The New And Improved Unofficial R65 Forum V2
General Category => Totally Off-Topic Discussions, Rants, Tire & Oil Threads, Etc. => Topic started by: alexznam357 on May 03, 2009, 07:30:17 AM
-
During my search for a suitable R65LS I heard the question "why don't you buy a "Big Beemer" (I'm 6' tall and previously had a "Big Beemer"...R90/6). That got me thinking about how small (or how big) an R65 actually is. Compared to an R69S, the R65LS is virtually the same size and weight, but with improved performance. I decided to buy an R65 becuase I have always liked the looks...better looking than the slightly bigger BMWs, and have always heard what good handlers they were...I rode one and agree completely.
R69S http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/specpages/R69s.htm
R65LS http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/specpages/R65LS.htm
-
The R65 is well suited for general 'utilitarian' duty, around town, commuting to work, but it really comes into it's element, on a tight twisting back road.
Get it out on a rural interstate highway at 75-80 mph, and you don't have a lot of 'reserve' power, if you needed it.
I would have liked to have seen an 'overdrive' 5th or 6th gear to bring the engine rpm's down while high speed cruising, it would bring the cruising range up to around 300 miles to reserve .
The weight distribution is excellent, my R1150R is about 75 pounds heavier than the R65, but it feels like a lot more due to it being a little more 'top heavy' .
I've had my '81 R65 since January, 1981, and I wouldn't sell it for any reason .
I'm still looking for a Henna Red LS with white wheels, but the right bike has yet to cross my path.
-
I like riding mine at 6,000 rpms on the interstates, when I can see far enough away to hope I don't get caught. You're right, no reserve power, but our interstates always have at least two lanes so you don't need it for passing. Mine cruised right up those big hills down this side of Medford without trouble.
Of course, I hate riding on interstates.
-
If you get up in elevation, the engine also loses a fair amount of power.
One of my usual rides takes me northeast of Phoenix, towards Payson,AZ., and the elevation quickly goes from 1100 feet in Phoenix, up to 5000 feet around Payson, then up to around 7000 feet, as you get on top of the Mogollon Rim, the southwestern corner of the Colorado Plateau.
The R65 feels like it has lost 40% of it's power at 6500-7000 feet.
-
Without an altitude compensating fuel delivery system, serious altitude changes will always be around.
Way back in the day, I rode my old Turnip from 640 ASL to the top of Pikes Peak, Colorado. Last few miles, on the gravel above tree line, the exhaust was a very rich black and any forward movement required almost WFO throttle.
Ah, yes. Leaky Amals, Lucas ignition, short travel suspension, vibration... great times as I was too dumb to know I wasn't supposed to be enjoying the adventure. :)
Monte
-
Wow, thanks for the heads up on elevation. I may be going around Crater Lake this summer some time, on the bike not on foot like I did it last time. That goes up to 8,000 feet.
-
The Crater Lake area is a great ride, went through there in the last week of October '98, 8 inches of snow on the ground 35 F. and 30-40 mph winds.
Made me realize all over again why I moved to Phoenix !!!!
At 8,000 foot elevation, the speed limit is all you're going to get out of the R65 !!
-
We by-passed Crater Lake back in 2004. Had plans to visit, but that's where Graham's input spline stripped. Luckily we were just across from the Ranger's station in Prospect, OR. when it happened. Just about as far away from NC that you can get! ::)
I'd love to get back that way sometime and see what we missed as we rode by in the U-Haul around midnight....
-
If you get to Crater Lake, don't forget to pick up a few 'thunder eggs' .
-
If you are crusiing at 70-80 and need to accelerate quickly, then drop a cog. The bike should be good enough for 100 mph unless you have large fairing, luggage or a pillion to slow you down. The book speed is a 105. A taller gear will only make the bike even slower in top
The R65 has a slightly shorter wheelbase (short swingarm) compared to the R60/75/80/90/100 and is slightly lower because the wheels are smaller. That is really all there is too it.
The fork legs are effectively the same length - I have measured them as I have a R100 and an R65, and the rear shocks are slightly different.
The R65 handles better because of the decent fork yokes, the shorter wheel base and slightly lower ride height.
An R100 motor in an R65 frame would make a mighty fine road rocket, and the slight reduction in ride height and wider cyclinders would make little difference on the road.......
-
The HP peak (50 HP) for the 81-84 R65 bikes is basically up there near the redline, and if you need to do the "ton" you're going to need most of that horsepower. So, to get passing power or to get to 100 it makes sense to use 4th gear as much as possible or you will need to use alot more roadway.
-
"An R100 motor in an R65 frame would make a mighty fine road rocket, and the slight reduction in ride height and wider cyclinders would make little difference on the road....... "
I agree, it would be nice, but remember the pots on the 65 are 1" narrower (overall width of engine type narrower), so the ground clearence is quite different too, especially when you decide to "play with the big boys" on a hilly section. I have replaced too many worn out rocker covers to be bothered doing it anymore, but it makes a hell of a difference, my R65RS corners much tighter than my R100RS.
-
I would consider putting on a 19inch front wheel to compenesate for this - plus the longer shocks from the larger model, if it became an issue.
Its just that I have never felt the need to crank it over so much on the road and I have never rubbed a rocker cover whilst riding.
I must either ride like a real pussy or your roads are built with an extraordinary amount of camber.
Over in the UK ours tend to be flatter......
-
Scaped the crash bar once - scared the crap outta me... :o That to me is more than enough of a lean angle.
-
Johannesburg is around about 5000ft above sea level.
I had been told that the R65 was gutless, butwhen I fetched it from almost sea level (Pietermaritzburg) it didn't feel too bad ..... but now, I think its pretty weak.
Out on the highways I usually cruise between 5000 - 6000 rpm, but my speedo bounces wildly between 100km/h and 140km/h. Even at 6500 rpm it doesnt get above 140!!
Anyone got an rpm-speed table? :)
-
Fit and calibrate a cheap cycle computer. Easy.
If you are at altitude, I am sure you can tune your bike to compensate to a certain degree.
Gutless when compared to what? It is geared appropriately for its power. But you cannot compare it to a modern bike.
I have a 1982 R100 as well as my R65 and frankly, I do not know what all the fuss is about. Its poor handling (when compared to the R65) keeps the speed down on the open road, so any power advantage is a moot point. It is definately a 'rubber cow'. Its a standard R100 - naked. With Konis rear shocks and Euro bars.
I am considering beefing up the front end to make it more R65 like. But money keeps being diveted elsewhere
Steve H