• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Year

RSR59

Einzelkaempfer
After what year is a Bike concidered a "Vintage" Motorcycle?
I know as the years pass on more will fall into this catagory.
 
Vintage

General concensus is that after 25 years it enters the "vintage" category, something my motorcycles rider achieved long ago. :dunno

Friedle
 
The Vintage club says 30 years. The Antique Motorcycle Club of America says 35 years. My buddy in Germany who has a 1920 Victoria with a BMW motor in it says that anything newer than WWII is just a used bike. It's definitely arbitrary.
 
Thanks

Thank you.
I'm surprized though that not more people post here. It's hard to believe that everyone is riding a new BMW.
 
Well, maybe not everyone is, but as has been pointed out before, the MOA is a bit late to the party. The Airheads have an active mailing list. If you own a /5 in particular, then you're probably reading /5 United. There are 2 generalized vintage email lists on Yahoo! groups (slash2 - I'm the list owner, and vintagebmwmotorcycles) not to mention the kradrider list that focuses on WWII german bikes (but seems to be nearly exclusively about R12s).
 
Both of my airheads are 30+ years old, but I consider them to be very good used motorcycles. It takes a great deal of dedication to ride and maintain a pre-1970 bike. I can understand why most people don't want any part of it.
 
woodnsteel said:
Both of my airheads are 30+ years old, but I consider them to be very good used motorcycles. It takes a great deal of dedication to ride and maintain a pre-1970 bike. I can understand why most people don't want any part of it.
Well, actually... in my experience it doesn't take that much more dedication to ride a /2, or even a /3. The maintenance comes at you a bit more frequently (3,000 mile service intervals instead of 5,000 on the Airheads), but it's pretty much the same thing -- oil, valves, points, rear wheel splines. No oil filter to change, and the carbs are simpler to play with.

What is usually the hang up is finding a bike that old that hasn't been buggered up by one or more DPOs (darling previous owner). That, and there are a few longer term service items that are different (magneto coil, slinger cleaning).
 
In many states anything over 25 years old is considered "vintage" and can be tagged with vintage tags, though they generally have restrictions on use, some states more than others. And it is true that several of the BMW lists geared toward airheads have been around for quite some time and have a large following unlike this forum and some of the local clubs. There are plenty of airheads out there its just that we're out riding instead of sitting around waiting for our bikes that are in the shop getting fixed! :D (just kidding on the last part! :) )

RM "diehard airhead rider and loving it"
 
Michael Friedle said:
General concensus is that after 25 years it enters the "vintage" category, something my motorcycles rider achieved long ago. :dunno

Friedle

:ha

In another couple years, we'll be ready for vintage Kbikes.
 
DarrylRi said:
What is usually the hang up is finding a bike that old that hasn't been buggered up by one or more DPOs (darling previous owner). That, and there are a few longer term service items that are different (magneto coil, slinger cleaning).
Darryl, this is exactly the idea I was thinking of. You have a much more intimate experience than I do, but my thoughts are that as vintage motorcycle owners, we have the privelege of being care-takers of special machines, that are now in our possession. We MUST keep them in good condition to pass along to the next generation of enthusiasts who will keep them for the next generation of enthusiasts, etc. This harkens back to an earlier thread regarding what price to sell your bike. When I'm dead, I'm sure it will be "highest bidder". Before then, it's "buyer most worthy".
 
Last edited:
woodnsteel said:
Darryl, this is exactly the idea I was thinking of. You have a much more intimate experience than I do,
Think so, do you?
woodnsteel said:
but my thoughts are that as vintage motorcycle owners, we have the privelege of being care-takers of special machines, that are now in our possession. We MUST keep them in good condition to pass along to the next generation of enthusiasts who will keep them for the next generation of enthusiasts, etc.
Well, I'm not quite so misty eyed as that, but it is great fun to be able to ride these bikes, to get a sense of what our roots are here.
woodnsteel said:
This harkens back to an earlier thread regarding what price to sell your bike. When I'm dead, I'm sure it will be "highest bidder". Before then, it's "buyer most worthy".
I certainly agree with you here!
 
Well, my friend, there are few enthusiasts in the USA who are doing more for the preservation of our vintage BMW's than you are.

I don't think that I am "misty eyed" so much as on a mission. We both know that when we, you particularly, bring a bike to a refined level of function, it is unlikely to backslide. Therefore, we ARE preservationists, or curators perhaps.

Many of our fellow MOA members are willing to put significant $ into owning a new bike.

Few are willing to put meaningful $ into historic and/or rare bikes.

I must agree that the pleasure of ownership is it's own reward.

Carry on!
 
Last edited:
woodnsteel said:
I don't think that I am "misty eyed" so much as on a mission. We both know that when we, you particularly, bring a bike to a refined level of function, it is unlikely to backslide. Therefore, we ARE preservationists, or curators perhaps.
I really don't like that second word. I'm not running a museum here. I don't buy and work on a bike if I don't think it's going to be a runner, first. I did "restore" my /2, but only after running it around for a year as a rat bike to fix whatever mechanically needed fixing.

None of my other vintage bikes is "restored": the /3 still has the badly done and incorrect paint scheme that some DPO put on it, along with a few small crash marks on the headlight shell and chrome ring. The R12 is a real bitsa bike, delivered directly to the German army in 1941 but painted in civilian livery (sorta); I'll worry about that after I get it running (maybe).

woodnsteel said:
Many of our fellow MOA members are willing to put significant $ into owning a new bike.
Well, that's me. I've got a 2002 R1150RS that is my main ride. It gets all the routine services at the dealer, even though it's out of warranty. The R90S goes to a local independent with 25 years' experience. I'd take the older bikes to a shop for work if I could, because I'm not really that great a mechanic and I get more pleasure out of riding than wrenching. However, nobody around here has any real experience with them, and because I'm interested, I can take the time to learn about it (and fix my mistakes). It's fortunate for me that the older bikes can take somewhat more abuse from me, generally speaking.

woodnsteel said:
Few are willing to put meaningful $ into historic and/or rare bikes.
Not enough dollar signs there, I'm afraid. While there are now more parts sources for older beemers, things are not cheap. (Well, I suppose this is still cheaper than a boat or an airplane.) The R12 above, for example, needs a new driveshaft and coupling gear, and a new drive flange, besides hunting up replacements for the leather seals and two new big bearings. It will be hundreds in parts and shipping, and all must come from Europe.

woodnsteel said:
I must agree that the pleasure of ownership is it's own reward.
Everyone's gotta have a hobby. Anyway, with just a taste of what the R12 will be like, now that I've rebuilt the fork internals and got the motor running enough to ride it to the gas station, I'm hooked. This bike is going to be really wonderful to ride!

woodnsteel said:
Carry on!
Yes sir!
 
Good starting 'rider' ??

I have never owned an 'older' Beemer although I am a 'older' rider, (58). My friend/neighbor is always after me to come along for a Sunday romp with his 'Vintage Group' buddies and I would like to try pick up a bike that would be fun to ride and not too much of a challenge to maintain...I have average mechanical skills and have owned bikes for 42 years...too broad a question??
Any suggestions?

Jim W.
 
IIRC, the collecting world separates "vintage", "historic", and "antique" at 25, and 50 years respectively. And I believe these are counted from the date of DESIGN not manufacture. Consequently, an '83 Harley is an "antique" motorcycle. :p
 
jakfrost said:
I have never owned an 'older' Beemer although I am a 'older' rider, (58). My friend/neighbor is always after me to come along for a Sunday romp with his 'Vintage Group' buddies and I would like to try pick up a bike that would be fun to ride and not too much of a challenge to maintain...I have average mechanical skills and have owned bikes for 42 years...too broad a question??
Any suggestions?
If I were going looking for such a bike, a good, relatively inexpensive bike would probably an '85 or later, non-GS airhead boxer. '85 is when the "monolever" rear end began to be used (single sided swingarm monoshock), so it is easily recognizable. The GS bikes command a lot more money, and have issues with the paralever driveshaft. '85 and later bikes have better metallurgy in the valve seats, and the nikasil plated cylinders that came in '81, so the motor is quite robust. There are still a few issues: the transmission on nearly all of these is missing the famous circlip, so if 5th gear makes a whine, you'll probably have to fix that (and add the circlip while you're at it). And the infamous diode board.

I had an '85 R80 that I put 92k on before selling it. It was a great bike. I never had to mess with the transmission, but I did have to put in a new diode board.
 
jakfrost said:
I have never owned an 'older' Beemer although I am a 'older' rider, (58). My friend/neighbor is always after me to come along for a Sunday romp with his 'Vintage Group' buddies and I would like to try pick up a bike that would be fun to ride and not too much of a challenge to maintain...I have average mechanical skills and have owned bikes for 42 years...too broad a question??
Any suggestions?

Jim W.

I'd recommend a /5. They are relatively slow and clunky, almost indestructible, very user-friendly, no hydraulics, kick AND electric start, and the combination speedo/tach set in the headlight shell is "to die for".
 
My 2 cents on older bikes is a vote for ÔÇ£rustorationÔÇØ, not restoration. This is because some many people, in my opinion, botch the paint job. Very few people paint to original, they paint to todays standard. If anybodyÔÇÖs seen and old originally painted bike, they know the difference. Yes, the paint looks great, but know one could have done a job like that 30, 40, 50 years ago. And, in MY opinion, it misses the mark. I have a friend is San Diego that restores old Vespas and once while at his shop I commented on the overspray inside the box beneath the seat. His comment was ÔÇ£Luigi didnÔÇÖt careÔÇØ. What? He explained that the original painter took the body outside, set it on a saw horse, and sprayed what he could see. He didnÔÇÖt open anything up, let alone cover anything to ensure against overspray. He painted it. IÔÇÖll even bet he didnÔÇÖt hand buff it a 1000 times or spray 50 coats of clear over the top. I love older bikes, but I think they should be just that, old bikes.
Currently the oldest two wheeler I own is a Sears Allstate, in a trillion pieces, but I am always looking for a ÔÇ£goodÔÇØ deal on a rustoration project and itÔÇÖll be just that. I did once own a 75 Guzzi that was saved from the wreaker, but never anything truly old.
So, keep up the good work DarrylRi and please keep us up to date on the project. I canÔÇÖt wait to see it on the road.

Dave
 
Dave, this discussion topic has been running on the slash2 list as well. Indeed, "restoration" bikes generally do look better than when they came from the factory, and depending what's done, it can be more than just the paint (for example SS spokes, nuts and bolts, show quality chrome, uprated lights, electonic voltage regulator, 12V alternator, and many more visible and "invisible" improvements).

About painting: when I had my R60/2 painted, I got to watch the striper do some of his magic. I have looked at some original paint and stripes on these bikes, and the stripes have a milky look to them. Of course, the striper was putting on perfect, dense white stripes. I talked to him about this and he immediately said that the originals were naturally thinner, because the original ladies* who did them had to get through a lot of tanks. By mixing the paint thinner, they could "pull" a much longer piece of a stripe at one go.

This made me think back to when I was able to tour the plant in Spandau, a suburb of Berlin, for BMW's 75th anniversary party. One of the stripers was giving striping demonstrations on new R1200C gas tanks. She had a wooden mold that fit the shape of the tank. She'd place it against the tank, then drag a "crayon" around the outside of it (not sure exactly what it was), and in three "pulls" would have a stripe. I suppose the paint technology has come a ways since the 60s, because the stripes on the R1200C's are pretty dense.

*) Apparently all the stripes were done by women.
 
Back
Top