Opinions of the R1200GS

[Guest]

I test rode a GS1200 on 1st Feb at SPC Alton. My conclusions are as follows :-



ENGINE ; quite pokey with lots of Ïget up & goÓ between 4.5K & 7K. It red lines at 8250rpm. Not a lot below 3K. In fact I stalled it a few times trying to pull away gently. Let the revs drop too low and youÌre greeted with the BMW shake & judder. At 4K (70mph in top) itÌs dead smooth but everywhere else it vibrates a bit. I think it could get annoying on a long ride. The clutch is very sudden which contributed to the stalling.

HANDLING ; the steering is very light but without any stability problems. Neutral in corners. The suspension is too stiff making the ride very jiggly at slower speeds. The salesman described it as ÏsportyÓ. I prefer the suspension to absorb bumps not crash into them. I didnÌt notice anything wrong with the Paralever rear, which means that it must work OK. Of course you get the Ïanti-diveÓ effect with the Telelever front end which is a good thing because the brakes were very good at speed. However, at slow speeds they were very sudden, meaning that it was difficult to stop smoothly. The lever has no give in it, which means that there is little feel to the brakes. ItÌs a good job ABS is an option. The whole bike feels quite light so doing a bit of off-road should be OK.

COMFORT ; ergonomics were good. The seat was comfortable over the 50 miles I covered. The reach to the bars was typical trailie. The poor ride quality would spoil a good ride for me. I still donÌt think the switchgear is right i.e. the designer who assigned the lower LH button as the indicator instead of the horn, needs to be shot.  The clocks were easy to read with lots of info in the LCD panel.  Aerodynamics is OK. There is no buffeting but there is still a fair amount of wind roar. No wind hits your chest or head.

The cost of all this with Heated grips, ABS, luggage...£10500 OTR.



Comparing the above to my Tiger ;

ENGINE ;

If the GS has any advantage it is power and torque but itÌs not by much if at all. The Tiger has more and is useable between 1K and 3K.

The Triumph engine is smooth everywhere. The GS is not.

The Tiger clutch is more progressive and easier to control. The GSÌs is lighter.

HANDLING ;

I prefer the Tiger suspension. It has more give in it and thus gives a smoother ride but is still well damped and controlled. Not much in it going round corners.  

GS has the better brakes at speed but the Tigers are less grabby at low speeds. GS feels, and is, lighter.

The steering is lighter on the GS.

COMFORT ;

The Tiger has the better ride quality. Also has standard switchgear so itÌs easy to switch (sic) between different bikes.

CanÌt read the Tiger clocks under street lighting. CouldnÌt try the GS at night but has to be better.

Aerodynamics better on the GS. The Tiger has buffeting problems.

The cost of a Tiger with heated grips and luggage (no ABS yet)....£6999 OTR.



CONCLUSION :-

So thatÌs a difference in cost of £3501.

Is the GS better? In some areas, yes.  Is it £3500 better? No way!

Is it a significant step forward? No.

IÌll be keeping the Tiger for the foreseeable future. IÌll wait to see what Triumph do in 2006.

[Chris Canning]

Interesting reading about the motor,the biggest contradiction i've come across reading various mags and personnel assements is the performance aspect,in the latetest Bike mag he reckoned the Tiger had the quicker engine but most figures i've seen say the GS is.



Chris

[SIBBO]

A bit like something i said in another thread



Me and BP looked at all manner of bikes at this show but we both came to the same conclusion...................we honestly couldnt find anything we would swap our tiger for except maybe a newer one,lots of lovely bikes but nothing that offers the practicality,speed/power,looks,and value of the tiger all in one package.

KTM 950 adv nice but too much expensive plastic ,and that skinny saddle aint made for 500 mile days the kind of rider they expect is gonna be stood on the pegs for great lengths of time.

I personally used to be a fan of the GS(couldnt justify the extra ££££££s) but that thing is getting to look too space age,the BMW range seems to be morphing in to one machine.

How long before they do away with the adventure ?

 

Got to agree with your thoughts on cost etc but i will admit to not test riding one.

[ridin gaijin]

I test rode a GS1200 on 1st Feb at SPC Alton. My conclusions are as follows :-

Bravo to you for getting out there and playing the field. I'm with you on value (and especially those f^&*%#g turn signals), but not on power...don't our cats make more hp and more torque? From a smaller engine too?

[Chris Canning]

Not according to any of the facts and figures i've seen they don't.



Chris

[abell]

I don't think it matters regarding power - they are close enough that the difference is totally irrelevant.

[Chris Canning]

Not in my book it ain't.



Chris

[ridin gaijin]

Not according to any of the facts and figures i've seen they don't.

Ooo-kay...



The R1200GS displaces 1170 cc, makes 100 horsepower, and 85 lb-ft of torque (according to BMW motorrad).



The Tiger displaces 955 cc, makes 104 bhp, and 67 lb-ft of torque (according of course to Mother Triumph).



So I was only 2/3 right--on the displacement and horsepower figures. Too bad the BMW requires like 20% more displacement and an extra $4000 to make up the extra torque...and still comes up sucking on hp. Funny though, I think b/c of the power distribution curve I always felt the Tiger to be torque-ier. Torquier. More torque-y. Whatever.



Mea culpa.

[Kill Switch]

More horsepower?  Who needs more horsepower?  My 885 has more than enough.....really....just only hit 100 mph yesterday testing out the tires after having the bike for six months.  No problem getting there quickly from 80 mph with alot more to go.

[abell]

>Not in my book it ain't.



What ain't?





I don't really buy the "but it needs more displacement which sucks" argument. I've heard that from a Honda VFR owner, who didn't buy a Sprint ST because it "needs more displacement to make the same power". I don't really care about the bhp/liter equation. What matters is the engine's power and delivery characteristics.



After he spent a year trying to get his VFR to deliver power smoothly and spent a fortune on expensive maintenance because it's a complex engine, I think he saw my point.



Anyway to get back to the original point, I think worrying about a few pounds of torque or a few HP is missing the point - does this mean the bike with the highest figures is the fastest for any given rider?



I doubt it.



Besides, if you're riding a late model Tiger to the full extent of its abilities either on the road or off, and you feel that you need more power, at least your concerns will probably be short lived. You won't keep that pace for long without something horrific happening.

[Dick Boyer]

All joking aside. The HP, assuming you have a decent amout, and the same for torque has  little to do with anything. How the power comes on, is more important and how it feels when you're riding it in every day conditions. Last but not least lets not forget rider skill. When I was heavily involved in off road riding it was 80% rider and 20% bike, bikes being relatively equal.

[Brock]

Nice review H...I think that's the first time anyone's compared the Tiger directly with the GS12 on this thread.

Obviously it's business as usual with the brakes, vibration, agricultural drivetrain,etc etc.

Surprised that all the development and redesign thrown at the bike hasn't made it significantly better than the Tiger.

Sort of leaves the field up for grabs for Triumph when they do a proper upgrade.

[BigDave]

When I test drove the 12, it was hard to say if the engine was anymore powerful than the 955 as it was pretty tight & had some vibes. I seriously doubt that even a broken-in 12 can blast a 955 in a drag.  Buffeting was NOT good on the 12.  The gearbox was smooth but still had a bit of the clunk going into 1st. I didnt really like the feel of the bike especially with the 2 piece seat. I felt to far forward and leaning forward.  The bike felt great in the turns but overall the bike didnt really do it for me.

[greg]

As the great Mike Hailwood said you only need around 85bhp for road riding, because you can use all of it. I agree, I came to the Tiger from a Thunderace, which has around 45-50bhp more at the rear wheel. It didn't go any quicker unless in a  straight line, which was fun to use but hardly needed, and definitely left me very nervous about my licence. You get all the fun you need on a Tiger and if you feel that way it's not hard to stuff a sportsbike, sportsbike riders are mostly dick wavers or followers of fashion, lets face it. As  for the GS, they just don't feel £3,500 better than a Tiger.

[WildeKurt]

Peak HP figures can be fairly misleading.  What really matters is the area under the curve.  To see this you really need to compare dyno charts.  I think a rider will 'feel' he or she's riding a more powerful bike (and perhaps is) when most of the HP (tourque) is available throughout the usable engine speed range.  How many of us ride our bikes at redline under normal circumstances?



Also, from reviews I've seen in Motorcycle Consumer News, manufactuerer's HP ratings are typically inflated and usually reflect crank HP and not rear wheel numbers.  Not that they are intentionally inflated, they probably are taken from tip-top test engines and not regular production models.



That's my $0.02 worth.



Kurt