Hmm this can be a dealbreaker for some
- Thread starter EVskiy
- Start date
Slower and 8kg heavier..............it's gonna need stabilisers soon
You would have to be a bit of a strange person to let that put you off !
Lasted one minute
Sorry, but yer mans voice
- all i could think of was ....
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aeDk6ZeGNnU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sorry, but yer mans voice
- all i could think of was .... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aeDk6ZeGNnU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm offended ....
I've already said it.... theres no difference in the real world between R1200 and R1250. It isn't any faster.
But it's still a nice bike.
But it's still a nice bike.
fred_jb
Registered user
It could well be that the 0-100 km/h figure is worse, as with a standing start the the engine will necessarily spend some time below the switchover point between the mild and hotter cams, and there is also a little more weight to get moving. However, I suspect that it would win in roll on tests from higher speeds where the engine is already at a point where it can switch instantly to the hotter cams. I think that for most people the improved torque and smoother, more fuel efficient running at lower power outputs enabled by the milder cams will be a plus point. This is probably not the right bike if you are overly concerned with standing start times.
The GSA is always lardier and less sporty than the GS 
fred_jb
Registered user
The GSA is always lardier and less sporty than the GS
It seems the video was quoting the R1200 GSA (3.75s) v the R1250 GSA (4.0s) so was comparing like with like.
You'll need a R1250 Hilltop remap/voodoo/exorcism just to keep up with the old standard R1200 
I think it's the roll-on figures that matter more, say 40-80 in top...or even 3rd come to that. Real world isn't about racing other bikes, at least not for us half-centenarians! It matters more to me for safe overtakes where the shorter the time you're on the wrong side of the road, the better.
I haven't ridden the 1250 yet but from everything I read, this is where the shiftcam engine is better. We have an old Skoda Fabia vRS at home (with a mild map). That might not win many 0-60 challenges with a lot of today's frenetically revving engines (re-mapped it is a shade over 7 seconds...can't do less as the wheels either spin out or traction control, switched on, kills the engine) but 40-80 in top, I'd be willing to put money on it wiping the floor with most other two litre diesels and a good many 2 litre petrols come to that. The 1250's re-mapped motor is meant to have more torque where it matters and a more linear torque curve. Overall, the boffins that engineered it know what matters in a bike's character and from every ride report (Ignoring that meaningless you tube vid above) it's meant to be livelier and even more tractable. I'm more than happy with my lardy, slow, overweight bus of a gsa for now...it has no problem mullering most cars on acceleration on our roads when the need arises
I haven't ridden the 1250 yet but from everything I read, this is where the shiftcam engine is better. We have an old Skoda Fabia vRS at home (with a mild map). That might not win many 0-60 challenges with a lot of today's frenetically revving engines (re-mapped it is a shade over 7 seconds...can't do less as the wheels either spin out or traction control, switched on, kills the engine) but 40-80 in top, I'd be willing to put money on it wiping the floor with most other two litre diesels and a good many 2 litre petrols come to that. The 1250's re-mapped motor is meant to have more torque where it matters and a more linear torque curve. Overall, the boffins that engineered it know what matters in a bike's character and from every ride report (Ignoring that meaningless you tube vid above) it's meant to be livelier and even more tractable. I'm more than happy with my lardy, slow, overweight bus of a gsa for now...it has no problem mullering most cars on acceleration on our roads when the need arises
There’s no red one so I’m not allowed to buy one.
The only time torque will really play a good part is to overcome resistance.
a) Weight
b) Wind
c) Up Hills (gravity)
That's where you'll notice it most.
BHP is for accelleration, and getting a good combination of both is ideal.
a) Weight
b) Wind
c) Up Hills (gravity)
That's where you'll notice it most.
BHP is for accelleration, and getting a good combination of both is ideal.
It’s a lot quicker from 4500/5000 revs upwards if you nail it from 3rd gear onwards ,have you ridden one
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Boxertissues has gone very quiet....
No, why would I need to ride one for goodness sakes? It's the same bike as I've got right now, but with a fraction more power.
In the higher gears you will be feeling the torque as you pass slower through the rev range.
We already know for a fact it's slower from 0-60 mph than the 'old' R1200. After that I know for a fact it's no quicker up to 100 mph.
So how fast do you want to be going to prove it's a fraction faster than the old one? It doesn't matter in the real world, for 90% of the riders on here.
If it's faster from 100 to 130 mph, who the fuck cares? It's optimal operating range is 0-80 mph anyways.
The ONLY benefit will be more torque for heavy riders, or carrying pillion or luggage.
In my opinion.
It is an opinion , but the new bike is a lot more than you think , you really need to ride one and see , you may well be surprised .
I have posted before that my mate said once he rode .. fuc me (he said) that's really night and day .
Test ride one please...….your negative imputs need some foundations
Similar threads
