BMW R1200R R1150R/T F800 K1200R R1100R/T R1250R RnineT Message Board

I thoroughly enjoy my R1200R. However, legally, there is not a place in the US but some racetrack where I can fully access its power (really so for all modern bikes). When I feel my oats I am at 100mph before I can even enjoy it. I have been stopped before, but I also have had the good fortune of backing off the throttle just before a cop came around the next curve.

Doing long distance, riding in mountains, passing, the torque and power are handy. Riding to work I often feel I am not even letting the engine breathe.

Would a smaller Boxer like they used to make find acceptance among customers? Maybe between 600-900, depending on if you want to be ultra conservative or a bit more sporty?

I had an R65 in 1985. It was my first BMW. I was impressed with the quality, but I hated that it was so under powered. It vibrated so badly that I got special engine mounts that BMW offered for it. They only raised the start of the vibes by about 600-700 RPM. Better, but I never did warm up to this bike. My R1200R is another matter, lol.

Harald
Your letting logic and good common sense cloud your vision of what the North American (and now most of our European and down under friends) demand in a motorcycle. BMW tried with the R80 and R850 but in reality it cost almost as much to make them as the bigger bikes. In the land of bigger is better the little bikes don't stand a chance.
I own a few 'little' bikes and they are a joy to ride. Riding flat out and still not breaking the law is a whole different kind of fun, BUT if I'm looking at a 1,000 mile day or out West running across a few states to see a tourist attraction it's really nice to have a hundred horse pulling you.
The only resolve is to have at least two bikes, an old 750cc airhead is the perfect around town bike and they are simple enough to maintain yourself. Problem is one day you'll look at the old bike and think that would look great with a new paint job, then stainless spokes, maybe a small fairing, then custom tank and exhaust, then a new seat, soon you'll have something that looks like this:

ASk me how I know.

There's no such thing as too much horsepower.

mogu83 wrote:The only resolve is to have at least two bikes, an old 750cc airhead is the perfect around town bike and they are simple enough to maintain yourself.

Yes, a separate commuter. I have thought of getting an airhead off and on. I think it would be fun. I am simply thinking out loud and wondering why there are no newer such models and why bigger is always better. I assume riding an old, small bike is okay and legitimized by sentimental feelings that go with it.

It's ironic to read this. I was musing during the week: wouldn't a new-technology R80R be swell?

It would, and it ain't going to happen. Mogu83 gave the economic reason, to which I'd add that BMW also tried with the K75 series, which like the R850 cost almost as much to build as its larger siblings but, because of its smaller motor, could only be sold for a significantly lower price. The R65 vibration problem mentioned by hankth is not a big obstacle: some didn't mind the vibes, and for those who did - like me - replacing the front motor spacers with rubber slugs hacksawed from 283 Chevy motor mounts killed them entirely.

And yet...I was thinking about it. I ride the R12R to work, and I'm ashamed to say how short a ride that is. The bike is bigger than it needs to be for this use. I remember fondly the four /2 bikes that preceeded the R65. An airhead would fit in the garage. Hmmm.

curmudgeon wrote:There's no such thing as too much horsepower.

Or fuel (pilot)...

Or ammo (Army)...

Or megatonage on target ... (don't ask!)

A smaller displacement boxer would not make sense unless the corresponding bike had drastically reduced weight and price. Cost savings of building a smaller boxer engine would be minimal. Based on past models weight is not likely to be reduced. Take the R80ST for comparison:

Displacement, 800 cc
Power, 50 HP (optimistic)
Weight, 437 lbs.
MPG, 55 (?)

Basically the same weight as the R1200R with less than half the power. Can't see room for BMW to reduce the cost more than a couple of hundred dollars for the smaller displacement engine.

Mark_1

As a rider of an R850R, 1998 model, I can say that I love my wee boxer, but, while I don't know about the speeding laws elsewhere, here in Oz, my wee boxer can still, very easily, win me a ride in the back of the cop car.

Frankly, it hauls me, and occasionally, my wife and a heap of luggage, at more than adequate speeds, any time I ask it to.

It also has some slight benefits from having the "wee" engine in that insurance is somewhat more sensible in price than for its bigger brothers.

I have tried the current BMW 800s on offer and found them well underwhelming for my needs.

If BMW still offered the option of an 850 motor, I would be very interested in buying one, while I am not tempted to the 1200 at all.

I will admit that, when I feel the need to be a hooligan, I ride my Triumph Street Triple 675, so the R850R isn't required to do that kind of thing.

regards,CrazyCam

hjsbmw wrote:Would a smaller Boxer like they used to make find acceptance among customers? Maybe between 600-900, depending on if you want to be ultra conservative or a bit more sporty?

It's not a Boxer, but what about the 800R, on its way to the USA in a few months?

I'd be interested in a small boxer with the R12R's suspension and brakes. The 'ideal' bike would be fully designed as a small capacity motor and bike - not just a sleeved down big bike. It wouldn't need the balance shaft and could be a light, balanced little machine at perhaps 180kgs (dry). ABS, paralever shaft and telelever front would round out the package.

I've owned both an R65LS and an R80, both very sweet little machines. The 1984 R65LS (pre-monoshock) was a short-stroke version of the R80 motor, in a frame that was 1" lower than the R80. the result was a small, somewhat revvy boxer in a very easy package. (The monoshock R65 was a sleeved-down R80 .. absolutely pointless) The R80 always seemed about the optimum boxer size ... it really purred, and had no need of the balance shaft we have in our R12 ...

As much as I loved those bikes in their day, they wouldn't cut it now. The R80 required a very deliberate riding style that involved carrying speed into corners to avoid the torque reaction (and anaemic acceleration) of trying to power out of a corner. Sweet, yes - flexible, no. The R65 was an easier bike, but it's power was very, very underwhelming (it did share the garage with a K100RT)

The closest BMW has recently come to the R65LS was the F650CS - a very easy little package at 179kg dry with ABS. A great litlle city bike that could (and did) tour quite well. The F800R is, IMHO, neither fish nor fowl. It lacks luggage, has a chain, and really seems to be a less-sharp version of the midsize Ducati Monsters ... plus it's ugly and has b=nothing like the grace of the small boxers ... the F650GS (twin) is porbably a better bike for urban use: same motor but a more usable torque curve, and on my test rdes, no noticeable pwoer deficit (in the real world) .. but it still has a chain. what are you thinking, BMW (yes, I know .. these are bike designed to woo jap-crap riders).

So my R65 / R80 is a Vespa. And in my city, it's perfect! I'm very attracted to the new concept scooter. that nice 800cc twin, in a CVT / step-thru package .. where do I sign????

I'm spending some time on a small island in the Caribbean, Grand Cayman Island. I note that the motorcycles that I see are Japanese crotch rockets with an uncomfortable riding position, capable of warp speeds despite the island upper speed limit of 50mph and lots of police presence. What are these fools thinking? A scooter or a Honda 230 would be just about right for these roads, but horsepower sells, for sure. I think the Baby Boxer is a thing of the past...

I wouldn't hold out for a smaller CC Boxer anytime soon or at all. The way I'm reading it, the R1200R is the latest incarnation of the classic BMW Boxer (sans the GS which has it bolted onto an enduro chassis). The refinement and the diversity (R1200R/GS) shows BMW's committment to this fine engine.

I agree with the hint of previous posts that the machining, tooling and production of a small displacement Boxer would only shave a few hundred USD off and make for a marketing challenge "same price, less horsepower..." Not exactly the direction I see BMW going to.

For lower power, lower pricetag and entry riders the newer 800's seem to be the test for BMW.

You may find your heart settling on adopting a classic BMW and learning to adapt to the quirks while enjoying the modest horsepower. I wish you well in your quest.

This is what killed the K75. It was only marginally cheaper to make than a K100 (1 piston, 1 rod, and 2 Valves, springs and shims), but was expected to sell for significantly less money.

I'd be interested in a smaller Boxer, with one caveat: it has to be lighter and easier to manage than the current boxer-engined bikes. Cost is secondary (to me, anyway).

In the meantime, I'm with Caroanbill: my Vespa (at about 320 pounds) is the preferred city bike.

Actually BMW manufactures a smaller boxer; the R900RT !
878 ccm / 61 kW (83 bhp) / 83 Nm (Practically the same power as my old R1150 Rockster: 85 bhp)
Sadly enough it's only available in RT-trim and for authorities only.

http://www.bmw-motorrad-authorities.com ... _main.html

hjsbmw......your post doesn't make much sense, other than the question of what a modern-day smaller displacement boxer would be like. That is to say, anyone who has to be above 100 mph before they can enjoy their motorcycle is doomed to die. Don't get me wrong, I'm a long time knee-dragger, and my R12R see's some serious speed & manuvers; but it's acceleration I'm addicted too, not absolute speed. I get the most fun wringing out my RD400 through tight twisties that keep the top speed down in the 80 mph range, and then only briefly at those speeds (think Deals Gap type stuff).

Get a smaller sportbike and join a sportbike club that has access to nearby tracks for track-day racing.

Here's what I use.....

Ric wrote:hjsbmw......your post...

Let me assure you, you thoroughly misinterpreted my post. It didn't occur to me that it be could read that way.

Ric wrote:hjsbmw......your post doesn't make much sense, ------ That is to say, anyone who has to be above 100 mph before they can enjoy their motorcycle is doomed to die

WOW isn't the internet great. I had to look at hjsbmw's posts to see what I missed. Ric - do you work for a major news agency? Seems like the kind of imaginative news reporting we're getting now days.
I read hjsbmw post to reflect the old saying: You can have more fun riding a slow bike fast than you can have riding a fast bike slow.

mogu83 wrote:

Ric wrote:hjsbmw......your post doesn't make much sense, ------ That is to say, anyone who has to be above 100 mph before they can enjoy their motorcycle is doomed to die

WOW isn't the internet great. I had to look at hjsbmw's posts to see what I missed. Ric - do you work for a major news agency? Seems like the kind of imaginative news reporting we're getting now days. I read hjsbmw post to reflect the old saying: You can have more fun riding a slow bike fast than you can have riding a fast bike slow.

Agreed, that's the sentiment I got from hjsbmw's post as well. I've often had similar thoughts as hjsbmw and am in fact looking for a smaller, lighter, less powerful bike with handling on par with the R12R, not to replace the R12R but in addition to the R12R. I love the character of twins and I'd love a bike that allowed this old brain more time to enjoy the ride and required more effort to ride quickly. I've been looking at the 690 Duke for this purpose. If the F800R was offered with a belt, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. A modern 750 boxer with weight proportional to it's 65-70 bhp would be just the ticket. But I agree that the cost would be too high for acceptance by the general market. It's a shame that all the technological advances haven't produced a modern, light, upspec'd ride with a motor that can be serviced without the need for computers and specialty equipment.

cheers,