Честный обзор BMW R1250RS

Честный обзор BMW R1250RS

Show Video

I travel a lot on different adventure motorcycles and this is a review of the BMW R1250RS. In the review of the wonderful S1000XR, there was a paragraph about not understanding why the 1250RS is needed. I thought: why not try it then - and went to the test in Portugal. Based on search queries, the RS is compared to the entire BMW lineup, but the most popular comparison is with the Kawasaki Ninja 1000SX, the leader in clip-on sport touring segment. This means that people expect from RS not

a tourer, but a sports tourer with clip-ons. Well, then the main disappointment is the engine. I'm not saying now if this engine is bad in principle, although if you look at the 1250GS, it is now objectively the weakest engine in the 1200 class of adventures, despite the fact that the GS is the heaviest motorcycle in the 1200 class.

But let's say horsepower sells cars and torque wins races. The main thing is to say this quote and hide the characteristics of the winning MotoGP bikes so that the embarrassment does not come out. Let's make a theoretical assumption that a Boxer is a good engine, and, for example, at city speeds and unhurried tourism, it is objectively enough.

But! Sports tourer - a category that initially implies emotions from a sportbikes set of speed. You expect a revving engine, preferably a four-cylinder, but here is a mid-range long piston-travel two-cylinder engine with exactly the same parameters as the GS. I'm not talking about cylinders, God bless them, 2-cylinder bikes can also be incendiary. It is hard to deny that manufacturers are changing engines for sports tourers. The Versys 1000 is tuned to the middle with 120 horsepower, while the 1000SX is more revving with 142 horsepower, resulting in a perky riding four-cylinder with a peak at 10,000 rpm. The KTM Super Adventure has 160 hp, the Super Duke GT has 175 hp.

VFR1200X has 129 hp, VFR1200F has 173 hp. You can continue for a long time - the essence is clear. Structurally, these are the same engines, just configured differently for different tasks. Whatever you say, the sporttourer must have the vibe of a revving sportbike engine with fast linear acceleration, otherwise the miracle will not happen. And only BMW the entire line of models with the opposite: adventure, naked, tourer, and sports tourer are poured from one barrel. Moreover, this policy dates back to those fat times when Japanese could develop an engine for only one niche model.

Well, it’s a no brainer that the RS doesn’t give any sports dynamics - the engine is objectively not about that. You can adore the Boxer for its fat mids, old-school character and all, but it's undeniable that it doesn't feel like a sportbike. Ironically, BMW has a great engine that's perfect for the sport tourer on the XR. It would seem that people want to travel in an unnatural position with clip-ons - make a motorcycle based on your 1000 4-cylinder engine, it is already perfectly tuned.

On the other hand, the same engine, wheels and brakes are on the RT, but the RT's suspension is even more sporty and allows you to just as famously incline on serpentines, plus good wind protection, a large tank, and, in general, an incommensurable level of comfort and a relaxed fit. Even if you imagine that there are no other brands, but only BMW, for tourism with a sporty breeze, the XR is better. If you want more comfort while traveling - definitely, RT is better. And for the city, there is a more manageable 1250R and a bunch of other bikes.

Outwardly, the RS is ordinary - I have never heard that someone fell head over heels in love with this particular model for its shape. Maybe the reason for buying the RS is the price? Let's compare. Adding in only the essential touring packages - cruise control, quickshifter and semi-active suspension - the RS will cost around €20,500, an XR similarly equipped €22,000 and an RT €25,700. True, RT comes with panniers and good windscreen, which can be safely estimated at €1500.

It's more about proportions. If you buy not the most basic version, XR is only 10% more expensive, and RT is 20% more expensive. Nothing. Moreover, if you rest

on the price, the Kawasaki 1000SX costs the same, a little cheaper than the Suzuki S1000 GT and more than €3000 cheaper than the Tracer 9. This is in Europe, where prices for Japanese bikes are higher than European ones due to taxes and logistics. In Russia, the Japanese can be cheaper. There seems to be no reason, but RS is released. The model is rarely put even in BMW showrooms and there are few places to find RS for a test drive. Now on sale at auto.ru 75 1250 GS , 35 RT and 8 RS. In Spain, the local counterpart has the same proportion: 190 GS, 44 RT and 17 RS. 1/10 from GS.

The RS is so little needed that search engines may think you're making a typo in the 1250GS name. Do you know how old the RS line is? 46! The RS is older than the ancient RT and GS lines. Think about it, for almost half a century a series has been produced that no one seems to have asked for. Although the appearance of the very first RS left a mark on history. RS, by the way, means Rennsport, which can be loosely translated as "Race".

The name did not come from scratch. Since the 1950s Porsche, the letters RS, also an abbreviation for Rennsport, have denoted sports modifications. The BMW R100RS was introduced in 1976 and is considered the first fully faired factory touring motorcycle. The context of time is very important here.

Luckily, I've riden an R100 GS - I can tell. Firstly, the then 1000cc have nothing in common with modern 1000cc. This thing is barely accelerating by the standards of modern small-capacity bikes. If you want, you can fire it up somewhere to 150 km/h, or maybe more - however, this is very long and not exciting. A much bigger problem is

aerodynamics, and, in general, the design of motorcycles of those years - the bike is already warping at 90 km/h, there is no question of any stability. 130 km/h is scary to go, it hangs all over the lane. Somewhere at 120 km/h, you can find the optimal condition so that you can ride for a long time, but not to say that with pleasure. Something had to be done about it. Now some 300 cc Indian easily accelerates to the same 150 km/h, while standing much more stable on the road.

In the 70s, motorcycles with fairings were, but purely sporty. For example, here is a handsome bike from 1974. Fairings were already in the air and enthusiasts customized road bikes for themselves, but these are homemade. And in 1976, the 100RS appears. Drum rear brake which, by modern standards, does not brake at all, 90 and 120 mm tires, which, by modern standards, cannot be used on heavy motorcycles, spoked wheels, which, by modern standards, do not give sufficient rigidity, fork travel 182 mm, which, by modern standards, you will not see in every adventure bike.

There are two shock absorbers on the sides at the back, which by modern standards means that each shock absorber has a spring that works differently and the bike sways from side to side at speed. Well, opposite engine to 70 HP. Even at the time of the model's release, the engine was scolded for its outdated 1920s design, vibrations, and that the motorcycle does not accelerate very quickly. But the highlight of the bike was the fairing, which was developed in the wind tunnel of the Pininfarina research center - the dudes who design the bodies of all the flagship Ferraris. Then they didn’t know how to aerodynamics the way they do now, in one review of the 1970s, a journalist picturesquely described how air and rain are sucked under the fairing and fills the arms and legs, but then it was better anyway. Now, even for a cheap small-capacity bike, they can simulate aerodynamics on a computer without releasing a single detail - it's cheap. To understand what a fairing was on a road motorcycles of the 1970s, here is what the model that is now considered synonymous with a fully cowled two-wheeler looked like.

By the way, GoldWing was noticeably more powerful and faster than the RS, and she had a sportier suspension, but the fairing appeared only in 1980. In the late 1970s, a change in motorcycle eras took place, the difference between the models of the 70s and 80s is clearly visible as never before. The most direct competitor of the RS of those years, the Moto Guzzi 1000 SP with advanced wind protection, appeared 2 years later than the RS. Already taking into account the RS errors, they say the Guzzi had better wind protection. After 5 years, in 1981, the Honda CBX1000-B developed by Soichiro himself appeared - a 1000cc six-cylinder in-line engine, progressive monoshock absorber and other futurism.

They also raced in the wind tunnel. Well, as usual - Honda made a rocket with a sporty suspension and ideal handling for those times, which tore everyone to shreds and accelerated over 200 km/h. On this engine of the previous naked modification, a speed record was set - 225 km/h. As Soichiro himself said, this is the fastest, most powerful and high-tech motorcycle of its time. BMW got such power almost 10 years later, when they still tried in in-line engines. Now the CBX1000 sounds like the perfect sport tourer, and can be safely called the first hyperbike sport tourer, and you know what they complained about then? Too sporty suspension for a tourist - there were few good roads, and it was uncomfortable on dirt roads.

As a result, few people bought this time machine, Honda discontinued the model after 2 years. 40 years have passed and nothing has changed. Except that the hard-suspension XR for good asphalt only is what we now call an Adventure bike. The idea was that the bike should be fully rounded at the front for perfect aerodynamics and nothing sticking out. There was still no understanding of normal tools, how to control downforce, that a motorcycle would be much more stable if air flows through some elements, and not around, that the rear part also greatly affects aerodynamics, that it is not necessary to cover everything in one shell, or you can just direct the flows with deflectors. But rounded shapes even then made the bike more or less stable at speed - it's true.

There is not much power, so there was an accompanying task - to reduce air resistance as much as possible. For these purposes, clip-ons were installed on the RS - they no longer protruded beyond the fairing, while the clip-ons were placed below the traditional handlebar - this allowed the pilot to comfortably steer reclining and hide behind the fairing, reducing drag. For touring motorcycles, clip-ons turned out to be a dead-end branch of development and made sense when there was a lack of power, and when they had not yet learned how to build aerodynamics. Big touring bikes now have more power than you can carry and more efficient aerodynamics. There are a lot of touring motorcycles where you sit comfortably with a upright position and wide handlebars at speeds around of 250 km/h. A common thing is to come across a question on the forum "Guys, something on 240 with loaded panniers appeared a small wobble, who came across?".

I'm not talking about sportbikes, clip-ons on the track have their advantages, but for a touring motorcycle they have not made any sense for a long time. This is not a stone in the BMW garden, the class of sports tourers with clip-ons is dead inside - there are only single models left, or some hyperbikes - crumbs in the touring segment. The main problem of clipons is fit with an inclination, either the arms are always tense or the back is always tense - there is no relaxed position. Academically speaking, clipons

are divided into lower and upper ones. Really lower clip-ons like in sportbikes - when the grips are under the level of the top triple. Sports tourer always have upper clip-ons - a rather conditional definition and it is not always easy to distinguish from the handlebar. The RT also has a composite handlebar and can be safely called clip-ons, but there is a relaxed upright position. Sport tourers in general and RS in particular are somewhere between upright position and sportbikes. When I in the reviews of some

adventure bikes, the same XR, said that there is a inclined position- I meant a slight incline with a deviation of a couple of degrees, the RS is dramatically stronger. About 6 hours later, on RS, the body says: "That's it, I don't want to do this anymore!" - and then you can continue, but not in a buzz, something is still numb. And I still have a healthy back. For me, a comfortable

travel mode is 13-14 hours of riding a day with one stop to eat. Accordingly, with such daily operation, all the problems of ergonomics, vibrations, etc. come out. If the bike is a little tiring - this fatigue accumulates day by day and after 3-4 days I need a day off to recover. On a good touring bike, I don't need to rest for at least a week. Therefore, in the reviews, I pay great attention to the moments due to which fatigue accumulates. Little by little, drop by drop - this is important for a tourer.

You can ride on any stool for 6-8 hours a day, too much time is left for the body to recover - so rarely do any travelers ride, only on small-capacity bikes, where the rhythm is different. It more or less saved the RS that the optional cruise control was installed - on the highways more than half the time I rode either without hands, or half a turn, holding on with one hand - the owners of motorcycles with clip-ons understand perfectly well what I'm talking about. The handlebars spin horizontally, so you have to lean a lot to feel all the smoothness and ease of handling. When your back gets tired after a few hours, you still start to ride with stretched arms and handling becomes rough, clip-ons are not designed for such control. And in the city

you don’t lie at traffic lights, handling at near-zero speed is heavy, it’s easy for the RS to start riding at least from 30-40 km/h. For example, turning right from the start and then immediately left is a torment compared to a normal handlebar, and in general, any maneuvers in city traffic are less convenient. The fork here is like on a naked 1250R with handlebar. With one difference - the R has a standard trail for a road bike, and the RS has reduced the trail to the value of tourers due to the thing on the bottom of the fork. If you take sports tourers with clip-ons, the trail is still much smaller there.

The Kawasaki 1000SX has less than 100mm of trail, the Suzuki S1000 GT has 100mm of trail. The holy VFR800F also has less than 100mm trail. Obviously, these are more hardcore comrades with sharp handling. A rather strange decision for RS, if you perceive it as a sport touring. I'm not saying that he drives badly -

everything is fine with him, but this is the class that sports emotions should give. As soon as we cross out "sport" - the best RT appears in everything. Apparently, BMW still sees some kind of hybrid of a sports tourer and a tourer, but then it is not clear why they climbed into the shrimp position. Also here for the sports tourer is a very tight handlebar, which in the city delivers even more inconvenience. However, on the highway, the motorcycle holds itself, does not wobble and steers smoothly and predictably, like tourers.

I didn’t accelerate faster than 180 km/h, but up to 180 it definitely keeps stable even with three boxes - you don’t have to hold the handlebar. By the way, already on the very first 100RS there was a steering damper, although on other models of the 100th line there was no such thing either before or after - the handlebar dangled completely freely. In addition, the bike is quite heavy with a distinctly heavy muzzle - clumsy when not in motion or in slow motion from any angle. Do you know what? There are no pluses from clipons when traveling, on a fast motorcycle with a handlebar I would ride exactly the same, because if there is enough suspension and power, everything is limited by visibility and the speed limit that you can afford on public roads.

Further - is to take on increased risks and go at random. On highways you can accelerate, but there is nowhere to steer. Clipons have hypothetical advantages when riding aggressively, but in the real world, not on the track, there is nowhere to realize them, even if you ride very boldly and fearlessly. To confirm, you can look at the winners of Pikes Peak - the handlebar does not interfere with anyone to ride fast on twisty roads. Even when you sit with an inclination, it is more difficult to turn around.

And the helmet can stick to the shoulders, but this is more about sportbikes, and with a straight fit, you still turn your body for convenience, which you can’t do on an RS. As a plus, they also talk about a narrow handlebar. Yes, the 1250RS has a handlebar width slightly less than 80 cm, which is already about 10-11 cm narrower than the 1250GS handlebar. On the other hand, the mirrors of the RS treacherously stick out - there is no advantage. RS on mirrors, which are just at the level of car mirrors, 91 cm.

For example, if you remove the handguards from a rather big KTM Super Adventure, it will turn out to be narrower, while the mirrors are higher than cars - much better for pushing in traffic, even without taking into account the ease of maneuvering with the handlebar. In theory, on the RS you can fold the mirrors forward, like on sportbikes, but here it is inconvenient to do this due to the length of the motorcycle - you can fold them only after completely stopping and spending some time. Turning back on the move will also not work without acrobatics.

The mirrors do not rotate with the handlebar and are mounted on a fairing far in front, as on sportbikes and other sports tourers - this is not typical for other classes. When the mirrors are attached to the handlebar and you lie down on the tank, the mirrors are simply not visible. When the mirrors on the fairing are far in front, you can see well in them, even if you sit upright, even if you scratch the tank with a helmet. For riding with a upright position only, the mirrors at the level of handlebar are more convenient - they are closer and, accordingly, you can see better in them, plus you can shake your head a little and look out for dead zones. On the RS, the sports touring mirrors are fine, but only with a caveat to the class. Even sportbikes are characterized by raised footpegs.

Initially, this is a track theme so that you can incline a motorcycle indecently, but it also takes place in civilian. For example, on twisty roads, large tourers and cruisers scrape their footpegs, limiting the angle of the motorcycle - we are not talking about riding with a "knee", scrape at 30 degrees - this is an ordinary lean when cornering. If you try, on some adventure bikes you can also scrape with the footpegs, but this already requires a skill.

For a sports tourer, the angle at the knees is relaxed - with a height of 188 cm, the knees did not get tired, although the angle is not quite straight. I would say at the level of 650 cc street-bikes and adventures. I also appreciate the seat. I don't think there is a sport touer with a more comfortable seat. Soft, and the width is good, and the length of the rider's part is impressive.

I like everything, no complaints. It's funny after the seemingly adventure 900XR and 1000XR, which have the most uncomfortable seats in the class. On the other hand, for short stature, the seat of the RS, and, in fact, the rest of the BMW line with 1200 and 1250 boxers, may be too wide and the legs will be in a hurry. An optional low seat might help, but it won't make a motorcycle frame narrower. By the way, sports tourers themselves are much lower in the saddle than adventurers. For example, the RS is 7 cm lower than the big GS Adventure.

There is also a high seat, the meaning of which I never understood. Let's say a two-meter uncle has an uncomfortable angle in the knee. We raise the seat, and the handlebar turns out to be even lower - welcome to the world of shrimp.

Let's get back to aerodynamics. I hope I conveyed the idea that tourers like RT are aerodynamically built in terms of completely closing the pilot from the air flow for the sake of comfort, while sport tourers and RS, it seems, should be aerodynamically built for the sake of being stable in the flow at high speeds and reducing air resistance. Accordingly, the plastic on the RS is narrower and the windscreen is shorter.

It beats with air generally everywhere - in the legs, arms, chest, etc. When the weather is cool - it is clearly visible. In itself, this is not bad, sometimes air channels are specially made so that the motorcycle stays more stable in the air stream, and fresh air removes engine heat from the legs. It does not seem that there was any tactic and it was followed. On the other hand, I understand the engineer who was given such a task. What aerodynamics, have you seen those giant cylinders sticking out on the sides? As a result, the aerodynamics turned out to be rather strange.

For example, even on the XR there is a feeling of a blade that cuts through space - a typical feeling for sportbikes and sport tourers, this is not the case on the RS. In short - plays in the wind. It’s not a wobble and it’s not scary to go fast, but when the direction of the wind or gusts changes a little, the helmet also shakes from side to side, and the motorcycle seems to start to break a little. Not critical, but surprising. The windscreen is short, but these questions are not for BMW - for all sports tourers with clip-ons, the windscreen works only if you lie down, preferably at home - RS is no different. If desired, you can put

high windscreen, but it is better to sell RS and buy RT. The stock windscreen directs all the air directly to the face, which is typical for sports tourers. With an open visor, even in the city at speeds around 50 km/h, you won’t be able to ride with an open visor - everything immediately flies into your eyes. Accordingly, in the city at all traffic lights you need to open and close the visor. On the highway in the upper position, the windscreen of midges from the visor needs to be scraped off often. They appear already after 5-10 minutes, and after a couple of hours you need to wash the visor, otherwise it is hard to see.

Moreover, the camera is hanging on my chin, and animal corpses also appeared on the lens from time to time. If you put the windscreen in the lower position, everything immediately flies at the camera and into the chest. For tourism - not good thing. Insects will either be on the windscreen or on the visor, and there will be wind whipping of the helmet. The engine doesn't have the power to ride at speeds where high windscreen would get in the way - it's more style than necessity.

To be fair, I was riding in a touring helmet, but for a sports tourer you need a sports helmet, preferably with a spoiler - there will be a different effect and the helmet will stop jerking. "The difference between R is that it has a wider and slightly higher handlebar. It will be more comfortable, however, I will say, this is the disadvantage of the motorcycle, that the incline. Well, the disadvantage is loudly said, its specificity of inclination. On the autobahn, it is compensated by the fact that the current of the wind hits your chest. This windscreen is mediocre - it beats in the chest. And you, it turns out, lie down on the wind, and this, I would say, becomes an advantage".

Not bad version, if you do not remember about motorcycles, on which you sit relaxed vertically and at the same time do not beat the wind either in the helmet or in the chest. They tried to make the motorcycle visually more sporty and the muzzle narrower, so that the difference with RT was clearer. With a telelever, it was not possible to reduce the width, a few generations ago they changed to a fork.

The suspension is similar to the R, so my conclusions will apply to it. I think the suspension was originally sharpened for the R version, because it is unusual for a sports tourer. Feels like it's still a naked or tourer suspension, rather than a sports one. But, proceeding from the fact that the engine here is never sporty, while the RS is the heaviest of the sports tourers with clip-ons, if you do not touch the hyperbikes, i.e. the bike is much closer to the tourer, in this context the suspension is excellent, without sarcasm.

I'm talking about the semi-active version, but the basic will be fine too. There are 2 suspension modes - Road and Dynamic, which are amazingly tuned. In Road mode, the suspension is very comfortable for a sports tourer - it rides great on broken roads, softly. It is also good on gravel and small pebbles, it does not hit. The XR has more suspension travel,

but in fact it reacts more to bumps. The RS retains feedback - some joints are felt even in Road, not like in a normal adventure bike, but this does not interfere - there is no beating, you just feel when the road is uneven. And in Road, in general, it behaves well in turns - if you want, you can notice slight dives, but not critically. If there was a suspension without electronic adjustment, I would be satisfied with such a universal mode, based on the fact that this is a semi-tourer. Dynamic suspension mode is stiffer. For the record - does not give the crystal clearness of sportbikes, but for the RS - that's it.

It is stable, does not sway, transfers all the details of the surface to the hands, but it is not scary to get into a hole at speed. The difference between the modes on gravel or rough asphalt is clearly visible - in Dynamic everything is felt, in Road it is smooth. For the suspension - five. What I really like about BMW motorcycles is that they always have decent ground clearance, even if the class of bikes is not designed for off-road. The RS has an honest clearance around of

170 mm - for example, the V-strom 1000 and 1050 adventures so beloved in Russia with a lower clearance. Therefore, on a broken road with holes on the RS, you can safely ride, and for a long time - and the suspension is comfortable enough, if you don’t get impudent, and you don’t think that the bike will strike the bottom somewhere even with the central stand installed. Another five for excellent brakes - grippy, very informative and not prone to overheating - no complaints. Here they put good Brembo - like on RT, but not like on GS. With the GS being the heaviest 1200 adventure yet with the smallest brake discs in the class. The diameter of the brake discs is a clear indicator of what force the brakes are designed for, all other components are tuned to this value - no one puts large heavy discs just like that.

Well, despite the fact that the GS Adventure is heavier than the RS, the GS itself has smaller brake discs than the RS. However, this has never stopped fans from claiming that the GS has the best brakes in the world, Physics can go away. I also appreciate the sound. It is clear that the sound of a Boxer does not have any sports notes, and this is also an element of a sports vibe. It’s not just that in cars they imitate sporty exhaust from the speakers inside the cabin, although it sounds silly. On the other hand, the RS has a fairly quiet sound

and does not interfere at all if you want to travel calmly. Still a good expense and range for a sports tourer. Still, the vast majority of sports tourers are four-cylinders, their consumption starts from 5.5 l / 100 km.

For Boxers, consumption is highly dependent on speed. Consumption in the mountains, where speeds rarely rise above 100 km/h, somewhere around 4.7 liters, even 4.5 happened. Even sports tourers do not have such an expense for less than a 1000cc. If you ride fast, all Boxers start pouring gasoline like crazy. 120 km/h on cruise control is already 5.5 l / 100 km, but let's say that panniers take about 200 ml from above. If you burn it, it will be 7-8-10 liters,

at speeds under 200 km/h, four-cylinders are usually less voracious. The point is not to save money - the RS has a tank of the same size as its competitors, but at legal speeds it easily travels 50 kilometers further. The 1200RS is not quite like that - it ate at least half a liter more and there was no difference with its competitors. Of the interesting features - this is the only, to date, sports tourer with a shaft drive. Previously, on BMW shaft drives, the rubber bands were fastened with ordinary clamps from DIY shop, and in the 1200th generation, the clamps were removed and beautiful rubber bands were made, which, it seems, should snap into place, but sometimes they still do not snap into place, or dry out - hence the chance of water getting in into the shaft drive. Shaft drive does not require frequent maintenance - this is a plus.

Now for the options. The motorcycle in the database has an attractive price, but it is naked and everything needs to be bought in addition. It is believed that of all mass-produced cars, BMW has the high profit per unit sold. I think the same strategy extends to motorcycles.

Hence the replacement of the beautiful Brembo with Hayes, hence the 1 archaic motor without modifications for different classes, hence the Chinese engines. From a marketing point of view, BMW is head and shoulders above all other manufacturers - they know how to milk their customers dry. In a couple of years, instead of options, loot boxes will be sold - you'll see.

When you need some option, you buy a ready-made package from BMW. And everything is designed so that there are somewhere in the package 4 options, while in reality you only need one from there, maximum two, one more - let it be, and be sure to have some kind of lure, such as fastening for branded panniers or a cradle for proprietary navigator. Like New Year's sets - a bag full of cheap caramel, and a couple of chocolate sweets. To choose only the most necessary options, such as quickshifter and cruise control, you will assemble a complete package with all the hooks anyway.

Imagine that you bought an Adidas T-shirt, and they gave you laces to load. Hmm, a good buy - I bought a cool T-shirt, I also received a bonus. And then you realize that the square tips of the laces do not fit into any sneakers except Adidas. It’s a pity to throw out the laces and you are more likely to choose Adidas sneakers. In BMW, wherever you poke - everything is so. My favorite lure is the cradle that comes bundled with cruise control.

Firstly, there is no DC socket in the front of the motorcycle so that, God forbid, you do not connect the phone, although there is plenty of space. There is only a socket under the rear with a DIN connector - probably just to try to sell a heated vest. So, cradle. Naturally, it is patented so that, God forbid, third-party manufacturers do not offer adapters for their navigators past the checkout. The cradle is gigantic and objectively spoils the look of any motorcycle. But it's a shame to take it off and throw it away. Garmin navigators with or without a BMW label are hopelessly outdated systems, but okay.

There is also a branded adapter for the phone for the cradle. I put it here just to power my holder through it. Ask why did not use the BMW holder? Firstly, there are no anti-vibration elements, and the motor is not the softest. Second, I don't want to bow to

the bike every time I want to look at a map. Thirdly, the cradle allows you to install the phone only in horizontal mode. Most GPS apps at the same scale show the way further when they work in vertical mode. Just compare on the screenshots how much useful information is displayed by navigators in horizontal and vertical modes. The same theme with the holders of branded panniers, which go to the load with the necessary options. I am of two minds about the RS boxes.

On the one hand, for a sports tourer, they are of a fairly typical size, everything is opened with the ignition key, the central case does not have to be locked when traveling, which is mega-convenient. Plus, the panniers have a slight amount of play – sure to be designed for aerodynamics at high speed. In general, good sports touring panniers. On the other hand, if this is still not a real sports tourer, and a tourer, the RT boxes are 2 times larger and, for example, 2 helmets easily fit into the central topcase, and only one helmet enters the RS and nothing else. From the point of view of the tourer,

the model has indecently small cases. Well, there are no panniers in stock, tourers usually have them in the basic configuration. For the rest of the options, everything is typical for BMW.

The screen itself is cool - it's high-contrast and doesn't glare, but you can't, for example, display consumption and range at the same time, and for some reason there is no Sport mode, like on the 900XR and 1000XR. And I remind you that BMW classifies RS as a Sport, and XR as an Adventure. Plus, there is no normal navigation when compared to the new RT. The multi-wheel on the handlebar makes manipulation with the turn signal inconvenient. Usually I always turn on the turn signal, even if I'm riding in a completely deserted area. As soon as I get into a BMW, I immediately start using turn signals only when absolutely necessary, justifying myself that there is no one there, or it’s understandable, because it’s inconvenient.

Moreover, the multiwheel is not particularly necessary. If you do not listen to music connected via a motorcycle or do not like to scroll through playlists for hours in search for the Steppenwolf, you will only need to poke left or right from this multiwheel, and only when you are poking around in the menu, i.e. almost never. Just ride with an 2.5 cm blob between your finger and the turn signal.

Left-right movements could easily be implemented on the Menu rocker, as it is implemented, for example, on Triumphs. The cruise control buttons are convenient, if you don’t dig that you need to reach out because of the multiwheel. Plus, the cruise can be reset with the reverse throttle stick, with the cruise on, you can use the quickshifter - a gentleman's set. But when the cruise control is turned off, it slows

down with a jerk. One doesn't care, but if you go with a passenger, it's annoying. The quickshifter depends on the year of manufacture. I have a 2020 motorcycle on the test - it shifts with kicks, it’s quite difficult to find a quickshifter of recent years to work like that. Upshifting with a quickshifter up to third gear is too rough - in lower gears I generally tried not to use it, and in upper gears only in a straight road. I rode a fresh 1250GS - the

algorithm was obviously updated there and the quickshifter works softer - which means that it should be the same here for the last year or two. But even on fresh BMW Boxers, the quickshifter is rude, no comparison with other fresh premium bikes. Results. On the one hand, in my opinion, the class of big sports tourers with clip-ons has not been needed for a long time - there are no complaints about BMW here.

As a sportbike on the track, they are not really needed, and touring in a bent posture could never be considered comfortable. On the other hand, opposite engine. There is hardly a person who will say that this is a suitable engine for a sports bike. Neither fish no fowl - such a model that it is high time to bury. Even without leaving the BMW salon, it is better to look either towards the XR or towards the RT - both models cope with their tasks much better. Next will be reviews of adventure motorcycles. Subscribe so

you don't miss out and stay tuned.

2022-06-11 15:54

Show Video

Other news