BMW R1150R vs. F700GS: Roadster vs. Adventure Touring Comparison

My first motorcycle is BMW 2014 F700GS. I was attracted to the GS models by its reputation as a globe trotter and by many Youtube videos showing how versatile a BMW GS motorcycle was. The R1200GS model was outside the budget I had, so I decided to purchase the 700GS.

Three years fast forward to 2017: The 700GS is exactly what I wanted. It has a fuel mileage of 23 km per liter (or 55 US miles per gallon). It has a good ground clearance of about 19 cm so I don't have to worry hitting a bump or rock when going on dirt road. It is very comfortable and roomy for one passenger; its wheelbase is in fact 6 cm longer than the 1200GS. Its 798 cc engine is adequate and can handle a 120 km/h highway speed at above 4000 rpm in gear 6. It has two large saddlebags (BMW option) and a large top bag (another BMW option). It is a capable adventure touring motorcycle.

I have ridden over 42,000 km over the 3 years owning the 700GS. We have ridden to New Orleans from Calgary and back. Calgary to the southernmost Oregon coastline and back. And numerous times to Vancouver, Nelson, Kamloops, Jasper and anywhere in between. We had experience riding in heavy rain, freezing 4 degree C weather, and the grip heaters are essential for Canadian climate. But I have ridden only once or twice off-road even though I had taken a BMW off-road course.

There are two problems with the 700GS, which I cannot get rid of. The first problem is the seat height. Even though I have gotten used to the 85 cm seat height (using the comfort seat option) from the many trips, I still feel a slight unease whenever I have to make a sudden stop in a two-up (with a passenger) riding. I am 5 feet 7 inches tall (170 cm). 

The second problem is the 75 hp peak power at 7300 rpm and is more serious for me. I learn that I like speed and don't enjoy riding in a pack. Whenever I'm riding behind a vehicle I would get sleepy soon and lose my alertness. Whenever I'm being followed by a vehicle I feel like leaving it way behind. I'm always reluctant to run the engine at higher than 4000 rpm because of sooner engine component fatigue consequence. The engine sound also changes above 4000 rpm to a whine from a quiet growl at lower than 4000 rpm.

Doing a quick calculation on the required horsepower to counterbalance the drag force I found about 35 hp power requirement for a 120 km/h cruising speed. This is the main reason why the 700GS feels underpowered when facing headwind, like when I rode on I-84 westbound heading to Portland in July.

From the motorcycle perspective, the 700GS power is not that great and the tall seat height can be sometimes uneasy for me. From my riding habit perspective, I'm not really an off-road enthusiast. I find distance and speed are more alluring than dirt roads. I like going far and long. 

Regardless for off-road or not, I used three criteria when assessing a motorcycle: (i) fuel economy, (ii) power, (iii) luggage and passenger capacity. On these counts, the 700GS wins 2 out of 3: it lacks power, but it is great on fuel economy and is surprisingly roomier (due to a longer wheelbase) than R1200GS for a motorcycle 30% cheaper than the 1200GS.

But a fourth criterion showed itself up when I replaced the 2 spark plugs of the 700GS after we came back from the Oregon trip last month. Because of the side-by-side vertical geometry of its twin cylinders and the location of the gas tank under the seat, the usual location of gas tank, i.e., the space behind the front fork, is used for battery and air filter housing. It still looks like a gas tank, but it's a combination of 3 body panels that cover the battery and the air filter housing. Only after removing the body panes, the battery, and the housing was I finally able to reach the spark plugs which are each located at the bottom of about 10-cm-deep hole. The fourth criterion that I have to account for is serviceability, and on this count the 700GS receives a D grade. 

The ultra-hidden location of the valve cover also means that it is very difficult to perform an engine valve tolerance (adjustment) check required every 20,000 km by BMW manual. All of a sudden the 700GS is not as reasonable as it was. Granted, the space typically reserved for a gas tank is efficiently used by BMW engineers to store battery and air filter housing, but it's unreasonable to displace the radiator unit just in order to remove the valve cover. 

If instead four criteria are used: (i) fuel economy, (ii) power, (iii) luggage (and passenger) capacity, (iv) serviceability, the 700GS is now split at 2-for-2: Good fuel economy and large luggage capacity, but awful serviceability and lacklustre power. This was when I decided to shop for another motorcycle. I need a more serviceable machine that the 700GS if I want to ride it to Mexico and beyond. I need a simpler motorcycle.

So now other motorcycles started to show their appeals. I've test ridden Yamaha FJR1300 and Super Tenere, and they both have inline four and twin engines, respectively. Although they are great for power and luggage capacity, their fuel economy is marginal at a maximum 50 mpg for Tenere and low-40 mpg for FJR. I especially like FJR, but its body is covered by fairing, which makes me wonder what would happen if I ever drop an FJR. Their serviceability is questionable as well because of the vertical engine geometry, even though I'm aware that Yamaha is the most reliable motorcycle brand in the market. I considered Triumph T100 and T120 Bonneville but ruled them out because of the small luggage capacity and poor passenger seat position due to their slab seat.

When I think more about serviceability, I arrived at a conclusion that a motorcycle with simpler engine and electronics was what I wanted all along. I want to service it myself: oil change, spark plug change, air filter change, tire change, chain-sprocket change, valve adjustment. Save for engine repair, I pretty much want to do my own service and repair. I find it satisfying to have done them myself and good to know in case I get stranded in the middle of nowhere. Consequently, I prefer an older model, and if new, then I prefer a standard (naked, roadster) model. Honda has CB1100EX, which looks beautiful, but it doesn't accommodate a passenger well and doesn't seem ready to carry a lot of luggages.

The best serviceability is obtained from an open engine geometry and also prefers a naked (standard) cycle. There were two motorcycles that caught my attention: (i) BMW boxer engine and (ii) Moto Guzzi transverse V-twin. I test rode Moto Guzzi V7 and was interested in its V9 Roamer. The V7 felt old-school: rather imprecise but with gusto. I spotted a problem with Moto Guzzi though: Unless I pick the larger models, the V7 and V9 models don't have a large luggage capacity. That killed the deal with Moto Guzzi since I wasn't interested in its cruiser California model or adventure touring Stelvio. I couldn't find a naked model from Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kawasaki with an old-school look. Yamaha Bolt wouldn't work since it doesn't have a large luggage capacity.

So -interestingly enough- I'm back to BMW. I could not afford a new R1200R and was less interested in its touring R1200RT model since it's even more expensive. I wasn't interested in the GS model anymore as I now know I won't be using a GS for an epic off-road trip.

So the solution is an older BMW roadster model. Its boxer engine offers accessible valve covers to change spark plugs and do periodic engine services, such as valve adjustment. It has a shaft drive, which eliminates a 1000-km periodic cleaning and lubrication of chain and sprocket. 

I bought a second-hand BMW 2003 R1150R model. It has less than 10,000 km and -more importantly- it is an air and oil cooled engine. A water-cooled engine of the same cc size gives out more power than an air-cooled, but I think for most road use I don't need a motorcycle with more than 90 hp. Does it satisfy the four criteria I set out?

(i) Fuel economy: 47 (US) miles per gallon, or 20 km/litre. It's a 15% reduction over that of the 700GS. 

(ii) Power: 85 hp. It's a 13% power increase over the 75 hp of 700GS. So criteria (i) and (ii) even out between R1150R and F700GS.

(iii) Luggage capacity: 217 kg total payload. F700GS has 227 kg total payload. They're practically identical. My wife will be equally happy to be a passenger on either motorcycle.

(iv) Serviceability: I expect it will take half an hour to replace spark plugs. I spent 4 hours when first time replaced F700GS spark plugs if all steps were followed correctly. R1150R beats F700GS. Oil change and air filter change are similar. One less thing to worry though in R1150R: no water pump, no engine coolant radiator.

As a bonus: R1150R is equally capable on dirt roads. I have tried riding it standing up on gravel roads. No problem. It's not an adventure touring motorcycle, but a roadster is a good solution for those who enjoy occasional dirt road encounters. R1150R has about 15 cm ground clearance, and that is enough for me.

I note that there are not many roadster motorcycles that treat a passenger seriously. Most of them have slab seats with the exception of BMW roadsters (R1150R, R1200R). I think the non-BMW motorcycle manufacturers miss out on riders' profile like me: Those who enjoy road more than dirt road and want to ride in a roadster with a passenger.

Design Paths

One main reason teaching engineering design is difficult is the number of permutations we can arrive at a design work. For a professional engineer or designer to see a design opportunity, the process he uses can be one shown in the diagram above. He sees opportunity from experience he has accumulated through talking to customers or clients. He then develops a product design, i.e., a basic design idea for a product or service, and then develops its engineering design, i.e., doing the detailed engineering works.

Another possibility is captured by the next diagram below.

The first step is the same as above: seeing the opportunity from his contacts. The second step though is detailed engineering works he does by refining a current design he has access to. To refine the current design, he may realize that he needs to come up with a new product idea, so that the product design comes after the engineering design works.

There are a total 6 permutations to the 3 steps that define the design process. Below are the remaining four.

When market opportunity step occurs in the middle, it requires the designer or the design engineer to test his initial design to a market, either real or proxy through surveys.

These six possibilities show that engineering design is not an isolated discipline. It requires us to acknowledge that all three play a role.

Can I Teach Engineering Design?

As I'm designing an engineering design course I'll teach in 2017 Spring term, I'm faced with the question "Can I teach engineering design?" It could be interpreted as whether I have a credential to teach engineering design, and the answer is yes. In fact, I think each and every engineering faculty members should be able to teach engineering design, depending on what we mean by "design". There are some of us who think that design means the ability to conceive a product and to draw it. This aspect is what I call the aesthetics of the design of a product. The conceiving and drawing parts attempt to improve the appearance of the product. We can learn this, but engineers are not natural in doing this.

Engineers are more natural in focusing on the functionality and optimality of the design of a product. Functionality has to do with what we use the product for. Lifting, pushing, picking, pulling, opening, separating are some of mechanical functions I can name. These functions can be analyzed mechanically using computer software or using mathematical equations. Optimality has to do with reconciling more than one function we have for the product. We want a cork opener that is safe, easy to use, light, and cheap. The four ideas: safe, easy to use, light, and cheap represent properties of the design that have to be optimized as the cork opener is used to open a wine bottle.

I think the aesthetics and engineering (functionality and optimality) of a design are two separate issues. Ideally, they are one. Yet as disciplines to study and teach, they cannot be taught at the same time. There are just too many things to worry about when they are combined into one.