The 310 platform debuted in 2018 with the introduction of the BMW G 310 R and the G 310 GS. Six years since then, this platform has grown to a total of five motorcycles (three from BMW and two from TVS). And yet, there have hardly been any major improvements or changes, especially on the engine side.
The TVS Apache RTR 310 carries the burden of being the most powerful and the most advanced motorcycle on this platform so far. But is it really that good or that much better?
The Problem
The 310 platform has had one true problem from the start, the engine, while the chassis and suspension are quite the opposite, one of the best in the segment. The reverse-inclined, single-cylinder, 312cc engine was never a smooth operator. It was always harsh from the very beginning. Although, I’m aware that this engine has been progressively improved, especially in terms of smoothness, over the years. I find this very surprising because even in its current form, the 312cc engine is evidently harsh and noisy.
I first experienced this engine in the G 310 GS (in 2022) and I distinctly remember that it felt quite a bit stressed then also, but it wasn’t this noisy and rough. It seems that in trying to extract more power without increasing the cubic capacity, TVS has ended up with an engine that feels no less stressed at triple digit speeds while it has become worse in terms of harshness and noise. Additionally, I clearly remember that the throttle response and fueling were quite faultless on the GS, but they're not as good on the RTR.
The RTR 310’s 312.12cc engine now makes 35.6 PS of power at 9,700 RPM and 28.3 NM of torque at 6,650 RPM. In comparison, the TVS Apache RR 310 makes 34 PS at 9,700 RPM and 27.3 NM at 7,700 RPM while the BMW G 310 GS (and the G 310 R) make 34 PS at 9,250 RPM and 28 NM at 7,500 RPM.
It’s not all bad, though. Within the city, the engine is lively and its torque allows good acceleration through traffic. The bike is pretty quick in this environment. The problem with this engine is that while it is revvy, it feels stressed at higher RPMs irrespective of which gear you might be in. Especially in the first-three gears, you’d feel like short-shifting to a higher gear because it feels as if it's nearing its limit even when you’re not pushing the engine much. Think of a rubber band that has been stretched to its limit and now it wants to pull back hard. That’s how this engine feels at higher RPMs. It doesn’t like staying up there and you won’t enjoy that either.
The nature of this engine is completely opposite to Duke’s or CB300R’s engines. Duke’s engine (250 or 390) likes higher revs too and that is its happy place while the CB300R is a more balanced engine in that regard. It can be revved hard, it feels good there, and it also has fantastic tractability at lower speeds or RPMs. And none of them are (or can be considered) bad in lower revs. The RTR’s engine feels completely off balanced in that sense. It starts off nicely but anywhere between mid to high RPMs it would feel stressed, and it only gets worse as you go higher.
It makes you feel like you are going faster than you actually are; if you’re at 100 kph, you would feel like you’re going at 120 kph. That’s very frustrating. It should really be the opposite. This is the least enjoyable engine among its competitors and the only one that’s unrideable in terms of sustaining triple digit speeds in a comfortable manner. It hinders your enjoyment of riding the bike. At anything above 110, the stress levels rise rapidly.
It is so frustrating because the chassis, suspension, and tyres are all well-capable of delivering a confident-inspiring ride at all the speeds the bike is otherwise capable of.
On that note, the chassis too gets the biggest update in the RTR 310 in the entire 310 platform. The subframe is completely new and made out of aluminium (while every other bike on this platform continues to have the steel subframe). The aluminium is lighter and is one of the factors in bringing down the overall kerb weight of the motorcycle to 169 kg. That said, the RTR 310 remains considerably heavier than its primary competitors; the KTM 250 Duke which weighs 162.8 kg and the Honda CB300R which literally humiliates every other bike in this category with a kerb weight of 146 kg. Even the BMW G 310 R is lighter at 164 kg.
Nevertheless, one of the benefits of modern engineering is that the motorcycle doesn’t feel heavy to ride, also because 169 kg is not really a heavy-weight by any stretch even though that’s heavier than all of its competition.
One thing this platform is really good at from the beginning is the fun-inducing handling. And each motorcycle on this platform has been benefited with it; the Apache RTR 310 is no exception. It handles predictably with enough precision that would keep the riding experience exciting.
However, I must point out that between the Apache RTR 310, G 310 R, and the G 310 GS, the RTR 310 has impressed me the least. And I find that surprising especially because the RTR is also factory-fitted with Michelin Road 5 tyres, one of the best road tyres in the world. Especially in comparison to the BMW G 310 R, I find the BMW more fun and enjoyable to handle.
Then there is the styling. While the silhouette is nice and good for a streetfighter, the details appear overdone. It looks a bit too busy and bulky around the radiator. I feel that the RTR 310 looks a bit too plasticky for my liking. Here, I would like to mention the smaller Dukes, for instance, that look metallic enough to me and avoid appearing plasticky. I think it’s because the KTM designers know exactly what they’re doing, and they understand the company’s edgy design philosophy much better. TVS, with the RTR 310, didn’t manage that distinction as far as I’m concerned.
I think it’s about the lack of experience in that respect. I also think that TVS is trying a bit too hard to make its flagship bike look that more special. Just look at all other motorcycles on this platform, their design is calmer including TVS’s own RR 310. As a naked, the RTR 310 doesn’t look minimalistic enough which is what I would have liked it to be.
More Misses, Less Hits
There are things TVS does that are clearly performance-oriented, like the option to go for adjustable suspension. They clearly care about improving the bike’s performance. But I also feel their focus is getting diluted by all the other nonsense they are trying to pull off on the bike, such as the idiotic climate control seat. The entire system that cools/warms the rider’s seat resides right below the seat. You can feel it easily with your hands and you can even notice the silhouette of what looks like the fans. This system completely compromises the seating comfort. At that particular area of the seat below which the system is installed, there is no padding; you’re literally sitting on a piece of plastic.
The lack of comfort wasn’t much of a problem during short city rides but the lack of padding was clearly felt, and it will be a problem on longer rides or even long commutes. Yes, I tried the cooling system, and I even felt it on my buttocks, but it was nothing that I wanted or needed, and I will never choose it over a well-padded seat. Never. I think in its current form it is badly integrated into the seat. No other way to say it.
I will also never understand why any road-going motorcycle up to 500cc will require riding modes. I’m so frustrated with all this gimmickry nonsense and I just don’t get this new rising fetish to load these small motorcycles with all this stuff. This is doing nothing positive to the riding experience other than increasing complications and having things that don’t function satisfactorily. There is no argument in their favour that will have me convinced otherwise. There is a reason this class of motorcycles is called beginner bikes.
I’m trying to understand what is encouraging some companies to do this. I mean just because a motorcycle has a TFT screen doesn’t mean it has to have maximum features and functions to navigate and control. At least it doesn’t make sense on a meagre 35 PS machine.
I understand that TFT consoles have enabled companies to implement certain functions that make bikes better in specific areas, like map integration (for example, in the new Himalayan), managing various riding modes as well as ABS and traction control settings. But as I said, features like riding modes are not required or needed on small capacity bikes like the RTR 310.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that companies are trying to outperform and outsmart their competition in ways that are not really making their bikes better to ride and to keep. Using the TFTs to incorporate such functions on small bikes is exactly this. It’s not the same as enjoying the safety net of ABS irrespective of a motorcycle’s size and power. On that note, these kinds of features are present in the latest KTM 390 Duke as well, but at least the Duke is one hell of a motorcycle even without them. This, sadly, is not the case with the RTR 310.
And this is exactly why riding the RTR 310 is so frustrating. The chassis and suspension are clearly competitive and among the best, the brakes are satisfactory too and though they don’t have the best feel, it’s nothing that affects their performance. But the biggest element, the engine, is not only the least impressive in its class, it is just hateable.
If I had to choose one of the 310s for myself in their current form, I would go for the BMW G 310 R. But that is a big “what if” scenario more than anything.
I believe this engine needs a major redesign to become any better; a complete overhaul like that of the latest generation KTM 390 Duke. BMW/TVS can keep the reverse-inclined architecture for all the benefits it provides, but it has to be freer and much more relaxed at mid to high RPMs to be a worthy rival in its category, and most of all, to be an enjoyable engine by itself.
Comments