RT or GT This is my riding style

[mgalison]

Guys/Gals

I am looking to go with BMW for my next bike. I currently have a VSTAR 1100 Classic.

My Current Riding needs.

I gave up my car over 2 years ago since I moved to AZ from MI, so my current motorcycle is my sole transportation. So I ride when its 115 degrees or 30 degrees. BTW, My wife does have the van, so I do have 4 wheel transporation.

I ride to work 20 miles each way, 10 miles on major street that is posted at 45 mph and 10 miles of Freeway posted speed 65 mph.

I ride with a group of guys once a month, maybe 200 mile round trip. Doing all the great roads here in AZ. This is like a breakfast club type riding group. We ride to out of the way restaurants.

Twice a year, I ride with my wife, her being a passenger, each trip being about 600 miles round trip, total of 1200 miles.

I pretty much obey the speed limits due to speed cameras all over the place. They have them roving in trucks as well as stationary.

I try to get out for a 2 hour ride by myself once a month.

I test drove the RT 2 weeks ago and loved it compared to my vstar. I will be test driving the k1300 soon. What do I need to focus on so I can make good use of my test drives .

What made you guys pick the k1300 over the rt1200, was it just HorsePower ?

Thanks

Marty

Thanks

[frankmc]

I currently own a GT I have put 16,000 miles on. I ride a lot with a buddy who owns a 2008 R1200RT. For my money the RT is a great bike. He is a very good rider and I cannot stay with him in the turns. Not the GT's fault but my lack of skill. My opinion is the GT takes a little more work to dive into the turns when compared to the RT. The RT gets much better gas milage than the GT. The RT also has better wind protection than the GT. The GT has a little more horse power and a higher top end. But after riding my friends RT and riding with him for a lot of miles the RT will go faster then either you or I should be going on two wheels. THese ar my personal views and you will no doubt get differing views from other riders. Test ride them both and then decide.....

[jayjacobson]

....What made you guys pick the k1300 over the rt1200, was it just HorsePower?
Nothing to do with HP! The GT is oiled-glass smooth. AND at over 7 grand.....she starts singing the opera! Nothing else sounds quite like it.....:bmw:

[Kenny]

From what I read in your post; I would say the RT is the bike you need, we have them both and the RT is by far the most versatile of the two . IMO.

[JPSpen]

Most folks with "common" sense get afraid on a motorcycle going over 125 mph.

But, there are a few with "Uncommon" sense that like to go even faster.

I love my RT. I'm afraid I'd kill myself on a GT. Or at the very least loose my license.

John

[XMagnaRider]

Guys/Gals
I am looking to go with BMW for my next bike. I currently have a VSTAR 1100 Classic.
...
What made you guys pick the k1300 over the rt1200, was it just HorsePower ?
Thanks
Marty

Hi Marty,

You can't go wrong with either choice, and it is as much a personal preference as anything. The best thing to do is try both and see which one suits you best. Some dealers will let you take demo bikes home for the weekend or at least on an extended test ride to give them a try, or you might consider renting each of them for a day.

I chose the GT over the RT. I like the GT's ergonomics a little better. Less faring = more air in the summer. I like the high mirrors, which I use to judge space when splitting lanes in California. I like fours over twins. I like the adjustable handlebars on the GT and the riding position better. (If you want an RT riding position on a GT, you buy handlebar risers and footpeg lowerers.)

It was my money, of course, so I made the choice that suited me best. Of course, I am very pleased with the GT, but if someone had given me an RT, I would have been equally happy.

[barryRT]

I had both, but my current bike is the 2009 GT. Either one is excellent. The RT is cheaper, better on fuel, larger gas tank and has some vibration. The mirrors will protect your hands but they don't offer a very good rear view. The GT is very smooth and a lot faster. It is liquid cooled, if that matters.

[JADM]

I like fours over twins.

is there any reason for your preference?
how do the engines compare in longevity
and repair?

[XMagnaRider]

I like fours over twins.

is there any reason for your preference?
how do the engines compare in longevity
and repair?
Yes. Fours are smooth and powerful. (I hate blanket statements, but there you go.) I wore out a Honda Magna with a V-Four. It lasted 21 years. The Honda CB400F Super Sport (inline four) that I had before that lasted 11 years, and it was running fine when I sold it. I suppose that the racing style Japanese inline fours might wear out sooner, especially if ridden hard at track days and such, but I have no experience with them.

I truly want to like the common V-Twins (e.g., Harley-Davidson), especially the cruisers. I like the relaxed riding position. Sadly, every time I ride one I am reminded of the vibration, even the ones with rubber mounts and counter balancers, and they have relatively low power. I have ridden the "new" V-Rods, too. They are better, but I still have the same overall complaint.

I have borrowed an R1200R (boxer engine, opposed twin) several times, and sometimes have had it for over a week of daily riding. It has plenty of torque, which was very cool, but the vibration characteristics still weren't to my liking. I have also ridden the BMW F800ST, and several Ducati's. The Ducati's were smoother than most twins, by the way.

I just tried a Victory Vision last Saturday. It is such an interesting looking bike, and I thought that it might encourage my wife to ride pillion with me again. What a slug. I can't imagine what it would be like with the cases full and a pillion on back. Same vibration issues, even in the highest gear at freeway speeds. My hands started to go numb after only a few minutes.

In addition to the vibration, twins usually have a much lower maximum RPM compared with fours. Depending on the bike, this translates into more frequent shifting, especially in city traffic. It also means that you have to be more precise in choosing the right gear for a given speed. Many fours have broad power bands that allow you much more flexibility with respect to how you choose to shift.

Each time I try a different bike, it just gives me a greater appreciation for my K1200GT, warts and all. I can't really describe that warm and fuzzy feeling of climbing on the GT and riding away after trying something else that just doesn't suit me as well.

To repeat myself, I really want to like twin engine motorcycles, but it just never seems to work out. Obviously, lots of people disagree, and prefer the twins over the fours, and I am pleased that they have found what is right for them.

[meese]

I like fours over twins.I'm with David on this one. Twins tend to have better low-end torque, but with more overall vibration. Fours tend to rev higher, with much smoother power delivery.

I've ridden the RT and GS bikes and while they're fine bikes, they just don't feel quite right to me. Then again, I have probably 400K miles on inline fours over the past 25 years, so I'm pretty used to them. ;)

I've heard it described as "Some folks are Boxer riders, some are Brick riders." Nothing wrong with that. The trick is to find out which bike works for you.

I've also rented a Harley for a weekend (only rental bike available) and it was so ridiculous that it actually made me laugh out loud. No, thanks.

I will say that the new parallel-twin F800 engines are relatively smooth and powerful for their size. It would never replace my GT, but I did enjoy that bike for what it was.

[Turkus]

I hadn't ridden anything (of substance) in over 20 years......then got "the bug" again.
I rode them BOTH a couple of times............there's an RT in my garage right now.

My buddy is a horsepower, and adrenaline, junkie and he is going after the GT (from a V-Max) and we plan on tackling the AlCan together in 2011......

I wholeheartedly agree with what everyone else has said so far.........I would search out a rental outfit that has them both (the only one I know is in San Jose, CA) and spend a weekend on each.........

It's whatever "floats your boat" and (for me) your butt (the GT hurt my skinny a$$ :histerica ).....

I wish you "good luck" on your pending choice

[Xavier6162]

Perhaps the K1300GT would have been a better fit. A different bike from the K1200GT. Despite the price, currently sales of the K1300GT is outpacing supply.

Everyone is a tad different and like different things. I'm a twin type of guy. ALways have been. But. The GT is more comfortable for me. Short and long haul.

[AttackPug]

When you ride the GT 1300 see if you get the Buzz through the handlebars like I did.

It made my hands go to sleep in summer gloves .

[Keith_H]

IMO the RT is solid and proven. A lot of bang for the buck. Maintenance is reasonable and I'll take torque over hp any day. There is only so fast one can reasonably ride and the RT will have you above that speed quickly. And properly adjusted, the RT vibration is not bad.

[Nathan]

IMO the RT is solid and proven. A lot of bang for the buck. Maintenance is reasonable and I'll take torque over hp any day. There is only so fast one can reasonably ride and the RT will have you above that speed quickly. And properly adjusted, the RT vibration is not bad.


Torque over HP

2009 GT Engine output 160 hp at 9,000 rpm, Torque 99 ft-lb at 8,000 rpm. Link (http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/us/en/index.html)

2009 RT Horse power 110 hp at 7500 rpm Torque 85 lb/ft @ 6000 rpm Link (http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2009models/2009-BMW-R1200RT.htm)

[Keith_H]

I guess I should have been more specific. When I referred to torque it was low end torque. The dyno sheet on the RT has a very flat TQ curve all the way down below 2k rpms. Perfect for the way I ride (and others I suspect). ;)

[kapod2t]

The only time my bike is anywhere near 2,000 rpm is at idle and I don't stop all that often.

[jayjacobson]

The only time my bike is anywhere near 2,000 rpm is at idle and I don't stop all that often.
Yeah the way the GT engine sings opera, you WANT to keep her revs up! :)

[nplenzick]

Since I'm thinking of selling my Triumph ST and my LT and getting back down to one bike,
I had a chance today to test ride a GT and RT back to back at my dealer. A real nice 50+mile loop mostly twisty's a little highway.
For the most part I'm prejudice to 3 and 4 cyl bikes, I like the sound and the smoothness of them.
Both bikes were loaded with just about every option
First up was the 1200 GT, it was a demo bike with about 1000 miles on it. The first thing I notice was how hard the seat was. The ridding position was pretty comfortable, slightly forward, the handle bars were set at maximum height. The motor is absolutely awesome, incredible amount of power and very usable power, not to mention smooooooooooooth. Shifter seemed a little clunky, but nothing that really bothered me. I did a few acceleration runs passing a few cars and it's really like having a Saturn 5 booster rocket kick in when you nail the throttle. I really wasn't impressed with the sound though as my Triumph sounds far better. Wind protection seemed good, ergonomics seemed pretty good, although I was starting to feel some minor strain in my forearms and shoulder. MPG was 45 for the test loop. Overall I had a great time, but the seat and the small amount of muscle strain left me wondering if this would be a good "single" bike for me.

Next was a loaded 09 RT with 360 miles on the odo. It's been 4 years since I've ridden a boxer motor, and four years since I sold my 1200 GS. The first thing I notice was how comfortable my seating position was and how LT like it seemed. I don't remember that when I test rode an 05 RT when they first came out. The next thing I did when I went to pull away was to stall it........how embarrasing! I just forgot that you have to use a little more throttle on a new boxer motor. This motor seemed to be a little rough ( vibration) then what I remember although it also seemed to get smoother as the test ride progressed and I do remember it takes 10 K for a new boxer motor to smooth out. Cornering on this bike was an absolute pleasure, nimble and effortless just like my Triumph except with an up right seating position. The transmission was smoother then the the GT which really surprised me. Except for the boxer motor it really reminded me of a very light LT. Weather and wind protect seemed a little better then the GT but not by much. MPG was an unbelievable 51 especially since I rode it much harder then the GT.

Both bikes are fantastic and you pretty much can't go wrong with either. Both do the the BMW emblem proud. For this 3cly/4cly enthusiast it looks like the the RT is the winner for me as it seems to do everything I want, the handling was unsurpassed and the comfort was just about LT like.

[eng943]

RT for sure.

Unless you want trple digit speed for polonged periods of ime. The RT can do everything better. I've owned the both.

[Xavier6162]

You should have tested the K1300GT. It one ups both the K12GT and RT.

[nplenzick]

You should have tested the K1300GT. It one ups both the K12GT and RT.
They did have one in the showroom which I sat on. It didn't seem that different to me then the 1200. It wouldn't really matter as something like that would be out of my price range as I'll be looking for a year or two old bike. To be honest with you I would hardly ever use the power of the GT unless I was doing a track event.

[BCVBeck]

Have ridden a K1200GT and have about 14K on a 2008RT. For me and my riding style, the RT made the most sense. A lot of it had to do with the shorter wheelbase of the RT. VERY nimble. I have to admit the K1300GT is looking mighty fine, plus my local dealer reminded me about a month ago that I am over due for my annual motorcycle purchase! :histerica Good luck on your search and choose what's right for you.

[messenger13_ver2]

If you don't care about "going fast" ... the RT is the smarter choice. Chances are, your wife is going to like the RT more too ... but only she can tell ya that. And the maintenance is easier and cheaper on the RT. Hope this helps...

[nplenzick]

If you don't care about "going fast" ... the RT is the smarter choice. Chances are, your wife is going to like the RT more too ... but only she can tell ya that. And the maintenance is easier and cheaper on the RT. Hope this helps...

I think the RT is going to be the right bike for me at this time in my life and especially how I plan to use a bike. I'm looking for something that's easier to do my own maintenance and that boxer motor is pretty simple. Since my Triumph sold on eBay last night I'll be in the hunt for a RT once the deal is finalized. I'm going to try to work out a something with my local BMW dealer on trading my LT and see what happens. I hate to see my LT go, truly the finest motorcycle I've ever owned, however it no longer fits my needs and really should be owned by someone who's taking long trips and has the time to do lot's of touring. I'll be a little sad when I turn those keys over.

[stevea2980]

I have thought this for years but "Nobody" ever listens to me LOL

I would love to have an "RT" with a "K" motor in it!! Anykind of "K" motor IE the beautiful high HP version or the older "Flying Brick" It doesnt make a difference!!

I even went as far as to write BMW a letter stating as such about 5 years ago but like I said "Nobody" listened....

Go Figure.

Later Steve A