Why are R65LS's "Collectible"?

[boxermaf]

.. and same connecting rods, crankshaft, journals, bearings, pushrods, etc. The engines stayed the same as before '84 - the only difference was the engine was put into the same frame as the bigger bikes. Now, all the bikes share the same transmissions, alternators, starters, starter covers, diode boards, etc. The 81-84 R65LS even used the same Bing carbs as the R80 - just different setting on the needle was the difference.
The R65 models prior to 85 all had their own swingarms and chassis geometry, forks, and in various cases, wheels & brake systems.

My last R100 was an 88 100RT, too - I still kick myself for selling that bike 10 years ago.

 

[flying_finn]

R65 vibs

This myth of vibrations is just another case of R65 slander ... Just like the myth of breaking valve stems ..

Now if you really want to feel a bike vibrate try ridding a Kawasaki H1 ...

 

[donbmw]

This myth of vibrations is just another case of R65 slander ... Just like the myth of breaking valve stems ..

Now if you really want to feel a bike vibrate try ridding a Kawasaki H1 ...

Been there and done that. Started my rider on Kawasaki 71 500 H1. My first BMW is a 82 R65 that I still have. It does have a vibration around 63 to 65 mph but smooths out above 65 mph. Have been all over the country on it almost 90000 miles on it. Also have a 75 R90/6. Both are good bikes would go anywhere on either.

Don

 

[braddog]

Funny.

I started this thread when I was bidding on an '82 R65LS on eBay. I didn't end up winning the bid, and frankly I have no regrets.

I sure learned a fair amount from this thread, though. Just another testimony to how great this board is.

 

[flying_finn]

Percentage of all R65s sold and still running is probably much higher than the percentage of most other 650cc bikes of the era still on the road.

I second that

 

[jforgo]

I noticed how old the original post was and wondered. I'll be honest with you, my wife has one and loves how it fits (she's 5'2") but really considers the thing heavy and underpowered (even by BMW standards). You're not missing out on anything.
What is weird is how many large male BMW riders have told her; "Let me know if you ever want to sell it." It is unusual looking with a Pichler fairing on it, but I can't ride it with that fairing, it traps your hands in turns. What the appeal is to these guys is beyond either one of us.

I am 6'2" with a SWB R65. Yeah, I have read about how the bike is supposedly "too small", but I have no complaints. Bike is naked, with stock footpegs, "S" bars. Getting rid of the horrid semibuck USA bars was all the bike needed to feel good.
Really my only complaint is the gearing is a tad low for these wide empty spaces around here.

 

[108625]

I am 6'2" with a SWB R65. Yeah, I have read about how the bike is supposedly "too small", but I have no complaints. Bike is naked, with stock footpegs, "S" bars. Getting rid of the horrid semibuck USA bars was all the bike needed to feel good.
Really my only complaint is the gearing is a tad low for these wide empty spaces around here.

I'm 6', 200 lbs, and have enjoyed many smaller bikes; all of them faster and better handling than the R65LS. This one in particular, as I said, has a fairing that traps my hands. What I don't understand is why guys who are even bigger and heavier than me would want to ride it knowing that.
We have wide open spaces here, too. We also have mountains, and strong winds; either of which really tax the thing as geared. I couldn't imagine it geared any taller and coping with a climb or a headwind at all.

 

[jforgo]

We also have mountains, and strong winds; either of which really tax the thing as geared. I couldn't imagine it geared any taller and coping with a climb or a headwind at all.

True - hence I have no interest in replacing the final drive. It sure is fun on twisties, or in town, though.
I have R100's which work a lot better around here - but somehow the R65 is charming, so I do not especially want to part with it.

 

[kgadley01]

I reported on a 1982 R65LS (red) that I found chained to a tree here in Rural South Carolina some time ago. as of last week its still there rusting away. I had asked questions about the R65 when I first found it. the info I recieved was it wasn't worth restoreing, and the parts from other Beemers won't interchange.

 

[boxermaf]

Why does anyone buy a Ural, or an Enfield Bullet, or half the H-D models, it isn't always about how fast the bike can go, but how much fun you have making it go as fast as you can.

I am sure that the larger riders would pitch the pichler fairing if it doesn't help handling - the major interest in the R65 frame is it short wheelbase, quicker handling nature over the similar vintage airheads.
You see alot of R65 framed bikes during the classic vintage races here at Loudon speedway.

It may run out of steam in stock form in the upper half of the speedometer, but it will stay right with a stock R100 up to 55 mph if you know what you are doing.

 

[rguy]

Who says that rusty R65LS has to be restored. I have seen some sweet R65 custom project bikes. There is even a nice R65 dirt bike project on Advrider. If the price was right and it was closer I would take it under my wing and give it the love it deserves. It is indeed one of the best handling airheads.

 

[108625]

Why does anyone buy a Ural, or an Enfield Bullet, or half the H-D models, it isn't always about how fast the bike can go, but how much fun you have making it go as fast as you can.
I am sure that the larger riders would pitch the pichler fairing if it doesn't help handling - the major interest in the R65 frame is it short wheelbase, quicker handling nature over the similar vintage airheads.
You see alot of R65 framed bikes during the classic vintage races here at Loudon speedway.
It may run out of steam in stock form in the upper half of the speedometer, but it will stay right with a stock R100 up to 55 mph if you know what you are doing.

That's more realistic. Comparing it to an H-D, Ural or Enfield.
Keeping up with another airhead "right up to 55 mph" wow. A Chevette can keep up with a Corvette at 55. Hell, the wind blows here at 55. The speed limit is 75, and most of us are still trying to adjust down from "reasonable and prudent", the old limit. All you're doing is lowering the bar.
Everyone we know who wants the bike, wants it with the fairing, by the way... Most think it looks better than the stock one that was "designed to reduce front end lift", as if there were any.

 

[jforgo]

I reported on a 1982 R65LS (red) that I found chained to a tree here in Rural South Carolina some time ago. as of last week its still there rusting away. I had asked questions about the R65 when I first found it. the info I recieved was it wasn't worth restoreing, and the parts from other Beemers won't interchange.

For a 1982, most parts do interchange - but for the unique LS cosmetics. The false rep of the 1979-80 uniqueness continuing stuck with these bikes. Make a cafe or scrambler out of it
if it wasn't so far away, i would get it myself...

 

[boxermaf]

That's more realistic. Comparing it to an H-D, Ural or Enfield.
Keeping up with another airhead "right up to 55 mph" wow. A Chevette can keep up with a Corvette at 55. Hell, the wind blows here at 55. The speed limit is 75, and most of us are still trying to adjust down from "reasonable and prudent", the old limit. All you're doing is lowering the bar.
Everyone we know who wants the bike, wants it with the fairing, by the way... Most think it looks better than the stock one that was "designed to reduce front end lift", as if there were any.

Not sure why you've got such an axe to grind, and misparse words.
Originally I had included "any airhead" in that first sentence, too. None of the airheads have any balls or acceleration compared to more modern bikes, but they'll all rack up many more miles in a steady manner and be generally service-able by most owners for much longer than your typical rice rocket. By your logic no one in their right mind would want a /5 or /6 or /2 either, right?

And no, a chevette CANNOT keep up with a Corvette as it accelerates to 55 at the maximum acceleration of both vehicles. Read the sentence. Then continue to pass your own judgement.

If we all chose by your criteria, we'd all be riding Hyabusas - which if that is what you want, that is fine, but not what everyone else wants. Sounds like you and your wife should just sell that old slow airhead - and any other old slow airheads you may have, and continue to ride into the sunset at warp 8 on your 'busas.

Ride your own ride and enjoy it - the rest of us do. No hard feelings.

 

[108625]

Perhaps it was all the time I've spent waiting for her to catch up on it.

Or the suggestion that she doesn't know how to ride it.

Or the old "it'll dust a squid on a 600" line; I don't know who this poor sailor riding his sportbike is, but apparently everybody beats him

I don't have a problem with slow bikes; we enjoy the odd ride with the vintage bike crowd now and then... Funny thing is; some of those older guys on older bikes like speed too, and go pretty d@mn fast for cable operated drum brakes.

I do have a problem with a bike being presented as something as something other than what it is; and an R65 was a parts bin special. BMW wasn't investing much into developing boxer twins in the late seventies; they were planning to press on with K bikes and drop airheads in the long run. Dressing the same bike in assorted fairings was one way of keeping things going. Introducing a downsized "entry level" beemer was another. There wasn't much new about it, they shortened the suspension and wheels on a full sized bike and called it a middleweight (though it's barely any lighter). The euro version was a 450, to comply with learner bike power limits. They bumped it to 650 to sell in the U.S. as an answer to import tarriffs on bikes over 750ccs (remember those days?). There was no suspension tuning magic or brilliant engineering, it wasn't like they set out to build a sportier bike. They hired a designer to make it look that way though; kind of like putting a spoiler and mags on an Escort and calling it a GT. It was a stop gap measure to build something to extend the life of a range that was rapidly falling behind.
The same motive drove the original G/S, it just turned out more serendipitously.

If I've picked on somebody's favorite model, oh well...

P.S. My wife says I should stop dogging the thing in case we do want to sell it

 

[rguy]

Just saying.....

0-60 mph times
R45 8.0 seconds
R75 6.0 seconds
R65 5.3 seconds
R80 5.3 seconds
R100/7 5.3 seconds
R100 5.1 seconds
R90S 5.0 seconds
R100S 4.9 seconds

Curb weight
R100 - 520#
R65 - 450#
Hmmmmm

The R65 has respectable performance..... for an airhead.

by comparison...
K1200R 0-60 3 seconds

http://motoprofi.com/brandbikes/bmw/index.html

 

[Rev_Eddie]

I do have a problem with a bike being presented as something as something other than what it is; and an R65 was a parts bin special.

They bumped it to 650 to sell in the U.S. as an answer to import tarriffs on bikes over 750ccs (remember those days?).

I'll respectfully disagree on both of these statements:

Aside from some of the engine/transmission/electrical bits, major parts of the R65's were unique--
different forks, front wheels, wiring harness, all bodywork pieces, headlights/mounts,
brakes, gauges, frames, exhaust, subframes, swingarms, final drives.
Hardly a parts bin bike.
There was also an on-going evolution of the twin-shock models.
By 1984, numerous parts were changed from the original 79's, although many of them would still retrofit the earlier bikes.

The R65 came out for the '79 US model year--well before the bike tariffs were
implemented in 1984--and those tariffs were for bikes over 700cc, not 750.

BMW--like many manufacturers--felt a need for a smaller bike in their offeriengs.
As bike sales went on through the 1980's fewer and fewer of any of the air-cooled models were selling.
In the US, R65's far outsold some of the other BMW models of the same year during their production run.

Eddie

 

[boxermaf]

You are correct Rev

Misinformation on a forum like this is kinda like fingernails on a chalkboard to me - I can't ignore it either. If any bike in the line from the lates 70s - early 80s is a 'parts bin' bike, it was the R80 - which a number of people think is actually the best airhead of them all, but I digress.

I highly recommend anyone who is interested in the facts about the BMW airhead model line from the /5 models up to the monolever models to get a copy of the book "Boxer from /5 - BMW Motor Cycles from 1969 to 1985" by Andy Schwietzer. It includes a chapter specifically on the R248 powerplant and the development of the R45 and R65 models. There are interviews with the people in BMW who were in charge of development and engineering who talk about the bikes and refinements & choices made. For example:

The R65 was not a bored out R45, the R45 was made from the R65 specifically for reduced taxes and import tariffs on sub-500cc machines in Austria and other countries. When the laws later changed, BMW went with a reduced output R65 as they could make no money on the R45 as a separate model at the market price point the R45 had to be sold at.

Those wheels that are loved/hated on the R65LS were intended to be used across the line on all the BMW bikes - there were significantly lighter and stronger than the snowflakes, but proved to be too expensive to produce and the 2-part alloy design irritated people with the paint cracking along the seam around the rim - there are no safety issues with these wheels - it is a cosmetic issue. BMW went with a different alloy wheel design in the end for the later 80s decade airheads and K bikes.

The total volume of the R65LS version for 4 years of production is 6389 units - which is quite close to the total number of R75/7 models produced (6264) - it is largely the low number of these bikes that make them somewhat "collectable", plus the rarities of the wheels and the wacky-80's Muth styling. Other than that, they are just R65 bikes, but that isn't a bad thing either.

The R65 is not my favorite bike, though it happens to be the only airhead that I have at this moment - which is an effect of the economy more than anything else. I miss the R100 bikes that I used to own, and hope to get more airheads into the garage in the future. But, the R65 is a nice little bike in its own right, and as they are generally underappreciated, that makes them easier to buy. They certainly have a different handling and engine characteristic from the R80/R100 models of the same time period and can be alot of fun to ride.

 

[flying_finn]

I am selling my R65ls or would consider trading for a /2 .. send me a PM if interested :0

 

[179813]

It seems that I see the term "collectible" almost any time I see an airhead for sale. Collectible or not, most people just continue to ride the snot out of their airheads.

However, what's the deal with the R65LS model? Is this truly a collectible? What are the differences between the LS model and the standard R65 other than the fairing?

I'm currently looking at an '82 and am curious.

I owned one, a 1982 model.

couple of things:

1) unless it's "perfect" avoid at all costs... well, almost. ;-)
2) differences are: fairing, dual brembo brakes up front instead of single, black header and mufflers (cost twice as much too!), most (read: not all) R65s came with funky and hard to clean "snowflake" wheels, while the R65LS came with easier to clean mag-type wheels.
3) it's a helluvalot shorter than most other BMWs- and was (as my dad pointed out) marketed to shorter people, and the women kind. ;-)
4) it was an "ok" bike, but... nothing worthy of mention. didn't handle exceptionally well, although it would stop on a dime. I think it had the same front and rear tire size (17 or 18) and that's all I care to remember. other than that-0 if it's a green one, it was probably mine. ;-)