Why are R65LS's "Collectible"? [Archive]

dlearl476

08-12-2004, 03:03 PM

I think Dave hit the nail on the head. The only thing that makes a R65LS "collectable" is their limited production run. (Does that make Yugos collectable?) But that doesn't make them a BAD bike. I've always thought they were way cool, too.

A fellow over on F650.com had owned several, including one he passed on to his daughter (still riding it). He posted a GREAT post on the good, bad and ugly once, but I can't seem to find it. He has since retired, unplugged, and ridden off into the sunset and I have no way to get in touch. You could probably find it with a little time of searching.

FWIW, the gist of it was the first couple of years had problems, but the last year they sold them were pretty much sorted. (Sound familiar? Typical BMW: Release for Beta testing, address issues, discontinue, repeat!)

MarkF

08-12-2004, 04:34 PM

The rear end is also different. The seat/tail section does not allow the mounting of saddlebag mounts without modification. That said I've always lusted over one and still might ad one to the garage for casual riding.

MarkF

P.S. I like Silver better!

lkchris

08-12-2004, 07:41 PM

They're usually more collectable to the seller than to many buyers.

There are only a few truly collectable Airheads, and IMHO no R65 makes the list.

Braddog

08-12-2004, 08:56 PM

Good comments. After doing some Googling, the R65 isn't exactly the airhead that people tend to brag about, either for looks or performance.

At least not on the Web.

The LS is unique really only for it's looks, and its front Brembo's.

For the most part, it seems to be a perfectly capable little bike. I would think they would make great commuter bikes, if properly equipped with luggage.

So maybe a good collectible bike would be the Suzuki Madura? :p

MarkF

08-12-2004, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Braddog
Good comments. After doing some Googling, the R65 isn't exactly the airhead that people tend to brag about, either for looks or performance.

So maybe a good collectible bike would be the Suzuki Madura? :p

I think any of the small Guzzis 350-650cc and Morinis 350-500cc are very collectable. Because they are rare now and were great performers in the day. Wish I never sold mine!

MarkF

dlearl476

08-12-2004, 11:16 PM

>So maybe a good collectible bike would be the Suzuki Madura?

There are a million cool "collectible" bikes out there. Two of my favorites (one that could be a perfect daily rider, one that, well maybe not) are: Honda GB 500 and Yamaha Daytona Special (total build ~3700)
http://lovik.tripod.com/gb.arvid.jpg

And I'd have to add Bultaco Metrallas, Guzzis V7 Sports, and the aforementioned LeMans to my short list.
But a R65LS would STILL be cool!

trmptrmrk

08-16-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Braddog

For the most part, it seems to be a perfectly capable little bike. I would think they would make great commuter bikes, if properly equipped with luggage.

Yep. They are perfect for daily commuting. I strongly considered "upgraded" to something more highway friendly, but my LS is just so much more fun to ride to work. The short bars are great (take the strain off of the back to support arms). The tail section is different. But it's pretty neat how the tool kit fits back there with extra room for storage, plus there are a couple handles for a passenger.

For something more collectable that won't break the bank, how about an R90s project bike? Middle aged guys seem to love restoring those things. And they are similar to the LS in that they also have a funny tail section and less parts exchangability than most BMWs, right? I seem to recall they are somewhat collectable because one of them won a race.

Hoping to stir things up with people who know far more about this subject than me (and who prefer bigger bikes),
Mark:stick

kbasa

08-16-2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by dlearl
>So maybe a good collectible bike would be the Suzuki Madura?

There are a million cool "collectible" bikes out there. Two of my favorites (one that could be a perfect daily rider, one that, well maybe not) are: Honda GB 500 and Yamaha Daytona Special (total build ~3700)
http://lovik.tripod.com/gb.arvid.jpg

And I'd have to add Bultaco Metrallas, Guzzis V7 Sports, and the aforementioned LeMans to my short list.
But a R65LS would STILL be cool!

I see GB500s fairly regularly here.

28796

08-21-2004, 10:31 AM

I think any of the small Guzzis 350-650cc and Morinis 350-500cc are very collectable. Because they are rare now and were great performers in the day. Wish I never sold mine!

I don't miss my small Guzzis, too many problem areas, but the Morini 3.5 Sport I bought new in 83 is still in my garage. This is a keeper like my R90/S bought new in 76.

No one has mentioned the R65 bugaboo, excessive vibration. Remember the rubber engine mount kits Luftmeister use to sell. Most twins vibrate at 4K but the 65s are something else. I rode an LS from northern Maine to Ct once & had a geat time as long as I stayed below or above the nasty vibe point. Ended up keeping it pegged around 90 most of the way & it was fine. Beware of any R65 thats had the rubber mount kit installed for a number of miles. The frames tend to crack between the front & rear mounts.

Cosmoline52

08-21-2004, 11:54 PM

IIRC Hans designed the R90S... maybe the RS also but I don't know.

He also designed the Datsun 240Z which could explain its immense popularity. When you look at it though it makes sense, sleek and simple, excellent performance, just what's needed. Sound like a 90S? Used to drive my Japanophile friends crazy when I brought that one up!

Old school that I am, when the R65's appeared I sort of hesitated. BMW smalled-down the bigger bikes' dimensions but still you had a massive engine/trans casting assembly, read that HEAVY for its size. It cost too darn much at the time when you could buy a Japanese bike of that size for half as much and get more performance.

That being said, personally I still like them. I will argue that no BMW is a drag racer so the modest performance of the /65's falls into the BMW mindset, overall performance over the long haul.

And Mark, glad you ride the LS, wish I had one! Regarding 90S's. The "One that won a race" was on the floor at RPM in Ventura (Reg Pridmore's RPM) many years ago and I will say that Daytona bike was NOT a standard R90S. On the real road, in those days it would frustrate me to no end that I had to work my butt off on my new Honda 750F to keep up with my brother's 90S. Magazine roadtests aside, and although I could lean that bike over so far on Michelin M45's that I could grind the alternator cover on the left and muffler on the right, all I could do was chase that Hella tailight... Under the gun, and I don't mean this offensively, but the R65's I've ridden with are not in the same league. Those middleaged guys restoring 90S's are working on the last airhead BMW hotrods, and unless you have ridden one, you have no idea.

A pre-'80 100S or RS will be the exception, but there's almost religion involved in working a Dellorto'd 900 over a mountain pass.

dlearl476

08-23-2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Bikpaintr
No one has mentioned the R65 bugaboo, excessive vibration. Remember the rubber engine mount kits Luftmeister use to sell. Most twins vibrate at 4K but the 65s are something else.

IIRC, that was one of the "characteristics" that was remedied in the final year or two of production. It's been a long time, but I think there was that, a change in alternators or or alternator gearing to help with charging, and something else that completely escapes me.

MarkF

08-23-2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Cosmoline52
Those middleaged guys restoring 90S's are working on the last airhead BMW hotrods, and unless you have ridden one, you have no idea.

A pre-'80 100S or RS will be the exception, but there's almost religion involved in working a Dellorto'd 900 over a mountain pass.

You got me drooling again! Just look at this beauty! I keep it on my desktop like other have porno!

28796

08-23-2004, 10:12 PM

The R65 vibration problem was never cured during the LS production run. Whether or not this improved on the mono shock models I can't say but I doubt it unless they completely redesigned the motor.

28796

08-23-2004, 10:19 PM

You got me drooling again! Just look at this beauty! I keep it on my desktop like other have porno!

Pretty bike but those mufflers have got to go! Horns a little odd also. I've had an R90/S in my garage for 28 years now. Probably wouldn't be able to sleep nights if I ever sold it.

flying_finn

02-18-2009, 03:57 PM

Here is a photo of my 1982 R65ls .. Its a great bike .. I have and extra engine that I'm thinking of boring out to 850cc for more power

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p9/hkens/R65LS/Img2008-11-28-140749.jpg

I would of course always consider trading it for a R80G/S or /2

boxermaf

02-18-2009, 10:06 PM

Engine vibration? No more than any other airhead - IF the engine and carbs are properly tuned, that is. The final drive gearing is quite low on these bikes, so they're spinning @ 55 MPH what the R100 is spinning at around 70. Just wick it up or down a little bit and any roughness disappears - my LS is very smooth from 4600 - 7K RPM. A little buzzier from around 4000-4200. The short stroke engine and light clutch assembly of the 81- models make them much happier revving engines than the long stroke 100.

They are heavy for 650cc bikes (they are BMWs after all) but most of the bike and drive train is so over-designed that the 650's output can't overstress anything. Peak HP on the post 80 R65 models is the same as the R80, (50 BHP) but @ higher RPM.

airhead78

02-18-2009, 11:41 PM

I have one and it never vibrated more or less than my 88 R100. I think the dual shock motor internals were unique to the r65s, while post 84 the R65 internals were shared with the R80s and 100s, except for jugs and pistons..

boxermaf

02-18-2009, 11:58 PM

.. 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.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t138/nhmaf/FallFoliage03.jpg

flying_finn

02-19-2009, 06:54 AM

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 ... :german

donbmw

02-19-2009, 08:11 AM

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 ... :german

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

02-19-2009, 03:47 PM

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.

108625

02-19-2009, 05:14 PM

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 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.

535is

02-19-2009, 05:26 PM

IIRC Hans designed the R90S... maybe the RS also but I don't know.

He also designed the Datsun 240Z which could explain its immense popularity.

No; Albrecht von Goertz designed the 240Z. He also designed a BMW or two - like the 507.

boxermaf

02-19-2009, 10:33 PM

Some of the best parts of riding an LS if you can ride it is appreciating the look on the faces of the guys on the "big bikes" after you dust them in the twisties - or passing a squid on a modern 600 who doesn't know how to go round corners.

Even do-ragged H-D riders will wave at me when I'm on my LS.

The bike is small for me (I'm 6' 2", 210lbs) but it really is a blast on back country roads on a Sunday afternoon. I've got a 100+ HP Japanese bike too, but one doesn't need all those horses to have a fun time. I'm debating whether or not to ride it to the national in Tennessee - I'll need a big bottle of ibuprofen and a chiropractor, but if I take all the back roads down from New England I'll have a smile on my face (I hope).

shire2000

02-20-2009, 11:55 AM

The R65LS is an excellent bike for what it was designed for. Lots of people say it is underpowered. I say in what way? It can do a very respectable speed, just takes it's time getting there compared to other 650cc bikes. But, once at top speed, it will stay there as long as you want. They handle very well and in the right hands will out manouver a lot of so called canyon carvers.

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. They were extremely overbuilt and under stressed in comparison. The only BMW that is less stressed would be the R65's little brother the R45. Basically take an R65 and put smaller pistons, pots and smaller carbs. Reduce the horsepower to 27HP and you have a nice commuter bike that will never wear out. Will never win any acceleration competitions, but again, once up to speed will stay there all day long.

:ca

108625

02-20-2009, 02:19 PM

Some of the best parts of riding an LS if you can ride it is appreciating the look on the faces of the guys on the "big bikes" after you dust them in the twisties - or passing a squid on a modern 600 who doesn't know how to go round corners.

Oh sheesh, here we go with the ubiquitous bike that will dust a "squid on a modern 600" in the twisties. I wish I had a $ for everytime I've heard that; from people riding everything from Ninja 250s to HD Road Kings. The key words there are: "who doesn't know how to go around corners".

flying_finn

02-24-2009, 01:44 PM

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.

:ca

I second that

jforgo

02-24-2009, 02:48 PM

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

02-24-2009, 05:10 PM

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

02-24-2009, 05:35 PM

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

02-24-2009, 06:11 PM

boxermaf

02-24-2009, 08:44 PM

RGuy

02-24-2009, 09:01 PM

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

02-25-2009, 03:01 PM

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

02-25-2009, 03:56 PM

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

02-25-2009, 07:06 PM

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.:wave

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

02-25-2009, 08:49 PM

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

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

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:cry

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:doh

RGuy

02-25-2009, 10:33 PM

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:brow

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

Rev_Eddie

02-26-2009, 06:19 AM

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

02-26-2009, 08:37 AM

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

03-31-2009, 05:04 PM

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

mblackwood

04-02-2009, 02:56 PM

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.

:dunno

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. ;-)

boxermaf

04-02-2009, 09:44 PM

mblackwood

04-02-2009, 09:52 PM

ALL the airheads from that time period came with the same snowflake pattern wheels. The R65 and R45 models did have 18" front wheels (and rear), instead of the 19" front wheels on the R80/R100, and have different chassis geometry, rake and trail.

except these two 1982 R65 and R65LSs.

http://www.bdogeng.com/images/1982_BMW_R65.jpg (R65)

and the R65LS of the same year:

http://www.obairlann.net/reaper/motorcycle/galleries/r65ls/images/front-right-1.jpg

but... it's all good.
:whistle

108625

04-03-2009, 04:13 PM

Wife's '82 R65LS definitely does not have snowflake rims.

108625

04-03-2009, 04:22 PM

Holy Cow! That's the first time I got a picture posted on the first try!

mblackwood's right though, the whole is more disappointing than the sum of it's parts.

boxermaf

04-03-2009, 05:31 PM

What I had MEANT to say, was that all airheads EXCEPT the LS had the snowflakes during this period. I have an LS in my garage so I know it, but hadn't formed my sentence clearly.

jforgo

04-03-2009, 06:22 PM

That is a good looking bike. If it traps your hands, just play with how the bars sit.

That fairing looks as if it would handle our eternal cross-winds pretty well

mymindsok

04-03-2009, 08:31 PM

Wife's '82 R65LS definitely does not have snowflake rims.

Well, if it traps your hands and you think it's so slow, think about selling it off. There are a few of us who appreciate the R-65LS for exactly what it is and when equiped with that fairing, it's really sharp. OTOH, I certainly don't expect an R-65 to run with my Hot Rodded R-90 or even my bone stock R-100RS. The R-65s occupies a place of it's own.

If you decide that you want to get rid of that underperforming little parts-bin bike, get in touch with me. I'd clean it up and give it a really good home!

rbleau

04-03-2009, 08:40 PM

108625

04-04-2009, 10:18 AM

Anything worth doing is worth overdoing, right ? Fond memories of my R65LS, a 1983 model. This is my Christmas card for 1984. She topped out at 118 (indicated) lying down, peeping over the bars, toes over the license plate. Carbs had been rejetted in Pridmore's Santa Barbara BMW. Cheers / Ron

No swimsuit, Rollie?

In response to those who fear the bike deserves a better home, we're probably the best thing that's happened to it for a long time. However, it is not the bike people made it out to be, thus disappointment.
We weren't looking for a rocket, but geez, some of the high praise and rather "optimistic" descriptions of it's capabilities were representative of most of what we had to go on at the time. Then when you travel out of town to look at a bike, and find it sitting forlornly in a garage with a dead battery and a license plate that hadn't been renewed for years, that d@mn "we have to give it a better home" mode kicks in, and before you know it, you've adopted a dog (most figuratively).
We don't mind riding slow, if it's the right bike for the right ride, but having it forced upon us by a bike of this size, capacity, and era is not what we had in mind. It was pitched as a sporty middleweight; when it's really just a styling exercise on what was essentially nothing more than the entry-level beemer at the time. Having lived with it and accepted that, it's on the "time to move on list" in our garage, to make space for some vintage enduros (also slow, but more like what we choose to ride when we don't want to go fast).
Others may feel differently, they're entitled to their own point of view.
That's part of why this thread is here, and the opinions are so widespread.