Just curious. Seems to be quite a point difference.
what's different about these two models?
And if all that's not enough of a different, the GT is the only available in Vermillion Red, a really beautiful color that reminds me of the original Candy Apple Brick Red that Honda painted the original CBX. The frames and wheels are also darker on the GT than the GTL.
They're both amazing bikes but I can totally see why they picked the GT in #1 place and the GTL in #4 - but then I'm a bit biased
Most of the voters for the BOTY are from Europe. Preferred riding style there is different than in the U.S. and I can see why they lean towards the GT. While the bikes are very similar, the GT can be perceived as smaller, nimbler and sportier than its sibling. I can't say anything about an actual riding comparison and PittsDriver's description is quite elaborate, but I sat on both bikes at a dealership and I CAN NOT sit on a GTL. I am only 5-8 but the seating position was much too cramped for me on the low seat of the GTL. O.K., the seat is adjustable and you "can order" (try to order anything on the new 16s!) the high seat, but the seating position on the GT fit me so much better, I couldn't believe it.
I still wish, they would have made the GT even a little lighter and sportier to distinguish it more from the GTL. Considering that the GTL replaces the LT and the GT is intended to replace the K1300GT (?) they should have been set up accordingly.
Oh, and - by the way - the correct color name for the 1979/80 Honda CBX was Candy Glory Red. I have one. The BMW Vermillion Red is quite a bit darker.
Are you talking about the seating position or the reach to the ground?
I find the seating position excellent. The reach is O.K. , but I don't necessarily insist on being flatfooted with both feet. I have a couple of other bikes that do not provide me with that position. I ride my 99 RT with the seat in the middle position.
I will have to go sit on one to find out exactly. I was referring to "feet on the ground".
On my RT I am on the balls of my feet with the low seat.
It is a top heavy bike, but the GT is even heavier.
Those were my concerns.
It sounds like I would enjoy the GT more, given the "sportiness" of the ride, etc as described above.
I briefly owned a R1200RT a year ago, and now a K1600GTL. I find the GTL to not be as: high (seatwise and otherwise), top heavy, tippy, and generally more confortable. The standard 1pc low seat seems too low as I'd rather extend my legs more. My fix will be a slightly taller seat, maybe footpeg lowering adapters, and certainly forward bars to change positions. Height 5'9", 29.5" inseam.
The other thing is that like all Boxers the RT frame reacts to torque and rolls sideways with rpm changes. The quicker the change, the quicker the roll. That can lead to the tippy feeling at high seat heights at low road speeds. The K1600 is well behaved in that regard.
Go sit and the ergos (for better or worse) will soon be readily apparent.
No self-respecting motoring journalist chooses the sedate version over the sport version.
'12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S