For years I have read articles and reports of this bike and that bike in various publications, and on many occasions I've felt that the Kawasaki brand has been completely ignored by various journalists when they choose the brand that is to form the subject of their report, or when a brand is chosen as a comparative within such reports.
Its happened again.
Having just read a very good report about the Triumph Trophy in December issue of Ride Magazine, which I must say does speak very highly of the Trophy, (could be worth a test ride methinks) I was staggered to see that the only bikes used for comparison within the article are the BMW Tourers (1600) and Yamaha FJR1300 :shocked:
Where was the comparison with the GTR which surely must be competition for the new Triumph
So come on Bike publications, wake up, and recognise just what a bloody good bike the GTR really is....maybe now that Kawasaki has won the BSB Championship we will see an improvement in Kawasaki Motorcycle awareness
Rant over
I agree OC :yes:
Surely a comparison test cannot be accurate with only the BM and FJ to compare against ? The GTR is direct competition for the Triumph and should've been tested back to back.
Deon
Totally agree.
However, I don't think the GTR has a natural competitor now the BMW GT is no more.
The 1600 is too big and the new Trophy doesn't lie in the Kawasaki Ethos. super fast tourer.
It might be quick, but I can't see it doing 160mph with ease out of the crate.
The Pan and FJR - well, just dated.
just my 2p.
Neil
I read a really good review of the new Trophy, cant remember which mag it was as I get so many and its gone to recycling now - but it was recent.. They did compare it against the GTR - the GTR did not come out favourably...
They said that the Trophy had better protection than the GTR, was not as top heavy as the GTR and handled massively better.. TBH the BMW is not in the same ball park regarding price, but I think the Trophy is going to be a real contender...
I am off to the launch event tonight, so will report back when I have seen it 'in the metal'
Already put my name down for a test ride on the Trophy a couple of months ago. :whistling:
We have a BMW 1600 in at work at the moment and guys that have rode it says its lovely and based on a pan 13 size (minus panniers). It appears to a lot narrower then our GTR's but longer on the wheel base. It is a nice looking bike but for 17k it should be.
Triumph have quality issues at the moment. We have a hundred bikers at work, those who had triumph have got rid of them for others.
I only see one or two and ones a tiger and ones a triple .
Quote from: AJ on November 01, 2012, 11:32:23 AM
They said that the Trophy had better protection than the GTR, was not as top heavy as the GTR and handled massively better..
Top heavy? Sounds like whoever wrote that has never ridden one. :ohplease:
I'm quite glad in a way the GTR is "overlooked". Bike journo's pitching one bike against another isnt going to sway me one way or the other. Its a decent bike REVIEW I'm more interested in.
Did I choose the GTR for the job it has to do on blind faith or an informed decision based on good research ?
Mags have always liked facing off one makers wares against anothers (ask any R1 veteran). In the superbikes arena this is a natural theme but when comparing heavyweight tourers then this aint so easy as the K1600 vs GTR shows. If I were a journo I'd look for the natural competitor - if there wasnt one then I'd accept that and not try and force a comparison - it only gets ripped apart as a bad choice.
Dont be upset with these "experts" missing the GTR. I spent 6 months looking at the Tiger's replacement and did my own comparisons. Whatever was out there I was aware of and bought what I humbly consider to the the best overall. This bike is superb at what it does and the lack of visibility in the market place doesnt bother me a jot!
I sold my Explorer back to the dealers, and told them I wanted a 1400 GTR... the salesman said 'don't have a pre 2010 one as they're really shit...'
Anyway... really pleased with my '09 one :laugh:
i think they are a little afraid of what the GTR can do, if you read most of the rags they are linked to each other somehow, take MCN you will rarely hear of a triumph or a BMW slated, so biased.
Anyway i am putting my GTR 10 reg Blue up for sale this weekend for another GTR, ( fourth one ) they really are that good.
Anyone interested PM Me.
Will you be replacing before 2013, and what colour do you fancy ?
I don't think there are many bad bikes these days, or cars for that matter. Most bikes are reliable, with only the odd niggle here or there, and can probably out perform most riders capabilities. I think its just down to individual taste as to what bike you like the look and feel of, and what little goodies it comes with. When bike mags say this one will do 150mph, but this other one will do 155 mph would we really notice in the real world? I read an article on the new triumph, then a few pages over, they were giving star ratings for various bikes. I don't think the GTR came out all that well, but its not the latest model out there, so not fashionable to rate it any more.
Maybe I'm a :shit: rider, or missing the point :mfr_lol: :popcorn:
Bugger..... Just realised..... Its because I'm getting older :cry:
Bike magazine comes to mind.....
" Fast, well equipped, endless trinkets and toys. But Gizmo's can't mask steering, ride quality and screen that aren't good enough..tut tut '
They then give it 2 stars out of 5 :rolleyes:
Steering : I've put a couple of lb extra in each tyre... steers a lot better now
Ride Quality : seems fine to me ( but what do I know - I've only owned around 80 bikes ) Top Sellerie seat I've got on now is really comfy
Screen : Yes the standard one is shit... the Calsci large I've put on is brilliant though.
Having been used to GS's and similar for a few years- I'm surprised how little I've had to do to make the bike WAY more comfortable than any 'Adventure' bike I've owned
No bike is perfect, but some will swallow your cash in an unending quest to make them right :shocked:
Hi OC i want a black 61 reg+ theres an 11 reg one in scotland but i have a mint 10 reg blue, i will keep looking but at £7500 trade in for a retail price of £8500+ i feel is not quite close enough, my bike also has a few extras on it too. I was however offered a new red one for an extra £1250 on mine, but not the right colour for me. The dealer told me they are struggling to sell the red.
The 2012 Red is an unusual colour, which I quite like, however I'd be even more impressed if it was more Burgundy and less Brown,
I'm sure that in the States there used to be a Burgundy option
Good luck with your search
Thanks OC, i have been to have a look at the triumph trophy today, god awful bike, it makes a goldwing look small, BMW through and through but misses the plot. I was offered a test ride but declined. i would have thought they would have put wavy discs and decent looking wheels on it. While we were there a couple were being talked through and shown through the maize of settings including the radio but the sales guy got lost with it and gave up ( know your product knowledge ) averall pretty underwhelmed.
I can no longer accept the bias and rating given by motorcycle magazines towards the GTR - unfavourable comments like 'the Versys 1000 is better two-up tourer' and a suspect 40mpg statistic leave me uncomfortable as to their ability to test a bike - I have therefore cancelled my subscriptions to 'Bike' and 'Ride'.
Redrat I take with a pinch of salt most of what I read in bike mags and nearly everything which is in MCN is a load of bollocks and that gets totally ignored.
I personally like RIDE magazine and I will one day get around to subscribing to it. 40 mpg is a load of tosh though for the GTR, I've had well over 60 mpg and consistently mile after mile.
I agree most mags are being paid by BMW and Triumph to promote there products.
In referance to mpg quoted most of them are in the low 40s. In the real world and having done 12k on my bike from new, and its averaged 50mpg.
One might get 60mpg downhill or hardly using the throttle but my figure is based on normal use and most of the miles are 2 up.....
Brill bike shame about the poor press it gets.
Poor press is only down to someones opinion and not the majority. Thats why I never buy Newspapers.
Best way to make an informed opinion is to buy the bike and run it for a year to get a real understanding of it... Thats my opinion anyway.. :mfr_lol:
I couldn't agree more about bike mags and papers. They must live in a different world than the rest of us. I can only imagine what kind of riding would lead to a fuel figure of 40 mpg from a GTR, I have kept check on mine, and from new to its present 17,000 miles mine has consistently returned 55mpg. Maybe road tests by bike mags should actually be carried out by members of the public, who were actually in the market to buy the same or similar as the bike on test, this would ensure a far more balanced view on what bikes had to offer, and also what riders were looking for to meet their bike requirments. I once, not too long ago took notice of a bike mags verdict on a bike they had on test, I actually decided to buy one, but within minutes of owning it I just knew that I had made a grave error. Most of the things the mag had said about that bike, were simply not true, and made me think, that there is a back hand culture involved within the bike press. Is it just me,or do most mags/papers make a great fuss bulling up certain manufacturers Honda, Bmw, Triumph whilst giving the cold shoulder to others? I have decided that the best way to show my anger at the situation is NOT to buy bike mags/papers. Most folk know what they want, and shouldn't need brain washing by these characters, who are not much more than free loading muppets. :hammer:
Quote from: olde coney on November 03, 2012, 07:33:43 AM
The 2012 Red is an unusual colour, which I quite like, however I'd be even more impressed if it was more Burgundy and less Brown,
I'm sure that in the States there used to be a Burgundy option
Good luck with your search
I think the arabian red looks the dogs bollocks ..ho! :yes: I would even go as far as saying.. as nice as the magnesium grey colour :smiley:
Quote from: 100milesaway on November 04, 2012, 08:49:16 PM
Most folk know what they want, and shouldn't need brain washing by these characters, who are not much more than free loading muppets. :hammer:
:agree:
I couldn't have said it better myself :mfr_lol:
Quote from: howard on November 04, 2012, 08:10:32 PM
One might get 60mpg downhill or hardly using the throttle but my figure is based on normal use and most of the miles are 2 up.....
Howard, negatory good buddy. I've seen 100milesaway ride and believe me when I say he is a rapid (& safe) biker. He is getting 55mpg and has done so for the last 17k, that's not just coincidence or luck. I may not ride as fast as him but trust me when I say that 60+ mpg is very easily achievable without having to ride like Miss Daisy.
2kwacks mentions frequently the ride back from The Cotswolds earlier this year where he and I and Asif were tootling along at a fair pace. Even under those circumstances I was returning 55-58 mpg.
Agreed, a figure of 40 mpg for the GTR is utter tosh.
I easily managed 52 + mpg two up, fully loaded, in atrocious weather returning from Cornwall this year, and I achieve a higher figure (53 -55mpg) at all other times.
I too can confirm that 100 miles away doesn't hang about when out riding, and I, of all people on here should know, as we ride out as a group frequently, and whatsmore we absolutely Do NOt use "A" roads or motorways, country lanes are the order of the day............bloody good fun too :yes:
The speeds I ride at I think mine is closer to the 40 mpg (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0295.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/)
Me too. I average around 44Mpg.
The bike mags can only test the GTR as it comes from the factory.
So, they have NO IDEA how good it gets when ya fit decent tyres.
Personally I have ridden a few FJR1300s and they are about the closest you will get to the GTR1400.
The new Trophy is competition for the K1200RT/Norge/PanEuropean.
Kawasaki don't pay for much advertising so of course the mags & papers focus on BMW/Triumph.
I business you focus on the people who pay your wages!!
When comparing MPG it's probably not a good idea to believe what your instrumentation is telling you. When 2kwacks and I went on our late summer trip to Scotland, we were riding together and refuelling together. Our instuments were showing approximately 10mpg difference. Mine being the smaller :sad:
I don't. My Average MPG shows 46Mpg over the last 1000 miles.
My calculations over the same period work out at 44Mpg.
Miles covered taken from the odometer and worked out using (miles/litres) *4.54.
My GTR does almost exactly 10 miles per litre.
My computer display shows an average of just under 52 mpg and I haven't reset it since I got the bike (10K+).
It used to be in the mid 40s but ever since I started to switch to ECO mode most of the time it has gone up to over 50.
I know that I normally use less than 1 litre of fuel per 10 miles because that's what I can see when I fill up.
200 miles travelled and 18-19 litres of fuel to fill her up. Sometimes a bit more and sometimes even less.
So that ties in with what the computer tells me. :yes:
I have to admit she gets a bit thirstier in winter when I mainly use the bike for short distances in the city, though. :whistling:
It looks like the eco mode on the newer bike helps the fuel consumption. I think if any bike is doing 50 plus that is really good as the GTR is a heavey bike and lets not forgett it makes 150 bhp and goes like the wind......a RT BMW might be lighter and better on fuel but i can not see my self riding one after owning the big K.
H
i usally get about 45mpg can show more on the computer if you use 3rd and 4th gear for some serious go , like i did riding with some other bikes i could visibly see the bars disappering . £20 gets me about 150m. to get 55-60mpg i would problably fall asleep i would have to go that slow . :biker3:
There are some strange and concerning stats being reported on here from 2010 model owners.
Quote from: nightrider on November 05, 2012, 04:50:59 PM
to get 55-60mpg i would probably fall asleep i would have to go that slow . :biker3:
Speed has nothing to do with it.
Smooth is the word. :biker3:
It seems like the difference in what people achieve regarding MPG is the way you ride. I NEVER rev my bike hard through the gears, it's got a 1400cc engine so why would you want to do that?. My style is to ride in a very smooth fashion, change gears quickly, use as little braking as possible, read the road and flooooooooooooooooow. I only ever use ECO mode, and my 55 MPG has been achieved whilst still having lots of fun, and enjoying the bike and the roads I use. Nightrider you should come and have a ride out with us some time, I will guarantee you will not fall asleep. :smiley:
OC - one of the reasons the GTR won't have been used will be the availability from Kawasaki UK and the amount of staff riders available on the mag.
The K1600GT is one of the staffers long term bikes hence it was available for the feature.
There is a lot of affection at RiDE for the bike, but bear in mind the staffers ride all sorts of bikes every day they have no affiliation to any brand. Triumph actually let the same mag down for the Super Tourer test that should have been in Sept/Oct, but they still rated the big T for the short period they had it even though they were let down.
As for the MPG issues, when I had mine it usually 42-44mpg on mine, but a) I used the gearbox ( :whistling: ) and b) I don't ride bikes for economy or the environment :mfr_lol:
Quote from: 100milesaway on November 05, 2012, 05:32:23 PM
It seems like the difference in what people achieve regarding MPG is the way you ride. I NEVER rev my bike hard through the gears, it's got a 1400cc engine so why would you want to do that?. My style is to ride in a very smooth fashion, change gears quickly, use as little braking as possible, read the road and flooooooooooooooooow. I only ever use ECO mode, and my 55 MPG has been achieved whilst still having lots of fun, and enjoying the bike and the roads I use. Nightrider you should come and have a ride out with us some time, I will guarantee you will not fall asleep. :smiley:
[/the reason i had to rev the bike hard was the fact that the other bikes was useing the performance avaible from a low speed if not you get left behind . i will come for a ride out next spring as you are not far from me
I agree with 100miles... I ride sensibly, don't rev the :asshole: of my bike and genuinely get 50 plus mpg regularly over the same journey week in week out. I looked at GTR's in 2008 but guess what - I was put off by the poor reviews and MPG figures. I now know the MPG figures quoted then to be complete :shit:
Now don't all get swell heads on me but it was the real world opinion which changed my perception and part of that was the info I found here.
I'm no fan of BMW either having had multiple attempts to like both the RT and GS marques. Reviews had me doubting my ability to distinguish pros and cons for myself. BMW have two big advantages over the competition - the relative affluence of the demographic they sell to and the blinkered perception that if its German its reliable. How many safety recalls has the GS1200 had, or corrosion issues across most of the model range plus switchgear problems that's continues to surface?
Still hasn't stopped them selling about 20K bikes a year - the RS1200 model alone!
I'm sure there are BMW fans on here, but let's keep defending the bike the sites all about.
To all the partisan hacks and magazine editors out there - It ain't us whose ignorant of its virtues now is it ?
I'm now 5 weeks off the fags - can anyone tell!
Quote from: Winston Smith on November 05, 2012, 07:19:38 PM
OC - one of the reasons the GTR won't have been used will be the availability from Kawasaki UK and the amount of staff riders available on the mag.
The K1600GT is one of the staffers long term bikes hence it was available for the feature.
There is a lot of affection at RiDE for the bike, but bear in mind the staffers ride all sorts of bikes every day they have no affiliation to any brand. Triumph actually let the same mag down for the Super Tourer test that should have been in Sept/Oct, but they still rated the big T for the short period they had it even though they were let down.
As for the MPG issues, when I had mine it usually 42-44mpg on mine, but a) I used the gearbox ( :whistling: ) and b) I don't ride bikes for economy or the environment :mfr_lol:
Understood Chris, and thanks for clarifying.
But, is it a requirement of any publication to have a particular model as part of the Staff Fleet before its even considered as available competition ?
Quote from: mecki on November 05, 2012, 05:16:02 PM
Speed has nothing to do with it.
Smooth is the word. :biker3:
Oh yes it does.
If you sit at a constant 55Mph you will get nearly 65Mpg from the early GTR and nearly 70 from the 2010 and later.
If you sit at a constant 120Mph you will be lucky to crack 40Mpg.
However, if you pootle around at 20Mph then you will probably only get 40Mpg.
Constant speed is as smooth as it gets but speed IS a factor
In "normal" riding the best way to save fuel is to avoid braking which wastes energy as heat.
I think this is the "smooth" you were referring to. :innocent:
That said, if i gave a :shit: about economy I'd be riding a Dullville or one of the new electric bikes. :no:
Quote from: Boomer on November 07, 2012, 04:02:57 PM
Oh yes it does.
If you sit at a constant 55Mph you will get nearly 65Mpg from the early GTR and nearly 70 from the 2010 and later.
If you sit at a constant 120Mph you will be lucky to crack 40Mpg.
However, if you pootle around at 20Mph then you will probably only get 40Mpg.
Constant speed is as smooth as it gets but speed IS a factor
In "normal" riding the best way to save fuel is to avoid braking which wastes energy as heat.
I think this is the "smooth" you were referring to. :innocent:
That said, if i gave a :shit: about economy I'd be riding a Dullville or one of the new electric bikes. :no:
:stupid: