A small 'heads up' for the nerdy crowd:
Have a look at the graph at 6:27. It shows the AFR (i.e the fueling) at WOT for both bikes. The 1200 shows a steady 14.7 whereas the 1250 is down to 13.
Who said anything about dangerously lean?
1200GSA or 1250GSA
- Thread starter wpm
- Start date
A small 'heads up' for the nerdy crowd:
Have a look at the graph at 6:27. It shows the AFR (i.e the fueling) at WOT for both bikes. The 1200 shows a steady 14.7 whereas the 1250 is down to 13.
Who said anything about dangerously lean?
Could that have been shown that way to clearly show the how much more linear the 1250 graph was - and it was not much leaner?
If it was dangerously lean would you have expected BSD to make a point of it?
Yep,
Mark's comments were very positive about the fuelling on the 1250. I've been in that little dyno room several times; always seemed very realistic... Not like some places!
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Naah.... It was just a kick in the leg to the unmentionable 'tuner'.
The graph as such is interesting in the sense that it demonstrates the difference in the ECUs ability to control the fuels for the 1200 with it's narrowband O2 sensor that only reports lean/rich compared to AFR 14,7 vs the 1250 and the wideband O2 sensor that is able to report back a broad range and is quicker in it's response which means that the ECU is running in closed loop (meaning the fueling is based on feedback from O2 sensor) pretty much throughout the entire powerband (according to tuners).
Warlord the VFR1200 was neither a sportbike or a tourer and not even fast in a straight line...I remember when it came out thinking why would anyone pick this Honda over a K1300S that handled better and roll=on was faster than a 'Busa due to shorter gearing...
If you are happy with your 1200 great...But don't say a 1250 is not faster...Topspeed might be only 3 mph but you get there much quicker and roll-on is no comparison...The 1250 has so much more torque !
Like I have said before the step from the 1200 oilcooled to 1200 watercooled was much smaller than 1200 to 1250 which really is 1170 to 1254 + 2 different intake cam lobes...Especially if you have a EU-4 1200 the difference in the mid-range is HUGE ! With the 1250 you just twist the throttle , with the 1200 you have to drop 2 gears first...
If you are happy with your 1200 great...But don't say a 1250 is not faster...Topspeed might be only 3 mph but you get there much quicker and roll-on is no comparison...The 1250 has so much more torque !
Like I have said before the step from the 1200 oilcooled to 1200 watercooled was much smaller than 1200 to 1250 which really is 1170 to 1254 + 2 different intake cam lobes...Especially if you have a EU-4 1200 the difference in the mid-range is HUGE ! With the 1250 you just twist the throttle , with the 1200 you have to drop 2 gears first...
Granted I didn't read them all but they mostly just seemed the usual sour grapes from people who don't have one in true "knock success" British fashion.
Anyway, moving on you did say IIRC that the 1250 wasn't any faster to 100, yet if you watch the vid it clearly is as the 1200 was only doing 93 as the 1250 got to 100. In a similar vein the roll on acceleration in top simulation a typical overtake saw the 1250 leave the 1200 behind.
It might not be enough of a difference for some but that's their choice which is different from your argument that there is (in your opinion) no difference.
My point exactly and well made , have a look at the Bennets Review as well as its a good in depth piece.
Even for people who don't care about how fast their bike is the 1250 is head & shoulders better than the 1200...Much more tractor pull bottom end torque.Much stronger mid-range which is great if you like to overtake cars without much effort or having to shift down or running low rpm/higher gears.Not to forget much quieter mechanically where the 1200 makes noises from the valvetrain.Not to mention the perfect fueling through the whole rpm range that feels like it is electric.And yes the top-end could be even stronger on the 1250 but BMW knew that was not possible without redesigning the frame/geometry because the current 1200/1250 frame can't take any more top-speed with bags/topcase on the bike...
That made me chuckle as well! Especially as the 1200 was the best bike on the planet, when he had one.
It was , but time moves on Dear Chap
Monty B
Registered user
Had every version over last decade and 1250 is a better bike than the 1200.
I'd have the 1200 again though, but my sentence above is a fact.
I'd have the 1200 again though, but my sentence above is a fact.
For you maybe, not for me...
Ditto !
I’ve gone from 1200GSA to 1100GS to 1150GSA to 800GS to 80GS and the best is the oldest.
By far.
Riding with a mate today who is on his first BMW, a new bells and whistles 1250GS.Had it two weeks and already has issues with the key/keyless system not working correctly.Already been back to dealer......sounds familiar ?
Monty B
Registered user
Apart from those who populate the site to slag them off in favour of some old scrapper, most would agree the 1250 is the better bike, but not all, that I agree with.
I read you went ‘back’ to a 1200 and I’d have my 1200 Rallye back in a flash, just not in preference.
Nope.
Indeed I did, as much as I enjoyed the 1250 I never really loved it. Don’t know if that was because I’d always had GSA’s previously or not but when the engine started sounding worse than a Ducati on a bad day, the front beak came loose, the clutch bearing went loud and the paint on the tank panel marked due to a tank bag I decided I’d had enough. Sure the 1250 is more powerful but I didn’t find the engine or gearbox any smoother and certainly in my experience the build quality was not as good.... As mentioned previously I may have just had a bad one but to pay the best part of £20K for a bike my expectations may be a lot higher than some others...
Spot on .
Perhaps BMW should go back to building bikes properly rather than chasing bhp to please misguided merkins .....and stick
Edited for accuracy
Similar threads
