F800GS review in Moto Consumer News

[FredRydr]

I understand there is an article on the 800cc GS. Does anyone have a report on this?

Fred

[AZ-J]

Yes!

[FredRydr]

Yes!
And...?

Fred

(At this rate, being only 24 posts behind, the F Twins forum will surpass the Vintage forum in number of posts by the end of 2009.)

[sgborgstrom]

From MCN "Final Thoughts":

On the sort of surfaces where maximum power becomes irrelevant, the F800GS has plenty of grunt and with the right tires is very capable. On the other hand, it clearly does not offer the sport-touring capabilities of its big boxer brother, the R1200GS. If off-road exploring is something you will actually do- not just a social facade- the F800GS is a very desirable ride. We only hope the long wait hasn't hurt its reception.

I suspect the F800GS would fill in nicely if I were to get rid of my F650GS/Dakar and R100GSPD...I switch between them depending on what sort of riding I expect to do on any given trip. Very tempting indeed.

[Acejones]

I wouldn't trade either of your bikes for a F800.

[roybarnes]

Yes!

I saw the the HP was a lot less than BMW say's. I also saw that they used regular unleaded fuel for the test. A 12 to 1 compression would need hi test for full power. It is good to know that it will run on low test, but if you are going to ring it's neck, you will need hi test. I would like to see a test with hi test fuel.
Also I would likt to see a full blown test of the F650GS.:lurk

[FredRydr]

Roy,

Your post just pushed the F-Twins forum out of last and ahead of the Vintage forum for popular postings!

And NO, you don't win a new F800GS.

Fred

[roybarnes]

Roy,

Your post just pushed the F-Twins forum out of last and ahead of the Vintage forum for popular postings!

And NO, you don't win a new F800GS.

Fred

Thats OK I just want the F650gs. OOOOOKKKKKK

[rideoregon]

I saw the the HP was a lot less than BMW say's.

I don't know of a single example where this is not the case. Typically, manufacturers state the horsepower of their engines at the crank--"brake horsepower" or bhp--which measures the power of the engine undiminished by the resistance of all the things between the crank and the rear wheel, like the alternator, driveshaft, etc. Most (all?) manufacturers now at least report the bhp resulting from the German DIN protocol, which provides some assurance of accuracy. But consider the reported number from the mfr. as a measurement of the ENGINE's power, not the BIKE's power. My K75, for example, is advertised new as having 75 hp. It measures out just a bit over 50 at the wheel.

For obvious reasons, magazines don't measure bhp. They aren't going to tear the bike down and test the engine. They measure the horsepower at the rear wheel, and that figure will always be lower than the bhp measured at the crank. Of course, it's that rear wheel hp that matters to the rider, so we're happy to get that figure.

The shame is that manufacturers don't just give us rear wheel hp in the first place, tested according to some agreed-upon protocol. Then we'd all have numbers that actually mean something without making a standard deduction from the bph number advertised by the manufacturers.

Horsepower is a complicated thing with a long history of different measurements and standards. If you're interested, here's a good wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

[roybarnes]

I don't know of a single example where this is not the case. Typically, manufacturers state the horsepower of their engines at the crank--"brake horsepower" or bhp--which measures the power of the engine undiminished by the resistance of all the things between the crank and the rear wheel, like the alternator, driveshaft, etc. Most (all?) manufacturers now at least report the bhp resulting from the German DIN protocol, which provides some assurance of accuracy. But consider the reported number from the mfr. as a measurement of the ENGINE's power, not the BIKE's power. My K75, for example, is advertised new as having 75 hp. It measures out just a bit over 50 at the wheel.

For obvious reasons, magazines don't measure bhp. They aren't going to tear the bike down and test the engine. They measure the horsepower at the rear wheel, and that figure will always be lower than the bhp measured at the crank. Of course, it's that rear wheel hp that matters to the rider, so we're happy to get that figure.

The shame is that manufacturers don't just give us rear wheel hp in the first place, tested according to some agreed-upon protocol. Then we'd all have numbers that actually mean something without making a standard deduction from the bph number advertised by the manufacturers.

Horsepower is a complicated thing with a long history of different measurements and standards. If you're interested, here's a good wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

If I remember right the hourspower was down about 12 hp. That is a big drop for a chain drive. My r1150gs was rated at 85 also, and put out 79 at the rear wheel.
Also they used high octain fuel.

[tengs5605]

My Moto report:
I have now riden the F800GS for over 4,000 miles in eastern Europe in '08 and my new '09 US model
I have owned probably 25 bikes.
The F800GS maybe the best I have ever had for and "all rounder". Lighter, flickable, plenty of power, balanced. Mileage...ohmagod. I actually got 65mpg in one test, but whose counting. 50+ no problem.
Too tall and seat to hard!. Custom seat for $450 will soften and lower. Also need a taller screen
This Rotax motor is a good one. No horizontal BMW vibration and with a ssmmoooth gearbox.
If you go off pavement on trips, this IS your bike. The big GS is overrated and aggressively marketed...and I have one ( '04 1150). Wonderfull for long distance pavement touring. But "off road" to heavy and poorly balanced for slower speed handling
Cheers.

[MAD DOG]

Can anyone tell me what the seat height and wet weight of the FACTORY LOWERED {not retro-lowering} F650GS is?

Thank you,
Mad Dog

[pairowheels]

Can't tell you the exact seat height of the lowered F650. But I have the standard frame with low seat, which is listed as having a 31.1" seat height, which I think is pretty accurate. My wife has the lowered F650, which has a seat height somewhere between 29.5 and 30.1", depending on the source of the info.

Sitting on the bikes, I (with about a 29.5-30" inseam, depending on what the measurement points are) sit flat-footed, with my knees bent on my wife's bike. Depending on the surface, I can stand flat-footed on my bike with legs extended straight on flat, horizontal surfaces, or with heels slightly off the ground on uneven surfaces. This takes into consideration that I wear Sidi Canyon boots that have a slightly higher heel and sole than many other boots.