Originally Posted by Robbo60
I think the numbers might be honest but I really think they are distorted by circumstance.
I doubt the GS or the ST can even do 120 miles per hour, or if so only just. So it might take 24 seconds to reach 120 mph but the mile might actually take 35 seconds but the bike had reached 120 mph 11 seconds before the end of the mile....... can this math work?
120 mph = 0.03 mpsecond, 11 seconds = 0.36 miles so it may have reached 120 mph after 0.63 miles....or about 1 kilometer.
The point is so much in print is poorly presented or explained. (like this of mine.....)
Perhaps they should have used 0-110 mph or 0-100 mph.
Having ridden both my ST and a GSA across a very fast run south of Omeo and swapping bikes with the very fast rider of the GSA I can attest that there was no significant power advantage to either of the two. Top end stuff is NOT their design brief. He really liked the ST and I thought the GSA was a lot of fun too. I think the ST is easier and more neutral but now I'm talking handling.
I might be one of the few ADV junkies out there with an R1200GS, an XT1200 and the new Ducati Multistrada in his/her fleet. For me the best road bike I have ever ridden is the Multistrada hands down. It has perfect position and the kick arse 1198 engine with 150hp.
The XT1200 is IMO like the bastard child of a KTM990 and a n R1200GS. More fun than the GS and who gives a shit if it is a second slower in a straight line 0-60? If I had to chose a bike to ride around Australia it would be the XT1200 every day of the week.
The GS is a stable bike. Predictable and I simply would rather be on the Yamaha or the Ducati most of the time.