Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'GS Boxers' started by Dorsicano, Feb 3, 2011.
Not ironic if I WASN"T TALKING ABOUT A GS!
Adapt - get over it - what kind of conforming language is that?
I trust that BMW did it to save money by sourcing a standard switch, save money and satisfy the masses all at the same time - good for them.
The rest of us that truly enjoy the individually of a BMW - down to the smallest detail of even a switchgear will just have to be stuck in the past - I am actually fine with that.
Any info on pricing and availability?
The guy said it would be $100 less than the current model. It sounded like a line BMW has trained him to spit out reflexively. When I pressed for details it seemed like that price was for a very, very base model. There were no actual numbers posted anywhere. Still, the fact that it's in the ballpark price wise of the outgoing model is nice.
I suppose someone will be selling a kit, anybody buying one of these bikes can surely afford the whaleskin farkle.
That's not really surprising as it weighs the same as the old GS. The difference is that it was theoretically possible to get the old one without ABS and that made a few kg difference, but with it was also always measured around 240kg (new one is said to be 238kg, so I guess we can count that as the same).
What's your inseam? Just out of curiosity as I neither need to get both feet down nor would I have problems (I'm "only" 6' but can still flatfoot the current GS Adventure with the seat in high).
The more interesting question is: as BMW moved the intakes to the top of the cylinder and cleaned up the area behind them, did that make the bike feel more narrow in the area where you put your legs down at standstill? Just curious as my wife was asking. Don't think she'd ride a GS, but she probably could ...
Look at this comparison old vs. new:
I scaled them so that the handlebars are exactly the same width. Don't know whether that is actually true or not, the new one ends up being longer, but there is quite a difference in shape in the whole seat area. Very interesting. Could make it easier to handle for the shorter folks without actually sacrificing seat height or seat to peg distance.
I also thought that the windshield / fairing area was much wider, but it really isn't that much.
I also thought that the exhaust looked narrower than on the old, but from that perspective it really isn't. Looks about the same, just the other side. The more I look at this bike the more I like what I see.
Yeah, I was right. Checked the side pictures again, sizing by the front tire and the bike are pretty much the same length. Must be a slightly different perspective or lens creating the different length. But the seat is definitely very different. Looking forward to hopefully seeing the bike at the San Mateo IMS.
Never seen engine heads from the top before, look at it seems like right side engine is a tad bit behind while left is tad bit forward. Is that an accurate observation?
Obviously it does work, but why like that? Maybe my current oil head s like that too.
your oilhead is also offset. The crankpins are opposed 180*, if they were in line the conrods would collide, so they're offset by a little bit. This slight misalignment is what causes the "rocking couple" of the boxer, which is a back and forth oscillation in the yaw axis of the motorcycle, it's the primary source of felt vibes.
I've always wondered why BMW hasn't tried eliminating the offset (and presumably the rocking couple vibration) by using a forked conrod on one side with bearings on either side of the other side's bearings so that the two cylinders could be aligned.
sort of a not quite knife and fork? I'm not even remotely an engineer, but either you'd have a really big fork to make way for bearings, or you have no bearings and one of the conrods is supported by webbing only on both sides?
I imagine the big fork that allows bearings would make for a heavy conrod to deal with the bending of that conrod, and the small fork would have a heavy crankshaft so the webbing is beefy enough to support all that load?
It´s what Harley´s been doing for over a hundred years, so it must be bad
not quite, a knife and fork conrod arrangement on a horizontally opposed engine doesn't yield a boxer, the pistons move back and forth together not in opposition.
you guys do not visualize the boxer correctly. A knike and fork like you suggest would have one piston moving in while he other is moving out. In a boxer, both move out together, an d in together. Knife and fork would not do this.
Perhaps this will help
only one of us.
The wethead reduces the cylinder offset according to this:
Yes, I'm not talking about putting the two conrods on a common crankpin, I'm talking about having one conrod "forking" and being supported on two crank throws, each flanking a single throw for the other conrod.
The following illustration uses two conrods rather than a forked one and uses counterweights as bearing containers, but it illustrates the concept:
Other interesting stuff at this site:
Nice idea and it does solve the rocking couple but looking at it I can't help but think the crank would either be overly heavy or not very strong. It might just be because of the simplistic way it is drawn though that gives that impression.
Plus, two con rods weigh twice as much as one = out of balance reciprocating + rotating masses.
look closer, the "single" is a double. ;D