KTM 1290 Superduke GT VS S1000XR

[Antares]

Hello all,

I know there is a few of us here that have either owned or still own both an XR and a KTM 1290 SDGT I'm at a crossroads trying to decide whether I'm to replace my XR with another one or a KTM 1290 SDGT.

I'm interested to hear your guys opinions, I have just gone on a test ride of a 1290 SDGT today so here are a couple points of difference that stood out to me:

The KTM I took out was a Gen 2.1 and i'm looking to get a used Gen 2.0 at the very least, I do want that digital screen and much prefer the new looks. If I were to get another XR though, it'd have to be a Gen 1 for sure, but I'd also be looking for a Gen 1.1 (2017+ Euro 4), so all points made will be with that in mind. I do understand they are not equal bikes in terms of the fancy TFT dash and some connectivity, but regardless, those are the only 2 on my table right now.

So the KTM I had was also brand new, as in 0.5 miles brand new, so still tight and restricted.

I really like the electronics and the screen and all the gimmicks and info, the little gimmicks like the little storage compartments in the front either side of the tank are great, keyless ride is also great. Like the dash.
The buttons on the new KTM had very little tactile feel to them and that was in relatively thin gloves, though the Gen 2.0 with the old switchgear seems a bit more substantial. Screen doesn't come up very far and even in the top position it's not really covering the head well, leading me onto the seating position

The seating position was the biggest thing that surprised me and made me have doubts. It's not at all bad, but in terms of outright comfort it's more aggressive than some naked bikes out there, pegs high, and bars low. I'd have expected to sit much lower in the bike than I appeared to. To you KTM owners, do the base ergonomics options (like the 2 position bars and different seat options) have a great deal of influence here? From what I saw the seat is fairly thin and close to the chassis so a lower/thinner sear doesn't appear to be an option, not that that'd be ideal. Of particular concern are the downward sloping almost clip-on like handlebars. Would much prefer something taller and straighter.

It's definitely something i could get used to but it didn't have that immediate perfect comfort feel like the XR or the Tracer 9 GT I have on loan.

Brakes, suspension and engine I couldn't get a proper feel for. How does much does the engine change after break in? It can't really pull cleanly from anything less than 45mph in 6th but then again it's an insanely long gear. The KTM definitely has the "shakes" that big singles have too when trying to throttle on at low RPM, but manages it fairly well and relatively smoothly for what it is, even if it's nothing like an XR or the Tracer 9 that basically pulls smoothly from idle.

Brakes were weak and mushy because they haven't bedded in yet but I could feel when pressing a bit harder, the performance is definitely there.

Suspension again, not sure how much of a difference there is when broken in, but there seemed to be significant differences in the damping profiles which is good, and the bike is fairly sure footed, easy to start a tip, but requires far greater force to put down in a corner than the XR or the Tracer does. The chassis is also very "springy" where it's stable normally but easy to upset if messed around with a bit, not to the level that you feel out of control, but nowhere near that absolute and utter confidence that the XR and Tracer 9 make you feel.

Overall I very much like the bike, a lot of huge bonus points for gimmicks, I'm a geek for info, that's what i love about the Navi 5 on the BMW too with the bike stats page, things like TPMS are useful when you ride daily, onboard USB charger, connectivity with smartphone, the adjustable DRLs, etc etc. Engine sounds great, is characterful, even if not as flexible as the XR or Tracer, but sips fuel as I managed 49mpg on my test ride which included getting out of town, then hooning it as much as the restrictions allowed. Suspension is a nicer ride than the XR, though I haven't had a proper feel for it when putting it through it's paces.

Overall, great specs on paper and everything is there, but the pieces haven't really fallen into place to create that "zen" feeling that I got on the XR the first time I took it out. I wonder if a used bike with a few thousand miles would be drastically different where all the different parts of the bike had some time to get to know each other and get a few drinks in...

On my agenda:

-Try a used Gen 2.0 with a couple thousand miles
-Try an R1250GSA (you just have to  )
-Try a Multistrada 1260S, just in case it's a dark horse, though I do have a lot of experience with a 1260 Enduro and based on that, even if it had XR-ish handling I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get.

On a side note. The Tracer 9 GT I have on loan at the moment is amazing. It's the closest thing to the XR I've tried, way nicer ride on crappy roads, much smoother throttle and the handling especially at low speed is truly sublime. For everyday use it's definitely a better bike than the XR, but when you want to turn it up to 11, it misses the confidence and performance of the XR so that's a no go, especially considering it's the same price as an XR.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[RyanGTXR]

My GT is a gen1, not ridden a gen2 but basics are all there.

Firstly, be honest with what you want. So many people and publications class both the XR and GT together when in reality they are very different motorcycles. The XR sits in the "sports adventure" category, which includes all the other bikes you have mentioned - XR, Tracer 9, Multi 1260 (any multi really with 17/19 front), KTM SAS, even Trumph tiger 1050.
While the SDGT is much more "sports touring" - GT, Z1000SX, GSX1000s-GT etc. but more to the nutter/phyco end of the scale.

If you're looking at the KTM 1301cc V-twin but in an adventure riding position, look at, well, the Adventure (S). If you want something with a sportier, more aggressive riding position then the GT is the one to look at.

Riding position - As above, the XR is adventure style position, upright, feet forward, long stretch to bars, wide bars and the seat isn't one which encourages moving bout and hanging off too much. The GT is more aggressive, feels more sporty than is probably is, as in you only sit maybe 10 degrees forward lean but it feels more as you are much closer to the bars and sat over the front with narrower bars. Pegs are low but back. I have a shot knee (bike accident years ago) and I find the GT pegs comfier and feel the need to stretch my leg out less on the KTM than my XR. But the whole riding position makes them feel more towards the sporty side.

Seat - GT -get the PP seats, simples. Bit higher but more comfortable and heated (not that I use that but nice if you do need it) also look better.
GT seat looks very flat and hard but the PP seat is surprisingly comfortable for longer distances and the GT seat is better than the XR when it comes to moving around and hanging off as it's more like a sports seat than the XR's comfy (I have the HP high) touring seat.

Screen - GT is crap compared to the XR. XR can sit bolt upright at 150mph. GT is hard work above 120 and requires and good tuck behind it down on the tank for higher speeds (I've seen over 160 and still going but hard clinging on). On the GT wind hits chest/shoulders area (I have screens on both bikes on lowest setting). Gen2 screen is supposed to be better from what I've read but by how much I don't know.

Brakes -GT = M50's what more do I need to say. They are WAY better than the stock XR's (fronts anyway, XR rear is better than GT) I've recently changed the XR brakes to M50's and Brembo M/C and it's so much better now, why the fook BMW didn't put something better than adventure bike brakes on the XR I'll never know . . . . . .

Handling - XR only has 2 settings but they work well, up to  the point where you really start pushing and it gets a bit wollowy, but I have no complaints for a road bike. GT -shite. Don't get me wrong, it'll waste the XR on a twisty road, turns faster and more accurately, holds lines better, it's the actual suspension which is crap, Comp/rebound rates are all wrong so it never really feels settled when pushing. For more sedate pace it's probably OK.
For normal road riding the XR wins, for faster stuff GT. What looses it for the BMW is weight and length. It's too heavy (BMW lie about the weight, they claim similar to GT, but it's a good 20KG heavier and carries that weight much higher up, GT feels like a tiny baby in comparison).
But while we're talking about weight/length - the XR will easily win at the traffic light GP. Not because it's quicker, there's nothing in it in reality, it's just much easier to launch, this is when the long wheelbase and more weight as a help. The GT just wants to wheelie. OK my TC is switched off which doesn't help, but on the gen1 it's far too intrusive. So much so that just full throttle 4th gear when overtaking has the TC kicking in and cutting the engine. If you want to know what the 1290 engine is all about, and what it really is - turn that TC off. Then the beast comes alive :D

Wheelies - GT all day long. XR isn't even on the same planet.

And that brings us nicely to the KTooMs trump card. That engine. It's a fookin' monster. Yes it's lumpy low down, it's a big v-twin at the end of the day. Keep it above 3.5k and it's sweet. Never any need to thrash it as the mahooosive midrange is all you ever need to use. The way it fires you out of one corner and towards the next is insane (again, TC off)
The XR is awesomely smooth, any gear, any revs, twist and go. 30mph in top no problem. This is why is so good for town and touring. it's just so bloody easy.

Summary (this is getting a bit long now and I really want to go get some chocolate cake and a beer) . . . . . .
Pro's XR - Smoothness, wind protection, ease of use, better for steadier riding, suspension for "normal"road riding
Pro's GT - Engine, handling (as in bikes handling, not the suspension) Engine, tank range, sporty feel, Engine, light weight/feel/low weight, did I mention that engine?

Con's XR - Weight, carries weight high, smaller tank, Not so good for filtering as feels more unstable at lower speeds and wider bars (and panniers if fitted)
Con's GT - more aggressive riding position maybe not as comfy for longer days, Lumpy low down/in town, Suspension not good enough

For general road riding / touring I think the XR is a better bike, only really let down by the weight and standard brakes. The GT is better for sportier riding even if the suspension has it's limitations, it'll still out handle the XR and leave it for dust on a twisty road. The bigger fuel tank on the KTM is nice and fuel economy on both bikes are similar (me (GT) and a mate (XR), with pillions did a trip to S.France few years ago. Every time we fuelled up we were within a litre of each other going in)

Hope this helps. Can't remember if I've covered everything. If not, just ask and I'll give my views.

Oh one more thing, reliability - XR hands down. 'nuff said.

[Antares]

Interesting points, for the most part what you said is what I observed, but there are a few things I think I found to be the opposite. Imo that GT was effort to lean over, the wide bars on the XR and high COG are anything but a disadvantage. It makes the bike much easier to settle in to corners. The GT, like a naked bike had to be pushed into the corner, might be due to it being all new and stiff but when in a corner, the XR feels like you're "sitting on the wheels" as in you feel the grip of the wheels directly up your seat. whereas with the GT it felt a little like it was off to the side, it's a weird sensation but it felt like you weren't right above where the point of grip was.

Re: the XR VS GT not being in the same category, they definitely aren't but the SAS is way further out the GS way, it's a whale compared to the XR.

That brings me to weight where again my observation is different. My XR had a decent diet, and yes it was awkward to handle due to it's height but imo it carried it's weight very very well and was extremely nimble. The KTM felt like a very solid bike, concentrated mass. I'm sure it's like it's on rails in a long sweeper, but short nadgery stuff I just didn't have that level of confidence and feedback that I had on the XR, this is where I'd like to point out that the XR with some mild changes (dropped forks, suspension in 1 up + pass, dynamic damping) was absolutely rock solid for me at any speeds and never left me wanting. It was so playful, backing it in was easy and controlled, small wheelies over crests were smooth and fluid, only the Tracer 9 GT now with it's crazy good suspension for crappy roads has made me wish the XR could go that soft and absorbing on some "comfort" setting, but the XR in road is still better at speed than the Tracer even in sport. Whereas with the little time I had on the GT, as I mentioned it felt well composed, but when it went outside of "normal" parameters, say sideways bump, hard braking and turning, it'd want to return to normal very aggressively.

Best example I can give is say you're cruising on the motorway and you wiggle your bars as if to induce a tank slapper, the XR would go into a very smooth and controlled wave, whereas when i did that on the GT it'd very violently want to return to it's rock solid straight line stability. This isn't necessarily bad but makes for a bit more "rigid" ride. The XR you can intentionally get a bit out of shape and still feel in control, the Tracer even more so, the Tracer is insane with how well it handles irregularities, the other day on greasy roads, whack throttle, wheel spinning up 1st, 2nd, 3rd, still spinning and it's like you're on a motocross track shooting some rooster tails, perfectly in control, basically a rolling burnout for like 200 meters...

Gen 2 screen is not bad, flow is smooth over it, but very much you're sitting too far above it, even in the high position, which is not a big adjustment, probably like 1 inch or so, it's too low and too narrow. Nothing an aftermarket screen can't fix, but then again it's not so bad either way.

Re: launching, I found the GT extremely easy to launch, might be a Gen 2 thing, throttle response was extremely nice, lack of engine braking in street mode was a bit odd but you can get used to it.

Riding position - as I mentioned I felt like the biggest issue is the bars sweeping down. I wonder if just rotating them up would be enough, If not maybe some aftermarket straighter bars with a little more width, hopefully wont cause issues with cables or anything.

[Belco100]

Hi Antares - not exactly what you where after, but my experience:

I've had two XR Gen1s and a Gen2, and always kept my K16GTs for two up touring. As age and the COVID outbreak changed our world, I thought I would hand the GT back (on PCP) and use the refund to purchase something a bit different, and I seriously considered the SDGT, but it just didn't really seem to fit me (6'2" and large) or suit my riding around bumpy East of England roads, but when I tried a SAS I fell in love - it fitted me fine, comfortable (everything is adjustable), very practice, fast and just so much fun - I ended up getting a 2019 (the old model, which I still have) for a decent price. Although its ultimately not as fast as a SDGT in reality it still has an amazing engine just 15hp or so missing from the top end. As you picked up, the engine is a different take on life compared to the XR which can happily rune at 30mph in top gear. You end up never really dropping below 3,000rpm, but that means as you come out of 30mph limits and hit the throttle the bl00dy thing just wheelies everywhere  The White Power suspension is on another level, and can easily hit 55mpg and is very narrow for commuting.

So, I decided to trade my Gen2 XR in for a new model, but KTM don't really want BMWs so it took a while. Eventually I found a BMW dealer in Scotland that had a fully loaded, low mileage '22 model and they would prefer to have an XR, so we swapped. The new Euro5 model is slightly smoother but still a bit of a chugger low down, but has different geometry etc and more electronics including Radar Cruise Control. The "Tech Pack" gives fully controllable suspension, you can put it all in auto or jack it up and down in 10% increments, adjust the damping and also turn on electronic Anti-Dive, which I find fantastic. You sit more "in" rather than "on" this one and I have now got my seat and handlebar position set up a bit more "road-riding" aggressive and love it.

[bazzer]

Have you considered a Super Adventure instead of the GT ?

I wanted something less frenetic than the Gen 1 XR (I am keeping the XR as its such a different bike)

I have done about 1500 miles on my 1290 SAS and the first impressions are good. The electronics are a step up from the XR, the Rally pack allows you to adjust things and dial in slide etc.

I have not really done a proper back to back yet as I have not ridden the XR since I got the 1290. I needed to do a few jobs on it like brake pads etc and not got round to it.

[bazzer]

I was typing when you replied.

I would deffo take an SAS out for a spin, it looks a big bike and yeah it does have a 19" front wheel. But when you are sat on it for some reason it does not feel big at all.

I really do need to do a back to back ride though to decide, as its easy to forget the nuances of a bike when you have not ridden it for a while.

[Winger]

If I was riding a bike in bad weather and all it would be a GS,and having ridden against one on both my XR and GT I can understand why so many have been sold,niether XR or GT are stock but with a change of wheels in the XR’s case suspension and the GT’s fuelling and wheels got both to something like.

Having had someone question me this weekend about which one of my/our collection we’d keep,I said neither of the above,have a K1200r Sport must have had 13/4 years done the same fuelling and sus as the others and is a fantastic thing to ride,the grunt of the GT and way top end get up and go of the XR.

[Belco100]

Originally Posted by Antares

... the XR VS GT not being in the same category, they definitely aren't but the SAS is way further out the GS way, it's a whale compared to the XR ...

The SAS is a about 235kg with a full 23 ltrs on board where the XR is about 228kg with 20ltrs, not as heavy as they look. Set up in sport mode they are pretty good on the road. Quicker than the XR low down and similar high up. Give one a go, you might be surprised.

[bazzer]

Also the low "Ball bag" tanks put the weight really low down. I would say slow speed handling is better than the XR.

I was surprised to be honest, it was not really on my Radar until I tried one.

The Radar cruise is complete wizardry, I think it works with magic :-)

 

[Antares]

Interesting points.

I might have to give the SAS a go.

You see my problem is, I want something that handles better than the XR, something I can take on the track or a good twisty road and not feel wanting. The XR was there. The GT I can feel can be much better on a track but suffers on the road. The SAS imo is the other way, I'm sure its a nicer ride than the XR and handles well enough (I've seen the 44Teeth video) but I know it'd leave me wanting. If I'm gonna compromise then I'd much rather get the brand new 890 or even the more wallet friendly 790 Adventure and actually proceed to do some off-roading with them, which still has almost all the bells and whistles, are even more economical and nimble. The SAS would only come into contention if they made a very road focused version, with even slimmer tank and 17 in front wheels.

I'll arrange for a test ride anyway but what I'm looking for in my next bike, is more tech, better handling and brakes (both of which the GT seems to provide on paper whereas the SAS doesn't necessarily) whilst still being tourable. The GT has some huge bonus points for the latter category namely the amazing fuel economy and huge tank, but does suffer in overall comfort to the XR. I'm still young and flexible so the position is absolutely not a deal breaker, the XR was just nicer. I had absolutely no complaints after an hour even with everything being stock and not at all setup for myself.