Is it my imagination, or . . .

[Eck]

Last year I splurged in a big, big way.  I traded my 2018 RT in for a 2024 RT, and I liked it so much I thought “this engine in an RS would be the “bees knees” . . . (an R100RS was my first and only motorcycle for about 25 years, so my blood type is “RS Positive”!).  I found, and purchased a decked-out triple black ‘24 RS to go with the RT.

They are both wonderful machines, but back to my opening subject line, it seems like the RS just runs a little smoother, shifts a little better, and gets better mileage (~48 mpg RT, 50+ mpg RS).  In this day and age with CNC machining, in some cases computer controlled assembly, and operation, do we still get some machines that just “run a little better” than an (almost) identical twin?

The RT admittedly has the huge fairing that goes with the touring design, and it always has its bags and a top case fitted, so that works against the aerodynamics a bit.  The RS I run with a tank and tail bag only, unless I have a need for the saddle bags.  At first guess, I would think the final drive ratio on the RS that makes it run at slightly higher RPMs would make the two closer in fuel consumption.

Any thoughts, observations, or experiences?

[Paughco]

No detailed comparison data here. Before my 2022 R1250RS I had a 2016 S1000XR. That bike was fast, but very busy. Also, it seemed to be gradually getting taller. Before the XR I had two BMWs: a 2010 R1200GSA and a 2013 K1300S. Both were excellent, but the GSA was kinda big and heavy and the K1300S wasn't happy at speeds anywhere near the legal speed limit. Before that I had a K1200S and an R1150GS. Also a K1200RS (what a sweet bike).

I like the Boxer engines the best. Seems like the K-bikes and the XR were always talking to me, telling me that we needed more speed. The R-bikes just rode on in a very soothing manner, until speed was needed, and it was totally there. Seems like the engine in my R1200GSA was just a bit smoother than the engine in my R1150GS, and the engine in my R1250RS is the smoothest of all of the R-bikes. Also it seems like the R1250RS pulls maybe a shade better than my old K1200RS, and almost as good as the K1300S. The K1200S? Forget it - that little hotrod was a breed apart.

In summary, I believe that my '22 R1250RS is the best BMW motorcycle I've ever ridden.

Looks like you've got a bit of mission overlap there, between the RS and the RT. Just sayin'.

Hey - it don't mean nothin'. Keep the shiny side up and the greasy side down.

Seeya
ATB

Oh yeah - "No Harley shall remain unpassed."

[Grumpy Goat]

They are both wonderful machines, but back to my opening subject line, it seems like the RS just runs a little smoother, shifts a little better, and gets better mileage (~48 mpg RT, 50+ mpg RS). 
...
The RT admittedly has the huge fairing that goes with the touring design, and it always has its bags and a top case fitted, so that works against the aerodynamics a bit.  The RS I run with a tank and tail bag only, unless I have a need for the saddle bags.  At first guess, I would think the final drive ratio on the RS that makes it run at slightly higher RPMs would make the two closer in fuel consumption.

I will only speak to the fuel consumption difference. The greater weight of the RT along with the greater projected frontal area and more turbulence due to the panniers are likely what accounts for the 2 mpg deficit compared with the RS. I would think that the gearing makes a much smaller impact since the tune of the engine would account for any gearing differences. When I put my panniers on with either bike I own, fuel consumption goes up a bit - moreso if the bags are full of course.

As for perceived smoothness ... again they would have a slightly different tune and may have slightly different drivetrain components that could add to that perception.

Ever thought of getting the 1300 models? I hear they are smoother again.

[Eck]

They are both wonderful machines, but back to my opening subject line, it seems like the RS just runs a little smoother, shifts a little better, and gets better mileage (~48 mpg RT, 50+ mpg RS). 
...
The RT admittedly has the huge fairing that goes with the touring design, and it always has its bags and a top case fitted, so that works against the aerodynamics a bit.  The RS I run with a tank and tail bag only, unless I have a need for the saddle bags.  At first guess, I would think the final drive ratio on the RS that makes it run at slightly higher RPMs would make the two closer in fuel consumption.

I will only speak to the fuel consumption difference. The greater weight of the RT along with the greater projected frontal area and more turbulence due to the panniers are likely what accounts for the 2 mpg deficit compared with the RS. I would think that the gearing makes a much smaller impact since the tune of the engine would account for any gearing differences. When I put my panniers on with either bike I own, fuel consumption goes up a bit - moreso if the bags are full of course.

As for perceived smoothness ... again they would have a slightly different tune and may have slightly different drivetrain components that could add to that perception.

Ever thought of getting the 1300 models? I hear they are smoother again.

I sat on a 1300RS at the dealership when they were doing a service on my RT; I was briefly tempted to take it for a spin, but I remained strong.  I thought it looked nice, and they definitely made the bike “thinner”.  The R1300RT just doesn’t do anything for me, and I’d never buy a first year anything . . . 

I still might take the RS out for a quick “date”.