How would you Modernize an R100RS?

Dang!

vanzen said:

They did, and we now call it the "Oilhead".

The first attempt that I know of to build a "modern R100RS" was in 1989-1992,
The research / engineering team of Georg Emmersberger (Desmodromics), Heinz Hege and Ralf Lewien
came up with this sport race-oriented prototype known as the BMW R-1:

Tech specs:
Performance: 135 -140 Hp (100 - 103 KW). max rpm 11.000
Engine: 4-stroke two-cil. boxerengine, liquid cooled.
Four valves per cyl. ; DOHC DESMODROMIC VG
Bore-stroke: 98 x 66 mm. 996 ccm.
Bosch Fuelinjection; electronic ignition, 6 gear, cardan.
Dry weight 165 kg.

the BMW R-1 engine:

Only 4 prototypes were made ÔÇô one of them ridable.

Click to expand...

Dang! Why didn't I think of that???

I would like to see from those who have gone before, a knowledge base that would detail Airhead modifications and what to expect from them in a progressive way from small and inexpensive on up. Indicating as well which changes provide the best bang for the buck, and those that should/must be done in "groups".

vanzen said:

They did, and we now call it the "Oilhead".

The first attempt that I know of to build a "modern R100RS" was in 1989-1992,
The research / engineering team of Georg Emmersberger (Desmodromics), Heinz Hege and Ralf Lewien
came up with this sport race-oriented prototype known as the BMW R-1:

Tech specs:
Performance: 135 -140 Hp (100 - 103 KW). max rpm 11.000
Engine: 4-stroke two-cil. boxerengine, liquid cooled.
Four valves per cyl. ; DOHC DESMODROMIC VG
Bore-stroke: 98 x 66 mm. 996 ccm.
Bosch Fuelinjection; electronic ignition, 6 gear, cardan.
Dry weight 165 kg.

the BMW R-1 engine:

Only 4 prototypes were made ÔÇô one of them ridable.

Click to expand...

I'd like to suggest that this wasn't an attempt at a "modern RS" in the sense of an updated R100RS. Note the engine case -- that is a pre-production oilhead crankcase with the experimental liquid cooled/desmo valve gear (the 89-92 timeframe puts it only a year or so before the R11RS intro in 93). Plus, the bike is clearly an all-out sport bike, not a RS-type GT (clip-ons, racer crouch, no rider fairing protection to speak of). I'd call this more a grand-daddy to the current S1000RR -- something a few folks within BMW have always wanted to do, but couldn't get into production until now.

my point:

mneblett said:

I'd like to suggest that this wasn't an attempt at a "modern RS" in the sense of an updated R100RS. Note the engine case -- that is a pre-production oilhead crankcase with the experimental liquid cooled/desmo valve gear (the 89-92 timeframe puts it only a year or so before the R11RS intro in 93).

Click to expand...

Obviously the R-1 has more similarities to the R1100
than it does to the R100. No contest ...
even as the R-1 crankcase is nothing like that of an R1100.

My "case", however, is being missed – entirely.
When asked about a successor to the R100RS,
I said: " They did, and we now call it the "Oilhead".

The common expectation and fallacy here, is to expect that any logical "successor" should retain the Type-247 engine.
Being a well tuned corporation, BMW was well aware of the limitations posed by this engine design long before it's demise,
and the first attempt to provide a BMW motorcycle engine able to surpass those limitations was not the oil-head in any event, but the K-bike.
Introduced early in 1983, it was assumed that this new engine would be the basis for all new models
and REPLACE the aging Type-247 engine – all together !

" In 1977 , Josef Fritzenweger opened the way for the new concept. This represented a blow to the ideology of boxer engine worshipers but it was for BMW an urgent need to avoid a commercial marginalization like Moto Guzzi with their V twins. BMW had to change their design. ... The aim was to produce a motorcycle with the most modern techniques, while respecting the broad principles of BMW motorcycles (shaft drive and cylinders in a flat configuration…).
The idea of Josef Fritzenwenger was to have the 4-cylinder engine positioned lengthwise which offers the advantages of an in line engine with the good sides of the boxers. The center of gravity is low, the shaft drive is reliable and the accessibility of the engine is excellent. In addition, a 4-cylinder can easily obtain more power. It is quite economical to build, the noise is manageable and it is so rigid that it may be an element of the motorcycle frame."
– From a document written by Bruno Saillard

The concept of the future engine was set for prototyping, development, and testing *** IN 1979 ***
and the first "K" prototype used a Peugeot 104 engine.

Like it or not, the Type-247 engine was ditched because it was obsolete,
could not meet performance expectations that the market now demanded,
let alone meet those expectations AND satisfy government EPA regulations.
The Type-247 had been developed to, and perhaps beyond, any potential it might have ever had !

Even as BMW CORPORATION could not bend and sacrifice profitability to accommodate the colloquial day-dreams of a few air-head owners,
and in spite of the stubborn reluctance of those owners to accept the fact that progress and even evolution necessitates CHANGE ...
The true and logical evolutionary successor of the Type-247 R100RS then,
one retaining virtually all of the original design principles of the old beast
while providing these concepts with the technological muscle to compete with the future ...

will still be the Type-259 R1100RS.

I wouldn't.

vanzen said:

The idea of Josef Fritzenwenger was to have the 4-cylinder engine positioned lengthwise which offers the advantages of an in line engine with the good sides of the boxers. The center of gravity is low, the shaft drive is reliable and the accessibility of the engine is excellent.

Click to expand...

Interesting...I never thought of it from this viewpoint. The K-bike built around some of the unique features that the original boxer engine had going for it, that virtually no other motorcycle had taken advantage of...plus the advantage of moving into a new design era and performance. Definitely interesting to consider that aspect to the introduction of the K-bike.

vanzen said:

Obviously the R-1 has more similarities to the R1100
than it does to the R100. No contest ...
even as the R-1 crankcase is nothing like that of an R1100.

My "case", however, is being missed ÔÇô entirely.

Click to expand...

As was mine

I actually agree with all you posted. However, you in turn missed the thrust of my comment: I was not focused on the engine mechanicals, but on the *type* of bike.

Of course the successor would have left the tunnel-block airhead behind. The R-1, however, was no RS -- it was a race/pure sport bike, not a long-legged GT sport tourer.

There, we've both made our points again. I believe we should both be satisfied now.

BTW -- great pics you posted -- keep 'em coming!

vanzen said:

The true and logical evolutionary successor of the Type-247 R100RS then,
one retaining virtually all of the original design principles of the old beast
while providing these concepts with the technological muscle to compete with the future ...

will still be the Type-259 R1100RS.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Having had a /2, an R100, an R1100RS and two R1200s in the house, the jump in technology and capability from generation to generation has remained about the same distance.

Given that, I'm eagerly awaiting the next jump ahead. I suspect that the next generation will, as have the last evolutions, bring more horsepower and torque, better engine controls and improved ridability through computerized chassis controls.

At the same time, maintainability has remained excellent (even for home mechanics) and the basic character and configuration has been evolutionary. The same principles I use to maintain my /2 will work on my hexheads. It's really quite remarkable.

That said, I'm hopeful that the rumored R12RT with an HP2 Sport motor in it will appear. I love the form factor of the current RT and given that I ride it like a sporting motorcycle most of the time, some more hp would be nice. If they could offer a factory option for Ohlins suspension, I'd be thrilled and my RT would be on the block in a heartbeat.

Regardless of my current desires, it's really the character of these boxers that keeps pulling me in. Even though the R12 can feel downright angry when I'm riding it hard, the same sort of easy way it makes power is very much like my /2 and R100.

October Cycle World

vanzen said:

My "beginning" was to design a frame
that could effectively handle @ 90HP,
41 mm forks fitted with 2 - 305 mm rotors / 2-pot calipers,
race compound rubber front and back:

Click to expand...

Vanzen (or anybody?) have you seen the October, 2009 issue of Cycle World?

Check pages 38 thru 40. The title is "Deutsch Marks, BMW Boxing Match."
No. 24 in their "American Flyers" series.

I don't know what it [directly] has to do with this thread but there are some interesting airhead concepts there.

Just saw it tonight.

Charlie

perspective

How would you Modernize an R100RS?

Click to expand...

KBasa said:

I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

The fact that I have a fairly radical "1980 Vintage race" BMW in the works,
and am that person who believes in hands-on involvement with a machine
as a necessary component of enjoying the motorcycling experience ...
will not preclude me from agreeing with KBasa.
For many Type-247 owners, "I wouldn't" or "I shouldn't" will be the best answer to the question posed.

My number-ONE and first priority will be to ride –
this lesson was learned early in my motorcycling career as a Harley owner
and NEVER forgotten.
If I owned but one bike and it were a decent example of an R100RS,
my strategy as an owner would be very different !
"Hands on involvement" would be relegated to maintenance, up-keep, and restoration ...
I'd want that old bike to look sharp and perform consistently well,
to be mechanically & cosmetically 100% – mile after mile.
After all, BMW did their engineering and design homework and provided us with an excellent platform for this strategy !
The stock 1981 RS that I owned was a competent road performer that took me all over this continent and back – countless times.

It was not until I became a multiple bike owner that I allowed myself the extravagance of running rampant with "Modification Madness" –
I now had a bike to function as a daily-rider & touring machine
as well as another to "sacrifice to the gods of speed" as a willing concession to my "gear-headedness".
Many multiple bike owners should still be content to keep their old RS (or any old BMW) as stock.
It will be cheaper to finance, more reliable, a more versatile road runner, less costly to operate,
and likely retain it's value better than any modified machine.
– and these words are being written by one who is truly "bitten".

As KBasa, I am also an R1200 owner (mine is the R1200S),
and this will be my validated reason NOT to eschew technological progress ...
speed, acceleration, braking, superior handling, and ease of maintenance of this machine is nothing short of AMAZING !!!
I am also fortunate to have owned and / or experienced many of the milestones of technological advancement that BMW has made
since the time of the R100RS.
And KBasa would be correct. Those claims of the "loss of simplicity" are vastly over stated –
especially when viewed in that light of the advances made in performance.
The worst aspect of maintaining a Hex-head (for example) will not be the work required,
but rather that FEAR of the UNKNOWN as one ANTICIPATES the need to learn the basics and procedures of some technologically advanced systems.

Which brings us full circle and back to the fact that
if you want a modern bike with the current standards of road-worthiness, performance, braking ...

I say GO FOR IT! Some people are hot rodders and some aren't. It appears that most of the repliers are not.

To me a new R1200RT is not cool (may be a great bike) a customized DYI creation is. You will have the only one in the world.

As far as the R1, the reason BMW dropped it was it could not compete with Ducati racing, according to Motorcyclist magazine.

Ralph Sims

prototypes and production models

BuddingGeezer said:

I say GO FOR IT! Some people are hot rodders and some aren't. It appears that most of the repliers are not.

Click to expand...

Well ... I am. But the fact of that doesn't preclude rational choices, however.

BuddingGeezer said:

To me a new R1200RT is not cool (may be a great bike) a customized DYI creation is. You will have the only one in the world.

Click to expand...

Build objectives will need to be recognized and quantified to have any meaningful discussion.
But let's start with this:
What will you be willing to sacrifice for that goal of "cool" ?
Performance ? Roadability ? Comfort ? Longevity ? Reliability ? Versatility ? Tractability ?
The old Type-247 engine AND chassis has some very real-world limitations as to how it can be "pushed",
and nothing will be gained where something isn't lost.

BuddingGeezer said:

As far as the R1, the reason BMW dropped it was it could not compete with Ducati racing, according to Motorcyclist magazine.

Click to expand...

Prototypes rarely if ever make it to production – in their entirety.
They must be considered as "concept studies" brought to fruition
in order to test design features, market acceptance, and production feasibility.
BMW has put every single one of it's models into production – without EVEN ONCE challenging Ducati's race prowess !

Parts, engineering, and design features of these proto-bikes, however, often do trickle down to the market.

As I mentioned above, the first K-bike prototype used a Peugeot 104 car engine ...
and we never saw THAT in production !

And then there is this one, a BMW prototype developed in the years 1983-1985.
See any family resemblance to the K1 introduced in 1989 ?
Notice that the engine case is a stressed member and an integral component of the frame / chassis,
and that the swing arm attaches to the transmission case – a design feature shared by both the oil & hex head.
The neck-stem area is radically reinforced (vs a stock Type-247 frame) – to accomodate the extra HP.
The mono-shock, PROTO-PARALEVER, turbo-charged, BMW Futuro:

I LIKE It!

vanzen said:

nothing will be gained where something isn't lost.


And then there is this one, a BMW prototype developed in the years 1983-1985.
See any family resemblance to the K1 introduced in 1989 ?
Notice that the engine case is a stressed member and an integral component of the frame / chassis,
and that the swing arm attaches to the transmission case ÔÇô a design feature shared by both the oil & hex head.
The neck-stem area is radically reinforced (vs a stock Type-247 frame) ÔÇô to accomodate the extra HP.
The mono-shock, PROTO-PARALEVER, turbo-charged, BMW Futuro:

Click to expand...

Ooooooh, I LIKE that!

Dream Bike

seniorasi said:

While the advances in technology may equate to "modern" in the minds of some, including the "perceived majority", what do you think about taking a different tack? How about building the dream bike with all the features you ever wanted in a machine?

Click to expand...

Here it is!



Here is proof that ANYTHING is possible. (Not for wimps!)

Just think of what this guy to do for an old R100RS!

Problem solved, I already modernized your R100.............

35634 said:

Problem solved, I already modernized your R100.............

Click to expand...

Gee ummm errr Thanks I think

35634 said:

Problem solved, I already modernized your R100.............

Click to expand...

Photoshop & Adobe Illustrator were important tools used to "imagine" my vision.

501476's exercise does bring to light what may, perhaps, be a better path to take
in the quest to imagine an R100RS with modern performance capability.
To "have your cake & eat it too".
And that path would be to start with a BMW that is equipped with current performance technology
and retrofit that bike with classic styling.
I would venture to say that this may be the more cost effective course of action.

vanzen said:

This exercise does bring to light what may, perhaps, be a better path to take in the quest to imagine an R100RS with modern performance capability.

To "have your cake & eat it too". And that path would be to

...start with a BMW that is equipped with current performance technology and retrofit that bike with classic styling.

I would venture to say that this may be the more cost effective course of action.

Click to expand...

Now that is an interesting and novel approach which I believe is certainly worth serious consideration!

someone else's vision: