How would you Modernize an R100RS?

[Pezz_gs]

I have been acquiring parts for some years, being an airhead tragic and patron saint of lost cause bikes.

I now have almost enough parts to build up a very nice modern R100RS.

1981 Frame – Straightened - which was a series 500 Blue Silver bike. Pic below from BMBikes.

I bought it as an engine in frame & swingarm. Its engine now powers my R80G/S Dakar and does a very nice of job of it as well.
Fairing panels off Multiple bikes.
Seat and surround and sidecovers
Tank & Swingarm
http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/schemephotos/R100RS%20500%20Series%20%281%29.jpg

I will build up a warm engine, hoping for 1150cc’s. I am currently getting quotes for a billet Crank with 75mm stroke 

I would like to keep it with spoke wheels andf contemplating which front end would be best fit. An R100R front end would be nice. would even consider a R1 type front end, if I could make it fit???

I also like the Guzzi way of building a para-lever type of rear end.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2646316004_f8acc0e516_b.jpg

Anyway put your thoughts in below.

[AntonLargiader]

Start by searching and reading the many threads about this sort of thing. None of it is simple. Are you really likely to do structural cutting and welding? What's your experience with that sort of thing?

[vanzen]

Sounds to be an ambitious project. Good luck !

What allows us to believe in the handling stability of a Type-247
is the normally minimal amount of power,
relative evenness of its delivery
and the fact that the state of chassis technology in the rest of the world at that time was worse.

Remember to think of the entire chassis as a well integrated system.
A change to any one aspect (IF that change is a significant departure from the original design parameter set)
will, without a doubt, result in the fabled "gummikuh" effect,
and amplify the shortcomings of the rest of the chassis system !

The 1150 kit, though promising "more power & torque"
seems to be gaining a reputation for cylinder distortion and a short life span.

Check out my website, ROCKERBOXER (http://www.rockerboxer.com)
to see the results of others who have chosen this lonely, dark, and twisty path.

[criminaldesign]

Check out my website, ROCKERBOXER (http://www.rockerboxer.com)
to see the results of others who have chosen this lonely, dark, and twisty path.

good stuff my man

[ccolwell]

If I were going to do something like this, I would focus on the frame, suspension and brakes to 'modernize' an airhead. So...steering head to swingarm pivot brace, maybe a swingarm brace, billet aluminum top triple clamp, fork brace, some extravagant brakes (doesn't someone make some 6 piston calipers that fit?), Ohlins shocks and find someone to perform magic on the front forks. As to the engine, I think I try a dual plug head more to see of the engine will run 'sweeter.' I don't know how much more power these things will make without them becoming less reliable or less pleasant.

Not that I've ever considered such a project...

[88bmwJeff]

:lurk

This should be an interesting thread.

[TomBarnhart]

beautiful bike. Enjoy what you have, it is a work of art. Any attempt to get a few more HP or performance out of this rig is not worth the $$ you have to spend.

If it were mine, I would leave it alone. That is why I have a classic airhead and an new R1200R. If I want the power, handling and brakes, I ride the new bike. If I want a great classic ride, I ride the airhead.

[rinty]

Pez:

I had a $3,500 1982 RS that ended up being a $12,000 RS. It had almost everything known to airheadkind done to it. Then I sold it for $4,000 and got an oiler RS which was three times the bike.

What I learned was to accept an airhead for what it is, and use it accordingly. If you want a modern bike, buy a modern bike.

Just my opinion. :)

[JJ Cerilli]

Agree 100% with both Rinty and Tom....

I have a '78 R100RS "Motorsport" edition (aka "The White Lion") with >$11K of performance upgrades installed by San Jose BMW, including:

* $650 OHLINS rear shocks + rear swing-arm bracing
* Triple-thickness, CC Products billet aluminum triple clamp
* San Jose front fork brace
* Dual-head plugs, DYNA-III electronic ignition
* 1050cc "Blitz-Kit" / new pistons / valves, etc.
* Stainless steel brake lines, new Metzlers / Custom CORBIN seat
* Etc., etc. - - - Read more here at www.vintagemotorcyclesonline.com

At the end of the day, it is STILL a 31-year old bike and should be ridden accordingly.

NOTE: I bought the bike already completed like I described above.....

Enjoy your R100RS for what it is...and add a modern bike to the stable!

JJ Cerilli
(Pleasanton, CA)

http://a.imagehost.org/0320/Beemer_CORBIN.jpg (http://a.imagehost.org/view/0320/Beemer_CORBIN)

http://a.imagehost.org/0223/Moto_Marin_6-09_006.jpg (http://a.imagehost.org/view/0223/Moto_Marin_6-09_006)

[rinty]

In retrospect, what mainly drew me into my expensive little exercise was a couple of things:

1. I was mesmerized by the "potential" of the RS's chassis, brakes, and engine, and;

2. the bike was just so darn good at doing a number of things very well.

And each time I signed another cheque, I reminded myself of Peter Egan's opinion that the RS is the best all around motorcycle ever built. :D

[tvrla]

My vote is also to leave it relatively stock. I would go with a 13 or 14mm master cylinder, 9.5 pistons, good rear shocks, cartridge emulators in front, and convert the rear disc to drum.

Hopping up the motor only puts more stress on the trans which is the weak link and not much can be done about that. Hard acceleration might add too much stress to the tranny, so increased HP would mostly only be noticed two up and loaded, or at redline in top gear. So for normal riding, the motor will feel strong, but won't make that much 'real world' difference.

And don't go to really stiff springs in front which make for a very harsh ride. Instead learn how to ride without using the brakes.

[swall]

My opinion,as an R90S owner, a '78 RS owner and former owner of an '85 R80 is that you just can't match the handling of the monoshock bikes with the bigger forks. You have made a nice machine. Keep it as is or sell it, but don't put money into it trying to make it handle and brake like the post '84 Airheads.

[mmmalmberg]

Having had a couple of R100RS' and being of similar mind to those who advocate leaving a good thing alone, I will say that the handling difference between my twin-shock RS and my mono RS was great. The difference between my later RS and my R100R paralever bike was another similar jump.

If I were building an RS I would not hesitate to look for a better front end with an 18" rim and great brakes. I think this is where the biggest improvement is, at least for me and it does not compromise any design philosophy or intent, simply updating in the way that BMW did with the last of their airheads...

p.s. I've not seen that silver/blue color scheme before, and was thinking about something like this for my R100R project in which I'm using a similar vintage "S" body set. Would love to see more pictures!

[Pezz_gs]

Thanks for the great replies.

Let me clarify a few things. The picture of the blue / silver bike is one from BM Bikes of the series 500 which is stated at the end of line 3 in my original post. I do not have a complete bike only various parts collected over a number of years as I said in my original post. The 70HP RS engine is now in my R80G/S Dakar

http://pezz.smugmug.com/photos/526962342_P9Dpj-O.jpg

A little about the R80G/S Dakar.
R100RS Motor overhauled 70HP
HPN 1st and 5th gears
Gold Valves in the front forks
Ohlins on the rear
32:10 Swiss R80ST Final drive (with the HPN 5th gearing is 10% taller in 5th)
310mm floating disc with 4 piston Brembo
It is the sweetest ride. :thumb

Anton: Yes I have completed many bike builds and modifications. I have a well set up workshop including a lathe, have access to CNC equipment as well. I have read a number of build threads including Vanzens and Team Incomplete which are sweet. Latest effort was grafting a set of Marzocchi 50mm Magnums onto the front of a Monster 900 trail bike build for a friend over here.

Vanzen: I am well aware of the shortcomings of the old Airheads. I will be bracing the frame comprehensively. I have enjoyed your Rockerboxer site.

Tom: I have a frame and various parts, no front forks. Some R1 Mono Bloc callipers and a lot of ideas

Rinty: Im hearing you. I have owned R1100RT and R1150GS. Oilheads don’t do it for me. I prefer the old Airheads and I have a few. Looking at the Chassis evolution of the Guzzi’s one wonders where Airheads would be today?

Johncerilli: I used to own a BMW R100RS Motorsport, nicely modded and nice bike.

Tvrla: I am happy to tune and develop the engine. I made the mistake in the 80’s of buying a set of CC Products Roller Rockers. Nice looking bit of kit but once over this side of the Pacific it was obvious the geometry was all wrong. When I called Chris Hodgson he said they ‘should’ be okay as they have a roller on the end. They were originally built with an offset rocket pivot but they were too expensive to make.

Mmmalmberg: go to bmbikes in the uk and look under colour schemes or do a google image search:- BMWR100RS Series 500

[keelerb]

I guess I'm with the perceived majority here (unusual!), in saying that I think the better question is, WHY would you do so.

[robsryder]

I've got an oilhead and an airhead RS. These are different bikes and I wouldn't try to modernize the airhead to become an oilhead-like bike.

On my airhead RS I did the following to modernize the bike -
- installed Boyer electronic ignition (the advance was slightly damaged and the Boyer was less expensive than purchasing another advance unit)
- replaced rear shocks (I purchased the Hagon units and have been very happy)
- replaced stock fork springs (I used Progressive springs) - the forks were re-built with new seals, etc.
- Almost every bearing was replaced, those not replaced were carefully inspected. All bearings were lubricated, shimmed, and adjusted as necessary, and new seals installed.
- the bodywork was fully disassembled, painted, and carefully reassembled.
- the engine & transmission was disassembled, inspected, and carefully reassembled (the updated "shift kit" was installed in the transmission).
- brakes (calipers and master cylinder) were fully disassembled and re-built. I used braided stainless steel brake lines coated with black vinyl.
- I like Corbin seats and put a new one on my RS.

When I got the airhead RS back on the road it felt like a new bike.

I wasn't looking for the airhead to make the power that the oilhead makes. I'm very happy with the reliability and "feel" of the airhead RS.

[Bigrider]

With the exception of going with 9.5 compression pistons, I'd leave the engine alone. Work on the handling areas that have always been a little weak, the suspension and the frame. Someone has already given details on the parts, but front fork brace, thicker upper triple brace like the CC products one mentioned, frame brace and rear swing arm brace will do wonders on the handling. If you improve the frame/suspention works, you might even be able to run some more modern tires (read higher performance). I have two RS and I like them because of the style. Nothing is better looking than an 83-84 twin shock RS. Good luck with your project.

Dave H
San Antonio, TX

[Pezz_gs]

Not an RS but a nice bike with nice brakes ect

http://www.bikeexif.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bmw_r75_racer.jpg

[Pezz_gs]

Here is an old Round Head Guzzi Modernized

http://www.animaguzzista.com/moto/competizione/brigida/images/dx.jpg

[vanzen]

I guess I'm with the perceived majority here (unusual!), in saying that I think the better question is, WHY would you do so.

keelerb, the answer to that question is both simple and complex.
There exists a "sub-set" of riders who enjoy tinkering, getting their hands dirty,
and a pursuit of the goal of making a machine just a little bit better –
and they will enjoy this activity even as much as riding.
The personal involvement of improving this part or that, making the bike just a little more competent, efficient,
or better suited to the individual's needs can be a most satisfying and rewarding experience in and of itself.
Even failure will be worthwhile – for the knowledge gained and lesson of learning that is a result.
I am describing an "old-school" attitude of a hands-on relationship with the machine.
A "hot-rod-mentality" that realizes the limitations of a production motorcycle designed to appeal to the masses,
and has the patience, understanding, skill set, and desire to improve that machine to better suit his (her) individual needs.
The kind of "dissatisfied" spirit which might be considered a continuation of that evolution of creative / inventive thinking
and brought to us the likes of Henry Ford, Thomas Edison ... and Max Friz.
Those not satisfied with the "status quo", having a "better idea", and working diligently to build that "better mouse-trap".
A mode of thinking that, unfortunately, as I should think,
is rapidly being left by the wayside in the face of "instant gratification", and a "mass-production / consumer driven" ideology
that thrives when we succumb to their admonition:
"you too can have the latest-greatest-fastest ... just give us your money".
It is, perhaps, one of those situations where this cliche certainly comes to mind:
"if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand."

keelerb, your question is best answered, "because I can ... I want to ... so why not !"



Imagine the loss, if you will, had Burt Munro (http://www.indianmotorbikes.com/features/munro/munro.htm) acquiesced to that "perceived majority" ...

http://www.ehayes.co.nz/burtmunro/assets/images/norman_bike_medium02.gif

[DOINTHETON]

Pezz_gs,
do it man! i love modded airhead hot rods, especially ones out of the norm. i've owned numerous /6 and /7's and done all the afore-mentioned obligitory suspension mods. front fork brace, billet upper triple clamp, heavier front fork springs, aftermarket rear shocks, etc. seat of the pants, nope, never could tell any difference and my ass has been planted in three different r100's, three r90/6's, an r80 r/t converted to cafe spec, one r80st, two /5's, and three r100gs's so i think my airhead experience is well rounded.
onward and upward Pez!

[88bmwJeff]

keelerb, your question is best answered, "because I can ... I want to ... so why not !"

I agree with your comment. For the most part, people are limited by their knowledge, experience and available funds to make such modifications. So, for many people it is better and cheaper to buy what they want versus creating it from scratch.

I think when talking about modifications, one should consider their ability as well. For me thinking about what Pezz_gs is contemplating is not worth the time and effort. BUT, that's because I do not have the knowledge, expertise, or equipment to do that, and paying someone would not be cost effective (or within my budget). On the flip side, I enjoy seeing what other people with those skills are able to do.

[orbitangel]

Thanks for the great replies.

The 70HP RS engine is now in my R80G/S Dakar

http://pezz.smugmug.com/photos/526962342_P9Dpj-O.jpg

A little about the R80G/S Dakar... It is the sweetest ride. :thumb

I prefer the old Airheads and I have a few. Looking at the Chassis evolution of the Guzzi’s one wonders where Airheads would be today?



Yes, PGS, but what the hell is that dead animal on your Dakar machine?

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/orbitangel/MarvinDawnAnniversary097.jpg

I mention this only because I am constantly harassed about the dead animal on MY bike.

I am fascinated by your idea. The clunky, old Gummikow is both loved, hated, revered, praised and derided by many. I happen to love it. What do I like about the RS?

It is STABLE, PREDICTABLE and RELIABLE. Also, it is very easy to maintain. It offers great value for the price.

Is the RS "perfect?" CERTAINLY NOT! It can be improved in LOTS of ways, large and small. For those who aren't fixated on having everything 100% original there are many opportunities to do something.

Personally, I'd like to shave a bunch of weight off. One way would be to do a much lighter version of the RS fairing.

The stocker is a beautiful piece of work but is very heavy. I'd like to have on made of carbon fiber, put together with quick-release fasteners like Camlocs. How about installing much better lighting? or a better (and lighter) seat?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of more power, improved chassis, better brakes and all the rest.

The biggest problem I see is basically a mission statement - what are the true goals, how far does one take this, how much are you willing to spend, etc.?

You have some VERY nice machines! I wish you all the best and will be anxious to see what you come up with.

Charlie

[keelerb]

You know, after making that comment, I wandered out to the garage, where my glance fell, as it is wont to do, on my 73 Commando with its electronic ignition, three-phase alternator, H4 headlight on a relayed connection, drilled/blanchard ground rotor, Keihin FCR carburetors, custom ignition switch, 520 x-ring chain, Ikon shocks, Progressive fork springs, Corbin seat, etc. etc. etc. and I said to myself, "Self, WTF are you talking about?"

I stand corrected!

[Pezz_gs]

Vanzen: I could not have put it better myself :thumb

I am printing that reply and posting it above my monitor :type

Orbitangel: Its a necessary investment, Merino Sheep Skin and I have had it for a number of years. Lots of Long days in the saddle traveling over here.

[vanzen]

... a mission statement - what are the true goals, how far does one take this, how much are you willing to spend, etc.?...
Charlie

A mission statement will be THE place to start.
A fact often missed, if one is thorough and honest,
is that the cost of resurrecting a Type-247 to "as new" condition mechanically and cosmetically,
plus the cost of introducing up-dates, modifications, and improvements ...
will very often be greater than the cost of a NEW bike.

This objective analysis will separate the "gear-head" from the "consumer".
Not intended to be judgmental, just two distinct groups of enthusiasts,
and I would qualify for both –
given that I own and ride an R1200S
in addition to my quest of building a very special Type-247.


keelerb:
LOL. No correction necessary. You see ! No one is entirely exempt !
Just as soon as one decides that a sheepskin might make that air-head just a little more comfortable ...
or those Moto-Lights ... just a little safer ...
he gingerly begins the slide down that long and slippery slope called: "no longer 100% stock" !!!:dance

[Bob_M]

... the cost of resurrecting a Type-247 to "as new" condition mechanically and cosmetically, plus the cost of introducing up-dates, modifications, and improvements ... will very often be greater than the cost of a NEW bike.

Ain't that the truth. Still, you can have a machine that is just as reliable as a K12LT, and way cooler, for the same money.

DAMHIK

[vanzen]

...
Personally, I'd like to shave a bunch of weight off. One way would be to do a much lighter version of the RS fairing.

The stocker is a beautiful piece of work but is very heavy. I'd like to have on made of carbon fiber, put together with quick-release fasteners like Camlocs. How about installing much better lighting? or a better (and lighter) seat?

Carbon fiber has a definite "cool factor" and is truly beautiful, light, & strong stuff !
My last build used an S-type fairing, frame mounted, and fenders of CF –
tank & seat-base of aluminum ... as a successful attempt at weight loss.
But considering the process (vacuum bagging necessary w/ CF to achieve the light weight) and the cost ...
and you might consider that an Epoxy FRP will be a viable alternative.
Resulting weight of a quality epoxy lay-up can approach that of CF,
and will be considerably lighter than the stock pieces (polyester based SMC, or Sheet Molded Compound)
Strength required for the parts in question (fairing & seat) is more than adequate with epoxy FRP,
and the cost will be much, much cheaper.
Much easier to repair, too !

[orbitangel]

A mission statement will be THE place to start.
A fact often missed, if one is thorough and honest,
is that the cost of resurrecting a Type-247 to "as new" condition mechanically and cosmetically,
plus the cost of introducing up-dates, modifications, and improvements ...
will very often be greater than the cost of a NEW bike.

This objective analysis will separate the "gear-head" from the "consumer".
Not intended to be judgmental, just two distinct groups of enthusiasts,
and I would qualify for both –
given that I own and ride an R1200S
in addition to my quest of building a very special Type-247.


keelerb:
LOL. No correction necessary. You see ! No one is entirely exempt !
Just as soon as one decides that a sheepskin might make that air-head just a little more comfortable ...
or those Moto-Lights ... just a little safer ...
he gingerly begins the slide down that long and slippery slope called: "no longer 100% stock" !!!:dance

Astutely stated, as always! :bow

[kstoo]

This is a good and interesting thread but I was initially disappointed because I thought that some CEO at BMW Motorrad should be asking the engineering dept. "How would you build a modern R100RS?"

I want an air-cooled, shaft driven 2-valve OHC fuel-injected opposed twin between 70 - 80 hp in a light sturdy frame with an ABS option that has the light-weight retro Hans Muth RS fairing that is easy to remove for maintenance. Must be able to mount Krauser type luggage to it as well.

Please?

and under $10,000.

[seniorasi]

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?

[kstoo]

How about building the dream bike with all the features you ever wanted in a machine?

This is a good and interesting thread but I was initially disappointed because I thought that some CEO at BMW Motorrad should be asking the engineering dept. "How would you build a modern R100RS?"

I want an air-cooled, shaft driven 2-valve OHC fuel-injected opposed twin between 70 - 80 hp in a light sturdy frame with an ABS option that has the light-weight retro Hans Muth RS fairing that is easy to remove for maintenance. Must be able to mount Krauser type luggage to it as well.

Please?

and under $10,000.

[vanzen]

...This is a good and interesting thread but I was initially disappointed because I thought that some CEO at BMW Motorrad should be asking the engineering dept. "How would you build a modern R100RS?"
...

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:

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20B/BMW%20R1%20Prototyper.jpg

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:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2660972186_0c9b96824c.jpg

Only 4 prototypes were made – one of them ridable.

[vanzen]

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?

My design plan or "tack" was to begin with a 1980 production model
and retrofit the machine with the leading edge technology of the era.
Technology which never made it's way into production until later
and would only have been evidenced on prototype and race bikes of that time.
The strategy is somewhat different in focus and intent
than that of attempting to recreate a "modern" machine from one that is almost 30 years old.
To my mind, an oilhead or hex-head might better (and less expensively) achieve that goal.

My concept puts me in that same place as the likes of Udo Gietl and Rob North
(although having the advantage of hindsight),
to pursue the task of building a "state of the art / 1980s vintage" machine,
and is certainly a feasible goal ... or so I would think.

The greatest advances in motorcycle engineering / technology have been in chassis design,
and this, the result of a need to cope with increased power output and rapidly changing tire technology.
Add in excellent braking capability, and the scene is set.
Advance one or another of these technologies on an old bike and you may be taking a step backwards.
I again stress the importance of thinking in terms of a "well integrated system" when considering changes ...

Given the nominally low power output of the stock Type-247 ...
it's limited capacity to accommodate modern tires ...
and ineffectual braking ...
one might well ask the question "why?" as keelerb did.
Start from the beginning, however, and it's a whole new ball game.

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:

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/53vanzen53/th_vanzenJan20001A.jpg (http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/53vanzen53/vanzenJan20001A.jpg)

[PHMarvin]

Hi, John,
So YOU bought the bike from Lyle Butler's estate in El Paso! Did you get the extra fairing, too? I was interested, but at that time it was out of my price range. Years earlier Lyle and I were both in the (defunct) BMW club in El Paso, the Sunbeemers. He sold me the original exhaust system after San Jose put the 40mm exhaust on the bike.


I have a '78 R100RS "Motorsport" edition (aka "The White Lion") with >$11K of performance upgrades installed by San Jose BMW, including:

* $650 OHLINS rear shocks + rear swing-arm bracing
* Triple-thickness, CC Products billet aluminum triple clamp
* San Jose front fork brace
* Dual-head plugs, DYNA-III electronic ignition
* 1050cc "Blitz-Kit" / new pistons / valves, etc.
* Stainless steel brake lines, new Metzlers / Custom CORBIN seat
* Etc., etc. - - - Read more here at www.vintagemotorcyclesonline.com

At the end of the day, it is STILL a 31-year old bike and should be ridden accordingly.

NOTE: I bought the bike already completed like I described above.....

Enjoy your R100RS for what it is...and add a modern bike to the stable!

JJ Cerilli
(Pleasanton, CA)

http://a.imagehost.org/0320/Beemer_CORBIN.jpg (http://a.imagehost.org/view/0320/Beemer_CORBIN)

http://a.imagehost.org/0223/Moto_Marin_6-09_006.jpg (http://a.imagehost.org/view/0223/Moto_Marin_6-09_006)

[kstoo]

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

... which is (as a whole) everything that I don't want in a bike. Simplify. Can I work on it? Can I afford it?

The first attempt that I know of to build a "modern R100RS" ... sport race-oriented prototype known as the BMW R-1


... intimidating ... interesting but intimidating.

:thumb Finally, yeah, if BMW Motorrad were to build a "modern classic" (see MG V7, Triumph Bonneville) they should really start with your frame. Spot on. Perfect.

Only don't use the dog in the brochure because he really makes the motorcycle look small ... really small.

[mmmalmberg]

What always killed the RS for me was the amount of wind noise. I loved everything about my '92 RS, except that even with earplugs it was painfully loud. I think it's quite a shame that such a beautiful fairing, which defines the RS, and works so well in every other way, should be so loud as to cause some people to choose other bikes...

So for me, I would need to redesign the fairing to keep the essence of the look but clean up or redirect airflow at the top of the windscreen. Most attempts to do this with aftermarket windscreens just don't look that great and from what I've read, have varied or questionable degrees of success...

[20774]

What always killed the RS for me was the amount of wind noise. I loved everything about my '92 RS, except that even with earplugs it was painfully loud.

I've wondered about this with my /2...I realize it's not the same bike, but there maybe similar issues here. I have a small handlebar fairing on the R69S, so the top part of my torso is at or near the top of the screen. Which means my head is more or less in the wind...probably like the RS. I've worn a full face helmet behind my /2 fairing and noticed a certain amount of noise. If I stand up on the pegs, the noise quietens noticeably. If I duck down behind the glass, it's even quieter as expected. So it's clear that where my head is when sitting normally is where the dirty air is coming off the glass. Possibly that's the situation with the RS and your sitting position. A little movement one direction or the other and the noise could be quite a bit less. Just a thought...

[mmmalmberg]

Certainly true but for anything close to a "normal" riding position on the RS it's just too loud for me. I had a /2 for many years and I consider it to have been the most versatile of my bikes - I even took it up and down singletrack trails to a swimhole only accessible by foot or dirtbike:) It just had such perfect torque down to about 10 rpm. On that bike I had a 50's police-style windscreen, thin plastic with the 1/4" clear plastic bead around the edge and a chrome cross piece in the middle. That windscreen worked great and riding that bike across the US was like a dream, I felt like a bird with almost no sound at all. Loved that bike...

Completely off topic to be sure - apologies to the original poster:)

[skiteach]

Only don't use the dog in the brochure because he really makes the motorcycle look small ... really small.

Maybe it's a really big Stafordshire Terrier!

[orbitangel]

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:

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20B/BMW%20R1%20Prototyper.jpg

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:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2660972186_0c9b96824c.jpg

Only 4 prototypes were made – one of them ridable.

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

[amiles]

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".

[mneblett]

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:

http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20B/BMW%20R1%20Prototyper.jpg

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:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2660972186_0c9b96824c.jpg

Only 4 prototypes were made – one of them ridable.
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.

[vanzen]

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).

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.

[kbasa]

I wouldn't.

[20774]

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.

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.

[kstoo]

vanzen, I got your point about the R-1 and where that was going. I don't think that BMW should necessarily have kept making 247's after 1996 nor should they bring it back. That is not what I am day-dreaming about. What I would like to see is a new air-cooled boxer twin with shaft drive. I would like to see BMW take a look at some other manufacturers in recent history and realize that they were entirely pessimistic about air-cooled twins. I have heard this point made before, that BMW believed in the 1970's and 1980's that they needed to drop air-cooled twins because of noise and emissions regulations. That never was the case as proved by Harley, Triumph, Ducati, Guzzi, etc. They need to admit that there is a place in their catalog for something that is simple and reliable and efficient and economical and reasonably powered. If I was buying a motorcycle today there is nothing that BMW offers that interests me in the slightest. Why is that, that I who have been riding motorcycles since before I drove a car and have been riding for decades and have been the strictest BMW fan for all that time ... have no interest in the new stuff at all? Yet I look at a Moto Guzzi Breva or Moto Guzzi V7 or a Triumph modern classic ... could go there. I just wish that it was a BMW that I had my sights set on so that I could remain loyal.

[mneblett]

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.

As was mine :D

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. :thumb I believe we should both be satisfied now. :bliss :bliss

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

[kbasa]

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.

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.

[orbitangel]

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:

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/53vanzen53/th_vanzenJan20001A.jpg (http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/53vanzen53/vanzenJan20001A.jpg)

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

[vanzen]

How would you Modernize an R100RS?

I wouldn't.

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 ...

[BuddingGeezer]

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

[vanzen]

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:


http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/prototype-spy-concept/BMW-1973-Futuro-small.jpg

http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/BMW%20Futuro%20(5).jpg http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/BMW%20Futuro%20(4).jpg

http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/BMW%20Futuro%20(6).jpg

[orbitangel]

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 – 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:


http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/prototype-spy-concept/BMW-1973-Futuro-small.jpg

http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/BMW%20Futuro%20(5).jpg http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/BMW%20Futuro%20(4).jpg

http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/BMW%20Futuro%20(6).jpg

Ooooooh, I LIKE that!

[orbitangel]

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?

Here it is!

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/orbitangel/CX500Chop.jpg

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

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

[35634]

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

[Pezz_gs]

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

Gee ummm errr Thanks I think :brow

[vanzen]

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

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.

[orbitangel]

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.

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

[vanzen]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/3075271150_b8dfc89b8e.jpg?v=1228165444

Built by "Duckman" Mark v.d. Kwaak and Aad Heemskerk

[vanzen]

http://www.rockerboxer.com/i//35_zoom.jpg

Tottimori

[mmmalmberg]

Yeah that's one of my fave's. Almost went with something derivative on my R100R project... Nice.

[535is]

Here it is!

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq188/orbitangel/CX500Chop.jpg

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

Just think of what this guy to do for an old R100RS!
I am SO giving that to my neighbor! He rides a stock CX daily and he has a parts bike just ripe for a conversion! I'd use different bars ... :groovy

[AKBeemer]

I am SO giving that to my neighbor! He rides a stock CX daily and he has a parts bike just ripe for a conversion! I'd use different bars ... :groovy

Just how angry at your poor neighbor are you?!?!

[535is]

Just how angry at your poor neighbor are you?!?!

Have you seen a stock CX500? Even this is doing it a favor. ;)

[kstoo]

Have you seen a stock CX500? Even this is doing it a favor. ;)

especially in Wisconsin. replace the paint job with harley colors and put HD emblems on it and no one will no the difference.

Hence the Barley Davidson ...

[Pezz_gs]

Here is a nice Cafe Racer with modern suspension.
http://pezz.smugmug.com/photos/680334578_LQzXy-O.jpg
Picture from Jehu on advrider.
:ear

[AnnapolisAirhead]

...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.

I disagree. The oilheads are much more complex in terms of maintenance for the home mechanic. I hope to get there, but it'll still be a couple years. Airheads, on the other hand are pretty straight-forward for the home mechanic in me. Just my $0.02.

(I lust for an oilhead RT though, even though I wonder how much I'd ride my Airhead if I had an oilhead).

+1 on not doing anything to an RS to modernize it. It is a work of art appropriate for its time and I like that.

[mneblett]

I disagree. The oilheads are much more complex in terms of maintenance for the home mechanic. I hope to get there, but it'll still be a couple years. Airheads, on the other hand are pretty straight-forward for the home mechanic in me.
Curious -- what do you think is that much harder about hexheads? I have both, and don't find much difference in complexity or level of difficulty -- some things are harder/easier with one vs. the other, but overall seems about the same to me.

[vanzen]

Curious -- what do you think is that much harder about hexheads? I have both, and don't find much difference in complexity or level of difficulty -- some things are harder/easier with one vs. the other, but overall seems about the same to me.

Much experience with air-heads,
2 years with a Hex ...

and I agree with mneblett – 100%.
One may choose to own an air-head for many valid reasons,
ease of maintenance will not be one of them.

or, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt:
"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

[widebmw]

or, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt:
"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Franklin D. Roosevelt :nyah

[vanzen]

Franklin D. Roosevelt :nyah


hmmmm ... of course you're right ! :blush

[87R100RS]

QUOTE 'or, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt:
"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"[/QUOTE]

Its was FDR, not Teddy Roosevelt

[Pezz_gs]

What about this Australian effort? R100R modified front end. 18" front wheel, late model swing arm, braced rear sub frame. Longer rear shocks. Motor has had a little work too.
Apparently handles like it is on rails.

http://pezz.smugmug.com/Other/Airheads/P1000827/694423335_vWGaD-M.jpg

[vanzen]

From the Australian madman, Darren Thackery:

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff169/53vanzen53/misc%20pics/MtWarning_Background.jpg

[Pezz_gs]

Still thinking about this project??

I need to find some suitable forks that are larger diameter and have better internals than stock and go from there. I want to keep spoke wheels front and rear and run disc rear brake. Still run the 19" front but with 320mm discs.

Just found this one on Bmbikes

http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/photos/photophotos/R100RS%20-%20Eriksson.JPG

[Pezz_gs]

Then there is this one from Anderwerks
http://www.anderwerks.com/projpics/182.jpg

[rinty]

Dave had a turbo on that for a while.

Just a while...

[toooldtocare]

Hi, John,
So YOU bought the bike from Lyle Butler's estate in El Paso! Did you get the extra fairing, too? I was interested, but at that time it was out of my price range. Years earlier Lyle and I were both in the (defunct) BMW club in El Paso, the Sunbeemers. He sold me the original exhaust system after San Jose put the 40mm exhaust on the bike.

Actually, I bought the bike that Lyle Butler owned. I used to live in Lubbock and the owners of High Planes BMW bought the bike about 98 or 99. When I saw it I told them if it ever came up for sale, I would like to buy it.

About 18 months ago it came up for sale. I now live in St. Louis but bought it anyway. A friend brought it up to me. I have the paperwork from San Jose when they did all the work on the bike in 85. It still looks and rides like new. Since I got it also added floating rotors and ceramic brakes, as well did all the service and put in a new clutch. The old clutch was fine, except a rear seal in the engine saturated it. I also replace that with the other seals.

No, the faring stayed in Lubbock because one of the previous owners of the shop also has a Motorsport and wanted to keep it. I do have both seats though, the ¾ and full seat, both in blue.

Love the bike.

[mymindsok]

Hi guys!

I've been taking a break from posting for the last few months but it's time for me to get back in the swing of things and get some "work" done, s I'll be back in the garage for a few evenings every week from now till riding season begins.

So "Pezz", about your project:

As long as you're aware of the growing expense of building a hot rod Airhead and the long hours involved, I'd say go ahead with your plans.

OTOH, having been down that road myself.... Well.... I'm tired but not too tired to make a handful of suggestions, so here goes.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w238/kenwhitehawk/R-90%20BUILD/LATESTFULLFILE002.jpg

Firstly, if you know for sure that the frames straight, Buy one of my frame bracing kits and weld it into the bare frame and sub frame. It'll make the frame much stiffer and more stable than stock and no one will ever notice that it's there. Theres one installed in the bike pictured above, but no one would ever know until they rode the bike. I had a friend design the parts and all I can say is that I love my bike. It really is the best handling Airhead that I've ever ridden.

Add dual front brakes if your bike doesn't have em, fresh disks, a billet top clamp, a Telefix, a complete fork rebuild with new fork legs and Progressive springs and some 2 weight oil, and you're pretty much "there" without spending a fortune. The other relatively cheap solution is to swap on a GSXR front end and be done with it.

Want eye candy? I'm about to advertise my newly designed side braces. A complete update of the old CC Products idea, but stronger and modern including billet machined, removable ends, SS hardware and you can adjust the length. They're pretty nice!

Here are the ones installed on my RS:

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w238/kenwhitehawk/SIDE%20BRACES/81R-100RS073.jpg

I currently have an 82 R100RS engine being freshened up for the R-90 (Yes, my stupid, incompetent local Airhead mechanic, ruined my 900cc engine. Stay tuned. The court date is coming up shortly!:mad)

I'm going to rebuild it with the 14,000 mi engine with freshened connecting rods, 1000cc Nic cylinders, Hi Comp pistons, a set of early RS Big Valve heads, 40mm Bings, Staintuned pipes, an Omega electronic ignition, vintage covers from the R-90, an R-90S 33/11 rear end and thats about all. I'm throwing on the R-90 Speedo and I'll have an electronic tach converted to blackface to match the older guages. Just about anything else that I can think of doing presents a compromise in ridability and an accompanying decrease in reliability.

Back in 1989 when I was living in VA, my roommate owned an R-100S with the whole CC Products catalog thrown at it (Big Valve heads, 1050 kit, ported heads, flat slides, etc, etc, etc.) Truthfully, it was a very fast bike out on the road but under most conditions (And especially in traffic.), it wasn't much fun to ride. In the end it ate itself, as do most 1050's.

Example:

Running the Big Valve heads (44mm intakes, 40mm Exhausts.) will make the bike slower off the line, because the big valves tend to 'come on' as the flow goes up. The high compression slugs will compensate for that to some extent but not 100%. Adding in a 336 cam, (That makes power at relatively high rpms.) does the same thing and will make the bike even slower off the line but big fun out on the road. Me? I'm going to run the 40mm Bings for a while before trying out the Delorto's. As allways, therein lies one more compromise. The Dels are 38mm R-90 units and with a set of venturied San Jose stubs in place, its possible to keep the gas velocity up for good acceleration but then again, the decreased aperture kills top end.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w238/kenwhitehawk/R-90%20BUILD/81R-100RS020.jpg

Of course, my thinking might change but right now I'm tired of wrenching on bikes for a while and I've even thought about selling the Airheads and buying a Honda. Seriously...

As a last thought....

Last Spring I rebuilt a 'barn find' 82RS and rode it from Nor Cal to both National Rallys, New port News, Canada and back to NorCal. On the old RS I rebuilt the Front end , welded on a set of newly manufactured side braces, new shocks, a Toaster Tan top clamp a Telefix, SS brake lines, new Metzlers, and a new seat. The bike proved to be fast, stable as a rock at through the Rockies, the Blue Ridge Mountains, Deals Gap (Several times!) Wyoming and back home over the Sierras.

The RS is a real thoroughbred and is, in many ways, the best of the breed. As such, an they don't need many "improvements" to give exemplary service and great riding satisfaction.

I'll be interested in seeing what you build!

Later,

Mymindsok

PS: You can check out my parts at: http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11940086#post11940086

[vanzen]

Hey brother Ken, good to hear that you're back it !


Soooo ... which Honda might that be ?

[DERost]

[SIZE="2"]Hi guys!

Buy one of my frame bracing kits and weld it into the bare frame and sub frame. It'll make the frame much stiffer and more stable than stock and no one will ever notice that it's there.

Want eye candy? I'm about to advertise my newly designed side braces. A complete update of the old CC Products idea, but stronger and modern including billet machined, removable ends, SS hardware and you can adjust the length. They're pretty nice!



Mymindsok,
Can you PM me with some info on your kits? I am redoing a '76 R90/6 and have everything apart so the timing is perfect.

[Friedle]

The best, fastest and least expensive way to accomplish the task would be to bite the bullet and buy a S1000RR and enjoy the hell out of the bike just before you soil your pants.

Otherwise just enjoy your R100RS for what it is.

Friedle

:bikes, including my 88 RS

[pmdave]

Pez:

I had a $3,500 1982 RS that ended up being a $12,000 RS. It had almost everything known to airheadkind done to it. Then I sold it for $4,000 and got an oiler RS which was three times the bike.

What I learned was to accept an airhead for what it is, and use it accordingly. If you want a modern bike, buy a modern bike.

Just my opinion. :)

Amen to that, brothers and cisterns.

pmdave

[mymindsok]

Mymindsok,
Can you PM me with some info on your kits? I am redoing a '76 R90/6 and have everything apart so the timing is perfect.

You can find more info at: http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=543395

[mymindsok]

The best, fastest and least expensive way to accomplish the task would be to bite the bullet and buy a S1000RR and enjoy the hell out of the bike just before you soil your pants.

Otherwise just enjoy your R100RS for what it is.

Friedle

:bikes, including my 88 RS

Being a dyed in the wool Airhead guy, I with you agree 100% but with this reservation:

Over the years, a lot or riders have spent countless hours, days and weeks developing modifications, work arounds, accessories, and replacement parts for Airheads, that will make them better handling, better functioning, safer and much more satisfying to own.

Not everyone who loves these old bikes, is happy riding them within the stock performance envelope and thats why San Jose is still modifying them and offering parts and little guys like me are keeping the torch burning by supplying NLA upgrades. Come to think of it, I rode my first Airhead back in 1968 and I've never owned a stock bike in my life.

Maybe some of us simply want to ride these old crocks, faster than you do! :wave

[20774]

I rode my first Airhead back in 1968

From the Airheads Beemer Club site:

"Where does the term Airhead come from?

The BMW motorcycles we ride have air cooled cylinder heads that stick out at a 180 degree angle characteristic of the BMW type 247 engine."

Most refer to an Airhead as starting with the /5, but those engines were actually Type 246s. The R45/R65s were Type 248s. They're all "air cooled boxer twins" (except the singles!) since 1923.

But I think we know what you meant! :thumb :stick

[bikerfish1100]

i believe that Mike's point is that no matter how much $ you throw at it, and no matter what you do to an old airhead to improve its performance, it will remain at its core an old airhead. its performance will not challenge that of a modern BMW.

doesn't mean that you can't love them, or ride them in a "spirited" fashion- there was a time when they were about the fastest smoothest most reliable most fun bike available. (but that was 1/4 centruy ago)

[mymindsok]

....no matter what you do to an old airhead to improve its performance, it will remain at its core an old airhead. its performance will not challenge that of a modern BMW

Yeah well.... A quarter century ago I was in my mid 30's, so I aint up ta challenging much my-own-self but I still like to ride fast!

GRrrr......:banghead

[vanzen]

i believe that Mike's point is that no matter how much $ you throw at it, and no matter what you do to an old airhead to improve its performance, it will remain at its core an old airhead. its performance will not challenge that of a modern BMW.

doesn't mean that you can't love them, or ride them in a "spirited" fashion- there was a time when they were about the fastest smoothest most reliable most fun bike available. (but that was 1/4 centruy ago)

There will be no dispassionate or objectively justifiable rationale to hot-rod an airhead.
The concept is indefensible in terms of both comparative performance and cost.
The fact that such an activity is completely irrational,
will not make it any less appealing to those who choose to pursue it.

[rinty]

There will be no dispassionate or objectively justifiable rationale...vanzen

The rationale for me was the excellent design of the RS fairing, particularly for protecting the hands.

The bike was going to be used for regional touring, and it was close to ideal for that job. But I had to reinforce the frame / suspension / swingarm to take out the chassis flex while cornering. And I wanted to bring the engine "back" to pre-'80 power levels.

I toured on it for 15 years with no issues.

Then I test rode an Oiler RS, and decided that the trade off of reduced weather protection for increased performance and handling, was more than acceptable.

[Pezz_gs]

Well here is a modernized one, from Ritmo Sereno.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/374832_236411733086708_161783980549484_632140_1436 133357_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/374832_236411729753375_161783980549484_632139_1022 586548_n.jpg

[20774]

Previous thread on the Ritmo bike is here:

http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/showthread.php?t=56691

[8ninety8]

Shout out to Mymindsoc for mentioning the venturied inlets which I put on R90S way back and instantly found a good low RPM throttle with the Dels. Never hear much of anything about those little jewels, anywhere. Would sure like to hear when the side braces are available, have always wanted to stiffen up the flexiflier.