New R1200RS Announced

[vtbob]

So anyone here thinking of getting the new RS? This thing has really wormed its way into my head.

I'm seriously considering the RS. I like the concept of well under 600lb bike, that I can flat foot and has a reasonable sized fairing. I would love to sit on one, check bar location and foot peg location.
Good new to the the R1200R bars will fit as they seem further back and a bit higher. I can't find any info on the optional adjustable foot pegs...do they lower or just raise line on the S1000R?

I guess I will not see one till some time late spring.

The NYC Motorcycle show has moved to December from a much better January date. In December the hotels cost almost twice as much, the broadway shows are full and cheap tickets are not available (concession for my wife), the xmas shopping crowds are terrible......far too much money to make that trip to see the RS or XR, so I will not visit this year.

 

[Rinty]

I am.

Atta boy! It would be great fun on the BC Interior roads.

 

[BC1100S]

BC1100S on an RS! Man, I want a picture of that!

I was afraid you might read that.

 

[braddog]

I had an Airhead RS for many years, and, apart from the bar positioning, I never realized how poor the bar leverage was. Then I got an Oiler RS, and was surprised that I cold hold constant arcs on cloverleaf off ramps, and ride in gravel.

So anyone here thinking of getting the new RS? This thing has really wormed its way into my head.

Mine, too. I currently own both an airhead and oilhead RS. While I certainly enjoy and appreciate my airhead RS, I can't deny the fact that the majority of my seat time has been spent on the oilhead since I purchased it 2 years ago.

I'd really like to give the new one a look. More sport than tourer? That's fine by me.

 

[rxcrider]

So, any ideas as to why they went away from the telelever for the RS and never brought the duolever to the boxers?

 

[sedanman]

To make room for the radiator. On the GS and the RT there is enough room in the bodywork to hide 2 small radiators. No so on a naked bike or one with a very small fairing.

 

[BC1100S]

So, any ideas as to why they went away from the telelever for the RS and never brought the duolever to the boxers?

A pure telescopic works better?

 

[henzilla]

A pure telescopic works better?

Boy ,you started it now

 

[dbrick]

To make room for the radiator. On the GS and the RT there is enough room in the bodywork to hide 2 small radiators. No so on a naked bike or one with a very small fairing.

BMW isn't talking, but I bet the reason wasn't packaging. The 2007-2014 R12R's admittedly-smaller oil radiator demonstrates that a radiator can be placed in front of the motor...I bet BMW just didn't like how a larger coolant one would look, and/or didn't want to move the headlight up, and didn't want to have dual cheek mounted ones like on the Rockster. I wouldn't be surprised that the telescopic forks are cheaper to produce as well.

I became a Telelever fan in 1997 when I rode (and bought) an Oilhead; I thought the front end's handling of bad pavement was way better than that of a telescopic suspension. One of these days I'll ride another telescopic and see if they've improved.

 

[vtbob]

The new R1200R and R1200RS purport to have the sophisticated adjustable suspensions.....not unlike the GS and RT with the tele lever .

I guess I am skeptical of this claim as I do not see any of the necessary stepper motors, etc necessary to adjust the front dampening/preload etc. Of course the Multistrada makes the same claims.

I do admit I have not spent any effort really understanding the front fork suspension of either the Multistrada or the new R and RS.

Any one here have any knowledge?

 

[blacque jacque shellacque]

BMW isn't talking, but I bet the reason wasn't packaging. The 2007-2014 R12R's admittedly-smaller oil radiator demonstrates that a radiator can be placed in front of the motor...I bet BMW just didn't like how a larger coolant one would look, and/or didn't want to move the headlight up, and didn't want to have dual cheek mounted ones like on the Rockster. I wouldn't be surprised that the telescopic forks are cheaper to produce as well.

I became a Telelever fan in 1997 when I rode (and bought) an Oilhead; I thought the front end's handling of bad pavement was way better than that of a telescopic suspension. One of these days I'll ride another telescopic and see if they've improved.

Agree 100% on all points. The telescopic forks are likely lighter than the telelever's as well, though I doubt this would be a factor in the decision.

 

[osbornk]

So, any ideas as to why they went away from the telelever for the RS and never brought the duolever to the boxers?

I think it was probably a cost issue (like when car manufacturers replaced rear disc brakes with drums and GM stopped making ABS standard and made it an option).

 

[ducster]

To make room for the radiator. On the GS and the RT there is enough room in the bodywork to hide 2 small radiators. No so on a naked bike or one with a very small fairing.

That's what I think also. Can only hide a radiator behind the front forks if there is no massive fairing. No place to do that with the telever shock taking up the space. There is also probably some weight savings, but that likely wasn't the main goal of using a telescopic fork.

 

[BC1100S]

That's what I think also. Can only hide a radiator behind the front forks if there is no massive fairing. No place to do that with the telever shock taking up the space. There is also probably some weight savings, but that likely wasn't the main goal of using a telescopic fork.

Post #27.

 

[sedanman]

A pure telescopic works better?

Really? I think this misconception comes from motorcycle journalists. For years they were all whining about front end dive on braking. Then BMW comes up with a solution ( not the first just the most mass produced) and then all of the journalists start complaining that the front end feels "vague" and doesn't offer "proper feedback" . A telescopic fork may be lighter and have fewer moving parts and on a race bike that may be preferable. I remain unconvinced that it "works better". There have been years of research and development on telescopic forks and people know how to make them work. Imagine if the same effort was put into alternative front suspension systems. BMW may also just be "caving" to conformity.

 

[lkchris]

Well, we know it's pretty easy to fit an Ohlins, Wilbur, etc., on the telelever.

Will these "vast" improvements be available for the R and RS?

 

[ducster]

Post #27.

Are you sure?
Five years ago I would have agreed, BUT after riding an R1200RT for several years now, while also riding a Ducati ST4S, I am not sure. The Ducati front fork does provide more road "feel", but the Beemer seems to handle imperfect road surfaces better. Maybe this is more a function of the front fork geometry of the ducati since it has a short rake, which gives quicker steering, but possibly cause it to not handle to rough surfaces as well. I do feel more comfortable riding fast in the curves on the Duc, but that is mostly due to the RT's extra weight and wheelbase. The RT is more nimble than any bike that size has a right to be, and never given me any reason to doubt that the front can't stay planted.

I am not certain if what is perceived as better handling with telescopic forks vs telelever, isn't just a matter of what someone is used to. Most everyone started off riding a bike with telescopic forks and so when you switch to something radically different like the telelever front, it normally would feel a bit odd.

I am certainly no expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently.

 

[rxcrider]

Well, we know it's pretty easy to fit an Ohlins, Wilbur, etc., on the telelever.

Will these "vast" improvements be available for the R and RS?

In theory, you shouldn't need to. I have yet to see a telescopic fork that couldn't be rebuilt and have valving, springs, etc. changed or modified to improve or tune handling.

If somebody really wants to part with their money, I'm sure Ohlins would be happy to sell some complete legs.

 

[BC1100S]

I've got 3 bikes - one is fitted with a Showa fork, one is fitted with an Ohlins, and the third is a telelever with an aftermarket shock. BMW has had 15 years to make it work as well as its ever going to work. I think they have the know how.

The Ohlins fork performs much better than the other two when ridden semi-to-very aggressively. The feedback is much better and fork dive when braking is actually a help not a hindrance. Your perception may be different than mine.

That said, I do enjoy the ride I get from the telelever. I look forward to doing a back-to-back comparison.

 

[tinytrains]

I always felt the press's preference for forks over Telelver was because they push it to the limit. Ducati has a similar problem with their carbon fiber MotoGP bike. The front wheel is so rigid that you get no warning before it gives up on traction. They complain about the same lack of feedback. A conventional fork will start twitching and dancing before it lets go, but a really rigid front end gives less warning, and you don't know you have run out of traction until it is too late. Since most of us here in Bimer-land, have enough sense not to push to 99.9% on the public highways, it is not a problem, and we like the anti-dive of the T-lever.