New RT LC vs old RT- styling & finish

[guest2360]

Think the wheelbase is longer on the LC but not sure how. Definitely turns quicker but then the telelever arraignment is a different design. 

[David.]

is the wheelbase shorter on the LC? Or is the rake angle at the front forks more acute?

From what I have found, the wheelbase on both the LC & TC is the same at 1,485mm or 58.5" & the rake (fork angle) is within 0.3 deg of each other, 26.5 & 26.2 respectively.

[Chad]

That does suprise me. ???  I would have put a wager on those being different. It must be the new front suspension set up that's changed the handling characteristics. I don't find it a problem, it's just different.

[David.]

I parked next to a 13 plate RT Twin cam today in Hawes. I could be wrong but the bars on the TC seem higher than on the LC (in relation to the seat).

Perhaps this is why some folks fit "bar risers" to the LC.

[richardbd]

Perhaps this is why some folks fit "bar risers" to the LC.

Maybe it's just that the seat on the LC is lower?

[Chad]

I'm not sure the seat is lower. It seems very similar to my TC. I sat on a TC this evening at the pitstop- the riding position is definately different. I think the bars are slightly higher on the TC and further back. It just feels more upright.. The other point howeve is the seats fusion on older tc's may be a little more coup pressed or softer?

[richardbd]

I'm not sure the seat is lower. It seems very similar to my TC. I sat on a TC this evening at the pitstop- the riding position is definately different. I think the bars are slightly higher on the TC and further back. It just feels more upright.. The other point howeve is the seats fusion on older tc's may be a little more coup pressed or softer?

I thought BMW said the seat height was lower on the LC...

[Chad]

Doesn't feel it to me- if BMW state it is, I think they're splitting hairs! The LC seat seems wider too- I'm aware of the 'edges' on the LC & I wasn't in the TC.

[richardbd]

[align=left]"Straddling the RT, I stand comfortably flat-footed with my 32-inch inseam. The frame and seat are slimmer than the predecessor, making reach to the ground easier, but the entire bike is 0.8 inches lower to the ground too. This lowering comes from the more compact Boxer layout. The entire riding triangle is lowered, and mimics the predecessor’s upright stance. The standard seat height (31.7/32.5 inch) can further be altered with the optional High (32.7/33.5 inch) and Low (29.9/30.7 inch) options. Because of the changes, the RT no longer requires a special “low suspension” variant for shorter riders."[/align]
[align=left]
[/align]
[align=left]sounds lower to me...[/align]

[Chad]

So are there 3 seat height settings?

[Chad]

Now here's a thing! I drove my LC to Bellerby Cafe today and got talking to a guy with a 2012 TC about the  new LC. So it seemed an ideal opportunity to do a real comparison... By riding each other's bike on the way back towards home, swapping bikes twice enroute. Here's both our views:
The LC is considerably faster off the mark, has considerably more midrange torque (we set off from standing start and gave it everything twice & did a side by side roll on (in 3rd gear and then in top). Handling wise; the TC seemed more stable. The LC seems more 'agile' his word not mine, I note the turn is def sharper. The brakes on the LC are noticeably better. Now for the biggest suprise; the wind noise and buffeting was considerably WORSE on the LC for both of us. If I hadn't done this back to back I wouldn't have believed it! other things that were noticed, the panniers have more flex on the LC when opening/closing (they seemed to twist whereas the TC seems more solid) the plastics near the feet are more sturdy on the TC; the plastic trims around the fairing (glove box area & other side) are 'cheap & nasty' on the LC (his words not mine but he has a point!). The seating position (pegs/bars/seat) seemed different but we couldn't figure out how or why. I think the bars 'might' be slightly further back on the TC or maybe angled differently. conclusion: not all changes on the LC are improvements. But you're left with a much bigger grin on your face when you open it up...

[Firenailer]

That seems like a fair and interesting comparison of the 2 bikes.


I'd expect that the additional miles on the 2012 would explain some of the difference in braking just due to pad wear. And depending on service might explain some of the performance differences as well ( clean plugs and filters etc) although the LC does have a little more HP on paper so it should be a little hotter.


My experience riding them back to back a number of times was that I still preferred my 2012. I agree with the noise and buffeting on the LC. I can't understand that, but I thought the same thing every time I rode it
I even stopped the first time thinking I'd forgotten my ear plugs.


Thanks for the write up!

[David.]

That seems like a fair and interesting comparison of the 2 bikes.

Yes, looks like a fair & honest review from someone who has owned & ridden "back to back" both the LC & TC.

[Levisp]

Yup interesting comparison. People who run the earlier 1100/1150 RT always like to point out how much better the finish is compared to the 1200 RT models. However they are also heavier ! So is the lighter / flimsy plastics down to accountant cost cutting or engineers weight saving ? I think regardless of which model you run, the RT is the sort of bike that owners love to ride. The more you ride a bike the more you gel with it. Its good to hear from owners of TC models that they are happy because hopefully in the future when the next generation of LC bike is launched I too will be content with my model and not have to "upgrade".

[Chad]

I even stopped the first time thinking I'd forgotten my ear plugs.

I did a very similar thing- when I stopped for fuel & I went to put my ear plugs in only to find they were already in. Not a good feeling when you've just spent a small fortune on your upgrade...
???