• 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?

Weight: what were they thinking?

hcmiller52

New member
I currently own a like-new 2002 K1200RS and a 2008 K1200GT (and actually prefer the RS, in most respects, to the GT, which I find abysmally vanilla in character). Each weigh about 635 pounds, gassed (just checked it online). That means the new GT is 70 pounds heavier than each of those.

When they did the re-design of the older K1200 series (of which my RS is an example), the goal was to reduce overall weight. What the heck are they thinking when they introduce a new GT that is heavier than the past two generations of GTs? This goes completely against their design philosophies of the past six years. I don't have the strength to keep these larger, top-heavy (no matter what their spin says to the contrary) BMW touring bikes upright.

Will the 1300 GT be discontinued? I suspect its days are numbered.

Curt
 
I had a wing and it handled pretty good but it was big, especially as a solo daily driver. that is why I went to the RT and then the GT - Quicker faster sharper lighter, until people can road test these an compare it will be difficult to say.

All that being said I don't think the 1300 will go away - at least I hope it doesn't, as I think the 1300 will provide a "smaller" solution but then again I expect the price points will be very close for a fully loaded 13 and a fully loaded 16 GT

:lurk
 
I would guess they were thinking there is no free lunch, and with everything they wanted to offer, additional weight was worth the trade off. :dunno

I assure you there was a lot of thought, and money, involved in the R&D of the new GT.
 
I currently own a like-new 2002 K1200RS and a 2008 K1200GT (and actually prefer the RS, in most respects, to the GT, which I find abysmally vanilla in character). Each weigh about 635 pounds, gassed (just checked it online). That means the new GT is 70 pounds heavier than each of those.

When they did the re-design of the older K1200 series (of which my RS is an example), the goal was to reduce overall weight. What the heck are they thinking when they introduce a new GT that is heavier than the past two generations of GTs? This goes completely against their design philosophies of the past six years. I don't have the strength to keep these larger, top-heavy (no matter what their spin says to the contrary) BMW touring bikes upright.

Will the 1300 GT be discontinued? I suspect its days are numbered.

Curt

70 pounds? Most of the folks I see riding BMWs could probably lose that much weight off their bodies. :ha

Seriously, though, this seems to be placed as a dedicated two up motorcycle, not a bike that offers occasional two up capability for two adults. That requires a bigger bike, which means more weight. Additionally, since they're going to be fighting with the Gold Wing, they're still almost 200 pounds under the Wing, while offering better features.

I don't think the old school K12GT market is really their target for the K16. I think the RT and existing K13GT are in that market for BMW. The K16 is working against the dedicated long distance touring bikes like HD Ultras, Victory Vision and Gold Wing.
 
70 pounds? Most of the folks I see riding BMWs could probably lose that much weight off their bodies. :ha

Seriously, though, this seems to be placed as a dedicated two up motorcycle, not a bike that offers occasional two up capability for two adults. That requires a bigger bike, which means more weight. Additionally, since they're going to be fighting with the Gold Wing, they're still almost 200 pounds under the Wing, while offering better features.

I don't think the old school K12GT market is really their target for the K16. I think the RT and existing K13GT are in that market for BMW. The K16 is working against the dedicated long distance touring bikes like HD Ultras, Victory Vision and Gold Wing.

I think you're right, Dave. I guess my concern then is whether they will keep the 1300GT around. Somehow I can't imagine two KGTs in the lineup.

There's no question these bikes are well-conceived with target markets and a market analysis. There are no flies on BMW. But at nearly 800 pounds, they have really limited their market to the same folks who were buying LTs. And, while this bike is the replacement for the LT, early announcements - specualations - a year ago were looking to lighter weight.

Again, so long as they don't ditch the 1300GT, there's still a line of bikes for folks who can't deal with the weight of the 1600.

Curt
 
I currently own a like-new 2002 K1200RS and a 2008 K1200GT (and actually prefer the RS, in most respects, to the GT, which I find abysmally vanilla in character). Each weigh about 635 pounds, gassed (just checked it online). That means the new GT is 70 pounds heavier than each of those.

When they did the re-design of the older K1200 series (of which my RS is an example), the goal was to reduce overall weight. What the heck are they thinking when they introduce a new GT that is heavier than the past two generations of GTs? This goes completely against their design philosophies of the past six years. I don't have the strength to keep these larger, top-heavy (no matter what their spin says to the contrary) BMW touring bikes upright.

Will the 1300 GT be discontinued? I suspect its days are numbered.

Curt

Balance. Strength gets you no where.
 
Scuttlebutt on ADV Rider is the K1300 is bye-bye.

Ralph Sims
 
I think you're right, Dave. I guess my concern then is whether they will keep the 1300GT around. Somehow I can't imagine two KGTs in the lineup.

There's no question these bikes are well-conceived with target markets and a market analysis. There are no flies on BMW. But at nearly 800 pounds, they have really limited their market to the same folks who were buying LTs. And, while this bike is the replacement for the LT, early announcements - specualations - a year ago were looking to lighter weight.

Again, so long as they don't ditch the 1300GT, there's still a line of bikes for folks who can't deal with the weight of the 1600.

Curt

709 pounds is an 11 yo kid away from 800. :D

I can see those two bikes serving pretty different markets, but I think you're right; the K13 is probably a goner.
 
I read the GTL will weigh in at 766 lb. That's a tank! And I thought my K12RS was pretty heavy at ~650 lb before loading up the panniers.
 
Why do you guys compare the K16 with other BMWs:scratch It is a new and different bike. The only comparison permissible would be the K1200LT. And that's not even a good one. Compare it to the bikes it is competing with: The GL1800 and HD FLTUCI -or whatever the moniker is.:dunno Better yet, wait until Honda comes out with the new GL and then compare the weights:thumb
 
Why would the 1300 go away?
Because there would only be one platform - the K1300S - using that motor. The R is all but non-existent, the GT is now going to be a 1600. Doesn't seem logical to keep an S. They probable expect S buyers to migrate to the RR.

Curt
 
But the RR isn't an S, and the GT is a really an LT (IMHO). I can ride 5-600 miles a day on my S, but could not on an RR, due to the tight cockpit. I'm not looking for a new bike right away but don't see myself on the new GT so if the S goes away I'll probably be looking at a Triumph Sprint GT (500lbs.) or maybe the Kawi Concourse. I know that BMW wants a bigger chunk of the touring crowd, as Honda sells more 'Wings than BMW sells motorcycles, but it is a shame if they do it at the expense of their current customers.
 
Because there would only be one platform - the K1300S - using that motor. The R is all but non-existent, the GT is now going to be a 1600. Doesn't seem logical to keep an S. They probable expect S buyers to migrate to the RR.

Curt

They kept the late LT as a one bike model engine since 2004 when the first gen K -GT and the RS were discontinued in favor of the wedge engine in the 2005 S& R & in the 2006 GT...just sayin...

I cannot ride two up on a RR, the current S is not in the same category of bike as the 1000RR..it truly is not...and 8500RPM redline as shown on the homepage dash shot of the new 6 seems pretty weak :dunno compared to my S's current 11K . Unless they are mapping the GT different than the GTL...and the pic is of a GTL. I like the RR, but it doesn't do what my S does...now an transition to a 6 cylinder S...well heck yeah...if it revs a tad higher than the Tourers:whistle

Anyways, back to our program...
 
I cannot ride two up on a RR, the current S is not in the same category of bike as the 1000RR..it truly is not...and 8500RPM redline as shown on the homepage dash shot of the new 6 seems pretty weak :dunno compared to my S's current 11K . Unless they are mapping the GT different than the GTL...and the pic is of a GTL. I like the RR, but it doesn't do what my S does...now an transition to a 6 cylinder S...well heck yeah...if it revs a tad higher than the Tourers:whistle

Anyways, back to our program...

You know what the torque curve on it is like, right? :D
 
You know what the torque curve on it is like, right? :D

will reserve judgement until I get to pilot one :whistle

I am sure it will be way plenty on the power curve.:thumb Our current S's command a lot of respect and I give it!
 
Speaking of it's weight, is it true that the GTL will not have reverse?
Yes, no reverse -- no way to do it like they did on the K12LT (using the starter motor by extending the motor shaft out the rear of the starter into the tranny). The starter motor and the gear train arrangements are just in the wrong positions.

Maybe they could have added a dedicated reverse electric motor, but I'm having a hard time seeing where they could drop it in, where it wouldn't interfere with the engine's rotation or won't interfere with the rider's legs, the frame, or other engine components.
 
What is the payload capacity of the beast? I have yet to see it.

The weight is one thing. You can deal with that with where and how you park the thing. When it is moving it should have the balance handling and grunt required to move down the road with relative ease and alacrity. If it does not have the payload capacity required for two up touring whatÔÇÖs the point?
 
Back
Top