Hypothetical New Bike Purchase Poll

shreddr · shreddr's Garage

There has been a lot of discussion of the very worthy and innovative SKRR launch and many of you are seriously considering purchase or have already put down a deposit.

The SKRR is a fabulous machine, and seems to be leading the category for the first time in a long time (if ever!), so here is the hypothetical part:

This is the died in the wool boxer twin site, that is embroiled in an I4 discussion. My question is if BMW was launching a totally revamped RxxxxS would we still be discussing the worthiness of the SKRR? Suppose BMW had announced that along with the SKRR they were launching the R1300SWC, with ~165HP and all the electronic bells and whistles that are making the SKRR such a groundbreaking launch. Would you still be lined up for the SKRR or would the new twin be the obvious choice? The outcome of this poll will really tell where the passion of this forum lay.

BumbleBeemer36 · 12-31-2009, 06:34 AM

As said before, I sold my Honda CBR929RR this year to buy a F650GS (single). I hope to never own a bike with more than 2 cylinders ever again. I'm impressed by the SKRR but wouldn't ever want to own one. If something happened to my R11S it might be replaced by an R12S or this Fictional R13 but more likely I would go to an R12GS.

R12GS.... Need to add that to my New Years resolution post.

macfly · 12-31-2009, 07:10 AM

I voted for the R1300S, but I honestly wouldn't want a watercooled flat twin, and nor do I really care if the next one is a 1200 or a 1300, but I would certainly buy a modern version of the R1200S, especially if they could shed another 25-30lbs from it.

I also have the Lo Rider concept on my long term shopping list, I love the idea of that one.

Bob Hancock · 12-31-2009, 07:12 AM

It'll take something like the R13S to replace my R12S. I have all the I-4 I want.

cageyar · cageyar's Garage

The S1000RR is pushing the envelope for I4 performance and as a result is a much narrower focus bike. Unless you want to ride your sport bike around in rain mode all the time which seems to defeat it's purpose.
I voted for an R12S replacement, ideally the same all around machine with a 1300 DOHC air-cooled boxer. Otherwise, I'll keep my R12S.

peter f · 12-31-2009, 08:03 AM

RR for me please (all black - obviously).

peter f · 12-31-2009, 08:07 AM

PS: theoretical 100% TPS ponies ...and real-life part TPS ponies they differ VASTLY.

(RSV4/1198S/RC8R/HP2S shown - BIKE Nov 09)

ErricZ · 12-31-2009, 08:27 AM

r1300 but only if the DTC includes an FRK

AZ-Twin · 12-31-2009, 08:34 AM

1. Shreddr, I vote for neither, I would like to see a new flat twin but keep it air cooled, I don't care for a water cooled bike unless absolutely necessay, and getting 150 HP instad of 120 is not necessary for a street bike IMHO.

2. Can someone explain the purpose of a partial throttle dyno run? If I only have the throttle partially opened, and I need more power, I open it a little farther. If I run out of ponies WFO, that is when I want more, not when I crack the throttle a bit in town. Is this partial throttle dyno just just marketing, "hey, we look better here than there, so let's make a big deal out of it?"

groundhog105 · 12-31-2009, 08:52 AM

I would go for a air or water cooled flat twin as long as the service and maintenance did not increase in complexity. That was a big reason for me to go from Aprilia to BMW. That and the Aprilia did not have good product support.

peter f · 12-31-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZ-Twin

2. Can someone explain the purpose of a partial throttle dyno run? If I only have the throttle partially opened, and I need more power, I open it a little farther. If I run out of ponies WFO, that is when I want more, not when I crack the throttle a bit in town. Is this partial throttle dyno just just marketing, "hey, we look better here than there, so let's make a big deal out of it?"

Partial TPS graphs ARE real-life (VS the theoretical 100% situation) because in most occasions (at least in canyon riding and such - forget racing) you run out of road before running out or rpm (and that's especially true in a boxer engine - not a manic Blade by any means).

I know that this sounds rather odd (after all, for years mags and makers they publish the "classic" 100% TPS part of the equation) but ...well...I had a very strange proof the other day:

As you probably know there's an auto-tune RB pro gizmo (NOT like the PC4 one) at a cool 3K (meaning that you can find it only in a tuner) that constantly monitors your engine (kinda a "weird" data logger) and adjusts your maps "on-the-fly" accordingly trying to achieve the optimum (so to speak).

Anyway...forget the auto-tune part of the story and stick to the data logger thing...you wouldn't believe the stats on that little matter : I mean how long and on what TPS percentage you operate the bike, no matter with what gusto you ride it.

For me : 100% TPS graphs are the art of pointless (and totally fictitious for real-life/real-roads/real-people).

The only mag around that starts (gradually) to accept that fact is BIKE.

peter f · 12-31-2009, 08:59 AM

PS: If anyone is interested to start seeing dyno graphs in a totally different perspective > I could scan an excellent article in a recent BIKE by Simon H (I like that fella, he has an interesting cynic perspective on most things).

ErricZ · 12-31-2009, 09:23 AM

i <3 BIKE UK! They are the bestest ever magazine. I also believe in the 40% TO graph since how often are you really at WOT? How much does peak bhp REALLY matter away from MotoGP or the drag strip? I think torque matters more on the road OR the track and this helps correlate that "kick in pants" you feel from a Rocket 3 at low throttle openings vs. a CBR600RR with skyhigh RPM ceilings.

peter f · 12-31-2009, 09:32 AM

PS: and of course a "sky" revving non DOHC boxer > like mine after a very unfortunate...er...moment (blame the RB3 +1000prm capability, he he).

PS: new R13S > ride-by-wire? (I do hope so). Nose heavy design? (ditto).

markjenn · 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter f

PS: theoretical 100% TPS ponies ...and real-life part TPS ponies they differ VASTLY.

Never understood the brit magazines fascination with the 40% throttle BS. If a bike makes less power at 40% who cares? If the Belchfire 2000 makes less power at 40% than the Blaster 200 makes at 40%, I'll roll on the throttle to 57% or whatever. Why obsess over the shape of the cam in the twistgrip?

Now it might be interesting to map how power increases with throttle opening at various RPM's. For example, 0%-100% throttle power at a fixed RPM. This would tell you how linear the throttle is at building power. But worrying about this at a fixed 40%? It doesn't make any technical sense whatsoever. I could put in a throttle cam (or software for a drive by wire system) that would make any bike look the best at 40% throttle.

- Mark

macfly · 12-31-2009, 10:20 AM

the other thing I'd add is that drive line lash as you roll on and off the throttle is a big factor in how enjoyable the bike is on the open road, and no one measures that. it really spoils HP2mm ride.

Guest24 · 12-31-2009, 11:20 AM

I'm really happy with my HP2S/R12RT combo. They scratch all the right spots for me. You can't believe I'm saying this huh, Bob.

TxCan01 · TxCan01's Garage

Peter:
I think the HP2 may be being hindered by the non-linear, kinematically silly, throttle magooey that we all know and love on our R1200S' I.e. 40% throttle is not really 40% of the go!? Can I be more clear?

Droptarotter · Droptarotter's Garage

I voted for the twin..........I've only owned one I-4 ( Suzuki GS 850 ) and I did not like the motor.

But we can not get too far into this discussion without bringing up the addition of bags, center stands and larger fuel tanks on these bikes.

Cheers

Dr. Curve · 12-31-2009, 02:31 PM

Shred........the new "S" twin is not going to be a 1300 cc bike but closer to a 1240-cc unit which leads me to think it may be called a R1250S. IF they want a 1300-cc bike, BMW will have to increase stroke a lot because the current HP2 cylinders do not have enough metal in them to bore out anywhere near enough to get near 1300-cc. The information I have heard indicates that they plan to stroke the bike 2-mm to 75-mm and increase the bore 1.5-mm to 102.5-mm thus giving a displacement of 1240-cc. Bigger valves and the new DOHC design will be combined with 128 mm rods to give a RLR of 1.70 (although they may use 130-mm rods in which case the RLR would be 1.73) We MAY see Titanium valves as well as variable length intake tracks also, and this combined with a 13 to one compression ratio will give the electronic controlled exhaust pressure flap valve good hot gas to work with. If they were able somehow, although I have heard nothing of this, to combine the above with variable cam timing done electronically at the cam sprocket we might be looking at a SERIOUS street sport twin that would have gobs of low down torque, plenty of top end, a higher redline, and a cost well below that of the HP2 units some of us plopped a lot of money down for. The increased displacement combined with a longer stroke (more rod leverage in the first 90 degrees of crank movement) and exhaust control should give a LOT of low and mid range power. Thoughts?