Hi all:
I posted a call for opinions a few weeks ago and I received tremendous feedback. After looking at all bikes, I've narrowed down my choice to BMW's. Mostly because of the safety technology (brakes, anti nose dive suspension, etc.).
I am now faced with the ultimate question, which one. I currently have an opportunity to buy a used R1200C at a very decent price. I would like your opinion on the pluses and minuses of the r1200C versus the R1150R. I know they are very different bikes but I feel either one will fit me well. I do prefer the sytle of the cruiser but I like the versatility of the 1150R. From a practical perspective, the used C would be less expensive than the new R.
Any thoughts?
New 2005 R1150R or used 2004 R1200C
Moderator: Moderators
Go with the original one that brought you to the dealer. I had the same dilemma with the R vs. the RS. The R is why i went to the dealer and haven't regretted it at all. The RS made more sense (weather protection, larger bags, top case option) and was a better 'deal', but I lusted for the naked bike.
I can't find anything I would trade it for.
I can't find anything I would trade it for.
John
Member 293 (I think)
'17 Triumph Tiger 1200 XRX
Member 293 (I think)
'17 Triumph Tiger 1200 XRX
-
camfarm
Cruisers
J,
I am not one to care for the cruiser ergos, so take my comments carefully.
Overall 'bang for the buck' remains the Roadster R1150R in any year model. Here's why
1. power band for the cruiser is low 60's; torque is lower than Roadster.
2. suspension for the cruiser is based on a very soft ride - no opportunities to take it out and run it around (it'll do it but never enough, IMO)
3 brakes and other foot controls are demonstrably more difficult to operate well from the cruiser position (MSF experiences-NOT facts).
4. cruiser riding position is inferior to Roadster position for being both relaxed and ready to react to road hazards - like riding a racehorse/field horse/hunter (Roadster) versus a Tennessee Walker (cruiser)- turn-in, accelerate out, hang-off, ride ready are all things that upright naked's do very well. Cruisers are always a laid back position.
Now, the BMW cruiser (I really liked the 'Montana' version) is a great looker to me whereas the Harleys, Yammies, and Kawa's were not. But that's just me. When I shopped for a modern Oilhead BMW I looked at both the R1150R, the R1150RS and the R1200C (Montana) and the specs for the R1200C just didn't measure up.
Good luck and remember, I am FOS many times.
I am not one to care for the cruiser ergos, so take my comments carefully.
Overall 'bang for the buck' remains the Roadster R1150R in any year model. Here's why
1. power band for the cruiser is low 60's; torque is lower than Roadster.
2. suspension for the cruiser is based on a very soft ride - no opportunities to take it out and run it around (it'll do it but never enough, IMO)
3 brakes and other foot controls are demonstrably more difficult to operate well from the cruiser position (MSF experiences-NOT facts).
4. cruiser riding position is inferior to Roadster position for being both relaxed and ready to react to road hazards - like riding a racehorse/field horse/hunter (Roadster) versus a Tennessee Walker (cruiser)- turn-in, accelerate out, hang-off, ride ready are all things that upright naked's do very well. Cruisers are always a laid back position.
Now, the BMW cruiser (I really liked the 'Montana' version) is a great looker to me whereas the Harleys, Yammies, and Kawa's were not. But that's just me. When I shopped for a modern Oilhead BMW I looked at both the R1150R, the R1150RS and the R1200C (Montana) and the specs for the R1200C just didn't measure up.
Good luck and remember, I am FOS many times.
-
DJ Downunder
- Honorary Lifer
- Posts: 4776
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:26 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Hi jbim!
Well, I test rode an R1200C a while back, as one was offered to me at what seemed like a great price. After owning and riding the R, this was my opinion.
1) The R1200C looks great - I just adored it from every angle. It had tremendous presence and was beautifully finished.
2) The motor was pure cruiser and seemed very unstressed with bags of low down torque. It sounded good, too.
3) It was very easy to mount and dismount.
4) I did not like the riding position. Too feet-forward, your boots actually sit underneath the cylinder heads. Weight all back on your coccyx. I couldn't be comfortable on this machine for long.
5) You're buying into the proven and trusted world of BMW but the better riding experience, for me, without hesitation, is the R.
6) Looking at UK Ebay, you see R's for sale with 30,000 miles or more coming up for sale regularly. I have yet to see a C on Ebay with more than 10,000 miles on the clock. Now that tells me one of three things. One is that most BMW cruiser owners are occasional fair weather riders or two, that they trade their machines in for a more comfortable one, or three, that they own both and put the miles on the more comfortable bike.
I'd go for the R every time. I love the looks of the C but that isn't enough for me to buy one. Just my opinion.
Good luck!
J
Well, I test rode an R1200C a while back, as one was offered to me at what seemed like a great price. After owning and riding the R, this was my opinion.
1) The R1200C looks great - I just adored it from every angle. It had tremendous presence and was beautifully finished.
2) The motor was pure cruiser and seemed very unstressed with bags of low down torque. It sounded good, too.
3) It was very easy to mount and dismount.
4) I did not like the riding position. Too feet-forward, your boots actually sit underneath the cylinder heads. Weight all back on your coccyx. I couldn't be comfortable on this machine for long.
5) You're buying into the proven and trusted world of BMW but the better riding experience, for me, without hesitation, is the R.
6) Looking at UK Ebay, you see R's for sale with 30,000 miles or more coming up for sale regularly. I have yet to see a C on Ebay with more than 10,000 miles on the clock. Now that tells me one of three things. One is that most BMW cruiser owners are occasional fair weather riders or two, that they trade their machines in for a more comfortable one, or three, that they own both and put the miles on the more comfortable bike.
I'd go for the R every time. I love the looks of the C but that isn't enough for me to buy one. Just my opinion.
Good luck!
J
BMW R850R in silver
heated grips
panniers
flyscreen
cylinder head protectors
heated grips
panniers
flyscreen
cylinder head protectors
-
Pat
- Honorary Lifer
- Posts: 990
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: The Central Valley of California, Stockton
Choose the Cruiser......
- IF -
1) You're a short person afeared of heights (the Roadster is taller)
2) You are totally content with knowing that you coulda had 20 more horsepower. (The Roadster is advertised at 85 hp, while the Cruiser is advertised as having only 65 hp)
3) You plan never to go over 45 mph, or if you don't mind mounting a "barn door" fairing on your bike. (The Cruiser's riding position makes of the pilot a HUGE parachute, constantly assaulted by the oncoming wind.)
4) You are either a featherweight or currently have no lower-back problems. (The rear suspension bottoms out easily, and many a rider have complained of having their lower-back injured as a result.)
5) You have an inordinate need to be seen on a chrome laden bike that makes you feel like a chopper biker rider. (Many complaints have been logged about the chrome finish chipping on the Cruiser, unless you happen to be one of the "lucky" one's.... And wannabe "choppers" are soooo lame....)
If you're STILL taken with the Cruiser..... avoid the R1200C and take a good hard look at a similar bike in the "Montauk" line! They actually addressed some of the above listed problems when they made the Montauk.
All THAT said, if you're a motorcycle enthusiast who has ANY DESIRE to fully appreciate a motorcycle in it's more efficient guise, the R1150R is easily twice the bike of the (discontinued) Cruiser.
- IF -
1) You're a short person afeared of heights (the Roadster is taller)
2) You are totally content with knowing that you coulda had 20 more horsepower. (The Roadster is advertised at 85 hp, while the Cruiser is advertised as having only 65 hp)
3) You plan never to go over 45 mph, or if you don't mind mounting a "barn door" fairing on your bike. (The Cruiser's riding position makes of the pilot a HUGE parachute, constantly assaulted by the oncoming wind.)
4) You are either a featherweight or currently have no lower-back problems. (The rear suspension bottoms out easily, and many a rider have complained of having their lower-back injured as a result.)
5) You have an inordinate need to be seen on a chrome laden bike that makes you feel like a chopper biker rider. (Many complaints have been logged about the chrome finish chipping on the Cruiser, unless you happen to be one of the "lucky" one's.... And wannabe "choppers" are soooo lame....)
If you're STILL taken with the Cruiser..... avoid the R1200C and take a good hard look at a similar bike in the "Montauk" line! They actually addressed some of the above listed problems when they made the Montauk.
All THAT said, if you're a motorcycle enthusiast who has ANY DESIRE to fully appreciate a motorcycle in it's more efficient guise, the R1150R is easily twice the bike of the (discontinued) Cruiser.
Member #31
New 1150R or used R1200C
Hi jbim,
Have you decided on which BMW you are going to purchase? As an owner of both of the bikes you are considering I felt that I might be able to put in my two cents. I believe that the style of riding, type of roads you plan to ride and the intended use of the bike should determine which bike will work best for you.
1. The R1200C is not a cruiser in the same sense as those V-twin types. The C will handle better than any of those bikes. I ride mine with both the Harley guys and the BMW rides. If the weather is questionable I usually take the C. Reason being that the C has less power, more torque in the bottom of the RPM range, 5 gears instead of 6, more comfortable ergonomics, lower seat height, montana windshield, saddlebags, ABS, touring tires, more comfort for the passenger, when she comes along and easier to go slower, ie. legal speeds. I do not imply that the C is too slow, awkward or handles poorly. On the rides with the sport oriented group I have no trouble keeping up or leading the group when its my turn. Many times my buddies on roadsters, S bikes and K bikes comment on how fast they ride and I am right with them during the ride. In fact I don't ride much faster on my Rockster. I ride within the limits of the road and visibility. I don't hesitate to run the C in the 90-100 MPH range when conditions are favorable. My R1200C is a 2000 Stiletto that I picked up used early last year. The bike has 20,000 miles now runs smooth and uses little to no oil. I like the looks of the bike, black drive train, gloss black paint and a good amount of chrome without too much. I also like the Euro handlebars for improved leverage and I don't think the controls are too far forward. They are still under my seat so body english, shifting weight from pegs and countersteering are all quite easily accomplished. I do occasionally scrape the pegs. If I was restricted to only one motorcycle, no I don't want to go there.
2. The other BMW, my 2004 R1150 Rockster I've owned since May 2003 is quite different in many respects. It now has 6000 miles and runs smooth, ie. no surge, but is still using oil as per normal, still breaking in the engine and transmission and it's improving with every mile. It's lighter- handles way better in extreme cornering conditions, ie. track days, twisty mountain roads, faster in every comparison to the C, high gear roll on or running thru the gears. The Rockster looks are obviously are aimed at a different crowd. The bike is a naked sport bike in comparison. Next to no chrome, green wheels, most people think it's ugly, what do they know? The ergonomics are more suited to the sport rider, higher and farther back pegs, taller suspension - greater lean angles, lower bars - I switched to the 1" higher Roadster bars, and sport bike tires - currently using Pirelli Diablo, which I like a lot for their profile and sticky compound. Only a few modifications to the Rockster, Z-technick exhaust - saved 20+ lbs and tolerable increase in sound levels, I don't believe loud pipes save lives, only scare others on the road and piss off neighbors. I've also added a larger rear brake pedal sleeve to the control, sent the tall seat to Sargent to create a low seat with the stock pan, and the outer engine splash shield from a 1150GS. Since I got the C I don't use the saddle bags or windshield, probably sell those some day. Both bikes had some evidence of surge at first, but each was cured by a conscientious tune-up thanks to Hammersley BMW in Lynchburg, VA.
Oh, If I did have only one bike and I was over 6' tall, which I'm not, it would probably be a GS. Do I need another bike? Maybe a smaller adventure tourer - F650 GS or similar.
Only you know which is the right bike for you, try as many as you can and be realistic about what type of riding you want to do.
Chilebone
Have you decided on which BMW you are going to purchase? As an owner of both of the bikes you are considering I felt that I might be able to put in my two cents. I believe that the style of riding, type of roads you plan to ride and the intended use of the bike should determine which bike will work best for you.
1. The R1200C is not a cruiser in the same sense as those V-twin types. The C will handle better than any of those bikes. I ride mine with both the Harley guys and the BMW rides. If the weather is questionable I usually take the C. Reason being that the C has less power, more torque in the bottom of the RPM range, 5 gears instead of 6, more comfortable ergonomics, lower seat height, montana windshield, saddlebags, ABS, touring tires, more comfort for the passenger, when she comes along and easier to go slower, ie. legal speeds. I do not imply that the C is too slow, awkward or handles poorly. On the rides with the sport oriented group I have no trouble keeping up or leading the group when its my turn. Many times my buddies on roadsters, S bikes and K bikes comment on how fast they ride and I am right with them during the ride. In fact I don't ride much faster on my Rockster. I ride within the limits of the road and visibility. I don't hesitate to run the C in the 90-100 MPH range when conditions are favorable. My R1200C is a 2000 Stiletto that I picked up used early last year. The bike has 20,000 miles now runs smooth and uses little to no oil. I like the looks of the bike, black drive train, gloss black paint and a good amount of chrome without too much. I also like the Euro handlebars for improved leverage and I don't think the controls are too far forward. They are still under my seat so body english, shifting weight from pegs and countersteering are all quite easily accomplished. I do occasionally scrape the pegs. If I was restricted to only one motorcycle, no I don't want to go there.
2. The other BMW, my 2004 R1150 Rockster I've owned since May 2003 is quite different in many respects. It now has 6000 miles and runs smooth, ie. no surge, but is still using oil as per normal, still breaking in the engine and transmission and it's improving with every mile. It's lighter- handles way better in extreme cornering conditions, ie. track days, twisty mountain roads, faster in every comparison to the C, high gear roll on or running thru the gears. The Rockster looks are obviously are aimed at a different crowd. The bike is a naked sport bike in comparison. Next to no chrome, green wheels, most people think it's ugly, what do they know? The ergonomics are more suited to the sport rider, higher and farther back pegs, taller suspension - greater lean angles, lower bars - I switched to the 1" higher Roadster bars, and sport bike tires - currently using Pirelli Diablo, which I like a lot for their profile and sticky compound. Only a few modifications to the Rockster, Z-technick exhaust - saved 20+ lbs and tolerable increase in sound levels, I don't believe loud pipes save lives, only scare others on the road and piss off neighbors. I've also added a larger rear brake pedal sleeve to the control, sent the tall seat to Sargent to create a low seat with the stock pan, and the outer engine splash shield from a 1150GS. Since I got the C I don't use the saddle bags or windshield, probably sell those some day. Both bikes had some evidence of surge at first, but each was cured by a conscientious tune-up thanks to Hammersley BMW in Lynchburg, VA.
Oh, If I did have only one bike and I was over 6' tall, which I'm not, it would probably be a GS. Do I need another bike? Maybe a smaller adventure tourer - F650 GS or similar.
Only you know which is the right bike for you, try as many as you can and be realistic about what type of riding you want to do.
Chilebone
-
geogridshorthair
- Basic User
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Newport Beach, CA
they are so different, buy them both...
Jbim,
A 98 R12C was my first ride two years ago. It was very easy to ride therefore helping me get comforable riding bikes on the street.
I also got the bike very cheap. But be aware, I found myself buying numerous extras (chrome, lights, etc...) to be personalized "like a Harley".
If you ride straight lines and cruise with a group of chrome bikes you will get lots of looks, because it is so different from the Harley.
It is NOT a performance machine! You can ride the twisties, but it will not be as much fun as riding an RR or similar.
First, the RR is about 200lbs lighter, a much shorter wheel base, more power, the list goes on.
The whole decision depends on what you want from your riding experience.
When I started 2yrs ago I wanted to get confident and comfortable riding a street bike. The R12C helped me get there because it is easy to ride for a large bike. However, after 18 months and and 15,000 miles I now want more performance.
Do not get me wrong, I do not ride like most guys, I don't have hockey pucks on my knees. I ride within my abilities and usually within the laws of the highway.
Good luck with your choice, and keep the rubber side down.
geogridshorthair aka steve
A 98 R12C was my first ride two years ago. It was very easy to ride therefore helping me get comforable riding bikes on the street.
I also got the bike very cheap. But be aware, I found myself buying numerous extras (chrome, lights, etc...) to be personalized "like a Harley".
If you ride straight lines and cruise with a group of chrome bikes you will get lots of looks, because it is so different from the Harley.
It is NOT a performance machine! You can ride the twisties, but it will not be as much fun as riding an RR or similar.
First, the RR is about 200lbs lighter, a much shorter wheel base, more power, the list goes on.
The whole decision depends on what you want from your riding experience.
When I started 2yrs ago I wanted to get confident and comfortable riding a street bike. The R12C helped me get there because it is easy to ride for a large bike. However, after 18 months and and 15,000 miles I now want more performance.
Do not get me wrong, I do not ride like most guys, I don't have hockey pucks on my knees. I ride within my abilities and usually within the laws of the highway.
Good luck with your choice, and keep the rubber side down.
geogridshorthair aka steve
02 Ducati S4 Nakid Sex on two wheels
04 Ducati ST4s w/abs WAY RED
07 BMW K1200R Sport
04 Ducati ST4s w/abs WAY RED
07 BMW K1200R Sport
-
dragonmojo
C or R?
Like Chilebone, I have both Beemers (a std R1200C with European bars and a green Rockster). My C is a '99 model now with 56K miles... more if I did not spend time riding my other bikes.
I am shy of 5'6", so the C is more comfortable and I can be less deliberate than on the higher sitting Rockster. I find the C's saddle to be near perfect in its stock form; the Rockter splays my legs a bit, and my cheekbones feel a little bruised after about a couple of hours.
Love the Rock in the twisties, but do not discount the Cruiser. Problem I have with the C is that my pegs are beveled now; but I will show you what a Cruiser can do when you throw a curve at it. But the Rockster can do it better.
Try putting in a 14 hour or 700 mile day on the Rockster. My bet is that it'll be tougher than on my C (at least, for me). I've done it on the Cruiser many times with no problems. Have the saddlebags, tankbag and a small tail trunk.
Boils down to the type of riding you intend on doing, and for me, crossing state lines is a big part of my motorcycle experience. I can still do the twisties. The Rockster does twisties better, but I don't know about heading out on it for that 700 mile ride. Fun for those rides with the Sierras being only about an hour away!
Choices, choices!!
I am shy of 5'6", so the C is more comfortable and I can be less deliberate than on the higher sitting Rockster. I find the C's saddle to be near perfect in its stock form; the Rockter splays my legs a bit, and my cheekbones feel a little bruised after about a couple of hours.
Love the Rock in the twisties, but do not discount the Cruiser. Problem I have with the C is that my pegs are beveled now; but I will show you what a Cruiser can do when you throw a curve at it. But the Rockster can do it better.
Try putting in a 14 hour or 700 mile day on the Rockster. My bet is that it'll be tougher than on my C (at least, for me). I've done it on the Cruiser many times with no problems. Have the saddlebags, tankbag and a small tail trunk.
Boils down to the type of riding you intend on doing, and for me, crossing state lines is a big part of my motorcycle experience. I can still do the twisties. The Rockster does twisties better, but I don't know about heading out on it for that 700 mile ride. Fun for those rides with the Sierras being only about an hour away!
Choices, choices!!