I was in a similar position, I have a 1200 GS and never saw the1250 as a big enough improvement to justify the price to change
As for the usual suspects from Ducati, Triumph & KTM, all have something that puts me off
Nothing interesting from the Japanese at the moment unfortunately either
The new GS ticked the boxes for me, so I ordered one, but with 5 years guarantee
I’m sure you will hate it
+1 on all of this. I came to my 1200GSA from a K1200S and there have been a few times on the GSA when I'd have liked just a little bit more grunt. I can remember once not long after getting it when I went for an overtake and surprised myself to find the throttle against the stop - never happened on the S which had so much more in reserve. The 1250 while a better bike than the 1200 was never that much better to justify raiding the piggy-bank. The 1300GSA could possibly tempt me to shell out my hard earned pennies (plus by then my 1200 will definitely be needing retirement).I was in a similar position, I have a 1200 GS and never saw the1250 as a big enough improvement to justify the price to change
As for the usual suspects from Ducati, Triumph & KTM, all have something that puts me off
Nothing interesting from the Japanese at the moment unfortunately either
The new GS ticked the boxes for me, so I ordered one, but with 5 years guarantee
If I had a quid for every time .........
with respect Boxer, I don't think you quite get it?
Again a personal view which I cannot agree with as its just not the way I feel the Gs has and needs to go. The new bike is not a trump tool at all but an evolution of a great bike , they have kept the power increae low but improved the way it puts the power down , lots of it all the way thro the revs . Many a time when loaded up on the 1200 and the 1250 less , more power was wanted , with the new motor this has been addressed , without the need to go to extra unneeded bhp less torque and higher revs. The 1300 gives the chap who likes a bigger bike with more low torque , not a 1000 or 900 cc toy with a narrow seat and skinny frame.
s that get in the way lol
I get all that but feel development doesn't necessarily mean getting bigger all the time. Yes, the power/torque curves look very good but there has to be a limit to this power race between bikes. Having ridden a few 160 and 180bhp bikes, it was painfully evident to me that they're just unnecessary and unusable for much of the rev range and really many are only controllable due to the advanced electronics sorting everything out when you want to wind it on. Yes, with a big heavy adv bike, you can probably see the relevance in upping power and torque for a more lazy relaxed ride, especially out of corners where that wave of torque pulls you cleanly through but having experience of the 1200 and 1250, I honestly don't consider them lacking at all. Imagine what they would do with a diet, shedding more weight? It's a deeply personal thing but I've always felt that the most useable power range was 110 to 130bhp (rear wheel) requiring minimal electronic intervention, coupled with a nice big fat torque curve. The reason for the 1300, lets make no mistake, is the keeping up with the Jones's (or in this case, upping power to be more competitive whether needed or not). I'd reason, that that's not necessarily evolution, it's marketing. I get it. They don't want to lose sales to the competition.
My point above I feel was missed. A better technical approach for a do it all bike might have been to liberate more power from a smaller, more efficient power plant, concentrating on shaving weight off. These bikes have simply got too heavy. I'd be first in the queue for a smaller, slightly more potent boxer (if that was possible) which had shed 40 or 50Kgs off the kerb weight. That magic 200 to 220Kg range would have been brilliant. Arguably this would take more innovative engineering design which I would have regarded as a better evolution of the 1250. Increasing capacity is a blunt tool and quite probably the cheaper manufacturing solution, but innovative it isn't. Yes, it's a personal view but I'm a details oriented engineer by profession and have been riding long enough to know and understand what appeals to my own riding wants. The GS has got to a point now where I'm one of the possibly few people who regarded the 1200 and 1250 as more than ample in all respects, and I just don't like the looks of the new one, nor the fact that comparing with a similarly kitted out GS, there isn't that much of a weight advantage. The recent test on the scales proved that when the new one was kitted out to equivalent TE spec. I think making it narrower and batter handling is a big plus point in its favour though. For the money, I don't think anyone is gaining much, if any advantage on the road compared with a good 1250 in real terms. I'm not arguing semantics or even trying to say the new one isn;t a great bike. It more than likely will prove to be a great success. I just won't be tempted to have one in my garage because I can't see past the looks, and don't think I'm at any disadvantage by missing out on the extra power. Others will be delighted to have made the change and that's great. I won't be one of them. I'm happy with what I have
I had dog once that was beautiful , loyal and calm . I was doing some work once in an area where a dogs home was close , so I decided to take a look as I could hear the barks form the site I was on and being a dog lover I decided to check it out. Well bugger me I came out with a one eyed , one eared dog that had been used in fighting but was just so nice , point I make is don,t judge a book by its cover . That dog was the best thing I ever did because I gave it a chance and took the risk with him and the rewards I got back were boundless . The new Gs just might be like that dog.I get all that but feel development doesn't necessarily mean getting bigger all the time. Yes, the power/torque curves look very good but there has to be a limit to this power race between bikes. Having ridden a few 160 and 180bhp bikes, it was painfully evident to me that they're just unnecessary and unusable for much of the rev range and really many are only controllable due to the advanced electronics sorting everything out when you want to wind it on. Yes, with a big heavy adv bike, you can probably see the relevance in upping power and torque for a more lazy relaxed ride, especially out of corners where that wave of torque pulls you cleanly through but having experience of the 1200 and 1250, I honestly don't consider them lacking at all. Imagine what they would do with a diet, shedding more weight? It's a deeply personal thing but I've always felt that the most useable power range was 110 to 130bhp (rear wheel) requiring minimal electronic intervention, coupled with a nice big fat torque curve. The reason for the 1300, lets make no mistake, is the keeping up with the Jones's (or in this case, upping power to be more competitive whether needed or not). I'd reason, that that's not necessarily evolution, it's marketing. I get it. They don't want to lose sales to the competition.
My point above I feel was missed. A better technical approach for a do it all bike might have been to liberate more power from a smaller, more efficient power plant, concentrating on shaving weight off. These bikes have simply got too heavy. I'd be first in the queue for a smaller, slightly more potent boxer (if that was possible) which had shed 40 or 50Kgs off the kerb weight. That magic 200 to 220Kg range would have been brilliant. Arguably this would take more innovative engineering design which I would have regarded as a better evolution of the 1250. Increasing capacity is a blunt tool and quite probably the cheaper manufacturing solution, but innovative it isn't. Yes, it's a personal view but I'm a details oriented engineer by profession and have been riding long enough to know and understand what appeals to my own riding wants. The GS has got to a point now where I'm one of the possibly few people who regarded the 1200 and 1250 as more than ample in all respects, and I just don't like the looks of the new one, nor the fact that comparing with a similarly kitted out GS, there isn't that much of a weight advantage. The recent test on the scales proved that when the new one was kitted out to equivalent TE spec. I think making it narrower and batter handling is a big plus point in its favour though. For the money, I don't think anyone is gaining much, if any advantage on the road compared with a good 1250 in real terms. I'm not arguing semantics or even trying to say the new one isn;t a great bike. It more than likely will prove to be a great success. I just won't be tempted to have one in my garage because I can't see past the looks, and don't think I'm at any disadvantage by missing out on the extra power. Others will be delighted to have made the change and that's great. I won't be one of them. I'm happy with what I have
But a bike to me is partly chosen on how it looks as well as all the other considerations. I've owned several dogs from rescue centres and agree with you on dogs, just not on the bike. It's one of those for me that did fall from the ugly tree, hitting a fair few branches on the way down
. Sorry and all that, I just can't see past the looks. Is radar cruise really a milestone benefit to a competent rider? I'm not so sure. ABS, yes; Multi-axis traction control, definitely. Linked braking, sort of...ok, I am a fan. Radar cruise? Nope. That could have been left off and the older style headlamp and face retained. If they want to put something useful on it, how about one of the first bikes to have cameras built in front and back? Some cars are using this now, so why not bikes? That would have been cheaper than radar controlled cruise and for insurance purposes would be a plus. There's many ways to skin a cat though, and I just think they made a bit of a hash of this. I'm not a fan of the side profile either...it's a little cross-tourer-ish, but at least I understand the reasons for the frame change and the advantages that brings.
