R100RS Quandry

[QUICKDRAW]

Been looking around for an R100RS. Question is...pre mono for the astetics, power and value or later versons for the ridability. This bike will be ridden and not a collector piece. Any input on the pros and cons of the two?

[schuldt]

Jim,

Regarding power between the twin and mono versions, Bill Stermer in his book "BMW R100RS" indicates "...the two bikes' quarter-mile times are nearly identical."

He lists 1976-1984 bikes quarter-mile performance as:
13.33 - 13.74 seconds
94.04 - 99.11 mph

1988 bikes were:
13.21 - 13.63 Seconds
96.9 - 97.75 mph

I guess, depending on who's twisting the wick, there's probably less than a bike length difference in the quarter mile.

He went on to say:
"In doing roll-ons with a friend riding my '81 RS, we found that the '88 would leap away initially at low rpm, then the '81 would gather itself up and eventually pass it at somewhere around 100mph."

I think the smaller carbs, higher compression, and lower rear-end ratio all contribute to the "ridability" you mention for the later mono-shock bikes.

Les

[20774]

The pre '85 will have (or probably have) the old leaded valves and seats, which will likely need changing. The mono will have the updated metallurgy and can go longer miles before considering a top end overhaul. I've never ridden a mono before, so don't know if the suspension is better...depends on your style of riding. Changing the rear wheel on the mono is certainly easier.

[swall]

I'd say it all comes down to what bikes you can find within a reasonable distance of where you live and what the prices are. I have a '78 RS and had been looking for one of the later monoshock models. After a few years,I gave up and bought an '07 R1200R. Never looked back.

[Bob_M]

82 through 84 well represent BMWÔÇÖs philosophy of continual improvement of their classic design. True, a valve job may be needed at around 80,000 miles, but if you just consider that a maintenance issue and do it (or get a bike that has had it done) then you should not anticipate problems.

The pre 80s bikes did not have the Nikasil cylinders. Hardly a fatal flaw, but that treatment is remarkably durable. The flywheel was lightened for the 80s bikes for (somewhat) smoother shifting.

The early 80s bikes have more power than the monos. They have larger fuel capacity than the early 90s issue bikes and they have the more reliable Bosch starter rather than the later issue Valeo starter. I donÔÇÖt know how much better the monos handle, but I know that my 82 corners better than I do.

I am of the opinion that the 80s vintage bikes are more attractive in subtle ways. The brakes are behind the fork rather than in front, and that is correct to my eye. The side covers on the 80s bikes fit the frame in a way that is just belongs.

I understand the 90s era bikes had better mirrors.

How ever you decide to go, find a bike that has been used and loved. They are all old at this point, so the condition and maintenance records will tell you tons. Newer bikes that have been neglected are more trouble than an older bike that has frequent and comprehensive maintenance.

[97077]

Of all my Airheads my 88 R100RS is my favorite. As far as quarter mile times. When riding an Airhead to me it has nothing to do with times done by a pro. rider on a closed track. In other words "Who cares" Buy the bike that moves you and not just literally. I look at my old slow Airheads and my old ticker goes a little faster . I live in Wis. so you know all I hear is "Why don't you have a Harley? Then I look at my RS or any of my 4 Airheads and just smile and say" That is why" pointing at any of my bikes. Good Luck. Is winter over yet? . Kevin

[Radar41]

Been looking around for an R100RS. Question is...pre mono for the astetics, power and value or later versons for the ridability. This bike will be ridden and not a collector piece. Any input on the pros and cons of the two?

Jim,

Found this one on Craigs list here in Denver, looks pretty good. I thought about buying it to have a twin to mine.

http://denver.craigslist.org/mcy/1012527405.html

radar

[JAMESDUNN]

Been looking around for an R100RS. Question is...pre mono for the astetics, power and value or later versons for the ridability. This bike will be ridden and not a collector piece. Any input on the pros and cons of the two?

I honestly think it makes little difference which model RS you purchase. As stated here by others purchase a well maintained bike and you'll be fine.
Some of the later models had the twin piston brembos on front. These are a big improvement over earlier models. Also, there are a wider variety of tires available for the monoshocker due to wheel size adjustment. The fuel tank is smaller. I like the bigger capacity tanks, always a plus.
To my eye the earlier models are more appealing in looks. But I am the owner of a '78 RS.

[orbitangel]

Been looking around for an R100RS. Question is...pre mono for the astetics, power and value or later versons for the ridability. This bike will be ridden and not a collector piece. Any input on the pros and cons of the two?

Q.D.,

I dearly love my '77RS. I am riding my third RS, my first one being a '77 (CFO) model, nearly thirty years ago, then a '78 (CFO) model, not long after the first '77.

MY current '77RS (non-CFO) happens to be the sweetheart of the three. This one has a 33/11 final drive (vs 32/11 on the other two) and I think the 3.0 final drive ratio vs 2.91 really wakes up that bike, especially around town, and I like it better on the highway as well. At my typical cruising speeds the bike is smoother.

None of that has much to do with your question but the point is this: any PARTICULAR bike will have its own strengths and weakness. With an unlimited budget, ANYTHING is possible. Short of that, you will have to assign priorities. Do you want a bike that is pristine and perfect, cosmetically? Or would you be just as happy with one with a few 'blems' but which has other 'upgrades' you may like?

I doubt that ANY airhead RS will EVER handle as well as many other modern machines. So what?

Handling is important - but handling isn't everything. There are many other factors which make a particular motorcycle appeal to YOU.

I always thought the '79RS was one of the prettiest ones to come out of the factory. That, of course, is a personal matter.

MOA member, moelaz posted this pic (see below) of his GORGEOUS '92RS:

I think this is one of the finest-looking RS machines I can remember. That paint scheme looks a LOT like the '79RS.

(A '78 RS Motorsport happens to be a knockout for looks as well, IMHO.)

This machine might not have the same acceleration and speed of my '77 model - but WHO CARES?

Find one that YOU like the looks of, that YOU can afford and make it your own.

Tweak it, tune it, paint it, modify it, love it and ride the living sh*t out of it! Good luck!

[oldnuke]

"If" you can find one, get a late 70's RS with the Euro-spec engine (aka the big pipe). They had the 40mm exhaust and some good mid-range grunt. A few came into the US in 77 and 78.

I had a 78 version. Great bike and fond memories.

[orbitangel]

"If" you can find one, get a late 70's RS with the Euro-spec engine (aka the big pipe). They had the 40mm exhaust and some good mid-range grunt. A few came into the US in 77 and 78.

I had a 78 version. Great bike and fond memories.

O.N.,

That was one fine-looking RS you had there. I used to own a '78 (CFO) RS and have many fond memories. That Brembo disk on the back was a BIG improvement from the drum brake on the back of the '77 models. I have read posts from folks who disparaged that Brembo disk but that wasn't my experience at all. The brakes on my '78 were AWESOME (for a bike of that day.)
My current (Euro-spec) '77 RS definitely has more snort than either my '77 or '78 CFO machines ever did.
They were STILL great bikes.

[QUICKDRAW]

All

Thanks for the information. My last air head was a 76 Daytona Orange R90S, my ridding buddy had a motorsport (I've always liked the look of that bike). From what little I know the mono versions have superior chasis and brakes. I'm not that concerned about the horsepower and would typically prefer a better handling bike over a better performer. Maybe a mono version w/o the graphics and a little paintwork (to look like a motorsport) might be the best alternative.

[PHMARVIN]

Hi,
I can't compare twin shock vs monoshock R100RS's, but I can with RT's. My '81 had more grunt than my '95 and generally got in the mid to high 40's for mileage, whereas on a good day, my '95 would get 38mpg. The '81 fuel tank held over 6 gal. and the '95 just over 5 gal. The '95 used tubeless tires and the '81 used tubes. The '95 had a permanent flapper in the tank; the '81 had none. The monoshock did handle better, but neither was a sportbike. If I were to have an airhead again, it would probably be an '83 or '84 R100RT. (I'm too old and decrepit to again ride in the position necessary for the RS for any distance!)

[lkchris]

The larger mirrors from the later RS and RT bolt right on to the earlier models with no problems.

[airhead78]

Add to the list that replacing the battery in the pre '85 airheads is a total PITA. Also monos have tubeless tires. Having said that, I prefer to ride the earlier ones.

Eduardo.