baby needs a bike

[Isamemon]

well my wife is my baby, even though we have grandkids
we looked at a r75 but that was still a bit to tall for her
she was on her tippy toes to hold it up, and a pinch heavy
so....
is a r 65 any better
hey smaller numbers smaller height ???
I really dont want to put her on a .................non european bike
but if that is what fits
she is tired of sitting on the back, on street bikes anyway
5 foot 4 and 100 something pounds
she wants her own street scooter
but it has to be as fast( as my airhead so to keep up,) reliable, adn as road side fixable as our old airhead
.........................
scooter suggestions please

[lkchris]

NO, NO, and NO.

All /5, /6, /7 and all "large" bikes up through 1984 have essentially the same frame and wheels.

In a given year for these bikes, ALL displacements have EXACTLY the same frame.

They have the same transmission, driveshaft and wheels. The same engine block, crankshaft, and connecting rods. ONLY the cylinders and pistons, cylinder heads and carburetors and rear drive ratios are different between displacements and none of these affect seat height.

The /6 frame is a bit strengthened over the /5, and the /7 even more so. BUT they are the same geometry and provide the same ride height.

The earliest /5 had a shorter driveshaft and rear subframe, but the wheelbase stretch was a big improvement so can't recommend the oldest ones.

These are "kit" bikes.

The R65 of '79-'84 has a different frame, and is slightly lower. It has a shorter connecting rod, making cornering ok despite the lower chassis height. In the USA the R65 is the ONLY bike with this smaller frame, although Europe and elsewhere got an R45 with--again--just smaller pistons.

The R80G/S and R80ST are VERY similar, just different front wheels and few other minor things. I wouldn't list them as lower than a /7.

Airheads from '85-on (including last R65s) are if anything taller despite the dumb-looking smaller front wheel.

The R100R is an R100GS with a smaller front wheel.

It's not so much how "tall" a bike is, but rather where the weight is. The boxer design makes for a low center of gravity making for less tippiness. Less upper body strength required. Get the widest handlebars possible to help minimize strength required.

If you go over gently in a parking lot, the bike easily stops at the cylinder. BMW valve covers are VERY strong, especially the later versions.

R65 may be the best, but the R80ST is probably a close second simply because it's probably the lightest of them all.

[Isamemon]

wow, very imformative, thanks

[nhlkats]

they are the same geometry and provide the same ride height.either our bikes are modified unbeknownst to us, or this is not accurate. the /6 is WAY lower and more comfortable to ride and sit on than the /7 which is higher. My sister who is about the same dimensions as your wife can sit on the /6 with feet firmly planted on ground. she cannot even tip toe the /7 it is so high.

but like i said, the bikes could have been modified b4 we got them.
FWIW...SIG...PFTW...
:deal

[20774]

According to Haynes, seat heights (unladen) are:

/5 - 33.5 in
/6/7 - 31.9 in
R65 up to 1980 - 30.3 in
R65 1981-85 - 31.9 in
R65 1986 on - 31.8 in

Tallest is the R80G/S at 33.9 in followed closely by the R80GS and R100GS at 33.5 in. The GS-PDs were 33.4 in.

Kurt in S.A.

[Braddog]

I know this is the Airheads/Tech forum, and it seems that you're really wanting another airhead for your sweetie, but perhaps you should consider something...er...well...Japanese? :dunno

A 500 Vulcan has a low seat, and could keep up reasonably well with your airhead. Or, perhaps the little Ninja 250? Not a real low seat height, but narrow and light enough for a beginner to handle quite easily. Most modern Japanese bikes really don't require much roadside repair. Or maybe an older Honda CX500 (shaft drive, liquid-cooled, tranverse-mounted V-Twin), or maybe a CB550-4?

I'm just sayin'.....

[bugtussle]

I ride a Ninja 250 most of the time. I love the little bike. Its currently setup for touring with a rear trunk, taller gearing(15/41 stock is 14/45), bar risers, and a tall Duke windshield. It will cruise at 75-80 all day(105mph top speed) and not even break into a sweat. Its as smooth as a K75, Ive owned 2 of them. It got 80 mpg on the last tank. It will out run most airheads on a twisty road. They are really ez to maintain and will last well over 100K. Theres lots of info on them @ ninja250.org
I live just down the road from you maybe we can meet sometime and you can check it out.Click Here (http://www.ninja250.org/bugtussle) to see some pics.

[Fritzc]

Or maybe an older Honda CX500 (shaft drive, liquid-cooled, tranverse-mounted V-Twin), ?

I'm just sayin'.....

I had one of those for a year and am sooooooo sorry I sold it. That is one sweet little bike. I followed two of them to Lake Placid in 1983 70+ MPH all the way there and back. I even put a sidecar on it (slowed me down a little) and could ride it around in the winter. Engine is easy to work on too. There is a forum for them too where you can get oodles of information on them.

[Rod Sheridan]

If you are looking for a CX Honda, the Canadian and European variant, the CX650E is even better. I rode one for years, it's now with owner #3, very high mileage, very reliable, goes like stink compard to an airhead.

At present I am on my second R90/6, great bike except for the brakes, clutch, gearbox, suspension and electrical system! Actually it's not that bad, howver it isn't anywhere as good as the CX except for lower weight and center of gravity, and simplicity.

regards, Rod.

[20774]

How's the CG for the CX Honda? Seems like with the "Guzzi-ish" design, that would be a bit of a deterent to someone who is just starting out or not strong enough to muscle the bike around.

Kurt in S.A.