BMW's "Basic Truths of Concept" circa 1978

[montmil]

These are the exact words from a 1978 BMW advertising brochure:

[size=12]We build machines on a philosophy and engineering concept. And no commercial considerations are allowed to modify the basic truths of that concept. That is why, for example, BMW doesn't spew out a wide variety of complex, multi-cylindered machines. Our engineers don't think it makes sense to take something that's simple and reliable and, for commercial purposes, make it complex and, therefore, likely to be less reliable. And yet that's exactly what's happening in the world of mass-production motorcycles today. It won't happen at BMW.[/size]

Have you visited a BMW dealership lately? BMW Motorrad has disowned its heritage.

Long live our Airheads. Let's keep 'em flying.

[Barry]

Airheads have certainly survived the test of time.

Reading between the lines BMW were probably trying to justify selling a highly priced twin cylinder motorcycle in the face of much cheaper and faster and to be fair reliable 4 cylinder opposition.  The thing I remember from the seventies is BMW had the opposition whipped by a big margin on low weight and fuel economy. I had to put up with the weight and poor economy of a 76 Z900 but I couldn't even dream of affording an R90s.

I don't much like the modern BMW's because they have lost the low weight ethic which the Japs have now embraced.

[Julio A.]

Comparing the BMW R1200GS to a KTM 990 Adventure or a Ducati 1200 Multistrada, I'd say they are still sticking to their Philosophy.

The newer models might be a lot more complicated than our 80's era bikes, but I honestly cannot imagine them still selling Airheads up to this date. Progression in technology cannot be stopped, High-tech equipment can still be kept simple.

I remember what Einstein said:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

[Lucky_Lou]

Given the level of intrest on eBay in my brothers R65 and compairing that to early "K" bikes on there the Cows are not a bad investment and easier to fix........
Lou

[nhmaf]

For the size of it (huge), I guess that the 560 pound weight of a naked R1200GSA isn't tooooo horrible, but I would rather contest their statement about it being simple.   If I was stuck on the side of a road anywhere, I think I'd be able to get a non-running airhead to limp home more easily than the hexhead.

[Barry]

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."  

I like that.

It's far more elegant than Kelly Johnson's "keep it simple stupid"

[Bengt_Phorqs]

There is a beauty in simplicity itself.  However, people also want change and the latest technology.  Ever see a GS that wasn't farkled to high heaven?  There may be a few but rare.  Most auto/motorcycle makers have had to move to the high tech/fuel injected/canbus managed system just to comply with EPA rules & regs.  Doesn't make them better, just more complex.  I can't think of a single current model of BMW that I would want to buy just because of the complexity.

[Barry]

A friend of mine has a couple of Ducati V twins one old and one new. You have to admire the standard of engineering and attention to detail. Ducati clearly have not compromised their design principles by allowing whatever minimum levels of complexity are needed on the modern bike to lead to excess weight.  

Another Italian that has stuck to it's principles is Moto guzzi. The V7 may be a touch on the small side but at 400lbs the weight is spot on where it should be.

I don't believe that BMW have achieved quite the same levels of design purity in the various successors to airheads.