Page 2 of 4
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:42 pm
by Chuey
How does an R65 get that much lighter than an R100?
Chuey
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:27 pm
by Major Softie
Chuey wrote:How does an R65 get that much lighter than an R100?
Chuey
How much lighter? What are you talking about? Did you confuse the posted weight for the Superhawk with our discussion of the R65? I don't see where anyone said that the R65 is much lighter than the R100.
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:34 pm
by dougie
Chuey wrote:How does an R65 get that much lighter than an R100?
Chuey
According to -
http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/bmwmodels.htm
an R65 is 33 lbs lighter than an R100S and 55 lbs lighter than an R100RS.
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:48 pm
by enigmaT120
justoneoftheguys wrote:I've come to finally admit that the R65 just doesn't have what it takes to burn up miles on the interstate.
I can't really agree with that, though the bike is heavy enough to make it a moot point in the rest of the discussion. Mine has no problem going 90 mph for as long as I want, right down I5 a couple of times. Maybe the Windjammer helps, as it makes it seem a non-event. That's only about 6,000 rpms or so.
I think it's a good bike for one-up touring.
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:21 pm
by Deleted User 287
enigmaT120 wrote: Mine has no problem going 90 mph for as long as I want, right down I5 a couple of times. Maybe the Windjammer helps, as it makes it seem a non-event. That's only about 6,000 rpms or so.
90mph at 6000 RPM? You must be believing what your Motometer is telling you.
And yes, I would imagine that a Windjammer would make a difference in suffering headwinds for hours on end. Semper Gumby on R65.org has proven that.
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:31 pm
by dougie
An RZ350 would be a lot of fun, can be found (in Canada), and not expensive.
But I don't think the ergonomics would be friendly to my body anymore.
Also I know what I am like with a 2-stroke that "comes on the pipe". I would either get in trouble, or hurt myself, or both.
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:23 pm
by Sibbo
Poor man's Ducati ? Suzuki SV 650 ? I seriously considered one before buying the BeeM, the main difficulty for me was no luggage standard and difficult to find good aftermarket .
They are quite cheap s/h here .
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:50 pm
by dougie
Sibbo wrote:Poor man's Ducati ? Suzuki SV 650 ? I seriously considered one before buying the BeeM, the main difficulty for me was no luggage standard and difficult to find good aftermarket .
They are quite cheap s/h here .
I have ridden a 650 V-Strom.
I found that particular model to be generic and boring, but the engine was sweet. It had that tractor torque that a 90 degree v-twin is known for.
A friend of mine says an SV is like a Ducati that works properly all the time.
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:10 pm
by Sibbo
The Strom is a bit bulky but the sports V looks pretty good, I haven't ridden one but i like Suzukis, they are usually excellent quality .
Re: Remember my "Interesting Bike" thread?
Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:43 pm
by godot
enigmaT120 wrote:I think it's a good bike for one-up touring.
I agree. And I ain't got no Windjammer, just the dinky plastic pseudo fairing on the LS. I wouldn't think it'd matter much, but I know there's a small power difference between the 79/80 R65s and the 81 and up versions, in addition to the clutch and ignition. I also tend to pack light on trips, which might help some.
