Author Topic: what if  (Read 1527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offlinegogs01

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Country: gb
    • Model/year: R1200RT LE 2017 MY
    Re: what if
    « Reply #15 on: 2018-03-13 10:19:05 »
    Having owned a 2007, 2010 and 2013 R1200RT SE, my opinion is that my current 2017MY LE is the best I've had.


    It could, of course, be improved but my wish wouldn't be for more power (I already have more than I really need).  I would appreciate less weight and a more comfortable seat.  The idea of the integrated satnav with multifunction display sounds good too.   :)


    I'll tell you something interesting about power, weight and size too - when my brother was running a K1600GT and we did a couple of 3000 mile tours, his bike used almost the same amount of fuel as mine (54 mpg against 56 mpg for the RT).  That six cylinder bike was an absolute rocket but, if ridden with reasonable restraint, it was super economical too.  Don't know how BMW managed that .....   :D
    My 4th R1200RT = 2016 (2017 MY) R1200RT LE

    OfflineTJRL

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 55
    • Country: gb
      • Model/year: R1200RT LE / 2015
      Re: what if
      « Reply #16 on: 2018-03-13 17:22:05 »
      ... when my brother was running a K1600GT and we did a couple of 3000 mile tours, his bike used almost the same amount of fuel as mine (54 mpg against 56 mpg for the RT). That six cylinder bike was an absolute rocket but, if ridden with reasonable restraint, it was super economical too. Don't know how BMW managed that ..... :D
      Ok, I have to say 54 or 56 MPG is not "super economical" in my book, my car does better than that and it has four wheels and lot more weight!!! ;)
      2015 RT1200RT, 2014 F800GT, 1999 MT350 (with 604e),1960 SII Land Rover.

      Offlinebandytales

      • Full Member
      • ***
      • Posts: 184
        • Model/year: 2017
        Re: what if
        « Reply #17 on: 2018-03-13 17:47:07 »
        Ok, I have to say 54 or 56 MPG is not "super economical" in my book, my car does better than that and it has four wheels and lot more weight!!! ;)


        By motorcycle standards 56 UK mpg is pretty good for a fat old bike like the K1600 or the 1200RT. Remember, a bike does not have the blessing of aerodynamics.  All the time we want our bikes to look like bikes, the Cd (drag coefficient) will ALWAYS be poor until we move towards the likes of this:
        https://img.newatlas.com/zerotracer-7.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&h=670&q=60&w=1000&s=478cc0c161e2593fdae521b1520ea7b7

        Offlinewethead

        • Full Member
        • ***
        • Posts: 104
        • Country: us
          Re: what if
          « Reply #18 on: 2018-03-26 04:35:38 »
          I would be happy with a smoother engine at the 80-95 cruising speeds. Less vibration all around
          If it takes you all day to do something you used to do all day, you are getting old.

          OfflineOOF

          • Newbie
          • *
          • Posts: 8
          • Country: england
            Re: what if
            « Reply #19 on: 2018-03-26 23:01:06 »
            Agree with most of the comments here. I've had an 1150rt which was until now the best bike I ever had. Kept it 8 years, 32k miles, serviced by me no issues whatsoever.
            K1600, great engine, pretty quick for a big heavy bike. Now on a 1200 RT wet head, apart from top speed, the acceleration and handling on the RT feels way better than the K16. The RT does not need any more power, is a great all rounder and lively performer In its present form. Can rattle most sports bikes in the twisties.
            Those on about economy had better get a small capacity Bergman as no tourer or sports tourer is designed with fuel economy in mind. Power Performance is what most designers are providing.
            R1200RT LE 2015