Anyone Here Moved From An 1150 or 1100 And Regretted It?

[PhaedrusMC]

I do realise that, this being the 1200LC forum, there'll be plenty of pro-1200 sentiment, but I'm looking for honest opinions from anyone with experience of both bikes. Hoping to avoid trolls and fanboy mudslinging from either side.

With used prices for good 1150s and even 1100s creeping closer to used early 1200 prices, should a prospective owner be considering an early 1200 over a good 1150/1100?

I've always kept my aspirations to 1150/1100, mostly because they've hitherto been the only GS that was at a price-point that I could realistically consider viable for me, but honestly I personally prefer how the 1150/1100 look (again - personal preference - not judging nor commenting on anyone else's preference), and I also like the idea of owning a simpler bike with less complex tech & electronics.

So now with the apparent diminishing price-gap between 1150/1100 and early 1200s, should a 1200 be considered an option?

Have any 1200LC owners come from an 1150/1100 and gone back, or want to go back?

Thanks for any replies. Try to keep it clean lads...

 

[duckspeed]

The 1200 rides better in my opinion they have their well documented faults and the corrosion is an issue but I wouldn't go back
Find one with minimal crusty on it service it well and enjoy

 

[Nick dj]

Had both

I have owned an R1100RS and a R1150RS and have since owned 3 R1200GSs The lower weight alone makes it worthwhile. The biggest drawback is the finish on many of the parts does not stand being left and need looking after a lot more. All mine have also been reliable.

Nick

 

[cookie]

i wouldn't have an early 1200 over an 1150 perhaps, but i'd certainly take a late one every time

 

[Reggie P]

I have owned an R1100RS and a R1150RS and have since owned 3 R1200GSs The lower weight alone makes it worthwhile. The biggest drawback is the finish on many of the parts does not stand being left and need looking after a lot more. All mine have also been reliable.
Nick

Nick , thats a good post. The finish and vulnerability to corrosion is a good point.

Phaedrus, if the electronics make it safer ( saved my butt a few times ) ...surely you can enjoy more motorcycling ? More miles?

 

[Bendy toy]

My 2008 has suffered quite badly with corrosion but its not all BMW's fault (see below). The back subframe was badly finished but not a big job to strip and have powder coated. I had a conductive zinc base coat but zinc electroplate would have been the nest though more hassle to arrange. The front subframe damaged by brake fluid (most likely) so I had that powdered as well. When the paint was stripped there were signs of corrosion under the undamaged paint. Who knows if that was active rust or suppressed by the paint.

The engine and gearbox finish is good except for the front cover (but TBH that's easy enough to get stripped and repainted).

The final drive was fully rebuilt at 50K when the wheel bearing failed. Having read the horror stories I sent it off to MikeyBoy. He said all bearings were "ready" (= end of life) but cost was reasonable so Im not too worried. He also rebuilt the drive shaft. TBH I'd expect the 1150 to be much the same.

The forks and swing arms have no signs of ill health.

Performance - wise I love it, but I'd not want it to be any heavier. 250kg is more than enough thanks.

 

[PhaedrusMC]

Nick , thats a good post. The finish and vulnerability to corrosion is a good point.

Phaedrus, if the electronics make it safer ( saved my butt a few times ) ...surely you can enjoy more motorcycling ? More miles?

They tech may make a bike potentially safer, I imagine. But also more complex - more expensive regular maintenance, more expensive when repairs are necessary. No experience on bikes with ABS, but certainly no critic of it in my car. I'd be perfectly happy with ABS on a bike, but not linked brakes. And I think I'd prefer ye olde mechanically-adjusted suspension over electronically-controlled modes.

Honest opinions - do the tech aspects of newer models do anything to dumb-down a rider? The instructor I'm using now recently tried a late-model 1200, and he was pretty impressed. I must ask his opinion on whether he thinks the tech replaces (or augments) the rider's own skills?

What would Doohan et al make of rider modes?

Not judging - not in a position to. I don't consider myself old (47), nor am I anti-tech, but I still want to feel involved with my bike - an integral part of it, rather than a separate controller of it.

Thanks for the replies.

 

[Reggie P]

You make some good points....

 

[Bendy toy]

I'm more than happy with the ABS and I don't notice the linked brakes. However I am mightily unimpressed with how the bike chews through the rear brake. The OEM organic pads were down to metal in less than 4000 miles.

The traction is a waste of space. On gravel it prevents me spinning the wheel when Id quite like to. On greasy salted tarmac it can't react fast enough and i dropped the bike. I don't rely on such gadgets but the back wheel (cold road cold tyre) just spun up as I turned right at a junction. No major harm done thankfully.

 

[PhaedrusMC]

I'm more than happy with the ABS and I don't notice the linked brakes. However I am mightily unimpressed with how the bike chews through the rear brake. The OEM organic pads were down to metal in less than 4000 miles.

The traction is a waste of space. On gravel it prevents me spinning the wheel when Id quite like to. On greasy salted tarmac it can't react fast enough and i dropped the bike. I don't rely on such gadgets but the back wheel (cold road cold tyre) just spun up as I turned right at a junction. No major harm done thankfully.

If the rider doesn't notice the linked brakes in operation, that's a successful, well-implemented system IMO. But could the 4000-mile rear pad life be due to the rear being activated more regularly than in a non-linked system? Is noticing the linked system during operation the only factor that's pertinent? Does that rapid pad-wear constitute noticing the system? Doesn't the linked system dictate a more involved servicing-process? Isn't there more to investigate if things go wrong? Doesn't the system involve more parts to go wrong?

Is the traction control switchable? Even if it is, isn't that another system to maintain and potentially repair? Isn't good throttle control sufficient traction control? Is TC for lazy riders? Or for riders who never learned good throttle control? I really mean no offence with any of that - I'm far from a super-experienced super-skilled rider myself, and have my share of spills under my belt, including an off due to an inappropriate handful of throttle on my FJ12 (incidentally, my experience with in-line 4s is a factor in my leaning toward a bike with a twin engine - I much preferred the power delivery of my FireStorm to that of the FJ).

I'm sure these are all questions asked many times before, and I imagine failures are rare enough, but this is all stuff - to my mind - that matters. The less that can go wrong, the better. Specially when my aspiration is as much DIY-maintenance as possible.

 

[JohnnyBoxer]

I have had a 1200 GSA with all the gadgets
I sold it because I much prefer my 1150 GSA as I prefer to own it as it makes me smile every time I walk into the garage, which the 1200 GSA never did

 

[RedRick Esq.]

I have had a 1200 GSA with all the gadgets
I sold it because I much prefer my 1150 GSA as I prefer to own it as it makes me smile every time I walk into the garage, which the 1200 GSA never did

And that is the best/only reason to own any bike regardless of its make or model !

The "gadgets" TC and ABS et al are so much improved now on the new bikes as to be almost unrecognisable to the first generation "gadgets"

Lean sensitive ABS is a good thing ( I don't intend to use it but have tested it cos you have to don't you) the traction is way less intrusive and smoother in operation, certainly on the XR than it was on the GSA and it just works !!

 

[Bendy toy]

If the rider doesn't notice the linked brakes in operation, that's a successful, well-implemented system IMO. But could the 4000-mile rear pad life be due to the rear being activated more regularly than in a non-linked system? Is noticing the linked system during operation the only factor that's pertinent? Does that rapid pad-wear constitute noticing the system? Doesn't the linked system dictate a more involved servicing-process? Isn't there more to investigate if things go wrong? Doesn't the system involve more parts to go wrong?

Is the traction control switchable? Even if it is, isn't that another system to maintain and potentially repair? Isn't good throttle control sufficient traction control? Is TC for lazy riders? Or for riders who never learned good throttle control? I really mean no offence with any of that - I'm far from a super-experienced super-skilled rider myself, and have my share of spills under my belt, including an off due to an inappropriate handful of throttle on my FJ12 (incidentally, my experience with in-line 4s is a factor in my leaning toward a bike with a twin engine - I much preferred the power delivery of my FireStorm to that of the FJ).

I'm sure these are all questions asked many times before, and I imagine failures are rare enough, but this is all stuff - to my mind - that matters. The less that can go wrong, the better. Specially when my aspiration is as much DIY-maintenance as possible.

The rear brake was recently rebuilt with new seals because I thought it might be binding. The disc was (and is) always warm even thought the fronts are still cool. But no, the brake is (and was) working correctly. Basically the bike uses a lot more rear brake than I would if I had control of the brake balance. Heavy bike plus small brake = heavy wear rate.

Ive fitted sintered pads and can now feel the rear biting but just have to accept that's how it is. The brake balance is not adjustable.

Traction is a waste of money (IMO). I can see the point (if it works) on a full all out sports bike where it also uses the brake to catch a spinning wheel but the GS simply cuts the engine power. Pointless TBH.

My little spill was entirely my fault but certainly not due to any reliance on electronics. The traction can't prevent a sudden slide mid bend that takes you off on cow poo or slippery salt so may as well not be there. It does prevent the engine over-revving if you take off on a hump bridge (which is quite nice) but t's hardly a must have accessory.

 

[Jon P]

I had two 1100GSs - I bought a new one from the first batch imported and the second one I also bought new was from the last batch imported! I liked them both. The first one was faster!! I didn't have an 1150GS but did have an 1150R Rockster. It was fine....but not a GS! I have had two 1200GSs, first was a new 2007 GS Adventure and the second (that I Still have) is a 2007 GS. The 1200 is a better bike......in theory.....but is it a better bike in real life? They are all very capable machines, all have great power to weight ratios, excellent brakes, cheeky handling and the ability to carry rider, passenger and luggage long distance. To me the real difference was the 'air head' bikes - they were very crude when new....but also very delightful to own and ride! I would buy purely on condition/availability/price/what you fancy. Good luck!

 

[KMD]

Yes here. I had a year 2000 R1150GS for many years. Spent a lot of money on upgrades (Ohlins ,Migsel, Tobinators etc) and just couldn't fault it. A great travelling companion. Then I came across a 56 plate R1200GS with only 3000 miles on and bought it. And I've been convinced since that the R1150GS is a better bike by far. More comfortable, easily as nimble, nearly as quick and all round just more user friendly.

 

[MattW]

I had a '94 1100 and put 50k on it. It wasn't without its problems but I really liked it and went all over the UK and Europe on it, both solo and two up.

18 months ago, I traded it in for a 4000 mile TC GSA. I love it and have zero regrets. The 15 years or so of development really shows. It does everything the 1100 did but quicker, smoother and with much more poise and finesse.

It's easy to view older bikes like the 1100 through rose tinted glasses and say 'they don't make them like they use to' but those bikes actually weren't the bullet proof paragon of reliability, great finish and go anywhere brilliance that people like to spout on about. They were ground breaking at the time (especially the 1100) and definitely moved the breed forwards but time moves on.

Sure, the 1200's are more complex but that's an inevitable consequence of development and ever tightening regulation. Spending one's time in denial and harking back to the 'good old days' is self defeating. It's easy for me to think back about my 1100 and forget the many thousands I spent on it and the times I spent crawling around the garage with the FD and gearbox off it.

My only potential regret is that I part exed it for £1000 against my 1200 - I sometimes think that I should have kept it at that price. But in reality, if I had it would just be gathering dust and getting in the way at the back of the garage...

 

[tadhgocuilleain]

I rode a 1200 LC over 4,500km in three weeks in South Africa in 2014. I bought an 1150 in September and I've put about 4,000km on it since then (including riding it home from Germany).

The LC is a fantastic bike. It's definitely more refined than the 1150. I really enjoyed playing with the "toys" on the LC. Putting it into dynamic mode and throwing the bike around on twisty tarmac, then later putting it into enduro mode and taking it on to rough, rocky gravel roads. The different modes make it feel like a completely different bike. It's not just a gimmick. The whole bike gets soft and bouncy when the suspension is put into enduro mode, and it's rock hard in road mode. The engine tone completely changes when changing engine modes. It sounds growly and sputtery in enduro mode, and it's smooth and refined in road mode.

I loved the LC so much, it almost seduced me. I seriously considered buying one. However, I'm the kind of guy that buys a bike with his heart, rather than his head. I don't care what the specifications say. I don't care if the 1150 is so many kilos heavier than the 1200, or it's got so much less power. The 1150 just attracted me. I did my research, so it was an educated choice. I know what the common faults are etc on the bike, so I know what I may need to deal with in the future. The first time I rode an 1150 was when I was test-riding my own before I bought it. Coming from a V-twin Honda Deauville that ticks over like a mouse's heart, the 1150 felt like riding a diesel generator. There were no fancy read-outs or buttons to change modes, but it made me grin. I loved it immediately. On the 1700km ride home, as I learnt its ways, I loved it more.

If you're the type of person that buys a bike on PCP, changes it every three years, likes to have the very latest technology, and just want a smooth, comfortable bike to get you around, the LC would be a perfect choice.

If, however, you're like me and like to have a bike you can bond with - a bike with character, if you like to work on your bike, dismantle it, rebuild it, get to know it and keep it for a long time, I think you'll fall for an 1100/1150.

Specially when my aspiration is as much DIY-maintenance as possible.

For this reason alone, I'd advise getting an 1100/1150. I'm an electronic engineer; when I was researching all the various models of GS, I didn't rule out the possibility of buying the hardware and software necessary to work with the CAN-bus of the 1200 if that was the bike I wanted, but that would be very involved and I prefer breaking out the socket set and tool box, rather than the laptop and interface if I'm going to work on my bike.

 

[iftikartaxis]

1150 to 1200

I had a black 1150 six and a half years never missed a beat loved it
I then decided to try a 1200 only had it a year it was faster easier to ride not as heavy I really couldn't get on with it
So back to another 1150 GSA SE it just feels right
Big heavy ugly I love it when I ride it I get the grin factor
Each to there own
Won't be buying another 1200

 

[Jon P]

Well said! 100% agree.

 

[fatnfast]

I bought a 1200 TC last year and as it's my work bike it has been used a lot. It's been totally reliable and done all that I have asked for it. It has all the gadgets, heated seats ASC, cruise control blah blah.

I kept my 1150gs rather than part ex it at the time. For the first time in months I took the 1150 out today to blow the dust off it. I am so glad I kept her. It reminded me why I switched from a Honda Fireplace to the 1150gs 14 years ago. It feels like a giant Tonka toy, solid with bags of character and great fun to ride at speeds that will not tarnish my licence to much.

The 1200 is a brilliant bike but it feels, well, to efficient and 'Japanese'. It's hard to explain, but it is less involving to ride despite being a little nippy-er allround.
Having said all this, it is an 1200RT, but I've ridden a few 1200gs's and it's the same conclusion I come to.

The 1200 is a great do it all tool. Mine has a job to do and it does it well, but for proper fun it's the 1150 for me