BMW Unveils New 6-Cylinder K1600GT and GTL

[sarnali2]

Originally Posted by seruzawa

Wanna put some money on it?

ummm.....I spent all my money on the pipes............

[Duken4evr]

I just want to spend some quality time on Seruzawa's Tiger

[Kenneth_Moore]

Originally Posted by Duken4evr

I just want to spend some quality time on Seruzawa's Tiger

Just don't break the damn thing. I hear parts are nearly impossible to get.

[seruzawa]

Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore

Just don't break the damn thing. I hear parts are nearly impossible to get.

Lucky thing is that Tigers never need any parts.

Triples Rule.

[bmwclay]

OK, so now you got a 30,000 dollar bike with a 528 motor and a 8 lane interstate. I'll take an Italian or Brit twin and a Midwest river road over the BMW any day.

[MOKE1K]

On the widthof the engines CBX versus the BMW, isn't it the handling that means more, it would to me!

[Kevin_Duke]

Originally Posted by MOKE1K

On the widthof the engines CBX versus the BMW, isn't it the handling that means more, it would to me!

The engine width has an effect on handling, as a wide engine limits ground clearance. Anyway, the CBX wasn't a great handler back in the day, so the 700-lb K16-GT should have the Honda covered on that end, too.

Let's not forget that the touring-oriented CBX had a wet weight of more than 650 lbs and had a spindly frame, toothpick-sized 35-39mm forks, 100mm wide tires, and 60 less hp. I think the CBX is considerably cooler, but it will trail far behind in any dynamic terms.

[MOKE1K]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Duke

The engine width has an effect on handling, as a wide engine limits ground clearance. Anyway, the CBX wasn't a great handler back in the day, so the 700-lb K16-GT should have the Honda covered on that end, too.

Let's not forget that the touring-oriented CBX had a wet weight of more than 650 lbs and had a spindly frame, toothpick-sized 35-39mm forks, 100mm wide tires, and 60 less hp. I think the CBX is considerably cooler, but it will trail far behind in any dynamic terms.

That's what I'm trying to say brother, who cares that one is skinnier or wider because ultimately it all comes down to handling. Love how you post the obvious.
Wider handles worse????Yeah!

[Kevin_Duke]

Originally Posted by MOKE1K

That's what I'm trying to say brother, who cares that one is skinnier or wider because ultimately it all comes down to handling. Love how you post the obvious.
Wider handles worse????Yeah!

Sorry, MOKE. I get confused easily...

[DataDan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Duke

The engine width has an effect on handling, as a wide engine limits ground clearance. Anyway, the CBX wasn't a great handler back in the day, so the 700-lb K16-GT should have the Honda covered on that end, too.

Let's not forget that the touring-oriented CBX had a wet weight of more than 650 lbs and had a spindly frame, toothpick-sized 35-39mm forks, 100mm wide tires, and 60 less hp. I think the CBX is considerably cooler, but it will trail far behind in any dynamic terms.

You forgot the swingarm bushings made of sintered sushi . At least on the earlier models, like my '79.

The big test for the K16 will be how it carries its 700lb. While I'm a fan of lightweight bikes (my Hawk GT was probably my all-time fave bike), it is possible for a heavy bike to handle reasonably well. My ST1100 carries its 700lb fairly well. Because weight is neither too high nor too low, it turns in easily and predictably. Honda seems to have made great effort to keep mass centralized about the roll axis, such as with the V4 engine config and underseat gas tank (42lb full). Some lighter bikes with conventional fuel tanks that I've ridden feel heavier and less predictable to me due to all that weight up high.

I haven't ridden the current generation of K-bikes, so I don't know how well BMW manages the weight. What's the general impression of those bikes' turn-in behavior? I guess I would expect the K16 to be similar.