Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

This section is dedicated to the new Rockster version of the R1150R.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
BikerPhil
Basic User
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:07 am

Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by BikerPhil »

I was in far north Dallas today so I decided stop by the BMW dealership to order a couple of parts. Since I don't live in that part of the metroplex, I took the opportunity to look around a bit and "sit test" on a few bikes. I loved the R9T, but wow did it feel small compared the R1150R Rockster. Even the R1200R felt smaller. Am I just imagining it or is the R1200R really smaller (shorter) than the R1150R? Maybe my perspective was skewed due to the R1200R sitting near the enormous K1600's and the R1200 GS bikes. I don't know, but after I came home and sat on my bike I was blown away by how big the Rockster felt.

The other thing that I noticed was that the stock seat on the Rockster (the tall seat) felt nice and cushioned compared to some of the seats that I sat on today. Am I crazy or can anyone else confirm this? It made me really appreciate my bike. :D
kirby
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:04 pm
Donating Member #: 3
Location: mojave ca

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by kirby »

dimension wise just about the same.

'16 R1200r
85.3" long
W/B is 59.9"
9T
87.4" long
W/B 58.1"
Rockster
85.4 " long
W/B 58.1"
mike Mojave CA
'04 ROCKSTER
User avatar
riceburner
Basic User
Posts: 3809
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:54 am
Donating Member #: 0
Location: Hiding in your blind spot....
Contact:

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by riceburner »

the height of the saddle and the reach to the bars combined with the centre of mass of the machine tend to be what makes a bike 'feel' different from another.
Non quod, sed quomodo.

A Rockster Life
User avatar
BikerPhil
Basic User
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:07 am

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by BikerPhil »

riceburner wrote:the height of the saddle and the reach to the bars combined with the centre of mass of the machine tend to be what makes a bike 'feel' different from another.
That is probably what I experienced then... a difference in "feel" .... It wasn't so much wheelbase differences that I noticed, but height and weight. Of course, handlebar position and foot peg location also make a difference as well. The R9T felt shorter and lighter as did the R1200R. I sat on a GS, an R1200R, Triumph Bonneville, and a Ducati Diavel. It was nice to be able to get a feel for different motorcycles. The Rockster is the tallest motorcycle I've ridden. Prior hereto, I owned a Yamaha FZ6R. I've also owned two cruisers and I like the fact that I now have comfort and performance all in one bike.
User avatar
peels
Basic User
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:12 am
Location: Southeast Iowa, USA.

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by peels »

Agreed, I felt the same about the 9t. The bars are lower, and seemed closer to seat. so it FELT smaller, and sportier, but its really still the same bike :) I looked at them next to each other nearly identical.

Its not different enough from my bike to get me excited to launch $ at it. but I still want one. :lol:
2002 R1150R. Helmets save more lives than loud pipes.
User avatar
sweatmark
Septuple Lifer
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:11 am
Donating Member #: 208
Location: Oregon USA

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by sweatmark »

I like the "stoutness" of the R1150R bikes, whose wide flat tank (including oil coolers) plus boxer cylinders create visual bulk when viewed from driver's seat. That's the immediate impression I got during first ride of my old '02 Roadster; years later when test riding the R1200R hexhead, the impression was of a much slimmer bike (of course, also lighter/smoother).
Rockster#2, K1300S, S1000R (for sale)
User avatar
riceburner
Basic User
Posts: 3809
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:54 am
Donating Member #: 0
Location: Hiding in your blind spot....
Contact:

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by riceburner »

sweatmark wrote:I like the "stoutness" of the R1150R bikes, whose wide flat tank (including oil coolers) plus boxer cylinders create visual bulk when viewed from driver's seat. That's the immediate impression I got during first ride of my old '02 Roadster; years later when test riding the R1200R hexhead, the impression was of a much slimmer bike (of course, also lighter/smoother).

Good point and I agree. I like the 'encompassing' tank shape on the R1150R/Rockster too.
Non quod, sed quomodo.

A Rockster Life
User avatar
peels
Basic User
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:12 am
Location: Southeast Iowa, USA.

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by peels »

sweatmark wrote:I like the "stoutness" of the R1150R bikes, whose wide flat tank (including oil coolers) plus boxer cylinders create visual bulk when viewed from driver's seat.
this.... exactly...
2002 R1150R. Helmets save more lives than loud pipes.
User avatar
sykospain
Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:42 am
Donating Member #: 1
Location: s.e. Med cost of Spain
Contact:

Re: Rockster vs. Newer BMW bikes (size)

Post by sykospain »

You're right to feel that the new downdraught air-fed, liquid-cooled, multiplate wet-clutched, new spaceframed, shaft-on-the-left boxer bike feels and looks smaller than the dry single-plate clutch, air/oil cooled bikes of yore. It's because the new ones are mainly made by little Chinese people, not muscled Germans as heretofore....
This is the list of people I'd trust with my bike
Post Reply