• 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?

2016-r1200rs

The RS has always been a great compromise between the RT and R. If your riding doesn't require the protection of the RT and you are willing to go back to forks giving up Telelever and the price with luggage doesn't scare you off it will be a very sweet bike.

Jay
 
The new RS is pretty awesome! I sat on it at the DC IMS. Flat foot and a good riding position!

IMS201542.jpg

IMS201543.jpg

IMS201544.jpg

IMS201546.jpg

IMS201547.jpg

IMS201548.jpg

IMS201549.jpg


Jim :brow
 
I don't mean to derail this thread, but I'd like to understand the move back to forks.
Going from telelever back to a conventional fork, apparently you are losing 1/3 of the suspension travel, gain 1/3 of castor (3.5" to 4.5"), and have to deal with fork dive again (numbers are compared to 1200GS). I understand that you might not need 8" of travel on an RS if you stick to good roads, but going back to extra castor that then disappears when braking seems like a bad deal for any type of bike.

Is it extra cost of the telelever, or more freedom of styling, or retro styling, or what is driving BMW back to conventional forks? And what is driving riders back?
 
I don't mean to derail this thread, but I'd like to understand the move back to forks.
Going from telelever back to a conventional fork, apparently you are losing 1/3 of the suspension travel, gain 1/3 of castor (3.5" to 4.5"), and have to deal with fork dive again (numbers are compared to 1200GS). I understand that you might not need 8" of travel on an RS if you stick to good roads, but going back to extra castor that then disappears when braking seems like a bad deal for any type of bike.

Is it extra cost of the telelever, or more freedom of styling, or retro styling, or what is driving BMW back to conventional forks? And what is driving riders back?
Just one mans opinion but I think it was all about cost and to appeal to a crowd who feels forks are conventional and therefore better.
 
I remain convinced that the change to telescopic forks has to do with packaging the radiators. Yes , I know the GS and the RT are noth water cooled with telelever buth the RS cuts a more slender design.
 
I remain convinced that the change to telescopic forks has to do with packaging the radiators.

Totally agree. This is going to be a fun bike with that motor.

Those mirror stalks appear longer than the ones on my R1100s. I would think a clear image in the mirrors is going to be a problem.
 
Totally agree. This is going to be a fun bike with that motor.

Those mirror stalks appear longer than the ones on my R1100s. I would think a clear image in the mirrors is going to be a problem.

They are adjustable, so maybe they will be good!

IMS201543.jpg
 
No doubt my one direction thought...but if one wants bags, a little bigger windshield and a couple other comfort items you'll be at mid RT list. 80 pound (reported) weight difference between RT and RS (add bags and such to RS lessens weight advantage). I see weight as the only major advantage (outside of style appeal) from a price-for-what-you-get comparison...MAX has them listed as $18,400 with assumed most desired options (not bags). Less fairing coverage, lose BMW considered a vast improvement in front suspension, lose radio accommodations, lose storage...but get same LC motor. Like it and RT both just think pricing is off as a comparison.
 
Back
Top