ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > GSpot > GS Boxers
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-20-2012, 09:22 AM   #4096
Dorsicano OP
Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Grand Duchy
Oddometer: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorsicano View Post
a few of us are all obsessed about the pounds on our bikes and tend to disregards the pounds on our waist.

I could buy a 238 Kg GS LC and lose 5 Kg myself and the net result would be same as old GS and current me.
leaving aside current higher center of gravity
Dorsicano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 09:40 AM   #4097
Montauk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Fruit County in Golden State, USA
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by oalvarez View Post
ok, excellent....onto the next.
I concur.
Montauk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:19 AM   #4098
Marki_GSA
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Scotland
Oddometer: 421
sorry I misunderstood.
Marki_GSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:43 AM   #4099
Josephvman
I'm the Decider
 
Josephvman's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Oddometer: 3,431
+1

When I was in the business selling oilheads, the riders who broke them in hard and fast never seemed to have issues with oil consumption. The guys who babied the bikes during break-in, obsessed about oil level, and constantly topped them off had bikes that continued to burn oil. I think it was more an issue of their bikes being slightly overfilled, but you'd never convince the owners of this, who never seemed to be happy unless their oil levels were at the very top of the sight glass circle. My opinion has always been that if you've got oil within the circle, you've got plenty of oil.






Quote:
Originally Posted by 6USMC6 View Post
I am convinced that oil consumption has everything to do with breakin.

KTMs 950s and 990s are famous for their oil consumption.

I followed a severe schedule I was told about - I broke it in hard for 100 miles and then just rode it.

The worst oil consumption I had was half a quart in 6,000 miles.

After that, there was no usage.
__________________
'11 Ducati Multistrada 1200S Sport "Stormtrooper II"
'09 BMW HP2 Sport
'98 Ducati 900SS Final Edition "The old whore"
'93 Ducati 900SS "Slightly older whore"
"Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
Josephvman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 05:09 PM   #4100
Montauk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Fruit County in Golden State, USA
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josephvman View Post
The guys who babied the bikes during break-in, obsessed about oil level, and constantly topped them off had bikes that continued to burn oil.
That sounds like me
Montauk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 06:00 PM   #4101
markjenn
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Swellvue, WA
Oddometer: 10,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by cug View Post
You know, it's kind of useless to discuss raw numbers that way. The 2006 V-Strom DL650 I had weighed probably 30lbs less than the 2010 R1200GS and it felt like it was about half a ton heavier ... and then again, the Super Tenere 1200 is about 40 to 50lbs or so heavier than a standard GS (both standard trim, no farkles), and still feels smaller and and possibly even lighter.
What your saying has some element of truth, but since a judgment of how a bike "carries its weight" is so subjective, I'm not sure it transfers from rider to rider.

You say the DL650 felt heavier than a GS, but I rode both for a period and felt the exact opposite - the Wee felt a LOT lighter, more than the 50-lbs difference in absolute weight. Likewise, S10 proponents say that it carries its weight better than a GS and has a lower CG, but looking at the two bikes, I'd bet the CG of the S10 is higher and to me, the S10 feels every bit of 40-odd lbs heavier than a GS to me. Having ridden all three extensively, I'd peg them as "feeling" about as the numbers stack up: 475 (Wee) - 530 (GS) - 575 (S10).

Mostly, I see this argument that a bike "carries its weight better" is used as way to deflect criticism of a bike's absolute weight.

In the end, weight is weight and I think bikes of similar design carry it more or less similarly.

- Mark
markjenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 06:02 PM   #4102
cug
--
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Sunny California
Oddometer: 4,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjenn View Post
What your saying has some element of truth, but since a judgment of how a bike "carries its weight" is so subjective, I'm not sure it transfers from rider to rider.
Hmmm. Not so certain about that. There is certainly an element of personal impression involved, but the rest is generally measurable, it's just never measured.
cug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:12 PM   #4103
Midnullarbor
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Oddometer: 321
.
Yes, it would be useful to have some sort of *objective* measurement of how "heavy" the bike is to wrestle with when it's at standstill or at walking pace.
Showroom impressions of "easiness to manhandle" are too subjective ~ varying form day to day or from showroom to showroom, when comparing different types of bike.

Height of CoG [if that term doesn't cause meltdown here !!!] would be a starting point, of sorts . . . but how believable would it be, in view of the difficulty of independent verification . . . and the trouble we've had getting realistically honest dry/wet weights to be quoted by manufacturers.

A more intuitive & comparable figure would be some sort of force [pounds or kilogram-weight] that the rider's foot needs to exert in order to support the bike when it is leaned over [at standstill, of course] to an angle of [say] 30 degrees from vertical.
This would need to be in standardised conditions, with foot at such and such distance [from the original midline of bike ~ 24"/60cm ?], with vertical force measured, . . . and so on.
That would give an idea of the relative "wrestle-ability" needed to correct a bike that's gotten to an uncomfortable angle stopped ~ or is being ridden very slowly on rough ground.

Still not so easy for the average citizen to verify . . . but if needs must, it could be done in a rough'n'ready way by using bathroom scales and a certain amount of ingenuity . . . and two strong assistants.
"Trust but verify!"
.
Midnullarbor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:32 PM   #4104
cug
--
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Sunny California
Oddometer: 4,843
That's pretty much what could be done. But nobodies going to do it. There's no way the manufacturers and the press is going to muddy the speculation and bullshitting with hard, verifiable facts ...
cug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 10:39 PM   #4105
GSMarc
Studly Adventurer
 
GSMarc's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Oddometer: 935
what a interresting subject

But there are so many of pics like that on internet that I'm quite sure this will be the real test to be done : the amount of muscle needed to continue the journey...
At that moment plus or minus 6.5kg is meaningfull
(at least if alone)

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showt...&highlight=hp2





__________________
GSMarc from BELGIUM
2014 KTM EXC450 6Days
2008 HP2/MM ABS
2005 HP2E
2005 HP2E SM Prototype

GSMarc screwed with this post 12-20-2012 at 10:48 PM
GSMarc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:02 PM   #4106
twinrider
pass the catnip
 
twinrider's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: 日本
Oddometer: 9,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjenn View Post
What your saying has some element of truth, but since a judgment of how a bike "carries its weight" is so subjective, I'm not sure it transfers from rider to rider.

You say the DL650 felt heavier than a GS, but I rode both for a period and felt the exact opposite - the Wee felt a LOT lighter, more than the 50-lbs difference in absolute weight. Likewise, S10 proponents say that it carries its weight better than a GS and has a lower CG, but looking at the two bikes, I'd bet the CG of the S10 is higher and to me, the S10 feels every bit of 40-odd lbs heavier than a GS to me. Having ridden all three extensively, I'd peg them as "feeling" about as the numbers stack up: 475 (Wee) - 530 (GS) - 575 (S10).

Mostly, I see this argument that a bike "carries its weight better" is used as way to deflect criticism of a bike's absolute weight.

In the end, weight is weight and I think bikes of similar design carry it more or less similarly.

- Mark
I had a chance to ride a GSA, a 12GS and my S10 back to back last weekend. Even though the GSA's wet weight's the same as the S10's, the Yamaha feels much lighter lifting it off the side stand and maneuvering at very slow speeds/doing u-turns. The 12GS felt about the same as the S10, even though it's quite a bit lighter. I've owned the S10 for about a month and am still impressed how Yamaha managed to make it feel so light, well balanced and nimble. It's a real pleasure to ride even through heavy city traffic and wheeling it around is a cinch.
__________________
2014 350 EXC-F
2011 XT1200Z
2009 FLHR
2006 Djebel 250XC
twinrider is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:08 PM   #4107
marchyman
Cam Killer
 
marchyman's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Oddometer: 6,916
So I'm not the only idiot who can drop the bike in maybe 2" of sand.



Every time I tried to lift it the front end walked away from me.
marchyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2012, 11:43 PM   #4108
Montauk
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Fruit County in Golden State, USA
Oddometer: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by marchyman View Post
That is an interesting tire configuration!
Montauk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 01:41 AM   #4109
viz
I Ride Ms Piggy
 
viz's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Oz
Oddometer: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montauk View Post
That is an interesting tire configuration!
Interesting maybe but not unusual. I also use that combination - it is a very practical all-round touring option

viz
__________________
Pig In The City - 2010 BMW R1200 GSA Adventure
1996 XL1200S Sportster - a temporary insanity
Webmaster BMW Touring Club of NSW
viz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 05:17 AM   #4110
vtbob
wanderer
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Western Vermont
Oddometer: 517
the measure that we seem to be talking about in lifting and maneuvering the bike around is center of gravity and center of mass(dynamic effects)

the boxer twin has traditionally allowed these to be lower...just like Porsche etc

jacking the bike up for high ground clearance kills these benefits.

what puzzels me in the new GS ia that BMW has again put the gas tank yet again at the highest(worst) point possible.
They allso make the tail end of the bike unnecessary high...far more than the rear suspension travel demands, and this put both the side bags and top bags higher that necessary.

all of these things raise the C of G, make the bike harder to pick up, and make slow speed dynamic handling more difficult.

The F800 series atleast puts the gas lower under the seat.
vtbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014