Originally Posted by cug
I can see that. No problem. Don't get me wrong here: my criticism is based on the first models that hit the States, the first fuel map that arrived here where lots of people said the engine is lagging, hacking, unhappy in that rev range.
On the other hand, the Multi is marketed as bike that is meant also for urban traffic which might include stop and go and super slow rolling and also enduro style riding which means often enough slowly and carefully chugging through difficult passages. The Multi I rode didn't like those two things at all. Flowing with the traffic at 15mph was very, very uncomfortable, it was hacking, slapping the chain, vibrating and so on. Totally possible that a newer map corrected that, I never tested one again. The R1200GS I could ride at 5mph without any trouble. And YES, I understand that these are totally different bikes.
What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not "nitpicking" the Multi, I'm saying what I didn't like when I rode it. I wrote a blog entry shortly after I rode one and had a few things that really annoyed me on that test ride. Interesting enough all these things were addressed in the 2011 and 2012 models. Being that the short rider seat space, the uneven fueling at steady speed, the luggage where you could look through the manufacturing gaps, I even read that the centerstand was slightly altered so that you don't get your heel on it all the time, though I cannot really confirm that as test sitting on a 2012 model felt the same for me with regard to that. I don't own a Multi, I test rode one twice and that were the results. If I owned one, I might start with the real problems but I never got that far as I disliked it already during the test ride enough so that the telepathic handling, the insane power, the unbelievably good brakes, and the really, really nice riding position couldn't make me buy one. And believe me - I was in the market.
When I'm ready for my next bike I will ride one again and see whether the things I didn't like and that were supposedly addressed did something that makes it better for me, because from my perspective all these things are so unnecessary. Not certain about the low speed manners, as that might just be engine characteristic, but the rest was probably easily dealt with and some of it shouldn't have happened in the first place (luggage, and imho centerstand).
But you know what - I didn't like the Multi enough to buy one, you did, so where's the problem? I'm not addressing anybody here personally (other than now ignoring some people), I'm saying what my impression of the bike was when I test rode it.
That's a well-written summary of my thoughts on the Multi as well. I test rode two-one recently before trading in my 07 GS for a 2012 camhead.
I wanted to like the Multi, I really did. I also don't ride like a lunatic 90% of the time, but would enjoy the power and torque when I was able to put the spurs to it. The fact that the Multi felt jerky and out of its element in urban settings pushed me away from it. If I'm dropping 20k on a bike, it had best be sorted for its intended purpose. The Multi isn't an 848, where it 'needs' to live in that certain rev range. The Multi is supposed to be able to handle a broader range of riding, conditions and environments. It simply didn't convince me that it was designed for that.
Even if I decided to get the Multi, I wonder how much it would have cost to get the bike sorted for urban riding, commuting in traffic and low speed riding. Don't get me wrong, it's competent at speed but what new bike isn't? At the asking price I was expecting more and it delivered less. I may also test ride a Multi in the future, so let's hope Audi can evolve the bike into a really great machine.