Whilst you make sense.....................Den's post has some style and reason
1200 v's 1150 - from a Newbie
- Thread starter ridersofthelosttrail
- Start date
Whilst you make sense.....................Den's post has some style and reason
It's still a lot of stick in the mud, subjective bollocks.
BeamishTripleBlack
Registered user
Agreed, Dens post has reason and some sense but the question was 'which is the better bike?' and the answer is the 1200. If the question was 'is the 1150 a great bike?' the answer is yes but the 1200 delivers all the capabilities of the 1150 and more.
Why was the 1150 dumped so early? Does anybody know the total sales of the 1150 in 4 years & the 1200 so far in it's 8.
I would not be surprised if the 1200 has outsold it 10 fold?
10 x sales = 10 x the failures, it's all relative really.
And why has the 1200 been the top seller for years now?
Because it is a hoot to ride.
And I'm sorry Den, but with your AA card in your wallet, being able to rebuild an engine at the roadside in the pissing rain is way down the criteria list when choosing a bike for most riders now.
The 1150 had to go if BMW were to be taken seriously, it had 70s bulk and performance.
Look at their range now, it's bristling with desireable bikes , making them very mainstream . . And that is what many of you don't like, hence the constant pop at 1200 "riders" and not the bike itself.
BBB61
Registered user
Why was the 1150 dumped so early? Does anybody know the total sales of the 1150 in 4 years & the 1200 so far in it's 8.
I would not be surprised if the 1200 has outsold it 10 fold?
10 x sales = 10 x the failures, it's all relative really.
And why has the 1200 been the top seller for years now?
Because it is a hoot to ride.
And I'm sorry Den, but with your AA card in your wallet, being able to rebuild an engine at the roadside in the pissing rain is way down the criteria list when choosing a bike for most riders now.
The 1150 had to go if BMW were to be taken seriously, it had 70s bulk and performance.
Look at their range now, it's bristling with desireable bikes , making them very mainstream . . And that is what many of you don't like, hence the constant pop at 1200 "riders" and not the bike itself.
You forget that the 1150 was an evolution of the 1100, which was first introduced in 1994, so the 1100/1150 did have a long production run.
Which you just happen to agree with.
You have the distinction of being the only person I know, with sufficient experience of both, who actually knows how to ride, who prefers the old one. I must admit, it's a mystery to me??
Please ignore my earlier (bollocks) post. I went back to it too late to delete it.
From the launch of the 1200, I've consistently questioned the weight-loss figures quoted by BMW and people such as yourself who claim it is so significant.
Just how do you notice this (claimed) "lightness"? Is it easier to push around? Is it easier to pick-up when it has a lie-down? Is it easier to get onto the main-stand?
The answer to all is: No.
The "lightness" is felt in the improved power and that's the effect of an extra 15 to 25 bhp. That and the counter-balancer, which the lack of in the 1150 doesn't prevent using more of the available revs but does make the 1200 feel more 'sprightly'. The difference is only significant if you want to measure your bike against others in some sort of dick measuring competition. Used for normal real-life travelling between two points it makes no significant difference and if a 1200 owner is the sort who needs to demonstrate the extra horses, then I for one would suggest that he is not the sort of rider that I'd want to be in company with.
As for handling, steering and ride, there's little or nothing in it dynamically. The 1150 carries more weight over the front than the 1200. That difference translates as the 1150 feeling (and being) better on road, the 1200 feeling (and being) better on loose surfaces. Neither difference is significant though.
It wasn't "dumped early" at all. As mentioned by Bob (above), the 1150 was a development of the 1100 (in much the same way that the Twin-cam 1200 is to the cam-in-head version).
As to why BMW felt it necessary to replace the 1150 models with the 1200, it's simple; BMW learned from their experiences with the 2-valve boxer that if they wanted to pursue sales for higher profits they could not rely on marque-loyalty, they had to attract people who would not ordinarily consider BMW. So they compromised. They stuck with the 4-valve boxer but tried to address some of the things that put people-off, the main thing being the suspicion that BMW boxers were unexciting, plodding and only for people of a certain age (not to mention that they managed to alter the other BMW perceptions; quality and reliability
).The answer was to give the 1200 more power than it really needs, something that most people coming from other marques were used to. The Press did the job for BMW as they too wanted more power (when do they ever not want more?) and started to openly tout BMW (and the GS in particular) as now worth considering as an alternative to the usual fare. With the Press endorsements ringing in their ears, many people now felt able to buy one and not feel too much like their dads.
That has to be one of the most ill-informed comments I've seen here.bod said:
I've never made a secret of the fact that there isn't a bike in the BMW range that I really want to own these days. So that proves your point and mine: The BMW ethos has changed, it's gone mainstream and that suits people who like the mainstream.bod said:Look at their range now, it's bristling with desireable bikes , making them very mainstream . . And that is what many of you don't like, hence the constant pop at 1200 "riders" and not the bike itself.
Personally I liked the Twin-cam 1200GSA that I last rode but it wasn't enough to make me once feel that it was significantly good enough to replace my 1150GSA. It was characterless, anodyne and too mainstream (and not without some significant faults).
There is definitely a new type of GS-owner, one that doesn't really see the bike as primarily a machine on which to travel but one to ride on fine days. This new type of GS-owner are the ones seeking more power and who will chop their bike-in for the next model or swap to any bike that might offer a performance gain. So the opinions of the here-today-gone-tomorrow owners are worth diddly-squat.
The opinions of those such as Cookie who have owned 1150's and then swapped to 1200's, I disregard because they, having forked-out so much on their 'plastic-fantastic', cannot now bring themselves to admit their error.
The opinions of those such as Cookie who have owned 1150's and then swapped to 1200's, I disregard because they, having forked-out so much on their 'plastic-fantastic', cannot now bring themselves to admit their error.
an error i seem to have made twice. could be worse, one of my friends has just been that stupid for a third time
A mate of mine is the same. He sold his 1100 (he bought that second-hand) bought a new 1200GSA in 2009, admitted that he just couldn't "bond" with it (unlike the 1100) and then swapped that for a new 2011 Twin-cam GSA (he hasn't bonded with that either - yet) but he still defends the thing if I poke fun at it.an error i seem to have made twice. could be worse, one of my friends has just been that stupid for a third time
It's just denial. Denying the denial is the next step.
i'm not bonded with mine. doesn't mean it's any less fun, i just ride it. it gets nicked, i'll just buy another. i can see that as an advantage.
wasn't bonded with my 1150 either, although i do see how people get attached to them. they're definitely more loveable than a 12. rather dull though in comparison. i can't see i'll ever get another.
i do know what you mean about bonding with a bike. i have another 3 old bikes in the garage that i'd be gutted to lose. i couldn't replace any of them.
wasn't bonded with my 1150 either, although i do see how people get attached to them. they're definitely more loveable than a 12. rather dull though in comparison. i can't see i'll ever get another.
i do know what you mean about bonding with a bike. i have another 3 old bikes in the garage that i'd be gutted to lose. i couldn't replace any of them.
From the launch of the 1200, I've consistently questioned the weight-loss figures quoted by BMW and people such as yourself who claim it is so significant.
Just how do you notice this (claimed) "lightness"? Is it easier to push around? Is it easier to pick-up when it has a lie-down? Is it easier to get onto the main-stand?
The answer to all is: No.
The "lightness" is felt in the improved power and that's the effect of an extra 15 to 25 bhp. That and the counter-balancer, which the lack of in the 1150 doesn't prevent using more of the available revs but does make the 1200 feel more 'sprightly'. The difference is only significant if you want to measure your bike against others in some sort of dick measuring competition. Used for normal real-life travelling between two points it makes no significant difference and if a 1200 owner is the sort who needs to demonstrate the extra horses, then I for one would suggest that he is not the sort of rider that I'd want to be in company with.
As for handling, steering and ride, there's little or nothing in it dynamically. The 1150 carries more weight over the front than the 1200. That difference translates as the 1150 feeling (and being) better on road, the 1200 feeling (and being) better on loose surfaces. Neither difference is significant though.
It wasn't "dumped early" at all. As mentioned by Bob (above), the 1150 was a development of the 1100 (in much the same way that the Twin-cam 1200 is to the cam-in-head version).
As to why BMW felt it necessary to replace the 1150 models with the 1200, it's simple; BMW learned from their experiences with the 2-valve boxer that if they wanted to pursue sales for higher profits they could not rely on marque-loyalty, they had to attract people who would not ordinarily consider BMW. So they compromised. They stuck with the 4-valve boxer but tried to address some of the things that put people-off, the main thing being the suspicion that BMW boxers were unexciting, plodding and only for people of a certain age (not to mention that they managed to alter the other BMW perceptions; quality and reliability
The answer was to give the 1200 more power than it really needs, something that most people coming from other marques were used to. The Press did the job for BMW as they too wanted more power (when do they ever not want more?) and started to openly tout BMW (and the GS in particular) as now worth considering as an alternative to the usual fare. With the Press endorsements ringing in their ears, many people now felt able to buy one and not feel too much like their dads.
That has to be one of the most ill-informed comments I've seen here.
I've never made a secret of the fact that there isn't a bike in the BMW range that I really want to own these days. So that proves your point and mine: The BMW ethos has changed, it's gone mainstream and that suits people who like the mainstream.
Personally I liked the Twin-cam 1200GSA that I last rode but it wasn't enough to make me once feel that it was significantly good enough to replace my 1150GSA. It was characterless, anodyne and too mainstream (and not without some significant faults).
There is definitely a new type of GS-owner, one that doesn't really see the bike as primarily a machine on which to travel but one to ride on fine days. This new type of GS-owner are the ones seeking more power and who will chop their bike-in for the next model or swap to any bike that might offer a performance gain. So the opinions of the here-today-gone-tomorrow owners are worth diddly-squat.
The opinions of those such as Cookie who have owned 1150's and then swapped to 1200's, I disregard because they, having forked-out so much on their 'plastic-fantastic', cannot now bring themselves to admit their error.
Seems all you have done there is confirm what I have said in your usual articulate, waffling & arrogant style.
When you have been to the dizzying heights of Japanese performance, like most "1200 riders" in a previous life, the 1200 is a tractor that just about passes as acceptable.
Here is my old GS, built in 76 . .
. . and still comes with better performance and weight than your 21st century 1150
It wasn't 'dumped' early, it ran from 1999 to 2005, so I make that 6 years
Similarly the 1100GS ran from 1994 to 1999, so 5 years and 12GS ran from 2004-2008 with no major changes, so 4 years
The 1200MU from 2008-2010, 2 years and the 1200TU from 2010-maybe 2012and then the watercooled one is coming
So the pattern is much the same
I know exactly what you mean, when I had my 1200GSA MU in 2008 I couldn't give a toss if it was nicked or not, whether it was clean or not - I just rode and although extremely competent - it was just bland and linear
With my 1150GSA's I'd be gutted to lose them and I wash them after every ride (unless touring)
Thanks. You've just confirmed all my points. The 1200's performance being able to pass as acceptable - acceptable in the horsepower-driven, "mine's faster than yours" world of the willy waver. I can only assume that had it been down a little on power (than is "acceptable"), all the other much vaunted attributes wouldn't have been enough to salvage it from being consigned as another overweight, slow, bike that compares only with the shite produced in the 1970's.When you have been to the dizzying heights of Japanese performance, like most "1200 riders" in a previous life, the 1200 is a tractor that just about passes as acceptable.
Here is my old GS, built in 76 . .
. . and still comes with better performance and weight than your 21st century 1150
From the launch of the 1200, I've consistently questioned the weight-loss figures quoted by BMW and people such as yourself who claim it is so significant.
Just how do you notice this (claimed) "lightness"? Is it easier to push around? Is it easier to pick-up when it has a lie-down? Is it easier to get onto the main-stand?
The answer to all is: No.
The "lightness" is felt in the improved power and that's the effect of an extra 15 to 25 bhp. That and the counter-balancer, which the lack of in the 1150 doesn't prevent using more of the available revs but does make the 1200 feel more 'sprightly'. The difference is only significant if you want to measure your bike against others in some sort of dick measuring competition. Used for normal real-life travelling between two points it makes no significant difference and if a 1200 owner is the sort who needs to demonstrate the extra horses, then I for one would suggest that he is not the sort of rider that I'd want to be in company with.
As for handling, steering and ride, there's little or nothing in it dynamically. The 1150 carries more weight over the front than the 1200. That difference translates as the 1150 feeling (and being) better on road, the 1200 feeling (and being) better on loose surfaces. Neither difference is significant though.
It wasn't "dumped early" at all. As mentioned by Bob (above), the 1150 was a development of the 1100 (in much the same way that the Twin-cam 1200 is to the cam-in-head version).
As to why BMW felt it necessary to replace the 1150 models with the 1200, it's simple; BMW learned from their experiences with the 2-valve boxer that if they wanted to pursue sales for higher profits they could not rely on marque-loyalty, they had to attract people who would not ordinarily consider BMW. So they compromised. They stuck with the 4-valve boxer but tried to address some of the things that put people-off, the main thing being the suspicion that BMW boxers were unexciting, plodding and only for people of a certain age (not to mention that they managed to alter the other BMW perceptions; quality and reliability
The answer was to give the 1200 more power than it really needs, something that most people coming from other marques were used to. The Press did the job for BMW as they too wanted more power (when do they ever not want more?) and started to openly tout BMW (and the GS in particular) as now worth considering as an alternative to the usual fare. With the Press endorsements ringing in their ears, many people now felt able to buy one and not feel too much like their dads.
That has to be one of the most ill-informed comments I've seen here.
I've never made a secret of the fact that there isn't a bike in the BMW range that I really want to own these days. So that proves your point and mine: The BMW ethos has changed, it's gone mainstream and that suits people who like the mainstream.
Personally I liked the Twin-cam 1200GSA that I last rode but it wasn't enough to make me once feel that it was significantly good enough to replace my 1150GSA. It was characterless, anodyne and too mainstream (and not without some significant faults).
There is definitely a new type of GS-owner, one that doesn't really see the bike as primarily a machine on which to travel but one to ride on fine days. This new type of GS-owner are the ones seeking more power and who will chop their bike-in for the next model or swap to any bike that might offer a performance gain. So the opinions of the here-today-gone-tomorrow owners are worth diddly-squat.
The opinions of those such as Cookie who have owned 1150's and then swapped to 1200's, I disregard because they, having forked-out so much on their 'plastic-fantastic', cannot now bring themselves to admit their error.
Approximately how many miles have you ridden on a 1200 ?
Unlike you Mike, I am able to see both sides of the debate!
If you look on the same thread on the other channel, I said there I have had both, 1200 the better bike, BUT that doesn't make it my favourite.
Would you prefer it if we all rode around on Jawa's & Ural's like an eastern block country stuck in a time warp because nothing ever moves on?
OK, the 1150 had a longer innings than I implied, but by fuck don't you lot manipulate the figures to constantly put my bike down.
Refinement of motorcyles does take away character, FACT! In my opinion the Jap's have gone too far, bland, dull & boring!
The 1200 competes with the competition and that pleases BMW, while retaining some quirky charm, which pleases me.
All the biggest dick/wanking competition is all in your head Mike, I could ride out on a 200mph rocket this afternoon if I wanted too.
But I'm happy with my 1200 thankyou, and more than happy with my 70s shite too!
This is the 1200 section Mike, what do you want me to do, lie?
OK, it's a heap of shit & unreliable! There you go feel better now?
And finally Mike, if you really think a little performance potential in your right wrist is an unhealthy thing, I really think it's time to trade the old girl in for a motability scooter.
If you look on the same thread on the other channel, I said there I have had both, 1200 the better bike, BUT that doesn't make it my favourite.
Would you prefer it if we all rode around on Jawa's & Ural's like an eastern block country stuck in a time warp because nothing ever moves on?
OK, the 1150 had a longer innings than I implied, but by fuck don't you lot manipulate the figures to constantly put my bike down.
Refinement of motorcyles does take away character, FACT! In my opinion the Jap's have gone too far, bland, dull & boring!
The 1200 competes with the competition and that pleases BMW, while retaining some quirky charm, which pleases me.
All the biggest dick/wanking competition is all in your head Mike, I could ride out on a 200mph rocket this afternoon if I wanted too.
But I'm happy with my 1200 thankyou, and more than happy with my 70s shite too!
This is the 1200 section Mike, what do you want me to do, lie?
OK, it's a heap of shit & unreliable! There you go feel better now?
And finally Mike, if you really think a little performance potential in your right wrist is an unhealthy thing, I really think it's time to trade the old girl in for a motability scooter.
Similar threads
