New R1200RS Announced

[Rinty]

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

Ah, this goes to the heart of the matter. When the ST was introduced, there were three major complaints:

1. cost
2. poor road feel through the front suspension
3. the headlight styling.

By replacing the telelever with forks, they address items 1 and 2, and there is a bonus of a few pounds of weight reduction (including unsprung weight). It seems to me that this bike is not targeted at The Faithful (to borrow a Harley phrase ) but at riders of other makes.

There is extensive, and fascinating, discussion of this topic on ADVRider and Pelican Parts:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/bmw-r1100s-r1200s-tech-forum/839189-will-buyers-2015-rs-miss-telelever-front-end.html

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1013520

As to item 3, the new bike is nicely styled, however many of us love the craggy looks of our ST's. A nice consequence of the ST's poor sales is that they are relatively uncommon, and my bike regularly draws admirers.

On a side note, comparing the ergonomics on cycle-ergo.com, the RS angles look to be somewhat more aggressive than the ST:

ST RS

seat height 31.6" 31.2

forward lean 22 d 17 d

knee angle 73 d 77 d

hip angle 70 d 73 d

 

[lee]

On a side note, comparing the ergonomics on cycle-ergo.com, the RS angles look to be somewhat more aggressive than the ST:

I get the opposite results on the cycle-ergo site. For me it shows the ST is more aggressive than the RS.
It shows the RS has less forward lean.
It shows knees less bent on the RS.
It shows the hips less crouched on the RS.
http://cycle-ergo.com/

 

[Rinty]

Yep, I had it backwards. Thanks for catching that.

So, these RS numbers are all good.

 

[lkchris]

Perhaps this from the latest issue of On the Level can bring some clarity ...

Imagine our surprise when we learned the new, much-anticipated R1200RS and the latest R naked roadster, both with the stunning new liquid-cooled, 'unit construcion' engine (gear box shares oil and space within the engine cases) were going to have telescopic forks. Not the marvelous Telelever we've come to count on mid corner while trail braking, when we especially need to avoid brake dive, but a front suspension unit that has the 'look' that the younger demographic demands. Sure, the Telelever requires a bit more wheelbase, and it's complex, and it may look strange to younger 'conquest' buyers, but it's probably the best front suspension ever sold to the trusting, BMW-buying public. Sure, some superbike badass road testers, used to pushing an uncomfortable 1199 through the Corkscrew, may find the Telelever 'wooden' or as having less 'feel' than a high zoot Swedish fork (which really has its main place on a race track).

But on the road, where road surface is a roll of the dice in the real world, the Telelever is indeed perhaps the finest front suspension ever sold. So, let's get this straight; in a time when technological inroads are coming at us like locusts in a plague year, BMW suspension takes a giant step backwards for the sake of garnering the interest of a demographic that wants a certain 'look' more than they want a fork that will not change geometry mid corner, nor in a panic stop, due to the fork compressing? Well, we're not in the business of second guessing BMW engineers, but we do still remember with a certain alacrity back to Laguna Seca in the mid '90s when the Guru of Motorcycling, Kevin Cameron, told us that the BMW Telelever front suspension is superior to the telescopic unit, and the only reason more manufacturers won't follow BMW in this 1995 direction was because their sales were just fine with the 'pogo stick' telescopic suspension and that changing to the admittedly superior Telelever style would cost a bundle in re-tooling, and probably a huge riot at Japan, Inc. and among road racers.

Editorial goes on to recommend at least addition of Dynamic Damping Control.

 

[Tewster2]

BMW will eventually do away with all telelever bikes because forks are cheaper and they don't care IMHO. I expect to be ridiculed now

 

[osbornk]

BMW will eventually do away with all telelever bikes because forks are cheaper and they don't care IMHO. I expect to be ridiculed now

I think BMW is working on going from unique to "normal" or mainstream.

Unique aircooled boxer and inline "brick" engines have gone to vertical singles, vertical twins, transverse fours and transverse sixes.

Separate transmissions with dry clutches have evolved into wet clutches and integrated transmissions.

Separate turn signals have gone to both together like everyone else.

Shaft drives have evolved into shaft, chain and belt drives.

Telelever suspensions are evolving into the old telescopic forks.

Air and air/oil cooled engines are evolving into water cooled.

BMWs are evolving more and more into bikes like everyone else as they have added BMW original innovations (ABS, etc). In the near future, I think we will be asking how a BMW is different from the rest of the motorcycles competing with them.

 

[36654]

I think BMW is working on going from unique to "normal" or mainstream.

Unique aircooled boxer and inline "brick" engines have gone to vertical singles, vertical twins, transverse fours and transverse sixes.

Separate transmissions with dry clutches have evolved into wet clutches and integrated transmissions.

Separate turn signals have gone to both together like everyone else.

Shaft drives have evolved into shaft, chain and belt drives.

Telelever suspensions are evolving into the old telescopic forks.

Air and air/oil cooled engines are evolving into water cooled.

BMWs are evolving more and more into bikes like everyone else as they have added BMW original innovations (ABS, etc). In the near future, I think we will be asking how a BMW is different from the rest of the motorcycles competing with them.

I can't disagree and have found myself of the same opinion relative to BMW cars. When a product or product line loses their distinctive character, then it's just a question of which brand offers the best bang for the buck.

 

[royce]

I think BMW is working on going from unique to "normal" or mainstream.

Unique aircooled boxer and inline "brick" engines have gone to vertical singles, vertical twins, transverse fours and transverse sixes.

Separate transmissions with dry clutches have evolved into wet clutches and integrated transmissions.

Separate turn signals have gone to both together like everyone else.

Shaft drives have evolved into shaft, chain and belt drives.

Telelever suspensions are evolving into the old telescopic forks.

Air and air/oil cooled engines are evolving into water cooled.

BMWs are evolving more and more into bikes like everyone else as they have added BMW original innovations (ABS, etc). In the near future, I think we will be asking how a BMW is different from the rest of the motorcycles competing with them.

Yes, I agree, but ... is that good or bad? Don't know the answer, but IMO many of the above changes have produced more desirable bikes. Just as a few examples, I prefer wet clutches; I hate the two-handed turn signals and believe all bikes should have the "universal" turn signals (sorta like left foot shift); I prefer belt drive.

In summary, old-school BMW owners likely agree with you and bemoan the loss of individuality, while others might likely agree with you but say the change is what finally brought them to the brand. That's the situation for me.

 

[sedanman]

First impression from sitting on it at the motorcycle show is that I really have to ride one. I think it may be a better bike for my wife than her 2014 1200GS.

 

[braddog]

OK, so they ARE bringing the new RS and R to the traveling motorcycle show. I'm assuming you mean the Progressive International Motorcycle show, or whatever they're calling it these days.

I'll check them out for sure in February when the show comes to town.

 

[sedanman]

The R and RS were at the Progressive traveling motorcycle show. So was the F800R. I want one of those too.

 

[AKsuited]

In the near future, I think we will be asking how a BMW is different from the rest of the motorcycles competing with them.

$$$

Bring More Wampum



Harry

 

[lee]

The R and RS were at the Progressive traveling motorcycle show. So was the F800R. I want one of those too.

I also saw pictures of the S1000XR at the NY show.

 

[bobs98]

The new RS looks much better in person than in any of the pictures I have seen published.

 

[sedanman]

The S1000XR is TALL. I can flatfoot my wife's 1200GS and was on my toes on the XR.

 

[lee]

The S1000XR is TALL. I can flatfoot my wife's 1200GS and was on my toes on the XR.

That's interesting. I wonder if the preload was jacked up on the XR?
The BMW website shows the R1200GS WC has a seat height of 33.5" and the S1000XR is 33.1".

 

[sedanman]

To clarify, wife's GS is standard suspension with the low seat. My apologies.

 

[lee]

Here's a thread from I-BMW showing the pricing on the R1200RS and S1000XR.
http://www.i-bmw.com/showthread.php?t=51826

 

[Fitzharris]

With luggage and the other bits it'll be around $19,000 I think.

2016* MSRP starting at $14,950 (including ABS)
*Launch planned for early second quarter of 2015 as a 2016 model.

 

[Rinty]

I'm looking forward to seeing it at our local show this weekend.