[JerryG]

The 800/900 engines are the ones built in the Loncin (China) facility. The engines are then shipped to Germany where the motorcycles are built around the engines.

I didn't know that. Given that info, I think you're right and they'll probably do the same for the 450 engine. Love it when I learn something, though this time I feel like I should have known that. 🤔

 

[JerryG]

This bodes well for the F450GS...

BMW Motorrad presents the strongest sales result in company history.

BMW Motorrad presents the strongest sales result in company history.

210.408 bikes from BMW were sold worldwide in 2024.

www.press.bmwgroup.com

What a contrast to KTM's debacle.

 

[2024]

I have a gripe about the F450GS. Not that it doesn't look like a stunning design by BMW & depending on price tag, potentially superb value.
No this is a generalized gripe that happens to include the F450GS.

Everyone knows it's an "a2 bike". This not only limits hp, but power to weight ratio as well. Thus we get just below 35KW (48hp) and 175Kgs (385lbs).
Who decided this? Some faceless unelected European beaurocrat, whose probably never swung a leg over a 2 wheeled vehicle.

It's of course possible (though highly unlikely) BMW would have freely designed to these parameters, but truth is they didn't & they were forced upon them, if they want to sell these bikes to relative beginner riders in Europe.
Seeing as Europe is their biggest market by miles, it's unsurprising they designed to a2 parameters.

Could it have been more powerful? Almost certainly yes, at zero additional cost. And significantly lighter? Almost certainly true as well, but no it isn't.

I recently read a description of an a2 bike as, slightly too heavy, slightly underpowered & boring. Now I'm sure this doesn't apply to all riders.

My favourite bike of all time, my beloved 73 Bonnie, has about 45hp & 400lbs. Perfect for a2 legislation, but that's not my point.

We have fantastic engineers all over the world designing to parameters dictated by legislators. It happens all the time in cars, bikes, everything. If you don't conform, you can't do business to your desired market. It's as close to blackmail as you can get.

This isn't the first time I've demonstrated my view on legislators, but the fact that folks all over the world are riding "a2 bikes", as a result of a beaurocratic opinion on another continent doesn't seem right.
On principle I could never buy an "a2 bike", just because it's an "a2 bike". The anarchist in me would cringe every time it started.

 

[JerryG]

I have a gripe about the F450GS. Not that it doesn't look like a stunning design by BMW & depending on price tag, potentially superb value.
No this is a generalized gripe that happens to include the F450GS.

Everyone knows it's an "a2 bike". This not only limits hp, but power to weight ratio as well. Thus we get just below 35KW (48hp) and 175Kgs (385lbs).
Who decided this? Some faceless unelected European beaurocrat, whose probably never swung a leg over a 2 wheeled vehicle.

It's of course possible (though highly unlikely) BMW would have freely designed to these parameters, but truth is they didn't & they were forced upon them, if they want to sell these bikes to relative beginner riders in Europe.
Seeing as Europe is their biggest market by miles, it's unsurprising they designed to a2 parameters.

Could it have been more powerful? Almost certainly yes, at zero additional cost. And significantly lighter? Almost certainly true as well, but no it isn't.

I recently read a description of an a2 bike as, slightly too heavy, slightly underpowered & boring. Now I'm sure this doesn't apply to all riders.

My favourite bike of all time, my beloved 73 Bonnie, has about 45hp & 400lbs. Perfect for a2 legislation, but that's not my point.

We have fantastic engineers all over the world designing to parameters dictated by legislators. It happens all the time in cars, bikes, everything. If you don't conform, you can't do business to your desired market. It's as close to blackmail as you can get.

This isn't the first time I've demonstrated my view on legislators, but the fact that folks all over the world are riding "a2 bikes", as a result of a beaurocratic opinion on another continent doesn't seem right.
On principle I could never buy an "a2 bike", just because it's an "a2 bike". The anarchist in me would cringe every time it started.

There's a lot I could say, but mostly, I'm just glad I don't feel the way you do.

 

[Cyrille]

There are various types of A2 motorcycles, some which are "native A2" such as the G310GS meaning that they do NOT feature any limitations of power/torque. And others which are derived from the full A version. For example I've tried both the A2 (47 hp) and the A version (95 hp) of the F850GS. BMW has made a cleaver design to prevent riders from being frustrated. There is enough torque / power in the A2 version and yes the max. speed is ELECTRONICALLY limited (170 km/h instead of 200 km/h). It is more difficult at first glance to discern the torque/power differences between the A2 and A versions. Both bikes are fun to ride... Conversely its successor the new F900GS is only available in A version (MTT2) because its engine is too powerful (105 hp instead of max. 95 hp).

In the EU novice riders (A2 licence) need to wait 2 years before applying for the A licence. Should they obtain it they simply need to go to the local BMW dealer that will remove the power/speed limitations. BMW will request a new registration certificate, it will be issued with a different J1 type: "MTT2" instead of "MTT1". Last but not least the rider must notify the insurance company that will adjust the premium accordingly.

 

[2024]

There are various types of A2 motorcycles, some which are "native A2" such as the G310GS meaning that they do NOT feature any limitations of power/torque. And others which are derived from the full A version. For example I've tried both the A2 (47 hp) and the A version (95 hp) of the F850GS. BMW has made a cleaver design to prevent riders from being frustrated. There is enough torque / power in the A2 version and yes the max. speed is ELECTRONICALLY limited (170 km/h instead of 200 km/h). It is more difficult at first glance to discern the torque/power differences between the A2 and A versions. Both bikes are fun to ride... Conversely its successor the new F900GS is only available in A version (MTT2) because its engine is too powerful (105 hp instead of max. 95 hp).

In the EU novice riders (A2 licence) need to wait 2 years before applying for the A licence. Should they obtain it they simply need to go to the local BMW dealer that will remove the power/speed limitations. BMW will request a new registration certificate, it will be issued with a different J1 type: "MTT2" instead of "MTT1". Last but not least the rider must notify the insurance company that will adjust the premium accordingly.

I guess the Europeans are comfortable with all that & seeing as it is consistently imposed one must draw the conclusion it's "fair".
But I'm truly glad I ride in Costa Rica & North America where those in government do not impose themselves so intrusively on both individuals & businesses.

 

[2024]

There's a lot I could say, but mostly, I'm just glad I don't feel the way you do.

Hi Jerry,

You wouldn't. Ex-military & all that. Regulations come naturally. You possibly wrote a few while you were serving.
It's only us Anarchists that resent interference in our liberties

 

[2024]

To broaden this discussion a little following Cyrille's informative post, I'll need those more adept & physics & engineering to assist.

I've always been under the impression that hp primarily influenced top speed, in that it takes power to overcome wind resistance.
However torque influences acceleration, especially from standstill, in that it's a measure of an engine's capability to increase revolutions against inertia.

Could be wrong. Over to you.

If correct, the above laws appear to permit a "novice" in Cyrille's words to ride a motorcycle with exceptional acceleration (F850GS 0-100 kph or 60 mph in 3.8 secs with 92 NM or 68 lb/ft. & top speed of 170 kph or 105 mph) & this is ok in the name of "safety".
Well if the novice is unable to kill themselves with that capability, I rate their chances of reaching old age.

What's the point of limiting hp & weight, but allowing massive torque on a 505 lbs bike. This illustrates why legislators shouldn't be involved. It's still a guided missile.

 

[JerryG]

Hi Jerry,
You wouldn't. Ex-military & all that. Regulations come naturally. You possibly wrote a few while you were serving.
It's only us Anarchists that resent interference in our liberties

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about and your smiley face is repellant in light the hardships and sacrifices that our military endures to keep you safe.

 

[Cyrille]

In the EU politicians like defining standards, norms. Sometimes it is good. For example before 2013 there were many driving licences in use and each country defined the categories (it was a real mess)... Law enforcement had all difficulties to assess if a driving licence was valid and matching a vehicle. Since then all countries issue driving licences with the same categories which makes the life of citizen easier when travelling or relocating within the EU. Moreover there is a European network (RESPER) to exchange driving licence information between countries, thus law enforcement will know within seconds if someone is allowed to drive and if so which categories of vehicles. Today regardless of the country issuing a driving licence the categories are identical (AM, A1, A2, A, B1, B, C1, C, D1, D, E).

I am not bothered by such standardization. What's much more annoying is that a vehicle is seen by some EU countries as source of incomes (fines!). Thus we have plenty of cameras (hidden or not, mobile or not) to check compliance with rules, and speed limits have been lowered. Sometimes it is justified: controls take place in areas when road accidents are recurrent. Sometimes this is just to make money... and the state "forgets" to invest that money (yes, even the fines) to built a safer road infrastructure. Nasty examples: red traffic light cameras with built-in radar (if you cross the red light the fine is like 400€, if you speed to pass when the light is orange you get a 200€ ticket for speeding).

 

[JerryG]

To broaden this discussion a little following Cyrille's informative post, I'll need those more adept & physics & engineering to assist.

I've always been under the impression that hp primarily influenced top speed, in that it takes power to overcome wind resistance.
However torque influences acceleration, especially from standstill, in that it's a measure of an engine's capability to increase revolutions against inertia.

Could be wrong. Over to you.

If correct, the above laws appear to permit a "novice" in Cyrille's words to ride a motorcycle with exceptional acceleration (F850GS 0-100 kph or 60 mph in 3.8 secs with 92 NM or 68 lb/ft. & top speed of 170 kph or 105 mph) & this is ok in the name of "safety".
Well if the novice is unable to kill themselves with that capability, I rate their chances of reaching old age.

What's the point of limiting hp & weight, but allowing massive torque on a 505 lbs bike. This illustrates why legislators shouldn't be involved. It's still a guided missile.

Killing yourself with any motorcycle is easy; the limits may be about limiting damage the people and things they hit while they are killing themselves.

P.S. Mathematically, horsepower equals torque multiplied by rpm. H = T x rpm/5252, where H is horsepower, T is pound-feet, rpm is how fast the engine is spinning, and 5252 is a constant that makes the units jibe. So, to make more power an engine needs to generate more torque, operate at higher rpm, or both.
P.P.S. If you limit horsepower, torque, or rpms, you are also limiting the other two.

 

[2024]

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about and your smiley face is repellant in light the hardships and sacrifices that our military endures to keep you safe.

No, I don’t know anything about the military, their hardships or sacrifices, although I'm sure there are many.
I do recall they are strong on regulations however.
I am grateful they exist to protect me from the other guy's military.
Except when I'm living in Costa Rica, where we don’t have one. Thankfully.

 

[JerryG]

No, I don’t know anything about the military, their hardships or sacrifices, although I'm sure there are many.
I do recall they are strong on regulations however.
I am grateful they exist to protect me from the other guy's military.
Except when I'm living in Costa Rica, where we don’t have one. Thankfully.

By your own admission, you don’t know anything about the military; yet somehow you are expert enough to lecture a soldier on the military. Go read up on the Dunning–Kruger effect. I'm done with this.

 

[2024]

In the EU politicians like defining standards, norms. Sometimes it is good. For example before 2013 there were many driving licences in use and each country defined the categories (it was a real mess)... Law enforcement had all difficulties to assess if a driving licence was valid and matching a vehicle. Since then all countries issue driving licences with the same categories which makes the life of citizen easier when travelling or relocating within the EU. Moreover there is a European network (RESPER) to exchange driving licence information between countries, thus law enforcement will know within seconds if someone is allowed to drive and if so which categories of vehicles. Today regardless of the country issuing a driving licence the categories are identical (AM, A1, A2, A, B1, B, C1, C, D1, D, E).

I am not bothered by such standardization. What's much more annoying is that a vehicle is seen by some EU countries as source of incomes (fines!). Thus we have plenty of cameras (hidden or not, mobile or not) to check compliance with rules, and speed limits have been lowered. Sometimes it is justified: controls take place in areas when road accidents are recurrent. Sometimes this is just to make money... and the state "forgets" to invest that money (yes, even the fines) to built a safer road infrastructure. Nasty examples: red traffic light cameras with built-in radar (if you cross the red light the fine is like 400€, if you speed to pass when the light is orange you get a 200€ ticket for speeding).

I'm with you on the cameras!
I was a road sales guy in UK & of course we had "favourite" roads. Rural & curvy & zero traffic. Generous speed limits of maybe 60 mph!
I remembered from 1999, amazing fun.

I returned to UK in 2007. Hired a car & took my boys, that were now teenagers, down a "favourite".
It had "grey boxes" about every half mile.
With/without a camera, but dangerous enough in terms of fines to create a funeral procession at 30 mph along the country lane.
Those with tickets can't afford more, or their license gets taken, so we paraded for mile after mile.

At least it gave my boys a good laugh at their Dad's expense. Legislators!

 

[Dougl]

Seat height goes from 830 mm on the 310GS to 885 mm on the F450GS. Too high for me to use as a street bike.

 

[Dougl]

I looked at the Honda NX500. The reasons I rejected it were that it was 50lbs heavier than the 310GS, the dealer has a less than stellar rep, and they don’t allow test rises. While 100 lbs lighter than my 1250R, it seemed like a larger bike.

 

[JerryG]

I've been gradually training myself taller. I started with the RR Low Shock set to -35mm and my fork at 25 mm exposed above the triple tree. Over the next 24,686 miles and two years, I increased the height to the max the low shock could give me and then I switched to the RR L2 +20mm with a +20mm adjusted to match Andreani Fork Cartridge Kit. I now have a seat concepts seat that I bought to put more distance between my knees and my pegs, but it will also mean a taller overall height. It's still in its box, so I don't know yet how that will work for me or not.

Re the 450, I'm sure someone will make a lowering link or low shock, but it might not be immediately available. No sense borrowing problems from the future; they'll get here in there own time. By then, I might not need it. 🤞

 

[2024]

Motorcycle weight has become a bigger deal for me. I always rode bikes around 400lbs or slightly less, which is why the G310GS was attractive & I still love it.

But I want lighter! My son's WR250R at 295lbs is fantastic.
A bike like the CRF450L at 290lbs (& 50hp uncorked) is superb. However that Honda seems to have reliability issues.
A road legal WR450F at 273lbs is really tempting.
I think he’s planning to buy one
I'll give a ride report in May hopefully!

That's the kind of bike I'd be looking at in the future <300lbs. Even 375lbs on the G310GS is a bit of a porker.

 

[JerryG]

Motorcycle weight has become a bigger deal for me. I always rode bikes around 400lbs or slightly less, which is why the G310GS was attractive & I still love it.

But I want lighter! My son's WR250R at 295lbs is fantastic.
A bike like the CRF450L at 290lbs (& 50hp uncorked) is superb. However that Honda seems to have reliability issues.
A road legal WR450F at 273lbs is really tempting.
I think he’s planning to buy one
I'll give a ride report in May hopefully!

That's the kind of bike I'd be looking at in the future <300lbs. Even 375lbs on the G310GS is a bit of a porker.

I don't agree and I do.

I disagree re porker: My Baja ride convinced me that my G310GS with it's RR L2 / Andreani suspension is very capable off-road; I'm the limiting it, it's not limiting me. If it weighed 100 lbs less, would I limit it less? I doubt it - I need a personal performance break through to move beyond my current plateau of expertise.

I agree re the 300 lbs street legal dirt bikes. Watching them play at the Death Valley Noobs Rally, the April Fools Adventure Rally, and Wailin Wayne Weekend convinced me that the lighter the bike, the easier the off-roading is and the more fun you have doing it. I've been mulling getting one, mostly as a local-use training bike because everything I've read and watched about those bikes has made me wary that riding them long distances is NOT fun. I've also been wary of those bike's seat heights; that's part of why I've been raising the height of my G310GS, to train myself to ride taller.

For the sake of comparison, my 2022 G310GS manual gives 32.9" as my bike's original seat height. I lowered that to ~31.5" via the lowest setting on the RR Adjustable Low Shock; later, I raised that to ~32.5" via the highest setting on the RR Adjustable Low Shock; and now, I'm at ~33.7" via the RR +20mm L2 Shock.

Your three candidates are perfect examples of my own lighter-is-good, but leery-about-taller thinking:
WR250R 295 lbs, but 36.6" seat
CRF450L 290 lbs, but 37.1" seat
WR450F 273 lbs, but 37.6 seat

I have a friend with a CRF450L; I need to take him up on his offer to try it out.
In the mean time, I'm glad the F450GS' current seat height is 34.8" and that the product manager said the final version would likely have a lower seat height (option?).

 

[DrewG310GS]

I don't agree and I do.

I disagree re porker: My Baja ride convinced me that my G310GS with it's RR L2 / Andreani suspension is very capable off-road; I'm the limiting it, it's not limiting me. If it weighed 100 lbs less, would I limit it less? I doubt it - I need a personal performance break through to move beyond my current plateau of expertise.

I agree re the 300 lbs street legal dirt bikes. Watching them play at the Death Valley Noobs Rally, the April Fools Adventure Rally, and Wailin Wayne Weekend convinced me that the lighter the bike, the easier the off-roading is and the more fun you have doing it. I've been mulling getting one, mostly as a local-use training bike because everything I've read and watched about those bikes has made me wary that riding them long distances is NOT fun. I've also been wary of those bike's seat heights; that's part of why I've been raising the height of my G310GS, to train myself to ride taller.

For the sake of comparison, my 2022 G310GS manual gives 32.9" as my bike's original seat height. I lowered that to ~31.5" via the lowest setting on the RR Adjustable Low Shock; later, I raised that to ~32.5" via the highest setting on the RR Adjustable Low Shock; and now, I'm at ~33.7" via the RR +20mm L2 Shock.

Your three candidates are perfect examples of my own lighter-is-good, but leery-about-taller thinking:
WR250R 295 lbs, but 36.6" seat
CRF450L 290 lbs, but 37.1" seat
WR450F 273 lbs, but 37.6 seat

I have a friend with a CRF450L; I need to take him up on his offer to try it out.
In the mean time, I'm glad the F450GS' current seat height is 34.8" and that the product manager said the final version would likely have a lower seat height (option?).

What about a lowered 2025 DR-Z4S? Stock seat height is 36.2 in. Drop it an inch and you're very close to your current height...plus the narrower seat and lighter weight would reduce the absolute effect of seat height. And at about 11inch suspension travel each end, you still have significantly more travel than the g310gs after dropping it an inch. Then there's the weight of only 333lbs. Plus, being a drz, you know the aftermarket will be huge. Plus 21/18 wheels.