BMW R1200RT/R1250RT Forum

Noel wrote: Here's a thought.  You know how people frequently will hit their turn signals immediately before turning and sometimes after they have initiated the turn?  Rather than ask the dealer to reset the time-base interval I simply hit the turn signal now much earlier which gives folks behind you and in front you more of an advanced warning of your impending turn, which isn't a bad idea IMO, especially w/ the smaller turn signal lights we have to work with.  In doing so, it self-cancels earlier after the turn, in fact just about right once you figure out hitting the signal earlier.  Just a thought.

An interesting idea/concept with one (potentially) fatal flaw: If there are multiple side roads then someone might interpret you are going to turn earlier than you actually are and pull out in front of you! There have been many an occasion where I'm waiting to exit a side street onto the main road and an approaching car has it's directional on to turn into my street but I wait and sure as heck they turn into the one after me! Or worse they continue to just drive down the road for several miles with the directional still on!


At this point I've already successfully 'programmed' myself to cancel them manually before shifting to the next gear. I've reverted to the years I had to do this so long ago and it's already become automatic. Like riding a bike, pun intended.

Agreed.  I can't seem to be able to programme the brain not to switch them off as soon as you're  round the corner or have pulled out to overtake.
With the system not switching them off below a certain speed or when they are set at a stand still they are a dodgy in towns.  Far better to do it all yourself.  Like using a key to start, stop and lock your bike.

Methos1979 wrote:
An interesting idea/concept with one (potentially) fatal flaw: If there are multiple side roads then someone might interpret you are going to turn earlier than you actually are and pull out in front of you!

Of course, but that is where YOU decide when it's time to turn on the signal early and when not.  I do it and am judicious about when, but we're not talking 3 blocks early, only a few hundred feet and you can see easily when this is appropriate or inappropriate.

For the OP:


Critiques on wind effects are difficult because 'dirty air' in the hwy may take all kinds of turbulent shapes, and if you add side wind from mother nature, there ain't no telling what aerodynamic vector forces are acting upon the bike. One day it may feel ok, one day there are more pickups on the road, one day the cross wind disturb the bike just right...etc.


I was interested in which Harley Davidson appears to you to have better wind-cutting through than the fairing of the RT. I am having a hard time imagining that. The wind protection of an RT is second only to Triumph Trophy which I found to have the premier touring fairing ever!


enjoy your bike!

wethead wrote: For the OP:


Critiques on wind effects are difficult because 'dirty air' in the hwy may take all kinds of turbulent shapes, and if you add side wind from mother nature, there ain't no telling what aerodynamic vector forces are acting upon the bike. One day it may feel ok, one day there are more pickups on the road, one day the cross wind disturb the bike just right...etc.


I was interested in which Harley Davidson appears to you to have better wind-cutting through than the fairing of the RT. I am having a hard time imagining that. The wind protection of an RT is second only to Triumph Trophy which I found to have the premier touring fairing ever!


enjoy your bike!

Fully agree that it's difficult at best to fully replicate all wind conditions. But since changing over to the Quiet Ride I have not had the 'squirreliness' as that first time. But a big part of that is the cross wind and the weight difference between the HD and the RT.


The HD I had was the Road Glide Custom. Again a combination of sheer weight and fairing design. It also needs to be noted that the stock RGC fair with the tiny 'thumbnail' windshield was awful for buffeting over 45 mph. The addition of the MadStad windshield system turned that bike into a complete joy at any highway speed.


Speaking of highway speed, had the RT out on the highway today just running some errands. I tend to not pay much attention to the speedo when I'm riding in traffic, I just gauge it on surrounding traffic. Anyway, I'm on a nice wide stretch of new four lane tar and I'm just cruising along going just a little faster than the cars around me. I'm in sixth gear and the bike is purring along. I look down and I'm doing 80 like it's nothing. I know this area of highway well, no areas where cops can hide and the road is clear ahead so I jump on the throttle and hit 100 like it's nothing.


This bike is nothing short of amazing. I'm going to get a ticket. I should start a pool on when and how much!

We spent an entire day crosswind speeds in the 30-35mph w/ gusts to 45mph range while riding thru southern Minnesota.  RTW was phenomenal in handling, including w/ all of the turbulence coming from big rigs.  I must admit I'm comparing against a '13 F800GT but truly RTW is fabulous in heavier winds.

Going back up this thread a bit, I'm enjoying the shift pro.  Just back from a four-day ride around England and Wales and it is noticeable that there less ache and stiffness in my left hand and wrist.  Could just be that the clutch is lighter, but UK we need to change gear a lot!  BTW 36c yesterday, biblical rain in Wales before that.  Riding in full kit was unpleasant in that heat.  It's the only time I go into Macdonald's - they have aircon.  The bike has been flawless though in the 1200 odd miles of the trip - it just looks like its been dragged out of a ditch!

The bike's amazing, chiseled right out a block of raw perfection.  Oh it's got a few things you might tweak a little, but what an awesome package.  Incredible handling, ample power, excellent comfort, excellent tech.  At first I thought RTW looked a little ungainly.  Now I can't help but glance at it every time I go out into the garage, and that is after 12,700m.  Still get butterflies every time out  ^-^

Its a wonderful feeling to be enamored with, even an inanimate object like a bike. I am also in love with mine and I buy more sheet for it than I do for my girlfriend.


No doubt, the RT is a great engineering feat, though, I would not say 'perfect'.


here is what the RT lacks: a smoother feel in the upwards of above 75, 80 mph.


If you wanna get what I mean, ride a K1600 at 80 or 90 miles per hour and feel the difference from an RT

That's just down to 6 X 267cc instead of 2 X 600.  Having had both I agree the K takes some beating, until you stop.

But RT man, I think that with a little engineering motivation, there is not reason why an RT cannot run as smooth as a K16 but perhaps with not as much torque and power. At least, that is my thinking. Maybe I am wrong about that.


I have driven 4 cylinders modern cars which haul a great deal more weight than a bike, and these engines run smooth as butter. I have to think that an RT can could run just as smooth with two cylinders hauling 600 lbs.

There's probably always a trade off between power and smoothness.  Then again get on a Guzzy.  No power, no smoothness. 

wethead wrote: If you wanna get what I mean, ride a K1600 at 80 or 90 miles per hour and feel the difference from an RT

No argument there.  I took three test rides on '15 FJR1300ES and same thing I'm sure:  super smooth w/ the parallel quad right up up the rpm range.  But I will say this for RTW--compared to my '13 F800GT which generated an impressive & irritating buzzy resonance right at >=4,200 rpm especially under load--RTW is at least not buzzy and generates a much lower pitched 'thrum' which I find it quite pleasant.  Then again, I have the 17.3oz HVMP bar ends and Grip Pups on.  I'm struck w/ how the RTW feels about the same at 60mph or 90mph, in fact it's a bit scary to look down and realize I just got to 94mph passing someone and didn't notice how fast I was going!

My dreamcycle, at least before I bought RTW and maybe still when RTW gets too heavy for me, was a sport touring configuration that could best be summarized as:  curb weight of around 520lbs sacrificing little on the performance side and nothing on the comfort side, so looks like this:

• 950-1000cc parallel triple or quad--aiming for smooth throughout the RPM range.
• HP ~115 for a P:W ratio about 10% over RTW's.
• Wet weight ~520lbs w/ side cases.
• All the current BMW tech & comfort except the audio package--quite a few folks like myself would prefer to carry their audio with them in the form of SENA etc.  So this will include Dynamic ESA, ASC, ABS Pro, Shift Assist Pro, Hill Start, Dynamic Brake Light, heated grips/seat.
• Fuel capacity 5.2g
• If possible gas goes into a tank below the seat as the F bikes do.  Makes for a better CoG and so more consistent handling when full up or nearly empty.

Weight is trimmed by the following:

• The smaller engine & gearbox as required.
• Side cases & fairing is paired back:  something between RTW and RS for example
• Belt drive w/ a 50K mile recommended change interval.  Belt drives when done right are clean, zero maintenance, more efficient in power delivery to the rear wheel than SD, and are lightweight and quiet.  Not good for off road but this is a Sport Touring machine designed for pavement.

There are a few bikes out there that have parts of this package for sure, but you won't find one w/ a full range electric screen until you get up to RTW.

RTman10 wrote: There's probably always a trade off between power and smoothness.  Then again get on a Guzzy.  No power, no smoothness.

That's a bit harsh.  I was really fond of my Stelvio...

Noel wrote:


My dreamcycle, at least before I bought RTW and maybe still when RTW gets too heavy for me, was a sport touring configuration that could best be summarized as:  curb weight of around 520lbs sacrificing little on the performance side and nothing on the comfort side, so looks like this:

• 950-1000cc parallel triple or quad--aiming for smooth throughout the RPM range.
• HP ~115 for a P:W ratio about 10% over RTW's.
• Wet weight ~520lbs w/ side cases.
• All the current BMW tech & comfort except the audio package--quite a few folks like myself would prefer to carry their audio with them in the form of SENA etc.  So this will include Dynamic ESA, ASC, ABS Pro, Shift Assist Pro, Hill Start, Dynamic Brake Light, heated grips/seat.
• Fuel capacity 5.2g
• If possible gas goes into a tank below the seat as the F bikes do.  Makes for a better CoG and so more consistent handling when full up or nearly empty.

Weight is trimmed by the following:

• The smaller engine & gearbox as required.
• Side cases & fairing is paired back:  something between RTW and RS for example
• Belt drive w/ a 50K mile recommended change interval.  Belt drives when done right are clean, zero maintenance, more efficient in power delivery to the rear wheel than SD, and are lightweight and quiet.  Not good for off road but this is a Sport Touring machine designed for pavement.

There are a few bikes out there that have parts of this package for sure, but you won't find one w/ a full range electric screen until you get up to RTW.

You are a man with ideas after me own heart. Lets put our money together and manufacture this puppy. I would ride it.


Ideally: the fairing of Triumph Trophy, the smoothness of K16, wider touring tires, soft large bags (cause I don't like hard bags), built in hwy pegs for knee crimping relieve while on long ones, LOTS  of light (I think the RTW forgot to design a tail light), Lot of front light, preferably, running yellow on the front. An option rack to install an aerodynamic top case above the rear seat. A windshield I don't have to dump for an aftermarket one, A SEAT, hey there is a bright idea: how about a seat for a touring arses?, thank you. Adjustable handlebars,
and a horn that would scare the bejesus out of deaf man....and never mind with these keyless boolsheet. Give me the key to my bike.


...and, if we could keep that for a price under 10,000 I think we would have a winner here!!