R65 vs other 650,s

[Lucky_Lou]

 Does anyone know how our r65,s compared in performance to other 650,s of the same period i was riding smaller bikes at that time that said my Honda 250 Dream was good for the ton.
Lou

[Bob_Roller]

You pretty much couldn't find a slower 650 bike for the time frame, than an R65 .

I had a friend buy a Yamaha 650 in 1982, and he would leave me in the proverbial dust in an acceleration run .

I think my '79 Yamaha XS400 was faster than my '81 R65 .

[Barry]

Lou

I have a "Motorcycling" magazine from 1982. These are the BHP, Top speed, standing 1/4 times  and Purchase price for the 650'S tested from 1979 to 1982 :-
                                       BHP  Speed  1/4 Mile  Price

BMW R65                         50   108    14.07     £2472

Honda CB650                   63   110    13.61     £1300

Kawasaki 650                   62   108    13.92      £1424

Triumph T'bird 650            38   100    14.73      £1909

Ducati Pantah 600             60   123   13.32      £2639

Yamaha XJ 650                 66   120   12.46       £1845

Suzuki Katana 650            73    117  12.70       £1755


Quite a few of the 500 and 550's  were also posting sub 14 sec 1/4 times

[Motu]

That's a strange list...but they always are when someone wants to prove a point.Triumph 650 Thunderbird with 38hp? That's from the '50's surely? The Kawasaki KZ650? They were a rocket in their day...and it has the same top speed and and not much quicker than the R65? I reckon it stacks up pretty well against the 4 cyl bikes.

I spent my teens and 20's on British twins,and with a bit of tweaking (which is what riding old bikes was,and still is all about) they weren't that much slower than the Japanese bikes of the '70's.Handling was where it was at for me,and the UJM was a long way off the mark for a long time.I had a 1971 XS1 for 15 years,and sold it in 2003.

And that's why a 650 2 valve pushrod twin is for me - it's the bike I've spent the most time on,and feel at home with.Brand is irrelevant.A 750 twin with 60hp is better,but they are on the limit of rear wheel adhesion when pushed hard....it takes a lot more to make a 650 step out.

When looking for a bike it was a short list of 883 Sportster,W650 or XS650...an R65 wasn't in the picture.But the Sportster and W650 are overpriced,and the XS650 borderline reliable unless a lot of work is done on them....then I saw the R65 mono and the search ended.

[Barry]

That's a strange list...but they always are when someone wants to prove a point. Triumph 650 Thunderbird with 38hp? That's from the '50's surely?  

I had to find Lou a slower bike than an R65 didn't I but I assure you they all real bikes and road tests which came from the  Nov 1982 edition of "Motorcycling" magazine.

In an effort to win back police orders in the early 1980's Triumph briefly produced a 650cc short stroke version of the T140V 750 motor. This one would have been a single carb model and I think they may have made a twin carb version as well. It was not a great success and was said to have too little grunt compared to the 750's but they were on sale in the UK at least.  Probably didn't go for export so you may not have heard of a Triumph TR65 Thunderbird.

[Motu]

Oh yeah,I remember there was a 650,and I don't think they came here.That's seriously gutless,in 1948 the Thunderbird had 34hp on 7:1 compression and a top speed of 100mph....that's a lot of development to gain 4hp.The R65 is not that far behind from those figures,but 1987 when they made my mono they were so far off the pace it's a wonder they could sell them,and yet there seem to be almost as many R65's as there are R80's for that year.

[Barry]

I found a couple of other references to the TR65 being 42 BHP at 6500 RPM which sounds more realistic. Maybe the magazine road test was wrong or perhaps there was a lower powered version. Certainly a trail version was produced in small numbers.

Either way it was still probably slower than an R65

[Lucky_Lou]

Intresting stuff there boys.. thanks for the list Barry.The Triumph may be slow but sure is pretty.
Lou

[alexznam357]

I bought a new Kawasaki 550 in 1981...very quick and a great handler. The R65LS feels about the same size and handles as well, just now as peaky in power. A year later I bought a Kawasaki 750...quite a bit quicker than the 550, but didn't handle the twisties as well as the 550. In restrospect, how many of those other bikes do you see these days? I occassionally see a Kawi 550 in Walneck's, but take a look at how many R65s are still around. The build quality and parts suppport for these bikes is absolutely amazing.  

[Ed Miller]

The 60s Triumph 650s were faster than that later model one, and had about 50 hp in the case of my 1970 (twin carb models, anyway).  My Bonneville is a bit faster top speed I think, but the R65 feels like it accelerates faster from a stop.  

[Semper Gumby]

The 60s Triumph 650s were faster than that later model one, and had about 50 hp in the case of my 1970 (twin carb models, anyway).  My Bonneville is a bit faster top speed I think, but the R65 feels like it accelerates faster from a stop.  

CV carbs and Shorter stroke than the 60/70 triumphs???  Would that make the difference?

I missed out on a 1983 Westlake 8-valve Triumph TSS about two months ago.  At 2 grand it was a steal.  Just a couple of hours earlier and ....  The bike had original dome-top Bings!

[nhmaf]

Many of the bikes in that list are faster in the quarter mile than the R65, but they also wear out alot faster, too.   As was pointed out earlier - you don't see too many of these around outside of some resurrected examples in Walneck's Cycle Trader, but you'll see a handful or R65s for sale and tooling about the highways with 55K+ miles on them without an engine rebuild.   Such high mileage/longevity was generally unthinkable with most of those other bikes.   So the R65 is a bit slower in the quarter, and ALOT slower in going to the junkpile/recyclers than all those other bikes.

[Barry]

Triumph seem to have done exactly what BMW did at the end of the Airhead production. They detuned the engines for lower output but maybe more usable power.  I had a new T140V and I doubt it was as fast as the original 650 Bonnie.

If the TR65 produces 42 BHP at  6500RPM that is probably as much if not more than an R65 produces at 6500 RPM. The great benefit of an R65 is that it can produce the power in a more civilised manner and no period Triumph engine would last the miles like a BMW. The Triumph oil pump was a bad joke in comparision.

The whole thing about Road test figures is academic anyway. How many of use use our Max BHP for more than a split second now and again.  Mid range torque is surely what most of us want and use most of the time.  My 27 BHP Suzuki GN400 single was easily as fast as my 35 BHP R45 in the mid range because it weighed 80lbs less and unusually for a Jap had real torque down at 3500 RPM. It was also more economical because with any engine the specific fuel consumption will always be a close mirror image of the engine torque graph which means the best efficiency is to be had at peak torque revs. For good economy you ideally want to be cruising at peak torque revs or at least have an engine with a fairly flat torque curve. Something most Jap engines didn't have.

[proctorls]

I rode a few Limey 650's in the '60's, and I do remember the sweet handling. But I was forever rebuilding or repairing them.  So after a long (way too long) layoff, the LS was a pleasant surprise.  It was at least as powerful as the old 650's, had better brakes, handled almost as well, and ran and ran and ran.  It was a perfect bike for me to relearn the sport again at 60.

Steve in VT

[Altritter]

The 60s Triumph 650s were faster than that later model one, and had about 50 hp in the case of my 1970 (twin carb models, anyway).  My Bonneville is a bit faster top speed I think, but the R65 feels like it accelerates faster from a stop.  
 

That's my hazy recollection, also. (All my recollections seem to be hazy, these days.)

During the 1966-68 period, I lusted for a Triumph and studied the sales literature. One of my fellow lieutenants in a Nike Herc defense in the Southern Ohio cornfields bought a Bonneville. I didn't think I could afford the Bonnie (it cost about $300 more, I think!), so I locked onto the concept of the Thunderbird, which at the time was one step down in the Triumph line.

I ended up not buying the Triumph (or any other bike, for that matter). I had been a teacher before being invited into the Army, and while I was in for my required two years, the teaching market fell apart on the East Coast. (Enter the "Baby Bust.") Rather than go back to starvation wages in the school system I'd been in, I extended my active duty with the notion that I was on my way to a frozen missile site in Korea. When I got orders for VN instead of Korea, I was pleased in a perverse way—at that time, guys were being shot at and (occasionally) killed in Korea, but were not receiving combat pay or any of the other perks(?) that US troops in Vietnam got. I figured, WTF, I'll be warm(er) (anyone who  endured Monsoon in the northern part of RVN would appreciate that "er" parenthetical), and I'll make more money (tax-free for the first $500/mo.) So, away I went.

Upon return, I found that Triumph (or any other non-HD) dealers were scarce within 300 miles of El Paso, home of Fort Bliss. Then, the principle of "feces accidit" took over, and the idea of owning any kind of bike faded away. (Was going to get my private pilot ticket through the FB Flying Club, but got Germany orders before I do either do so, or resign.) Then marriage, unmarriage, remarriage, and relocation took a further toll. The dream faded. (Spouse #2 was survivor of an airline-pilot spouse, so flying was verboten, and hated motorcycles (at least as long as a dependent child was in the equation), so my re-entry into riding was delayed for an extended time.

Confession time: My first acquaintance with the BMW motorcycle was not positive. When I was in college, one of my classmates, an absolutely wack-o Army brat, owned the first Airhead I'd ever seen. (From the period, I'm guessing it was a /2, though whether 500 or 600, I'm not certain.) I still have vivid memories of this kid trying, for an extended time, to stomp-start that Beemer. (Can't really call those step-down starters "kick starters.) It seemed to require at least 5 minutes to start, every time. Also, this kid was so off-the-wall, I'm certain that I transferred negative impressions of the person to his ride. (We never do this with the H-D crowd, right?  (};O) ) Learning to love an Airhead came later for me. Once I did, I never looked back at Triumph.