The All New 2013 LIQUID COOLED R1200GS threadfest

[TuonoBiker]

Originally Posted by Montauk

I wish this spoke vs cast rim issue was just as simple as picking colours.

I was going to do some physics calculations at higher accuracy (not involving the effects of tire and flexing of it at higher speeds along with the effects of gravity due to vertical alignment), but I decided for later if time permits.

Here's what I think: Assuming total weight to be the same for either rim, the geometry of weight distribution are quite different. Spoke rims will weight higher at the ends, because of total weight minus the small weight of sum of spokes. While the Cast rim will have weight distributed across the wheel due to weight of cast spokes. Hence, I suspect the centripetal acceleration to be different, while the centrifugal force may remain somewhat the same (it could also change). Due to increased centripetal acceleration for a spoke rim at a given constant speed, the effects of turning on a curve would be pronounced as we increase the angle of lean.

This effect translates to a feel and handling of a bike on a paved curve. Scientifically, it would be there, however, once you start riding your own bike, you get accustomed to its handling, and you make adjustments to it without even knowing. This is what I call your "style" of riding. We ride bikes that we own, unlike journo's who tests them against another.

So, IMHO, I think get the wheel you want, spoke is great because it has tendency to flex if you were to go off-roading or unexpectedly go over big bumps, it will be far more forgiving. It also means about $500 more as an option!

This is why I love the ADV forum.....can't imagine reading this response over on the vtwinforum where I, from time to time, tune into the latest "hadda lay 'er" down harley threads. lol

Very detailed and it forced me to think back to my college Calculus-based physics class.

[Montauk]

Official Fuel consumption as taken from press release:

90km/h l/100km is 4.1 L (57mpg)
120km/h l/100km is 5.5 L (51mpg)

The 120km using 5.5 L (51 mpg) of gasoline seems high fuel usage. I would expect this machine would run leaner, so I would expect it more like 53-54 mpg at 75 m/hr speed. What do you guys think?

I don't own a recent R1200GS, therefore I cannot relate. For my current bike the difference lies about 2-4 mpg at those speeds in approximation and mine is not leaner at all.

[Deans BMW]

My '10 GS consistantly gets from a low of 38-39 to a high of 42-44 MPG. The new wet head sounds like it will do 5 to 10 MPG better in mixed riding. BTW, the sound of the BMW at the very end of the video sounded fantastic as it wound out.

I am liking, big time so far everything that I am hearing about this new bike.

[TuefelHunden]

Originally Posted by Deans BMW

My '10 GS consistantly gets from a low of 38-39 to a high of 42-44 MPG. The new wet head sounds like it will do 5 to 10 MPG better in mixed riding. BTW, the sound of the BMW at the very end of the video sounded fantastic as it wound out.

I am liking, big time so far everything that I am hearing about this new bike.

Love to see mileage comments. They are all over the map. Manufacture claims rarely match what I get on the road and who knows how the guy who posts the claim twists the throttle. Just sayin' .

Call me an old fart but the more I read, the more I'm glad I got a 2011. Glad I still have a dry clutch. Glad the tranny oil and crank oil don't mix. Love the simplicity of my air cooled engine. From a guy who chased technology in the computer world from before the IBM PC, believe me, chasing that edge of technology ain't what its cracked up to be.

[EJ_92606]

Originally Posted by Montauk

Official Fuel consumption as taken from press release:

90km/h l/100km is 4.1 L (57mpg)
120km/h l/100km is 5.5 L (51mpg)

The 120km using 5.5 L (51 mpg) of gasoline seems high fuel usage. I would expect this machine would run leaner, so I would expect it more like 53-54 mpg at 75 m/hr speed. What do you guys think?

I don't own a recent R1200GS, therefore I cannot relate. For my current bike the difference lies about 2-4 mpg at those speeds in approximation and mine is not leaner at all.

Those constant speed numbers are meaningless. My camhead gets about 43 mpg all around and that's a lot of canyons and spirited riding, but surprisingly doesn't seem to get much better just cruising on the highway, although I'm usually going a little faster than 65 mph. I recall doing the math before on camhead vs. wethead and I think the wethead numbers were about 5% improved, so I'm expecting maybe 2mpg more.... The GS is geared fairly low compared to the RT for example and it has pretty poor aerodynamics too, so those two factors hurt mileage.

[EJ_92606]

Originally Posted by TuefelHunden

Love to see mileage comments. They are all over the map. Manufacture claims rarely match what I get on the road and who knows how the guy who posts the claim twists the throttle. Just sayin' .

Call me an old fart but the more I read, the more I'm glad I got a 2011. Glad I still have a dry clutch. Glad the tranny oil and crank oil don't mix. Love the simplicity of my air cooled engine. From a guy who chased technology in the computer world from before the IBM PC, believe me, chasing that edge of technology ain't what its cracked up to be.

water cooling and integrated transmission is not exactly 'edge of technology'. And neither is drive by wire and dynamic suspension...BMW has years of experience in all of these areas.

[Montauk]

Originally Posted by EJ_92606

Those constant speed numbers are meaningless. My camhead gets about 43 mpg all around and that's a lot of canyons and spirited riding, but surprisingly doesn't seem to get much better just cruising on the highway, although I'm usually going a little faster than 65 mph.

Wow!

I've got Oilhead Cruiser, and per BMW, city is 40mpg and highway I think was 44-46. Smooth riding city + highway, I get 42, while spirited riding and SoCal canyon riding gets me 40 mpg. So I am in the ball park. I thought 2010+ Camhead should give much better mileage, probably around 50 ball park. So I thought Werhead should give an average of some 53.

Aerodynamic wise, I think mine is a brick block, and I am sure Wethead should do a little better, but not by far.

[EJ_92606]

Originally Posted by Montauk

Wow!

I've got Oilhead Cruiser, and per BMW, city is 40mpg and highway I think was 44-46. Smooth riding city + highway, I get 42, while spirited riding and SoCal canyon riding gets me 40 mpg. So I am in the ball park. I thought 2010+ Camhead should give much better mileage, probably around 50 ball park. So I thought Werhead should give an average of some 53.

Aerodynamic wise, I think mine is a brick block, and I am sure Wethead should do a little better, but not by far.

It's not my experience that the camheads get much better mileage than the hexheads. Comparing to friends with both I seem to be in the ballpark.

[TuefelHunden]

Originally Posted by EJ_92606

water cooling and integrated transmission is not exactly 'edge of technology'. And neither is drive by wire and dynamic suspension...BMW has years of experience in all of these areas.

Fully comprehend your point. Mechanically, I prefer the basic air cooled bike I have. Really, I see absolutely no real benefit for me with the changes made. The good news for this new model is that it opens up vast opportunities for major oil wars: wet clutch and long chain shearing. I can see the "what oil do YOU use" threads running rampant.

[Montauk]

Originally Posted by TuefelHunden

The good news for this new model is that it opens up vast opportunities for major oil wars: wet clutch and long chai I can see the "what oil do YOU use" threads running rampant.

Sure there is all sorts of fluids, look here

[EJ_92606]

Originally Posted by TuefelHunden

Fully comprehend your point. Mechanically, I prefer the basic air cooled bike I have. Really, I see absolutely no real benefit for me with the changes made. The good news for this new model is that it opens up vast opportunities for major oil wars: wet clutch and long chain shearing. I can see the "what oil do YOU use" threads running rampant.

Yeap, definitely will be increasing my oil change intervals on the new GS.

[oalvarez]

In my first 600mi (all canyons) the GS never did better than 39.2mpg on a tank with the avg, being closer to 38mpg. I'll write that off to it being new and riding the roads I do.

Can't wait to ride the new GS but I must say I'm less excited about it after having taken ownership of my current one. The air cooled GS (at this point in its product cycle) is a very refined machine and that counts for a lot in my book

[EJ_92606]

Originally Posted by oalvarez

In my first 600mi (all canyons) the GS never did better than 39.2mpg on a tank with the avg, being closer to 38mpg. I'll write that off to it being new and riding the roads I do.

Can't wait to ride the new GS but I must say I'm less excited about it after having taken ownership of my current one. The air cooled GS (at this point in its product cycle) is a very refined machine and that counts for a lot in my book

I hear ya...it will be tough to part with mine as well...haven't had any issues with it and it runs beautifully. How are you liking it compared to your Multistrada?

[oalvarez]

Originally Posted by EJ_92606

I hear ya...it will be tough to part with mine as well...haven't had any issues with it and it runs beautifully. How are you liking it compared to your Multistrada?

good to hear, EJ....and hope to meet you over at Irv's one of these days, most likely next spring

i get asked that same very question many times, and the most succinct and to the point answer i can give is "the GS is everything that the Multistrada 1200s is not." and like others here on the board have said, if i were to have just one bike, the GS would probably be it. the question i ask myself is, would it be an oil or the new water cooled one?

[dougpaw57]

Originally Posted by Montauk

I wish this spoke vs cast rim issue was just as simple as picking colours.

I was going to do some physics calculations at higher accuracy (not involving the effects of tire and flexing of it at higher speeds along with the effects of gravity due to vertical alignment), but I decided for later if time permits.

Here's what I think: Assuming total weight to be the same for either rim, the geometry of weight distribution are quite different. Spoke rims will weight higher at the ends, because of total weight minus the small weight of sum of spokes. While the Cast rim will have weight distributed across the wheel due to weight of cast spokes. Hence, I suspect the centripetal acceleration to be different, while the centrifugal force may remain somewhat the same (it could also change). Due to increased centripetal acceleration for a spoke rim at a given constant speed, the effects of turning on a curve would be pronounced as we increase the angle of lean.

This effect translates to a feel and handling of a bike on a paved curve. Scientifically, it would be there, however, once you start riding your own bike, you get accustomed to its handling, and you make adjustments to it without even knowing. This is what I call your "style" of riding. We ride bikes that we own, unlike journo's who tests them against another.

So, IMHO, I think get the wheel you want, spoke is great because it has tendency to flex if you were to go off-roading or unexpectedly go over big bumps, it will be far more forgiving. It also means about $500 more as an option!

I got the spokes on my 2009 because I remember all the problems in the mid-to-late 90's when everyone was bending/breaking BMW cast wheels on potholes. I just figured that even riding on the road, the spoked wheels just might be cheaper in the long run.