The All New 2013 LIQUID COOLED R1200GS threadfest

[tallguy-09]

I can only image that the average GS rider got older and older over the years. So with ~46 not everybody wants to take off and cross the Sahara tomorrow. As much as I want to preserve the heritage I'm also totally exited about the first ever real modern Boxer engine...

[thehomealien]

I've made some improvements to the machine translation. Help me if you can.

"Mr. von Kuenheim, how long will you hold on to the air-cooled boxer engine?

I can assure you, we will hold on to the boxer with air cooling for years.

How much more power and torque does does it have in reserve? That depends on what one wants. For torque-oriented design, we have certainly reached an optimum. There was never a boxer engine as good as the still-very-new DOHC boxer for the GS, R and RT. For performance-oriented design, the engine of the HP2 Sport is the pinnacle. Between 110 hp and 133 hp everything is possible.

The new EU guidelines for type approval are still far from resolved, and the air-cooled boxer complies with regulations for years to come. What reasons can you give that make the introduction of a water-cooled engine preferable? With the boxer, as it is conceived today, we can also meet the future limits for exhaust and noise. Nothing forces us toward water cooling.

What technical advantages do your engineers promise from the water-cooled boxer?

When increasing performance thermodynamically and with some individual materials, at some point an air-cooled engine reaches its natural physical limits. Water cooling offers advantages here, though there would be an additional technical effort of pursuing water-cooling. As you know, additions usually mean weight. Therefore, we consider very carefully what we do.

Such an engine concept suggests that there might be in the foreseeable future a sportier version of the R 1200 GS, similar to the Ducati Multistrada. What do you think? We already had an exclusive, sporty offshoot of the GS in the lineup: the HP Enduro and - if one draws the circle a little bigger - the HP Megamoto. Both models have enough power to deliver lots of driving fun. I also do not have the impression that our successful boxer GS models necessarily need even more power.

What do you prefer? The nostalgic charm and the simplicity of air cooled engines or the technical efficiency of water-cooled? In addition to purely technical conditions, it is very important to me the kind of product that is offered. The narrowest inline six-cylinder cannot be built with air-cooling. And the engine of the K 1600 or the very compact four-cylinder of the RR are very pleasing as water-cooled engines. A boxer engine should never have the appearance of an industrial engine.

"
-September 2011

[tallguy-09]

I'm curious about the first reviews of the V4 Crosstourer with Dual Clutch.
I thought those Cross Spoked Wheels were BMW unique??

[peter-k]

Good job! Just two minor corrections. They do not really change the meaning which you did capture. Well of course really good English is still something else.

The new EU guidelines for type approval are still far from resolved, and the air-cooled boxer complies with regulations for years to come. What reasons can you give that make the introduction of a water-cooled engine preferable? With the boxer, as it is conceived today, we can also meet the future limits for exhaust and noise. Nobody (or here: Nothing) forces us to towards water cooling.

What technical advantages do your engineers promise from the water-cooled boxer?

An air-cooled engine reaches when increasing performance thermodynamically and in connection with some individual materials at some point it's natural physical limits. Water cooling offers advantages here, though there would be an additional technical effort of pursuing water-cooling. As you know, additions usually mean weight. Therefore, we consider very carefully what we do.

[peter-k]

Originally Posted by tallguy-09

I'm curious about the first reviews of the V4 Crosstourer with Dual Clutch.
I thought those Cross Spoked Wheels were BMW unique??

That thing looks a lot lighter than it is. As a Varadero replacement it does make sense, indeed. As a GS replacement - not.

[thehomealien]

Thanks, peter-k! Those were the exact sentences that made no sense to me. I've altered them slightly and incorporated them into my post.

[tallguy-09]

Originally Posted by peter-k

That thing looks a lot lighter than it is. As a Varadero replacement it does make sense, indeed. As a GS replacement - not.

The 1200GS is really a 1200S and the GS designation moved on to the F800GS.
That's why I'm thinking Honda, Triumph, Ducati, Yamaha and BMW are all moving
towards what most people using those machines for: Long distance motorcycling.
The dual clutch V4 cold be nice (or not). I started 25 years ago with an '89 Transalp
and back then couldn't afford nor wanted an "old people" boxer :-) Today I love the BMW brand and my camhead but...

[peter-k]

If that was true then why people do not buy all an RT, and make this model to the No. 1? I think what you are doing here is giving the perfect example of misleading with figures.

It may be true that - say - 80 % of miles on a R12GS are clocked long distance touring, But does it also mean that 80 % of GS riders need to have a long distance tourer?

If the R12.5GS cuts off on the adventure side, it will be the beginning of the end of a long long success story, IMO. I am convinced that most want to have "die Wollmilchsau".

[vtbob]

Originally Posted by tallguy-09

The 1200GS is really a 1200S and the GS designation moved on to the F800GS.
That's why I'm thinking Honda, Triumph, Ducati, Yamaha and BMW are all moving
towards what most people using those machines for: Long distance motorcycling.
The dual clutch V4 cold be nice (or not). I started 25 years ago with an '89 Transalp
and back then couldn't afford nor wanted an "old people" boxer :-) Today I love the BMW brand and my camhead but...

I agree. The GS "look" has great appeal...but the reality of off road, single track or very bad road riding is not taken up by most GS riders. Many just do paved road touring. The advantage of the 19inch front and the option of a lot of useful bags contribute to this. Why so many put up with the insanely high (for road bike) height and tip toeing around is beyond me.

The new honda focus on this more core market...but it is really heavy.

[GB]

Originally Posted by tallguy-09

I'd say the 2 pictures are pretty close:

It's a pretty good photochop of the first picture... nothing new here.

[tallguy-09]

Originally Posted by peter-k

If that was true then why people do not buy all an RT, and make this model to the No. 1? I think what you are doing here is giving the perfect example of misleading with figures.

It may be true that - say - 80 % of miles on a R12GS are clocked long distance touring, But does it also mean that 80 % of GS riders need to have a long distance tourer?

If the R12.5GS cuts off on the adventure side, it will be the beginning of the end of a long long success story, IMO. I am convinced that most want to have "die Wollmilchsau".

This was the start 30 years ago, what happened then? You tell me :-)




Yes, the GS offers a fantastic seat/riding position and there's not much of a choice if you're 6'7"...
If I wanted to go off road I'd buy a 250 Yamaha.
I'm admitting it: To me the GS appeal is in the SUV styling, Boxer, BMW history and brand image.

[tagesk]

Originally Posted by tallguy-09

I'm admitting it: To me the GS appeal is in the SUV styling, Boxer, BMW history and brand image.

....and that it doesn't dive when you brake.

[TaSK]

[tallguy-09]

Originally Posted by tagesk

....and that it doesn't dive when you brake.
[TaSK]

Yes, I like that as well but the front end still feels a bit disconnected.
The GS is simply an excellent motorcycle to me and the sales figures tell the story.

[peter-k]

The difference in between an R 1200 GS and the SUV, is one really can, the other one looks only as if.

We can agree to disagree.

[dmac57]

So, no new news on the new bike then?