the RT vs GS thing

I did a back-to-back R1200RT vs R1200GS a few years ago when trying to decide. The RT is a very competent bike, I don't recollect having any handling issues. I test rode it in the rain and it was great, came back virtually bone dry.

Got back on the GS and it was like riding a supermoto. Rapid trottle response due to the lower gearing on the GS and fun of throwing it around due to taller suspension and the massively wide bars. I rode the RT for 1.5hrs and made a decision to stay with the GS in about 2min back on the GS.

.....a GS and an RT is the solution :)
 
Mr K said:
I see no rivalry.

...

RT does not handle.

:beerjug:
Click to expand...

I wish you'd tell my mate Craig that...we (on GS, Tenere, Fazer, Tiger, FJR, 1300, Pans...that sort of thing) aren't particularly slow but we can't keep up with the fecker on his RT. Even the guys on K12s. Fazer 1000s struggle...watching him repeatedly scrape down wafting left and right in the twisties is a sight to behold. If he's doing that on a bike that doesn't handle,he must be some sort of riding genius.
 
there is evidently a variety of views on whether an RT handles easily or not but I suppose we all know that going fast thru twisties is for the most part about the skill of the rider. I would only claim to be an average skill level but have ridden a fair few bikes over the past two years
harley 1200
triumph street triple, street triple R
triumph speed triple
daytona 675
ducati monster 1100
multi strada 1200
diavel
848 evo
st4s
st3s
honda st1100
cbr 600f
yamaha r6
blackbird
norton commando 77
bmw f800R, f800st, 2009 gs1200, gs1200 twin cam, k1300s, k1300gt, k1600 gt, r1200rt.

based on my impressions of the above

best handling bikes - ducati 848 evo, daytona, r1200gs (by which i mean most stable in corner, quick turn in , go where you want to.)

worst - harley

rt ? some where in the lower half but I think I should have tried it in sport mode for longer. spend almost all my time on the gs in comfort mode and unless blasting around A roads at 80mph+ it seems stable enough so on reflection this maybe mislead me on suspension settings for my test ride.

have been finding this thread really interesting :thumb
 
I test rode a twin cam RT and a pan back to back and found very little between them. The Pan was heavier but far smoother....what won it for me was that the pan was a little less cramped and, by not buying the BMW, I could avoid BMW main dealers.
 
E. Buygum said:
I wish you'd tell my mate Craig that...we (on GS, Tenere, Fazer, Tiger, FJR, 1300, Pans...that sort of thing) aren't particularly slow but we can't keep up with the fecker on his RT. Even the guys on K12s. Fazer 1000s struggle...watching him repeatedly scrape down wafting left and right in the twisties is a sight to behold. If he's doing that on a bike that doesn't handle,he must be some sort of riding genius.
Click to expand...

I shall clarify: Had a RT courtesy bike while me GS was in for a service. Loved the toys. Couldn't get away with the fairing in anything other than motorway riding.

Handling-wise, it felt at first like it didn't want to tip into a corner and then like it was going to fall over.
It gave me absolutely no confidence in the front end and I was glad to hand it back before I crashed it.

Maybe if I hadn't been riding the GS for 7 years I wouldn't have been so critical?


:nenau
 
So far this year, I have owned an R1200GS, a Ducati Diavel and an R1200RT. They've all got their merits, but I am amazed by the all-round competence of the RT. It is amazingly stable, at least as good as the GS in the handling department, deceptively fast and far better than the GS when loaded with luggage. I'm very happy with the RT :thumb2. The twin-cam engine is much smoother than the agricultural feel of my 2006 GS, but can't match the peach of an engine on the Diavel. I sometimes miss the sheer thrust of its 162bhp, but not often :D

As for Rasher's comments about the RT, they're typical of the "pub expert". Perhaps he'd like my expert opinion on a Ferrari 458. I haven't driven one, but I can make loads of assumptions by looking at pictures... :blagblah
 
It ain't a tourer. Fact. As for the 200 mile range, the guy on the tour I went on last year who was riding one was getting nowhere near that figure
Click to expand...

Tell him to fill it up when it is low on fuel and to brim it, the amount of guys on the ZZR forum who spout they can't get 120 miles out of them, but still have the same low 40's average as those who can top 200 miles. Most owners panic at 2 bars of fuel left (a good 80 miles) and then stick the fuel nozzle 18 inches into the tank resulting in a half fill.

I am not proffessing to be an expert on RT's, and I have learned more about them in the last 24 hours than I probably care too, but having just come back from two hours of almost entirely unclassified roads, and a lot of them were single track (and even an "unpaved" section) I would not want any other type of bike right now.

I am surprised so many GS owners seem unhappy with weather protection, I find the GS half decent (although I have a better than stock screen) it was one thing I thought would be quite poor, but the general shape of the bike / sticky out engine / Givi screen seems to keep the worst at bay.

Oh yeah, lower weight Vs extra power - total bullshit, above @45 mph Aeordynamics have far more effect than weight, if that were not the case the GSA would be a lot slower than the GS - which we all know it is not, and my ZZR1400 would have been faster than a Bugatti Veyron - which again it is not.

This is why a 150BHP car will do 130mph, yet a 150BHP bike weighing 1/4 of the weight (fuelled with rider) does not do 520MPH.

And I think the Flat Twin BMW engines are really no match for a Triumph Triple or a Jap four, they have much less power, vibrate far more and pop / bang / lurch all over the place.

I must admit I am almost intrigued enough to go and ride one just to see what all the fuss is about, but the last time I did that I ended up buying a bloody GS :blast
 
Rasher said:
Oh yeah, lower weight Vs extra power - total bullshit, above @45 mph Aeordynamics have far more effect than weight, if that were not the case the GSA would be a lot slower than the GS - which we all know it is not, and my ZZR1400 would have been faster than a Bugatti Veyron - which again it is not.
Click to expand...

More crap from Rasher:rolleyes: So two bikes with engines that produce 100bhp, one weighs 200kg and the other weighs 250kg. Bike 1 is going to have much better acceleration because it has less weight to lug around.Simples! A Caterham 7 roadsport with the 1.6 125bhp engine manages 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and the 2 litre 175 bhp version does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds with a top speed of 138mph. How does it manage such acceleration with only 125 and 175bhp respectively? Because it is light and has a very good power to weight ratio.

Aerodynamics will only come into it at far higher speeds than 45mph.

Rasher said:
This is why a 150BHP car will do 130mph, yet a 150BHP bike weighing 1/4 of the weight (fuelled with rider) does not do 520MPH.
Click to expand...

And what would the acceleration of the 150bhp bike be like compared to the 150bhp car? Funny how you haven't mentioned the acceleration:rolleyes:

And I think the Flat Twin BMW engines are really no match for a Triumph Triple or a Jap four, they have much less power, vibrate far more and pop / bang / lurch all over the place.
Click to expand...

Most of us have seen your opinions and have attributed a suitable value to them.:D
 
So two bikes with engines that produce 100bhp, one weighs 200kg and the other weighs 250kg. Bike 1 is going to have much better acceleration because it has less weight to lug around.Simples! A Caterham 7 roadsport with the 1.6 125bhp engine manages 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and the 2 litre 175 bhp version does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds with a top speed of 138mph. How does it manage such acceleration with only 125 and 175bhp respectively? Because it is light and has a very good power to weight ratio.


I just looked at a Burghman 650cc scooter, 277kg, so does that the RT is well engineered down to it's weight, when it is 20 or 30 kg's less than a scooter!!


:eek:
 
Boxed-in said:
I just looked at a Burghman 650cc scooter, 277kg, so does that the RT is well engineered down to it's weight, when it is 20 or 30 kg's less than a scooter!!


:eek:
Click to expand...

You should look at the weight of some of the 125 scooters out there, not far off the 200kg mark!!:eek:
 
But we are talking about 300kg+ bikes here, and when you take into account the bikes real weight with oil / fuel and a rider on board you are looking at nearer 500kg, so a 45kg difference is only about 10%.

So in the real world the Yamaha wins on power to weight, unless you are on about remote controlled RT Vs Remote Controlled FJR :nenau

if 50kg made such a huge difference then most bikes would be useless two-up, sure my GS is slower when two-up, but it still pulls pretty well two-up with luggage where it is carrying an extra 120kg if you take the bike +me at 300KG the Mrs + luggage adds 40% more weight, it is certainly not 40% slower due to this (or it would not even reach 80mph) neither does it take 40% longer to accelerate to 60, 80 or even 100mph.

Aerodynamics are the most important factor with bikes, or at least according to all the experts, but I guess anyone who has ridden an RT would know more about aerodynamic efficiences of motorcycles than those who design GP bikes :nenau

The GS has a similar power and about 30kg less weight than a GPZ900R, yet is over 20mph slower on top end and about 2 seconds slower on the SS1/4 mile.

Sure less weight helps acceleration, but I am pretty sure the SS1/4 mile times for the FJR would be better that the RT, and I would also guess it has a 10mph top speed advantage as well.

Not saying any of this makes the FJR a better bike, but if the RT is anything like the GS then high speed cruising is not really possible, my GS feels a bit strained by about 90 (and is guzzling fuel like a V8 muscle car)
 
Rasher said:
But we are talking about 300kg+ bikes here, and when you take into account the bikes real weight with oil / fuel and a rider on board you are looking at nearer 500kg, so a 45kg difference is only about 10%.
Click to expand...

Not in the case of the RT, which is listed dry at 229kg. Wet weight is 249kg which is still a big difference to the dry weight of the FJR. Throw in a 100kg rider and you are looking at 349kg. That's a long way from your 500kg. Now the FJR is listed at 291kg wet, so a difference of 42kg when compared to the RT. Add the 100kg rider and you are in at 391kg.

Rasher said:
So in the real world the Yamaha wins on power to weight, unless you are on about remote controlled RT Vs Remote Controlled FJR :nenau
Click to expand...

Real world power to weight ratios:-

RT = 0.315 bhp per kilo
FJR = 0.365

Not much of a difference and in practical terms it gives the FJR an advantage of about 16bhp over the RT when fully fuelled up and with a 100kg rider on board. In other words, the 33bhp advantage that the FJR has on paper over the RT is halved when fully fuelled up and with the rider on board.

Rasher said:
if 50kg made such a huge difference then most bikes would be useless two-up, sure my GS is slower when two-up, but it still pulls pretty well two-up with luggage where it is carrying an extra 120kg if you take the bike +me at 300KG the Mrs + luggage adds 40% more weight, it is certainly not 40% slower due to this (or it would not even reach 80mph) neither does it take 40% longer to accelerate to 60, 80 or even 100mph.
Click to expand...

See above for the difference a 42kg weight penalty has on a bike.

Rasher said:
Aerodynamics are the most important factor with bikes, or at least according to all the experts, but I guess anyone who has ridden an RT would know more about aerodynamic efficiences of motorcycles than those who design GP bikes :nenau
Click to expand...

Which experts are you talking about? Aerodynamics is more important than comfort, handling, torque, ergonomics and other factors considered when designing a bike?

Rasher said:
The GS has a similar power and about 30kg less weight than a GPZ900R, yet is over 20mph slower on top end and about 2 seconds slower on the SS1/4 mile.
Click to expand...

Original 1200GS was rated at 98bhp. GPZ900R was rated at 115bhp. Dry weight of a GS 203kg. GPZ900 228kg. GPZ900 has a slippery fairing and a very narrow frontal area which, when combined with the extra power, gives a top speed of 150mph. (MCN's 158 claim back in 1984 was their usual headline stuff and not very real world.)

Rasher said:
Sure less weight helps acceleration, but I am pretty sure the SS1/4 mile times for the FJR would be better that the RT, and I would also guess it has a 10mph top speed advantage as well.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many riders could replicate the 1/4 mile times obtained by professional riders? It's not a real world yardstick and is pretty meaningless unless you are into Top Trumps stuff. In gear increments in the various gears would be of far greater use but how many mags bother with those?

Rasher said:
Not saying any of this makes the FJR a better bike, but if the RT is anything like the GS then high speed cruising is not really possible, my GS feels a bit strained by about 90 (and is guzzling fuel like a V8 muscle car)
Click to expand...

The RT is higher geared and the fairing gives it much better aerodynamics than the GS. It is more fuel efficient than the GS at higher speeds. It will happily cruise at the 100mph mark.
 
Nippy Normans supply Touratech, Wunderlich, Desert Fox and many other makes of accessories.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Technical question regarding standard and lowered suspension on a 2023 R1250GS
2
Replies
30
Views
1,480
Matty589
R1200GSA Hexhead ….manageable inside leg length please??
Replies
12
Views
565
Brodie13
Tyzer
1250 GSA
2
Replies
20
Views
1,336
listermint
listermint
Flashman
The best long distance seat for the 1250 GS?
2
Replies
24
Views
2,408
Jersey_GS
Jersey_GS
Short arse
Replies
15
Views
664
Santa-2512
Santa-2512


Back
Top Bottom