The New And Improved Unofficial R65 Forum V2
Technical Discussion => Discussion about "Lesser" makes, er, Non-BMW ;-) => Topic started by: 65shawn on November 18, 2013, 11:32:15 PM
-
This is a sort of "by request" comparison but I think that I will try to do some justice here if possible.
I had a T140V back in 75. I'd be interested to hear your comparison between the R65 and T140V in terms of handling and performance.
It's a long time ago but my recollection is the T140V was gutsy low down but ultimately not that fast and the vibration levels tended to discourage high revs. Handling was very good though and it made a fabulous noise. I wish I still had it.
Ok, I'll have a crack at it. I've had my 77 T140V for a few years. Other bikes owned have been a 70s CB360 (a fine bike), a 70s CB125 (fun but a scooter pretty much), and a 70s CB175 (a tremendous cafe bike, as is with no mods...) a 1972 Daytona 500 Triumph (a great machine) and a 1971-72 Triumph Bonneville (an utter piece of crap that looked cool).
Run downs to follow ...
-
First off, there's no comparison between the r65 and the CB125. A Honda CB125 for those that don't know is a little 125cc bike that is (according to some websites I've read, and movies like the Darjeeling limited still insanely popular... in India). They seem to stick around because they were made to last through the rapture. They are single thumpers.
(https://bmwr65.org/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_luf625ouVS1qj6i52o1_500.jpg&hash=736bc3c8f8ba8c0c88b7d730a983a23104954202)
But nope, not in the same calibre.
Then there's the Honda CB175, which is an insanely fun bike. It screams. It redlines at some preposterous amount. It was available only in cheerful candy colors, and the factory thought: "why not put a racing cam in these, you know just to scare the crap out of teenagers". Also a great machine. flickable. Stops fast. Weighed nothing. Accelerated blindingly quick (if you only weigh 145lbs wet) and will throw a girl clean off the back. It will also burn the bearings out if you don't change the fluids every 1k miles. But still, not really any comparison to the r65 for obvious reasons. The 175 is a little cafe bike. Can't do much else besides scream around downtown or the beach streets.
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/251351_2068163470549_5487339_n.jpg)
And then a real bike a Honda CB360. From all reviews the Honda 360 added a 6th Gear over the CB350 but somehow was still both slower and more unreliable. Frame geometry was changed. Still a great bike. I learned to ride on that one and then downsized to the little ones aforementioned. From what I remember this bike was really really fast. Muscular around town. Too light for the highway, or anything over 2 lanes with any traffic going over 50 (although I didn't get sucked up by a semi I was sure waiting for it to happen). The bike would get you to 70 without you realizing it, and 45mph felt like 15mph. It scared the crap out of me because of that and that it literally felt almost too nimble, like to light and too easy to move, but with just enough power to make it literally feel dangerous. I scared myself going too fast on it as a new irresponsible rider, so I sold it and got a small bike as mentioned previous...
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/222741_1041325800249_8942_n.jpg)
The difference in between a cb360 or cb350 from the r65 is pretty apples to oranges significant. The 65 feels grounded, stable and patient in comparison. It feels refined. The r65 is more stable but ... also feels much more heavy than it actually is in comparison, and the center of gravity is very different. The engine makes the difference here as well, I can notice the difference with the boxer and the shimmy that people talk about even though it's negligible probably compared to an r90. There's supposedly only a 30lb difference in curb weights from the r65 to the cb360 but it feels like 200. And also: It's something about the around town handling on the old Honda. The Honda feels almost strangely lightweight in comparison, and not always in a good way. Top speed on the Honda and 0-60 is purported to be faster. I can say that in recollection, it did feel quicker, but that was years ago. And again, that bike is intentionally now the most popular platform for a cafe racer down where I live, and well ... I can see why. But I also sold it because it made me uneasy and I was a brand new rider at the time (not like I am an old salt or very experienced now in comparison to most riders).
Now moving on to the Triumphs.
-
r65LS v.s. 1972 (early) Triumph Bonneville ...
Sigh. Man ... what can I say about this 1972 Triumph but ... I should have googled it before I bought it. I shouldn't have paid so much attention to the chrome and paint job. At least I didn't lose money on the deal ...
Basically for those who have never had the *pleasure* of going through all the following I'll make it short: Triumph was experiencing some production and ownership issues and a bit of a perfect storm of miscommunication with the new motor tooling and other issues resulted in a bike that couldn't be assembled right / frame modifications or some sort and more for the 71-72 model years. This resulted in arguably the poison that eventually did the company in (missing a sales year in the USA) as well as frame geometry that has been argued over for decades (wayyyy before my time). This all made many wonder why there were bothering with the marque and most decided to go buy Honda CB 750 or BMW r75 which was probably a really good idea either way.
Regardless nowadays the free market shows that no one wants 1971-1973 Bonnevilles for this reason, and the shifting changeover issues, but I'll spare you.
The 71-72 year Bonnevilles had a higher center of gravity, and seat height. At 5ft9, it was barely comfortable to be on with a pair of big engineer boots on with stacked heels, and even then, a change from a CB honda to that thing was a shock to say the least. But I can say that opening the throttle wide, produced a joyful roar through cocktail shaker pipes and felt like a drunk with 750cc was giving you a quick to 65mph piggy back ride down the roads. Yep this one had a engine over bore to 750. And it still was horrible.
How does this compare to the r65 ? Well, I would beg anyone to let me have the r65 over this bike. r65 Stops better, accelerates more smoothly, and handles a million times better. It's a far superior bike. Furthermore, the r65 feels like you are part of the bike v.s. riding high on a machine that you feel like you might topple over from due to the center of gravity being obviously odd. While the Bonneville had a different rush by it's acceleration and was super torquey on the low end, this also in major part was felt by the general miserable nature of the model year's geometry, handling, and engine roar with non- original pipes. Also: no fairing whatsoever. But man did it like to go in a straight line ... until the leaky carbs and taps prevented it from running at all.
Ok, plainly put: you probably don't want a Triumph 650 model bike from 71. But some people really love these ... like my buddy that's 6ft3
But man did it look cool.
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/305091_4525740668443_1538513677_n.jpg)
-
r65LS v.s. 1972 T100 Triumph Daytona 500cc (dual carb model)
Some of the old Triumph riders I met described this as the best motor Triumph ever made. A mechanic of 30 years experience told me the same. And it did leak oil. And the bike did feel like from another era. And it was awesome, fast, and shifted like the transmission was full of coffeebeans (apparently ... just how they are) but it was a great great bike that I recently sold because I just wasn't riding it, and didn't feel like spending the few hundred dollars to buy new carbs and get it tuned up.
That being said if it felt like it was a bike from the 60s it's because it basically was. With the exception of the dual carbs and a better double shoed racing style brake up front the bike was relatively unchanged since they debuted the t100 ... as ridden by S.McQ and Dylan and everyone else. I would buy another one of these in heartbeat. They left the frames the same until they discontinued these in the mid-70s even though Triumph was busy ruining their other bikes at the time.
They are cheap (relatively ... I just saw a completely mint looking one in Georgia up for $3.5K) and parts are plentiful, and I felt it was a really reliable bike ... or would have been if the floats didn't get ruined by ethanol gas. Good news is you can get the Amal Premier carbs which are excellent (more on that in a minute) and it will make these into daily rider viable bikes.
How does this rate v.s. a R65 ? Pretty much give and take. The r65 frame and rider size is much larger but doesn't feel ungainly. This bike is tight, light compact in comparison. The Daytona or 500cc felt stable. It was a very good bike. It wasn't bracingly fast like the Triumph t140 or Cb360 or even the r65.
But I suppose it's also because I rode it that way. It felt like a time machine in comparison to the other bikes, even though it's not that much older.
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/399035_4630282201916_1924370278_n.jpg)
-
As a Brit, who did not get into to motorcycles until it was all over, by some margin, I do not have any loyalty to what went on before. Only a slight sadness.
I will however comment on something I read in one of our classic bikes magazines over here. This was from a specialist Triumph tuning shop, the proprietor was discussing the triumph 750 engine, as fitted to the last models. He stated that "with the correct oil and proper servicing, you should be able to get up to 40,000 miles before you have to take the engine down". He was saying it as if it was something to be proud of, as if they could be regarded as a reliable daily runner - a practical classic. Which, I suppose, it is as long as you are not doing 20,000 miles a year.
The rebuild he was talking about was a full engine strip, crank out, a full set of shells and bearings, rebores, etc - i.e thousands of £s if done professionally.
Lets compare that to an r65. Bottom end, capable of twice round the clock. Top end - refresh, 60,000(?). Gearbox - 100,000 miles plus.
When I first go a hold on my 79 94,000 mile R65, I refreshed the heads, as they had not been done and fettled the bores and slugs, because I was in there. Put a new timing chain in. Gearbox was untouched and is now heading for 120,000 - but we can thank the sprung drive shaft for that. It was not well looked after, but at no time did I think a full engine rebuild was necessary. In fact I was specifically advised not to.
I also like the low down torquey power delivery, when compared to a 4 cylinder machine of a similar size.
I'll have another. In fact, I have first dibs on my old bike when Tony has finished with it. As long as he does not screw it up.....What colour?
Rev. Light
-
BMW r65 v.s. 1977 Triumph Bonneville t140V
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/58954_1591466433421_7304221_n.jpg)
The Triumph Bonneville for 1976 - 1977 and the very beginning of 78 is a bike that the factory got right, if only briefly. By 76 the shift had moved over to the left side in a solid proper and permanent manner, the motor and frame had been sorted out and the oil-in-frame design was properly executed, and the horsepower was stated at 49, top speed at 110 and the new saved-from-oblivion Meriden co-op were cranking out 350 bikes a week in 1976. By 1978 they had switched to the E motor, neutering the bike for emissions requirements. By 1980-82 the factory was out of money and even using Italian tanks and BMW off the shelf turn signals, with Mikuni Carbs as stock. Then it was all over.
From MotorcycleClassics.com:
It’s too bad, really, because the revived (1976-77) Bonneville was in some ways the best Bonnie ever. Contemporary testers raved about the bike’s excellent handling, citing its low weight and low center of gravity. “It sometimes feels like the Bonneville turns if you just think about turning,” one tester said. “This is a motorcycle whose pegs your grandmother could drag,” noted another.
I suppose I agree. The second I sat on my relatively unmolested 77' T140V I could tell there was something all right going on there, even if someone did cut the pipes off it to run wide open.
A set of Amal Premier (new hardened material, precision manufactured, viton floats etc) carbs and the bike became a completely different animal. It wanted to melt your face when you opened the throttle and sounded like an old wwI airplane did taking off in all the old movies, all while you are perched in a proper spot, knees on tank, everything seemed in the right place (with a set of Norman Hyde lowered western bars). Dual discs in proper order stop reasonably, and vibration is also not that bad. Cornering is effortless, and for a 750 the bike handles as well as the Honda CB350 I spoke of previously.
How does this compare to the r65? Well ...
Triumph t140V 1977 model cons
-No electric start
-Perpetual Oil Leak
-OIF limited oil capacity worries many
-Incredibly simple
-Chromed disc breaks make for not-as-good stopping
-Annoying "mini ape" handlebars were stock
-Not a very good charging system for the battery
-Vibration requires regular checks of relevant nuts and bolts
-anything over 65 mph feels like god is actively involved or at least waiting to see what's gonna happen.
-you perpetually smell like petrol / gas / burning oil.
-sitting in traffic on a hot day (in Florida) is a bad idea. The bike likes to keep moving to stay cool in wearer over 85 degrees and this can potentially be an issue.
But the final note is at present the R65 is tagged, and the Bonneville is in the garage ... waiting for another carb rebuild.
The r65 feels like am more trustworthy bike, in general. It's more under control and brakes better, handles better and is more stable under high speeds, starts and stops more smoothly, the gear box seems very well thought out, the clutch is effortless in comparison.
Whereas there's no doubt that the T140V makes a person feel great and all the Triumph ideals while riding it ... there's also the times where it just doesn't seem to want to kick over, the carbs get flooded, the carbs weren't tickled enough, or the battery needs to have been left on that tender for longer. It's a beast. And because of that I don't ride it every day, especially if I am going shorter distances with many stops or sitting in traffic. And because it doesn't get ridden every day it never seems sorted.
The r65 I can ride every day. Walk out. Roll out. Gear up. Starts up. And down the road. And when I arrive, I also don't smell like a garage. ;)
Hope this compare / contrast review is at least a little amusing! Cheers all!
-
I'm sort of in the market for one of those Triumph 500s. No money for it but for the right price I might not let that stop me.
My '70 Boneville (650 cc) is good for about 110 mph, my R65 for 105. They both have 50 hp, but the Triumph is at least 40 pounds lighter. It's a hair faster than my buddie's R75/5 SWB Toaster. The brakes on my Triumph stop as well as the twin disks on my R65. The Triumph handles better an low or high speeds and has better suspension. I have wished for a kick starter on the R65 many times more often than I have wished for an electric starter on the Triumph.
My Triumph's gearbox never gives me any trouble. If it did, it wouldn't cost a grand to have it rebuilt.
Parts don't fall off my R65.
My Trimph is up to about 96,000 miles, but my R65 is catching up with about 92,000. If I don't finish painting the Triumph and re-building the front forks the R65 may beat it across the 100,000 mile line.
The R65 is much more comfortable to ride for any distance.
I know a source for nikasil-lined cylinders for the Triumph, for, say, about the price of a top end rebuild on the BMW. I've added an oil filter to it. The Triumph has needed more work per mile, but I don't think it's been any more expensive.
(https://bmwr65.org/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8283%2F7569497258_ce3e20f377_b.jpg&hash=cb6815cedf8ecd3abcf405ddb83ff94907db5b6f)
(https://bmwr65.org/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8439%2F7749761384_6bbc29d074_b.jpg&hash=879b9783d298eb3f126f5f564c45a5daa428bd76)
-
I will however comment on something I read in one of our classic bikes magazines over here. This was from a specialist Triumph tuning shop, the proprietor was discussing the triumph 750 engine, as fitted to the last models. He stated that "with the correct oil and proper servicing, you should be able to get up to 40,000 miles before you have to take the engine down". He was saying it as if it was something to be proud of, as if they could be regarded as a reliable daily runner - a practical classic. Which, I suppose, it is as long as you are not doing 20,000 miles a year.
I'll agree there. How many "original" state Triumphs do I see with over 40k on the clock ? Pretty much none. Those have all been taken apart and made into choppers. I think my T100 had 24k on the clock and was still going well though. The mechanic I have worked with on my Triumphs said that he put over 200k miles on his t100 Tiger 500cc but that was with many rebuilds I would assume, and probably led him to becoming a very competent Triumph mechanic.
-
I have a soft spot for Triumph motorcycles.
Except for my current Hinckley Triumph Trophy 900 Triple, for sport touring, all my Triumphs were twin and single leakers of Meriden manufacture.
College days, I worked for a very small Triumph/BMW dealer. Really small. Later, with the advent of the You Meet the Nicest People ad campaign, the shop added Honda and, ultimately, the Yamaha line. Still, a very small dealership where I did a bit of everything.
My primary college ride was a 1953 T100C. The "C" had the factory race kit installed in the standard road bike. There was also a terribly dull and gutless 350cc twin, the 3TA. And a really fun Triumph Cub that little brother mostly rode and I kept in fine nick.
Many, many factors contributed to the death of Triumph and the British motorcycle industry -far too many to discuss in detail here. But I can recommend three excellent books I have in my motorcycle library that will take you through the beginnings, glory days and final collapse of Triumph and the Brit industry:
Shooting Star The Rise and Fall of the British Motorcycle Industry
-Abe Aamidor
Edward Turner The man behind the Motorcycles
-Jeff Clew
Tales of Triumph Motorcycles & The Meriden Factory
-Hughie Hancox
BTW, Triumph has announced the manufacture of a new design 250cc single to be produced in India. Meriden is following the lead of Honda, Kawasaki and HD in developing smaller, more economical motorcycles that appeal to both new riders as well as the seasoned motorcyclist. Not everyone is enamored with the latest large, heavy, technically complex, computer-driven and expensive motorcycles.
Gotta walk out to the shop and speak to my Airheads. Dog bless 'em. [smiley=thumbup.gif]
-
Thanks for the write ups Shawn. Very informative and nostalgic.
A mate of mine had one of those CB175's in the early 70's and the acceleration was truely awesome compared to similar and many larger capacity Brit bikes of the day. Even the Italians couldn't compete. My first bike was a Ducati monza 160 which the Honda left for dead.
My T140V looked just like yours, same colour tank. It was the very last of the right hand gearchange models though and in fact because of the gear change they were being sold off cheap as a failed US export order. I paid just £749 for a new one in 75. An R65 at the time would have been double that so I wouldn't even have thought of one.
I recognised all of your T140v points of comparison but particularly liked :-
-anything over 65 mph feels like god is actively involved or at least waiting to see what's gonna happen.
-you perpetually smell like petrol / gas / burning oil. - that I guess would be the carb ticklers
-
Ed, that's a really fine looking Triumph in green. Very nice indeed.
-
I spent the '70's riding British twins and singles, and had a 1971 XS1 for 15 years, 1990 to 2005 - a 2 valve 650 twin is my happy place. The R65 Mono has similar power but is heavier, slower steering and slower shifting....mind you, I'm heavier and slower than I was in the '70's too. I sometimes have to look down at the cyls to remind myself I'm not on a vertical twin.
-
I don't have the pedigree that most of you have in terms of experience of lots of bikes, however I have "sampled" both the CB175 & CB360.
One of my Dad's mates had the 175 which he commuted to work on everyday, he used to let me ride it, I was just 17 and looking to upgrade from my AP50 to something a little bigger. Stepping off the Suzuki and climbing aboard the Honda was amazing, the performance (and handling) were very good, but I had no other bike to compare it with. I then went to college and a mate of mine turned up one day on a CB360, he let me have a couple of rides (I didn't have the correct licence) and again it was amazing (still riding the AP50 don't forget).
I had kind of set my heart on buying the CB175 from my Dad's mate who offered it to me at a great price, but then I tried the GT250 and fell in love with the powerband delivery, what a hoot! the CB then felt a little old fashioned in comparing the two side by side so I bought the 250.
To this day I would love to have one of each just for fun.
I rode a 650 Thunderbolt which belonged to a neighbour which was nice and long legged, but it was always breaking down. My Dad bought it and we had it for a while before he got fed up and sold it for a small profit.
Unlike many of you, I don't have the knowledge or experience to get the tolls out and fettle, so Brit bikes don't hold a lot of appeal for me, I will need my bike to start, run and stop when I have the time to ride it (love cleaning though... :)).
-
I can give a little bit of input here:
I raced a 500 triumph back in the day (fitted into a BSA A10 frame), sweet engine which would rev and rev.
After that, progressed to a T120R engine (in same A10 frame), even better engine apart from being a pig to start on race days.
In the late 1980's I bought a T140es, low miles and a lovely looking bike. In practice however it was bloody awful. loads of vibrations, rubber mounted handlebars and an electric starter that was at best adequate. furthest ride out was 100 miles and I did consider leaving it there and catching train home. part ex'd it for a lovely '72 Commando.
Not ridden my r65 much yet but inital thoughts are it handles very similar to the commando, has similar low down grunt and vibrations are minimal and as expected.
overall i think it is very similar to a well set up BSA A10 (if comparing to British Iron).
As I do all my own spanner work, the quality of build is far superior though.
kev
-
Still ride the 71 Daytona 500 in the winter desert of Oregon. It's still ( and has always been) a "ringing" maintenance nightmare . . . but i still luv it (8->)
My annual ride up the Dalton Hi on the 86 R65 still provides the biggest grin of the year. Just something about a 50mph two lane/track "blue highway" ride with little to no traffic . . . that let's you wander down the path tuned into the airhead sewing machine sounds of silence (8->)
-
I'm not sure you can compare the R65 with say 'vintage' Triumph, sure for a spell they were being made at the same time, but the they were being honest from different eras. The Triumphs were little more than a 1950's bike sort of modernised with 12 v electrics and the like and an extra cylinder cobbled on in the case of the Trident. The R65 on the other hand was designed completely 1970's and it shows.
My 1981 R65 is 34 years old and it does not feel in anyway fragile when you ride it, unlike a Triumph of the late 70's early 80's. The 65's feel bullet proof, and they are if you keep your oil clean, then the bottom end is more than capable of doing over a quarter of a million miles.
Having owned a 79 Bonny, which looked great and made a wonderful sound but it was about as reliable as a politicians promise, I went to the land of the rising sun and got an (I could never bring myself to buy a Honda after that bloody advert) early GSXR 750. Great bike, really fast but next to no life expectancy as it wanted you to thrash the living daylights out it. I had a lot of fun on the GSXR and if I was looking for a the Jap 'classic' I'd have one.
Anyway that GSXR was to expensive when I went to University (after being one of many made redundant by Thatchers policys) so I got an R65, and of the three it the best by a country mile in my opinion. Sure its not fast like the GSXR or pretty like the Bonny, but it will always get you where you want to go, is a doodle to work on and unusual enough to stand out to those who know their bikes, which is why many people opt own a classic.
-
My R65 wasn't feeling fragile when the tranny pooped it's pants a hundred miles from home on a trip to the coast, nor when the clutch did the same a few thousand miles later, 400 miles from home. You could argue in hindsight that I should have swapped out the clutch whilst having the gearbox rebuilt, but it looked fine at the time. One whole side of friction material just turned into a mouse nest, on my way home.
My main problems with the Triumph are things falling off.