revtothelimit - motorbike forum

Picked this up this morning and did roughly 100 miles on it. Took a picture next to the bins to set it off nicely (didn't notice until later)...

Bits I have reservations about first...

The rear is a bit bouncy, I'll set the preload and up the compression and see how that is before doing anything more dramatic.

Drive mode (auto) on the gearbox is not great. It tries to change up very early and leaves the engine labouring. I knew it would do this and I'll probably not use it unless I'm on the motorway.

Everything else...

This bike does everything better than the KTM. It's smooth, much easier to ride, feels way faster and the wind protection is superb. The steering is slower so I have to get used to putting more input in to the steering but everything else is so much better than the 1190 I don't mind.

The engine is epic. I've read that it's limited under 4000rpm in 1st and second and generally lacks push below 4000rpm. Yeah, I guess but I just ride it above 4000rpm, just like every other bike I've had, and it pulls really well and sounds good. Overtaking is piss easy, just cheese it and it's gone.

The chassis is very very stable. A bit slow to steer and the rear needs firming up but it feels so so solid.

The brakes will take some time to get used to as they're very good indeed and I need to learn to modulate the braking pressure more.

The wind protection is superb, far better than the KTM. I wish I'd had this on the trip to France. I did an overtake and while on the KTM I'd be hanging on like an Ewok, this was superb. So much so that I didn't notice the speed I'd reached and had to shed speed sharpish.

The gearbox in drive isn't much good as I said above, it changes up to soon. In sport mode it's very good. In manual mode it's absolutely superb. For some reason it seems to be able to anticipate the next gear I want in manual mode with more success than in sport with me choosing a gear now and again. When it's got the next gear that you want ready the changes are seamless and lightening fast. If it's got the wrong gear selected then getting the right one for you is very quick but there's more of a clunk.

Great bike and fits in the garage. It's a lot smaller than I thought. It's like a fat fireblade, in a good way.

A mate of mine had one and loved it, but had similar reservations about the suspension. He wound up sticking an Ohlins on the rear and Ohlins internals in the forks. After that he couldn't fault it. My only concern with them is the all up weight. A wet weight of 267 kg (589 lbs) would give me major concern pushing it around on anything other than flat, smooth tarmac.

I didn't know it was auto. Interesting stuff, makes me more intrigued how you get on with it.

Is the 1190 going now.?

Dodgy69 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:00 pm Is the 1190 going now.?

Goned!

Ah...just read px.

I had an 800, and that was a lardy beast. 267kg would be waaaay too much for me. I never understood the 1200, the 800 motor was a peach, ride it on the torque in 2v mode, or 4v for the hooligan in you. The 1200 was no quicker, just bigger an heavier.

Anyway, enjoy it. It is a Honda, a mile muncher, so munch some miles.

Cousin Jack wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:23 pm I never understood the 1200, the 800 motor was a peach, ride it on the torque in 2v mode, or 4v for the hooligan in you. The 1200 was no quicker, just bigger an heavier.

The 800 (air cooled) or 850 (oil) were nicer to ride than the bigger engines.

But, since they were the same bike just with smaller holes, they were equally lardy

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:47 pm

Cousin Jack wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:23 pm I never understood the 1200, the 800 motor was a peach, ride it on the torque in 2v mode, or 4v for the hooligan in you. The 1200 was no quicker, just bigger an heavier.

The 800 (air cooled) or 850 (oil) were nicer to ride than the bigger engines.

But, since they were the same bike just with smaller holes, they were equally lardy

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 pm

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:47 pm

Cousin Jack wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:23 pm I never understood the 1200, the 800 motor was a peach, ride it on the torque in 2v mode, or 4v for the hooligan in you. The 1200 was no quicker, just bigger an heavier.

The 800 (air cooled) or 850 (oil) were nicer to ride than the bigger engines.

But, since they were the same bike just with smaller holes, they were equally lardy

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

Cousin Jack fought in WW1 so we let him off these faux pas.

KungFooBob wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:16 pm

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 pm

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:47 pm

The 800 (air cooled) or 850 (oil) were nicer to ride than the bigger engines.

But, since they were the same bike just with smaller holes, they were equally lardy

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

Cousin Jack fought in WW1 so we let him off these faux pas.

Except that Cousin Jack knows his VFR onions, but Horse apparently doesn't...

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 pm

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:47 pm

Cousin Jack wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:23 pm I never understood the 1200, the 800 motor was a peach, ride it on the torque in 2v mode, or 4v for the hooligan in you. The 1200 was no quicker, just bigger an heavier.

The 800 (air cooled) or 850 (oil) were nicer to ride than the bigger engines.

But, since they were the same bike just with smaller holes, they were equally lardy

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

Sorry, missed the important, nay essential, qualifier of 'BMW twins'.

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:22 pm

KungFooBob wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:16 pm

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 pm

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

Cousin Jack fought in WW1 so we let him off these faux pas.

Except that Cousin Jack knows his VFR onions, but Horse apparently doesn't...

He knows a bit about them. But doesn't often post about them

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:22 pm

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 pm

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:47 pm

The 800 (air cooled) or 850 (oil) were nicer to ride than the bigger engines.

But, since they were the same bike just with smaller holes, they were equally lardy

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

Sorry, missed the important, nay essential, qualifier of 'BMW twins'.

Honda made a BMW?

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:22 pm Sorry, missed the important, nay essential, qualifier of 'BMW twins'.

The one I had was garbage and I wouldn’t touch another bmw twin if you paid me

Cousin Jack wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 8:23 pm I had an 800, and that was a lardy beast. 267kg would be waaaay too much for me. I never understood the 1200, the 800 motor was a peach, ride it on the torque in 2v mode, or 4v for the hooligan in you. The 1200 was no quicker, just bigger an heavier.

Anyway, enjoy it. It is a Honda, a mile muncher, so munch some miles.

The 800 made 105bhp, this makes at least 160bhp. This feels significantly faster than my 636 and that has more power than the 800 and was a lot lighter.

I sat on an 800 and it was ok but felt pretty small.

Skub wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:24 pm

Horse wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:22 pm

mangocrazy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 9:15 pm

Are you talking about the same engines/bikes? VFRs were always water-cooled and the only engine sizes were 750, 800 or 1200...?

Sorry, missed the important, nay essential, qualifier of 'BMW twins'.

Honda made a BMW?

Filly doesn't know much about bikes, but called Pans "Honda's BMW"

weeksy wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 7:47 pm I didn't know it was auto. Interesting stuff, makes me more intrigued how you get on with it.

To be honest that swung it for me. I was extremely curious to see what it would be like. So far I love it but it’s at its best when it’s in manual. In manual mode though, apart from pulling away, it acts like a very good quick shifter. It’s even got the optional foot shifter fitted.

Can you still slip the clutch when in auto. ?

Re the soft rear end, it seems to be a thing with tourer set up that the default is 'comfort' ie soggy. Has it got EAS? Either way changing the rear shock parameters should sort it.

(Just nosing about on the Internet for info on the WP made unit on my old bike, wondering if they're an alternative to Ohlins if you wanted to change it, and found that they're now wholly owned by KTM. Didn't know that).