In the real world of American Southwest roadways where the Arizona Republic Newspaper publishes that the "average" speed on Interstate 10 is 85 mph this makes a huge "real" world of difference.

The truest roadworthy factors are 0-60 mph and Power to Weight Ratios for bikes:

R1100GS is at 4.27 seconds and 1:7.59; R1200C is way behind at 5.22 & 1:10.23!

The R1200CLC stinks at 14.80, 87.09, 6.53 and 1:14.16. H-D Electra Glide's faster.

What's so sad is this didn't have to be this way. Still don't understand BMW logic!

grafikfeat · Dec 21, 2007

Kinda like them Flying Bricks...
Look like everything else on the road. Nice to fit in huh?
:bolt

darcym · Dec 21, 2007

When I bought my R 1150 R from a doctor who had a collection of BMW bikes, I told him that I had been interested in the R 1200C. He happened to have one that he enjoyed, and was willing to let me test ride it. I rode the 1150 R first. This is the bike geometry I'm used to.

As a caveat, I'd only ridden one other "cruiser" ... a Nighthawk 250 at a MSF course, I hated it.

I didn't care for the R 1200 C, though I tried real hard to like it. I felt like I was reaching for the bars while the seat was encouraging me to sit back. I kept wanting to put my feet below me instead of out front. Wanted to be able to put some of my weight on the pegs. How cruiser riders plow along with their limbs stretched out in front of them is beyond me. Now I'm generally short limbed so long limbed people may feel different, but the positioning was wrong. The steering imputs seemed clumsy and slow. This I chock up to the geometry of the genre.

There's a reason why sport bikes are so compact -- forcing the body into the position they're in so that the rider's inputs are quick, effortless, and the bike and rider are one. Not the most comfortable position for long jaunts, though.

I had no problems with the cruiser's power or other farkles. We went on the freeway and it took off nicely. I don't buy a motorcycle for it's sound, so I can't comment on that being a deciding factor.

To me the deciding factor was the fit ... it didn't fit me, so I didn't buy it. I went with the 1150 R, and have since moved to an RT which I'm equally happy with. Can't speak for anyone else, but that's why I didn't buy a C, because I otherwise liked the looks of the bike.

CRUISIN · Dec 21, 2007

Beemerdons said:
In MCN Volume 39 of January 2008 the R11GS runs the 1/4 at 12.53 at 104.20 and the R12C is at 13.61 and 93.79. In the real world of American Southwest roadways where the Arizona Republic Newspaper publishes that the "average" speed on Interstate 10 is 85 mph this makes a huge "real" world of difference.

The truest roadworthy factors are 0-60 mph and Power to Weight Ratios for bikes:

R1100GS is at 4.27 seconds and 1:7.59; R1200C is way behind at 5.22 & 1:10.23!

The R1200CLC stinks at 14.80, 87.09, 6.53 and 1:14.16. H-D Electra Glide's faster.

What's so sad is this didn't have to be this way. Still don't understand BMW logic!

So riding Interstates at 85mph is your definition of "real world"--that's just sad, very sad.

And racing statisitics is how you define the roadworthyness of a bike (or car) also very sad.

rocketmanli · Dec 21, 2007

Hey Cruisin,
If you haven't already done so, you'd better copy, cut, paste and e-mail me that beautiful, from-your-heart cruiser speech for publication for the BMWON article, along with a photo. I've lost track of just how many Chromies have already submitted their stuff, but I'd be damn proud to add your words from this thread to my article. Feel like standin' up and waving the Chromie flag! You da Man!

Larry.Barasch@cbmoves.com
1/10/08 deadline for article submissions

bikerfish1100 · Dec 21, 2007

cruisin said:
So riding Interstates at 85mph is your definition of "real world"--that's just sad, very sad.

QUOTE]

Just trying to keep things in perspective- We're not sure where you live (might want to add it into your info), but in AZ, NV or here in CO, the speed limit on the interstates is 75. the nominal speed is 85. If you don't have much oomph beyond that, it can get a bit intimidating, and possibly even dangerous, at times.

darcym- a Nighthawk is, like a R1150R, a "standard". Neither is a cruiser, nor are they sportbikes. My R11S is not really even a "sportbike" in its geometry.
again- just trying to keep comments connected to reality.

darcym · Dec 21, 2007

darcym- a Nighthawk is, like a R1150R, a "standard". Neither is a cruiser, nor are they sportbikes. My R11S is not really even a "sportbike" in its geometry.
again- just trying to keep comments connected to reality.

Sorry, my mistake. The Honda 250 I rode was was a Rebel not a Nighthawk. Honda's mini-cruiser. It sucked. Just my opinion.

Yes, the R1150R is a standard, the geometry I would put between sportbike and cruiser, with infinite minute adjustments in between. Some would call it a tourer, and 'tis true I toured on it. Some called my TDM a sportbike, not a Standard. I put it as sportier than the Nighthawk I owned, but not as sporty as some. The RT is less "sporty" or more standard than the R. It's definitely more of a tourer, but it can scream in the twisties too.

It is possible that someone could build a Cruiser, with good geometry (for me), feet underneath me instead of stretched out to Mars, responsive steering, decent power, decent sized fuel tank ... and maybe I'd buy it. The low seat height is an attractive selling point. Of course, I could just get all that with a UJM and not worry about it.

skyking96w · Dec 21, 2007

My R1200C

The R1200C is incredibly comfortable for these "older" bones and joints, especially compared to the leg position required on sportier bikes. I hope to find a nice used RT in the next year or so, depending on whether I can fit on it comfortably, but I won't give up the C. It may be significant that many C owners also own RT's and other bikes, so we cannot all be stereotyped as "cruiser riders."

The C has (had?) more options available than most bikes in the BMW line, both from aftermarket sources and BMW, so we see a much wider variation in the look of our bikes, and I think that's terrific, and helps draw all the attention to our cruisers.

If we set aside for the moment the problems with pitting and peeling chrome, the cruiser line has relatively few recurring problems, and none that are "unique" compared to other BMWs. The chrome, of course, is a different story. Most of the "blame," if you can call it that, can be attributed to the fact that it is extremely hard to get quality chrome work done in Europe because of environmental laws restricting the toxic chemicals necessary for the process. Part of the blame belongs to BMW -- they should have recognized this problem early, and starting sourcing their plating in the US.

The C is a piece of rolling sculpture, and easily the most unique cruiser out there. From a distance I cannot distinguish between a Harley and a Honda VTX and a Royal Star Venture and . . whatever . . but I can spot a C a mile away! A truly special bike.

Power? Torque turns the wheels; horsepower is only relevant in relation to the RPM at which it is developed. The C has more than enough, and it's more flexible for real-world, day-to-day use.

Ray King, BMW MOA #118134

CRUISIN · Dec 21, 2007

bikerfish1100 said:
cruisin said:

So riding Interstates at 85mph is your definition of "real world"--that's just sad, very sad.

QUOTE]

Just trying to keep things in perspective- We're not sure where you live (might want to add it into your info), but in AZ, NV or here in CO, the speed limit on the interstates is 75. the nominal speed is 85. If you don't have much oomph beyond that, it can get a bit intimidating, and possibly even dangerous, at times.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm quite safe then, as my cruiser will easily 'cruise' at 85 to 90 with a top end around 115 (and that's adjusted for the typical BMW error). But cruising or sporting or touring Interstates at 85 still is not a very good measure of "real world" for me and probably a lot of others who prefer and get the opportunity to ride FM roads, St. routes, roads other than the Interstates a larger percentage of the time than not. If you are stuck in a world where the majority of your time is spent doing 85 on an Interstate, then I am sad for you. and anyone elase stuck in that situation.

beemerdons · Dec 21, 2007

Hi cruisin: Go to www.azbeemers.org/forum and you will see where I ride to on my BMWs

cruisin: I work for Metro Mechanical in Phoenix as the Senior Pipefitting Project Manager and I also have clients in Tucson; as well as at the Ford Assembly Plant in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. So yes, I do ride Interstate 10 and Mexico 15 at 85 mph on my R1100GS, My R1150RT and my Yamaha FJR 1300; 45K sad miles yearly

Also, besides leading quarterly rides deep into Mexico; I sadly led the ride to Chihuahua's Copper Canyon in October and I'm leading sad AZ Beemers to Bahia Kino in February; I sadly lead a yearly ride of AZ Beemers to European adventures.

I led AZ Beemers to the Alps in October of 2005; Andalucia, Spain in February of 2006; Alps again in May of 2007; and we are going under my guidance to the Pyrenees for two sad weeks in May-2008. Why don't you fly into Barcelona with us on May 24th and see just how sad I am? We're on US Airways Flight #700/740

Do I like performance machinery in both cars and bikes? Well, sadly; yes I do Sir!

At 59 sad years of age, and having had a heart attack two years ago while skin diving with my then 9 year old Seth in Ka'ena Pt. Bay off the coast of Oahu, I still do enjoy taking my bikes to sad track days at AZ Firebird International Raceway!

CRUISIN · Dec 21, 2007

...and for your style and typical type of riding, the cruiser may be "wrong" but there is still nothing inherantly wrong with the bike itself, it just does not fit your style and therefore wrong for you while quite possibly being perfect for others. Right? I still think sight seeing at 85 is sad; I feel quite certain I can "see" more at 65 even though I cover far fewer miles in a day than you can at 85. It's also quite possible that I have just as much quality time on my "slow, underpowered" cruiser as anyone else so how can anyone say that there is anything wrong with the cruiser then so many enjoy it as much as myself and several thousand others who bought them and still own them? One more point: just because you or many thousands of others enjoy speed & performance at the highest possible level from everything they own, that deosn't make it wrong for someone else to enjoy a smiliar activity at lesser speeds and performance nor does it make the machine of choice wrong. It's a choice, you make yours and I make mine but neither choice and neither machine is wrong.

ANDYVH · Dec 21, 2007

Don't get me wrong that I'm dissin the R1200C. I give BMW a lot of credit for not following the "I wanna be a Harley" crowd as done by ALL of the Japanese makers. BMW molded its own take on the cruiser. Had it done a few more upgrades and changes it may have stayed on. But in these days of cost cutting among manufacturers it was an easy target.

beemerdons · Dec 21, 2007

cruisin: I truly wanted to be a R1200C owner and BMW could have made it easy for me!!

cruisin: I know that you love your BMW Cruiser and I do enjoy going over to your website www.chromeheads.org and looking at the machines and the enthusiasts.

What has perplexed me for the last 10 years is a test ride I took on the first R1200C to arrive in Maricopa County, Arizona. My friend Rick Colombe was General Manager of Dirt and Street BMW located at 7th St. and Bethany Home in Phoenix.

Rick new that I was hot to buy the new Cruiser and so he called me up the minute he had one prepped for a test ride. I rode my R1100GS 30 miles from my home in Chandler to the shop. Since Rick was the GM and my buddy, he just flipped me the keys and said see you in a couple of hours; and I rode for 75 miles.

When I got back to the shop, my pal Rick asked me what I thought, and I stood there speechless for a few minutes; which's truly amazing for an old fart Irishman!

Then Rick, who has sold more BMW's in Central Arizona than any other BMW salesman, answered his own question: "Why didn't they put the GS, RS or RT engine into it?" Rick had also ridden this bike for 2 hours and reached the same conclusion that I had: BMW could have sold every R1200C they could have built, if only they had not gone with a detuned engine so much weaker than other 259's!

Unfortunately, the numbers posted at chromeheads.org tell a dismal M/C story.

7 years of production only and less than 46,000 Cruiser units made world wide.

Twenty-five years worth of production for both the Flying Bricks and the GS bikes.

I truly feel that this could also have been obtained by the BMW Cruisers, simply by BMW Motorraden AG making a very easy corporate decision to place the same horsepower engines that were rolling alongside of the Cruisers on the assembly line into the Chromeheads. HP and speed can be controlled by twisting the wrist!

I still feel strongly that the Cruiser is the most beautiful bike BMW ever produced.

They could have captured this 39-year Beemer owner with more Cruiser ponies!

CRUISIN · Dec 21, 2007

in a nut shell

What it all boils down to then is that the BMW cruiser does exactly what it was designed to do and those who were expecting more were disappointed. I can see that, but it still does not mean there is anything wrong with the cruiser just the way it is. It just means it does not fit the mold that many had hoped for. Would I be opposed to an upgraded version? Nope, if it would mean the cruiser could make a come-back with the same styling, I am all for some changes. For example, if putting the R1200R drive train in the current C frame-work will bring it back to the market then hell yes do it. I will likely stick with the one I have though because I am satisfied with it. Not only that but a new C would mean a lot of guys would be selling their current versions. That would mean I could easily pick up another for my wife at a greatly discounted price. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. :lol

MOTOR31 · Dec 22, 2007

I agree, The cruiser does exactly what the designers chose that it should do. Unfortunately what they decided didn't fit with what their customers wanted in the bike. Rather than fix it, they decided to drop it entirely, another pity.

belquar · Dec 22, 2007

I really liked my CLC. I sold it for the more versatile GS but it wasn't because I was unhappy with it. I just wanted something different.

I wish I could own all the bikes I have had. But I can't. The GS just fits my needs the best of all the bikes.

Brian

beemerdons · Dec 22, 2007

Motor31: Are you currently here in the Southwest in your RV?

Motor31: Are you in the State of Arizona in your RV? I don't know if I saw that in another post or just had a premonition, but if you are, join us on New Year's Day.

Every New Year's Day AZB goes for a ride to clear out the previous night's tequila.

We meet at 10 AM at the Chevron Station just south of US Route 60 - Superstition Freeway at Goldfield Road in Apache Junction, Arizona. We ride east to Superior, then south through Kearney to Winkelman; then north to Globe para la comida.

We usually stop at the Mi Ranchito Restaraunt in Globe for a big bowl of menudo.

Nothing cures a hangover like good old menudo. Then home to Phoenix by 4 PM.

KHyzer · Dec 22, 2007

What's wrong with the Cruiser?

No passenger armrests.

Otherwise, it is perfect for what it was designed for.

I have had my CLC since Feb 03. Rode long distance with Goldwings on the highways with no problems. Stayed with those big monsters every step of the way. I put after market Hook's on at the time. They made me ride in the back as they said my pipes were too loud. I have since quieted them down with some Z-Techs, but they still growl with the best of them.

Did a couple day trips with the local BMW Clubs. You know, all those middle aged fellas that like to ride hard and fast on twistie back roads on their "real BMW's" First time, they put me in the middle so they wouldn't lose me. First stop, I told the fellas behind me on RT's they could pass anytime they want. They responded why? Your big underpowered cruiser is flying.

What would I do with more power? Go faster. If I want that, forget BMW, I'd be buying a Jap bike. That's where the real power is.

Back to my "what's wrong." Wife wants armrests for those long rides. Damn aftermarket set cost 600 bucks. No way. Wish Z-Tech would make them like the ones they made for the LT's.

50,000 miles and going strong. Turn heads everywhere I go.

Karl

pglaves · Dec 22, 2007

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.

beemerdons · Dec 22, 2007

Paul: Thanks for the bittersweet reminder of BMW friend Rob Lentini. What a Great Guy

It seems September of 2004 was only yesterday when I, and other AZ Beemers, rode down to Tucson for Rob's Memorial Service at the Air National Guard Base.

What a Wonderful Man and A Faithful Friend To BMW Owners and All Motorcyclists!

I still cannot walk into Iron Horse BMW without half expecting to see Rob there.

What was wrong with the Criusers?

Certifiable Old Fart

New member

darcym

Guest

CRUISIN

Guest

Chromehead

New member

darcym

Guest

New member

CRUISIN

Guest

Certifiable Old Fart

CRUISIN

Guest

New member

Certifiable Old Fart

CRUISIN

Guest

New member

belquar

Guest

Certifiable Old Fart

New member

#13338

Certifiable Old Fart

Similar threads