2010 less power - BIKE mag shock

[BruceG]

You guys that are finding this extra 5 bhp so noticeable are probably just experiencing, "the its not mine open the throttle a little more syndrome".

I test rode a 2010 bike and didnt find it greatly different at all to my 09 GSA, but then I open the throttle on my bike.

As they say nothings goes or handles like a hire/loan car/bike

 

[MIKE R]

Probably true.

I test drove a demonstrator 09 model from one dealer and a 2010 model from another. Although there was about 2 months between the rides, the 2010 did not strike me as being that much different. They were both great bikes.

I bought the 2010 model because the deal was better.

Mike

 

[Timolgra]

The reason latest GS's have more BHP is down to the surge of middle aged fat feckers that need hauling around the M25

 

[Big Nick]

You guys that are finding this extra 5 bhp so noticeable are probably just experiencing, "the its not mine open the throttle a little more syndrome".

I test rode a 2010 bike and didnt find it greatly different at all to my 09 GSA, but then I open the throttle on my bike.

As they say nothings goes or handles like a hire/loan car/bike

My point exactly

 

[Giles]

Glad you agree. So what was the point of this:

That sounds as though you don't actually agree.

But then you add:



Which does agree that it's a matter of opinion.

Yet, back to your first post:



and it has not the slightest indication that it's a matter of opinion at all.

Any casual reading of that statement (by those who are not blessed with second-sight) would probably take it as a statement that less than 100bhp or more than 100bhp is anything but perfect for everyone.

Of course you could have saved all this to-ing and fro-ing by just qualifying your "100bhp is about perfect tho" with IMO, or even IMHO. Possibly your could have responded to Vern's post by simply saying that your were giving your opinion and not as it appears a statement of fact.

Then again, you're the sort of cock that cannot just admit that you meant your comment to be seen as simply your opinion and that's probably due to the fact that you're the sort of cock that believes that your opinion should be adopted by everyone else.

Alrighty!!! Your opinion ? My opinion? ...... Theres only one way to find out .....



FIIIIIIIIIGGGGHHHTTT .......!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AdamA]

Glad you agree. So what was the point of this:

That sounds as though you don't actually agree.

But then you add:



Which does agree that it's a matter of opinion.

Yet, back to your first post:



and it has not the slightest indication that it's a matter of opinion at all.

Any casual reading of that statement (by those who are not blessed with second-sight) would probably take it as a statement that less than 100bhp or more than 100bhp is anything but perfect for everyone.

Of course you could have saved all this to-ing and fro-ing by just qualifying your "100bhp is about perfect tho" with IMO, or even IMHO. Possibly your could have responded to Vern's post by simply saying that your were giving your opinion and not as it appears a statement of fact.

Then again, you're the sort of cock that cannot just admit that you meant your comment to be seen as simply your opinion and that's probably due to the fact that you're the sort of cock that believes that your opinion should be adopted by everyone else.

 

[Borderraider]

Can't imagine a 2010 bike being as "loose" as a 2009 either...... I reckon my '04 is up to about 120bhp now.....

My Blue/White 1150 must be fit

 

[Engineer]

...weight, drag, road holding, handling....all 'alternatives'.

Weight (mass) does not determine maximum speed, just the time taken to get there! Only drag and rolling resistance effect top speed. To oppose these forces you need to burn more fuel more quickly. The faster you burn fuel in the engine the more power it makes. Torque is work, power is the rate of work, Simples

 

[bogman]

My 1974 Z1A's rated @ 82 BHP and is my slowest bike but sweet to ride, if it was 85 or 75 bhp would it matter much, I think not, 100 vs 105 bhp, its just advertisement hype intended to make you part with your hard earned cash

 

[andyshooter]

If you want to go fast you need power, there is no alternative - burn lots of fuel rapidly, its the only way. Physics innit

Well I had my 2010 r1200gs yesterday @ 11am and have done 250 miles on already loving it!!!!!!!

 

[Achim]

Anybody trading in a nearly new GS for the new model must have more money than sense

Power virtually the same, looks the same, practicality the same, comfort the same, handles the same but costs you shedloads to change!

Spot on, Nick: I bought a nearly-new face-lifted 08 in August 08. My dealer has just offered me a trade-in of just £750 less than what I originally paid for my current bike (way in excess of Glass's guide). To change to a 2010 model still costs me almost £4,000 depending on the options I'd choose.

I passed.

Achim

 

[Blind Lemon Ade]

Believe all you want in 'BIKE' magazine.

The article is so well researched that it states that the Triumph Tiger 1050 is available in Black or White, whilst the Triumph official website states Black, White, Blue and Orange. If BIKE can't even get that right........

Mike

...and they keep on going on about how heavy the GS is in comparison to the KTM, 10kg more or summat, then you look at the wet weights in their Spec sheet:

R1200GS: 232kg; 990 Adventure: 231.5kg; Tiger 1050 ABS: 236.2kg

What did they f*ck up? Their opinions, or just the Spec sheet?

And the geezer who rides it back from Spain manages to tell us lots about how brave he is, but feck-all about the bike...

Don't think I'll bother reading any more 'BIKE's.

 

[Engineer]

Well I had my 2010 r1200gs yesterday @ 11am and have done 250 miles on already loving it!!!!!!!

All being well I will have my new fast red one in 4 weeks, I plan on running it in by the book, the best way of course, - in the first week!

 

[ktmmark]

Had my 05 from new with the intention of replacing it after 5 years.
Went on a test ride last saturday, and i am sticking with this one.
I have made change's to it over the years and it just fits me nice and never given any problems still on origional battery

 

[Mark8303]

About 100

My daily driver is a Toyota van with about 102 B.H.P. and it feels about adequate (for a van) my wife's car is a Focus Zetec whith about 100 B.H.P. and feels o.k. (if you wring its neck - 16v fords !). My Honda Firestorm had about 100 B.H.P. and didn't feel like it was interested until you got to 60 m.p.h. then it went balistic (o.k. so I've not ridden a 'blade). My 1200GS has about 100 B.H.P. and feels great at any speed/rev's (except on snow only a little scratch on the engine bar and hand guard). So, I guess it's horses for courses and all that. All I know is 100 BMW horses get me grinning from the first twist of the throttle and that's fine for me, until perhaps I test the new model of course

 

[Voyager61]

Dunno about the bhp ...

Had a go on the new Adventure today - what a surprise!

I had only just ridden off the dealer's forecourt and I could tell the bike was up for it. It's just so easy to ride fast ... I did a short run down the A32 (about ten minutes each way) ... the gearbox is just lovely, really smooth, and the engine is so much more responsive. Overtakes I wouldn't normally consider were a breeze and fifth was responsive enough for the required get-up-and-go.

The bike I tried had ESA in sport mode, which was nice and firm - felt the same as my bike (I have the rear preload wound on all the way).

Awesome and tempting ... but I think it would be wise to wait for the model update ...

 

[Nice 'n' Fat]

If the 2010 bikes need 98 RON then I can't afford to run one

Best stick with my 2006 one then

 

[Engineer]

If the 2010 bikes need 98 RON then I can't afford to run one

Best stick with my 2006 one then

According to BMW's specification they will run happily on 95RON, but max power - which I assume is the quoted 110bhp - happens with 98RON. This being true then it means that go-faster petrol now really does make the bike go faster

Although I am sure that someone will come along in a minute and tell me that I am wrong and that it doesn't matter what type of petrol you use because it is all a million years old anyway

 

[Nice 'n' Fat]

I did hear (from a guy who worked with BMW Technical) that the reason why the old R1200RT had a 98 RON sticker on the tank was that the RT fairing panels would move/creak because the motor ran harsher on 95 RON

I might add that he always ran his RT on 95 RON because the bike was a company vehicle and he had to pay for his own fuel

 

[GSband]

...and they keep on going on about how heavy the GS is in comparison to the KTM, 10kg more or summat, then you look at the wet weights in their Spec sheet:

R1200GS: 232kg; 990 Adventure: 231.5kg; Tiger 1050 ABS: 236.2kg

What did they f*ck up? Their opinions, or just the Spec sheet?

And the geezer who rides it back from Spain manages to tell us lots about how brave he is, but feck-all about the bike...

Don't think I'll bother reading any more 'BIKE's.

I agree.
The ride from Spain to Britain is totally useless. ' That's me, that's who I am, I'm doing my thing, I don't want to integrate, I just want to carry on, that's what I'm here to do', and more of the same.

Next to the weight issue there are more mistakes : p 90: '... Brakes, tyres, suspension, weight, steering geometry, gearing and ergonomics remain unchanged. ...' Dear Bike, the gearing HAS changed (shorter secundary ratio), to enhance the feeling of quick pickup from low revs. Resulting in small quantity of extra petrol being burnt.

I think Bike needs a wake up call.

About the difference in power BMW issued following statement for the 2010 dohc engine : '... The possible difference in power between 98 and 95 octane is 2-3kW. ...' (Quoted from gs-forum.eu.)