BMW R1200R Forum banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Because THIS bike is better without telelever

IMO, this bike is better without telelever. Don't get me wrong, I have loved telelever on the other BMWs I've owned that had it. I simply believe the increased power and chasis dynamics of this bike make for a better package with more feel without it.

I didn't really like 'normal' front ends until I had lots of hours on a multistrada and s1000r. The current r is closer to that end of the spectrum, I think, than to the rt and GS, the telelever standard bearers. I'm sure someone will throw up the RS as a counterpoint.

I'd also say that, when ridden firmly, the telelever is not as responsive in the corners due to less feel. I find the suspension on this bike to be exceptionally good. Don't miss it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,991 Posts
I'd also say that, when ridden firmly, the telelever is not as responsive in the corners due to less feel. I find the suspension on this bike to be exceptionally good. Don't miss it.
Sounds great, I hope to get the opportunity to ride one of the new R's or RS. I really like my front telelever but only when I upgraded to some Yacguars front and rear.
When you describe the telelever seems not as responsive in the corners due to less feel, would you not look at it in another way, that the less feel can mean that it is doing its job very well?
Mine just sticks like glue, leaned over, no major unsettling of the bike, when tackling corners that are not so smooth, its very, very confidence inspiring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I agree...it is doing its job well. From some of the technical discussions I have read, (and I probably have this a little mixed up by now) the tele's ability to reduce the nose dive under braking/ cornering helps maintain a geometry which allows you to more effective/easily/ more safely change your line within a certain performance envelope. (Anybody who really knows, feel free to chime in here) And that's where you start to trade some feel for that added benefit. I thought it was awesome on my K1200S for this reason, and equally great on the 1200GSA for what it offered in supporting the rider standing up over long distances off-road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
The 2011+ telelever seems to be have been one of the best traits of the bike. Why did it go away...lol
I think a WebBikeWorld author hit the nail directly on the head...

The reasons why they dropped it are price, the water radiator taking a lot of space, the improvements made on electronic control (dynamic stiffening) over traditional forks and, most likely, the looks.

I doubt the change had anything to do with traditional forks being a better performance option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,105 Posts
I'd never claim to be so finely aware from seat-of-the-pants contact on our machines that I could detect minute set-up differences, differing qualities and characteristics of tyres, etc. What I DO know, having had both Telelever and non-Telelever equipped bikes, is the way in which the Telelever soaks-up large irregularities in the road surface.


On conventionally-forked bikes, if I saw at the last
moment that I was heading straight for a decent sized pothole or raised-up tar baby, I'd reflexively grit my teeth and grimace at the inevitable 'crunch'.


With the Telelever - no such thing, unless the pothole is the size and depth of a moon crater: it just - to use the phrase again - soaks up such things as if they are not there.


This alone makes it very worthwhile, IMHO.


L of S
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
With the Telelever - no such thing, unless the pothole is the size and depth of a moon crater: it just - to use the phrase again - soaks up such things as if they are not there.
I agree, Lawrence. Thus far, I've never heard my telelever "bottom out". Much of my riding is on paved secondary or tertiary roads in less than ideal condition. Lots of irregularities, filled potholes, agricultural tire marks, etc. The telelever just soaks 'em all up providing greater confidence, higher speeds and less clenching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike k.

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Well Ive had two AC R1200Rs, (second one had its right hand pot and my knee virtually knocked off, but thats in another thread) and now an LC.

I always felt that the ACs were very stable under brakes, and you could brake very late into a turn if you trusted the grip, personally I prefer to feel the grip (might be kidding myself though). Also great when leant over on smooth roads, however, they sent short sharp bumps straight through the bars into my arms and neck, and had zero 'feel'.

So for me, the LCs forks are superior - and mine have no electronics on them apart from heated grips! And I like the way the steering speeds up under brakes (quicker turn in), and deliver better feel for grip and what the brakes are doing - I really did have no clue of grip when braking the AC. The new motor is pretty epic too! The LC just feels so much more alive than the AC and thats what makes me grin - which is why I ride a bike.

BMW probably fitted teles to save money though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
598 Posts
BMW probably fitted teles to save money though.
No one knows for sure save BMW, but I think this is very unlikely. First, because the Telelever is more complex than telescopics - there are more pieces and more machining is required. Second, because economies of scale in the industry favor telescopic forks because so many more of them are manufactured, and their marginal cost (see your friendly local economist) is therefore lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Losing the original plot

I tested the RS and found it disappointing. I was surprised as I thought it looked incredible in pics but in reality it looks and feels like a fat underpowered sports bike especially from the front (never see a front end pic in press)
I tried the nineT too and a fun bike but I wouldn't want to do distance on it.
I am pinning my hopes on the new R as my next bike but I must admit I think BMW are chasing the sexy look over the quirky functional they've always made.
I guess if they enlist two new riders for every old BM buyer they lose then the accountants are happy.
I do however feel we are losing a fresh thinking alternative mode of biking, what goes next in the pursuit of weight saving/horsepower chasing the shaft drive maybe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I tested the RS and found it disappointing. I was surprised as I thought it looked incredible in pics but in reality it looks and feels like a fat underpowered sports bike especially from the front (never see a front end pic in press)
I tried the nineT too and a fun bike but I wouldn't want to do distance on it.
I am pinning my hopes on the new R as my next bike but I must admit I think BMW are chasing the sexy look over the quirky functional they've always made.
I guess if they enlist two new riders for every old BM buyer they lose then the accountants are happy.
I do however feel we are losing a fresh thinking alternative mode of biking, what goes next in the pursuit of weight saving/horsepower chasing the shaft drive maybe?
+1

I feel the same. In addition, (my 2cents/I cant put my finger on it) BMW's F-800 team/designers could have participated a bit in the creation/design of the new R/RS?!.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that there are many people who like the new R/RS and that BMW appears to be doing very good with their sales. In the same breath, "I thank" BMW for having created such a great motorcycle with its previous AC - front telelever R12R and because of that, I've no need to replace it/buy anything new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Our beloved Roadster, I fear, is moving aesthetically/mechanically into Retard, er, I mean, Motard world. It's still a Roadster now, but in a couple more iterations, I believe it's gonna be a high Hp wheelie machine for all the cool rich kids to ride. And, there ain't no retards, er, I'm sorry, motard bikes with telelever front ends.
My 2015 R is the first BMW I've owned, therefore, I have no brand affinity or loyalty or true understanding of the "heritage" of the bike - at least not yet. I didn't even know what a Telelever was until I started reading some reviews of the bike, for which most start off pointing out that the Telelever has been replaced with a conventional/inverted fork. My reaction was "what the **** is a Telelever"?

I purchased the bike as much for its functional capabilities as for its aesthetics. For me, the gold forks are a significant part of the aesthetics appeal of the bike. Who knows if I would have even considered it without a traditional fork....maybe, maybe not.

As for the "high Hp wheelie machine for all the cool rich kids" comment, I'm not a kid, I don't consider myself rich and the degree of my coolness is highly debatable but a high HP wheelie machine is not a bad thing for some of us.

I guess my point is - if BWM is fishing for new blood by making some "bold" design changes, they hooked at least one sucker in the form of me. Now, are they going to lose some of the faithful, sounds like potentially they may.... Issues for the Sales, Finance and Marketing guys to duke out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Svaha!Dean

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,991 Posts
I guess my point is - if BWM is fishing for new blood by making some "bold" design changes, they hooked at least one sucker in the form of me. Now, are they going to lose some of the faithful, sounds like potentially they may.... Issues for the Sales, Finance and Marketing guys to duke out.
Some interesting points, I have a older 2007 model, which I like, and like the looks of.

All of the changes with the 2015 r1200r apart from its motor, mean they have released me, wakened me up, from the brand hold, to look elsewhere, at all the other fantastic models that are being offered today...some for less cost.

That does not mean I don't like the 2015 r1200r...its just a maturity where I am with my riding, and a realization.

Its just a wonderful time to be a motorcyclist with the choice, the instant information you can find on the internet as far as reviews etc etc. Information from places like this forum...information from other forums, on other models.
You can have a good understanding of a bike before you walk into a motorbike shop, most customers would know more about the models than the salesman....I DIGRESS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clem

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
My 2015 R is the first BMW I've owned, therefore, I have no brand affinity or loyalty or true understanding of the "heritage" of the bike - at least not yet. I didn't even know what a Telelever was until I started reading some reviews of the bike, for which most start off pointing out that the Telelever has been replaced with a conventional/inverted fork. My reaction was "what the **** is a Telelever"?

I purchased the bike as much for its functional capabilities as for its aesthetics. For me, the gold forks are a significant part of the aesthetics appeal of the bike. Who knows if I would have even considered it without a traditional fork....maybe, maybe not.

As for the "high Hp wheelie machine for all the cool rich kids" comment, I'm not a kid, I don't consider myself rich and the degree of my coolness is highly debatable but a high HP wheelie machine is not a bad thing for some of us.

I guess my point is - if BWM is fishing for new blood by making some "bold" design changes, they hooked at least one sucker in the form of me. Now, are they going to lose some of the faithful, sounds like potentially they may.... Issues for the Sales, Finance and Marketing guys to duke out.
GCM – 1st you are not a sucker for getting the new “very nice/great” Water Cooled, “non-front telelever” R12R, but rather you appear to be part the market segment that BMW probably designed and created it for.

Also, many people don’t know about, or care about, and/or want that funny looking “front telelever” suspension. However, front telelever suspension is still being used on the R12GS and RT, and has advantages/characteristics compared to traditional telescopic front forks, which many people like and appreciate (different strokes for different folks).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Only BMW know for sure!

However, BMW did keep Telelever Front Suspension on the R12GS and RT (front Telelever has its advantages). As for it being removed on the new WC R12R, there's good reason to suggest that the above comments are true/correct. Also, if BMW wanted to keep Front Telelever Suspension on the new WC R12R, their designers (I assume) could have re-located the radiator(s) and covered/hid them with some nice body work/or similar type panels that they use on the GS?

Also in previously looking at the new WC R12R's specs., I believe its about 5/10Lb's heavier than the previous Front Telelever Suspension AC R12R, therefore maybe they removed it to keep weight down as well????
Dealer told me the reason for the change was for style. Most bikes now have inverted forks
 

·
Registered
‘12 R1200R Classic | ‘15 R1200RT | ‘13 F800GT
Joined
·
8 Posts
Style and marketing. Read the sales brochures for the RT and GS and you’ll see how terrific the Telelever is portrayed. Now read the sales brochure for the R/RS and you’ll see how terrific the USD fork is portrayed. They’re simply different bikes for different markets.

Same argument about the engine design for the F800. If the boxer is so fabulous, why didn’t they design an 800cc boxer for it? Simply, it’s a different bike for a different market.

I’ve owned several Telelever bikes (R850R, R1100S, K1200RS, two R1200RT’s, R1200R) and think it’s a brilliant design for a street bike, To me, it’s one of the best selling points of these models.
 

·
Mark – 2015 R1200R-LC Exclusive
Joined
·
5,665 Posts
Same argument about the engine design for the F800. If the boxer is so fabulous, why didn’t they design an 800cc boxer for it?
I’d say weight and cost (given the Boxer needs a shaft drive) would have been the prime driver for the engine design, with width being another.
 

·
Registered
2020 R1250R
Joined
·
6 Posts
Okay, time to become unpopular, I guess... My apologies in advance, and bear with me. Telelever definitely has certain (well-known) advantages; conventional (or, UPD, in this case) forks also have theirs. The move away from Telelever has nothing to do - or, very little, at least - with marketing (looks), costs, or the logistics of where to put the radiator. Niels, in his post #19 above, has it right: it's because, at the very limits of traction, conventional/UPD forks work best. This is why the Telelever wasn't used on the HP-2's or any of the higher-performance models from our favourite brand. It's also why the Telelever was kept for the GS and RT, which aren't intended for as extreme sport-riding applications as the R and RS. Period. That's it. Telelever may work better - it no doubt does - for touring and middle-of-the-road applications, but forks work best for full-on sports use. No concession to Japanese philosophy required...

Let the outrage and lambasting begin! :cool:
 

·
Registered
2017 R1200r LC sport.
Joined
·
1,620 Posts
No argument from me, if telelever was a better technology they would using them in MotoGP. Saxon racing did try them a while back but it didn't pan out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Have to agree with Moderately Excessive.

As someone lucky enough to have a near-current example of each, they are clearly different and for each application, one works better than the other better.

Telelever suits the RT perfectly, allowing you to maintain serene progress without all the dipping and diving of conventional or USD forks, even at some surprisingly elevated speeds. The RT is capable of being ridden far more aggressively than most people would believe. For example, here and here too. I understand there are a few Motor Officers who can make the RT motor along quite effectively;) You need to ride the RT very smoothly to get the most out of it, although the same could be said for all bikes. The Telelever is the DEFINITE preference of my (occasional) passenger - less apparent weight transfer, and perhaps a reduced sensation of speed

The R, in the R1250R guise currently in my garage, is quite different. IMHO, I consider it more sporty and I ride it accordingly, and it has a wee dash of hooligan thrown for good measure.

As with all things BMW, we should remember what some senior marketer is reputed to have said: "We persuade people to buy what they actually want, while our customers buy what they think they want. People think they want a serious sports car but what they really want is a driver's car with sporting pretensions". I understand this was said about the old 3.0CSi and I think it is still true of almost all BMW products. As an example, anyone who has used an M3 with sport suspension as an everyday vehicle will vouch for the fact that unless you live in a place with perfect roads, the normally suspended M3 is a far nicer vehicle to live with. And after a period of having your teeth rattled and kidneys pummeled, a more comfortable SUV looks really attractive! Just for the record, I've never owned an M3 buy have been fortunate enough to have driven one for a short while, followed by a regular M3 - and was very happy to return to my own car.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top