Has anyone ridden the R1200ST?

[ranmar850]

I was in the dealers having the Rockster serviced the other day, and when I returned the 650 Dakar loan bike there was a R1200ST demo out the front. I still love the Rockster after almost a year and 10,000Km--ok, that isn't much , but half of it has been done in the past couple of months as I commute to work each week, 320km each way. Then throw in some weekend riding, and 99% of my K's are open road. The Rockster is absolutely happy at 130km/hr with the Wunderlich sport screen--a lot faster than that , too, but I need my licence . How is the ST on the open road, and in the tight stuff--I'm not old enough for an RT

[riceburner]

I was in the dealers having the Rockster serviced the other day, and when I returned the 650 Dakar loan bike there was a R1200ST demo out the front. I still love the Rockster after almost a year and 10,000Km--ok, that isn't much , but half of it has been done in the past couple of months as I commute to work each week, 320km each way. Then throw in some weekend riding, and 99% of my K's are open road. The Rockster is absolutely happy at 130km/hr with the Wunderlich sport screen--a lot faster than that , too, but I need my licence . How is the ST on the open road, and in the tight stuff--I'm not old enough for an RT

I hated it.

oh it's a competant bike, and nice enough on the open road (the screen isn't brilliant though), but there's no low down grunt, you need to be a gearchange virtuoso, and there's NO onboard storage (eg under seat).

I found it soulless and purposeless frankly. There's better tourers, better scratchers, and better townbikes. The ST tries to do everything and fails at them all. (imo). Stick a small screen on the Rockster and save your money for trips

[leno]

I totally agree, souless but capable bike. I could never love it but I'm sure it could do the job no problems. I found the performace quite good it does lack a little pull down low. The rider position was good but due to the amount of town work I do not the best for me. If it looked a bit better I might have been tempted but I can't see and huge benifit in the bike.

[fnfalman]

I didn't get to ride the ST on an open road for any extended period of time but I liked it. The engine, thanks to the counterbalancer, is much smoother than before yet you can still feel the weird vibration of the boxer twin. I can feel the slightly less down low grunt, but the engine is a lot more powerful than before and revs much quicker with power coming up in a greater rush. If I were to want to "feel the down low grunt", I'd buy me a Harley

The heaviness feel of the front end is gone. Thank God for that. The bike leans much easily into a corner and feel supremely stable.

The gearbox had gotten worse though. If you think that the previous gearbox is vague, this one is totally nebulous.

I think that it's a great sport tourer for those who prefer the sport portion over the tour portion.

I'm not into sport touring, but if I were, I'd buy it before I buy the RT. I don't go for extremely heavy bikes ladened with sound systems and all that stuff.

[riceburner]

I can feel the slightly less down low grunt, but the engine is a lot more powerful than before and revs much quicker with power coming up in a greater rush. If I were to want to "feel the down low grunt", I'd buy me a Harley

Yet another person who doesn't understand 'grunt'.

Unless you ride on straight roads at full throttle or on track a lot then torque at high revs isnt terribly useful. (Power figures are merely torque multiplied by revs and thus is a meaningless figure on the road).

The 1150 engine has a nice flat torque curve that means you don't need to play tunes on the gearbox to make good progress in a typical road situation. That has always been the Boxer engine's classic trick. You can ride the 1150 engine in one gear from 10mph to 100mph. It will pull a high gear from very low revs.... that's good torque.

the 1200 boxer engine has been re-engineered to have a torque performance that's similar to an inline 4 (-ish). That means that you can't ride it like the 1150, it's harder work, and because it won't pull away from a junction it's ultimately less satisfying to ride. (imo) It may well have a higher peak power figure and higher peak torque, but it feels crap.

[vinman]

If what they mean by "soul-less" is a bike that is very, very smooth, easy to ride, turns in easily, comfortable, and has a complete lack of wind buffeting, then sure, call it "soul-less".

Its a nice bike. It does everything its supposed to do and plenty power. I had no problem with teh gear box. Gear changes were very smooth, a much improved gearbox over our roadsters.

I think the problems or dislikes that others have posted simply have to do with teh fact that the R1200ST just doesn't present any odd noises (other than the ABS whine), is quiet, and well just very, very smooth. its a bike that at first you may feel has no character but you'll find yourself hitting curve after curve ALL DAY LONG.

[ranmar850]

Ok, now I'm REALLY interested--polarised opinions can be very illuminating--no half-hearted endorsements. I see where the proponents of the 1150 are coming from--the engine is so useable. Very rare to have to drop a gear on the highway-rockets from sub-100km/h to 160 without a shift, very useful for overtakes. I have no problems whatsoever with the handling-love it. Love the whole bike, really, just wondering if the ST would suit my almost entirely open road useage better.
I'll be sampling the 1200 engine is GS form in april, when we have one booked in NZ for a holiday. Anyone else care to comment?

[beekstersocal]

dean-o owns one and i believe we were all chasing him at the beeksterbash last year

[jamming]

I traded my 03 R1150R off for a R1200ST.
Its a niche bike, great motor, you think ithas no low end grunt? I have to disagree.
I've had mine a little over 3 weeks and racked up 2700 miles so far, commuting, riding mountians, extended highway travel, and I LOVE IT!
Very comfortable, seat sucks but IMO all BMW stock seats suck. I would like the bars a bit higher, and that I can fix.
The hard cases are great. I now have a stock topcase with a backrest for the wife.
Way less vibration than my R, handles wonderfully, love to hunt Squids on it. Now that I have said all that, maybe you should know I 've racked
up about 400,000 in 25 years on mostly RS's, so the seating of the ST suits me. I'm 5'7" with a 30 inch inseam.
The ST is one of those you bike's you love or hate.
I miss my R, but the ST is the bike for me.
Roger

[Lion_Lady]

I test rode one a couple weeks ago. Own a Rock.

Its different from the 1150. The 'twitch' at throttle up is gone.

I found myself hanging off the seat around curves... felt so squidly

Smooth power. It didn't SOUND like a BMW to me. I like the grumbly-ness of the 1150.

I've only been riding for 3 years. Logged 20K miles total, 12K on the Rock. I'm not not a fanatic or terribly techie.

P

[Bry]

Geez Ranmar,

It's great I bought the first one here!


Quick motor, way smoother for slipping out of town...

Round town the rockster was better... but once you want to have some distance fun the ST's a gem!

(get a red and black.. just in case.. may need parts )

Bry

[ranmar850]

Bry, how many bikes do you own?-are you saying you bought an ST before the Rockster, or in parallel, kept it when you bought the K bike?or what..I'd probably like to keep them all. BTW, that screen is great, makes the bike. Y-pipe is perfect, had to have the can welded, didn't matter as the integral heat shield/clamp hides it.
I'll be in Perth next weekend -two visits in three weeks, unheard of- Think i'll go back to AC and have that ride.

[riceburner]

If what they mean by "soul-less" is a bike that is very, very smooth, easy to ride, turns in easily, comfortable, and has a complete lack of wind buffeting, then sure, call it "soul-less".

Its a nice bike. It does everything its supposed to do and plenty power. I had no problem with teh gear box. Gear changes were very smooth, a much improved gearbox over our roadsters.

I think the problems or dislikes that others have posted simply have to do with teh fact that the R1200ST just doesn't present any odd noises (other than the ABS whine), is quiet, and well just very, very smooth. its a bike that at first you may feel has no character but you'll find yourself hitting curve after curve ALL DAY LONG.

I never said it was a bad bike, or slow or anything like that. I just said that I don't like it and explained why.

[Bry]

Bry, how many bikes do you own?-are you saying you bought an ST before the Rockster, or in parallel, kept it when you bought the K bike?or what..I'd probably like to keep them all. BTW, that screen is great, makes the bike. Y-pipe is perfect, had to have the can welded, didn't matter as the integral heat shield/clamp hides it.
I'll be in Perth next weekend -two visits in three weeks, unheard of- Think i'll go back to AC and have that ride.

LOL! I've had close to forty, but sadly it's mainly 1 or 2 at a time! nowadays I have the ST and a the wife has the Yamaha Majesty. I traded the rockster on the ST... it's a great bike to be sure.
Really pleased to hear the stuff works ok!

Bry

[fnfalman]

I can feel the slightly less down low grunt, but the engine is a lot more powerful than before and revs much quicker with power coming up in a greater rush. If I were to want to "feel the down low grunt", I'd buy me a Harley

Yet another person who doesn't understand 'grunt'.

Unless you ride on straight roads at full throttle or on track a lot then torque at high revs isnt terribly useful. (Power figures are merely torque multiplied by revs and thus is a meaningless figure on the road).

The 1150 engine has a nice flat torque curve that means you don't need to play tunes on the gearbox to make good progress in a typical road situation. That has always been the Boxer engine's classic trick. You can ride the 1150 engine in one gear from 10mph to 100mph. It will pull a high gear from very low revs.... that's good torque.

the 1200 boxer engine has been re-engineered to have a torque performance that's similar to an inline 4 (-ish). That means that you can't ride it like the 1150, it's harder work, and because it won't pull away from a junction it's ultimately less satisfying to ride. (imo) It may well have a higher peak power figure and higher peak torque, but it feels crap.

Give me a break I don't know down low grunt? I only have my Rockster for a year and twenty thousand miles I have dynoed my Rock with and without the Power Commander. Its torque curve is anything but flat. Most of the torque is down low and thus gives you the feeling that it's flat, but it's far from flat.

The torque on the new R1200R is probably a lot flatter and fatter. Fatter for sure. You just don't feel it because the counterbalancer takes a way a lot of the vibration so you don't think that the engine works as hard.

There's only one way to find out. Somebody with the new R1200 engine puts it on a dyno and see how it compares to the R1150 engine.

As for me, I'll take the new boxer any day over the old one. More power, more torque, smoother, revs faster. Like I said, if I were to want to feel "torque down low" and nothing else, I'd be riding a Hardley-Ableson.

[2ndM3]

I was in the dealers having the Rockster serviced the other day, and when I returned the 650 Dakar loan bike there was a R1200ST demo out the front. I still love the Rockster after almost a year and 10,000Km--ok, that isn't much , but half of it has been done in the past couple of months as I commute to work each week, 320km each way. Then throw in some weekend riding, and 99% of my K's are open road. The Rockster is absolutely happy at 130km/hr with the Wunderlich sport screen--a lot faster than that , too, but I need my licence . How is the ST on the open road, and in the tight stuff--I'm not old enough for an RT

I hated it.

oh it's a competant bike, and nice enough on the open road (the screen isn't brilliant though), but there's no low down grunt, you need to be a gearchange virtuoso, and there's NO onboard storage (eg under seat).

I found it soulless and purposeless frankly. There's better tourers, better scratchers, and better townbikes. The ST tries to do everything and fails at them all. (imo). Stick a small screen on the Rockster and save your money for trips

I traded my Rockster for the ST and I love it. It outperforms the old engine by far, the handling is excellent and great all-around bike for me, 80+mph freeways, canyons, etc, etc... low grunt, high grunt...It's just completely different bike. My opinion is exactly opposite what he said. I loved my Rockster...but now have no regrets about trading it.

[fnfalman]

2ndM3,

Are you the one that I chatted with at the Rock Store on Saturday 4 FEB 05? I was with the red Tuono.

[2ndM3]

2ndM3,

Are you the one that I chatted with at the Rock Store on Saturday 4 FEB 05? I was with the red Tuono.

Yep, It's me, and now I know who you're. I loved your Tuono, remember. I'll will see ya some time.

[ranmar850]

OK,Bry, now I understand--sorry for dragging up an old thread, but I've been away for two weeks. I thought you had traded the Rockster on a K 1200s, not an R1200ST. I went back to AC to have that ride last weekend, but it was sitting at home in the service managers garage
Some other time; I have to be down within the next month, so I'll ring ahead this time.
thanks for all the input, people

[jamais]

Only through curiosity, I've watched 3 STs for sale on ebay during the last three weeks. These bikes were standard offerings without accessories. None of the bikes were over a year old and none had over 3000 miles as best as I can remember. The opening bid price set by the sellers averaged $11K. None of the three bikes got so much as one bid!