Gs vs Tiger1050

[good'oleboy]

So guys is the Tiger1050 as good as the Gs 1200 or is the GS better. I'm kind of fed up with all the problems reported and do not want a bike that will , with mileage cost me loads of dosh just read Pats job on the FD, friggin heck, if the cars did that we'd all go and brick the dealers windows. So all you boys with the info please, your opinion would be most welcome.

 

[Nice 'n' Fat]

I've had a Tiger 955 and various Speed Triples 885 to 955 to 1050 (tho never a 1050 Tiger) and loved them all but if I could only have one bike it'd be the 1200 GSA

I know of two lads who have had the 1050 Tiger and sold them to get the 955 Tiger

My advice is to go for a very long ride on both

 

[good'oleboy]

I've had a Tiger 955 and various Speed Triples 885 to 955 to 1050 (tho never a 1050 Tiger) and loved them all but if I could only have one bike it'd be the 1200 GSA

I know of two lads who have had the 1050 Tiger and sold them to get the 955 Tiger

My advice is to go for a very long ride on both

Thanks for your comments. I had a 2007 GSA fantastic bike sadly traded in for a STD 06 GS which I have to say is not as sweet as my GSA was . I quess the question you are asking is why sell? I have a bad knee joint and dropped the bugger with a full tank I could not get it to its feet and it put me off, I also have a pan 1100 and I can manage that brute with no probs. I have had quite a few flat twin beemers I like them, but am begining to think that the competition is gaining. Dave

 

[FatAl]

Tiger 1050 is a great bike

I've owned a 1050 Tiger from new since July 2007. I'm very pleased with the bike, it is totally reliable, returns 50mpg, more comfortable than my old GS 1150, and I thought the 1150 more comfortable than all the GS1200s I rode as demo and courtesey bikes.
The tiger 1050 triple engine is superb, smooth, powerful, tractable and the bike feels a lot quicker than the GS. It is not intended to be an off road bike, it is 100% road orientated, which most GS bikes are solely used for.
I don't like the later breed of GS bikes,far too complicated and there seems to be many reliability issues. My 1150 was a lovely bike, in the 6 years I owned it, it was totally reliable, but I got bored with it, plus it seemed everyman and his dog was getting a GS. all far too trendy for me, too many numpties in twat suits playing at Ewan and Charlie so I got a Moto Guzzi Stelvio to run alongside my Tiger, and the Guzzi has been a total joy to own and ride, a few minor hicups but nothing like the problems I read about on this forum, more exclusive and despite the shite written in the bike press it is a smashing bike.
My GSing now is down to my R100GS bumble bee, there's no way I would go to a modern GS now, IMHO BMW went downhill after the 1150

 

[sven]

I test rode a number of bikes including the Tiger 1050 before buying my R1200GS in November.

After reading numerous road tests and chatting to several owners, I thought the Tiger ticked all the boxes, so I had a test ride in August with SWMBO.

The engine was very nice with plenty of torque low down and a decent kick at the top end (and this was after getting off my K1200S). The riding position for the ride ws great too. However, Trudi felt very exposed on the back as she was sat very high and was getting battered by the windblast. The heatshield on the exhaust also dug into her ankle.

The suspension was far too soft for me to make a proper judgement on the handling and there were no tools on the bike to adjust the preload and damping to my tastes.

If you ride one-up, then I'm sure the Tiger is a great bike, but I did have reservations about the general build quality and Heath Robinson design.

We test rode the R1200GS afterwards and it was much comfier, better built and had a feeling of solidity lacking on the Tiger. Trudi thought it was too slow and would have preferred me to buy a K1300S or VFR1200 as logical replacements for the K12S. However, the ESA on my new bike is firm enough for scratching in the Dales (the demo bike on standad suspension was underdamped) and its really grown on her now.

 

[Tank]

I test rode the Tiger 1050, several GS 1150 adventures and have ridden my mates GS1200 and for me the Tiger was much smoother, faster, comfier and the build quality seemed to match the BM. I actually ended up buying a Tiger 955i which fitted my needs better in that it was still silky smooth and fast and at least kindof looked like an adventure bike compared to the Tiger 1050 (or should that read Fazer lookelikee ) which was what I wanted.

If you drop either Tiger 1050 or 955i it will be some lump to pick up!!

As you say you have a knee injury so that hampers things a bit. There is a lot of talk of the Triumph forum that Triumph will be bringout out a 675 Tiger based bike which will no doubt be much lighter but will still have that 'oh so sweet' 675 triple engine!!

As far as my Tiger 955i goes it is a 2005 model with 20,000 miles and still looks as good as the day I bought it, build quality is excellent and has run very smoothly and returned around 50 mpg no matter how I ride it. I would say that if you are coming from any BM you will miss that telelever front end and the Tiger does 'dive' a lot on braking. I know I missed it after my K1200GT.

At the end of the day no other bike, IMO, has the adventure appeal of the GS or such a great forum as this but as you say there are plenty of bikes that are catching up and most a lot less technically complicated!!!

As said earlier take several bikes for a good long test ride and enjoy

 

[(RIP) Johno23]

I too demo'd both the 1050 tiger and the 1200 gs. If i'm honest i was after all the research and chats to various people, i was looking to get the tiger. When i took the tiger out , really enjoyed it, great engine and riding position. It was also £1500 less than the BM so mind made up. But thought i'd take out bm anyway.
This is a big bike so was a bit nervous, but once going the 1200 was in a different class, so easy to ride, fab brake and suspension this bike just inspire's confidence like no other bike i've ever ridden.Engine may not be as quick as the triumph but that is the only point where the triumph wins. the boxer engine has character and is quick enough for me, and so comfortable.Take them both out more than once before you make a decision. Good luck.

 

[MIKE R]

I'm very lucky to have both

As said before, the 1050 has a great engine.....very smooth and more than fast enough for me. The bike is light, reliable and economic. I usually prefer shaft drives, but am learning to live with the chain.....no problems.

My GSA has more road presence, better chassis and more whistles and bells. The GS carries luggage better (the standard Triumph luggage looks well but is very expensive with little capacity in comparison)

I always ride without a pillion, so no views about the two capabilities.

Both great bikes, so a good long test ride is essential.

Obviously the Tiger is a lot cheaper, although things like a centre stand are 'optional' extras. I don't know what your budget is, but if you are looking for new then the £800 'free' accessories offer (or a discount at some dealers) is around until the end of the month. I thought about Pexing my non abs Tiger for an ABS model last month, and the new ABSes are as rare as hen's teeth at the moment (Mind you, I did specify white.....my local dealer had an orange one (I think it may be an 09 model) in stock last week).

Mike

 

[snerkler]

I've just recently traded in my 1050 Tiger I had for 3 years for a new GSA so can give my opinion. The Tiger is a bit quicker and so gives you a little bit more of a thrill, but I found the GSA gave me more confidence in the twisties etc within the first hour of riding it. I honestly think the build quality of the BMW is far superior. Also things are layed out so much easier on the BMW, like the heated grips and on board computer which you can access on the handlebars. The heated grip switch on the Tiger is on the fairing, and the on board computer button is on the actual speedo. Not big things, but its these little things that make the BMW the more complete package. The panniers on the tiger are tiny, and the top box looks hideous, I took it off as soon as I took it home from the showroom.

Don't get me wrong, the Tiger is a cracking bike, and a touch more fun. But I'm glad I made the swap, and I can tell why the BMW is so much more expensive.

As for reliability, I know when I used to go on the Tiger 1050 forum there was as many complaints about the Tiger on there as the gs on here.

They have totally different engine characteristics, both fantastic in their own right, you just have to decide which you prefer. I've had 2 1050 triumphs and love the triple, but for the time being I'm loving the boxer. I'm sure I'll have another Triumph one day though

 

[bumpy]

If you are looking at the Tiger 1050, can I make a recommendation that you try out the Honda CBF 1000.

I had 3 test rides on the Tiger, then bought the GS1200 which I felt at the time was better.

Now finally I have settled on the CBF1000, one of the most underrated bikes there is. With four cylinders (detuned Blade engine) its smoother than the Triumph unit, corners beautifully and the bike is cheaper and better value.

Finally for the vertically challenged like me, its a doddle to reach the road.

 

[BBB61]

The quality of finish on Triumphs has gone down in recent years, and the difference was very much evident when I sold my 1999 Sprint ST and bought a 2004 ST. The paint was poorer, and so was the fit of the fairing and bodywork panels. Paint started to flake off a number of painted brackets within a year, and there was plenty of furring up on the engine cases and other components. The dealer was supportive but the warranty department at the factory were a bunch of merchant bankers and told me that they wouldn't cover for the obvious poor quality of their painted components. They also refused to do anything about a speedo that over-read by between 15-20%.

In short, my 1999 Sprint at five years old and with 35000 miles on the clock was in better condition than my 2004 ST when it was a year old and had only covered 6000 miles.

 

[good'oleboy]

I test rode a number of bikes including the Tiger 1050 before buying my R1200GS in November.

After reading numerous road tests and chatting to several owners, I thought the Tiger ticked all the boxes, so I had a test ride in August with SWMBO.

The engine was very nice with plenty of torque low down and a decent kick at the top end (and this was after getting off my K1200S). The riding position for the ride ws great too. However, Trudi felt very exposed on the back as she was sat very high and was getting battered by the windblast. The heatshield on the exhaust also dug into her ankle.

The suspension was far too soft for me to make a proper judgement on the handling and there were no tools on the bike to adjust the preload and damping to my tastes.

If you ride one-up, then I'm sure the Tiger is a great bike, but I did have reservations about the general build quality and Heath Robinson design.

We test rode the R1200GS afterwards and it was much comfier, better built and had a feeling of solidity lacking on the Tiger. Trudi thought it was too slow and would have preferred me to buy a K1300S or VFR1200 as logical replacements for the K12S. However, the ESA on my new bike is firm enough for scratching in the Dales (the demo bike on standad suspension was underdamped) and its really grown on her now.

Sven thanks for your input and glad your the lady likes the bike Dave

 

[good'oleboy]

If you are looking at the Tiger 1050, can I make a recommendation that you try out the Honda CBF 1000.

I had 3 test rides on the Tiger, then bought the GS1200 which I felt at the time was better.

Now finally I have settled on the CBF1000, one of the most underrated bikes there is. With four cylinders (detuned Blade engine) its smoother than the Triumph unit, corners beautifully and the bike is cheaper and better value.

Finally for the vertically challenged like me, its a doddle to reach the road.

Yeah Bumpy that is a very underrated bike handles like a dream and it is a Honda well made Have thought of it it just felt a tad small but it is a thought cheers

 

[good'oleboy]

The quality of finish on Triumphs has gone down in recent years, and the difference was very much evident when I sold my 1999 Sprint ST and bought a 2004 ST. The paint was poorer, and so was the fit of the fairing and bodywork panels. Paint started to flake off a number of painted brackets within a year, and there was plenty of furring up on the engine cases and other components. The dealer was supportive but the warranty department at the factory were a bunch of merchant bankers and told me that they wouldn't cover for the obvious poor quality of their painted components. They also refused to do anything about a speedo that over-read by between 15-20%.

In short, my 1999 Sprint at five years old and with 35000 miles on the clock was in better condition than my 2004 ST when it was a year old and had only covered 6000 miles.

Well done Guys thanks very for all your opinions. what i love about this place there always people to give you help. goodonya all Happy Easter