'17 K1600GT in the Alps

After a week on a KGT in the Alps (Munich area, Andermatt area, Southern Tirol / Alto Adige area, Dolomites / Grossglöckner area), not too surprisingly, I learned a lot.

What follows may appear to be trolling - it is not!

In the open, "merely" curvy mountain roads, the bike did quite well. Ditto for the Swiss, Austrian, and Italian autobahns / autostrada (130 km/h / 80 mph tops). The really high speed excursion on the German autobahn system was cut short by a series of traffic jams. But take the bike to the passes and... not so good.

The hairpin turns (called Kehern in German, Tornanti in Italian) in the pass roads are, by definition, 150° or more turns. The width of the internal medial strip can vary between maybe 50-60 feet to 5-10 feet. The grade of the roads approaching and leaving the turn typically range between a very modest 7% to 12-14% (one non-pass road hits 16%).

The KGT simply doesn't have the gearing or low speed torque to do much more than get through a turn. The larger radius turns can be ridden as counter-steering turns in first or second gear. The tighter turns have to be handled as steering turns. In those instances, my weight went to the outside of the turn, to get the bike on the side of the tread. That makes steering the turn much easier than standing up and using the center of the tire. The KGT didn't really resist the turns, but it wasn't in a mood to really help, either.

The really part is first gear is required and the engine speed in the turn can drop to 1500-2000 RPM. There just isn't a lot of meat in the motor at what amounts to a high to very high idle. Top-heaviness adds to the challenge. On more than one turn I had to wind the throttle up early to get moving enough to avoid a drop.

One of the most challenging pass roads is the north road to the pass on Passo dello Stelvio or Stilfserjoch (2757 m or 9025 ft). There are 48 turns (each has a number at the outside apex) and they range from tight to very tight.

I saw maybe 5-6 other KGT's at the top, but I was able to talk to only one rider. My Russian is non-existent, and his English was strained. NTL I noticed sliding scrapes on the left pannier. I don't know where that happened, but it can't be a good sign.

I rode the same road on a '15 "wethead" RT last year. Although the RT's transmission acted and shifted as though it was on the way out, at least I could keep the motor above 3000, and typically went through the turns at 4000+ - lots of torque available.

The take-away: for anyone thinking about renting or taking their KGT to the Alps, think more than twice about "pass hunting". This just isn't the bike to do that on.

I shot 400G+ of video(!) on the week's trip. I hope to have the first installment up this weekend. It covers the main Leutasch valley road, which is a very easy ride. Unless you meet a "Post bus" (public transportation system) on a tight road... I'll post the YouTube link here.

Learn how to use a clutch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's that funny little handle on the left, correct?

C'mon, give me credit for some sense.

I did try slipping the clutch but it didn't do anything good. Sure, the engine winds up, but slipping the clutch ultimately doesn't help a lot. Further, a week of passing hunting with a slipped clutch would ...um... negatively impact the clutch's longevity. Take a look at St. Gotthard Pass' "La Tremola" on the south side of the pass. What the map won't show is the entire road is paved with cobblestone. Between the turns, the cobbles, and cow patties (more than a few - it's sort of open range), dancing with the clutch just isn't a real option.
La Tremola - St. Gotthard Pass
The same day I did that pass, I also did Nufenenpass, Grimselpass, Sustenpass, back to Grimselpass to get to Furkapass and back "home". That's five passes in one day

Follow the road south from Trafoi to the top if the pass, drop down the south side road to the turn to the north, to head for Umbrail Pass.
Passo dello Stelvio and Umbrail Pass
That was, aside from Stelvio, a slow day: Reschenpass, Umbrailpass, and Ofenpass, with some quick cruising in Switzerland's Engadin region, before heading back to Landeck, AT.

You're right, I was being presumptuous. My apologies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Da nada.

Alpine pass riding is its own world. I've never ridden in the Rockies, but folks who have, and who've taken on Alpine passes, say there's no real comparison.

I must add that I've seen almost anything with two wheels, powered or not, on these roads. Scooters, baggers, 'Wings, big-motor (VW or better) trikes, and more. GS', with their stump-pulling torque, are insanely common. I passed on them for several reasons: there's a very short list of boxers I've ever liked. I had three long days in the schedule and they all included high speed running - a "bare" bike just doesn't cut it for me. The forecast was for anything from a few showers to serious rain (minor rain at night, but I was chased up one pass by the mother of all rain storms - it didn't get me). Again, a "bare" bike doesn't get it done; at least the KGT and RT's keep the worst from pounding through my Roadcrafter.

As I said, I rode a wethead last year. Aside from miserable motor manners, it was easy to steer, had no problems on the autobahn (got tagged by a radar camera - no plate up front = no bill in the mail). That was a group trip (see my whiny whinging RR about that). This time I was riding solo (by choice).

Finally, in the right place, this bike is a rocket with manners. But "low and slow" isn't the right place.

I have done two High Alpine Tours with Edelweiss. On one tour someone had chosen to ride a big K bike and bring along a passenger. He could not negotiate the passes. He had to take another route. I rode an R1200GS and had a great time. A K bike would be great on the autobahn (if the roads aren't crowded) but not in the mountains.

Not arguing which bike is better in the Alps, but when talking torque the gs doesn't even play in the same ballpark as the K1600. Where the gs gains low speed advantage is in the gearing and weight.
K1600GT torque=129 ft
Gs=89 ft
I would love to ride the Alps on anything with 2 wheels. I agree low and slow is not what the K likes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without the curves in front of me, I doing some educated guessing that the boxer GS' torque comes on at lower speeds - gearing makes a difference, of course. The RT would easily turn 4K+ in 1st and 2nd and dropping the hammer on the clutch could easily raise the front wheel (DAHIK). The KGT just didn't have it. I saw 3K tops in first and mid-turn was appreciably lower. Somewhere in my reading I encountered a line from a fighter jock talking about air combat: "speed is life". On occasion things got a bit ...um... interesting until I added more throttle. Generally, though, my strategy was to get to the entry speed I thought would work and carry that through most of the turn, speeding up on the exit. (As an aside, I delayed the actual turn as long as possible and tightened the radius - that gives more time to look up or downhill and generally leaves you on the one near flat part of the turn - nice place to be if it's time to stop))

Some of the passes have relatively open hairpins that will require a bit of skill but won't get most riders into real trouble. It also helps to remember many of these roads don't exist solely as playgrounds but because they're how to get from here to there.

RBEmerson said:

Without the curves in front of me, I doing some educated guessing that the boxer GS' torque comes on at lower speeds - gearing makes a difference, of course. The RT would easily turn 4K+ in 1st and 2nd and dropping the hammer on the clutch could easily raise the front wheel (DAHIK). The KGT just didn't have it. I saw 3K tops in first and mid-turn was appreciably lower. Somewhere in my reading I encountered a line from a fighter jock talking about air combat: "speed is life". On occasion things got a bit ...um... interesting until I added more throttle. Generally, though, my strategy was to get to the entry speed I thought would work and carry that through most of the turn, speeding up on the exit. (As an aside, I delayed the actual turn as long as possible and tightened the radius - that gives more time to look up or downhill and generally leaves you on the one near flat part of the turn - nice place to be if it's time to stop))

Some of the passes have relatively open hairpins that will require a bit of skill but won't get most riders into real trouble. It also helps to remember many of these roads don't exist solely as playgrounds but because they're how to get from here to there.

Click to expand...

Something is wrong here. I had a 2011 R1200RT and now own a 2016 K1600GT and I looked up the specs and found them for a 2013 R1200GS

R1200GS HP 109 HP (81Kw) @ 7,750 RPM, Torque 120 N·m (89 lbf·ft) @ 6,000 rpm, LC Engine 92 kW (123 hp) @ 7,750 rpm, Torque 125 N·m (92 lbf·ft) @ 6,500 rpm

K1600GT / GTL 118 kW (160 hp) @ 7,750 rpm, Torque 175 N·m (129 lbf·ft) @ 5,250 rpm (BMW claim that 70% of the torque is available @ 1700RPM

I find the K1600 more than powerful enough to negotiate steep hill climb, it does pull strongly below 2,000 RPM and is more agile than the 1200RT.

The R1200RT force you to downshift more than the K1600 to get into the power band in my experience.

As for raising the front wheel, the traction control on the K1600 prevents one wheel stands.

Maybe you were not used to the weight of the K1600. What are you used to riding for a comparison?

I have never ridden one of the 6-cylinder bad boys but my K1200GT is stellar from walking speeds (or even less) on up to illegal. In fact, from a crawl in 1st you want to be careful with the throttle or the front is coming up on you. It would be very difficult to imagine that something with even more torque (K16) would not react similar.

What was the specific issue? Wheel base too long and the bike would not negotiate the tight portions of the turn? The bike felt like it was falling over at low speeds? The gearing was too high for super slow travel?

I used to have a 2005 R1200GS before the K1200GT and only rode it for 2 seasons. It certainly had a lot lower gearing than the K1200GT but I would not call anything 'great' about that bike other than everything worked well together. Yes the front would come up on that one in first but you had to do it on purpose; the K1200GT does it in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd unless you specifically do not want it to. It would be difficult to imagine a K16GT with insufficient torque to do the same.

Lastly, how fast are we talking here and was the issue with the outside curve or the tighter inside one?

frenchnew said:

Something is wrong here. I had a 2011 R1200RT and now own a 2016 K1600GT and I looked up the specs and found them for a 2013 R1200GS

R1200GS HP 109 HP (81Kw) @ 7,750 RPM, Torque 120 N·m (89 lbf·ft) @ 6,000 rpm, LC Engine 92 kW (123 hp) @ 7,750 rpm, Torque 125 N·m (92 lbf·ft) @ 6,500 rpm

K1600GT / GTL 118 kW (160 hp) @ 7,750 rpm, Torque 175 N·m (129 lbf·ft) @ 5,250 rpm (BMW claim that 70% of the torque is available @ 1700RPM

I find the K1600 more than powerful enough to negotiate steep hill climb, it does pull strongly below 2,000 RPM and is more agile than the 1200RT.

The R1200RT force you to downshift more than the K1600 to get into the power band in my experience.

As for raising the front wheel, the traction control on the K1600 prevents one wheel stands.

Click to expand...

Pulling the sort of grades typical on pass roads wasn't an problem. Once out of a hairpin, the bike was able to eat the straights as expected. In the hairpins... whatever BMW says, the bike said differently. The tach said differently.

The RT, in the same 'tight turn, change of pitch, banked or not' situation, dropped to first would, as I said, easily wind up. Please keep in mind I'm reporting my experiences. In general, by the end of the week, I was thoroughly tired of the RT. The transmission was a PITA to shift, the motor was dead below 3K, and, in general, need far too much coaxing to keep going. Steering wasn't an issue. Without a back-to-back comparison, I'm not 100% confident in this, but the RT may have been a little easier to lay over on the side of the tires and let it steer itself around the turn. Or maybe not.

I've no need to pop a wheelie; the RT was just willing to do it. No loss at all that the KGT stayed planted. [/grin]

dceggert said:

Maybe you were not used to the weight of the K1600. What are you used to riding for a comparison?

I have never ridden one of the 6-cylinder bad boys but my K1200GT is stellar from walking speeds (or even less) on up to illegal. In fact, from a crawl in 1st you want to be careful with the throttle or the front is coming up on you. It would be very difficult to imagine that something with even more torque (K16) would not react similar.

What was the specific issue? Wheel base too long and the bike would not negotiate the tight portions of the turn? The bike felt like it was falling over at low speeds? The gearing was too high for super slow travel?

I used to have a 2005 R1200GS before the K1200GT and only rode it for 2 seasons. It certainly had a lot lower gearing than the K1200GT but I would not call anything 'great' about that bike other than everything worked well together. Yes the front would come up on that one in first but you had to do it on purpose; the K1200GT does it in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd unless you specifically do not want it to. It would be difficult to imagine a K16GT with insufficient torque to do the same.

Lastly, how fast are we talking here and was the issue with the outside curve or the tighter inside one?

Click to expand...

My ride here is a K1200RS. I logged about 500 miles on the KGT here in the US, so it wasn't a stranger.

As I said above, there just was no bottom end to the motor. In a sense, it was like the RT below 3K.

Outside turns are always easier (far side of the turn). Downhill inside or outside are easier and outside downhill is almost like a "daredevil ride in the barrel" turn. (Hint: always rear brake before front brake, ABS or not)

My sense is I was dealing with gearing aimed at supersonic speeds, not stump-pulling speeds. I can't compare the K1600GT with the K1200GT. I rode one for about 50 miles (dealer demo) but have no clear recollection of its behavior. My K1200RS has enough bottom end that I often run the motor slower than it should be. In that sense, it's much better than the K1600GT. (Aside: my original plan for the trip was to fly my bike over - the break-even point between renting and flying is about 3 weeks out. There's a bunch of Germany we never see because most of trips are spent in "quality time" with family. My ride would make it easy for even good day trips to Odenwald, Eifel, Rhine/Mosel, etc.)

This is the very first I've ever read of a k16 not having enough torque. The bike makes almost all if it's torque a metric crap load off idle. Either you didn't understand the engine and assumed it couldn't pull at such low speed rpm or something was wrong.

My k16 will negotiate any hill or turn at any speed in first through third gear fully loaded without issue and pull clean.

I get these are hairpins so you were going super slow but the bike should have been able to squirt around in first gear with zero issue. In fact I'd expect to read it had too much power for such slow speeds turns and needed clutch feathering.

Too heavy yep. The K16 isn't a bike you just get on from any other bike and expect to know how to make it ride and handle. It takes time to learn it IMHO.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

It's hard to demonstrate what these turns really look like, but check out this set on "La Tremola", the cobblestone "old road" route through St. Gotthard Pass. This is, of course, heading downhill, so braking (engine and discs) is more of an issue, but visualize coming up here... (or not - LOL).



I have wondered if this was a bike with problems. I don't remember the exact "mileage" but it was four-figure km, putting it under 6K miles. It would pull when passing (accidentally hit 150 km/h indicated on one pass - 130 km/h is tops on the autobahns in Austria - and this was on a simple open road - oops), started without a problem, idled as it should, but, honestly, it just felt like there was far too little there for the circumstances. I can't explain it, just report it.

Of course the 16 isn't the right tool for tight hairpins. It's long and heavy, better bikes for that type of riding.

It excel at long distance open road riding and sweeper curves obviously.

But even still power delivery from 0 mph to any speed even up steep hills have never been an issue. Power it always has and when I moved from my RTLC to the K16 I thought the K had gobs more power everywhere. The RT I had to always work the gearbox the K16 I have to remember to downshift otherwise I find myself pulling 30 mph in 5th gear...the engine doesn't mind and pulls without issue.

Maybe it was altitude, was the bike in rain mode? Any chance the rental company had some sort of special tuning to lower the power? Just seems odd.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

"Heavy" isn't per se a disqualifier here. On a race track, yes, but here things like "flickability" (hideous word) don't matter a lot. Compared to campers and tour buses that travel pass roads, the KGT isn't that long. Altitude, with BMW's fuel injection, isn't an issue (highest point was 9285 ft at the top of the Ötztalergletscherstrasse (Ötztal glacia road), the highest road in the EU). The throttle mode was usually Road. I tried Rain, but only to have a sense of how it would behave if the weather fell apart. It didn't.

AFAIK, the only lockout was the backup function. According to the guy who checked me out on the bike, people were breaking transmissions using it. It seems a little odd this was the case but... [/shrug] whatcha gonna do?

RBEmerson said:

"Heavy" isn't per se a disqualifier here. On a race track, yes, but here things like "flickability" (hideous word) don't matter a lot. Compared to campers and tour buses that travel pass roads, the KGT isn't that long. Altitude, with BMW's fuel injection, isn't an issue (highest point was 9285 ft at the top of the Ötztalergletscherstrasse (Ötztal glacia road), the highest road in the EU). The throttle mode was usually Road. I tried Rain, but only to have a sense of how it would behave if the weather fell apart. It didn't.

AFAIK, the only lockout was the backup function. According to the guy who checked me out on the bike, people were breaking transmissions using it. It seems a little odd this was the case but... [/shrug] whatcha gonna do?

Click to expand...

My point was the GT is longer and heavier than many other bikes which would have been far easier to manage on those roads.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

SPOILER ALERT: Much of the following is from Physics 101. The "executive summary" is at the end.

Newton's first law of motion, also called the law of interia, says a body at rest - not moving - will stay at rest and a body in motion will stay in motion. Inertia comes from changing the body's motion from its present state. Additionally, the greater the mass, the more force is needed to effect a change; the body "resists" being changed)

Yes and no. The bike's weight or mass (there is a difference, but who happily rides in a micro-gravity environment?) defines the effort to turn it. The length moves some of the mass away from the center of gravity, effectively raising the amount of effort needed to make the bike turn (it also increases the tendency to "hobbyhorse" on a washboard road). But... this doesn't necessarily mean steering inputs need to be higher. Lengthen the bars, increasing the length of the lever(s) used to turn the front end around the fork stem. This increased leverage, while multiplying any steering input, means the lever (bars) need to swing around further. (Short) cip-ons are a response to keeping a rider's inputs from making a "quick" front end unmanageable. Lengthening the bars makes shifting a larger tire and larger brake rotor, among other bits, easier. OK, weight is an issue.

However, since a (fresh) bike tire's cross-section is rounded, and moving the rider's weight laterally, or left to right, tilts the bike off vertical, the bike is now riding on the side of the tread. Why is this good news?

Thought experiment: imagine a cylinder being rolled on flat surface: rolling a spark plug wrench socket over the garage floor. Give it a tap with your finger. As long as the floor's flat, the socket won't change direction appreciably. Find a deep socket with a larger diameter where the socket attaches the ratchet. Roll it on the same floor and the socket will turn around the small end of the socket. Back to the sidewall of the tread.

The tire diameter decreases moving across the cross-section of the tread. Lay the bike over on the side, and it's a near equivalent to the socket small at one end, big at the other end. Steer (not counter-steer - that's a whole other situation) with the longer bars, and the bike must turn. Turning the bars with more or less force changes the radius of the turn. Sooooo... back to the KGT.

Yes, the length increases the bike's inertia or resistance to turning. No, it's not harder to turn if the bike is sufficiently moved off vertical. Move laterally (get your body to the outside of the turn, push the (long) bars a bit further, and there's a turn without breaking a sweat.

Have a good ride. [/big grin]

BMARC153920 said:

Of course the 16 isn't the right tool for tight hairpins. It's long and heavy, better bikes for that type of riding.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think the wheelbase would work against the 16 in the Alps. I think the wide handlebars (giving more leverage) works for a bike like the R1200GS. Notice that I said "think" in both sentences. I do not claim to be an expert.

I rode an R1150S through the Alps once. I didn't have a good time on that bike until I got back on the autobahn.

Size matters.