I have an original R45/R65 sales brochure and they were marketing the bikes as introductory models to the range with the hope and expectation that the buyers would trade up to the larger models. Curious though why they would spend money developing a 473cc model and a 649cc model when they already had a 500 and a 600. Maybe they were trying to break the old sedate image. They looked more modern, were lighter, faster and handled better in fact the handling is the outstanding thing that's praised in all contemporary road tests, even the R45 gets credit on that score. I guess the lack of development was down to airheads being perceived as on the way out with the K bikes on the horizon.
It's always amusing to read a semi knowledgeable journalistic review. While generally favourable and we like to read a favourable review, it's typically full of inaccuracies, misunderstandings and half truths. Like for example the the 20kg weight savings from early to late models which is just nonsense. Perhaps he was thinking of R45/65's vs the earlier airheads and even then it's not true when comparing naked bikes. He doesn't understand where the 5 Hp came from (try bigger valves) and certainly no R65 ever had the ATE calipers he's thinking of.
But we'll excuse the lack of knowledge because I don't think I've read such an enthusiastic review.
