Newbie checks in

Pete X · 09-26-2002, 04:53 PM

Hello all! Yesterday I plopped a deposit down on a new 2002 S. This after taking an RT out for a demo ride, and realizing that it wasn't the right bike for me. Great bike, but not my style. I'm taking a bit of a gamble on the S, because I haven't actually ridden one, only sat on one in a showroom. It was love at first sight. It will replace my Triumph Sprint ST, which I wrecked in August.

First dumb question (of many, no doubt): Do you feed your S premium gas in the U.S., or mid-grade?

buckeyeRS · 09-26-2002, 04:59 PM

Hey Pete!
Welcome. I hope you find this board as useful and entertaining as I have.
The S takes premium but sips it at the rate of 38 to 48 mpg depending on your riding style.
-john

spooch · 09-26-2002, 05:01 PM

Welcome, you will like your S. Whenever it is possible I fill up with Sunoco 94 octane. My bike loves the stuff.

Dave Hopkins · 09-26-2002, 05:08 PM

Go for the premium. the cost difference is micro pennies per mile (no im not guna do the math). Premium's claim to fame is knock resistance. And while I have run mid grade the simple fact is when the engine is hot it is more prone to knock. In designing this engine BMW sacraficed water cooling at some risk of a hot spot in a combustion chamber causing preignition as a compramise against the extra weight of the more conventional water cooling. All works fine but if you want to run cheap gas this would not be the smart place to do so.

DanceswPavement · 09-26-2002, 05:19 PM

Yeah, after dropping 15 large for a premium motorcycle buy it the best gas you can find. Welcome aboard and, may I ask, what color did you go for, as that topic seems to elicit some strong emotions 'round here..

________
Mark
'02 Phoenix Grey S

Saintly · 09-26-2002, 05:24 PM

Also don't forget that not all PULP is the same octane.
over here i think mobil is 94 or 96 octane where as Shell optimax is 98.
All BMW engines (cars and bikes) run much better with PULP.
and for less than $100 extra a year (depending on how much you ride) is it really worth skimping?

Mr. Deltoid · 09-26-2002, 05:30 PM

Yep, using grandpa's white lightning would not be a wise choice of fuels.I use reg. unleaded in my 85 K100, but would NOT dare use it in the S.Liquid cooled inline fours are a bit more forgiving when it comes to fuel-(much better temp control).I still love my S regardless of it's John Deer tendencies, warts and all.There is NO perfect machine, only the one that makes YOU happy!!

Pete X · 09-26-2002, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanceswPavement
. . . Welcome aboard and, may I ask, what color did you go for, as that topic seems to elicit some strong emotions 'round here..

Marrakesh Red

Thanks everyone for your input. Premium it will be!

Raven · 09-26-2002, 07:27 PM

Red is good!

Premium gas is good!

S is great!!

Welcome to the group.

TorranceTM · 09-26-2002, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete X
Marrakesh Red

Good to see you got the best (and fastest) colour

Tom.

Haynes · 09-27-2002, 12:31 AM

G'day Pete X,
It's good to hear that you have the S on the way. I'm an R1150RT rider and an R1100S wannabe. I visit here to get general R bike information.

rob_wijhenke · 09-27-2002, 12:53 AM

Pete, welcome.

red is the right choise, I ordered one after crashing my black S 2 weeks ago. I will pick it up today, hope yours arrives soon as well

Neil Paterson · 09-27-2002, 01:14 AM

I try to run mine on 97/98 Octane whenever available.

After a 1500 mile trip round Europe on 98, it ran a lot smoother, appeared to have a bit more power and was noticeably more economical. This easily covered the extra pennies per litre.

Neil

jdlowery · 09-27-2002, 12:11 PM

Pete X, I'm just curious but why not replace the Triumph with another ST?

morkm · 09-27-2002, 01:29 PM

I can help answer that question. A year ago I had a brand new Sprint ST that I rode for over 6000miles in 3 months. Then someone made a U-Turn in front of me and that was the end of the ST....luckily not the end of me.

I considered another ST, but fell in love with the look of the S. Other factors included (in no particular order): ABS, hard luggage system that did not distract from the looks when luggage not attached (on the ST, the mounting brackets look like crap without the bags on and require the silencer to be lowered, totally covering the look of the single-sided swingarm), no chain to mess with.

A lot of my decision (for a $15k+ bike v. a 2001 brand new ST reduced to around $8k) was based on how beautiful I feel the S is. For long distance touring, the ST was perhaps a bit more comfortable and the 3 cylinder engine had a bit more umph on the R motor. The ST averaged around 54mpg on the superslab, but was not nearly as stable as the S at speed....ie, at 100+, there was a pretty nasty straight line wobble on the ST that was quite discomforting.

All of the above, and getting a chance to own a make and model that I've never owned before made me shell out the considerable extra for my S back in Feb and I have been quite happy.

just a bit of insite from another former ST owner
mork

Pete X · 09-27-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jdlowery
Pete X, I'm just curious but why not replace the Triumph with another ST?

Ditto what Mork wrote. My sentiments exactly. The Sprint ST is really a fine bike. I rode it for three years, and it never let me down. I guess I'm just ready for something different. And, like Mork, I totally fell in love with the sexy good looks of the S. I was never in love with the looks of the ST. True, the S is a lot more $$$ than the ST, but I'm hoping it will be worth it.