2014 BMW R 1200 GS

[Metiger]

HI All

I have tried to search the site to see if anyone has compared the Tex to the new GS 1200 ?. I am thinking of a change and feel that I should own at least one BMW in my life but don't want to waste money .

Anyone done a long test ride on one ?

[redmerle]

I did the comparison myself. I wouldn't say it was a long test ride though; I got all of around 10 miles before stopping for a coffee, turning around and heading back. I didn't like it to such an extent that, if they had offered to come and pick me and the bike up from the cafe, in one of their vans, I'd have jumped at the chance. No, really, I would have!

Top of the list were:

Agricultural gearbox
Very narrow usable rev range; it needed at least 3,000 rpm to run well and beyond 4-5,000 rpm it was just too rough to be any fun at all
Seat stratospherically high, compounded by forks that don't dive and a shaft drive that makes the bike rise for no apparent reason.
Seat much less spacious than the Explorer
Analogue instruments hopeless.
You'd have to really want a flat twin to put up with the width of the motor.
If someone tells you that their flat twin has "character", they can only be confusing vibration with character!

This is one for the BMW faithful only (and the media to fawn over, for some reason  ).

[Yamaone]

Good rely, glad someone shares my opinion of that bike.   
British magazines have fallen all over themselves praising the GS and test after test against the Explorer it has came out on top, or so they say.
From all the excitement you'd think the thing has 200 HP and weighs 300 pounds.
I've ridden the GS, it's reputation is widely over exaggerated IMO.
One magazine said the GS sounds like a bike you want to take off road whereas the Explorer sounded to much like a Speed Triple.
That sounds like the editor said go out and come up with something to bitch about on the Exp. and give the GS the win.
BMW is spending more on advertising than Triumph. 

[Cuchulainn]

Originally Posted by redmerle

Top of the list were:

Agricultural gearbox
Very narrow usable rev range; it needed at least 3,000 rpm to run well and beyond 4-5,000 rpm it was just too rough to be any fun at all
Seat stratospherically high, compounded by forks that don't dive and a shaft drive that makes the bike rise for no apparent reason.
Seat much less spacious than the Explorer
Analogue instruments hopeless.
You'd have to really want a flat twin to put up with the width of the motor.
If someone tells you that their flat twin has "character", they can only be confusing vibration with character!

I have been out on a 1200GS three times now. The last torn because they allowed me to use their demo bike for an hour or so while they were doing to work on my bike.  That did give me the opportunity to take it up one of the local canyon roads and through some twisties.

I think I may have found it more comfortable than you did.  I also think it is maybe a little better balanced than the Explorer, carrying is  CoG a little lower.

Other than that, I think the balance of your review is spot on.  I was constantly annoyed by that narrow useable rev range and how often I had to shift the bike up and down.  The analog speedo is about worthless.  You almost need reading glasses to make out what speed you are going.  It felt vibey, clunky abs agricultural.  It certainly wasn't much fun.  I tried going back and forth between several of the modes.  I tried switching back and forth between several of the drive modes. The differences seemed quite subtle, more of a placebo affect to make you feel as though you have actively made a choice, rather than actual benefit.

If I felt the need to buy a BMW, it would have to be the K1300 GT.

[Fuze]

I rented a fully optioned wethead GS1200 on my last holiday in California.  I toured with my sweetie 2 up.
It was a good riding bike.  I figured that I was going to buy one cause of all the glowing reviews etc.

my summary
The GS - the good
-I like the tele front end w/o dive, nice for 2 up.
-I liked the motor when you revved it high, I liked 7,000+ rpm
-roomy for two people
-nice brakes
-cruise control
-nice dash computer information and easy to read and use

GS - the bad
-agricultural transmission, my sweetie was tired of the banging in city driving almost as soon as we picked it up. My biggest beef.
-at normal hyw cruising the motor shakes.  A low frequency shake.  The whole time I rode I wondered if I could live with the shaking.  An option would be to cruise in 4th gear, maybe 5th to smooth out hyw cruising.  If you spin it high enough it is very smooth. 
-the swingarm rubbed my left boot heel.  I could always feel the movement rubbing my boot.
-the throttle, I would unintentionally give the throttle a shot when I was braking or generally squeezing the grips.  Not good in low speed manouvering, eroded my confidence in control.
-the analog tach and speedo - poor use of what could have been the best feature.
-the side stand position, too far forward for use.
-didn't notice any difference in the different riding modes


That was my general impression of the GS.  I was told not to ride the new GS unless you could afford one because you will crave it after.  A total myth.  It was good, but not that good.  If the GS is to be as good as the hype, it needs a better tranny for a start.

[Metiger]

I just want to make sure we talking about the new water cooled version? I have ridden the 2013 model and all your comments are spot on for that one but I have heard the new one is far better 

[John_Lickman]

For what it's worth, I tested the GS and the Explorer, back-to-back, as part of my selection process.  Each test lasted 2 to 3 hours and covered about 120 miles of motorway, fast A-roads and twisty B-roads.  I thought the GS was a good bike, but that the Explorer was clearly better!

GS positives included:
- Mirrors that didn't vibrate at all.  The TEX ones vibrate slightly, but not too much.
- Lots of electronic toys (engine modes, electronic suspension pre-load settings, etc), but they were just that - toys.

However, the key differentiators, for me, were:
- Frankly, the Triumph makes a better noise!  People turned to watch me during my test ride.  On the BMW, I just puttered along, unnoticed.
- The BMW gearbox was awful!  I really didn't get on with it.
- The triumph clocks were much clearer and easier to read.  I could hardly read the speedo on the GS!
- I couldn't get used to the anti-dive characteristics of the suspension.  I guess that's what separates the Beemer fans from the rest of us.
- Finally, the GS was 3 grand more expensive, for a bike I liked less.  No brainer really. 

Hope that helps 

[Cuchulainn]

Yes, definitely the new water cooled version. Absolutely. Whoever told you that the new ones are far better either sells them or owns one.  They are marginally better than the previous versions, certainly by no means "far better."  Some evolutionary changes, nothing revolutionary. 

[the burpster]

My findings are thus.

It depends if you are a potterer or you occasionally like a 'spirited' ride. I like th eG at speeds below 70. It feels a wee bit smoother and more torquey than the air cooled it replaced (bear in mind I had an air cooled 12GS for 7 years).

Sadly above 70 it felt vague and unstable and not a patch on the older one. When I asked the dealer ( again bear in mind it's the same one as my triumph one and I have a really good relationship with them) if they had one with different tyres as I didn't trust it enough to ride it properly they kinda just shuffled away embarrassed........

Same issues as above, clocks ridiculous. Gearbox dreadful. I actually love tele lever suspension but cannot forgive on the new GS. It's overpriced.

The Explorer remains quicker sweeter sounding and, way more stable. It is cheaper and easier to live with and only has a couple of quirks as opposed to the GS that has had something fundamental changed with the front suspension that is to its detriment if you want to ride it with gusto.....

[redmerle]

Originally Posted by METIGER

I just want to make sure we talking about the new water cooled version? I have ridden the 2013 model and all your comments are spot on for that one but I have heard the new one is far better

Yes, it was the WC version of the bike. If this is "far better" than the old bike, I wouldn't risk my neck by taking the old one out on a public road!

And another thing, the sales patter from the staff who were used to talking the poor punter up from the already high asking price to the £15,000+ + + price tag, for a machine that was anything like the one that I had test ridden. had quite the opposite one from that intended. As he listed all the extras that I would need to "protect the value of my investment", it struck me just how very little actually came as standard on the basic bike