The New And Improved Unofficial R65 Forum V2
General Category => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: clonmore1 on February 14, 2013, 02:43:58 PM
-
This makes good reading IMO.
http://www.classicbikersclub.com/articles/2011-10/bmw-r45-and-r65
Any one got any ideas on this statement?
"I still quite haven’t figured out either why BMW built the R45/65 series, nor why they failed to develop it further. For my money, the design showed so much promise: smaller, neater, sweeter than the other aircooled boxers (airheads, they call ‘em now, to differentiate them from the current ‘oilheads’), but that promise was never fulfilled".
Love to hear your thoughts.
Cheers
Chris
-
My first guess, would be, that they was no money to be made in the 450 and 650 cc bikes .
I might be off a bit on the figures, but when I was looking for my '81 R65, the 1000 cc bikes were around $5500-6000US .
The R65's were around $3300US .
-
I have an original R45/R65 sales brochure and they were marketing the bikes as introductory models to the range with the hope and expectation that the buyers would trade up to the larger models. Curious though why they would spend money developing a 473cc model and a 649cc model when they already had a 500 and a 600. Maybe they were trying to break the old sedate image. They looked more modern, were lighter, faster and handled better in fact the handling is the outstanding thing that's praised in all contemporary road tests, even the R45 gets credit on that score. I guess the lack of development was down to airheads being perceived as on the way out with the K bikes on the horizon.
It's always amusing to read a semi knowledgeable journalistic review. While generally favourable and we like to read a favourable review, it's typically full of inaccuracies, misunderstandings and half truths. Like for example the the 20kg weight savings from early to late models which is just nonsense. Perhaps he was thinking of R45/65's vs the earlier airheads and even then it's not true when comparing naked bikes. He doesn't understand where the 5 Hp came from (try bigger valves) and certainly no R65 ever had the ATE calipers he's thinking of.
But we'll excuse the lack of knowledge because I don't think I've read such an enthusiastic review.
-
Thanks for your views guys.
It's the best review I've read for a while. That so may survive and are in regular use is testament to the quality of the design.
Chris
-
That green one sure is pretty, though I don't think that's a factory paint color. It looks clear coated.
I'm not sure what he wants BMW to have done with the R65 (though putting it in a bigger frame surely wasn't it!). None of the other airheads got any more advanced.
-
It's a factory color, my '81 is the same color, it came with clearcoat as well .
Only difference, is the pinstriping on my'81 is gold, not white .
-
I'd also question
It was merely the sleeved-down R80 in exactly the same chassis - and it was a slug.
Certainly not a sleeved down R80, and not a slug. I don't like the handling of a standard BMW with narrow bars, and the mono with a 90/90 front tyre - but the R65 with it's narrow bars is a fantastic handling bike. With a bigger front tyre and wider bars I now like the mono handling. I prefer the mono frame on rough twisty back roads, and the taller gearing and more bottom end gives it more ''pace''.
-
The weight difference between a 79/80 R65 model and a post 81 is quite significant.
1. Iron lined cylinders replaced with nickasil cylinders
2. Heavy Bosch Starter motor replace with lighter french model.
3. heavy flywheel replaced with clutch carrier.
4. The are probably other minor mods as well, not sure if the new airbox arrangement saved any weight.
It all adds up.
I suspect this a well researched article that has been 'edited' by an idiot to fit in a certain 'space'.......And then the graphics designer screwed that up even further.
Its a pity they got the pictures mixed up as well, the text talks of the standard model and the pictures shows an LS, when the text covers the LS, a picture of the standard model appears...
-
It would be interesting to know what the real weight reduction was.
A bit of mental arithmetic might get you to 20lbs but never 44lbs.
And yet BMW didn't change the published fueled up weight of 452 lbs except for the LS which they listed as 4 lbs heavier at 456 lbs. That's really curious because they had no previous early equivalent model and therefore no reason to gloss over any weight reduction. So if an LS really does weight 456 lbs it's a puzzle that the post 81 R65 can be 20 odd lbs lighter. Maybe there are some differences on the post 81 models that actually add weight. I'm sure there are, like bigger sump with extra oil, the ribbed final drive with extra oil, different seat (but that could just as easily be lighter as heavier), 2nd disk and caliper must also add several lbs. Still I don't see all that balancing out the weight saved in the cylinders, starter and flywheel.
I guess you would have to weigh early and late models to really find out.
I did enjoy the article and it was very positive which is only going to do good for the reputation of R65's but in my opinion he did a disservice to earlier models by get several things plain wrong. Including the weight comparison the guy got at least 6 things wrong including the typical stuff that even other airheads get wrong like swinging ATE calipers and front wheel recall nether of which ever applied to R65's of any year.
-
I have to agree with you Barry...20kg seems a lot.
We would have to get two standard R65's one pre and one post 81, both brimmed and weigh them. Only then would we know for sure.
I recon that only one bike was ever weighed with any accuracy and the same measurement was applied to both by another person who does not know their 'A*se from their Elbow'.
Cheers
Steve H
-
Mine's no good to weigh because I have the Windjammer on it.
Except for '81, the LS was the only version to have dual front disk brakes, so that would add some weight. Not twenty pounds, though.
-
That's only in America. Single disc R65's are quite uncommon in the UK, pre or post 81.
-
I have a UK Sales brochures which shows a single disc as standard so the 2nd disc may have been added to move them out of the showroom. From what I remember of the late 70's twin discs were commonly fitted to the competition especially in that upper price range. Not that twin discs automatically meant better brakes. I remember going from a single disc T140V to a twin disc Z900 and finding the brakes were worse not better. Mind you that was also cast iron to stainless steel.
-
First Good Review I ever read on the 65. Well I guess its true, If you stand by the river long enough.
-
The 'composite' wheels on the LS are lighter in weight than the 'snowflake' wheels .
Don't know how much lighter though .
-
Except for the '81, the LS was the only version to have dual front disk brakes, so that would add some weight.
Aha! That answers a question that I've had for a long time: Why was my dual-disk '81 relatively unusual for a twin-shock R65? I was aware that a twin-disk conversion kit had been available, so I assumed that mine had been converted at some point.
Thanks to all, and an apology. I've been distracted for a year or two, and I haven't been monitoring the forum regularly, much less riding. (My bike spending the winter in the shop for some repairs and improvements has something to do with it.) I have some catching up to do, both in reading a lot of material here and totally relearning my skills, which weren't all that skillful even before my long break from riding. I feel so rusty that I'm tempted to take the MSF Basic Rider Course again. I'll try to keep track, even if I don't contribute that often.
Prosit!
JT
-
We all get rusty after a break. I take it easy even after just 5 or 6 weeks break over winter.
There are some good motorcycle safety sites on the web which are worth a read during a break for mental preparation.