BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

RT next generation

8K views 39 replies 20 participants last post by  beech 
#1 ·
Any discussion on BMW coming out with the next Generation RT?
 
#4 ·
I heard they were going to transition to belt drive, move to a v-twin configuration, wet clutch, with forward controls and quite a bit lower and heavier... probably slower too and would then handle like a pig... who knew?
 
#5 ·
hopz said:
I heard they were going to transition to belt drive, move to a v-twin configuration, wet clutch, with forward controls and quite a bit lower and heavier... probably slower too and would then handle like a pig... who knew?

...............and get rid of the can-bus

Mick
 
#10 ·
hopz said:
I heard they were going to transition to belt drive, move to a v-twin configuration, wet clutch, with forward controls and quite a bit lower and heavier... probably slower too and would then handle like a pig... who knew?
Ok, I will say it... Ahhhh sounds like a HD :histerica
 
#11 · (Edited)
Mick-F said:
...............and get rid of the can-bus
Why? Because you have to go to the effort of installing a bypass for your Battery Tender and other accessories (which should be on a separate fuse box anyways)?

KEEP the CANBus! It has/will enable many integrated functions by allowing disperate components to communicate with one another, while reducing wiring complexity and weight.

Much of the most recent advances -- traction control, electronic cruise control without a separate cruise actuator, GPS integration, latest generation ABS integration with traction control and lean angle sensor, electronically-controlled suspension, use of a multi-controller to operate several systems, rather than a Gold Wing-like proliferation of literally dozens of operating buttons on the bars/tank/fairing, etc., etc. -- would simply not be possible without a CANBus architecture.

And no, CANBus doesn't make the bikes harder to service -- they are still mechanical devices with electrons moving about, and there are only a few things you really *need* a dealer's diagnostic machine for (and even most of these can be handled by aftermarket devices such as the GS-911-- something which is true for both CANBus and non-CANBus electronics-equipped BMWs in the last two decades). If anything, CANBus makes reading codes and narrowing in on a problem easier.

/Rant Mode ON/
I have to say I get pretty tired of the anti-technology cries -- people want lighter, faster, lower cost, lower maintenance, more reliable bikes, but heavens forbid that is achieved with technologies with which they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

(FWIW, before someone pipes up with it: The option of re-starting production of airhead boxers is simply untenable: besides being uncompetitively expensive to produce (that tunnel-block airhead motor is quite costly to cast and machine), they simply cannot meet today's current and soon-to-be-applied emissions and noise requirements, regardless of cost.)

The fact is, the advances *most* people want -- and compliance with current and future every-tightening emissions and noise regulations -- will *only* come with the addition of electronics. And the better integrated, the lower the cost and the greater the opportunity for synergies between components and functions.

If you don't want these advances, no problem -- I truly understand the desire for simplicity (see my current bike list, below). However, the reality is going forward, your only option is going to be an older bike -- flying brick, pre-'05 boxer, early F-series, or an airhead, as BMW will likely never produce another non-CANBus road bike (and they shouldn't! -- too many benefits outweigh buckling under to luddites, even if they could meet the tighter regulatory requirements). And if they don't their competition will quickly leave them in the dust.

Some will argue that the older mechaincal systems on these bikes are more reliable -- bull hockey. Today's electronics have FAR lower MTBF numbers than the older bikes, and it is *exceedingly* rare to hear of a true, electronics-killed on-the-road immobilizing failure.

The truth is, despite their vaunted repuation for reliability, in reality the airheads were/are more likely to have an immobilizing event on the road than today's BMWs, misty-eyed rememberances notwithstanding. Are airheads easier to get going when something fails? If the modern bike has a true electronic module issue (unlike a failure such as a mechanical wiring issue with the ignition Hall sensor -- something which is not CANBus related, as it effects leater airheads, K-bikes, oilheads, etc.) Yes. But you're much more likely to not have such an issue with a modern electroncs-equipped bike in the first place.

FWIW -- I have three airheads, and oilhead and a flying brick currently in the garage, as I await the arrival of a K16GTL. Obviously, I appreciate the value of simplicity. But I also appreciate that each of these vehicles is limited in its performance in one or more ways that electronics overcome (e.g., leaking and frequent-maintenance, wear-prone carbs vs. precise closed-loop fuel injection, mechanically-reliable but maintenance-requiring points vs. electronic ignition, no traction control, etc.). I am willing to accept these limitations for the ride they provide. But they are not my first choice for day-to-day, rock-solid reliable commuting and touring. Keep the advances coming BMW, and continue to stay ahead of the competition.

/Rant mode OFF/ :D
 
#12 ·
I agree with the above. I too have had my share of airheads and moved on, I still love them though. But...what I say and with no malice intended, is that if someone truly wishes for the past to return, go buy an airhead of choice. Plenty still out there. Take it home and completely rebuild it to new with OEM parts or equals. Get everything from wheel bearings, rear brake bushings, transmission, engine with hard valve seats, get new brake hydraulics, put a new wire harness on it, maybe one of those 450 watt alternators, get it painted. Just do a 100% renew/rebuild, spare nothing. This will bring you to the cost of buying a new bike and you will have a new bike unless you cheat. I think it will be a nice machine but you will be in it for 12 grand if you are lucky and have the ups/&downs of the older machine. I think that they are not as safe as a modern bike and you will never get me to travel cross country or other long rides I like on a bike with tube tires. It surly is a mixed bag. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: (I am trying not to be negative here just moving on. Once my wife was on my case for years, she wanted an old VW. So finally I bought one, fixed it up $$, then after a winter went by she was upset because the windshield wipers were not too good, the heater and defroster was poor, the car was damp etc. that wistful dream shattered.)
 
#13 ·
beech said:
Next big issue of RT's will be water cooled. It may be as early as next year.
I've heard this for years, there's no way. Why would they add additional components, weight and problems when the current design works so well.

I'd prefer they keep air cooled, it's the only bike I've ever ridden in August that didn't add to the driver heat problem. Simply amazing.
:corn:
 
#15 ·
mneblett said:
Why? Because you have to go to the effort of installing a bypass for your Battery Tender and other accessories (which should be on a separate fuse box anyways)?

KEEP the CANBus! It has/will enable many integrated functions by allowing disperate components to communicate with one another, while reducing wiring complexity and weight.

Much of the most recent advances -- traction control, electronic cruise control without a separate cruise actuator, GPS integration, latest generation ABS integration with traction control and lean angle sensor, electronically-controlled suspension, use of a multi-controller to operate several systems, rather than a Gold Wing-like proliferation of literally dozens of operating buttons on the bars/tank/fairing, etc., etc. -- would simply not be possible without a CANBus architecture.

And no, CANBus doesn't make the bikes harder to service -- they are still mechanical devices with electrons moving about, and there are only a few things you really *need* a dealer's diagnostic machine for (and even most of these can be handled by aftermarket devices such as the GS-911-- something which is true for both CANBus and non-CANBus electronics-equipped BMWs in the last two decades). If anything, CANBus makes reading codes and narrowing in on a problem easier.

/Rant Mode ON/
I have to say I get pretty tired of the anti-technology cries -- people want lighter, faster, lower cost, lower maintenance, more reliable bikes, but heavens forbid that is achieved with technologies with which they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

(FWIW, before someone pipes up with it: The option of re-starting production of airhead boxers is simply untenable: besides being uncompetitively expensive to produce (that tunnel-block airhead motor is quite costly to cast and machine), they simply cannot meet today's current and soon-to-be-applied emissions and noise requirements, regardless of cost.)

The fact is, the advances *most* people want -- and compliance with current and future every-tightening emissions and noise regulations -- will *only* come with the addition of electronics. And the better integrated, the lower the cost and the greater the opportunity for synergies between components and functions.

If you don't want these advances, no problem -- I truly understand the desire for simplicity (see my current bike list, below). However, the reality is going forward, your only option is going to be an older bike -- flying brick, pre-'05 boxer, early F-series, or an airhead, as BMW will likely never produce another non-CANBus road bike (and they shouldn't! -- too many benefits outweigh buckling under to luddites, even if they could meet the tighter regulatory requirements). And if they don't their competition will quickly leave them in the dust.

Some will argue that the older mechaincal systems on these bikes are more reliable -- bull hockey. Today's electronics have FAR lower MTBF numbers than the older bikes, and it is *exceedingly* rare to hear of a true, electronics-killed on-the-road immobilizing failure.

The truth is, despite their vaunted repuation for reliability, in reality the airheads were/are more likely to have an immobilizing event on the road than today's BMWs, misty-eyed rememberances notwithstanding. Are airheads easier to get going when something fails? If the modern bike has a true electronic module issue (unlike a failure such as a mechanical wiring issue with the ignition Hall sensor -- something which is not CANBus related, as it effects leater airheads, K-bikes, oilheads, etc.) Yes. But you're much more likely to not have such an issue with a modern electroncs-equipped bike in the first place.

FWIW -- I have three airheads, and oilhead and a flying brick currently in the garage, as I await the arrival of a K16GTL. Obviously, I appreciate the value of simplicity. But I also appreciate that each of these vehicles is limited in its performance in one or more ways that electronics overcome (e.g., leaking and frequent-maintenance, wear-prone carbs vs. precise closed-loop fuel injection, mechanically-reliable but maintenance-requiring points vs. electronic ignition, no traction control, etc.). I am willing to accept these limitations for the ride they provide. But they are not my first choice for day-to-day, rock-solid reliable commuting and touring. Keep the advances coming BMW, and continue to stay ahead of the competition.

/Rant mode OFF/ :D


Ahhhhh, that was just a bit of a joke response to HopZ post. But you probably feel better now.
But, then again, Dad never did get over the loss of his job at the Buggy Whip Factory.

Mick
 
#16 · (Edited)
beech said:
Next big issue of RT's will be water cooled. It may be as early as next year.
Actually they will be using liquid hydrogen cooled superconductor magnets for a new maglev drive system. No tires, oil changes, FD, etc to worry with. A true dual sport or tourer configured by selection on the multi-controller menu. Adaptive skins adjust the fairing to whatever speed and on/off-road configuration you happen to be in. Small fusion power reactor for main power to the engine, Million mile range to replacement.:rolleyes:
 
#17 ·
hopz said:
I heard they were going to transition to belt drive, move to a v-twin configuration, wet clutch, with forward controls and quite a bit lower and heavier... probably slower too and would then handle like a pig... who knew?
It looks like the Hexhead's will be a classic soon...... :D
And get rid of the sensor ring for the key....That can leave you stuck.
 
#19 ·
Ponch said:
Probably a 1250-1300cc liquid cooled version of the dual cam. Probably would have throttle by wire too. At least that could take care of sync adjustments.
I rode a Bagger last summer. The TBW felt....lagging. Is that common?
 
#21 ·
Hey Mneblett!

Thank you! I enjoyed and learned alot from all that you had to say. I welcome anyone to post just as Mnblett did. Good for us novice people who know just a fraction of what these new bikes are all about. The last time I really worked on a bike was back in the 70's.


Thanks Mneblett

2006 RT

A few others while I was younger
 
#22 ·
Sync adjustment? As I understand it for the new RT all you need to do is maintain equal cable adjustments and make sure there is enough slack that the throttle bodies can close and have a specific amount of needed slack. The bike completes an air valve check/calibration (idle) each start up cycle. Other than that check your valve clearance, change fluids/filters, and your good to go. Or at least until your electronic fuel pump controller goes south. :rotf:
 
#23 ·
ka5ysy said:
Actually they will be using liquid hydrogen cooled superconductor magnets for a new maglev drive system. No tires, oil changes, FD, etc to worry with. A true dual sport or tourer configured by selection on the multi-controller menu. Adaptive skins adjust the fairing to whatever speed and on/off-road configuration you happen to be in. Small fusion power reactor for main power to the engine, Million mile range to replacement.:rolleyes:
If you look at my Avatar you will get a picture of what you have described. The future of transportation?
Ellie
 
#24 ·
beech said:
Sync adjustment? As I understand it for the new RT all you need to do is maintain equal cable adjustments and make sure there is enough slack that the throttle bodies can close and have a specific amount of needed slack. The bike completes an air valve check/calibration (idle) each start up cycle. Other than that check your valve clearance, change fluids/filters, and your good to go. Or at least until your electronic fuel pump controller goes south. :rotf:
And read JVBs procedure on it. It's based on vacuum balance. Unless you want to go antediluvian, you have to by yet another tool. An electronic throttle could adjust itself.
 
#25 ·
mneblett said:
Some will argue that the older mechaincal systems on these bikes are more reliable -- bull hockey. Today's electronics have FAR lower MTBF numbers than the older bikes, and it is *exceedingly* rare to hear of a true, electronics-killed on-the-road immobilizing failure.
The people who argue for simplicity are far too often the ones that have never sat on the side of the road changing a set of points that fried after a condenser went bad.

They also don't remember how often they had to replace tires before radials came along.

The list goes on...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top