122 bhp

[jeff garnett]

Hi

the new 1200s has 122bhp

Its time the GS had 122bhp

 

[PRR]

Peak power isn't everything

With less torque at a higher rpm I definitely don't find the S-engine an improvement over the GS on the streets. Also with the very high compression ratio the S most likely will have more vibrations.

If I wanted that much power I'd prefer a more suitable engine layout. Triumphs 1050 triple is a very nice example in the same ballpark.

 

[Mouse]

I'd rather have more torque, I doubt I've ever used all 100bhp of my GS anyway

Not that it's really lacking in torque either

And, I bet that 122bhp comes at a price, like only being able to use 98 RON petrol, and less than 50mpg too.

 

[Tsiklonaut]

I'd convert half of my 1100's 80bhp to more lowdown torque any day if that'd be possible, but the GS already has the best torque characteristics for big trailie that really needs it. Though, wouldn't mind having 40bhp and some twisty 150Nm@4000rpms giving HUGE TRACKTION . The R1xxxS is more high revving prone, thus less torque on low, more bhp on high aka peak-power tuned machine.

 

[Tsiklonaut]

Indeed, 1,5kg weighting ABS system on R1200S is an real achievement!

 

[SpyInTheCamp]

I'd rather have more torque, I doubt I've ever used all 100bhp of my GS anyway

Does the GS really have 100bhp? I take it that you don't mean at the back wheel then?

Kai

 

[Tsiklonaut]

R1200S

Compression ratio: 12.5:1 (<- )
Rated output: 90 kW (122 PS) @ 8.250/min
Max. torque: 112 Nm @ 6.800/min

ROZ 98

Fuel consumption over 100 km at constant 90 km/h -> 4.3 litres
Fuel consumption over 100 km at constant 120 km/h -> 5.6 litres

R1200GS

Compression ratio: 11.0:1
Rated output: 74 kW (100 bhp) @ 7,000 rpm
Max. torque: 115 Nm @ 5,500 rpm

ROZ 95 (91 switchable as well)

Fuel consumption over 100 km at constant 90 km/h -> 4.3 litres
Fuel consumption over 100 km at constant 120 km/h -> 5.5 litres
______________
Bottom line: clearly one of them is high revving bike and other lowdown torque-rich more reliable enduro

 

[Tsiklonaut]

Does the GS really have 100bhp? I take it that you don't mean at the back wheel then?

Kai

Yep, BMW motorrad says it's bhp, so engine has probably some 108HP or something coz shaft drive is quite "consuming HP converter" compared with nowaday's hi-tec chains, chain reduces somewhere 4 horsepower while shaft 8 i'd guess...

 

[SpyInTheCamp]

Why the, do all the bike mag tests put the power figure at around 85bhp? They do also say that they dyno test the bikes.

Doesn't really bother me either way.

Kai

 

[Aurelius]

Yep, BMW motorrad says it's bhp, so engine has probably some 108HP or something coz shaft drive is quite "consuming HP converter" compared with nowaday's hi-tec chains, chain reduces somewhere 4 horsepower while shaft 8 i'd guess...

BMW's claim of 100 hp is taken at the crankshaft. The 1200GS's rear wheel horsepower has been measured at 85 hp by various independent testers.

 

[Tsiklonaut]

BMW's claim of 100 hp is taken at the crankshaft. The 1200GS's rear wheel horsepower has been measured at 85 hp by various independent testers.

Then the BMW official page has a bug in there

 

[thornley]

My 916 Ducati was dyno'd at 104 bhp rear wheel, officially 112 at the crank. Quite meaningless really what does matter for riding pleasure is pure 'grunt'. The 122 BHP of the 1200S probably equates to the same rear wheel BHP as the Duke or there abouts, but torque figure, that marvelous mid range grunt will be higher given the increase in CC and rotating mass.
Found the GS to be a faster bike than the Duke and just about any similar sized 'sports' bike over any 200 mile trip. The Duke with my 6' 1'' frame is pure torture after the first 100 miles but heaven in between. Paper figures dont always equate on the road into true performance ask anyone who's ever owned a V max.

 

[Aurelius]

Then the BMW official page has a bug in there

The figure BMW gives on their website is brake horsepower (bhp) not rear wheel horsepower.

brake horsepower
noun

1. engineering.
The power developed by an engine as measured either by the force that must be applied to a friction brake in order to stop it, or by a dynamometer applied to the flywheel.

http://www.allwords.com/word-brake horsepower.html

 

[GSmonkey]

I agree, torque's the key on these machines. The 1200GS has a 'power band' at 5500+ which I rarely use and would trade for more torque lower down.

 

[Kevmulcock]

I KNEW I WOULD GET TO SHOW THIS !!!

It was just a matter of time..... :clock

I had my bike dyno'd at Butlins MCN bash in October (ace)

It shows hp as 96.76

 

[Älgen]

I'd convert half of my 1100's 80bhp to more lowdown torque any day if that'd be possible, but the GS already has the best torque characteristics for big trailie that really needs it. Though, wouldn't mind having 40bhp and some twisty 150Nm@4000rpms giving HUGE TRACKTION . The R1xxxS is more high revving prone, thus less torque on low, more bhp on high aka peak-power tuned machine.

Remember this thread? You don't have to compromise.

http://www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29694

Just do it!

/ Älgen