R100 vs R65

[Bfr]

Currently I have a 1985/86 R65 other than needing the carbs balanced it's a Stirling bike now I've been offered a r100/7 at a very reasonable price in fantastic 1 owner low k's condition, now the question is am I going to be loosing out on something if I upgraded to the r100? Is there something the r65 will do the r100 won't or visa versa ?

The r100 is everything I've listed for in an airhead - wire spoked wheels bench seat with the sexy grab handle alloy air filter cover the only thing that puts me off is the indicator switch is on right hand side rather than the left so jumping from bike to bike gets even more complex

Any advise please

[SteveD]

...the only thing that puts me off is the indicator switch is on right hand side rather than the left so jumping from bike to bike gets even more complex.

No issue. If the price is right...

[Kurt in S.A.]

The R65 has a lighter clutch assembly, so you'll notice the difference in engine response/revving. Some like the heavier flywheel of the older models as it tends to dampen the pulses from the firing. The R65 has electronic ignition. The R65 has a monolever rear end...I've never been on one, but they say that the single shock is actually stiffer than the twin shock. The /7 is 20mm longer in wheelbase...might not be much but could be noticeable to someone used to the R65...I wonder, too, about the steering stem angle...are they the same between the bikes?

What year is the /7? In general, the 1977 models were before the US EPA got their hands on them and began the detuning process...they should be better than the later models in terms of general power, etc.

I say go for it...I have a /7 and definitely like it.

Kurt in S.A.

[bbelk]

I had an R90/6 and an R65 for 10 years. They were different bikes with something to like (or dislike) about both.

The R65 was shorter, had lower gears, shorter stroke which made the engine smoother at sub 50mph speeds, and it was strong up to 60 mph. I also had no faring or bags on it. The lower gears made stoplight to stoplight driving in the city much more pleasant and I could put my feet flat on the ground.

On the down side, it was a little wimpy at 60 MPH and up and the short seat and bent legs got uncomfortable on a long ride.

The R90 was taller and more comfortable on a long ride. Significantly more power at 60mph and up. First gear was too tall if you are in hills all the time which I am. I was on tip toes at stop lights. I had a big ass faring on it, which I loved on the highway, but not so much around town.

So IMHO - the R65 was a superior urban bike for running around town that was capable of highway trips. The R90 was a superior highway bike for long trips and was capable of being an urban commuter.

[khittner1]

Your R65's engine has Nikasil bores, which will last longer, if you pile on the miles. That vintage of R100 has iron-lined bores that will require reboring or replacement by 150K miles, or so. May not matter if you don't ride a lot. The R100 has a nicer, "traditional" look, IMHO. But older, low-mileage bikes will suffer from oil leaks; they can be remedied, but it's money.

[Rob]

Your R65 will have a better front end, and more user-friendly front brakes, as well.

The R65 bbelk is taking about has a twin shock rear end, and a different frame (and engine block) from it's siblings.

In 1985, BMW changed its airhead line to R bikes and GS bikes.
There was the R65, R80(?) and R100, which, unlike previous years, now shared the same rolling frame, and I believe the same engine, but smaller cylinder diameter instead of shorter stroke?

Anyway, applies and oranges, really. I recommend keeping both for at least 12 months.
Yes, you will enjoy the pull of the R100, but you will also have tubes in your tires. Possibly lesser headlight.
Room in the budget/shed?

[bbelk]

In 1985, BMW changed its airhead line to R bikes and GS bikes.
There was the R65, R80(?) and R100, which, unlike previous years, now shared the same rolling frame, and I believe the same engine, but smaller cylinder diameter instead of shorter stroke?

I didn't know that. Which probably shouldn't be a surprise.

[barryh]

The 1985 R65 mono did adopt the R80 frame but it was still a short stroke R65 engine detuned a little to 48HP with lower compression. Some how they moved the peak torque way down the rev range but it wasn't by a change of cam so I presume it must have been tuning of the intake system. However they did it the torque curve is an odd shape as torque peaks at 3500RPM then falls before rising gain after 4500RPM.

[Rob]

Moving to the /7 would also introduce rear wheel/final drive spline maintenance.
Maintenance isn't so bad, but tooth decay is inevitable, and replacements are not cheap. But Damn! Do they look pretty!

[Bfr]

Cheers for all the input I've probably put people a bit astray my R65 is a twin shocker not mono so technically it's probably a 1984 model year so I'm used to lackluster brakes, spongy pudd handling lubing splines and the odd oil leak (push rod tube grommets).

It's looking like I will go for the R100 as I don't think there's much in the way of cons to it for my current riding