R1200GS HP

[Nippy Norman]

MCN today and press release say:

15,000 Euro.
100PS.
Conventional upside down forks.
Single headlight.
Lighter, simpler frame.
Air shock at rear.
No screen.
For 'hard enduro' fans (whoever they are?)
Available April

 

[Nippy Norman]

AND A PHOTO....

..OF THE HP

 

[MikeP]

Looks as though they've attended to the 1200GS owners wet leg syndrome!

 

[Fanum]

Nice one Norman

Here 'tis converted from BMP.......I'm sure someone will find a better pic soon.

Looks like a 650 with stuck on jugs to me

 

[Mr K]

Is this a "proper" picture or one of The Comic's computer aided guestimations?

 

[Chris That Fat Twat]

or maybe like this....

 

[Mr K]

.........now, that looks more like it??

 

[MikeO]

I posted this over on ADVRider and I'm afraid to say they've torpedoed it...

Mike

Linky

 

[Nippy Norman]

Everyone is waiting for the new 1200 Adventure, perhaps the HP version IS the Adventure version?

 

[Nippy Norman]

HERE IS A CLEARER PIC

It has been retouched by a Mac operative, but the source is reputable and I think close to what will appear..

 

[TheJoker]

No telelever...

This pic got me pondering a bit. The telelever front, why have they ditched it.

The HP version is alledgedly built for off-road, which means you'll have much less grip.
I love the Telelever front suspension on the road, can't comment on off-road as I've not yet found a path to ride on. The telelever front suspension allows me to do "silly" cornering and braking combinations, and it holds the line sooo beautifully around bends, and it doesn't pogostick when braking like my previous Husky SM did.
So, my initial thoughts are that the Telelever has been ditched because of:
a) It weighs too much - anyone know what the weight difference between a set of sturdy conventional forks and the telelever setup is? (Surely can't be enough to warrant loosing the handling characteristics?)
b) OR, it doesn't give any signifficant advantage because of less grip - you don't see traillies going fullly cranked over like Rossi around the trails doya... And, when it comes to braking on loose surface, well, there's not enough grip to load the front enough for it to be unsettled...

And, also, wouldn't the whole frame and having the engine as a supportive member (or rather most of the frame) kind of be completely unused if you'd have to hinge all forces up top at the headstock bearing....



Anyone knows... bring on the speculations

 

[Andy Michael]

That pic is in this weeks MCN they say the conventional front end saves weight and allows for a less elaborate frame again saving weight also the single headlight is a weight saving choice and it has a continental air shock at the back.
Andy

 

[HMarc]

Re: No telelever...

So, my initial thoughts are that the Telelever has been ditched because of:
a) It weighs too much...
b) OR, it doesn't give any signifficant advantage because of less grip...

I think the primary reason for conventional forks on the "HP" model is that the telelever can't provide enough wheel travel. A real off-road bike needs 10-12" of front wheel travel. I don't believe the Telelever can produce much beyond the 7.5 or so inches it's already providing on the R1200GS.

 

[TheJoker]

Re: Re: No telelever...

I think the primary reason for conventional forks on the "HP" model is that the telelever can't provide enough wheel travel. A real off-road bike needs 10-12" of front wheel travel. I don't believe the Telelever can produce much beyond the 7.5 or so inches it's already providing on the R1200GS.

Very interesting point, actually! I think you might have the reason there, or a very prominent factor... Thanks!

 

[Nippy Norman]

HP2

More details and images in todays MCN of the HP (now call HP2 - 2 for 2 cylinders MCN tells us - doh!) .
Styling looks 'interesting' - the engine has lost the balance shaft to help gain more power. Small petrol tank, no screen, off road biased tyres.
Definately a niche bike.