Finally a sport tourer that weighs more than a ST1300

[dduelin]

I noticed the small fact that the K1600GT weighs a little bit more than the Honda ST1300 does. Of course there are all sorts of equipment and power differences between the two but I did think is noteworthy as the ST is often described as porky, portly, or just heavy. The trip from K1300 to K1600 added about 150 lbs.

 

[Bones]

The weight listed on the BMW website does not include the panniers for the GT, even though they are standard equipment. My calls to dealers and emails with BMW customer service have not resulted in weight for two empty K1600 panniers. Dealers either said sorry can't help you or ask customer service and (you guessed it) customer service advised me to check with an authorized BMW retailer. Bet the GT will smoke an ST, even though it is heavier, but it is curious that the class porker has been out-weighed.

 

[dduelin]

A few weeks ago I took my 2005 to a scale and had it weighed with and without panniers. W/O mine weighed 700 lbs even with 1/2 mile out of a topped off gas tank. BMW's figure is 703 with 90% fuel load. It's not much but it is more and then the BMW bags may weigh as much as twice as much as the ST's 7.5 lbs do. It's not so much more as it is that the big GT and the ST weigh so much more than other sport touring bikes like the FJR, Concours, and BMW RT and K1300GT. The KGT has toppled the ST off the heaviest throne.

I am sure the K16GT will smoke any ST roll-on comparison but the conservative DTC that prevented wheelspin and front wheel lift has the KGTL almost a full second slower than the best published ST1300 quarter mile time time. I would think they have the same DTC settings as the engine outputs are the same.

You know, I raced a Concours 1400 a couple of times from a standing start and the TC of the Kawasaki did the same thing. I was able to put all the ST's power down while the traction and anti-wheelie control limited the bigger engine's output and I was able to stay ahead until about 90 mph. A smart rider will disable DTC at the stop light grand prix if they can launch the bike faster than the computer will.

Before I get flamed I want to emphasize I am just pointing out the slight weight difference and not claiming a lighter, faster ST is better in any comparison. BMW historically has been rightly able to claim that heavy use of alloys and engineered lightness has produced bikes lighter than the others in the same class but they probably won't be using that claim in ads for this bike. OTH, the Goldwing weighs about 140 lbs more than the KGTL does.

 

[Judge]

I never welcome the idea of a heavier bike. However, common sense dictates that an option laden inline 6 is going to be heavier than an ST. So that being said, yes the K16GT is a tad heavier than the ST.

As for acceleration comparisons between the two bikes, the K16GT has doccumented acceleration times that are just barely off of the K1300GT (very low 11's). So in other words, significantly faster than an ST13, and having owned both, I can vouch for that. Both my K13GT and K16GT would pull the paint off my ST13, but quite frankly while that's fun to talk about, it means little to me.

I will say from personal experience that the K16 has such light handling that I am amazed. The only time I feel the bike is too heavy for my liking is pushing it around in the garage, etc. Nicest handling ST bike I've ever ridden!:biker:

 

[dduelin]

I never welcome the idea of a heavier bike.

As for acceleration comparisons between the two bikes, the K16GT has doccumented acceleration times that are just barely off of the K1300GT (very low 11's).

Exactly what is low 11's and where are the references? The ST1300 has low 11's in print.

 

[Throttlejockey]

Exactly what is low 11's and where are the references? The ST1300 has low 11's in print.

Yes, how "significant" is a few tenths....

 

[Judge]

Exactly what is low 11's and where are the references? The ST1300 has low 11's in print.

Good grief my friend, how is it your home is not cluttered with back and current issues of every cycle magazine available?

Exactly how low are the low 11's in print from the ST1300, and more importantly...what kind of ink and font was used?

See where I'm going here? The fact that the K16GT is quicker really does not matter in the arena of sport-touring. Frankly, I don't much care, but over on the 600cc sport bike forums I'd bet it's the kind of discussion people go to war over.

Moving on..., but if you get a chance to read this month's Cycle World for example you'll see one of the slower times I've seen publishished.....IN PRINT

 

[Chris Parker]

My R1150rt was 100 lbs lighter than an ST1300, but due to what I consider to be a very high cog it felt heavier.

How in the world is that even possible... I left my BMW R1150RT for the ST1300 in 2004 and that is the last thing I would say. I loved the ST, but in no way imaginable would I say the RT FELT heavier... it was like going from a Dirt Bike to a Boss Hoss where weight is concerned. Either that, or my upper body strength is greater than the mirror suggests : )

 

[Bones]

How in the world is that even possible...

Hmmm...maybe it was all that extra weight carried up high for all those switches to control the turn signals.

duck

(hee-hee)

 

[DaveST]

Not sure I want a heavier bike than a ST. I would like about 150-200 # lower.
I felt the R12 was not as top heavy or as heavy in general as my ST but I only rode one for a test ride.
The turn signals were weird!

 

[Kempo-STer]

You guys got it all wrong...I just gained 100 pounds and the ST felt 100 pounds lighter!:a13:

 

[dduelin]

Good grief my friend, how is it your home is not cluttered with back and current issues of every cycle magazine available?

Exactly how low are the low 11's in print from the ST1300, and more importantly...what kind of ink and font was used?

See where I'm going here? The fact that the K16GT is quicker really does not matter in the arena of sport-touring. Frankly, I don't much care, but over on the 600cc sport bike forums I'd bet it's the kind of discussion people go to war over.

Moving on..., but if you get a chance to read this month's Cycle World for example you'll see one of the slower times I've seen publishished.....IN PRINT

The ST did a best 11.43 for some magazine, Cycle World I think. I have lots of past issues but I quit buying US magazines a while back. I usually look them over at the newstand and read articles of interest to me. Kind of like reading their online content off-line. I get BMW Owners News monthly and I still have a subscription to Rider until late next year and I usually buy a copy of the British rag Bike and sometimes Motorcycle Sport and Leisure each month, so no, I no longer have copies of every magazine lying around. Just one or two.

The first 6 months of K1600 reviews were in large part based on the closely managed world debut in South Africa last March where journalists were able to ride the bike several daylight hours in the area but do no comprehensive test or measurements. Only the last couple of months have in-depth reviews been coming out.

This month's Motorcyclist is where I read the mid 12 second 1/4 mile time for the K1600GTL. Probably an outlier. The GT seems to return 11.2 to 11.5 times. Like you said, these are numbers more important to Concours owners where dyno hp, remapping, flies out, and high 10s have more meaning than a creamy smooth wave of mid range to surf for 500 or 600 miles.

 

[sherob]

A stock C14 (2009), as reported by Motorcyclist, will do a 1/4 mile in 10.49... flies in, no remapping, with creamy smooth wave of mid range for 500 or even 1000 miles.

 

[nhdiesel]

Am I the only one who thinks they are pushing the meaning of "sport tourer" a bit with the k1600? Its a LARGE bike- large engine, large frame/body work, and large weight. I realize the GTL is the actual "tourer", but I think the GT is still closer to a Wing in size than it is to the current crop of Sport Tourers.

Definitions aside, I put much more value on the overall handling package than I do on numbers. I couldn't care less about the 1/4 mile time...how is the acceleration between corners? Or, more important, how does it handle the corners? Even weight isn't a huge factor for me. Remember, these are sport TOURERS, so by the time we pack in our supplies for a trip we throw the weight out the window anyway. No two of our STs could be compared side by side during a trip. I'm a big guy and might be carrying some tools, a compressor, a few spare parts, and clothes/supplies for two weeks on the road; while my friend, riding an identical ST, is 50 lbs. lighter and has just the basics for a few nights on the road. Where does that leave the numbers?

A few lbs. might mean a lot to sportbike riders on track day, but for how most of us use our STs, would we really notice a few lbs.? Even 100, if the overall package is well done, and the bike carries those 100 lbs well?

I hope I get a chance to try a k1600 someday. I don't think its a bike for me...especially the price...but it looks like something I have the urge to at least try. Much more so than a Wing, for some reason.

Jim

 

[KURT44]

The ST has enough power for me. One thing I have noticed when looking at sport tour comparrisons: (most bikes put out about the same hp up to 7000 rpms.) I don`t think I hardly ever go over 6500 before it`s time to slow. The st1300 has plenty of mid range to pull out of corners and up hills.

 

[Chris Parker]

Center-of-gravity. When more of the weight is up top, it feels heavier, especially at low speeds in parking lots and maneuvering in and out of parking spaces. My 1973 XLCH weighed about 550 lbs but when you put it next to the same weight R1200rt or GS1200 it sure FEELS like it weighs tons less.
Once you got it moving on the highway it was an entirely different story. 125 mph for 230 miles with my wife on back...no problem....3mph turning around on an incline....big problem. Did not like that part. When I rode the ST it was much more manageable at lower speeds. I got on the ST, pulled out into traffic on a 6 lane with only the outside lane available and just scooted up the outside 1/2 of the lane just as though I was on the XLCH. What can I say...it FEELS lighter to me. As I say....perception IS reality. If the BMW felt lighter to you...I have no problem with that. The ST just seems to fit me better from what I could tell from that ride.

Now, if I can just come to grips with the wheel bearing/heat thing.

Well, that is one way of explaining your experience... I didn't see it not feel that at all... I would also point out that the higher COG statement just doesn't make sense, and I will tell you why for two reasons:

1. On the boxer, the engine is low in the chassis, the cylinder heads are down low and outboard. On the ST1300, the engine, which is literally twice the physical size of a boxer engine (have you ever seen both power plants outside the frame?) is taller in the frame.

2. Tank on the ST is metal compared to the RT's plastic version under body work... more weight up higher.

The only thing I can say in your opinion's defense is that the RT sits a couple of inches at the seat level higher than the ST, which could contribute to your feel of it being top heavy... I am 6' 3" and I don't have a problem with the height. Plus, like Bones said, the superior turn signal switches on the RT contributed a few ounces to the weight on top.

 

[dduelin]

I have read comparison tests of the usual suspects where the RT is described as feeling taller than the others and has the sensation of falling into turns from a higher position. That doesn't describe a higher CG just a perception of height and how it feels to the rider.

I found estimated weights for the ST1100 engine at 190 - 200 lbs in some forums devoted to building kit or sports cars using the Honda V-4. The press releases on the 1300 described the engine as packaged slightly smaller than the 1100. BMW R1100 to 1200 boxer engines have been used in aircraft and set up like that without transmissions and different clutches to drive propellers weigh 75 to 80 kg or about 170 lbs. Not as much difference one might think. Of course a cooling system and coolant add additional weight to the bare ST engine. The flat twin boxer is physically smaller and lighter but it sits higher in the frame to give adequate cornering clearance for the heads sticking out in the breeze. The really heavy part of the engine, the crankshaft, sits significantly lower in an ST. I know it doesn't seem that way but go measure the bikes and see for yourself. I only have my R100 to compare but the heavy steel crankshaft is 6" higher on the boxer. That is alot when the crankshaft height is only 12" or so on the ST.

The hexhead boxer carries all it's +/- 40 lbs of fuel up high but the last 13.5 lbs of an STs gas load of +/- 46 lbs is under the seat - more than enough to make up for the tank weight difference. The RT seat height is 1.5 to 3 inches higher than the ST too. All of which contribute to "it ain't that simple to compare the two CGs."

 

[AgSTreak]

Someone brought up the point of fit. In a bicycle, fit is the single, most important factor when choosing a mount. People have different proportions and wildly different opinions of what fits correctly. The difference between a 14# and a 17# bike is less important than the way its proportions suit your riding style. My ST fit OK, especially after I dumped the handle bar risers, but the weight and its location didn't work well for me. The fit on my VFR was not quite as good until I put risers on it and lower the pegs. The fit and weight were great and the ST was relegated to a minor role. My GT feels right though I wish it was a little lighter. All three bikes are faster than any sane person could need.
Please, ride what feels right to you!!

 

[sherob]

Someone brought up the point of fit. In a bicycle, fit is the single, most important factor when choosing a mount. People have different proportions and wildly different opinions of what fits correctly. The difference between a 14# and a 17# bike is less important than the way its proportions suit your riding style. My ST fit OK, especially after I dumped the handle bar risers, but the weight and its location didn't work well for me. The fit on my VFR was not quite as good until I put riders on it and lower the pegs. The fit and weight were great and the ST was relegated to a minor role. My GT feels right though I wish it was a little lighter. All three bikes are faster than any sane person could need.
Please, ride what feels right to you!!

+1 Well said!

 

[BendBill]

According to http://cycle-ergo.com/ the K 1600 GTL AND the GT have more upright ergos than our ST, a fit that many distance riders like.

BMW may have created a winner after years of having their LT luxo-tourer fare abysmally vs the Wing [ in sales ]. Maybe that's why the K 16 is its own niche--a performance luxo sport-tourer. It's not designed to draw many Wing riders, especially 2-uppers, despite the comparos out there. But S-T riders unaffected by the twin thing--and who happily avoid dry clutches--will give it a look.

I love my ST 1300: it is a rugged and smooth machine with proven reliability. But if Honda doesn't update the ST 1300, I look forward to seriously trying out the K 1600 in a few years if it proves reliable.

Until then . . . must stay away from BMW dealers