Help me choose my next Airhead

[MurphyPeoples]

Hey Fella's. I've got the "jones" for another project. I've got two different ways I could go.... but I'd like your help in figuring out which way.

My oldest daugther will turn 8 in one year. At that time, she'll be able to touch the rear pegs and go for long rides with me. So with that in mind, I want a Two-Up touring bike like an R100RS. I don't know anything about the models built after 1980. I've been a points and condenser Airhead owner - and LOVE THEM so far.

Give me the "no-no's" of what to avoid, and the "positives" of what to look for. What was the first model year with the Smog controls (I'd like to keep the bike as simple as possible so I can do all the work). Did they ever fuel inject this airhead model? I don't know... but I'm not against fuel injection.

The other way I'm leaning is with an Early 1960's Twin like an R60. I saw one yesterday up on a bike lift at my "secret" BMW guru's shop (He's in his 70's and retired). It was bought by the owner for $500.00!!! Course it had been sitting since 1990 without being run. But boy oh boy did that give me ideas!! My guru says that these are completly reliable for solo touring once rebuilt. Yeeow! I want one!

I've already got the R100S - so if I want to take my daughter on short trips that'd be cool. Of course the ideal garage would have 3 Airheads!
Murphy

 

[20774]

Murph -

I'd avoid the '81-'84 models...the valve metallurgy thing. But an '85 on bike would probably be pretty good...I've heard the R80RT are nice and smooth with enough oomph to tour and putt around town. The later year bikes have the electronic ignition, single-sided swing arm. The pollution stuff can be dialed back and taken out of the way. No fuel injection on Airheads.

As for a pre '70 bike, you might want to consider an R60/2. It's got a little more horse power than the R50/2 but doesn't have the high compression engine like the R69S...it tends to be a little persnickety. Some like the late '60s US models with the telescopic forks, but the Earles forks are just neat...they kind of make a statement. I'd focus on the later years, like '68 or '69 as most of the good upgrades would have been made by then. The mid '60s, like the '65-'67 had problems with soft metal in the heads. By '68, they solved the problem and started using the "LK" heads...stands for German words meaning long reach, as in long reach spark plugs (3/4").

One "issue" with the /2 ear is that you'll need to consider cleaner the slingers every 30K miles or so. These are devices that attach to the crankshaft that help to separate out the big particulates (no filter on these bikes) and feed the main bearings with oil. The only way to even inspect them is to remove the crankshaft. Takes some special knowledge and tools, although some people can and have done it on their own...talk to your BMW guru friend.

That's my take....

 

[sumran]

Why not leverage the knowledge you already have and get a nice RT? If you get a '79 or '80 you will climbing aboard a more comfortable version of an old friend. It is a great bike for the passenger as well. They are available at good prices. The RS is nice but I like the more upright position. I have a smaller fairing on mine which I like.

If you prefer something without a fairing maybe you could restore an old S type and convert into a T!

 

[bob_m]

But then again

Murph -

I'd avoid the '81-'84 models...the valve metallurgy thing.

I have an 82 R100 RS and I got the valves replaced and the head redone by an experienced professional. The engine was high mileage and a valve job was necessary maintenance regardless of the metallurgy thing. That problem has a fix. So long as you know where the land mines are and you work through them any of the airheads are winners. The engines of that period have the larger valves and more (top end) power than the second issue of the airhead.

If you can find a Mystic however those have a more modern chassis and the delightful old motor. I saw a pic of one with a RS fairing fitted to it. That would be a nice ride.

Keep us posted.

 

[osbornk]

As already stated, an 85 or newer R80RT is a good choice. I've had mine over 8 years and I have had very few problems with it. I rode it 8,000-9,000 before I checked the valve clearance and they were fine. The R80 is as smooth as an Airhead gets and the twin front disc brakes work very well.

 

[MurphyPeoples]

Anyone else? I can use all the advice I can get! Thanks for the great info so far guys!
Murph

 

[PHMARVIN]

Hi, Murphy,
Kurt's advice is his opinion and it is valid. However, if you factor in the cost of the head work when you buy the bike (or find one on which you are certain the valves and valve seats have been replaced, preferably with BMW parts instead of aftermarket valves), I would have no problem with an '82--84. Notice, I left out the '81. I had an '81 R100RT, bought new while I was living and working in Europe (USA model), and I had many problems common to the early '81 - centerstand bolts broke, sidestand bent, etc., etc. I had 2 '84 R100RS's and had diode board failures (multiple) on them, until I discovered how to fix the problem. I also had a '95 R100RT, so I feel I'm qualified to give you advice.

Nikasil cylinders were introduced with the '81 models. '77-'80 RS's and '79-'80 RT's have iron liners. '77-'79 have 9.5 compression, '80-'84 have 8.2 compression and the single swing arm R100RS/RT ('88-'95, I believe) have 8.45 compression. The '80-on are designed for regular fuel, although in the desert Southwest in the summer (temperatures over 100 much of the time), the '95 would sometimes ping slightly on the 86 octane generally available as regular unleaded. The early models have 40mm carburetors and big valves; the '88-on have 32mm carbs and smaller valves. My normal mileage on the '81 and '84 bikes was in the mid-40's; normal mileage on the '95 was the high 30's. The '77-'84 fuel tanks hold 6.4 gallons, the later tanks about 5.5 gallons. The later bikes use thicker fork tubes and different front brakes than the earlier bikes. They also use tubeless tires and have an 18" front tire vs the 19" on the '77-'84 bikes. There is no final drive to rear wheel spline problem on the '88-'95 bikes. The rear wheel bolts to the final drive same as the K-bikes (but with different bolts - not to be interchanged with K-bike bolts). The earlier bikes (all but a few of the '77 R100RS's) use the same exhaust system which rusts out every few years and has become VERY expensive to replace with OEM parts. The '88-on bikes have a chromed stainless steel exhaust which hardly ever requires replacement.

I hope this has given you some idea of some of the differences between early and late models. My idea would be the later bike with big-valve heads and 40mm carbs, with an earlier tank (if it will fit, there being more electronics under the tank on the later bikes) and, maybe, the 9.5 compression pistons.

 

[boxerkuh]

Decisions, decisions....

Good question, indeed. Here is what I would do:
1. I prefer the post 86 models, out of which the 800cc bikes are the smoothes. Since I have one and don't need to duplicate it, I would acquire a 1992 through 1995 R 100 R. Why? Well, I like the look, the spoke wheels, the bags that attach, or you can get other aftermarket ones, the seat comes completely off, the brakes are great, little maintenance and problems in general as they have all the best of the best. If it was a 92, I would add a double front brake.
2. If money where no object, I love a 1968 R 69S. They fly and look cool. Especially with the earls front forks. You could add a side car... all kinds of fun stuff.

On a side note: I went with my boy on his first long trip at the age of 8; we did 2500 miles during a one week trip, when he was 9 we went over 4000 miles during one week. He is 11 now, but still requires custom footpegs, as his feet can't reach the stock ones. But that is a simple fix and you can do that to your exisiting bikes. My boy has been riding with me since he is 2 years old, in a German TUV approved motorcycle child seat from Germany. Boy he loved the local rides that we started on and loves going on tours now...

 

[MOTOR31]

I'd go with a later airhead RT. You'll have better brakes and you'll be riding in a more comfortable cockpit. You're stuck with unleaded gas so if it's an early 80's or late 70's vintage you'll want to check on the hardened valve seats. The heads can be reworked for that to elimintate gas issues.

 

[Zagando]

My first beemer was a '65 R60/2 and that was a hell of a great bike. Did my longest ride ever on it; 12,673 miles through 23 states in the summer of '72...

When I bought it for $500 the previous year it was more than a bit rusty and neglected but I slowly managed to fix it up along the way. With those Earles forks and heavy flywheel it was a truly great ride. Could cruise along at 80mph just as smooth as can be. Did quite a few long days on it and would love to have one again for a lot more than just nostalgia's sake.

On the downside, I did blow a rod on it and ended up replacing the engine with a bored-out 650cc R60 rebuild that I found at Winkleman's in LA (could have been rebuilt by Snowbum as he was working there at the time). But then it was better than ever after that and I will always wonder why I ever parted with it since.

So if I were you, I'd go for a /2 classic and restore it along the way---and have a smooth ride to enjoy and be proud of.

My 2 cents worth; happy hunting!

---Jeff

ex R60/2
ex R75/5 SWB (another recommendable classic!)
ex K100RS
1992 R100GSPD "Negrito"

 

[37071]

R65 eh!

An R65 can be bought "cheap" and is a lot of fun to ride. It would make a decent first bike for your daughter - in 8 years.

 

[lkchris]

I'd avoid the '81-'84 models...the valve metallurgy thing.

Actually once that problem is fixed, these are the best of the lot, especially '83-'84 versions.

Still 2-sided swingarm
Still tube-type tires
Still circlip in transmission
Still 19-in front wheel
Still Bosch starter
Nikasil engine
Electronic ignition
Lightweight flyweel

Biggest two things you want are the lightened flywheel and electronic ignition. Bikes older than this are farm equipment in comparison.

 

[535IS]

Hey Fella's. I've got the "jones" for another project. I've got two different ways I could go.... but I'd like your help in figuring out which way.

My oldest daugther will turn 8 in one year. At that time, she'll be able to touch the rear pegs and go for long rides with me. So with that in mind, I want a Two-Up touring bike like an R100RS.

Before you decide the RS is a touring bike, ride one. Those short, narrow downturned bars can be a medieval torture device. You're already prepared for a windshield that doesn't do much, so that will be little disappointment, but the bars can be a pain in the neck - literally.

 

[20774]

Actually once that problem is fixed, these are the best of the lot, especially '83-'84 versions.

Bikes older than this are farm equipment in comparison.

So, Kent, an '82 is farm equipment? What about a '79? And I've seen farm equipment that beats out 80% of the vehicles on the road today...OK, maybe not in speed, mpg, etc., but they're quality vehicles. Give it another 10 years, and your Airheads will be in "farm equipment" status... Is that any reason to abandon them...I wouldn't think so.

Just saying...IMO... (OK, mostly older bikes!)

 

[MurphyPeoples]

Before you decide the RS is a touring bike, ride one. Those short, narrow downturned bars can be a medieval torture device. You're already prepared for a windshield that doesn't do much, so that will be little disappointment, but the bars can be a pain in the neck - literally.

So then maybe an RT? What's the difference between the RT and RS besides body work? Rui - where is your bike when I need you?????
Murph

 

[PHMARVIN]

Hi, Murphy,
As far as I remember, the differences between the RS and RT bikes is the fairing (RT allows you to sit up straighter and it also has the fairing pockets), the windshield (taller on the RT), handlebars and cables (higher handlebars and longer cables) and, I believe, that's it. The engines are the same as are the final drive ratios. In earlier days I preferred the RS; now the RT wins hands down.

 

[MurphyPeoples]

Hi, Murphy,
As far as I remember, the differences between the RS and RT bikes is the fairing (RT allows you to sit up straighter and it also has the fairing pockets), the windshield (taller on the RT), handlebars and cables (higher handlebars and longer cables) and, I believe, that's it. The engines are the same as are the final drive ratios. In earlier days I preferred the RS; now the RT wins hands down.

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. So I'm thinking I'll be on the lookout for an R50, R60, or R100RT. Whichever I find first will be the winner!
Murph

 

[lkchris]

So, Kent, an '82 is farm equipment?

No, 1979 was the last year of the heavy flywheel.

The heavy flywheel was an anomaly in any case as its reason for existence was sidecar use--which was prohibited from the beginning of the /5.

 

[srb]

"The heavy flywheel was an anomaly in any case as its reason for existence was sidecar use"

Wow a 10 year production anomoly. Even stranger considering that the flywheel changed from 1970 to 1979.

 

[srb]

"R50, R60, or R100RT"

Murph, no such thing as R50 or R60 in RT. Either R80RT or R100RT. Of course you could always modify an R50 or R60. Many folks outfitted their bikes with the Vetter or Luftmeister fairings.