StromTrooper banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I already committed to a '11 but I am curious where they lost the 13 pounds on the 12 at.
I noticed they mentioned lighter abs components but that hardly seems like it would be 13 pounds.
I also read they went to a phenolic rack, probably a little loss there.
the frame is supposed to be the same.
Anybody know for certain where it came from?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,492 Posts
I already committed to a '11 but I am curious where they lost the 13 pounds on the 12 at.
I noticed they mentioned lighter abs components but that hardly seems like it would be 13 pounds.
I also read they went to a phenolic rack, probably a little loss there.
the frame is supposed to be the same.
Anybody know for certain where it came from?
Just guessing:
1. The fairing
2. The exhaust
3. Smaller gas tank
4. Oil cooler is embedded in engine, instead of hanging out as a separate unit
5. EDIT: Lighter rear rack. The 2011 rear rack is surprisingly heavy (but seems built to last).
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
The 1/2 gallon less fuel saves about 3lbs. The fairing is smaller. The engine has single valve springs instead of dual. The windshield system is lighter. Little things add up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Little things do add up, personally I think I'd rather have the 1/2 gallon of gas even though the new one is supposed to get better mileage, I never seem to be one of those who actually gets better mileage though as I was told the same thing on my 1050 Tiger when I sold the 955i.:green_lol:
I'm going to have a close look at mine when it comes in. I'm not particularly obsessed with weight especially as I'll be adding drop bars and skid plate along with the luggage, but it makes one curious.
I'd almost guess if the exhaust is typical of oem theres probably a lot of weight right there to save.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
they also changed the center of gravity, so it doesnt feel so top heavy, in my opinion..
I like the new design..I don't think I would have missed the 1/2 gallon of fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
how can you say they changed the VCOG

no one seems to publish VCOG data

and tilting a bike a bit off center is qualitative, not quantitative

its really the same frame, engine, wheels etc etc, there was not much to reduce, though it sounds like what little they deducted was up top (rack, fuel, fairings etc)

when I first bought my used Wee I was a bit pissed off at how top heavy it is, but over time you get used to it - and - that same high VCOG means its very easy to balance once you are riding it, even at almost-standstill speeds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
one of the reports that I had read before buying it was that the weight was shifted forward directly under the rider making the bike handle better, blah blah blah...thats all I remember from the article...but i can definatly tell the difference between the 2011 and 2012 models.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,198 Posts
Little things do add up, personally I think I'd rather have the 1/2 gallon of gas even though the new one is supposed to get better mileage, I never seem to be one of those who actually gets better mileage though as I was told the same thing on my 1050 Tiger when I sold the 955i.:green_lol://
If it's any consolation, the 800's on the market - which get worse mileage - have no more than a 5.3 gallon tank. Either model will still one of the longest-ranging bikes sold.

The smaller tank created a "benign circle." It's steel, so less steel is less weight. There is less material required to surround it, and you've removed 5-6 pounds from the top of the bike.

In person, I found the '12 bike much less appealing and "built to a price" than the initial reviews. But the character of a motorcycle is largely determined by the engine, and that engine is terrific.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
one of the reports that I had read before buying it was that the weight was shifted forward directly under the rider making the bike handle better, blah blah blah...thats all I remember from the article...but i can definatly tell the difference between the 2011 and 2012 models.
It does turn better than the old model for sure.

Wheels may be lighter as well.

Pete
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
It does turn better than the old model for sure.

Wheels may be lighter as well.

Pete
The wheels are unchanged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,709 Posts
The handling on the new design is much better than our old 650 or 1000, well worth giving up .5 gal of fuel. I don't understand the obsession with carrying more fuel, coming from a DL1000 with 5.8 gallons and a solid 38 - 40 mpg, going to 5.2 gallons at a guaranteed 50 + mpg (very conservative estimate) doing the math, if I run out of gasoline, it ain't because I can't carry enough, it's because I'm not paying attention. I do glance at the odometer and fuel gauge occasionally throughout the day. Even traveling across the wild, wild west, I never, ever worried about fuel capacity on the Vee, with a range of about 230 miles. This one will go further than that on less fuel, what's not to like ? Odds are, if I'm riding alone, I'll be ready for a stop once a day anyway. If I'm riding with friends, they'll have to stop well before I do. Then again, there is the new appearance, very subjective, to be sure.. It seems just not quite ugly enough to be a proper "adventure bike", people who see it are curious and confused as to what it is. Maybe aluminum panniers , skid plates, and GPS mounts will dispell some of that confusion, maybe not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Was the seat on the old model weighty? The one on my 2012 seems pretty light for its size. I bet quite a bit of the weight savings come from the tank and fairing area - there seems to be much less material around there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
The seat and other stuff on the Old one is very very heavy, but doesn't this make the bike have the ground hugging weight, more planted feeling?

Anyhoo, there are plenty of wanta be fast bikers running around these hills that can't negotiate a turn better on their feather weight bikes, just sayin it's mostly the rider, I know a guy with a KLR than can leave most folks eating dust...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
It does turn better than the old model for sure.

Pete
since rake, trail and wheel/tire specs are the same on 2007 and 2012 - why does it turn "better"
inquiring minds need to know :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
I don't understand the obsession with carrying more fuel, coming from a DL1000 with 5.8 gallons and a solid 38 - 40 mpg, going to 5.2 gallons at a guaranteed 50 + mpg (very conservative estimate) doing the math, if I run out of gasoline, it ain't because I can't carry enough, it's because I'm not paying attention.
Trans Labrador Highway. Goose Bay > Port Hope Simpson.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
I'm going to lose 25 lbs, then the whole pkg will be 38 lbs lighter.......Watch me go !! :hurray:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The handling on the new design is much better than our old 650 or 1000, well worth giving up .5 gal of fuel. I don't understand the obsession with carrying more fuel, coming from a DL1000 with 5.8 gallons and a solid 38 - 40 mpg, going to 5.2 gallons at a guaranteed 50 + mpg (very conservative estimate) doing the math, if I run out of gasoline, it ain't because I can't carry enough, it's because I'm not paying attention. I do glance at the odometer and fuel gauge occasionally throughout the day. Even traveling across the wild, wild west, I never, ever worried about fuel capacity on the Vee, with a range of about 230 miles. This one will go further than that on less fuel, what's not to like ? .

For your purposes maybe.5 gallon fuel doesn't matter.
Whether the 12 gets better mileage than the 11 seems a bit unsure to me. I read road tests that cast doubt on it, yet on here a couple of people have reported that they did get better mileage so more of them out there will probably tell the tale.
For me, if they made one that held 7 gallons I'd want it. I may not need it but I have, on occassion, found myself nearly out of fuel, planning to stop where fuel turned out not to be available so i like the peace of mind.
I'm not out to belittle the 12, I picked an 11 for some reasons peculiar to me, one of them being money, but some others as well. You wanted a 12 and are happy with it so all to the good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
since rake, trail and wheel/tire specs are the same on 2007 and 2012 - why does it turn "better"
inquiring minds need to know :confused:
NFC :)

I suspect the wheels are a bit lighter. Also, the mass of the new DL is closer to the centre of the bike - which helps as well. Steers like a rat up a drainpipe ;)

It was noticeable riding with someone on a K8 who's a better rider than I am, I used to have to work really hard to keep up with him, I don't now.

Pete
 

·
FORUM GODFATHER.....R.I.P. PAT
Joined
·
38,048 Posts
One more time. The wheels are unchanged. They have the same part numbers as the earlier years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I'm going to lose 25 lbs, then the whole pkg will be 38 lbs lighter.......Watch me go !! :hurray:
I'm all for it, interested in what you end up doing.
I would personally bet you could lose at least 10 pounds out of that exhaust system alone, maybe no cheap though.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top