1200 v's 1150 - from a Newbie

[MikeP]

A quick search back to the tail end of last year will soon point out he get's off on being an awkward prick!
He actually dragged the gutter by posting unflattering pictures of another members family, knowing it would lead to the usual ridicule and humiliation.
This member seems to have gone now!

Internet trolls come in all shapes and sizes . . best avoid him!

You're talking out of your arse again.

I linked a photo of the forum member on his (then) public blog. The member is still here and posting merrily (about meteorology last time I noticed).

Is there a photo of you wearing a pink waistcoat out there too?

 

[Wapping]

. . best avoid him!

Advice that you seem to be failing to follow

 

[Steptoe]

What the hell is wrong with some people on this site? Why does there always have to be a massive issue where the 1200 is concerned? .

This site ??. Where the 1200 is concerned ???

What hole in the ground have you been living in.

It's not new.
I remember when the "new" model lighterflywheel twins came out in 1981, the same "debate" was had about the old V new models.
I remember when the K series was launched, the same "debate" was had about the old versus new models of BMW's.

And the same "debates" were had when the telescopic fork models replaced the earles forks models.

 

[snerkler]

I think a good arguement for the 1200 being better than the 1150 is that BMW felt the need to replace the 1150 after 4 and a bit years, whereas the 1200 has been going for over 7 already (albeit it with some tweaks) and looks as though it'll be going on for another year at least, more likely 18-24 months

 

[APE]

I think a good arguement for the 1200 being better than the 1150 is that BMW felt the need to replace the 1150 after 4 and a bit years, whereas the 1200 has been going for over 7 already (albeit it with some tweaks) and looks as though it'll be going on for another year at least, more likely 18-24 months

To be fair I think the first generation 1200 engine was a bit of a backward step as it was made more powerful at the expense of less torque (although this is now fixed with the twin cam). However in every other respect (other than reliability) it's a clear step forward compared to the previous model. My 1200 puts a bigger smile on my face than my old 1150 and the argument over 'character' is a load of bollox imo. It's not an e-type jag ffs

 

[Deleted account 211025001]

To be fair I think the first generation 1200 engine was a bit of a backward step as it was made more powerful at the expense of less torque ..........

AFAIK that's not true; torque was up across the rev range. The R1200 spins up quicker and a lot of peeps assumed that the engine had less torque as a result.

Andres

 

[APE]

AFAIK that's not true; torque was up across the rev range. The R1200 spins up quicker and a lot of peeps assumed that the engine had less torque as a result.

Andres

fair enough but it felt like less grunt even though the tech sheet suggested otherwise. Even got mine dynoed which backed up your point but never felt like that on the road - maybe also got something to do with the weight of the fly-wheel

 

[Yonkyo]

I gert loves my 1200GSA, me...

 

[ghost]

 

[bod]

To be fair I think the first generation 1200 engine was a bit of a backward step as it was made more powerful at the expense of less torque (although this is now fixed with the twin cam). However in every other respect (other than reliability) it's a clear step forward compared to the previous model. My 1200 puts a bigger smile on my face than my old 1150 and the argument over 'character' is a load of bollox imo. It's not an e-type jag ffs

I think emmisions plays a big part in everything!
Would the 1150 even pass Euro 5? Suzuki killed off the fuel injected GSX1400 (had one ) because it couldn't pass Euro 4.
Even if they could have got the 1150 through emmisions, by the time they had strangled it, 85hp through 1/4 tonne was going to be a slug.
Another example, my last VW had 104hp, new one is Euro 5 with Diesel particulate filter and is 140 hp . . very similar to drive.
So, when the first 1200 came out at 95 - 100 bhp, there was probably not too much advantage over the free breathing 1150.

 

[JohnnyBoxer]

I think a good arguement for the 1200 being better than the 1150 is that BMW felt the need to replace the 1150 after 4 and a bit years

Tosh, it was 6 years

Emission regs brought it to a close

 

[snerkler]

Tosh, it was 6 years

Emission regs brought it to a close

Didn't it run from 1999-2004 (but not quite 5 full years)? And the 1150 GSA 2001-2005/6?

At the end of the day something being better than something else is generally subjective anyway. For example I find the use of plastics to make the bike perform better and make it more agile make it a better bike. Some find this cheap and nasty and think it's worse for this

 

[JohnnyBoxer]

Didn't it run from 1999-2004 (but not quite 5 full years)? And the 1150 GSA 2001-2005/6?

Same engine though

 

[John Armstrong]

Same engine though

Twin spark came in in 2003 IIRC.

 

[JohnnyBoxer]

Twin spark came in in 2003 IIRC.

That was maybe just for emissions and to smooth out any surging

 

[Paul S]

Think this sums up the posts of most 1150 owners in the 1200 section:

 

[BeamishTripleBlack]

This site ??. Where the 1200 is concerned ???

What hole in the ground have you been living in.

It's not new.
I remember when the "new" model lighterflywheel twins came out in 1981, the same "debate" was had about the old V new models.
I remember when the K series was launched, the same "debate" was had about the old versus new models of BMW's.

And the same "debates" were had when the telescopic fork models replaced the earles forks models.

Were the debates in the same tone? Every forum has it's piss taking, even the firestorm site (which has nothing really in the way of model updates) but it's manner in which this game is played, I am looking fwd to meeting some of the people who post on the site, not for any other reason than to work you Fuc#ers out. So far guys I have ridden out with have been top guys and girls, but I am as yet to meet many more.

 

[bod]

Were the debates in the same tone? Every forum has it's piss taking, even the firestorm site (which has nothing really in the way of model updates) but it's manner in which this game is played, I am looking fwd to meeting some of the people who post on the site, not for any other reason than to work you Fuc#ers out. So far guys I have ridden out with have been top guys and girls, but I am as yet to meet many more.

It's all just healthy good fun!

They are all just twin pot tractors!

You need a sense of humour to spend 14k on an 80 year old design!

Peace & Love, Peace & Love!

 

[BeamishTripleBlack]

It's all just healthy good fun!

They are all just twin pot tractors!

You need a sense of humour to spend 14k on an 80 year old design!

Peace & Love, Peace & Love!

I like it, well put my friend.

 

[chesuk]

Howdy To All

Wow!!! My first post. Scary stuff.
I don't actually own a GS, but have been recently persuaded by a mixed bag of people to get one, with the view on running guided tours of inland Andalucia, Spain. I already run these tours using smaller enduro/trail bikes, but quite a few riders have commented on how the larger tracks/trails would be suitable for the GS's.

So, it seems I may be in the market for either a 1150 or a 1200. I understand that the 1150's are simpler machines, and hence less to go wrong.
Please will you educate me on the fundamental differences between the 2 bikes.

Many Thanks ( and be gentle!!!).

i currently own a 2001 1150 GS (with Adventure tank and screen) and a 2011 1200 GSA and have had three other 1150 GSAs in between. The 1150/1200 choice is a very personal thing. The "best" bike is the one you get on with best - I think I'm fundamentally still an 1150 man - but I've clocked up over 150,000 miles in them so they feel more like home then the 1200. I'm still getting to know the 1200 and my allegiance will probably switch in time. Anyway here are some comments and opinions that may help

1150s in general

Smoother engine, lowish power, perfect power to weight ratio for long haul and trekking through the Alps. Weight makes it the kind of bike you never want to have to pick up

1150 standard GS

Very comfortable seat, independent ABS brakes (on mine), sharp handling, standard screen is crap (70 mph on the motorway is like having you head glued to a spin dyer)

1150 GSA

Longer suspension, smoother ride, bigger tank, generally more and better of the standard GS. BUT: seat is much less comfortable for the long haul, slower handling, linked servo assisted ABS brakes (on mine), heavier than the standard GS (compensates to some extent for the viciousness of the servo brakes). Extremely stable/planted

1200s in general

More powerful, lighter, original linked servo brakes combined with lower weight makes early models scary under certain braking conditions. Later, non servo brakes are magic

1200 standard GS

Limited experience with these so can't really comment but a wire wheeled standard 1200 with engine bars is the best looking of all the GS's in my opinion

1200 GSA

Again, longer suspension, smoother ride, bigger tank, generally more and better of the standard GS and seat IS comfortable for the long haul, slower handling. Handling is very different to the 1150 GSA - lower centre of mass means the bike feels like it moves independently of the rider (as if you were standing up on an 1150). Fuel consumption is currently up to 20% more than a high milage 1150 (could be a number of reasons for this: riding style, aerodynamics, tight low mileage engine etc.)

I'm very happy with both my current bikes. Which do I prefer? Difficult to answer but for six months in remote areas of South America I would probably choose the 1150, and for scratching around Europe the 1200