This is a great sound bite, but it's just not true. People buy the GS for exactly what it is, a great all around bike that can do everything from commuting, to touring, to light off road work to canyon carving. And, at least the new bike, does all of those very, very well.
And the 19" tire thing being a problem on the street is a joke. A good rider can absolutely strafe a twisty road on this bike, on 19's, with spokes, with dual sport tires. I know a guy who could probably lose any BARFER in the hills on their sportbikes on his aircooled GS with knobbies. The difference in feel and front end trust required on the new bike and a Multi or a sport bike with 17s is overblown. And a very small tradeoff for how much easier the bike is able to ride everywhere else.
The new GS is an amazing motorcycle and worth every penny they sell it for. And it has little to do with the LWR nonsense.
Fast street riding is about risk appetite, not skill to any real degree. The thing is, when I'm riding fun pace, if I can be at 85% of the limit by having the right equipment for the situation rather than 95% of the limit, that's "better". The 19 inch front, with it's heavier weight, smaller contact patch while leaned over, and more inertia, doesn't make me want to go out and buy one when there are better options available. I'm also not interested in compromising the geometry, stability, TC, and ABS by swapping shit around.
It's a fine point to make, perhaps, but if you're going to drop a pile of money on a new bike, buying a bike that has made those compromises doesn't make much sense to me.
Nothing Z3n is saying about the 19" front is technically wrong, it's just not an issue for what this bike is for. As you approach higher speeds the additional weight and gyroscopic forces WILL be noticable. Combine that with a lack of true sport rubber for the wheel size and you'll have a hard time chasing the 2 minute mark at Thunderhill. But for the remaining 99% of the time the 19" is either not an issue at all or actually has some advantages, for example tracking a little more stable over less than racetrack smooth pavement.
But if you're chasing a 17" wheeled bike down your favorite road and it's walking away from you, it's not the 19" wheel, you're simply being out ridden.
All of this is very true - I'm sort of a stickler for the right rubber for the riding situation (and frankly think that is more important than the 17/19 inch debate), so having the freedom to run anything from track stuff for trackdays, sticky street rubber for aggressive long street rides and Pilot Roads for wet weather commuting is a big of a requirement for any bike that I'm going to dump a pile of money on. 2 up on a big bike on sticky rubber around the track is one of the best times you can have, IMO.
Less contact patch? That's counter intuitive to me, in the mountain bike world one of the advantages to the 29er (as the marketing folks would have us believe) is that the contact patch is bigger than on a 26" wheel and therefore better traction (which is also suspect). I'm trying to imagine how a 19" wheeled bike would have a smaller contact patch than a 17" wheel. Unless the tires on the 19" are narrower, that would make sense to me.
The 19 inch tires are usually narrower - typically it's a 3 inch front rather than the more standard 3.5 inch front, running a 110/80 rather than a 120/70. Apparently some of them are moving to a 120/70-19, though, which just sort of, ugh, why, we've been to this show already, there's a reason we run 17s, they're the best balanced compromise, and supermotos make it really clear you don't need 19s or 21s to do all kinds of fun offroad shit.
It's also about the profile of the tire, specifically while leaned over - 17s that are sport inspired are designed to give max contact patch while leaned over, whereas less sport inspired tires may change profile and design for a more stable upright experience, less tracking of grooves, etc.
It's compromises in design, as with anything else.
