Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 135

Thread: What was wrong with the Criusers?

  1. #31
    CRUISIN
    Guest
    ...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.

  2. #32
    Registered User ANDYVH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    2,376
    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.
    Get trained! The best "performance" upgrade you can get is YOU. Visit msf-usa.org for training info.

  3. #33
    Certifiable Old Fart beemerdons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    851

    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!
    Don Stanley; aka Chuy Medina "El Burrito Ballerina"
    BMWMOA #24810; www.azbeemers.org/forum #89

  4. #34
    CRUISIN
    Guest

    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.

  5. #35
    Registered User MOTOR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Full timr RV'er, where we park is home. No fixed address or location.
    Posts
    2,223

    Thumbs down

    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.
    DEFINITION OF A VETERAN A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
    Author Unknown

  6. #36
    belquar
    Guest
    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

  7. #37
    Certifiable Old Fart beemerdons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    851

    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.
    Don Stanley; aka Chuy Medina "El Burrito Ballerina"
    BMWMOA #24810; www.azbeemers.org/forum #89

  8. #38

    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

  9. #39
    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.
    Last edited by PGlaves; 12-22-2007 at 04:51 PM.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://web.bigbend.net/~glaves/

  10. #40
    Certifiable Old Fart beemerdons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    851

    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.
    Don Stanley; aka Chuy Medina "El Burrito Ballerina"
    BMWMOA #24810; www.azbeemers.org/forum #89

  11. #41
    CRUISIN
    Guest

    finally! words from a pro.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGlaves View Post
    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.

  12. #42
    looking for a coal mine knary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    pdx
    Posts
    5,877
    I spent some time chasing Nye and Swider over what passes for twisty roads in the NE on a cruiser. I, to be blunt, hated it. It wasn't the first time I'd spent time on one.

    Crappy compromised suspension

    Anemic completely uninspiring power

    Awkward and uncomfortable seating position

    Too little ground clearance

    And, sin of all sins, weird uncertain handling. There was no way to even guess what the front end was doing. It was all the complaints about the telelever front end amplified to an extreme and put into bike form. "Wooden and distant" doesn't come close to describing it. The awkward long bars don't help.

    I rode it hard. I rode it gently. I wrestled with it through a few U-turns. I even ran one through a mocked up ERC while helping a friend become a better rider. It isn't a sports bike or even a sport tourer, but I did expect a new BMW to perform better than a neglected mid-70's japanese rat bike. IMHO, if it did it wasn't by much. It is exactly the wrong kind of bike for how I like to ride.

    If you have one and love it, enjoy it. It's not for me, but thankfully we each can find a bike for our needs and desires.

  13. #43
    On the Road
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fresno Ca,
    Posts
    55

    Talking R1200C owner honesty. Pros and cons~

    Well I have had my R12C for 3 years and 50,000 miles. Love the bike! But you ask what is wrong with it and I can tell you the chrome was terrible! It was under powered yes but with minor add-ons you can give it more HP than a Harley. The seat that came stock on it would break your tailbone. A must to change! The spoke wheels are high tech(tubeless) but if you like to ride you'll get cerpeltunel cleanning them. On a scale of 1-10 on handling. I give it a 5 compared to other beemers and a 9 compared to other cruisers. Other than that I must say I have never had a bike I get so may compliments on PERIOD.... My RT is pretty trick,and I muct say my C is pretty maxed out,but I do not go for any ride and people roll down there windows to tell me that they neve seen such a beautiful bike! I do keep it very clean,and I ride my RT 3X as much,just because chrome always needs cleanning when you ride it. And evey time I ride my C it does make me smile,and I do not think I will ever sell the bike,where as I will some day upgrade my RT. My Thoughts!!

  14. #44
    WEBMOST
    Guest

    What was tight with the cruisers

    This ill-titled thread begins with the question "How could they evolved to make them compete with the HDs & VTXs?" (sic). The answers I read here are "more power" and "more noise". Brother beemerphiliacs, noise is not power.

    The RedHead and I were riding Annie, our new CL on the freeway through hilly West Virginia in company with friends on a Road King. We stayed in touch via CB. Time and again, the Road King rider gave me a shout to hold up, until I finally let him lead. He could not keep up with my lead hand. Yet now, with 50k on the clock and thoroughly broken in, Annie runs far stronger than she did back then.

    That night, at dinner, we compared specifications. Turns out the Road King's twin cam 88 puts out a fifth less horsepower and a quarter less torque from a fifth more displacement.

    Yet who complains that the Road King, or any other TC88 is under powered?

    Noise is not power. If you want power, get a GoldWing. You never hear them coming; yet they can pull stumps.

    As for noise, don't be rude.

    cmpu

  15. #45
    Registered User TPR3CATS3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Windsor, Vermont USA
    Posts
    100

    The Cruiser is a sweet ride.........

    Hey, can't we all just get along?

    The Cruiser is a great ride. It's not for everyone, but those of us who own them know we've got something very special. And the roundel is just as pretty as the ones on any other beemer.
    Tim Hebert
    aka
    Green Mountain Crewzr
    '99 R1200C
    '73 R60/5 Toaster
    BMW MOA #124866, BMW MOV #1080

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •