[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: the Cycle World thread

"Tom Brown" tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>The choice of bikes for the cover was not BMWs.    It was cycle world's.

I realize that, and wasn't intending to make that implication. My point was
what Steve M. backed up with actual facts:

"According to J.D. Powers and Associated, styling is the Number One reason
that a potential buyer will not purchase a specific model automobile."

In other words, if BMW really wanted to quit making twins they could do so by
making them so ugly (especially compared to the K) that nobody would by them,
despite their technical merit. Then BMW could simply claim the market for
twins has evaporated, they are no longer profitable to produce, etc.

Much the same argument was the foundation of many rumours which circulated in
the '80s: that BMW wanted to quit producing ANY motorcycles (K or otherwise)
because the cycle division was chronically in the red, the core business is
cars, etc.

However, the fact is BMW continued to produce bikes and in '93 they made a
twin that justified the faith of all those who had not been seduced by (or
turned in resignation to) the K bikes, and attracted many non-BMW riders as
well. The oilhead was a great success for BMW as far as I can tell, and
certainly for me personally; there was no better bike for me to buy in '93.

I don't actually know if BMW makes money on bikes these days, but I assume so.
However, another rumour I heard in the '80s was that BMW doesn't mind losing
money on bikes because they want the "sporty" image of bikes to bleed over
into the perceptions of car buyers. Whatever their logic, it works for me as
long as they keep making great bikes.

Although "I love a good conspiracy" my comment was intended to be
tongue-in-cheek. I don't seriously think BMW is trying to kill the twins. The
latest stylings are probably simple blunders. The unfortunate thing is that
we'll probably have to live with them for a long time. But who knows, maybe
there's a R1200RS being sculpted now that will be just right...

>Well, John, the R1 has world class performance too, but I don't want to ride
to Denver on one. [snip]

You're preaching to the choir. One of the major reasons I ride BMWs, and the
boxer in particular, is their excellent "real world" competence (the torque
curve being only one of many reasons for that).

But still...on 1993.11.19 I had been riding my R60/6 for the previous 2 years.
The R60 might have made what? 40 HP? When it was new (my R60 has 117k on it).
On 1993.11.20 I began riding an R11 rated at more than twice that. For two or
three weeks I thought, "Wow! This thing has all the power I could ever

Within a month I found myself thinking, "I could use more power. Yes, I could,
and would find that enjoyable."

Where I live, the top speed of the K1200S is utterly irrelevant (not that I
don't get out West when I get the chance).

If I recall, my R11 will theoretically do 0-60 in 3.4s. That doesn't suck. But
the number I saw for the K12S was 2.8.

That's an 18% difference. Noticeable! And I could find ways to use THAT
capability on a very regular basis.

>John, you read too much Cycle World...

Actually I almost never read it (though I think Egan and Cameron are
fantastic), and have not even seen the issue we're discussing here (though I
do intend to pick it up).

I HAVE looked at the new models on the web, but I admit I HAVE NOT seen them
in person.

>...and do too little actual riding!

You are correct sir.

Worse, I've ridden my RS one (1) time this year. Replaced the shaft in the
utterly g*dd*mn*d worthless piece of f*ck*ing sh*t Bing, did my best 0=0 etc.
ad nauseam. Still runs like crap. I've been riding the wife's Yamaha 600 ever
since while I research my options to restore the RS to acceptable