Input on R65 for wife?

[mbrickell]

A couple years ago my wife decided to get into riding, had never ridden before. Went out, took the MSF course, got a little Buell Blast to ride. After two seasons of Blasting around, has now decided that she has outgrown the Blast. It had limited carrying capacity for stuff, and was kind of light and out of breath at highway speeds.

Being that she still isn't the most experienced rider in the world, but is doing well, the question is what to get next as she has now sold the Blast...

I was kind of thinking of an old R65, small frame version. She rode my /6 around the block once, and her complaint if any was that she thought the clutch pull was awfully stiff. Well, probably is compared to what she is used to. That Buell clutch was really light. I felt like I was riding a scooter when I rode it. Things I like about the R65 would be ability to have hard bags and a fairing or windscreen, things not easily found on other older bikes necessarily.

I have no personal riding experience with the R65. I'm assuming the clutch effort is probably not that much lower than my /6?

The only other stuff I see out there in my price range are non-BMWs really, and would like to have 2 Bimmers in garage kind of...

Anyway, opinions on how the R65 differs from my '75 R90/6 to ride would be appreciated, as well as opinions as to the suitability of one for my purposes. Other suggestions fine too.

Sorry, just noticed I think I posted this in the tech forum for airheads erroneously. Apologies, should have put in a general forum I guess...

[Burnszilla]

I would have her look at the F650. It's much lighter and more nimble.

[wildwilly]

I have an '80 R-65 which now has 120K miles on it. I have likened its handling qualities to a '70 Honda CB-350 which I rode quite a few miles on; nothing extraordinary, but reliably predictable and stabile, especially at slow speed. The clutch effort is reasonably light compared to the Honda and my old venerable Triumph. My R-65 still gets 42 mpg, so getting 180-200 miles between fuel stops still meets criteria for a tourer. I can load the top box and Krauser bags on mine and still have adequate power, especially when going over the Continental Divide. Sorry, I can't offer you a comparison between an R-65 and your R-90, but my R-65 was a better platform than an R-80RT, which I briefly owned, by reason that the R-65 is more suited to my short inseam (28").

I've read in previous threads relating to the R-65 series that the later years ('82-'87) are more desirable. Apparently, engine and body parts are unique to this series; therefore maintenance is an issue as parts are becoming difficult to find. I have performed all the maintenance on mine since I bought it used from a dealer back in '82. To this date, I have not had any problem with ordering parts from my dealer. Although my bike has the "snowflake" cast wheels, it is still recommended that tubes be stalled with the tires. I can attest that an R-65 is virtually bulletproof. As long as my R-65 has oil and fuel, it just refuses to die. :heart

[mbrickell]

I would have her look at the F650. It's much lighter and more nimble.

I was thinking of that option as well. Cost is a little of a factor. Seems that an R65 can be had significantly cheaper than an F650. I like shaft drive, too. As relatively little as she rides, though, probably not a major issue maintenance-wise. She isn't an iron-butt mileage rider.

Maybe this is a good point. Perhaps saving a little more coin and going F-route isn't a bad idea.

Seems R850Rs aren't too steep used too...

[mbrickell]

I've read in previous threads relating to the R-65 series that the later years ('82-'87) are more desirable.

I am no expert on the subject, but I think the pre-85 -65s have the smaller frame, which is kind of why I was tending this way if I go the R65 route.

Interesting input on parts, though. I was not aware that there is a potential parts availability issue with them.

[sumran]

I would look at a post-'81 R80 or R100. Much lighter clutch pull and a great ride. Better parts availability and resale. And better highway manners. Should be more affordable than the F650. '83 and '84 are probably the most desirable years.

'81 had some issues with nikasil flaking on cylinders. If the bike has more than 30k on it, the flaking is probably not an issue. There were some transmission issues with '81 and early '82 models, of the sort you might expect with a significant design change. By late '82 or '83 most of the bugs were worked out.

It is nice that your wife rides as well. I wish you luck in your purchase and future travels.

[26667]

My wife had a 65 some years ago. Mostly she liked the bike and we took a couple of x-country trips, and one to the National w it. But she was frustrated trying to keep up w my R100. She had a tendecy to short-shift it, and I tried not to hot-dog it, but still it was under-powered by her standards. She liked her K-75 much better.

My guess is that the people who ride 'em and love 'em are the people who rev 'em. And save fifth gear for above 70 mph.

[lkchris]

Don't overlook the R80ST.

By definition it has the lighter flywheel and consequent better clutch pull.

[RRDavis]

I own a 1982 R65.
I think the clutch pull would be lighter than your bike.
1982 model has the lighter flywheel and 5 speed transmission.
I like the lower seat, shorter frame and lighter weight compared to the R80 and R100.
I have had zero problems with parts availability.
Beginning somewhere around 1980 models there can be valve "recession" problems. Many have already been "fixed".
I feel like mine has plenty of power. It will pull hard all the way to the red line.
Motor is very smooth at 4,000 to 6,000 rpm.
I have a windjammer fairing, side and top cases. 200 miles easy between gas stops.
I have seen nice, low mileage R65 bikes for sale for about $3,000.

[89mille]

I have an '84 R65, the last year of the twin shocks, and it's as solid as a rock. The bikes also only weigh 25 lbs more than the early F650, but have a lower seat height and better power delivery. Parts are not an issue at all either, new or used.

For more than you may ever want to know about these bikes, check out our site, www.r65.org.

[44006]

I have lowered 80 R65 for short person with Ntl Cyc plexstar2
and Givi Bags along with numerous /5/6/7 bikes and have toured
with all - I offer the following comment and comparison

Try the easyclutch system on your /6
If your lady has long enough legs for /6 of /7 then get her one
of these with the most similar parts to yours as you can - the
combined get home factor will be much improved

The R65 is a high reving bike fun to ride if you really crank it up
in each gear - 50mpg at 60mph - 44mpg at 70 - becomes
moderately unstable in interstate truck buffeting traffic at 80
or above and is really sweating loaded with baggage at 80.
In order to get all the gas out of the R65 you need to be strong
enough to lay it over to throw the gas from the nonpetcock side
of the tank to the petcock side - not a lady thing.

The R75/5 long frame with similar screen/luggage has much more
torque at comfortable rpm stable up to 90mph and would be in my
opinion better choice for beginning lady - use easyclutch or weak
clutch spring with new clutch disk to solve the pull factor.

The R65 takes and needs an odd sized expensive battery
The long frame bikes will fit a lawn tractor battery with very slight
modification

[flat_twin]

One of my wife's first bikes was a 82 R65. I got it for the same reasons you already mentioned. Lower frame, easier to get flat footed etc.
The bike ran very smoothly except at higher revs where it has an inherent vibration that has led some to install rubber engine mounts.
The frame on the older twin shock variety can flex and is affected by rough roads and bumps.
I would recommend you look for something with a more modern frame and suspension, brakes etc. A novice rider needs all the advantages you can give them. There are much better machines out there and you want her to be safe right?

[James.A]

I've got a good friend who got into riding 2 years ago and bought a practically new, used Kawi Ninja 250 for his first bike. Crazy cheap. It is 100 pounds lighter but can pretty much hang with my R75/5 all day long. There is, however, a trade off on the weight thing regarding stability and windage on the interstate at higher speeds. Crazy good fuel economy also. If you must have a boxer for her, the R65 would be a good choice, but it won't run with your 900 at the top. It would be a stair step bike until she gets accustomed to the vibe, I've ridden an R80ST and I think it might be one of the best bikes BMW ever made. It might just be a big jump from the Buell Blast, and they are kinda rare.

[Friedle]

I suppose only you know whether it is a fair trade or not. :p

Sorry, just couldn't help myself. :doh

Friedle

[37071]

My wife had a F650CS that was OK for her, but she found it too light. I never understood that. I have a 79 R65 that has been problem free except that one coil bracket broke off. I really liked the F650CS but my wife traded it in on a R1150R. I figure the R65 will be the last bike I ride. It is light and easy to handle. When I can't lift the K bike off the side stand any more; I will still have a bike to ride.

[DennisDarrow]

Started my wife on a R50/2 to learn to ride on. When she blew the engine and max'd out the brakes trying to keep up, I decided she needed a bit more. Got her a 79 R65 and she did just fine for more than 70k of Mexico, most of the states, many Provinces, and just riding............Replaced it with an R80ST so she could carry more weight, better bags, and a slicker fairing than the old Vetter stuff................

Anyway, time goes on and basically you have done right by her learning to ride on something not overly powerful...........WHAT DOES SHE WANT?????

An R65 is a great little bike. Easy to work on and fast enough to get into all the trouble a rider wants to get into. Have fun....................RIDE...........Dennis

[Boxerkuh]

I think you need to ask yourself three questions...
1. What kind of riding do you and your wife do? Interstate/country roads/touring/around town
2. What does she want?
3. What kind of funds are available?

If she likes the Airheads the R65 or a R75 or a R80 will be fine. I think they all will be fine and can be motified for requirements... I think a lot of people (me one of them) envy you that your wife rides and wants to ride her own bike... :thumb :whistle

[mbrickell]

Thanks, all, for the good input/advice.

I think in the end the comment about the modern brakes, etc, is what strikes me most. This is a valid point. I know the braking on my /6 is from a lot different era than other bikes I've owned. If you really get on them, the bike will stop just fine, but really a more modern bike would probably be safer for the novice rider as people have pointed out.

Looks like at this point, an F650 is probably the lead contender.

My wife is 5'9", so reasonably tall, the height should not be too much of an issue. She sat on one at the dealer once and liked the riding/seating position. Plenty of aftermarket/dealer parts and accessory support.

I think an R80ST is a great bike, always thought so. I don't know if she'll be willing to pay what would probably be top dollar due to the rarity factor though. Seems like a good option if I came across one.

Something like a K75c also seems to be a possibility.

I guess clutch pull is her hot button. I'm not familiar with when and if airheads went to hydraulic clutches with correspondingly less effort. If someone can educate me on that, appreciated.

[shire2000]

The R65 and R45 are both very popular bikes for touring in Europe. The twin shock models both are slightly underpowered if you are comparing to any R80 or R100. But then, how much power do you realy need? They will run vertually forever as they are extremely under stressed and well built. I have seen a lot of these bikes pulling/dragging sidecars in Europe with very high milage (200K +) and still looking good.

If you want something that is bullet proof and reliable, with a shorter seat, then definitely look into a nice R65 from 1979 thru 85. I would suggest staying away frm the monoshock as they are much taller.

If you want something unique, get an R65 and put an RT fairing on it. It was a factory option in Europe on both the R45 and R65. One would think that it would be too heavy, but the police in Spain, Italy, France and some other countries used them for many years.

I have a 1980 R45 that my wife just loves. Short inseam, required short bike. I keep toying with the idea of getting a sed RT fairing and bolting it on. She says that if I do, then I had better be ready to move out. :violin

[mbrickell]

I think you need to ask yourself three questions...
1. What kind of riding do you and your wife do? Interstate/country roads/touring/around town
2. What does she want?
3. What kind of funds are available?

If she likes the Airheads the R65 or a R75 or a R80 will be fine. I think they all will be fine and can be motified for requirements... I think a lot of people (me one of them) envy you that your wife rides and wants to ride her own bike... :thumb :whistle

Good point, and these things are for sure in the equation.

1. Mainly commute to work about 30 miles each way through Kansas City, lots of city/suburban interstate. Occasionally, a ride out of the city into rural MO or KS on two-laners. Once in a while, a trip out to her parents farm in rural KS, about 2-3 miles of gravel road at the end to get there, no pavement for that last little bit. Very, very occasionally, and maybe more if she gets a bike with capability and likes it, a longer trip for a couple of days.

2. Great question. She does not like a lot of weight on the wrists. For example, I bought a little Ninja 250 a while back to play around with, and she thought you had to lean forward too much to ride it. You really don't, but compared to her Buell or my /6 you do. So, a standard style riding position preferred. Has to have bags. She likes to carry stuff along. Hard cases a huge plus. She likes a light clutch pull. She is fairly tall and has longer legs so height not a huge issue. Say 5'9 and 120lbs roughly. She thinks my R90 is pretty much a tank having ridden it once, but this is probably due to her only frame of reference for any significant seat time being her Buell Blast, a really flyweight bike to ride. She likes the styling of the GS type of bikes a lot, and the smaller size of the F bikes. She saw an R1150R at the dealer one day with a windscreen and bags on it and really liked the appearance. Our dealer had a used R65 in stock once that she checked out and liked the size of. They also had a K75s in stock once, she loved how the bike looked and the size overall but thought she had to lean forward too much to the bars, hence I was thinking "c" instead of "s" if we got one.

3. Funds...well, this is flexible I guess to an extent. In an ideal world, which is probably not going to happen, she'd find something in the $2500-$3000 range where R65s seem to live a lot. That probably not being realistic, we'd probably like to keep the outlay at $4k level let's say, give or take a little for the right bike.

Maybe the above, which I should have provided in the first place, will help with recommendations.

Thanks!

[crgrbrts]

For what it's worth, my wife simply loves her F650CS and can't imagine owning any other bike.

[benway]

if its just the clutch thats an issue then you can use one of these, from vech at bench mark works

http://members.aol.com/vechbmw2/clutch.html

http://members.aol.com/vechbmw2/clutch1.jpg

hope that helps

[Rev_Eddie]

I've been hearing this "R65 parts are hard / difficult to get" line for awhile now, but I have never had a problem getting any stock parts needed.

Can anyone shed some light on an R65 part an owner might be likely to need that isn't available?


Eddie

[Bill Burke]

I've been hearing this "R65 parts are hard / difficult to get" line for awhile now, but I have never had a problem getting any stock parts needed.

Can anyone shed some light on an R65 part an owner might be likely to need that isn't available?


Eddie
Eddie- How about a headlamp bracket and headlamp for a 1979 or 1980 R65?
The 79 and 80 models are even quirkier than the rest of the R65 family.

[RGuy]

No problems getting R65 parts here either, just purchased a new master cylinder for my '81. Many common replacement parts are the same as R80 / R100 (Bearings, Alt. Rotor, etc.)

According to MaxBMW this should be the headlight bracket for '79 - 84 applications. Available but pricey but aren't they all.
31421235573 $118.00

[dbrick]

I had a new '82 R65 for four years, and (in the late 90s) my wife had an almost-identical '83 for three. We enjoyed them a lot, and I did most of the maintenance.

Still, I tired of the less-than-up-to-date electrics (she flattened the battery on one trip with too-enthusiastic use of her heated liner at low engine speeds; we were lucky to stop and discover it on a hill, and have *just* enough juice when coasting down to fire the electronic ignition). No matter what I did, the brakes couldn't come up to current standards.

Those factors would make me consider the R850R, which you mentioned might be available for not much more. It'd have superior electrics and decent contemporary brakes. While I've not owned an F650, I tend to favor a bit more road hugging weight on the freeway; the smaller bikes will go that fast, but they're spinning pretty good and somehow less relaxing for the rider on long jaunts.

[Bill Burke]

According to MaxBMW this should be the headlight bracket for '79 - 84 applications. Available but pricey but aren't they all.
31421235573 $118.00
And once you buy the $118 bracket, it's a mere $567 for the headlamp to give the bracket a reason for living.

[tricyclerob]

I've been reading this thread with interest. I bought an 86' R65 in the mid 90's as my 1st BMW.

I have found it to be very reliable, and an able tourer. But, it lives on rev's, moreso than any other BMW I've owned or ridden. There is a bit of vibration 65-70mph, but as one approches 75, mine reaches a whole new level of smoothness. It is great fun in general. Sunday rides with the bags off are a treat. Light, with just quick enough handling.

The only issue I have had in about 20,000 miles was a coil failure.

I prev. had a med.sized aftermarket w/s when I used it for touring, but have since removed it for the "windintheface".

A Koni shock, and a 3/8 ths spacer under the fork springs , as well as lower bars, [2.5-3" rise] did the trick. I had tried a progressive fork spring but found it a little too stiff for my taste.
It's a bike that's easy to jump on for almost any reason. I'm 5'7" and 180, so it might not be the right bike for a guy 6'5" and 250.

As the poor stepchild of the BMW family it seems every few weeks there's one being parted out on e-bay, that's where you might find those headlight ears for a lot less than $120.

As mine is an 86' mono, the only thing I have not found is a Brown sidestand. Anyone know of a source for 86' and up?

I was lucky to find a low milage , garage kept example. As far as value, I think in a few years the value on these bikes will go up, as so many were "rid hard" and put away[leaning against a shed]wet, that it will not be long before a nice one is rare.
About 2 years ago I was at "BobsBMW" for some parts for another bike and a service guy, and a mech. actually came out to look at the bike stating, It's "been a long time" since they saw a "nice" R65.

The prices are decent and my feeling is it's a good "all around" bike which I would not hesitate to recomend to anyone.

Just my 2 cents. rj

[Bill Burke]

Nice post Rob. Enjoyed it.

[89mille]

No problems getting R65 parts here either, just purchased a new master cylinder for my '81. Many common replacement parts are the same as R80 / R100 (Bearings, Alt. Rotor, etc.)

According to MaxBMW this should be the headlight bracket for '79 - 84 applications. Available but pricey but aren't they all.
31421235573 $118.00

...or $94.40 new for the bracket from Chicago BMW, and good used headlights run well under a C-note on Ebay regularly...

[GlobalRider]

I owned a 1980 R65 for 10 years.

It, like the R45 are low on power as well as torque. These two share nothing with the other boxers.

That said, it took all 200 pounds of me with lots of gear (and even a passenger during some of my month long tours) through the steep twisty roads of the Alps. All that without a problem.

Clutch effort couldn't have been all that tough...having shifted gears thousands of times a day.

[Altritter]

(What follows is mostly opinion based on research and relatively lacking in personal experience. )

My hands-on experience with an an R65 is limited, but I researched the matter a lot before buying my '81 last fall. To me, a rider in my teens who quit for >40 years, the R65 is a delight!

My bike had 23K on the meter when I bought it. No indication of nickasil flaking inside the cylinders at this point.

Google "BMW R65", and you'll get a lot of information. Some of the best is from a California rider who has owned several R65s. She does a year-by-year rundown on them, with their good points & bad.

Here's a paraphrase of some of her salient points:

The '79 and '80 models had single-disk front brakes. The OEM disks don't stop well. The '81-83(?) have dual-disk fronts. With OEM disks, dual disks greatly improve stopping power; with cast front disks, they're reputed to be capable of causing "stoppies". If you believe the performance-riding crowd, the drum rears are not a problem, because some of them recommend *never* using the rear brake. For my part, I *really* would like ABS. [Sigh]

I like dual shocks on the rear, so the previous poster's preference to that effect is OK by me. So, try to find a model prior to '84, but preferably not before '81. (BTW, one of the web sites advocates avoiding *all* US-model 1980 Beemers because of performance problems with BMW's initial entry into the emission-control era.) Same site: 1981 models boasted what it termed "hundreds" of technical improvements. My hunch: despite my owning an '81, I think I would look for an '82-83 R65 as the "sweet spot" for the US model.

Parts (at least the commonplace ones) don't seem to be a problem from major dealers and mail-order houses, if one is careful to specify "R65" and the year. There's a persistent rumor that the R65 is *still* in production in Germany, but that notion might originate from web sites that date from the late 1990s or early 2000s. Still, the parts situation isn't bad, particularly compared with some other brands' models of the same age.

The R65 is perhaps the most small-person-friendly Beemer of modern times. If a lower seat is installed, or shorter rear shocks, or both, the seat height becomes <30 inches. Add the low boxer design's center of gravity and a fueled weight of about 450 lb., and you get a wonderfully nimble bike in urban, blue-highway, or mountain-road conditions and speeds. The 650 twin, though neither powerful by today's standards nor capable of much >100 mph, is very forgiving at low rpm. (I've read quibbles about the short-stroke design giving the R65 less torque and thus making it more tricky than other mid-size boxers at low rpm, but I haven't had much problem.) Acceleration is very smooth. It's true that the R65 has the notorious "R65 vibration" at about 4000-5000 rpm, but I don't find it objectionable. (Some wag on the web commented that a Harley rider would never even sense it.)

When I shopped for a bike last fall, I rode an F650 because it had a low seat. I greatly preferred the mid-size boxer R65 to the big thumper because it is much more forgiving at low rpm. The 650 single has a lot of torque at low-end, but I found it trickier to manage than the R65, and it rides much higher.

When buying an R65, there apparently are a few "must-have" upgrades to look for (or plan on adding yourself). First, the OEM rear shocks have a terrible reputation. A serious previous rider would have installed the now-defunct Konis (which mine had when I bought it) or their current equivalent. Remember, those shocks are not cheap; keep that point in mind when negotiating. Second, most R65 riders *hate* the OEM side stand. (A new Brown's stand probably approaches $200 from Bob's BMW, but many owners think it's $$ well spent.) Third, many riders thought the OEM rear tire was dangerously puny & strongly recommended an upgrade to a "120" size (which barely fits). Fourth, some riders recommend upgrading to cast front brake disks for their greater stopping power (see above). (I'm seriously considering that upgrade when it's convenient to do so.)

If you need second (and many subsequent) opinions, go to www.r65.org for an experience that might make you think you'd wandered into a cult's web site.

Three-sentence summary: The R65 maneuvers like a 250 in city traffic, but has the quickness and smoothness of a 650. It's not a great Interstate Highway machine for long distances (not likely to be seen on the Iron-Butt Rally), but it's terrific for byway riding. For small people, new riders, or returning oldie/newbies (like me), it might be the best of all BMWs. (Note: I've read recommendations to look instead for an R80 for more power, but the tradeoff is a somewhat larger frame and more weight.)

Good luck! I'm confident your spouse will enjoy the R65. And if you get a chance to ride it, you might become a convert also (at least for your second bike).