The member photo gallery is now integrated and live!!  All user albums and pictures have been ported from old gallery.


To register send an e-mail to admin@bmwr65.org and provide your location and desired user name.

Author Topic: Ride Quality  (Read 1211 times)

Offline Jeremy R65

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • A man can never have too many toys to play with
Ride Quality
« on: April 07, 2015, 04:46:09 PM »
As I mentioned in the post below, I took my 1980 R65 to a Vintage Motorcycle Club meet tonight.  It was looked upon appreciatively by most people - we are a broad church! I rode about 60 miles on the UK's battered roads and was surprised at how harsh the ride was.  I have to say that it is no better and perhaps worse than my 1956 500cc Velocette! The front forks seem soft and compliant and I have drained and refilled them with the correct quantity of the thin Aeroshell oil from MotoBins.  But the back end feels hard and beats my back around more than I hoped. Although the bike has only done 12000 miles from new, is the problem with the 35 year old OE suspension units or with my expectations. If the former, what should I do about it? Thanks
Jeremy R
1980 R65
1956 Velocette 500cc MSS
Mazda MX5
VW Golf
17ft two berth Gaff Cutter built in wood

Offline jamestnewsonr65

  • Lives in Foothills of Mt. Olympus
  • **
  • Posts: 232
Re: Ride Quality
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2015, 04:54:37 PM »
I have found the ride on mine to be harsher than I thought it would be too.

I haven't ridden one of the these before the one I own so have no reference, but I did change the original shocks to Hagons (specs correct for bike) and find these to be harder than expected. Mine had only done 17,000 miles when I bought it but the shocks were past it on this particular bike.

1983 R65LS completely refurbished to my liking.
1985 R80 nearly stock rebuild (basically new bike).
1981 R65 (box of bits).

Offline Bob_Roller

  • Global Moderator
  • Mt. Olympus Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 9124
  • -7 hours GMT
Re: Ride Quality
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2015, 05:10:14 PM »
If you have the OEM BOGE shocks, replace them, the OEM shocks were lousy when new .

Replace the fork oil with BMW 7.5 wt, if you can find it, other wise, 10 wt will work fine .

Fork springs may need replacing depending on their condition .

Old hardened tires may add to this as well .
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 05:13:57 PM by Bob_Roller »
'81 R65
'82 R65 LS
'84 R65 LS
'87 Moto Guzzi V65 Lario
'02 R1150R
Riding all year long since 1993 .
I'll give up my R65, when they pry my cold dead hands from the handlebars !!!!!

Offline montmil

  • Mt. Olympus Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 8371
Re: Ride Quality
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2015, 05:41:30 PM »
Boge shocks [smiley=wall.gif]

The story is that the only reason BMW Motorrad fitted those rotten Boge shocks to our Airheads was to keep the rear fender off the tire while the bike was in its shipping crate.

You can buy all kinds of rear shocks for the R65. Spend mucho dinero for the boy racer specials but the R65 Airheads are not hard core canyon carvers.

Both my '81 and '83 R65s are fitted with Hagon shocks. They are available in the UK as well as in The Republic of Texas and our surrounding colonies. The nice thing about the Hagon dealer I work with is that the dealer will fit springs to your personal specifications, ie: Your weight ready to ride with all gear on -no cheating here. You'll only mess up the bike. Also, do you ride mostly solo or with pillion? Saddle bags? Loaded bags?

My R100S has Works Peformance nitogen-filled rear shocks and front springs. Pricey they are. Work well at speed but fairly harsh just putt-putting around town. Not trying to start a massive "my favorite shock" thread. Just what has worked in my limited experience.  ;)
Monte Miller
Denton, TEXAS
1978 BMW R100S
1981 BMW R65
1983 BMW R65
1995 Triumph Trophy
1986 VW Cabriolet

Offline Tony Smith

  • Mt. Olympus Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 2331
  • Graduate, Wallace and Gromit School of Engineering
Re: Ride Quality
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2015, 09:47:45 PM »
BMW are guilty of the crime of massively under-specifying fork fluid. Aeroshell is simply wrong, and I say this after once biting the bullet and buying a drum of the blasted stuff. You may as well use Dexron III which is way, way cheaper and has about the same viscosity.
 
At the risk of re-starting an old debate, fluid WEIGHT has bugger-all to do with fluid VISCOSITY which is what actually does the damping.
 
I recommend Castrol Fork Fluid 10, but if you are lightweight then a 50~50 mix of Castrol 5 and Castrol 10 seems to be good (wife uses this, I use straight 10 and heavy duty R80ST springs as well).


Shocks, as someone else said there are lots and lots out there. If I could afford them I would try Wilbers. If I could find a set in useable or rebuildable condition I'd like to try Fournales. But I have found over a period of 37 years that KONI/IKON provide the best "bang for buck" performance/price wise.
 
Mind you, it does help that IKON is now an Australian manufacturer and therefore as local to me as it gets.  What is important is that whatever shock you buy has the correct spring - if a salesman tries to hand you a box of shocks without first asking you what the normal load of the bike is - walk away, they do not know what they are talking about.
 
A good seller will enquire as to your weight, the weight of any frequent pillion and how much gear you tend to carry on the bike. They will then generate options for you and you decide which end of the scale you want to compromise. Once you have the spring rate more or less right the next step is to adjust the damping rates - if the shock that is being attempted to be sold to you does not have adjustable damping - walk away (unless you never carry a pillion and never go touring and like the standard damping of course) Taking my R100 as an example - the normal load is me at a little under 130kg, but I sometimes have a Pillion and whilst her weight is a State Secret I operate on the theory that 70kg is probably right. finally If we go touring there are two panniers and a top box that swallow about 30kg worth of "stuff". so I need a spring range that is correct for me with no preload and can be preloaded up to allow for an extra 100kg of load.
 
The damping that is correct for 130kg will be like a pogo stick with 230kg - alternatively, damping that works for 230kg will be like riding a wooden horse at 130kg.
 
How to set correct spring rates? I am a little old school and I want to see about 1" sag when I sit on the bike, no more and no less, remember that you do not have all that much travel to play with as every inch of sag is an inch of travel lost.

How to set damping.
If it feels like a pogo stick - too little
if going over a wet white line launches your butt off the seat - too much
If it feels like a dead plank of wood with no transmission of road shock - just right.

Some really sophisticated shocks have adjustable compression damping as well as adjustable rebound damping, my own view is that this does introduce needless complexity (unless of course you are trying to tune things just right to get round a particular corner a mph or two quicker - but the theory of set up remains the same.
1978 R100RS| 1981 R100RS (JPS) | 1984 R65 | 1992 KLE500 | 2002 R1150GSA |

Offline Barry

  • Mt. Olympus Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 5144
Re: Ride Quality
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2015, 03:10:27 AM »
Well my experience of fettling the forks over many years is somewhat at odds with other views. In a nutshell what |I have found is that once the tolerances of the damper valve are correct the best fork oil is the very thin 5 CSt stuff that BMW originally recommended. With that in my forks I have a very controlled and compliant ride. It's light years away from where I started and is the result of years of experimentation with valve washer clearances.

The basic problem is while compression damping is about right using the recommended oil there is insufficient rebound damping.

As the forks extend the damper piston forces oil back into the lower fork leg.  The valve washer drops and seals against the valve body and the oil can now only pass through a small 3mm hole near the top of the piston damper rod. This is the rebound orifice. The area of this hole is smaller than the area of the compression damping holes by a factor of 3 resulting in approx 3 times stiffer rebound damping relative to compression. That figure is typical as rebound damping is always substantially stronger than compression.

Problems arise when there is too much clearance between the bore of the valve washer and the damper piston rod allowing leakage of the oil which substantially reduces the rebound damping effect. By substantial I mean it cuts rebound damping in half because a 0.010" clearance will pass more oil than the rebound orifice proper.  The response of most is to compensate with thicker oil but that also increases compression damping resulting in a hard ride.

The key to good forks is being able to increase rebound damping independently of compression damping and while it's a PITA to have to strip down the forks to do that, it can be done by reducing clearances and therefore the leakage past the valve washer.  Once you have the forks working as the original design intent the hours of work involved to get there are forgotten.

IMHO BMW's guilt was not in the design and specification but in the execution of manufacturing tolerances. They could so easily have given us adjustable rebound damping by providing alternative valve washers and in fact they did just that for the forks on Type 247 Airheads but not on our type 248's.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 03:26:54 AM by bhodgson »
Barry Cheshire, England 79 R45