What would put you off buying a GS1200/1250?

[mark vb]

First, we’ll need to choose our own definition of Adventure.
It absolutely isn’t too big to be ridden off road.
It may be too big to take through deep mud and sand but it’s fabulous and weightless on gravel and any compacted surface. Choose your route.
What’s more it can take you and your gear all day at 80 over those surfaces so yes, it’s a great all rounder overlander’s bike.
If you specifically want to go dune bashing or mud plugging for two hours then home to tea, there are far better bikes but it all depends on what you want from your bike.
Yes, it’s expensive but it sells itself as a top end bike and why not?
Faults and fixes? Maybe some people have problems but I’ve seen a lot of blokes fixing bikes or riding with faults but hardly ever on these big Beemers.
For me an Adventure bike means an overlander and these big boxers are right up there.

Spot on.... whatever rings one's bells - one person's ideal bike is possibly another's nightmare. I've had a couple of BM's in the past and really liked them. But the GS12 is not for me..... I think..... for a variety of reasons. I'd better not test ride one.

[catcitrus]

First, we’ll need to choose our own definition of Adventure.
It absolutely isn’t too big to be ridden off road.
It may be too big to take through deep mud and sand but it’s fabulous and weightless on gravel and any compacted surface. Choose your route.
What’s more it can take you and your gear all day at 80 over those surfaces so yes, it’s a great all rounder overlander’s bike.
If you specifically want to go dune bashing or mud plugging for two hours then home to tea, there are far better bikes but it all depends on what you want from your bike.
Yes, it’s expensive but it sells itself as a top end bike and why not?
Faults and fixes? Maybe some people have problems but I’ve seen a lot of blokes fixing bikes or riding with faults but hardly ever on these big Beemers.
For me an Adventure bike means an overlander and these big boxers are right up there.

Spot on.... whatever rings one's bells - one person's ideal bike is possibly another's nightmare. I've had a couple of BM's in the past and really liked them. But the GS12 is not for me..... I think..... for a variety of reasons. I'd better not test ride one.

I'm not anti BMW--as I said we have a proper G/S in the family--a 1981 R80--but with Ohlins etc--and that WILL do more than a fire road!--we've had a few BMs over the years--a R75/6, R100GS, two K75Ss, a Rockster, a Belgian army R65 G/S, a R45G/S---the last two again would do offroad properly as they were NOT big and heavy. I agree its horses for courses--its just that the new GSs are simply too big and heavy to tackle anything like a track without risking getting stuck and needing help to get going--I've been involved in the "help" side too many times. I re-iterate--its the advertising bullshit that is to blame--there are plenty of bikes out there that will certainly travel the world at decent speeds and ALSO do a rough track should the situation arise --Charlie and Ewan are a classic example of the wrong choice IMO.

[Mike54]

Just had a chat with someone at my local KTM dealer --who follows the facebook sagas etc--and the comment was that people are breaking the 790 because they are treating it like an enduro bike--which it is not--and we agreed that this was because the marketing idiots have pushed the bike with its ass hanging out on dirt roads rather than treat it like a good road bike which is capable of a few fire roads--which of course doesn't sell--and the same applies to the "mighty " GS--its a road bike--and as I've said before we have a proper one--1981 R80 G/S at 168 kg---they would be much better off on a genuine middle weight--or even a Honda 250 Rally--it will be interesting to see how the new 390 KTM "adventure bike" turns out.

Well I'm not sure I agree with the 790 assertion. The thing is, it's really capable, basically a big enduro bike. Still smaller than a 950 adventure, or super enduro etc, but it feels like a bigger enduro. It's very easy to ride at very low speed/no speed due to the low tank and centre of gravity. It glides over lumps and bumps and inspires confidence. If I had one (which I am pondering at the moment), I would ride it on lanes and offroad overseas and I would ride it not worrying when I dropped it, chucked it over a dune etc. My decision is that I am 6'3 plus, and weigh around 115 kg, so I need a big bike and can manhandle it about anyway, so I might just get a 1090 adventure r and do the same with that, and have the benefit of using it to wizz about to work, pick up stuff on errands etc whereas the 790 is a bit too small for me to razz up the motorway on.

There's just too much in the media and forums etc about this bike cant do this, and the other cant do that. the bikes are more capable than we as riders will ever be, so what's causing damage and issues is the rider, and how he or she is riding the bike, not the bike itself.

[Tramp]

115kg ... You portly bugger... You weight nearly twice what I do...

[garyboy]

I'm put off about buying one, because I have one already, fantastic machine brilliant at its intended task so dont need another

..
must say .. Paul rides his GS1200 better than I used to ride my crf250L … even when he had bald tyres on … and I mean over some rough terrain too

.. which proves that the big boxer twin is far more capable than it looks .. and depends on who is riding it.


ps .. I have seen some lady riders make it sing too .. and in a tight trials section in the Taffy D.



ps .. it would be too heavy for me to pick up on a regular basis, off road, in the mud, or on a slope

[Jetlag Jon]

Too big, too heavy, too expensive, too tall, too complex, too ostentatious, too much plastic. I know they are good bikes, but I just don't like them. I like cheap, simple, light enough to lift on my own, feet flat on the floor when I stop, not having to get it serviced at a dealer, no plastic, and not feeling I look like a LWR wannabe having a mid life crisis. I also prefer to look as poor as possible when off the beaten track. So that's why I bought a Himalayan.

But I also have a Harley, so I guess I am open to similar accusations of expensive mid-life twattery as GS riders seem to routinely suffer from. But I do ride both bikes in the same mid/lower end gear, apart from boots (Armr pants I have had for 3 years, Oxford Mondial II jacket).

Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk

[SteveW]

Too big, too heavy, too expensive, too tall, too complex, too ostentatious, too much plastic. I know they are good bikes, but I just don't like them. I like cheap, simple, light enough to lift on my own, feet flat on the floor when I stop, not having to get it serviced at a dealer, no plastic, and not feeling I look like a LWR wannabe having a mid life crisis. I also prefer to look as poor as possible when off the beaten track. So that's why I bought a Himalayan.

But I also have a Harley, so I guess I am open to similar accusations of expensive mid-life twattery as GS riders seem to routinely suffer from. But I do ride both bikes in the same mid/lower end gear, apart from boots (Armr pants I have had for 3 years, Oxford Mondial II jacket).

Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk

I suppose it's about the journey/bike dynamic balance.
If you've got a once a year two week adventure holiday window and you want to get out of the UK and put some miles in.....with the possibility of perhaps a mild bit of gravel chucked in.
The GS1200/1250 will wisk you in comfort quickly from Suburbia to Serbia and back within your two week window.
It's a blast on Alpine Tarmac even the inevitable motorway/Autobahn drudgery passes at pace and comfort..... and it will handle poor quality pot-holed tarmac and gravel easily.
For me it's the ultimate all-roads fast big bruiser.
However......if you've got a bit more time and you are into the inverted snobbery of a bike like the Himalayan (Which I am incidentally) If you like to smell the flowers and have the luxury of taking your time and don't mind Transit Vans pushing you out of the way in the twistys.....Then go small and light(ish).
I can do both, both are valid.

[catcitrus]

just watching that Beijing trip with Kev Sanders and a group of wannabes--if anything would put you off buying a newish GS for that sort of trip then this would. Kev's ok cos he can ride(and I believe has now gone Triumph anway). there is an 800 GS in there which is ridden by a twit and that copes well despite his lack of chain maintenance. The big boxers are ok UNTIL the road gets a bit difficult and then they struggle through weight and lack of traction, and need 3 people to pick them up. They are ok for decent roads but apart from that are a liability, especially if they have any kind of fault away from a main dealer! There are much better and cheaper alternatives out there--and we have a proper original R80 G/S, and I've owned an old R100 G/S--I've broken about 4 BMW drive systems over the years through various faults--stripped splines (K75), failed Hardy Spicer front joint(R100 GS), at least two paralever failures through seals and bearings--but NEVER broken a chain--AND if I have worn out a 520 on the road then its been easily replaced (and I carry a spare length, links and link extractor on long trips anyway--you can't do much with a BMW drive shaft! )

[SteveW]

I choose the GS800 for long trips where I know I'm going off Tarmac.
It's a brilliant compromise for Motorway/trail/fast Tarmac. Great economy, comfort and range.....and not too heavy for me.
But.....I love the big GS's torque and shove out of the bends, I really like the handling as well. As a fun dynamic bike it's great.
I've done Tarmac/off road trips on loads of smaller bikes......I find any motorway work a real bind and unless you've got loads of time, you do find yourself using motorways/Autobahns just to get away from Industrial NW Europe.
I've never worried about mechanical breakdowns....that must work because I've not really had any.

[FallingDown]

To answer the question directly;
1. Weight. The latest is nearly twice the weight of my CRF250 Rally (itself not a lightweight)
2. Price. Nearly 3x the cost of a CB500X. It's not three times better.
3. Cost of ownership.
4. BMW's reliability record. I know they're not all bad, but when they get a bit glitchy.......


But then I'm happy with my Rally, used to go very fast once and dont need to anymore. I value economy and all round capabilities these days. If I can cover over 18,000 miles (all fun miles to, I'm retired and don't work now) in two years, I personally happy there's not much wrong with it.
Easy to service myself as well, including the valve shims.

I bought the Africa Twin which I much preferred to the beemer. Had it two years before I just didn't want to pick it up off the ground anymore. Swapped it for the 250 Rally and never looked back. Amazing bike, just needs a new spring if you're anything but a child or supermodel.

In the picture below I fell out of the right hand side of the rut. That is just after picking the bike up of of the steep verge. Had I been on the AT I'd have had to kick the thing down to the flat ground to the left of the pic before I could pick it up even with someone else with me. So for me, or my skill level at least the small bikes make me far more adventurous. And I had enough money left over for a decent deposit on a road bike for the longer tarmac only trips.

IMG_20200405_172325.jpg (122.36 KiB) Viewed 2354 times