Re: Wishlist

[Steve Makohin <wateredg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/9/04 10:49 AM, Bob Hadden kbhadden@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Steve Makohin wrote:
>>
>> Before I get too excited, I assume you mean the newly introduced GS's
>> engine when you say "new motor". Correct? If so, it's not nearly enough
>> of a "step up" from what I already have to get me to do silly things 
>> with my income, especially considering my current bike is paid for.
>> Just *my* two cents' worth.
>>
>> -Steve
>
>Steve,  Just my point of view, butt:  If you would like BMW to make a 
>new motor, and if you like boxers, then this is what you get.  There 
>are no interchangeable pars between the new and old motor.  It is an 
>all new interpretation of the oil head concept.

I'm on the same page with you, more or less. Though it can be said the 
new GS engine is an "all new interpretation" of a boxer engine (I can't 
confirm that none of the parts in the engine did not already exist in 
BMW's parts bin), in reality, it is a new design firmly based on an old 
theme, and it represent only an _incremental_ step up from the offerings 
of the previous generation of engines.

Compare it to my 2000 R1100S at 98 hp (crank) and 72 ft-lbs of torque, 
the "all new" 2004 R1200GS has 101 hp (up 3%), and 85 ft-lbs torque (up 
18%!), and the counter-balance shaft will smooth out the vibrations 
nicely. For those who want to jump in with "you're comparing apple to 
oranges because you should be comparing to the old GS engine," the 
comparison I am making is BMW's latest top-end boxer engine with it's 
previous top-end boxer engine.

There's nothing more than incremental change here. Making it a liquid 
cooled boxer would have been a big change, departing from tradition. 
Introducing a liquid cooled L-twin would have been a radical change.




>You get lighter weight, new displacement, new engine management, knock 
>sensors for each cylinder, tps for each side,  new injection computer 
>with O2 sensor on each side, balance shaft, larger air box, and on and 
>on.

Yupper! From a BMW aficionado's perspective, these may be "big" changes. 
But from others' perspective, BMW has "finally" got rid of surging (dual 
plugging, TPS per side, new FI computer), "finally" got rid of the 
boxer's characteristic vibrations (balance shaft), and upped the power a 
tad (larger air box, higher displacement) though it still is shy of the 
power output of frequently maligned Buells (XB12R) and well below that of 
"average" liter class bikes. The 30 kg weight reduction, though 
significant to many BMW fans (and a noteworthy accomplishment for BMW 
Motorrad), now places the bike's weigh in the "average" (or arguably 
north of average) category for street bikes, and still portly for a 
dual-sport (GS criticism only). With respect to the boxer engine, it's a 
"heritage design" that appeals to a relatively few number of 
motorcyclists.

Some BMW riders will be excited by these changes, while most 
motorcyclists will continue to maintain their "under-powered, overweight, 
and with a wiiiiiiide engine" perceptions of BMW boxer motorcycles. It 
does not look like a recipe to attract riders in mass (note I am not 
suggesting it should be, nor that BMW is trying to do this).




>If you don't want another boxer, then look elsewhere.

I think you have missed some points:

 o I am not "boxer prejudiced", as many motorcyclists are. I'm okay
   with a boxer, even though it's wide, and it is a "heritage
   design" element. Even with this lack of prejudice, and my strong
   preference for big twins, BMW's line of bikes are failing to
   build excitement within me. I still love my bike, and it would be
   my choice if I had to buy a replacement for a stolen R1100S.

 o In late 1999 when I first noticed the R1100S, I was not shopping
   for a bike, didn't have a bike, and was not even interested in
   getting a bike. The R1100S looked so sexy (to me), it made me do
   "silly things" with my income. Aprilia is now starting to stir
   my passion bone.

I believe that I am in the small minority of potential and actual 
motorcycle consumers who were attracted to the BMW brand of motorcycles, 
either from other brands, or into motorcycling outright. Clearly, the 
changes BMW made to the new GS are not designed to attract hoards of new 
riders from other brands, so much as to inspire the BMW Loyal to buy a 
new bike. Perhaps I am in the small minority again, this time as a 
minority within the ranks of BMW Motorrad owners: those who have not been 
sufficiently coaxed to get a new boxer. The K1200GT would make a nice 
second bike for distance riding, though. If it weighed 100 lbs less, it 
might inspire me to do silly things with my income once again.

- -Steve

 Oakville, Ontario, Canada
 2000 R1100S/ABS, Mandarin

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