newer bike versus older bike
Sun, 02/05/2010 - 15:47
dear Kevin,
i am 51 years young, 6 feet 4, in a good physical shape and toy with the idea of getting myself a motorbike for two-up touring on twisty country roads in Europe and for crossing the Swiss Alps.
The last motorbike i rode was a kawasaki z650 thirty years ago.
My selection criteria for a motorbike are the following:
- safety and protection (full fairing, ABS, not too much horsepower but enough to do the two up touring with luggage)
- fun to drive (that supermoto feel in a tourer)
- ease of maintenance (shaft drive, no complex electronics that need constant updates and an expensive specialist for servicing)
- manoeuvrability (excludes bike heavier than 255 kg in my opinion)
- frugality/ low fuel consumption ( i still do not understand that a motorbike uses up more fuel than a modern car, some of which can average 89 mpg nowadays)
The following bikes met my criteria according to the readings that i did:
bmw k75rt, honda deauville 700.
Runner-ups were the suzuki vstrom 650 (no shaft drive, no full fairing),
kawasaki versys (same here), yamaha diversion 900 (no ABS system)
Since local bike dealers do not allow testrides, i would like to pick your vast experience and ask for your advice.
My question is the following: production of the k75rt was halted in 1996, the deauville has current technology. Did bike technology advance so much during the last
decade that it is worth riding a more recent bike like the deauville versus the k75?
I do prefer the esthetics of the beemer, however if the deauville is so much safer to drive, i would opt for the deauville.
Thank you in advance for your trusted advice,
nik
Mon, 03/05/2010 - 20:24
#2
Re: newer bike versus older bike
hi Kevin,
many thanks for your inputs.
so tyres are an important issue - makes sense.
test sat a f800st: a small bike with cramped space for my six feet four;
test sat a versys as well; the dealer told me that i could not attach a top box and side bags at the same time for max. carrying capacity reasons, as you were mentioning in your riding report as well; the seat was perched too high for the passenger and the knee angle was too steep for my wife (same problem with the tiger 1050). no real weather protection either, which is important to me.
i am a sucker for good design and neither the deauville nor the vstrom is satisfying in that regard in my opinion.
so what else have we got? a gs 1200 after all? everyone seems to be riding one...
Mon, 03/05/2010 - 20:23
#3
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Or the Ducati Multistrada 1200... if you have a week free you can browse all that has been said about it, right here on Kev's website.
Mon, 03/05/2010 - 20:53
#4
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Isn't the Multistrada the default answer to any question around here? That said, I found it on the borderline of being too small. The GS is a bigger bike.
I'd agree with Nikita about the F800ST feeling a bit small (though I am an inch or two shorter than him). Other Beemers to consider would be the K1300 range (I had a go on an R last year, and it was really easy to ride, so don't be intimidated by the power), the R1200R (traditional motorcycle style, but little protection), R1200RT (there's a review round here...) and possibly the R1200ST.
Mon, 03/05/2010 - 22:08
#5
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Going back to your original criteria Nikita, how about a Suzuki Burgman 650 maxi scooter? Has excellent weather protection (with electric screen), low maintenance (no chain), reasonable fuel consumption (better than 5l / 100km should not be a problem), and ABS. Lots of space built-in under the seat and you can fit luggage. Big and very comfortable for two (the Executive model has some nice extras such as electric mirrors and a heated seat which make it even more tour-capable).
Don't be put off by the numbers on the spec sheet. Yes, they are pretty heavy but the weight is carried low down. And the auto transmission gets you to peak torque quickly so it feels like you've got a better engine than the spec might suggest.
It's not going to offer "supermoto feel", but you could be surprised how well one handles on a smooth, fast road. The Yamaha TMAX really is fun to ride through bends (steers better than some sportsbikes I've ridden), but I don't think it's as good as the Burgman for long distance riding.
None of the above will matter if you have decided that you must have a geared conventional bike. But if not then why not give one a look. I know of one convert who says it does almost everything his BMW RT used to do (and betters it in some respects) but for much less money. They've been around for a few years now so there should be plenty available secondhand.
Mon, 03/05/2010 - 22:16
#6
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Following Rocca's advise look at Aprilia Mana GT also, nice pratical bike without the scooter look.
Tue, 04/05/2010 - 07:57
#7
Re: newer bike versus older bike
At 6'4" the GS does start to look tempting (especially the Adventure version), but if we're going bigger capacity, how about the Triumph Tiger? It has more power but I think most people here would agree, there's no real need for higher power on modern bikes to intimidate, they're all so easy to ride compared with older machines. And that opens up a whole raft of other bikes like the V-Strom 1000 and Varadero.
Not sure we're being helpful anymore!
Fri, 07/05/2010 - 13:13
#8
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I am on my second F800ST, and interestingly am off for my first Alps / Pyrenees tour Wednesday next!! I am so looking forward to it!!
I am 5' 10" (just) so I imagine that the ST would be little on the small side for Nik.
As regards reliability my first had piston slap which was repaired under warranty, the second so far is fine. The fit and finish seems OK, but I know there are concerns in some quarters by owners about reliability and long term robustness (poor OEM batteries, some incidence of rear wheel bearing failure, excess vibrations) - I have no idea about No's, so couldn't say if it is any more or less than other makes.
I think 75mpg is a stretch. My daily commute is 60mile return journey in to London and my avergae mpg is 57, the last bike was 60mpg - I know the London traffic light stop / start reduces the consumption - be interesting to see what I get on my tour - all those bends ;o)
Davidos
Another possibility is an F800 BMW. The F800S and ST have half and full fairings, they are exceptionally economical (75mpg in everyday riding, few other bikes even come close to that), enjoyable to ride as well as capable long distance machines, and they have low maintenance belt drive, which offers pretty much the best of both worlds of shaft and chain. No oiling or mucky back end but not the hefty weight of a shaft. The belts do need replacing eventually, but this is at something like 25,000 miles (does anyone have experience of these?). Against that, F800s aren't especially reliable bikes. Some have no problems at all, others seem to have quite a few faults. But the dealers generally are very good. I have tests of the later F800GS and F650GS here. BMW dealers will be happy to give you test rides too.
Fri, 07/05/2010 - 16:46
#9
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I think 75mpg is a stretch. My daily commute is 60mile return journey in to London and my avergae mpg is 57, the last bike was 60mpg
Yes, I should have said that was on steady speed motorway riding, and not especially fast either - it was a while ago that I did it! Even so, close to 60mpg for commuting into London is pretty impressive still.
Sun, 09/05/2010 - 19:08
#10
Re: newer bike versus older bike
hi folks,
thanks for all your comments.
test sat the 1200 GS; great ergos, too many electronic gimmicks in my opinion at a price that buys you a car...
i gave this foray into motorbiking some further thoughts: i do not want some digitized, sanitized equipment that works more like software than hardware; instead i want some steel that vibrates and feels alive. something basic, archaic, yet safe (with ABS for example).
i also want something that slows down time instead of compressing time (which is what you do if you speed up time by driving fast, for example).
i am looking at a suzuki dr 800 big at the moment. any other bikes along these lines of thought that come to your mind gentlemen?
thx
nik
Thu, 20/05/2010 - 20:58
#11
Re: newer bike versus older bike
hi folks,
.... instead i want some steel that vibrates and feels alive. something basic, archaic, yet safe (with ABS for example).
.... instead i want some steel that vibrates and feels alive. something basic, archaic, yet safe (with ABS for example).
nik
That would be a R1150GS! I'm 6ft6". Try and find one pre 2002 without those potentially troublesome servo brakes and Bob's your Uncle!
Sat, 29/05/2010 - 18:37
#12
Re: newer bike versus older bike
will do. i am actually looking at the predecessor BMW R 100 GS/PD that i like because of its no-nonsense look and simple technology. unfortunately it does not have ABS and the majority of bikers that i am speaking to tell me that they would not want to miss ABS ever again.....
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 08:47
#13
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Keeping ABS in your wishlist is a toughie, the Japanese were slow in adopting it, really with older bikes you're restricted to BMWs, and as you say, the old two valve GS twins didn't have it. As far as I can remember, BMW never fitted ABS to any of its older boxer twins - does anyone know better? If they did it might have been an option on one of the last models like the R100R Mystic - now there's another possibility for you nikita, if you're not fussed about the GS off road styling, a sort of ironic retro from BMW as the engine was pretty much living retro by 1989 anyway.
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 09:23
#14
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I have just added a 1996 BMW K75 to my fleet of "projects".
This bike has enough leg room for me (see above post) and has ABS ...albeit the Mk1 version. It has a 3 cylinder motor that promises to be smoother than the 4 cylinder job on its forebear, the K1(00).
The lack of power by modern standards (75bhp) is matched by the skinny tyres!
Spares seem plentiful and there is a large following for the "flying brick", but mainly in the USA judging by the material on the internet.
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 09:43
#15
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Ha, I've got a '93 K1100LT project...
Spares have been easy to get, and it's well worth noting that BMW prices for parts have often been cheaper than the aftermarket suppliers! I was after a rear indicator lens and reflector, and a new BMW original was cheaper than used ones on eBay! Always try a BMW dealer first, if only to give you a benchmark price level, and you might well be surprised.
Your next stop should be www.motorworks.co.uk, they have most parts, are well established and know the bikes well.
The K75 feels a bit top heavy compared to modern bikes but the three cylinder engine is smoother and more characterful than the fours - I always preferred them.
I'm gathering a fair bit of knowledge about these older K-series now so if you're having any problems, try posting on here and I might be able to help. I found a place where I could download a complete BMW workshop manual too, and that's been very handy.
Here's my beautiful baby:
Okay, 'beautiful' is a bit strong perhaps. It's ex Sussex Police, and so bright you can see it from the moon... It's coming together okay from being something of a wreck. And I'll definitely be painting it...
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 10:05
#16
Re: newer bike versus older bike
That's a memorable colour! Keep it!
I want to raise the seat a bit and I have not found much info (most of it is for those short arses who need lower seats!)
The seat on yours looks like the "comfort seat"?
Would it be higher than my "blue" seat I wonder?
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 10:15
#17
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I'm puzzled by the seat on mine as it seems to fit just fine but there's a 15mm gap between it and the tank. I guess the bike would have had a police single seat originally. I think you're right, it could be the comfort seat, though I wonder if it's an aftermarket one, it doesn't have any stitched panels and the vinyl is more plasticky than BMW's.
I don't know anything about raising the seat though - I don't think BMW had seat height options in those days - unless you get a seat specialist to add extra padding and re-cover it, which some of them can do.
I know, why don't you paint your bike the same colour as mine! But I have to say, your bike looks like less of a 'project' than my one...
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 10:19
#18
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Do you need a right hand mirror? Note you if you find a used one, you can get a new mirror glass for £20 from BMW. It's not easy to fit but there are mechanics at some dealers who know the trick for popping out the old one
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 10:38
#19
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I just saw on the Motorworks site a comfort seat conversion kit....maybe this is what you have? I'll probably take my seat to a seat builder as you suggest.
The mirror should be replaced by the seller by the time I pick the bike up next week...
Have you had any thoughts about tyres?
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 12:44
#20
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Have you had any thoughts about tyres?
I've fitted an Avon Storm ST front, Azaro ST rear, the combination recommended by Avon. They have a good reputation though I've not tried them yet as the bike's still at the project stage...
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 15:28
#21
Re: newer bike versus older bike
How much of a project will it be?
Major/minor farkelisation or extensive rebuild?
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 17:11
#22
Re: newer bike versus older bike
It's needed quite a lot so far, I've had the fork legs rechromed and stanchions refinished with new bushes, replaced the head bearings, had to free off a completely stuck clutch, which turned out to be a seized actuating arm. The ignition switch hadn't been working so someone had cut the wires and twisted them together (!), so to turn the electrics off you disconnected the battery earth - that's sorted. Lots of work on the exhaust studs, had to take that off to do the clutch and some had corroded in place, the new tyres, freed off the brakes, fitting braided hoses...
Quite a project then, but the engine runs sweetly enough (so far...) so it could be bigger.
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 18:06
#23
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Please tell me that this bike has seen some other "careful" owners following its Police service??!
This sound similar to the project that I probably won't be commencing on a 1981 R65 that my Missus acquired from her careful Brother.
Thu, 24/06/2010 - 22:36
#24
Re: newer bike versus older bike
It came out of police service in 1997, since when it's had only three owners. The last one doesn't seem to have had a garage... It's pretty rusty as well all its other problems. But it'll get there, things are progressing!
Fri, 25/06/2010 - 07:56
#25
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I'm looking forward to your road test write up in due course!
All the best.
Fri, 09/07/2010 - 12:30
#26
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Hi Kevin
I've now had some more on road time on the K75: Runs like a Goblin jet engine compared to the Sopwith Camel like R1150GS!
The handling is a bit top heavy as you have said but the bike feels very skittish - I'm wondering whether this is due to the rear tyre being near its wear limit or is it worn out damping? There does not appear to be any play in the mono lever.
Or is it down to old fashioned bias ply tyres?
Are you going to update your rear suspension?
Tue, 05/10/2010 - 21:55
#27
Re: newer bike versus older bike
I've recently returned from a 2 week trip round Germany and the alps on a 1000 V strom and was delighted with the bike (and trip!).
I'm 6'1 and it's a great fit with lots of leg room for taller riders, although you'll need the higher screen. The 'fairing' is for me perfect, lots of wind/weather protection while still retaining the openness I want in a bike.
Fuel consumption averaged between 45-50mph, even over the alps and riding around 95-100mph on the autobarns, an effortless experience, although 2 up with camping gear meant the ride got a little vague over 105mph. Range is a comfortable 200 miles.
Handling without the gear is very good, feeling pretty neutral overall. There is no chicken strip left on the stock tyres after a fun ride. It's also surprisingly easy to wheel around the garage too, easier than my XJ900 for some reason.
The chain rarely needs attention, well over 2000 miles between adjustments, though mine came with a scott oiler which makes a difference.
The seat is good for an hour, ok for an hour and a half but I needed a short break before 2 hours riding was up. 5 hours riding a day was no problem with no aches or pains at all.
The engine has all the power I can use and more, it spins easy and sounds nice (not as good as my Guzzi though...). At low revs in a higher gear it can stall more easily than I'm used to, though it's not a problem, just a riding style adjustment.
Overall this is a lovely bike (and the 650 is very similar in all but engine size) and outstanding value for money in my humble opinion.
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 07:37
#28
Re: newer bike versus older bike
HM-MitsubishiMitsubishi Models and Variants at Zigwheels.com,
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 07:41
#29
Re: newer bike versus older bike
Don't bother with anything old for any sort of distance.
Lights-brakes-comfort-performance-handling-equipment-etc-etc-etc have all come on so,so much.
Whatever you get, make it something post-2000.
Mon, 27/06/2011 - 07:44
#30
Re: newer bike versus older bike
i agree about new bikes being fantastic. my 1993 fireblade is a classic apparently now but the 2007 bike is like 100 % better imo.
NEWS...
* ROSSI NOT TO RETIRE!
Rossi uses Twitter to deny The Daily Telegraph's story...(more)
* ROSSI TO RETIRE!
The legendary Italian racer will be leaving MotoGP for good at the end of this year...(more)
* WIN A ROUTE 66 TRIP!
Harley UK offers Route 66 tour prize for two to anyone taking a demo ride...(more)
* AUDI BUYS DUCATI!
After nearly 30 years, VW Audi Group Chairman finally lands his prize motorcycle factory...(more)
* APRILIA CAPONORD SPY SHOTS!
PIctures snapped illicitly at dealer event show Aprilia's Multistrada rival...(more)
Hi Nik, first thing I would say is, bikes have indeed advanced enough to make it worth riding something more recent than a K75. And bear in mind, although that was last produced in '96, the technology is essentially mid 1980s - compared with a more modern bike it feels top heavy and generally crude, and you won't have a wide selection of tyres. Tyre technology has advanced a staggering degree in the last ten years, and not being able to fit the most modern tyres will put you at quite a disadvantage in terms of grip and stability.
Same goes for the Diversion 900, this feels like a very tall, heavy bike with basic suspension and poor brakes - it was at best a budget bike in its time, and its time is long gone. The overall weight figure only tells part of the story, older bikes generally feel more top heavy even when the weights are apparently the same, and the suspension feels very basic against newer stuff.
Touring is obviously your main interest (hence posting in this section!). First I'd say, don't be put off too much by chain drive - if you do you're ruling out a whole load of outstanding bikes which will probably better the limited number of shaft drive alternatives in almost every other respect. Modern chains are not like your old Z650's, they'll not require adjusting for maybe 2000 miles if you're not riding especially hard, and modern chain lubes don't need applying that often either. There's more maintenance than a shaft, but it's not the pain it once was. What you gain is substantially lower unsprung weight, which means a better ride quality and improved traction.
I'd go for the Deauville (there's a Deauville test here) over the BMW if you must have shaft, and a lot of respects it's a fine bike. The engine will last forever, it's comfortable, comes with luggage etc, but it's not fun like a some of the other bikes you mention and does get vibey at motorway speeds.
You'll enjoy the Versys or V-Strom much more. Both of these are great for touring, they have a big fuel range, you can have either with ABS, they're reasonably frugal, great for chucking around on twisty roads but well up for crossing the Alps two up too. Of the two I'd go for the Versys, and if you can justify splashing out for a 2010 Versys, that's a useful improvement over the older version. The Suzuki is a bit long in the tooth now but it's still a fine bike and that does mean it'll be cheaper than a Versys, though it's less impressive at fighting corrosion.
Another possibility is an F800 BMW. The F800S and ST have half and full fairings, they are exceptionally economical (75mpg in everyday riding, few other bikes even come close to that), enjoyable to ride as well as capable long distance machines, and they have low maintenance belt drive, which offers pretty much the best of both worlds of shaft and chain. No oiling or mucky back end but not the hefty weight of a shaft. The belts do need replacing eventually, but this is at something like 25,000 miles (does anyone have experience of these?). Against that, F800s aren't especially reliable bikes. Some have no problems at all, others seem to have quite a few faults. But the dealers generally are very good. I have tests of the later F800GS and F650GS here. BMW dealers will be happy to give you test rides too.
Regarding economy generally, really with bikes we're just paying for the extra performance we get. I've seen a Honda CB1000F run through a car's official economy cycle using the same throttle opening criteria, and it was far better than the cars, getting around 70mpg. My own experience of high economy cars (I'm currently running a Suzuki Alto) is that the real world figures aren't as amazing as some of the claimed ones. The Alto's 50mpg when I'm driving isn't at all bad, but I can't get its claimed extra urban 74mpg without driving in a completely unrealistic way. I don't know any cars which could average even close to 89mpg in normal use, and I bet if you used an F800 BMW in the same way as the car when it's getting 89mpg, the bike would be much better. Also, people tend not to compare like with like - a high economy car should be compared with a high economy bike, like a Honda CBF125, which can do 130mpg plus - I've had almost 120mpg out of one of those in normal riding. Big bikes should be compared with high performance cars, and when they are they do far better.
If I can remember how, I'll move this post to the general section as more people will see it there, and I'm sure they'll be recommending other bikes for you... Glad to see you back riding bikes anyway!