ADVrider

ADVrider (http://www.advrider.com/forums/index.php)
-   Airheads (http://www.advrider.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=85)
-   -   Late model R100RS vs R100R (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896745)

red tag 06-18-2013 08:14 AM

Late model R100RS vs R100R
 
I've been considering a post '90 R100RS but noticing that the R100R has the paralever and the RS still used the older monolever rear suspension, I was looking for some input as to fitting out the 100R with the RS fairing and tank or is there an advantage to the older style suspension? I currently have an
R100 GSPD, like the paralever, but figure BMW fit the monolever to the RS for a reason. Thanks

bajaburro 06-18-2013 09:03 AM

intresting
 
intresting question.you'll be sure to get an answer here.

supershaft 06-18-2013 09:08 AM

Monolevers are my favorite airheads.

R's? I am not personally a Paralever fan. They make the wheelbase too long. They weigh more. The drive shaft U joints are more likely to go bad. The driveshaft rubber cush-drive is way more likely to fail over the spring/cam setup on a Mono. The final drive input shaft seal is very likely to leak leading to drive shaft rubber issues. The tranny output seal is too to a lesser degree. The paralever bearings wear out on a very regular basis. But they do have less drive shaft effect. I grew up riding beemers so I am use to that.

And then there are the R's forks. If the forks don't already need new tubes for flaking and pitting chrome, they soon will. I don't understand the need for a rubber mounted fork brace? I love that they have teflon bushings for less stiction but they do need to be replaced on a regular basis. I would say about every 40K miles.

I have always liked the looks of cross spoked wheels but I did not realize until recently that they are even heavier than the Mono's wheels and the mono's wheels are too heavy IMO. That and the cross spoke wheels are rarely even close to straight right our of the crate!

Plus I like the looks of the Mono's better but that is just me.

red tag 06-18-2013 09:47 AM

Thanks, any difference in handling between the two?

Grafspee 06-18-2013 09:57 AM

Valid observations
 
Another example of why newer isn't always better! The one thing I have noticed over the years is newer more often than not means lower quality components or under engineered specs. The reason I purchased my first BMW twin in 1987 was because it was a simple intellegent design that was easy to work on, saving me money in labor costs and it was over built so I figured it would last years! I rode that first BMW a 1982 R100 for over 16 years. Yes newer bikes handle better are faster and I have owned some nice newer bikes, but I have a couple of early 80's R - bikes and they are such a joy to tinker with. Parts are expensive but the bikes are easy to restore.

Grafspee 06-18-2013 09:59 AM

Handling
 
Most agree the R100r is probably one of the best handling airheads ever built. And honestly, I would probably have one if available for the right price despite some of the negatives mentioned above. I used to love the idea of the spoked tubeless rims but now the thought of having to need one rebuilt just scares me!

boxerkuh 06-18-2013 12:12 PM

I have one of each and like the one that I am on at the time better. They both work fine. I love them both, but there are some minor differences.

You can put a RS fairing on any of them. I have seen pictures on this site with a RS fairing on a Paralever R....

Left Testicle 06-18-2013 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supershaft (Post 21671578)
Monolevers are my favorite airheads.

R's? I am not personally a Paralever fan. They make the wheelbase too long. They weigh more. The drive shaft U joints are more likely to go bad. The driveshaft rubber cush-drive is way more likely to fail over the spring/cam setup on a Mono. The final drive input shaft seal is very likely to leak leading to drive shaft rubber issues. The tranny output seal is too to a lesser degree. The paralever bearings wear out on a very regular basis. But they do have less drive shaft effect. I grew up riding beemers so I am use to that.

And then there are the R's forks. If the forks don't already need new tubes for flaking and pitting chrome, they soon will. I don't understand the need for a rubber mounted fork brace? I love that they have teflon bushings for less stiction but they do need to be replaced on a regular basis. I would say about every 40K miles.

I have always liked the looks of cross spoked wheels but I did not realize until recently that they are even heavier than the Mono's wheels and the mono's wheels are too heavy IMO. That and the cross spoke wheels are rarely even close to straight right our of the crate!

Plus I like the looks of the Mono's better but that is just me.

I have a GS paralever. 122000kms and has not caused me any grief. I ride it reasonably hard,dont use the brakes when yahooing but the gearbox gets a good work out. It will redline in every gear.

supershaft 06-18-2013 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red tag (Post 21671835)
Thanks, any difference in handling between the two?

The R's feel plusher to me mostly because the Paralever is letting the suspension work more under hard acceleration. That and that longer wheelbase IS noticeable IMO. I need all the cornering clearance I can get and shorter wheelbase bikes have more, all other things remaining equal, for not having to lean over as far in the same turn. R's are more stable. Some might like that. I don't but I like twin shock R65's and short wheelbase /5's for the same reasons. R100R forks should work a bit better for their teflon bushings and real top tree but the top tree can be replaced on a Mono. Plus a Mono has a rigidly mounted fork brace. It mostly bowls down to that Paralever versus a Monolever. They just aren't worth the trouble IMO. I prefer Monolevers for their handling and reliability. A lot of people do say that the R's and the like are the best handling airheads but I am not one of them. I think LS's and Monolevers are.

97oilhead 06-19-2013 06:31 AM

I really like my R100R. I would prefer that it was a monolever but other aspects make the bike and enjoyable ride. One thing nobody mentioned are the front brakes. I had a '94 R100GSPD, even with the caliper upgrade I think it was one of the worst braking bikes I ever had. The R100R with the duel 4 puck system works fantastic.

boxerboy81 06-19-2013 06:46 AM

http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/...pse6b1bcf5.jpg

red tag 06-19-2013 08:20 AM

97, why would you prefer a monolever?

Thanks boxerboy, that's what I was thinking about! I had an RS with paralever suspension and wire wheels in mind as a starting point. Do you know if an RS tank and seat would fit right on?

97oilhead 06-19-2013 11:00 AM

I like the final drive ratios better on the monolevers. Monolever easier to service and sooner or later you are going to have a drive shaft failure on the paralever.

AntonLargiader 06-19-2013 04:08 PM

Love the Paralever. I have a GS and an R. IMO the rear suspension is just a huge leap past the monolever. BMW wasn't the only one to realize the benefit; Guzzi used it, too.

supershaft 06-19-2013 05:32 PM

I kinda compare straight shaft versus Paralever to driving any number of car setups to a swing axle. If you didn't grow up driving swing axles, they're a handful when you are pushing it really hard. Same deal with most of our bikes. It's just that I grew up riding them. Swing axles? For me? No thanks! I have a friend that can drive the shit out of them but not me.

Four pot Brembo's? They have to work better than the two pots but I can out brake most all my friends with them. Plus the Mono bikes have bigger, beefier Brembo's than the '81-'84 twins. Less flex and bigger pads. I think they work better.


Times are GMT -7.   It's 06:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014