Comparing the 79-85 R65 with the monolevers?

[R80rider]

I recently was asked to supply a definitive list of things that are better or worse between the traditional dual-shock R65 and the Monolevers.

My list started with things I percieved as positives of the monolevers such as the use of the larger and reportedly more stable R80 frame.  From there I moved to the much improved center and side stand.  The battery covers are also more secure and you don't need the tie wraps as they are not likely to fall off.  I am aware that the monolever was introduced on the R80G/S and was considered to provide better cornering and ease of rear tire replacement.  

I have also heard that the gearing is different but have not seen any conclusive proof of this.

Anyone who has information on this topic and can possible supply a plus and minus type of list comparing these two generations would always be on my most favored list.

In ending, though both of my BMWs are monolevers, I do not want this to come off like I am attempting to bash the highly-esteemed dual shock.  My fisrt BMW was a '79 R65 and I have nothing but fond memories of that bike.

Does the monoshock have any inherent advantages or disadvantages (besides the cost :< of replacement) over the dual shock?

Is one better than the other or are they just different?

If you had a choice of owning any of the R65 dual shocks or a monolever (both in excellent condition) which would you choose and why?

Thanks all and I look forward to your educated and experienced replies!  

Bill

[not-so-fast-ed]

Rear gearing on my '87 is 37/11 for what it's worth.  
I've also heard mention that the dual shock models had a vibration problem that I haven't encountered yet on my mono.  Also heard that the dual shock SWB took the twisties better than the mono LWB.
Semper Gumby has a lot of experience on the dual shock and has ridden my mono.  He will probably be a better  source of comparisons than I could be.
Ed

[Justin B.]

I can think of no negatives on the monoshock except that mono specific used parts are rather scarce.

Pros:

Lower maintenance
- Sealed front wheel bearings
- No traditional rerar wheel bearings
- No rear wheel splines

Better centerstand

Better handling

True tubeless tires

Wheel rim style makes mounting and dismounting tires easier

Not as hard to get the rear wheel off if bags are installed

Bigger gas tank

More/better seat choices

Mufflers are stainless steel, although rather light gauge.

Shares more parts with the bigger bikes.

I'm sure there are more but I'm beat...

[nhmaf]

The "negatives" of the mono bike I think are dependent on your point of view and related to the sharing of the larger bikes' mono frame:

Higher seat height (not as friendly for shorter riders)
longer wheelbase (not as flickable in twisty bits)
Greater weight (but how much I am not sure, probably not enough to notice in most cases)

However, the advantages Justin points are are not to be overlooked either.  The mono bikes also have the K-bike derived front fork, although the
81-84 R65 front fork system is considered very good compared to others of it's same vintage, the K-bike derived forks from the post '85 models
I think are superior to them and are a later, more refined design.

The stock gearing of the rear end on the 81-84 R65s that came to the USA was 32/9.  However, I believe that the european models was slightly "taller" @ 31/9 and have read several books indicating this.

[NC Steve]

It's always been my understanding that the twin-shock bikes were smaller, lighter, and handled better, while the Monos were basically the R80/100 with a smaller engine. The '81-84s also made a few more ponies and lbs of torque over the Monos, and were quicker, at least according to the spec sheets.
All things considered, though, the Mono is probably a more modern and lower maintenance bike.

The earlier bikes were a bit more "unique" too, although that's not necessarily a good thing... :-?

[R80rider]

Thanks for the great feedback and please keep it coming.  I was going to chime in here about how I felt the mono was as agile as the dual shock but then remembered my '79 R65 had "Cheng Shin's" (and yes, I am embarassed to admit this) front and rear when I purchased it and they did not even instill confidence in the rain grooves on Interstate 15.

I ended up with a Metzler on the rear when the back Shin blew out on me while doing 50 on a surface street. I now regret not getting a Metz on the front as well so I could have experienced the the highly-acclaimed agility of the dual shocker.

[steve hawkins]

My view, for what its worth, is that the later mono is a bigger bike without the bigger motor.  

The R65 Mono's were not around long as it was essentially the same bike as the R80, but with the R65 motor.   Most people just bought an R80.  The main differentiator - the smaller frame and styling was gone.  The R65 motor fitted to the mono was the same as fitted to the 81-84 twin shock bikes, but it might have been detuned for emissions/noise etc, as it was a later bike and had to passed more stringent tests.

I do not want to enter into a 'my bike is better than yours' debate, but if you want a small frame twin shock R65, then the 81-84 bike is the one to have.  Which is why I am riding a 1979 example......

Sometimes the local bike is just easier to get a hold of!

That said, neither of the four bike types is a bad bike, 1979-80, 1981-84, LS and the mono's.  There are all different animals, though.  Think about what you are going to use it for and buy the appropriate machine.

Cheers

Steve

[thrang]

I'll admit the mono's have a lot going for them as machines and are over all a more refined design than the twins. However what gets to me when I ride a 65 mono is after a twin shock they always feel a little but sluggish and unwieldly especially when you have it loaded.  

[airhead]

The post '86 Mono R65 was detunes by a couple HP as it was set up to run unleaded. The valve seats and valves were also true unleaded.
I really enjoy mine as my riding is mainly touring, and though no slouch around town, I wish I'd bought the LS I was looking at a couple years ago for urban running.

Bill....................;-)