Ratio of 1st gear not strong enough, requiring care on launch to prevent either slipping clutch excessively or killing the engine. You get used to it.

 

Yep. My $0.02:

IOW, first gear is numerically too low of a number. Low gear ratios are referred to as "tall" gears. While this allows you to run to higher speeds before shifting 1-2, it is really a bit too tall for this bike. The other gear ratios are OK IMO.

If you think of it in bicycle terms the first gear (one of the front sprockets) has too many teeth and is too close to the size of the rear sprocket. It requires you to put a lot of effort into getting the bike moving from a stop. On the motorcycle, it requires more revs to get the bike going to prevent stalling and dropping the bike. But high revs are the enemy of the dry clutch, so we wince at the thought and smell of clutch damage.

In the end, we all learn to be careful and slip the clutch no longer than necessary. The learning process often entails maybe 1 or 2 stalled drops, followed by a bunch of stinky launches before we perfect the technique.

 

Semio, I beg to differ. A High Gear Ratio is a Tall Ratio. Too tall of ratio does mean hard to get rolling off the line. A low ratio makes it easier to get rolling especially under load. Heavy bikes benefit from a lower ratio. Not higher. Larger number to 1 is lower ratio.
3.08-1 is lower ratio than 2.28 - 1. this is my understanding for what it is worth.

McWideglide

 

There appears to be some disagreement about what is considered "tall". I won't argue about it here.

Anyway, here are the numerical gear ratios for the R1200RT transmission per BMW:

1st Gear Ratio: 2.28:1
2nd Gear Ratio: 1.58:1
3rd Gear Ratio: 1.26:1
4th Gear Ratio: 1.03:1
5th Gear Ratio: 0.90:1
6th Gear Ratio: 0.81:1

Notice how they decrease to lower numbers as the gear number goes up. Higher number gear ratios provide for more torque multiplication to the rear wheel at the cost of higher engine revs and lower speeds. IMO BMW should have used about a 2.75:1 first gear ratio.

Note fifth and sixth gears are technically considered "overdrives" since the ratio is less than 1. That is, the engine actually spins slower than the drive shaft.

 

Semio, I beg to differ. A High Gear Ratio is a Tall Ratio. Too tall of ratio does mean hard to get rolling off the line. A low ratio makes it easier to get rolling especially under load. Heavy bikes benefit from a lower ratio. Not higher. Larger number to 1 is lower ratio.
3.08-1 is lower ratio than 2.28 - 1. this is my understanding for what it is worth.

McWideglide

You have it backwards. The larger number difference is a higher ratio, but what us normally described as a "lower" gear. The "lower" the ratio, the "higher" the "gear". High gear on most vehicles (disregarding overdrive, which the LT 5th gear is) is a ratio of 1:1, sometimes called a ratio of "zero", or "direct drive".

 

Both are right....sort of. It is confusing. Numerically lower numbers are "taller geared" (as in 2.28:1). Higher numbers are lower geared (4.11:1), lower gearing giving more multiple and an easier launch. I agree with both of you.

 

Both are right....sort of. It is confusing. Numerically lower numbers are "taller geared" (as in 2.28:1). Higher numbers are lower geared (4.11:1), lower gearing giving more multiple and an easier launch. I agree with both of you.

...that about sums it up!! :rotf:

 

Here are the 2010 specs:

Primary transmission ratio 1.737

Gear ratios

1st 2.375

2nd 1.696

3rd 1.296

4th 1.065

5th 0.939

6th 0.848

Rear-wheel drive Drive shaft

Final drive ratio 2.62

Do these specs imply a different "first gear" experience?

 

The final drive ratios are the same.

The rest of the gears are all approx 4% shorter than 2009. This should help a little.

 

I agree.

 

And a bright good morning from the Heartland, where it's presently 13 below zero. Brrr.

Anybody ever consider changing out the first gear so it's lower? Impractical? Impossible?
Just curious.
Best, John

 

Semio, I agree with your last post.

\McWideglide

 

Anybody ever consider changing out the first gear so it's lower? Impractical? Impossible?
Just curious.
Best, John

If it were changed to Semio's suggested 2.75, I'd want 2nd changed to 1.8 and 3rd to about 1.35. Other wise the gap would be too large between 1st & 2nd. This would give maximum speeds of 43, 66, and 90 mph in the lower gears vs. 53, 76 and 95 for the '05~09 models.

Tom

 

Could someone explain in plain english what the "Too Tall" 1st gear on the R1200RT means? Is this present on all 07-09 models?

How does it affect riding and how big a deal is it?

Thanks

I've read a great deal about the too tall 1st gear. I respectfully don't get it. I bought an 09 RT this past summer after riding a 2005 Goldwing for 4 years. The RT has a great clutch, a great transmission, I have zero complaints on the gearing.

The bike is easy to launch and to manage in stop and go traffic. If you a looking to buy one, don't hesitate, they are great bikes.

 

Taller first gear. Less grunt more stalls or scorching the dry clutch.
Shorter first gear, more grunt , less strain on clutch better get a way especially two up.

New RT, has a shorter first gear with more grunt, should be a step in the right direction if it was enough.

It will make exiting slow corner downshifts a bit more challenging though based on my experience with my current 08 gearbox.

I am so looking forward to the clutchess six speed manuals. Honda will have one soon on the revisited VFR bikes so maybe that will become a trend.

 

Not sure how many serious slopes there are in Ohio

The RT first gear is fine on the flats, even 2 up. Totally different story on serious slopes 2 up and luggage. We've got a bunch of those in the western part of my state (NC, home of the Dragon and lots of other fun bits) but none by the coast where I live. (Most it was ocean bottom in the recent geological past) Between the crappy feel of a dry clutch and the tall gear, it takes some serious attention to technique and enough slipping that one gets concerned about shortening clutch life due to abuse. And the RT is never going to win any awards for the easiest to service clutch disc.

Despite all that, clutches seem to have a decent life- don't see many complaints about dying young on the various websites unless they get contaminated. Still, a 20% friendlier first gear would be useful. That 4% isn't worth noting as a useful improvement and the bike certainly doesn't need shorter top gears- many of us will take all the mileage and range we can get. (Anybody else notice that the new Honda "sport touring" bike - VFR 1200 - won't even go 2 hours at highway speeds without a fuel stop? So much for doing much touring. They ought to call it a sport-fueling bike and give awards to owners who can get a credit card into the pump slot the fastest :soapbox: )

The clutch is at its worst when new; a little break in helps feel as well as rider technique.

 

I've read a great deal about the too tall 1st gear. I respectfully don't get it. I bought an 09 RT this past summer after riding a 2005 Goldwing for 4 years. The RT has a great clutch, a great transmission, I have zero complaints on the gearing.

The bike is easy to launch and to manage in stop and go traffic. If you a looking to buy one, don't hesitate, they are great bikes.

I concurr.
I see no issues with the gearing on the RT, I have a 57 plate.
I'm very easy on the clutch as well, I like to have it engaged as soon as possible, very little slip.
Just to add, I'm in a fairly flat part of the country in the UK, a few hilly bits but not much. However I did take a R1200ST around the Pyrennesse South France/North Spain last year and never had any big issues with that. Solo riding, not much luggage TBH,
hth
\v/

 

I live in Dubuque, Iowa which is very hilly and I have had no problems with my 08 RT. I often start out from a stop on a steep slope with no problem. I had a 2006 Goldwing and that bike was terrible. It was super super heavy and very hard (for me) to handle, especially here on the hills. I put 6500 miles on the Leadwing and sold it.