• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

R1200RT-P vs. R1200RT Question

K

Kornholio

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Moto(s)
N/A
So I've been practicing low-speed maneuvering regularly with my new RT but I can't seem to pick it up like I've been watching the LEO's do it. Power control at low speed seems a lot more difficult for me with the RT than with my old Sprint even though the RT's turning circle is much better. I thought the RT-P's were essentially the same bike as the RT's other than the city bags, crash bars and electronics. But as it turns out, the RT-P models have a different final drive ratio than the regular RT's. 1.82:1 for the RT-P's versus 2.62:1 for the regular RT. Does this final drive difference truly make a discernible difference in low-speed control or is more for something else? I'd think having the smaller ratio would mean clutch control would be much easier for the RT-P's at low speed.

So, LEO's, if you've ridden both the RT and the RT-P or can just advise on this, what say you?
 
What specifically are you struggling with?

If you're local to San Diego (looks like you are?), I'd be willing to get together with you and help you out.
 
The ratios changed from year to year, I think in 2008 they were different from 2009 and later, so that might be the ratio change your seeing.

In any case, it's clutch control. No matter the ratio. We do the same thing on Road Kings, Electra Glides, Honda's, Kawasaki's and RT-P's. It's clutch control.
 
Kornholio said:
Well if that's the case, why the different ratios? :dunno
Click to expand...

Don't worry about final drive ratios, just master your clutchwork and you will be able to maneuver any bike in the tight stuff. There are techniques that are specific to cruisers and sport tourers, but the clutchwork is the same.
 
I have a friend that rides in the Motor competitions and he works the clutch pretty hard. Also both brakes at the same time. He's won almost ever one he's been in. Practice, practice and more practice.
 
Kornholio said:
So I've been practicing low-speed maneuvering regularly with my new RT but I can't seem to pick it up like I've been watching the LEO's do it. Power control at low speed seems a lot more difficult for me with the RT than with my old Sprint even though the RT's turning circle is much better. I thought the RT-P's were essentially the same bike as the RT's other than the city bags, crash bars and electronics. But as it turns out, the RT-P models have a different final drive ratio than the regular RT's. 1.82:1 for the RT-P's versus 2.62:1 for the regular RT. Does this final drive difference truly make a discernible difference in low-speed control or is more for something else? I'd think having the smaller ratio would mean clutch control would be much easier for the RT-P's at low speed.

So, LEO's, if you've ridden both the RT and the RT-P or can just advise on this, what say you?
Click to expand...

Bring it over and I'll let you know :teeth
 
Tuesday 0700-1030 at the lot S.Livermore/Concannon. We will be doing cone work. Bring it by.
 
Kornholio said:
Deal! :laughing


Eddie, I'm actually just curious why the RT-P's get the smaller final drive ratio.
Click to expand...

I'm not an engineer, but my guess is that the lower ratio provides more bottom end torque to get the bike up to speed quicker when we are doing chase downs whereas the civilian version is geared more towards touring and fuel efficiency. Unless you are doing motor competitions, gear ratios are irrelevant when doing low speed maneuvers. If you show up to Silversvs' practice day, he can demonstrate this for you on your bike.
 
Last edited:
I contacted Fresno BMW, who handles Fresno PDs fleet, and they stated that BMW wanted to increases bottom end torque so the bike can get up to speed quicker.
 
Thanks for the invite, John. I'll try to make it! I'm packing up to move the next few weeks anyway. :thumbup

Ernie, thanks for the info. The RT has been a lot more low speed compliant than my Sprint was, I'm just needing more practice with the clutch control.
 
eddiet204 said:
I contacted Fresno BMW, who handles Fresno PDs fleet, and they stated that BMW wanted to increases bottom end torque so the bike can get up to speed quicker.
Click to expand...

1st gear is tall on the civilian RT. I would also suspect they were thinking about clutch life.
 
Kornholio said:
It doesn't feel very tall to me. My Sprint jumped off the line much quicker than I can get the RT to.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Try slipping the dry clutch too much and you'll smell it. A lower first gear gets you engaged sooner.
 
Kornholio said:
It doesn't feel very tall to me. My Sprint jumped off the line much quicker than I can get the RT to.
Click to expand...

A 1.82:1(RT-P) is going to be taller (more clutch slipping, too) than a 2.62:1 (your RT). Essentially, a taller-geared vehicle will be going faster at the same RPM than a shorter-geared one. Shorter gearing gives you faster accelleration and poorer gas mileage. However, you have to look at the transmission gearing as well. BMW put in a variety of gear-sets in their R1100GS models. I don't think they do anymore, but wouldn't be surprised that the transmissions were different with the RT-P's just for the work they do. Lower first gear would off-set the taller final drive, and they'd get more top end (if they could hit red-line in 6th).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top