So is this a question of the 12GS aesthetics or performance? It seems the question of 12 'GS-ness' is more to do with aesthetics than anything else.
Things like spoked wheels, off-road ability etc. are mentioned as true to the GS lineage. That's correct but let us be honest, 90% don't go off-road and 90% of that off-road consists of fireroads, greenlanes, and certainly nothing involving any sort of really treacherous terrain. So can the 12 do that? Yup. The cast wheels are every bit as good as the spoked, albeit spoked rims are more forgiving but not really necessary for dirt roads. The 12 is lighter, significantly. Lighter is better off-road. so it seems to be every bit as good, even better than the previous models. If you think the 12 GS is less off-road capable than the other because of things like spoked rims then I suggest you try a KTM950, off-road, and see what real off-road is. Or better yet take any DP thumper. It'll spank 80/100/11/1150/ADv/12 ass no matter what. These bikes all weigh way too much to make capable off-road bikes
The march of technology arguement. Well BMW has always plowed it's own path from day one with the GS line let alone the rest of their product line. In the 80's who else made a 500 lb shaft drive dirt bike, built for 2, that had hard bags, and that you could tour on? Who else made each subsequent generation of their dirt-bike heavier, added even more luggage, and the tele/paralever suspension that creaks under heavy duty off-road work? So it seems the intro of CANBUS etc along with the increased abilities are not only maintaining it's GS-ness to me, but are heading back to its roots.
Then we get to reliability. The one factor that has been huge is the internet and it's information and sometimes mis-information. There were brake failures, shaft drive failures and luggage failures on the previous models so I'd say the 12GS is keeping up the GS-ness factor.
And don't be fooled into thinking the R80/R100's were idiot-proof. I'm in the process of finding and buying an R80GS, hopefully a PD, and the amount of crap they had go wrong and that I'm required to check out would certainly eliminate that myth. It's like that with anything from the past. People forget how bad something once was when it's been gone for many years.
Finally, a RTW trip. Realistically if you are going to the third world, buy a KLR. Cheaper from the get go, cheaper to leave behind if something happens to the bike that's irrepairable or worse yet something happens to you, easier to service, as yuo've said, and less likely to get stolen. Plus it's a heck of a lot easier to lift.
That said, how many really head off for parts unknown on these bikes. I doubt the number of RTW riders using the GS line has increased/decreased much since the intro of the 1100/1150/1150ADV/12. I've just finished reading a how-to book on RTW trips by an American who's done it three times, most notably on a KLR and old R80GS. The one thing he noted was that all the bikes he took and all the people he met, who were going RTW, no matter the budget, prep work or skill level, had issues with their bikes.
So this seems more like an aesthetics arguement to me and that is too personalised an issue to really debate. I love the looks of the entire GS line but each has it's own appeal to me. To argue aesthetics of these bikes is missing the point of these bikes.
Arguing the GS'ness of the 12 v the others is
. If you don't like the bike don't buy it, there are plenty of great bikes out there, and not just BMW's but honestly there's nothing significantly different between these models to warrant this lame debate. Pick one and enjoy it. I have.
FWIW, I just did 4.5 days of riding including two 1,000 km plus days touring the backroads and dirt roads of NY, Penn, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina - notably Deal's Gap, Carolina and back up through the previously mentioned states into Canada. All told about 3,700 kms. Only needed to a about 200 ml of oil and check tire pressures. 37,500 km and no issues.
