Re: New Design-Reflections & Observations

[Steve Makohin <wateredg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/17/04 5:03 PM, Kenneth Ahrweiler Ken_Ahrweiler@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>When I posted to the list about the new GS1200 I was criticized for
>using the words radically redesigned when referring to the new
>innovations incorporated in the new bike. From the tone of the list
>lately it seems as though some members are looking for a motorcycle
>completely different from the opposed twin boxer....

Speaking only for myself, if I see someone using the word "radical" to 
describe the changes that were made in the GS, I feel compelled to 
consult my dictionary for a definition of what the word means 
(www.m-w.com):

  Main Entry:	rad-i-cal 
  Pronunciation:	'ra-di-k&l
  Function:	adjective
  Etymology:	Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin
             radic-, radix root -- more at ROOT
  Date:	14th century
    1 : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1) : of or
        growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2) : growing
        from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem
        that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b : of,
        relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c : of or
        relating to a mathematical root d : designed to remove the
        root of a disease or all diseased tissue <radical surgery>
    2 : of or relating to the origin : FUNDAMENTAL
    3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or
        traditional : EXTREME
      b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing
        views, habits, conditions, or institutions
      c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group
        associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme
        change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore
        a political state of affairs <the radical right>
    4 slang : EXCELLENT, COOL
    - rad7i7cal7ness noun  

I assume a variant of the #3 definition is the one that was intended, and 
I note that it does not fit the new GS design. There is no "considerable 
departure from the usual or traditional", nor "extreme changes". The 
changes in the GS are _evolutionary_, rather than revolutionary. Though 
they are very much welcome by some beemerphiles, they are incremental 
improvements none the less.

If BMW had to keep the boxer, and went to a narrower (even if only by 3") 
liquid cooled design (that looked air cooled) and upped the power to 125 
hp, (plus matching weight reductions) I would consider _that_ radical, as 
I suppose would most people on this list.




>...They want a super
>light weight machine capable of power enough to pull wheelies and put
>all the machines from Japan to shame. That would qualify as. "radically
>redesigned".

This is an entirely different issue, but speaking only for myself, I do 
not expect BMW to create Asian style sports bikes (though it would be 
interesting if they decided to compete head-to-head). What I do want is 
for BMW to be no less than "average" in power output and weight. If they 
could do that, I believe it would help to alleviate the "slow, overweight 
bike for eccentric gentlemen" image BMW Motorrad is trying to shake (I 
suspect they are trying to shake this because of the nature of their 
motorcycle ads, such as aggressive cruiser riders blasting through loose 
dirt roads, the Rockster playing the street fighter, etc.)

If you notice my earlier description, something well short of what you 
describe would qualify as "radical". Note also that I am not bitter or 
resentful of BMW Motorrad. I still love my current bike. I just realize 
that I am in the small minority of people who would actually buy one.



>Since it's inception BMW made twin cylinder opposed engine motorcycles
>and continued for the next 80 years. It's true that they have EVOLVED
>into the Oilhead of today. To say that BMW has not been an innovative
>company is not true. I believe that they were the first to have
>telescopic forks they were one of the few manufactures of that era to
>have shaft drive not to mention double leading shoe front brakes. In
>more recent times ABS, adjustable ergonomics, great front and rear
>suspension systems, environmentally friendly exhaust etc etc...

[snip]

I think BMW Motorrad has the same problem that Apple Computers has, in 
some ways. Apple was also the "first" to deliver a number of 
technologies, such as LocalTalk, a simple plug-n-play LAN that was 
delightfully user-friendly. But then they fell behind as the faster 
Ethernet became the network standard, and after a number of years, Apple 
eventually adopted that standard (and dumped LocalTalk). Other examples 
exist.

How this relates to BMW Motorrad is that you are correct in identifying 
BMW's early entry into some technologies, but I do not believe the 
motorcycle buying consumer cares who delivered motorcycle ABS first. 
Instead, they'll simply note that Honda's VFR800 sports tourer offers ABS 
for CAD$800 on a bike that has similar weight and a bit more power (800 
cc bike) compared to BMW's R1100S which offers ABS for CAD$1800 (1100 cc 
bike).

Buyers are not concerned about who came out with what first. They 
evaluate the available options and get what suits them best, and/or what 
they like most. The motorcycle market in North America is huge, and 
rightly or wrongly, North Americans are hyped on horsepower in most 
motorcycle market segments. To appeal to these consumers, BMW is 
disadvantaged by being "below average" in this respect, as compared to 
liter class (or bigger) twins from Honda, Suzuki, Ducati, and even Buell.

The point I am making is that from the perception of Joe Bikebuyer, the 
BMW boxer is still underpowered, on the heavy side, and with an "old 
tech" engine. Even with the latest set of changes we are reading about on 
the GS. That leads me to conclude that the GS has been updated to appeal 
to BMW fans as opposed to appealing to people who would not normally 
consider a BMW motorcycle.



>I maintain
>that within the boxer tradition these new innovations are radical
>improvements...

That's okay. I think I've presented a convincing argument for the changes 
being very much shy of radical. Using the "within the boxer tradition" 
qualifier truly diminishes the impact of the word "radical". For example, 
would many people say that Harley-Davidson's Evolution engine is a 
radical change from its predecessor, within the context of HD air-cooled 
twins? Hardly. Is the VROD engine a radical change for HD? You bet!



>Why do I and others ride BMW's boxers?  I
>guess we just like them. I've had five since 1952. I like the relaxed
>cadence of the engine. It never annoys me. The exhaust tone is never
>annoying. The engine's power while not the greatest in motorcycling
>deliverers plenty of torque which makes the bike a delight to ride and
>the handling is great. And if the truth be known it goes fast enough to
>scare the HELL out of me!!!!. 

[snip]   

See the archives from the "other" list for numerous postings responding 
to the "why do you ride a BMW" thread. There is no doubt that most BMW 
riders love their BMW motorcycles. The issue at hand here with BMW bikes, 
is like the PC versus Mac debate: it's not that Macs are so crappy, as 
much as it is that PCs have become so good and cheap in the past few 
years!

Even BMW bike lovers have to admit to themselves that there is some 
really sweet iron out there, outside of the glass and steel Motorrad 
showrooms. 

- -Steve

 Oakville, Ontario, Canada
 2000 R1100S/ABS, Mandarin

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

End of oilheads-digest V1 #70
*****************************