Re: Wish List

[Steve Makohin <wateredg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/10/04 11:37 AM, Tom Brown tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>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?

That all depends on who is asking. If the asker is interested only in a 
bike with an oil-cooled boxer engine, then the new configuration is the 
best game in town. If I was Joe Rider, I'd ask for a bike that has a peak 
power that is no lower than an average twin, and for an engine that 
doesn't have jugs hanging out the sides. As Steve, the happy owner of an 
R1100S, the thing BMW would need to do to get to me buy another boxer is 
to put out 125 hp in a 460 lb bike in an R1100S form factor. That would 
get me to crack open the check book and put pen to paper.

Please note that this does NOT imply that a dislike the boxer engine, nor 
BMW bikes. All things and all brands considered, if I didn't have a bike 
today, I'd be getting another R1100S. (I hope you're reading "Steve likes 
BMW bikes, and BMW boxers" here).




>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...

That's PART of the answer. The other part you're glossing over, and which 
I emphasized in my previous posting, is that BMW does not have a Motorrad 
offering that is compelling enough for me to do "silly things" with my 
income (i.e., "upgrade" my bike purely out of desire, as opposed to some 
sort of "need.")




>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.

Not so. Some folks are on the "latest and greatest" page, and if you're 
referring to obsolescence in that respect, as in "not the latest model", 
then people like me would respond the same way to a 4 year old Yamaha R1 
as I do to my 4 year old R1100S. It's more a matter of the rider's 
attitude than the machine's obsolescence. If you are implying that Asian 
sports bikes really do become obsolete in 4 years while BMW bikes don't, 
I need more information from you to understand what criteria you are 
using to come to that conclusion.




Rob Silas write:

[...]
>>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!
[...]

I think my previous posting throws some water on your enthusiasm. BMW's 
new R1200GS engine provides 3% more peak power and 18% more torque(!) 
than it's previous top-dog R1100S engine, and it will be smoother because 
of the counter-balancer shaft. That's good new for BMW boxer oilhead 
enthusiasts, at least in terms of torque and vibration. Outside of the 
BMW boxer fan club, the new engine will be still be seen as an 
under-powered, wide, "heritage design" engine (which is better than a 
significantly under-powered, wide, and *vibrating* "heritage design" 
engine, I suppose). It is relevant that BMW's best boxer offering will 
still be viewed by the world at large as being "under-powered" (i.e., 
below average), especially for a 1200 cc power plant.




>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.

:-)  We'll see. You may be right. According to the pre-R1200GS line-up, 
the boxers (excluding cruisers) lined up as follows: R1150GS (85 HP), 
R1150R (85 hp), R1150RS (95 hp), R1150RT (95 hp), and R1100S (98 hp). 
Assuming that we use the old R1150GS engine as a baseline to compare to 
the new R1200GS, we note an increase from 85 hp to 101 hp, or a jump of 
about 19%. Assuming we see similar jumps across the board, we should 
expect the following bikes to appear in BMW showrooms (view using mono 
spaced font such as Courier or Monaco:

  R1150GS @85 hp to R1200GS @101 hp (already done)
  R1150R  @85 hp to R1200R  @101 hp
  R1150RS @95 hp to R1200RS @113 hp
  R1150RT @95 hp to R1200RT @113 hp
  R1100S  @98 hp to R1200S  @116 hp

Assuming this speculative extrapolation comes to pass, I'm still not 
wowed. It's nice to see some improvement, but I would not be inspired to 
trade my R1100S in for an "R1200S" just to get a smoother engine, 18 more 
ponies, and maybe shed 60 lbs, though that would definitely take the 
"R1200S" out of the "portly" category if it weighed just 445 lbs wet. 
These speculative changes would at least (arguably) put BMW twins in a 
similar weight and peak power class as liquid cooled liter-class 
sports-tourers (or similar bikes) from Ducati, Honda, and Suzuki. 
Interestingly, this makes a good argument in favor for liquid-cooled 
L-twins over oil-cooled boxer twins when you realize you need 20% more 
displacement to get similar peak horsepower output (though the additional 
torque will be welcome in the 1200 for brisker starts).

If these speculations come to pass, it will indeed be good news for BMW 
Motorrad because these bikes will be competitive based on peak power and 
weight (a big obstacle to overcome). It would also help distance BMW 
bikes from being perceived as being in the same class of Moto Guzzi, in 
spite of their common "heritage design" engine elements. The jugs and 
wide engine will still be a preconception obstacle for many motorcycle 
consumers.





>>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.

I'm not saying that incremental change is not welcome or not noticeable, 
I'm just saying that it's a relatively small step. And that's an issue 
for a bike like a BMW boxer (the bike, not specifically the engine) which 
has advanced primarily through a series of many incremental steps rather 
than big changes. One thing BMW boxer fans will not accuse BMW Motorrad 
of doing is needing to slow down the break-neck rate of change over the 
past decade :-)



[...]
>> 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.

Correction: I am comparing the most powerful production boxer made by BMW 
Motorrad (the engine in the new R1200GS) to a variety of other twins. 
Look at the comparisons I make, and you will see I'm not that "out of 
whack" as you may suspect.

The Buell XB12R is Buell's most "tricked out" sports bike, which is 
interesting if we compare its specs to Asian sports bike with half the 
displacement, but that's another story. The similar element between the 
XB12R and the new R1200GS is Buell's old-world air-cooled pushrod-powered 
and much maligned "heritage design" power plant, eeking out 106 hp out of 
1200 ccs. BMW hasn't achieved even that with the new GS power plant, in 
spite of BMW's "more modern" engine technology as compared to Buell. I 
also compared BMW's twins with modern liquid-cooled liter-class L-twins, 
and note that the competition's engines, which live in rather regular 
bikes (read "not sports bikes") like Ducati's ST4s at 117 hp, handily 
deliver more peak power (in this case 16% more) with less displacement 
(in this case 17% less).

I do not label BMW's efforts as "crappy," I'm just noting that their 
offerings are not as impressive as their competition in this respect. 
This has been an on-going complaint, and it will continue to be so, even 
with the new R1200GS engine.




[...]

>>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...

Your words are reminiscent of the old Mac vs PC debates: Those PC guys 
just don't "get it". It has almost religious overtones to it :-) I'm just 
talking plain facts. The hard numbers say that most motorcycles sold 
(based on units sold), and 4 cylinder bikes. That's not to say they're 
"better," it just shows they are more popular. In all brands that have a 
history of inline 4s _and_ twins, such as Honda and Suzuki, the twins are 
minor sellers compared to the 4s. Twins appeal to fewer people than fours.

What? Who's that at the back of the class? Oh! Someone says the BMW's 
boxer twins easily outsell their K fours. Very true. BMW came out with 
the boxer twin in 1923, and since that time, became known as the boxer 
twin motorcycle maker. They built up a loyal following of BMW boxer fans, 
some so loyal that they sneer at K bikes for being on "the Dark Side" or 
not being "real BMW" bikes. The _real_ hard-core purists will even argue 
that airheads are the only "real" BMW bikes while oilhead boxers are a 
deviation. This just goes to support my proposition that BMW boxer 
engines are a heritage design element, and it is there solely to leverage 
an existing market of very loyal boxer fans, and to keep attracting that 
very small but wonderfully quirky percentage of motorcyclists that are 
attracted to BMW boxers.

If the BMW boxer engine did not exist today, there would be no reason to 
invent it. I am confident BMW would create a modern, liquid-cooled, 
L-twin engine, like everyone else did (for obvious reasons), except that 
BMW would have a left-right L as opposed to a front-back one, just to be 
different ;-)





>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...

Let's analyze your thinking, then. While V-twin engines have been around 
for ages (i.e., the basic V-twin design), let us ask ourselves why these 
engines exist today, and where they are used in bikes. It appears that 
the narrow-V twin lives almost exclusively in cruiser style motorcycles. 
I say "almost" because I suspect someone will come up with another 
example even though I cannot think of one. The cruiser market is known 
primarily for its styling cues, which are distinctly "heritage", right 
down to having an air-cooled, pushrod-actuated engine. The "ultimate" 
cruiser, Harley-Davidson, is a great example how heritage design can 
spawn a great following. Asian cruisers, whose makers are highly skilled 
and well equipped to create advanced liquid-cooled V-twins, have taken a 
step back to making big air-cooled, pushrod-powered V-twin cruisers to 
exploit this market. Even the liquid-cooled cruisers try to mask their 
radiator and have cosmetic cooling fins to make them _look_ air cooled. 
The Harley-Davidson V-ROD is the exception. It boldly brandishes a large 
radiator and uses a modern, liquid-cooled V-twin that cranks out loads of 
power (relatively speaking), and it is unpopular in spite of this, or 
perhaps *because* it is liquid cooled and breaks from tradition.

Now let's look at L-twins (90' V-twins). That design has been around for 
a while too, but today's L-twins tend to be thoroughly modern, 4-valve, 
liquid-cooled, and high (compared to BMW) output engines. The exception: 
Ducati offers air-cooled L-twins, a nod back to Ducati's heritage, back 
in the days when air-cooling was king for bikes. Today's L-twins exist 
because they fill the desire for a twin, and they do it in a compact 
(narrow) package while cranking out fairly good power levels (high 
compared to BMW's), at least for the liquid cooled ones. The air-cooled 
heritage variants are lower powered, obviously.

We can do the same examination for the inline 4 design, and draw similar 
conclusions.

With respect to the BMW boxer twin, although today's boxer is a BIIIIG 
step up from the engine in the R32 release in 1923, the only reason for 
it existing today is because of heritage: BMW's lineage of making boxer 
engines, and BMW's loyal brethren who want boxer engines. That's about as 
"heritage" as you can get, especially when you consider that if BMW had 
never used a boxer before, it is extremely unlikely BMW Motorrad (or any 
other manufacturer) would create a boxer twin in this era.




>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.

Note I am NOT saying that BMW's boxer twins have no redeeming qualities 
nor that they are terrible. I am merely highlighting that they exist 
purely for heritage reasons. An air-cooled left-right boxer made sense in 
1923 when having both cylinders in the air stream was good for efficient 
and equal cooling. In 2004, the only reason to have a boxer twin in a 
bike is for heritage reasons that are specific to the BMW brand. Is it 
any wonder why no other bike manufacturer has started making boxer twin 
engines for their bikes? If you remove the heritage attraction, a 
front-back liquid-cooled L-twin makes a lot more sense for a two cylinder 
engine than an oil-cooled boxer twin (more compact design, more power per 
liter displacement).

There is no shame in "heritage" design, and wringing all you can out of 
it, and milking it for what it's worth. Harley-Davidson does so proudly, 
and has become wealthy, and has incredible mind-share as a result of 
leveraging the "heritage factor." Other manufacturers are trying to tap 
into nostalgia with a new "old Bonny", new "old Ducatis" (on the boards), 
and others.

- -Steve

 Oakville, Ontario, Canada
 2000 R1100S/ABS, Mandarin

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

End of oilheads-digest V1 #93
*****************************