There are two problems with the gang at Cycle World
1) The live in CA and rarely test in the kind of stuff most of us ride in. (Unless you count Egan's incessant blitherings about old Brit stuff)
2) They evaluate most bikes as one would evaluate a toy or a loaner, not as real transporation one might use for a bunch of years. They typically overlook items important to long term users.
So far the guys in our club who own LTs and have looked at the 1600 give it poor marks as an LT replacement and the wives don't like it either. Be intersting to see what happens when their LTs have to be replaced but I'm betting at least one will switch to a Wing- not sure about the others, yet.
Most of the time I think the MCN guys and the Brit publications do a better job at getting it right. But they all do better than the review in ON which have been essentially worthless for all of the new models recently reviewed, either being rephrases of the press release, lacking in any comparisons to previous or similar BMW models, etc etc. For some reasons the RA reviews are better in what they cover but typically they overlook a lot of topics.
I don't have a dog in this one- the 1600 isn't my kind of bike. Too big, too heavy, too complex for simple maintenance. I'm more intersted in seeing where the boxer bikes are going and hoping someone will bring back some more versatile middleweights.