Triumph`s New Tiger 800XC vs. BMW`s F800GS

Triumph`s New Tiger 800XC vs. BMW`s F800GS

Model Comparison
Triumph’s New Tiger 800XC vs. BMW’s F800GS
by Dave Searle & Scott Rousseau
T
RIUMPH TELLS Us it began work on the new mid-size Tiger
in 2007. For reference, this is the same year the BMW
F800GS was first revealed at the Milan EICMA Show,
where it met with enormous enthusiasm, so the impetus for the
Tiger’s creation is unlikely to be a coincidence. Although the
F800GS didn’t make it stateside until 2009, making the Tiger’s
likeness seem less like a copy, in 2011 with both bikes side-byside, it’s obvious that Triumph has made a serious effort to duplicate the essential look of the F800GS in the Tiger 800, right down
to detail styling licks like the folds in its windshield. As a result,
when riding the two machines, they feel so much alike that choosing between them can be a matter of splitting hairs. Of course,
powered by a three-cylinder engine, as opposed to the BMW’s
parallel twin, the Tiger has a distinctive character, but the BMW
has clearly formed a template for Triumph’s engineers. In fact,
with the benefit of hindsight and the impressions of the world’s
motorcycle press as a critique of the BMW’s strengths and weaknesses, Triumph should have been expected to produce a superior
product. But has it? That’s the question we’ll try to answer.
The Defending Champion
Essentially alone in its class until the Tiger appeared, the F800GS
made a very attractive adventure bike. When riding off-road as
“adventure-touring” implies, weight really matters, every pound
increasing rider effort and making the penalty for imprecise lines
greater. So the fact that the F800GS was 30 lbs. lighter than KTM’s
svelte 990 Adventure and 56 lbs. less than its burly boxer brother,
the R1200GS, was very significant. Also, compared to the air-cooled
R1200GS with its protruding cylinder heads, the liquid-cooled
800GS motor is very slim and tidy, enabling it to fit through narrow
gaps in terrain that would present an obstacle to its big brother.
Although it would never be able to duplicate the amazing versatility of the R1200GS, which can double as a very comfortable
high–speed sport-touring mount, the F800GS fills an important
dual-sport niche between BMW’s 650cc singles and the GS boxers.
The Challenger
The Tiger 800 motor, although based on the 675 triples that
power the Daytona 675 and Street Triple road-only models, is
12
AUGUST 2011
●
MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS
85% all-new. Added stroke ups its displacement to 799cc, while
the motor is retuned to provide more low- and mid-range power
than the 675 models at the expense of their high-winding rpm. The
motor is carried in a steel tube chassis that’s reminiscent of the
F800GS and the model is sold in two separate variations; a street
version with a 19" front tire, slightly different ergonomics and
shorter suspension travel (just like BMW’s oddly named 798cc
F650GS) and the Tiger 800XC (tested here) with a 21" front
wheel and longer travel. See our sidebar on the standard
Tiger 800, which was very impressive in its own right at the
Tigers’ official intro in the San Diego mountains.
Motors—Tie
The F800GS motor is based on the clever Rotax-built 798cc
parallel twin first used in BMW’s F800S and ST models. Using
a dummy connecting rod for clatter-free counterbalancing, the
motor makes the same even-fire soundtrack as the bigger boxer
engines in a very compact package. Torquey and smooth running below about 75 mph, beyond those speeds the engine will
produce enough vibration that buzzing in the handlebars
will eventually detract from rider comfort.
Doing much more than simply plugging an existing motor
into a different body style, BMW retuned the twin’s powerband
for greater mid-range with shorter duration cams and rearranged the engine’s cylinder angle specifically for the GS
application; lifting the cylinders back from a 30° forward tilt to
just 8.3° inclination to provide clearance for a 21" front wheel.
Naturally an all-new exhaust system was part of the package,
and while the official 85 hp rating of the motor’s output had
not changed, our dyno testing found a noticeable difference at
the rear wheel—the GS making less power and torque: 74.22 hp
and 50.98 lb.-ft. vs. 79.0 hp and 55.4 lb.-ft. in the F800ST
(tested Sept. 2007).
Using a bore and stroke of 82.0mm x 75.6mm, the motor features finger followers between the cams and lifters for greater
durability, so that valve lash checks are needed only every
20,000 miles. This actuation system also allows tight included
valve angles for an very efficient combustion chamber shape. To
make full use of its fuel, BMW’s BMS-K fuel injection uses
knock-sensors together with a high 12.0:1 compression ratio,
and our gas mileage numbers this time nearly equalled those of
our last F800GS, with an average of 52.7 mpg (vs. 53.0 previously) when ridden hard in a variety of conditions on paved
roads—which is excellent. Off-road, it averaged 48.5 mpg, and
with a 4.2 gal. gastank, it should be able to handle 200-mile
distances even in the dirt.
Throttle response and driveability are generally very good
except for low rpm when the on/off transitions are abrupt, which
is a noticeable liability when picking your way through rock gardens. The rest of the time, its behavior is hard to fault, backed with
a growling exhaust note that reinforces the impression of seamless torque delivery. The rev-limiter intervenes at 8900 rpm, and
although the dyno chart reveals a slightly lumpy power and torque
delivery, these fluctuations aren’t noticeable when riding.
The F800GS’ Rotax-built transmission is one of BMW’s best
gearboxes. Shifting up or down requires only light effort, and the
ratios seem ideal on the street. Off-road, there was some disagreement as the lower gears were more widely spaced than the Tiger’s.
Backed with a cable-operated clutch which has a reach-adjustable
lever, we found the clutch can be feathered when necessary to
soften the motor’s abrupt low-speed power delivery without
undue hand fatigue.
The Tiger’s 800 motor, as mentioned, is 85% all-new. The
clutch assembly is a carry-over, the valve sizes and head casting
are the same but the combustion chambers are machined to give
a lower compression ratio (reduced from the Street Triple’s
12.65:1 to 11.1:1 on the Tiger). The cylinder liners and pistons are
also new, although they are the same bore size, and its new connecting rods are the same length as before. All the gear ratios
except for second are brand-new as well. The throttle bodies are
the same 44mm sizes, and Keihin continues to supply the fuel
injection, although a new higher-capacity fuel rail handles the
extra volume needed by the larger motor, and a new idle module
was required to make it idle properly.
Already a marvel of compact power in its 675cc configuration, a new crankshaft adds 9.6mm of stroke (now 61.9mm), combining with the same 74.0mm bore dimension to give a 799cc
displacement. The cam timing is changed as well, with slightly
lower lift and much shorter duration on the intakes for more lowand mid-range power, while the exhaust cam gives the same lift
and almost as much duration as the Street Triple. The end result
is 81.13 rear wheel hp @ 9900 rpm with 48.52 lb.-ft. of torque @
8000 rpm, rev-limited at 9900 rpm. Compare this with the Street
Triple’s much higher state of tune; 92.24 rwhp @ 11,750 rpm
with 44.25 lb.-ft. @ 8250 rpm and a 12,200 rpm limiter.
The three-cylinder motor is very smooth running and offers
an elastic, tractable pull that works well both in the dirt and on the
street. Although it doesn’t quite match the BMW twin for lowand mid-range torque, it has 1000 more rpm available, which
provides a 6.91 hp advantage vs. the Beemer while giving up
2.46 lb.-ft. in peak torque. Over the road, in a side-by-side race,
the two run almost dead even, and our quarter-mile times were
extremely close, the BMW’s extra torque giving it a hair quicker
0-60 mph time: 3.94 sec. to the Tiger’s 4.08 sec., an advantage it
held to the end of the quarter-mile; the BMW recording a 12.10
sec. @ 108.76 mph run to the Tiger’s best of 12.19 sec. @ 108.72
mph. They don’t get much closer than that.
Also, the way the Tiger’s motor is mounted in its chassis is
different. Unlike the Street Triple and similar to a motocrosser
(and the F800GS), the Tiger has its swingarm pivot running
through the back of its crankcase, minimizing the distance
between the output sprocket and pivot shaft to improve suspension action and reduce chain slack variations with its long-travel
suspension. Other changes include reverting to an oil sight glass
in the crankcase and eliminating the dipstick.
If the Tiger’s delightful triple has any downsides, two are worthy of mention. One is a disappointing tendency to stall unexpectedly when first given gas from a stop. Although it only
happens maybe once in ten times, that’s often enough that you
STANDARD TIGER 800
At the Tiger’s San Diego intro, we had the chance to try both the Tiger XC
and the standard Tiger 800. With a 110/90ZR19 front tire (vs. a 90/9021 on the XC) for more front grip, shorter, non-adjustable suspension
(travel 7.09" front/6.69" rear vs. 8.66" front/8.46" rear on the XC), the
standard model sits lower on slightly altered steering geometry and
wears a lower, narrower, more backswept handlebar (31.3" vs. 34" wide).
With the same motor, same awesome brakes and slick transmission,
the standard Tiger 800 is a twisty road terror. Its comfy upright riding
position, excellent torque and traction feel when both accelerating and
braking make it a spectacular sportbike for asphalt addicts.
Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM
●
AUGUST 2011
13
Model Comparison
roads at the same speeds. In the dirt, where the Tiger could be
lugged smoothly at lower rpm, the gas mileage difference
wasn’t as dramatic, the Triumph achieving 44.3 mpg to the
BMW’s 48.5 mpg. But, unlike the BMW twin, vibration is never
an issue with the Triumph triple.
Suspensions & Chassis Geometry—Tiger 1st, GS 2nd
soon find yourself attempting to compensate by giving the engine
gas and then waiting a moment or two to verify it won’t stall
before letting out the clutch. As the idle system is a new one, we
suspect this is the source of the glitch and anticipate a remapping
will be needed to correct the problem.
The second issue is more subjective: an irritating exhaust sound.
While it makes the typical diesel-like whirring that we expect and
enjoy from a Triumph triple, once hot, it also makes a distracting
pinging noise that we compare to pennies dropping into a coffee
can. With earplugs in place, you barely notice it, but some riders
complained vigorously at the new-model intro, so we shouldn’t
discount its effect on sensitive ears. Asked for an explanation, we
were told that because the catalytic convertor, where the noise originates, is directly under the engine, it’s more noticeable than when
it emanates from an under-seat muffler, behind the rider. Also, that
the sound results from a lean-burn mode built into the bike’s emission system that would otherwise require a complicated system of
hoses and valves that would add weight and expense to the motor.
None of MCN’s testers were put off by the Triumph’s sound,
but that doesn’t mean you’ll feel the same. Make sure you hear
it before you buy. We should also note that a majority of the
Tigers at the intro were equipped with the optional Arrow slipon exhaust, a much lighter $500 option. The Arrow exhaust also
made this same pinging, and the difference in sound output vs.
the stocker was barely noticeable. However, the Arrow slip-on
also contains a removable outlet restrictor that, if removed (and
a new engine control map uploaded to the CPU), will add
several hp as well as decibels.
Transmissions—Tie
Both the machines have exceptional transmissions, which
offer low effort and slick engagements. Splitting hairs, we found
the Triumph’s shift lever throw slightly shorter and its shift
lever slightly longer, fitting our boots a bit better. Other than that,
differences in their action are really too close to call.
Although the F800GS shares the same gearbox ratios as the
F800ST, it uses steeper 1:2.64 final drive sprockets (vs. the ST’s
1:2.35), so it spins a little faster at any given speed, turning 4300
rpm at a true 65 mph in top gear. But as the GS’ engine vibration
becomes noticeable at higher speeds, we feel a taller sixth gear
would be beneficial.
The Triumph, as mentioned, has new ratios on five of its six
transmission gears, only second gear unchanged from its Street
Triple cogs. Its ratio spreads worked very well both on the street
and on the dirt. Not surprisingly, the higher winding triple spins
faster than the GS twin at a true 65 mph in top; 4490 rpm. This
fact, plus the extra friction in a motor with 50% more reciprocating parts should account for the difference in fuel mileage we
noted; the BMW was superior, with an excellent average mpg
of 52.7 to the Triumph’s 45.6 mpg when ridden over the same
14
AUGUST 2011
●
MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS
To make a 500-lb. dual-sport manageable off-road requires
excellent suspension, and both these machines deliver the goods.
The BMW wears a Marzocchi fork and a Sachs monoshock and
has a touch more travel than the Triumph’s Showa components
at both ends: 9.0" front/8.5" rear to the Tiger’s 8.66" front/8.46"
rear. However, in a triumph (pun intended) of quality over
quantity, we give the Tiger a clear edge in suspension, both on and
off the road. Neither bike has an adjustable fork, so the stock
settings have to be perfect. Alas, with what feels like slightly too
soft springs and more compression damping than necessary, the
BMW’s front end is just a bit less compliant and offers less feel
for traction.
In back, both machines wear adjustable monoshocks with
handly external knob-controlled hydraulic preload and screwadjusted rebound adjustability. The Triumph’s Showa shock
includes a large remote reservoir, which should improve its stamina in terms of resisting damping degradation on long off-road
sections, and again we favored the Triumph’s rear suspension
action. But the difference is not dramatic, and we were very
pleased with the BMW until we rode the two back to back.
But don’t imagine that the Tiger simply copies the GS’s chassis geometry, as Triumph clearly has its own ideas in this regard,
the Brits typically giving us very fine handling machines with
less rake and trail than average. The Tiger is no exception, using
figures of 23.1° of rake with 3.59" of trail, to the BMW’s
26.0° and 4.6" of trail. The wheelbase numbers are nearly equal,
however, the Tiger at 61.7" and the GS at 62.1".
Because a longer swingarm assists the effectiveness of a bike’s
rear suspension action, we thought we’d note their respective
swingarm lengths as well. The Tiger’s swingarm is 25.25" from
pivot to axle and GS measures 24.0". In practice, both bikes
deliver good traction over rough ground without encountering
the “tramping” action (rear axle hop) that often interferes with
off-road drive when a too short swingarm or high unsprung weight
resists keeping the tire in contact with the ground.
Also, on the subject of geometry, our scales also noted a significant difference in weight distribution as well, the Tiger with
49.8% of the total on its front wheel (without the rider) compared
to 47.5% for the GS. While the BMW’s figure is more typical of
a dual-sport, and it is willing to change direction quickly in the
dirt, it’s our judgement that both on the road and in the dirt, the
Tiger gives a more planted front end feel, a better sense of front
end traction and exhibits better straight-line stability.
A full range of accessories are offered and available now, ranging
from engine guards ($199.99), a bash plate ($199.99), a tank bag
($139.99), saddlebags ($799.99), top trunk ($399.99) and mount
($149.99), halogen fog lights ($329.99), headlight shield
($79.95), a centerstand ($219.99), a gel seat ($149.99), heated
grips ($229.99), a windshield rake adjuster ($59.99) and more.
Brakes, Wheels & Tires—Tiger 1st, GS 2nd
Braking is the other category where the Tiger displayed a clear
advantage over the GS. By all appearances, the equipment is top
quality on both; Brembo components on the BMW, and Nissin on
the Triumph, so you’d imagine equal performance. Although
ABS is an option on both machines, most BMWs you’ll find in
dealers’ showrooms are equipped with ABS and stripped down
models are rare if not unobtainable. We made sure our Tiger was
equipped with ABS for comparison purposes, but we wouldn’t be
surprised if the majority sold are not equipped with ABS.
The GS’ ABS can easily be deactivated in two seconds via a
convenient button located on the left switchgear housing. Likewise, the Triumph’s ABS can also be deactivated by toggling
through the various features on its multi-function LCD instrument panel, and while it’s easy enough to do, it takes much longer
and can be a hassle when stopping and restarting the XC frequently, as one might when engaged in off-road exploration.
Since both the Triumph and the BMW automatically default back
into ABS mode whenever the ignition key is turned off, those
wanting to keep the ABS turned off on the XC will quickly learn
to leave its key in the “on” position when dismounting and
remounting (leaving the headlight burning, draining the battery).
Surprisingly, both bikes recorded virtually identical stopping
performances during our braking drills in both ABS and nonABS distances—although the numbers don’t tell the whole story.
In ABS mode, the BMW required 127.2' to stop from 60 mph, and
the Triumph 128.4'. Without ABS, the Triumph turned the tables,
stopping in just 117.3' to the BMW’s 118.1'. Call it even, but the
superority of the XC’s dual 308mm floating rotors with Nissin
two-piston calipers manifested itself in the form of a smoother,
more linear feel at the lever, matched by a similar feel from its rear
215mm rotor and single-piston caliper. Despite its Adventureclass leanings, the XC’s brakes offer sportbike-style performance
but with less initial bite, although MCN tester Danny Coe reported
that they gained a little more bite once they heated up a bit. In
either case, initiating smooth, consistent stopping action required
little more than a single finger’s pressure on the front brake lever.
The only complaint was of a slight high-frequency vibration in the
Tiger’s front brakes during ABS activation.
The BMW’s brakes drew mixed reviews from our testers. The
GS is equipped with dual 300mm floating front rotors clamped by
Brembo’s generally excellent four-piston calipers, and a 265mm
rotor with a single-piston caliper out back. While the hard data
suggests that they perform similarly to the Triumph’s, the reality
is that the BMW’s brakes aren’t as user-friendly. Initial bite is
strong, but the GS lacks the immediate response and linear feel
of the XC when the front brake lever is squeezed, and the rear
brake only adds to the sensation, thanks to its rangy pedal travel.
Because of this, some testers found the rear brake tricky to modulate without inadvertently locking the rear wheel. The disparity
was less clear-cut off-road, however, as one tester actually preferred the GS’ brakes to the XC’s when the ABS on both was
deactivated, while another felt that the XC’s brakes were more
effective in the dirt than the GS’ brakes when both were in ABS
mode. Overall, though, the Triumph’s more sensitive feel trumps
the BMW’s strong-but-delayed bite in most conditions.
Both machines sport premium rubber on 21" front and 19"
spoked rear wheels befitting their adventurous intentions. The
Triumph rides on Bridgestone Battlewings, a 90/90-21 front
and 150/70ZR17 rear, and the BMW wears identically sized
Pirelli Scorpion Trials. The only noteworthy difference is that
the Triumph’s front rim is slightly wider than the BMW’s, measuring 2.50" x 21" whereas the GS uses a 2.15" x 21" commonly
found on the front of modern 250cc-450cc dirtbikes. That may
sound like a slight difference, but the Tiger’s wider front hoop
certainly contributes to the stable, planted feel of its front end.
Of course, as you can see in our photos, we opted for more
hard-core dual-sport tires for the majority of our testing, as we
weren’t confident that we’d be able to fully experience either
bike’s off-road capabilities with stock tires. With their aggressive off-road oriented tread pattern, Continental’s TKC 80s
were more than up to the task (see Sidebar, page 17).
Ergonomics—Tiger 1st, GS 2nd
With the luxury of time to study the assets and liabilities of
the F800GS, Triumph engineers were able to tweak the Tiger’s
ergonomics for maximum comfort, giving it the nod in the category. For starters, the Tiger comes standard with a two-position
seat, allowing it to be tailored to a wider range of rider inseams.
The GS is available with two different seat heights at the time of
purchase, but the buyer must decide on one seat and stick with it—
or purchase another seat. Set in the lower position, our Tiger’s seat
height was a comfortable 33.5", while the GS checked in at a
taller 34.25" with its low seat. Tilting the ergo category even
80.10 hp
74.21 hp
•
•
50.67 lb.-ft.
•
•
48.51 lb.-ft.
Comparative Dyno Chart—The Tiger in blue and the GS in red
Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM
●
AUGUST 2011
15
Model Comparison
more in the Triumph’s favor, the Tiger’s
seat offers a flatter dish and more
rounded contours than the BMW’s,
which has a smaller main saddle area and
sharp edges that can become uncomfortable on longer rides.
Adding to its adjustability, the XC’s
handlebar clamps feature a 9mm offset,
so they can be installed in two different
positions. Our test unit featured the handlebars in the rearward position, but flipping the clamps to the forward position
would net an additional 18mm of cockpit room to better accommodate a larger
rider’s arms and torso—a nice touch.
Wind protection is another area
where the Triumph scores. Neither
machine features an adjustable screen,
making height, width and positioning
all the more important. The XC’s
screen is slightly taller, wider and more
upright than the GS’, making it more
efficient at directing air away from the
rider. Not that the GS’ screen is unnecessarily turbulent or inadequate, but the
Triumph’s screen offers a noticeably cleaner windlblast.
The BMW almost makes up all of the Triumph’s advantages
in the dirt, however. Its wide handlebar features an ideal bend
for off-road riding, and its cockpit layout is much more
conducive to standing up, which can be a real benefit over rough
terrain since it allows the rider to absorb some of the bumps with
his or her legs.
The Triumph favors a seated position off-road. When the rider
stands up on the pegs, the Triumph’s handlebars are situated too
low in the ergonomic triangle, limiting upper body freedom when
standing. Although its handlebars are graduated, so they could
be rotated forward to improve the rider’s body position when
standing, the tradeoff is that the bars would likely be angled too
far forward for smaller riders in the seated position even if the
handlebar clamps were offset to the rear. The bars also have a
narrow feel that hampers leverage, while the XC’s gastank
imparts a wide feel through the middle when trying to shift your
weight forward while standing.
Riding Impression—Tie
Our test schedule included a glorious day on the routes that run over
scenic Palomar Mountain, home of
the famous Palomar Mountain Observatory, near San Diego, California.
Our ride included two-lane highway
to and from our home base at Lake
Henshaw, rippled pavement on the
mountainous Palomar Divide Road,
and various fire roads on the mountain itself—just the place for a comparison of these two Middleweight
Adventure machines. With temperatures in the low 70s F and not a breath
of wind, conditions were ideal, and
that made it all the more difficult to
find fault with either bike.
Of the two, the Tiger 800XC is
clearly the more street-oriented. Its
lightning quick throttle response and
16
AUGUST 2011
●
MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS
willingness to rev quickly make it an
absolute joy on twisty pavement. And,
with ample torque to fire out of slower
corners and plenty of top-end performance, it may just be our new favorite
Triumph engine—although it seems
like we say that every time a new
Hinckley model breaks cover.
The BMW possesses its own engine
character. Its power delivery is more
abrupt, and its vibration level becomes
unsatisfactory about the time its
tachometer needle touches 5000 rpm.
In the dirt, though, the BMW’s slowerrevving nature is welcome, as it can be
revved to good effect without fear of
excessive or uncontrollable wheelspin,
something the Triumph simply can’t do.
The XC is much more manageable
when the rider keeps the revs low, rides
it in a taller gear and maintains a conservative pace. This will usually keep its
excellent-feeling suspension in the
sweet spot, leaving the rider free to
enjoy the scenery.
BMW describes the GS as 60% dirt and 40% street, and we’d
have to agree. The GS has a light, rugged and racy feel in the
dirt, and equipped with good dual-sport or off-road tires, we have
no doubt that it would be capable of tackling harsh desert terrain.
Instruments & Controls—Tiger 1st, GS 2nd
Despite the aforementioned complication associated with disabling its ABS, the Triumph Tiger 800XC’s instrumentation offers
excellent functionality and is much easier to decipher than the
BMW F800GS’ dash. The Tiger’s speedometer readout is digital,
making it very easy to read how fast you’re going on or off the
road. The BMW F800GS features a 150 mph analog speedometer with very small numbers that make it difficult to read no matter where you are. Offset to the right of the instrument panel, the
Triumph’s large-faced tachometer is also much easier to read than
the smaller tachometer crammed just below the speedometer on the
BMW, and the Triumph’s features large buttons on the left side of
the panel that make it easier to toggle through its various trip functions, all of them standard unlike
the BMW, whose base price doesn’t
even include a gas gauge (our test
unit came optioned).
Both machines offer adjusters on
their front brake levers, but the Triumph’s more common rotary-style
adjuster can easily be changed on
the fly. Located on the backside of
the lever close to the pivot, the
BMW’s adjuster is small and hard
to rotate when motoring. The GS
also has an adjuster on its clutch
lever. The XC doesn’t.
Attention To Detail—Tiger 1st,
GS 2nd
Both of these machines offer
many of the same amenities that are
compulsory in the Adventure category, such as effective windscreens,
serrated footpegs with removable
rubber inserts and convenient auxiliary power ports located next
to their ignition switches to facilitate the use of a GPS or other
accessories. But there are subtle differences that favor the Triumph in this category: The Tiger’s more powerful 645W alternator allows more options than the BMW’s 400W unit, and in
addition to its nicely designed two-position saddle and more readable instrumentation, the XC comes standard with high-impact
poly resin handguards and a rear rack. The Triumph also looks
more like a dirtbike than the BMW, thanks to its black tank and
radiator guards, which we can confirm are plenty tough, after a
tipover in the dirt when the XC stalled just as we were trying to
get underway. Had a similar incident happened to the white
painted radiator covers on the GS, the end result would have been
far more unsightly and certainly more expensive to repair.
Of course, styling details are mostly subjective, but we still
favor the Tiger 800 XC’s symmetrical dual headlights over the
F800GS’ asymmetrical headlight design. BMW claims that the
shapes are a straightforward reflection of the lights separate functions, but whether or not that’s significant, it doesn’t mean the GS’
odd-shaped headlights are any easier to get used to, even now.
Value—Tiger 1st, GS 2nd
Value is determined by measuring a motorcycle’s performance
relative to its MSRP and comparing the result with other bikes in
its class. As Triumphs have a reputation for delivering extremely
high performance at an affordable MSRP while BMWs are wellknown for premium pricing, we expected the Tiger 800XC to
win the Value category hands down, but its advantage is smaller
CONTINENTAL TKC 80 TIRES
Picking the appropriate tire for an Adventure bike is always a
tricky proposition. The weight of the bike and the intended terrain are critical. Don’t bother with a knobby if you’re not planning
to use the tire off-road at least half the time, and if you want to
ride surfaces rougher than a smooth dirt road, you don’t want
anything less than knobs to give you the grip you need.
Previous experience convinced us the Continental TKC 80 Twinduro would be right for these heavy dual-sports. Standard equipment on the big BMW R1200GS Adventure and the KTM 690
Enduro R, the TKC 80 tires have proven very popular.
Designed in collaboration with Richard Schalber, German offroad ace and five-time Enduro World Champion, the TKC 80s
were designed specifically for the big BMW GS machines. With
than we anticipated. The Tiger 800XC’s $10,999 base MSRP is
only $456 less expensive than the $11,455 base MSRP for the
F800GS, but adding ABS jacks up the price of both machines. As
tested, our Tiger retails for $11,799, while our optioned (Standard
Package) BMW retails for $12,900, for a difference of $1101.
That’s not insignificant, although the GS’ Standard Package price
includes BMW’s excellent heated grips. Adding heated grips to
the Tiger will set you back an additional $299.99, narrowing the
price gap between the two machines to just over $800. Then
again, the base Triumph already includes handguards and a rear
rack, and the BMW doesn’t, even at the higher price.
Overall—Tiger 1st, GS 2nd
Choosing a winner here is difficult. Prospective adventure riders considering either of these two machines are going to have to
stare into the mirror and decide what kind of riders they are to
determine which of these two machines will best suit them. If
you enjoy marathon rides on long—and preferably twisty—
stretches of open road, and you want to throw in more than a few
dirt fireroads for fun, then the Triumph Tiger 800XC is a clear
winner. For others, whose riding style emphasizes prowling the
untamed wilderness, the BMW F800GS may be worth a good,
hard look.
Even so, at the end of the day there’s no denying that the Tiger
800XC is the more polished machine here. In their first try,
Triumph engineers went to school on the class leader, did their
homework and produced a bike that offers the better compromise. Bravo, Triumph!
a widely spaced tread blocks and slightly shorter than average
knobs, they handle the weight without squirming.
On the street, the TKC 80’s handling and cornering abilities are
surprisingly good for such an aggressive design and the ride
quality is remarkable. In the dirt, the tires have excellent grip
and directional stability and plenty of traction on loose and rocky
surfaces. Sand is never much fun on a heavy dual-sport, but the
TKC 80s are also good on the soft stuff.
Developed particularly for softer terrain, the rubber compound
is on the harder side, so it tends to last fairly well in combination
street/dirt use, and 4000-5000 miles would be a fair estimate of
their tread life.
If making a big street-biased dual-sport into a more capable offroader is your goal, we think the Continental TKC 80 Twinduro
tires are an excellent choice.
Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM
●
AUGUST 2011
17
Model Comparison
Left: The Tiger holds more
fuel but gets less mpg for
approximately equal
range with the GS. We
really like its ergonomics
on the road or seated offroad, but the handlebar is
too low for a good standing position, and some
complained that the rear
of the tank interfered with
body positioning. New
bars would be an easy fix.
Right: A two-position rider’s seat is
standard (shown here in the lower setting). All testers agreed the Tiger’s saddle was superior to the BMW’s. Note,
too, that the Tiger includes a rear rack
as standard, an option on the GS.
Like the GS, rubber pads on the rider’s
footpegs are removeable for a cleated
surface off-road.
Above: The Tiger’s digital speedo is
much easier to read at a glance than
the GS’ 150 mph analog clock. Fully
featured with a gas gauge at no extra
charge (unlike the BMW), our only
gripe was the hassle of turning off
the Tiger’s ABS with a lot of info
scrolling each time we started the
engine when riding off-road.
Left: Triumph’s very compact triple delivers
smooth power from much lower rpm and its
Keihin fuel injection provides superior driveability
than the F800GS twin. The bottom placement of
the catalytic convertor reduces ground clearance,
which could be a worry over very rocky terrain.
Right: The Triumph’s brakes are decisively better
than the BMW’s, with much better feel and no
delay between application and slowing. The
Tiger’s Showa suspension, while giving a fraction
less travel, more than makes up for the deficit
with quality, offering better feel and compliance.
Like the BMW, the XC’s forks are nonadjustable.
TESTERS’ LOG
Triumph knew exactly what it had to beat, and the two bikes
are so close in character, despite their different engine configurations, that the contest was obviously going to be a tough call.
Acceleration, braking and top speed were almost identical, yet
the BMW, with less top end power, had the edge—a matter of
gearing and 13.5 lbs. less weight to haul, apparently.
Over the road, I was quicker on the Triumph, and found myself
charging deeper into turns as I had such good control over the
brakes, while the machine’s slightly lower CofG gave it sportier
handling. In the dirt, everything was magnified. I could clearly
sense that the Tiger carried 18 lbs. more weight on its front
wheel, and that made it friendlier to my riding style—smooth and
flowing. The suspension helped its fine feel, too, and although
the BMW’s didin’t feel bad by any means, the Tiger’s was just a
little better. Lastly, its driveability was a big plus for the Tiger.
I learned to gear up and let the engine torque its way forward,
strong and controllable. A more aggressive rider might not agree,
but the Tiger is my favorite.
—Dave Searle
18
AUGUST 2011
●
MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS
With one memorable exception, I’ve never met a Hinckley Triumph without some redeeming quality, and although the Tiger
800XC isn’t my favorite of the two motorcycles here, it is certainly worthy of praise. I’ll even concede that it’s the better
streetbike of the two. On the street, I dig the seamless power of
its stroker triple, and its supple Showa suspension boasts spoton damping rates. That suspension quality is virtuous in the
dirt, too, especially over harsh low-speed hits. The Triumph’s
seat is also more comfortable than the BMW’s.
The Triumph comes up short for me in the dirt, though. Compared to the BMW, it feels wide, heavy and resistant to quick
direction changes at speed, its engine isn’t nearly as tractable
for the type of off-road action I enjoy, and it lacks suspension
travel. Its low, narrow handlebar also doesn’t afford enough leverage in rough or loose terrain. Changing to an off-road handlebar
bend would help, but the Tiger 800XC still doesn’t mix nearly
enough dirtworthiness into its recipe for my taste.
—Scott Rousseau
2011Triumph Tiger 800XC
SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA
ENGINE
PERFORMANCE
Type: ..liquid-cooled four-stroke triple
Valvetrain: .......... DOHC, 4 valves/cyl.,
shim under bucket valve adjustment
Displacement: ..........................799cc
Bore/stroke: ................74.0 x 61.9mm
Comp. ratio: ............................11.1:1
Fueling: ..............EFI with three 44mm
throttle bodies
Exhaust: ................3-into-1 w/catalyst
Measured top speed ......129.0 mph
0–1/4 mile ..................12.19 sec.
@ 108.72 mph
0–60 mph ....................4.08 sec.
0–100 mph..................10.56 sec.
60–0 mph (w/ABS)..............128.4'
Power/Weight Ratio ..........1: 6.20
Speed @ 65 mph indicated......61.5
DRIVE TRAIN
MC RATING SYSTEM
Transmission: ......................6-speed
Final drive: ......................X-ring chain
RPM @ 65*mph/rev-limiter ..4490/9900
*Actual, not indicatedAIN
70.0"
32.5"
33.5"
D
E
50.6"
:
:
FUEL
Tank capacity: ........................5.0 gal.
Fuel grade: .......... 91 octane premium
High/low/avg.mpg: ......51.7/39.5/44.3
:
:
:
Vertical (ground to)
F: Handlebar (center). G: Rider footpeg
(top). H: Rider seat
(lowest point).
I: Passenger peg
(top). J: Passenger
seat (middle).
OVERALL RATING
J
::::;
:::::
DYNAMOMETER DATA
Low end
Mid-range
Top end
::::.
::::.
::::.
With a stroke that’s
9.6mm larger than its
Daytona 675 sibling and
serious retuning for lowend torque, the Tiger
800XC’s triple thrills us
with its silky yet brawny
powerband and its ability
to rev. Just another hallmark triple from Triumph!
TEST NOTES
PICKS
Lower seat height and superior on-road ergonomics
Smooth motor and slick transmission
Excellent suspension and brakes (including ABS)
PANS
Less ground clearance for off-road work
Less steering lock for tight maneuvering
Handlebars are too low for a good standing position
80.10 hp
•
•
48.51 lb.-ft.
SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT.
:
:::::
–– Middleweight Adventure –
::::;
Engine
:::::
:::::
Transmission
:::::
:::::
Suspension
:::::
:::::
Brakes
:::::
::::;
Handling
:::::
::::;
Ergonomics
:::::
::::.
Riding Impression
:::::
Instruments/Controls :::::
:::::
::::;
Attention to Detail
:::::
::::.
Value
:::::
SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER
ELECTRICS
HI
37.75"
C
Front:..45mm Showa male-slider fork,
F
G
8.66" travel
Rear: ............Showa remote reservoir
MISCELLANEOUS
monoshock, adj. preload and rebound
damping, 8.46" travel Instruments: ........LCD digital speedo,
odometer, 2 tripmeters, low fuel
BRAKES
mileage countdown, clock, race timer.
Front: .... Dual Nissin 2-piston floating Indicators: ........ hi-beam, t/s, neutral,
calipers, twin 308 x 4.0mm discs, ABS
coolant temp, low fuel, check engine,
Rear: ..............................215mm disc,
MSRP: ..................................$10,999
single-piston Nissin caliper, ABS
Price as tested:......................$11,799
Routine service interval ........3000 mi.
TIRES & WHEELS
Front: ....90/90-21 Bridgestone Battle- Valve adj. interval:....................26,600
wing M/C 54W on 2.50" x 21" wheel Warranty: ........1 year, unlimited miles
Rear: 150/70ZR17 Bridgestone Battle- Colors: Phantom Black, Crystal White,
wing M/C 69Von 4.25" x 17" wheel Intense Orange
Battery:..............................12V, 14 Ah
Ignition: Computer mapped electronic
Alternator Output: ...... 645W nominal
Headlight: ..............................55/60W
Horizontal (nose
to) A: Passenger seat
(middle). B: Rider
seat (middle).
C: Handgrip (center).
D: Passenger footpeg
(center). E: Rider
footpeg (center).
55.8"
19.75"
SUSPENSION
A
B
14.0"
Wheelbase: ................................61.7"
Rake/trail ..........................23.1°/3.59"
Ground clearance: ........................8.5"
Seat height :........................33.5/35.3"
GVWR: ..................................966 lbs.
Wet weight: ......................503.0 lbs.
Carrying capacity: ..................463 lbs.
ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE
44.25"
DIMENSIONS
EXCELLENT
VERY GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
RPM, THOUSANDS
STANDARD MAINTENANCE
Time
Parts
Labor
Item
Oil & Filter ................0.6............$63.00+$13.34 $48.00
Air Filter....................1.5 ..........$28.80 ........$120.00
Valve Adjust..............4.0 ........$132.90 ........$320.00
Battery Access ..........0.3 ............MF ..............$24.00
Final Drive ................0.3 ................................$24.00
R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.6 ................................$48.00
Change Plug ............2.0 ..........$42.51 ........$160.00
Adjust EFI ................0.5 ................................$40.00
Totals
9.8
$280.55
$784.00
* MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007
Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM
●
AUGUST 2011
19
Model Comparison
Left: BMW’s F800GS paint schemes
have changed over the years. The
lower panels were once black, but
have now been made body-colored,
for a stronger resemblance to the
799cc F650GS, but which will make
off-road tipovers more noticeable.
The strong twin-cylinder motor
remains unchanged, still with abrupt
throttle response at low rpm, which
hurts off-road use unless the rider is
very experienced and aggressive. On
the road, this flaw is hard to notice.
Top: The F800GS’ instruments are
harder to read at a glance than the
Tiger’s and you must pay extra to get
a gas gauge. However, the GS’ ABS is
easier to disengage for dirt riding.
The windshield is also lower than the
Triumph’s, giving less protection.
The GS’ handlebar is much higher
and better for a standing position,
however—a big advantage off-road.
Bottom: BMW has finally made the
decision to convert its handlebar
switches to the conventional type.
However, existing models like the
F800GS may have to wait their turn.
Its turnsignals still use the left and
right side signal buttons with rightside cancel and the odd lift instead
of push horn button. We won’t miss
them when they are all gone.
Above: All testers agreed the GS seat is
less comfortable than the Tiger’s. Sharp
outer edges cut into the thighs and its
height is not adjustable—the rider can
choose high or low seats at purchase time.
Right: The GS’ suspension lost to the
Tiger’s for quality, if not quantity; losing
out for both its feel and compliance.
BMW’s brakes also come up short to the
Tiger’s with an odd delay in engagement
and an overly sensitive rear disc.
TESTERS’ LOG
I had an epic off-road ride at the F800GS’ Moab intro, so I was
skeptical that Triumph had built a better 800cc dual-sport.
On the street, the two seemed almost perfectly matched, but
once in the dirt, the subtlties of their weight distribution, steering geometry and power delivery set them distinctly apart.
The BMW sounds great, and if it were up to my ears to decide
the contest, the GS would win. But it still has very sudden throttle response from plonking rpm, making me work harder, constantly feathering the clutch, to be smooth at low speeds. Also,
the bike feels taller and heavier, even though it’s lighter—due to
a taller center of gravity.
It also feels less steady on soft ground, hunting from side-toside, where the Tiger is steady (riding on the same tires).
But where I noticed the greatest difference was on the brakes,
the GS with a tentative feel and what seems like a second of
delay between my squeeze and any slowing—sapping confidence.
And that’s probably not something that can be fixed, but a characteristic of the ABS. I was surprised, but ultimately convinced,
the GS comes in second for me.
—Dave Searle
20
AUGUST 2011
●
MOTORCYCLE CONSUMER NEWS
The F800GS is still the king of the 800cc Adventure class in
my book. What refinement details it concedes to the newer Triumph
Tiger 800XC are more than offset by its exceptional off-road
capabilities. During our dirt excursion over Mount Palomar, I found
myself attempting to negotiate obstacles on the GS at a pace I
wouldn’t even think about on the XC. The GS’ slower-revving parallel twin is more off-road friendly than the XC’s, allowing me to be
aggressive on the throttle without fear of uncontrollable wheelspin, its brakes aren’t as sensitive as the XC’s in the dirt, and it
offers more compression braking. Its suspension isn’t as refined
as the Tiger’s, but has more travel front and rear.
Also, the GS’ 10-lb. lighter weight might as well be 50 when it
comes to the difference in handling character. Both bikes track
straight and true, but the quicker-steering BMW is more willing
to change lines than the Triumph is—a necessity in the oftenunpredictable off-road environment.
Dirt worthiness is what makes an Adventure bike an Adventure
bike. In my mind, the BMW F800GS is unquestionably the more
adventurous bike here.
—Scott Rousseau
2011 BMW F800GS
SPECIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA
ENGINE
PERFORMANCE
Type: ........ liquid-cooled parallel twin
Valvetrain: .... DOHC, 4 valves per cyl.,
shim-over-valve adjustment
Displacement: ..........................798cc
Bore/stroke: ................82.0 x 75.6mm
Comp. ratio: ............................12.0:1
Fueling:..............................BMS-K EFI
Exhaust: ................................2-into-1
Measured top speed ......126.7 mph
0–1/4 mile..................12.10 sec.
..........................@ 108.76 mph
0–60 mph ....................3.94 sec.
0–100 mph ................10.47 sec.
60–0 mph (w/ABS) ............127.2'
Power to Weight Ratio ........1:6.59
Speed @ 65 mph indicated ....61.9
DRIVE TRAIN
MC RATING SYSTEM
Transmission:........................6-speed
Final drive:..................................chain
RPM @ 65 mph*/rev limiter:4305/8900
EXCELLENT
VERY GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
*actual, not indicated
ERGONOMICS TEMPLATE
55.4"
51.6"
Vertical (ground to)
F: Handlebar (center). G: Rider footpeg
(top). H: Rider seat
(lowest point).
I: Passenger peg
(top). J: Passenger
seat (middle).
38.2"
D
E
19.75"
35.25"
34.25"
SUSPENSION
C
Horizontal (nose
to) A: Passenger seat
(middle). B: Rider
seat (middle).
C: Handgrip (center).
D: Passenger footpeg
(center). E: Rider
footpeg (center).
69.0"
15.25"
Wheelbase: ................................62.1"
Rake/trail:............................26.0°/4.6"
Ground clearance: ......................9.75"
Seat height: ........................33.5/34.6"
GVWR: ..................................977 lbs.
Wet weight: ........................489.0 lbs.
Carrying capacity: ..............488.0 lbs.
A
B
48.4"
DIMENSIONS
:::::
–– Middleweight Adventure –
::::.
Engine
:::::
:::::
Transmission
:::::
::::;
Suspension
:::::
::::;
Brakes
:::::
::::;
Handling
:::::
::::;
Ergonomics
:::::
::::;
Riding Impression
:::::
Instruments/Controls ::::;
:::::
::::;
Attention to Detail
:::::
:::;.
Value
:::::
SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL HORSEPOWER
SAE CORRECTED REAR-WHEEL TORQUE, LB. FT.
Front:.... 45mm male-slider telescopic
forks, non-adjustable
F
J
HI
G
::::;
OVERALL RATING
:::::
9.0" travel
Rear: ..........monoshock, adj. preload,
MISCELLANEOUS
DYNAMOMETER DATA
comp. and reb. damping,8.5" travel Instruments: speedo, tachometer, odome::::;
Low end
74.21 hp
•
ter, 2 tripmeters, gear indicator, clock,
BRAKES
::::.
Mid-range
range to empty, dist. on reserve, time to
:::;.
Front:............dual floating 11.8" discs,
empty, fuel level, coolant temp. Top end
two four-piston calipers Indicators:.... hi-beam, t/s, neutral, low fuel,
Retuning of the engine’s
•
powerband for dual-sport
emergeny flasher, check engine, oil
50.67 lb.-ft.
Rear: ..................................10.4" disc,
use has cost it a surprispressure, ABS fault (on/off)
single-piston, sliding caliper
ing 5.3 hp and 4.2 lb.-ft.
MSRP: ..................................$11,455
or torque vs. the F800ST.
TIRES & WHEELS
Price as tested:......................$12,900
Although its power is
Routine service interval:........6000 mi.
very smooth and linear,
Front: ..90/90-21 Pirelli Scorpion Trial
Valve adj. interval:..............20,000 mi.
its throttle response is
M/C 54B on 2.15" x 21" wheel Warranty: ..........3 years, 36,000 miles
abrupt at low rpm, which
Rear: 150/70R17 Pirelli Scorpion Trial Colors: ......Dark Magnesium Metallic,
hurts its driveability.
RPM, THOUSANDS
M/C 69B on 4.25" x 17" wheel
Sunset Yellow
ELECTRICS
Battery: ......................12 V, 14 Ah MF
Ignition: ..........BMS-K Engine Control
Alternator Output: ....................400 W
Headlight: ..............................55/55W
:
:
:
FUEL
Tank capacity: ........................4.2 gal.
Fuel grade: ..........91 octane premium
High/low/avg. mpg: ....57.6/47.7/48.5
:
:
:
TEST NOTES
PICKS
Excellent torque, sound and engine braking
Plush suspension
Better ergonomics for standing in off-road use
PANS
Old-style BMW switchgear
Kickstand is too short, makes climbing aboard awkward
Analog speedo is hard to read at a glance
STANDARD MAINTENANCE
Labor
Parts
Item
Time
Oil & Filter ................0.4 ..........$30.92 ..........$32.00
Air Filter....................0.5 ..........$15.40 ..........$40.00
Valve Adjust ............1.75 ..........$54.90 ........$140.00
Battery Access ........0.25............MF ..............$20.00
Final Drive ................0.2 ................................$16.00
R/R Rear Whl. ..........0.5 ................................$40.00
Change Plugs............1.1 ..........$19.20 ..........$88.00
Synch EFI..................0.5 ................................$40.00
$416.00
$120.42
5.2
Totals
* MCN has changed the estimated labor rate to $80 starting March 2007
Visit us at WWW.MCNEWS.COM
●
AUGUST 2011
21