New Design

["Tom Brown" <tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

gt:


>well that was an interesting read but, i would have to say my definintion
of
a 'radically redesigned motorcycle' would be more closely defined by KTM's
990 Adventure.  that is what mfg risk taking is all about and that is what
risk taking produces.  can hardly wait to see the Duke and then the RC8.
this company knows how to roll the dice.


If BMW decides to come out with a competitive Motocross/Dakar bike, it will
be more in line with KTM.  Try riding any KTM for 500 miles and then tell me
about cutting edge.  The cutting edge will be felt in the center of your
backside.

KTM is a different bike made for a different sort of riding.
It's not smooth and it's not a highway bike by any stretch.  Even the new
twins are
reportedly quite buzzy and the seats are a joke.  Talk about things falling
off?

GS can do 500 mile days indefinitely and still run
jeep trails.  They excel at tight mountain asphalt too.  Go to the
German/Austrian Alps on a GS and find yourself passing legions of Ducatis
and other sport bikes and you'll understand why the GS is the best selling
BMW.   It's not a competitive dirt machine, but it's really got a
use and it's the best of that breed.  All the others, Triumph Tiger, Guzzi
whatever and Aprilia Capo Nord are really poor seconds in many areas.   The
KTM isn't in that class...too much motocross and not enough street...I'd
love to ride one for an afternoon.

>i also have to agree that bmw is not taking the historic base into
consideration with it's engineering and designs.  way too much has been
accomplished by mfg's around the world to ignore.  thats assuming you don't
have a roundel tattoo.  i assume that bmw is wed to the boxer and good for
them, it is a historically significant linkage that should be preserved...

BMW has a loyal following for the boxer engine for many good reasons.   It's
comparable to Porsche with it's rear-engined opposed 6.  BMW came out with
the K-bike and tried to change everyone's mind, but the R-bike sales were
still strong, so they came up with the Oilhead.   It still outsells the K
bikes.   Porsche tried to replace the 911 with the 928 V-8s and the 924/944
lines.   The 928s were faster, better handling and more luxurious, but they
were just German Corvettes.  They didn't feel and sound like Porsches.
Sales were terrible.  So they went back to the boxer and improved and
developed and honed it.  Like the BMW boxer engines, the 911 has unique
qualities that just hook drivers and make them into fanatics.

911's are unique for their special handling requirements that, once
mastered, result in very entertaining fast driving fun (sound familiar?)
The rear engine gives mondo traction to the rear wheels for rapid
standing start acceleration and nearly even weight balance so all 4 wheels
work evenly in hard stopping situations.   This gives quite amazing stopping
distances from very high speeds.   Quite handy when running triple digit
speeds on secondary roads.   While BMW boxers don't have the braking
advantage or the acceleration thing, they handle fantastically and have huge
engine braking that can be used to advantage on twisty mountain roads.
Their telelever systems also allow the rider to save himself on unfamiliar
turns giving a higher confidence factor for wandering strange back
roads...which is what we generally do with these machines.   "What day is
this and how did I end up in Alaska?".

So again, I remind you guys who run down these bikes for their extra weight
and less that cutting edge maximum power...That's not why we buy them.

>that said, there is little to cheer about with new models.  the assisted
braking system is a case in point of engineering gone amuck.

Sorry, I don't agree there either.  Since I've had my '04 RT, this system
has made non-events out of a couple sweating-bullets moments.  This system
also saves weight and presumably money over the new system allowing the
company to offer good incentives and pricing on the new models.  I think
these early servo systems are a little too touchy in low speed traffic
situations,
but it's something I'm able to adjust to.  I predict they'll improve that in
the future.   The linked aspect nothing like the Honda linked brake system.
This thing uses the ABS and other internal sensors to proportion the brakes
to best advantage whether you use the foot brake or the hand brake.   I use
the gears to slow the back wheel in turns, not the rear brake.   The only
other time I've used rear brake only is going downhill on a slippery surface
at a rally.  I don't know if it would have been better or worse with the
current system, but I don't use it enough for it to be a concern.

>transmissions
that don't work,

Heh?  My new 6-speed works just fine.   Again, different feel and needs a
while to acclimate, but rapid shifts are easy and quiet now.   No problems.

>wheels that bend when you look at them
The three spoke wheels had a problem.  I rode my bike through all kinds of
crap for 62K miles and had only two small dents in the rims at trade-in.  I
didn't even know
they were there.   No side effects from these at all and the dealer was able
to tap these dents out with a rubber mallet when I traded the bike.  New
bike has
the 5 spoke wheels of the "S".  These do not have the denting issues and are
lighter.  What do I, as a user of the bike, care if the wheels are dented if
I can't see it and it has no side effects?

>and surging that
does not exist...

Twin-spark completely eliminates this problem.  Retrofits available from at
least
one aftermarket vendor are at least as good as the new
bikes.

>are three small examples of their more recent engineering
failures.

Jeez, define "recent"!   They can't go back fix problems that occurred on
past
models.  They can only offer solutions on their new bikes and they have.
The new GS looks worlds better than even my '04.  I think BMW is rolling now
with continuous improvements on these bikes and will do very well.  The
Oilheads have a bright future.   Let's all pray that Chris Bangel doesn't
get involved in the design of these bikes.  He's ruining BMW's car lines.

>combine that with a host of bits and parts that continue to fall
off or break and you have to wonder what has happened to a company who was
thought of by all as a sound engineering company who produced a stellar
robust product.

Huh?  The only thing that's ever broken on my RT was mirror assemblies from
my dropping it in the driveway or while getting it out of the garage.
(don't ask).   I did break a throttle cable once.   That's it, in 62,000
miles.

>oh well, my dollars are invested elsewhere and i don't see that changing
given what bmw is producing.  ride what'yah got and be happy.

I'm wondering why you are still hanging around this list if all you are
doing is making fuzzy complaints about a product you no longer ride.  I
thought this list was for people who are riding, fixing and enjoying or
having problems with oilheads THAT THEY OWN.  What's the point of gloating
over your non-ownership of BMWs on this list?

Bob Hadden:

>Don,  My sentiments exactly.  When I go to the show room, I see my bike
still there.  Why buy another of what I already have?

Bob, all I can say is that the difference in riding feel and capability
between my '99RT and the '04 RT is pretty eye-opening.   The brakes, trans,
engine and chassis are all different.  It's kind of surreal to be sitting on
a bike that looks so similar to my old one and feels so different in all
these ways.   I'm about 10mph faster out on the twisties with less fatigue
after a long day of riding.   It's really a different bike.  I looked hard
for a replacement for my RT and was near getting a Yamaha FJR1300, but came
back to BMW because...my top case fit, my Sargent seat fit, my tank bag fit,
my bar-baks fit, I got a great trade-in number, I got a lot of money off the
list price, I got 1500 worth of incentives from Edelweiss/BMW on tours and
gear.  With the FJR, I'd be starting all over with an unknown quantity that
has some known problems, namely excessive engine heat baking the rider's
nether-regions and a distracting engine buzz right at cruising speed.

>But, I don't
agree that BMW is staying the same in their technology.  They have
always had a long model run before making big changes.

The fact that they don't obsolete their bikes every year like the Japanese
bike makers do...and the fact that they carry parts for the older bikes,
keeps the resale value up for BMW bikes compared to many other marques.
My '00 Aprilia Mille R, one year newer and with only about 10K miles on it
would probably trade for less than my '99RT did with 62K.   The Mille also
is much more expensive to insure because of the extra power.

- -TB

------------------------------

End of oilheads-digest V1 #69
*****************************