Video summary

BMW R1300RS | Is This the Best Sport-Tourer?

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Summary of the BMW R 1300 RS Review

What the bike is

  • The BMW R 1300 RS is presented as a sport-focused sport-touring BMW: sporty and fast, with a more aggressive rider triangle than models like the RT or GS.
  • Compared with naked R models, the RS is also framed as having more standard equipment.
  • The video stresses that many riders don’t fully understand where the RS sits in BMW’s lineup—positioned between sportier R models and the more touring-focused RT.

Key features highlighted

Engine & performance

  • 1300cc boxer twin with air/liquid cooling
  • 145 hp and 110 ft-lb / 140 N-m torque
  • A major selling point is the massive low- to mid-range torque, which feels especially strong during roll-on acceleration compared to many four-cylinder competitors.
  • The video also mentions a 0–60 mph time around ~2 seconds (approximate claim).

Transmission (ASA vs standard manual/quickshifter)

  • The RS offers ASA (Automatic Shift Assistant):
    • Automatic mode: shifts for you; the clutch engages automatically, described as “impossible to stall.”
    • Manual mode: foot shifting, but still smooth and clutchless.
  • The reviewer praises ASA’s manual-mode feel, describing it as “the world’s best quick shifter.”
  • Drawbacks noted for automatic mode:
    • Shifts can feel clunky/lurchy
    • It may be conservative about downshifts during aggressive passing

Chassis, suspension & braking

  • Front suspension: conventional fork (not Telelever)
    • Praised for better front-road feel/communication
    • Downside: less anti-dive than Telelever setups
  • Suspension: Dynamic ESA
    • Electronic damping changes
    • Automatic preload adjustment based on rider/luggage load
  • Brakes:
    • Brembo calipers
    • Front: dual 310mm discs, 4-piston calipers
    • Rear: 285mm disc, 2-piston caliper
    • Overall described as exceptional, with no “weak bite” experience similar to what the reviewer recalled from a prior GS

Electronics & rider aids

  • 5 riding modes
  • 6-axis IMU
  • Cornering traction control and cornering ABS
  • Dynamic Pro mode with adjustable traction control on the fly
  • Radar adaptive cruise control + blind spot monitoring
  • Forward collision warning exists, but the reviewer says they turn it off due to dislike in how it works
  • Radar system described as working very well, especially for freeway/traffic use

Practical / comfort items

  • Seat height: 32.1 in / 815 mm
  • Reviewer height (5‘10”): says it’s easy and comfortable to reach the ground
  • Tires: Michelin Road 6 (sport-touring)
  • Shaft drive
    • Lower day-to-day maintenance than chain drive
    • But flagged as controversial: shaft drive replacement around ~48,000 miles / 78,000 km, potentially expensive

Specs and cost mentioned

  • Base price: $17,095
  • As-tested price: $25,900 (including destination fees), with loaded options including $935 ASA
  • Curb weight: 540 lb / 245 kg
    • Notably lighter than the RT (620 lb / 280 kg)
    • Similar weight to the R 1300 GS
  • Fuel tank: 4.5 gal / 17 L
  • Fuel economy: about 45 mpg (5.2 L/100 km)
  • Fuel range: fuel light around 150 miles / 240 km, with another 30–40 miles possible on reserve

Ride experience & ergonomics (user experience)

Riding position & comfort: mixed

Pros

  • Sportier than RT/GS but not extremely extreme
  • Front lean helps put weight into the front tire for traction, grip, and road feel
  • Suited to high-speed riding and sweeping corners

Cons

  • Not as comfortable as GS or RT (reviewer: “never will be”)
  • Tight leg room over long days (pegs high and far back)
  • Wrist/arm pressure after hours
  • Awkward seat-tank / genital contact after a few hours (as described in the subtitles)
  • Ergonomics begin to feel tiring around 3–4 hours

Windshield & mirrors

  • Wind protection: okay, with two positions
  • Windshield adjustment criticized:
    • No lever/electric adjustment
    • Reviewer must manually grab and adjust—annoying at speed
  • Mirrors:
    • Described as buzzy/vibrating at certain RPMs
    • Limited visibility around the shoulders/arms

Suspension modes

  • Dynamic mode feels firm/sporty
  • Reviewer notes that on bumpy roads, firm settings can be jarring
  • Prefers softer modes (e.g., Road, sometimes Rain)
  • Still capable on imperfect roads, but the video suggests it’s best suited to paved, sweeping fast riding rather than rougher conditions compared to GS long-travel bikes

Pros (as stated)

  • Incredible torque and “insane” roll-on power
  • Exceptional handling and road feel, helped by the conventional front fork
  • Brembo braking performance praised
  • ASA (manual mode): extremely smooth and removes clutch needs while staying sporty
  • Radar electronics (adaptive cruise + blind spot) work well and are genuinely useful
  • Shaft drive reduces routine maintenance mess/effort
  • Stable at highway speeds with relaxed cruising
  • Overall framed as a unique “grown-up” sport-touring alternative: stable and fast

Cons / criticisms

  • Price/value: ~$25k+ and perceived competition that offers similar value for less
  • Hard bags/panniers not standard at this price point (reviewer thinks they should be)
  • Aggressive ergonomics for some riders:
    • wrist pressure
    • tight leg room
    • longer-duration discomfort
    • “scrunched” feel from forward lean
  • Windshield adjustment is inconvenient in wind pressure
  • Mirrors can be buzzy and aren’t as effective for visibility
  • ASA automatic mode:
    • can feel clunky/lurchy
    • conservative downshifts during aggressive riding/passing
  • Shaft drive replacement flagged as a potentially expensive, controversial maintenance item at ~48,000 miles

Comparisons made

Within BMW lineup

  • RS vs outgoing R 1250 RS
    • 1300 is a ground-up redesign
    • More sporty direction (lower handlebars, pegs repositioned; smaller tank and lower windshield)
    • More power/tech, but no weight reduction vs the 1250 (noted as disappointing)
  • RS vs RT
    • RT is more bulky/touring-oriented, generally more comfortable and passenger-friendly
    • RS positioned as a lighter, sportier alternative, but less comfortable
  • RS vs GS / GSA (1,300)
    • GS wins on value/versatility/comfort and overall practicality (including off-road capability)
    • GS geometry and suspension better handle rough/bumpy roads with long-travel comfort
    • RS better for high-speed sweeping corners and sportier feel
  • RS vs S 1000 XR
    • XR is more upright and has more stated horsepower (~20–30 hp more), but less torque
    • XR uses chain drive; RS uses shaft drive
    • XR has radar, but RS is described as a unique combination: torque + shaft drive + radar

Versus other sport-touring competitors (non-BMW)

  • Kawasaki Ninja 1100 SX SE
    • cheaper (~$16k)
    • strong horsepower but less torque
    • not as comfortable and lacks BMW-level features
  • Suzuki GSX-S1000GT / GX
    • GT: powerful K5 engine, but less torque than the boxer
    • GX: more upright posture (more like XR-style competitors), but not RS’s torque/tech combination
  • Overall claim from the review: no other sport-oriented tourer combines high-torque twin + shaft drive + high-end radar electronics like the RS.

Verdict / recommendation (overall)

  • The reviewer recommends the BMW R 1300 RS for a mature sport-touring rider who wants:
    • massive torque
    • stable high-speed handling
    • low-maintenance shaft drive
    • and prefers it over the heavier/more expensive RT
    • without wanting the character of a high-revving four-cylinder
  • If you want long-trip comfort like an RT/GS, or dislike a more aggressive posture, the reviewer implies it may not be the right fit.
  • Strong recommendation: consider a test ride, and especially consider it if you’ll use ASA (the reviewer would buy it with ASA).

Unique points mentioned (deduplicated)

  1. RS is sporty, fast, and may be misunderstood in BMW’s lineup positioning.
  2. RS history context: R 100 RS (“Gentleman’s Express”).
  3. BMW lineup shorthand: R = boxer, F = parallel, S = 4-cylinder sport.
  4. Ground-up redesign from 1250 to 1300; sportier ergonomics.
  5. Lower handlebars and pegs moved further back/higher → less leg room but improved handling feel.
  6. Smaller fuel tank and lower windshield vs 1250.
  7. No weight reduction vs the prior generation (disappointment).
  8. Pricing: $17,095 base; ~$25,900 as tested with options/ASA.
  9. Weight/seat height noted; similar weight to the GS.
  10. Fuel range and mpg estimates included.
  11. Torque positioned as the defining differentiator.
  12. ASA details: automatic mode + manual clutchless shifting; described as stall-proof.
  13. Conventional fork vs Telelever: better front feel but less anti-dive.
  14. Dynamic ESA includes damping changes and automatic preload adjustment.
  15. Brembo braking performance praised.
  16. Shaft drive replacement at 48,000 miles flagged as expensive/controversial.
  17. Extensive electronics: IMU, cornering ABS/traction, adaptive cruise, blind spot, forward collision warning (turned off by reviewer).
  18. Ergonomics: good reach for 5‘10”, but wrist/leg tightness and discomfort after hours.
  19. Windshield works fairly well but adjustment method is awkward (manual).
  20. Mirrors can buzz and have limited shoulder visibility.
  21. ASA: manual-mode quickshifter is best-in-class; automatic mode is worse and conservative.
  22. Automatic mode limitations during aggressive passing.
  23. Adaptive cruise is useful in traffic/freeway conditions.
  24. RS shines on high-speed sweeping corners; GS may handle rough roads better.
  25. Electronics usability praised (TFT clarity/brightness; radar described as excellent).
  26. Shaft drive reduces maintenance, but replacement cost is the major warning.
  27. Criticisms: price/value, missing standard hard luggage, aggressive posture, windshield adjustment, mirrors.
  28. Cross-model comparisons across BMW RT/GS/R/ XR and sport-touring rivals.

Speaker note

  • Subtitles show one primary speaker, providing most comparisons, ride impressions, and critiques (no clearly distinct additional reviewer voices).

Original video