Wish List

["Tom Brown" <tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gentlemen:


Steve says:
>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, the new bike has improved most every bitch I had with the old ones
and hopefully hasn't made anything worse.  What more could you possibly ask?
The reason you're not willing to cough up more money for a new one is
because your old bike is still working very well.   You should have
purchased one of the state of the art Japanese sport bikes that's obsolete
even before the next model year, then you'd be itching to take out another
installment loan.

Bob Hadden 98 RS sez:
>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.

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

Bob, I couldn't have said it better myself.   I could do without the servo
brakes.  They're too difficult to modulate, but I love everything else.   If
they could put more feel into these brakes, I'd like them a lot.


Bob Silas sez:
>BMW designed a "New Motor" when they came up with the "K" bikes.  That was
a
new concept, a new motor.

Well, yeah, it was a new motor, but I don't think it was a new idea, they
just took an inline 4 and spun it around a bit, put a shaft on it...If you
use the same sort of logic as everyone else seems to be using...the K motor
isn't new either.   The new Oilhead is going to have the same sort of
smoothness as the K and I think it will be quite a grand bike.  There are
many things I don't like about the K bike....loooong wheelbase, road hugging
weight etc.

>The oil-head can be considered to be a "Newer Boxer" because there were
some
radical changes from the Air-head, like slipper bearings on the crank shaft,
the four valve (only new to BMW, the CX500 had it in '78), etc.

We're really getting into symantics here.  Everyone knows what the new bike
is about, we're just defining the word "new" and whether the "new" bike has
a "new" engine or not.   I think it will be significantly improved in
performance, vibration and weight.  The size will be similar or a little
smaller to allow even better frame geometry.   I predict this bike is gonna
be worth its salt.

>The frame is really new:  the suspension is still the newest thing.   I
consider the oil-head "R" bikes' suspension unique, a real new idea.  A  new
frame with a newer boxer engine.

The frame is pulled from some other types of motorcycle suspensions.   It's
part Earles and part Yamaha spar suspension...simpler than either and, as we
all know, quite effective.   Now they're mading it lighter and part of the
styling, which is a good idea....maybe not "new", but they're not throwing
out great ideas for the sake of "newness" which is a brave thing to do in
this competitive climate.

>In engineering  something completely new is very rare.  Engineers are
trying
to use the experience obtained from previous designs and improve those.  No
point to reinvent the wheel, but we can and should improve it.

Yes, all the ideas on the "new" bike can be found in other bikes or cars.
The boxer engine is still a boxer engine...I like that.  There's a lot of
positives to this design.  Great weight distribution, a short block allowing
a short wheelbase(for a shaft drive bike).  The outboard cylinders get lots
of cooling without the need for the complexity of water cooling, keep the
heat off the rider and provide leg protection during a crash.   These are
all good things for a road bike.

>This is going on with the oil-head "R" bikes' engine, they adding some
newer
ideas based on past experience.   Nothing wrong about that, this is
evolution but it's not a NEW ENGINE.

Yeah, but it's going to WORK like a completey NEW ENGINE.   It's going to
have all the torquey benefits of the old one with lighter weight and almost
no vibration.  It's going to have lots of room for growth in power.   This
is the beginning of a new era for the Oilhead.   The fact that it is not a
radical departure from the current Oilhead is a blessing.  These engines are
great!

>Another thought:
The only reason to go in two steps from 1100 to 1200 cc is sales gimmick,
let the customer see always something new.
>From 1100 to 1200 cc is not a great step, could have been done in one
step!!!

Owning an 1150, and having owned an 1100, I was a little worried when they
announced the 1200...before I read that they were putting in a balance
shaft.  That will make all the difference.  I own an Aprilia Mille, which is
a 60 degreee V with balance shafts.  It's smoother than my Oilhead at most
RPMs.   This balance shaft idea is the only way they can make larger
displacements work on the bike.  The fact they went that way tells me that
this bike configuration has a long future.


Steve sez:

>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.

Steve, you can bet that when the other models come out with the "new" 1200
configuration, they will have more than 101hp.   The GS is always built with
big flat torque in mind at the expense of some ponies.   You ARE comparing
apples and oranges.

>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.

Steve, I would have thought that changing from a '99 R1100RT to an '04 R1150
RT would have felt like an "incremental change", but It took me 5,000 miles
to get used to all the changes.   The bike looks the same, but rides much
differently.  It's faster, handles better stops better and is surge-free.
It's got more vibes in certain spots, but at cruising, it's smoother.   It's
also less vibey at the top.   5,000 RPMs is no longer a state where the
whole bike feels like it's coming unglued.

This may not be a revolution to you from a drawing standpoint, but ride one
before you decide.   After experiencing what I've experienced, I can't wait
for this "incrementally changed" bike.

>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)

Yuh!  Like that's a small thing?   Don't forget ping control allowing you to
put any old fuel in the thing in a pinch...a first in a motorcycle.

> though it still is shy of the
power output of frequently maligned Buells (XB12R) and well below that of
"average" liter class bikes.

Talk about apples and oranges!  You're comparing the king of vibration and a
bunch of race rep sport bikes to a shaft-drive GS, the lowest powered,
widest torqued bike in the Oilhead line.

>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).

It's not portly compared to Triumph Tiger and Aprilia Caponorde and other
big ass dual sports.  They all have chain drive.  Are you advocating chain
drive for the GS?  That would really be a revolution!  Or maybe it would
just start one?

>With respect to the boxer engine, it's a
"heritage design" that appeals to a relatively few number of
motorcyclists.

Anyone who thinks that just doesn't get it.   An inline 4 is a heritage
design too, so is a 90 degree V twin.  So is a vertical twin and so is a
single.  Boxer fours and sixes have been done on Gold Wings.   I love boxers
for many reasons besides heritage.  They have good quaities for riding.   I
like those qualities.   Not because of tradition, because they make sense.

- -TB

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