Unfortunately with the new system they have taken away one of the damping options leaving soft and hard neither of which seem to work very well.
Never say "never" but is the 1250 my last proper bike?
- Thread starter chrisjk
- Start date
Unfortunately with the new system they have taken away one of the damping options leaving soft and hard neither of which seem to work very well.
I find for the older system that for solo, the bike is left on normal most of the time and that's spot on for my 14 stones. Doesn't matter what I seem to set 2-up, it just feels under damped unless everything is set to the extreme side. I found the suspension on my Tiger 1200 Explorer much better. Bike was planted and well damped one or two up. The only drawback was the dive under braking. Haven't tried the GS 1250 for any serious miles yet but at the new cost, I can't see how it's possible to justify the change so I'll either stick with the GSA until I can find something I prefer cheaper than a 1250.
fred_jb
Registered user
Well the combination of ageing limbs and and heavy tall bikes isn't ideal, particularly if you are a bit short in the leg as what strength you have is impossible to exert fully when you are on tippy toes! That is why I would suggest that old farts should go for the low chassis version of the GS, as I have done - it gets you more leverage to resist stationary tumbles.
fred_jb
Registered user
No soft and hard setting on my bike - the damping modes are Road, Dynamic Pro and Enduro Pro. I find Road fine for fast main road travel and Dynamic is very nice elsewhere. Probably best used in conjunction with the Auto preload mode as the system can then then fine tune the damping to match the load on the bike.
fred_jb
Registered user
According to page 82 and 83 of the manual - yes.
BMW decided to make things nice and clear, so;
MODE rain DAMPING road and dynamic
road road and dynamic
dynamic road and dynamic
Who thought that up I don't know but somebody signed it off.
MODE rain DAMPING road and dynamic
road road and dynamic
dynamic road and dynamic
Who thought that up I don't know but somebody signed it off.
I have the low frame gs1250 Lot better for me with being short in the leg department
I went from a standard chassis 2014 GS LC with low seat to a new 1250 with low chassis as I found the old one a bit too tall two-up.
The new one is so much more manageable, whether filtering solo or fully loaded on tour. The suspension was harsh at first, but it bedded in nice after a few thousand miles, as has the gearbox. It’s a much more refined bike than the old one.
The only thing I don’t like is the black paintwork, but it was the only colour I could get from stock. A respirator of the beak and tank cover may be in order over the winter...
Deleted account 211025001
Registered user
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- -1
I think the first thing to get your head around is thinking of bikes like the GS as ‘proper’ bikes.
They are great bikes, yes, but ‘proper’? What’s that all about? They are actually overweight, over spec’d, over large and over priced.
Bikes were never about that.
Bikes, by definition, are about light weight, nimble, basic two wheeled bundles of fun.
So, if it were me (and I’m getting there myself) I’d re-frame the way I looked at it and start rediscovering the ‘real’ fun of bikes, what got you into them in the first place - small and perfectly formed.
I did only 4,000 miles on my ‘big’ KTM last year......why? Because I did almost double that between my old Guzzi and my 150cc MZ. A lot of the time they are so much more fun to ride than the Orange GS slayer .......
Andres
They are great bikes, yes, but ‘proper’? What’s that all about? They are actually overweight, over spec’d, over large and over priced.
Bikes were never about that.
Bikes, by definition, are about light weight, nimble, basic two wheeled bundles of fun.
So, if it were me (and I’m getting there myself) I’d re-frame the way I looked at it and start rediscovering the ‘real’ fun of bikes, what got you into them in the first place - small and perfectly formed.
I did only 4,000 miles on my ‘big’ KTM last year......why? Because I did almost double that between my old Guzzi and my 150cc MZ. A lot of the time they are so much more fun to ride than the Orange GS slayer .......
Andres
I tend to agree, but for me when looking back on my biking "career", almost all of the fondest memories are from experiences on touring bikes. In no particular order, many miles were covered in all sorts of weather, including some very long trips on an R100RT, an R65, Guzzi V50 Mk2, Ducati 900 Darmah desmo, Honda CBR900rrt (used this touring!); Triumph Trident 750 (1990's), Triumph Explorer 1200. For the most part, a lot of my fun bikes have been smaller capacity and I wouldn't have dreamed of taking any of them on longer runs...just not up to the job in terms of comfort or carrying capacity nor handling when loaded. This demands a beefier bike imho. Trouble is, the touring bikes just seem to have got taller and taller as the years have ticked by. I don't mind the mass, it's the height that's the real pain. For shorter day fun, only one bike has ever come close to being my do-it-all machine and that's my old KTM Duke II 640 single. Handled as well as any sportsbike, was ultralight, fast enough and just about the most fun you can legally (ish) have on two wheels.
fred_jb
Registered user
I agree, it is the touring experiences I most cherish, and have never been one for tearing around local roads in pursuit of biking fun.
That being the case, the touring experience, especially two-up is better with a big bike where the handling is not unduly affected by the extra weight, and where you have adequate reserves of power. Having said that, some big bikes I have had haven't handled touring duties so well as the GS while remaining fun for solo riding.
Also, to put things in perspective, many modern bikes, even modestly powered ones, are over 200kg and the weight is often higher up than the GS. For example the Honda NC750 DCT I once owned weighed 232 kg. You get an awful lot more for the extra 17kg the GS weighs.
I think the key thing as an older rider is to be realistic about your capabilities. You might think it looks cooler, but the GSA is taller and heavier than the GS, and falling off at a junction due to that is not so cool. For that reason, to extend your big bike riding days I would advocate going for the GS, and seriously consider getting the low chassis version.
That being the case, the touring experience, especially two-up is better with a big bike where the handling is not unduly affected by the extra weight, and where you have adequate reserves of power. Having said that, some big bikes I have had haven't handled touring duties so well as the GS while remaining fun for solo riding.
Also, to put things in perspective, many modern bikes, even modestly powered ones, are over 200kg and the weight is often higher up than the GS. For example the Honda NC750 DCT I once owned weighed 232 kg. You get an awful lot more for the extra 17kg the GS weighs.
I think the key thing as an older rider is to be realistic about your capabilities. You might think it looks cooler, but the GSA is taller and heavier than the GS, and falling off at a junction due to that is not so cool. For that reason, to extend your big bike riding days I would advocate going for the GS, and seriously consider getting the low chassis version.
Interesting on multistrada. I tried a friend’s and found my self flip flopping round every corner. Bloody scary. Almost as bad as a 1988 16 inch front wheeled 907ie - and I’m 15 stone ex prop. He could ride it fine though
Yep, I didn't like the Multistrada much. Suspension was very plush and the bike quite refined, but slow speed handling was interesting, engine pick up off the line not that great without a handful of revs (it needed more revs than I expected it would and one guy on the test run with us stalled his and almost fell off it as a result. Not enough low down torque for my liking). It didn't make an awful lot of sense to me as a serious tourer...more a sports bike on stilts.
As to GS V's GSA, part of me wishes I'd gone for a GS as I could easily get the balls of the feet on the deck. I went for the GSA because it felt more planted, less flighty, had all the luggage with it and I just felt it was a more relaxed feeling touring bike. I may try the low single piece Rallye seat as that should shave an inch or so off the height, and will definitely get my own seat doctored and sculpted so it's a bit narrower and the soft padding is replaced with firmer memory foam and an inch of overall padding thickness removed. Those changes should make it as easy as the standard GS to paddle around.
As to GS V's GSA, part of me wishes I'd gone for a GS as I could easily get the balls of the feet on the deck. I went for the GSA because it felt more planted, less flighty, had all the luggage with it and I just felt it was a more relaxed feeling touring bike. I may try the low single piece Rallye seat as that should shave an inch or so off the height, and will definitely get my own seat doctored and sculpted so it's a bit narrower and the soft padding is replaced with firmer memory foam and an inch of overall padding thickness removed. Those changes should make it as easy as the standard GS to paddle around.
Similar threads
