Rockster vs. R80

[Captain K]

Recently I bought a new Rockster, and as I also own a 1990 R80 -- bog standard, mint condition -- it's been interesting comparing the two. I was wondering how many of you have experiences riding Beemers from different generations?

First things first: there's no question that the Rockster is a better bike -- I love it, apart from having to come to terms with the seat (I did a thousand kay trip last weekend, and the seat was definitely getting painful after 100 kays or so). But I am surprised that the old R80 in many ways is not so different.

Obviously the layout's the same (the R80 is the monoshock model), but a lot of the noises and sensations are really familiar. Clutch makes the same noises, the same sounds of valves bouncin' up and down, and the the old R80 hums along quite nicely at legal speeds -- even the deep boom of the exhaust is similar. You see more of the engine when you look down (no oil coolers spoiling the view), and the twin Brembos that were state of the art on virtually every Euro bike in the 80's are pretty effective (my Rockster is the non-ABS model). Comfort on the R80 is not really that inferior -- the seat's not fancy but it is flat and wide, there's plenty of legroom, and if you need to stretch your legs you can flip down the pillion pegs and stretch your legs back. The R80 feels more dainty all around, and maybe a little more mechanically vulnerable, but even on narrower tyres probably gets through the twisties without losing too much ground to the newer bike.

Of course, given the choice I'll take the Rockster -- I for one love the styling, and there's no question that the newer technology is an improvement. But it isn't as much of a leap forward as the 20 year age difference might suggest ... if you've lived with an older Boxer you'll feel right at home on a newer one!

[riceburner]

I had a go on my dad's R65LS 3 weeks ago - seemed a LOT smoother than my Rockster but the brakes were a lot weaker (mind you - I don't think the fluids been changed in 10 years..... )

[dumby]

I understand completely! I kept my '78 R100/7 and mean to keep her trimmed and running forever, but the new bike is a blast!
Each has a ...unique personality in addition to being powerful enough to take me in over my head anytime I quit paying attention. It took me way too long to finally figure out an important life lesson which is this:

NEVER lightly part with tools, musical instruments, guns or bikes that you've bonded with. If you do - sure it can be replaced! Most definitely. But the replacement will never be the same as the one you let walk out of your life. The replacement may even be better, but it won't ever be the same.

[captainK]

The other thing I forgot to mention in my original posting was gearboxes. Seems every time BMW brings out a new generation of flat twin, the claim is the gearbox is better.

Well maybe it's because my Rockster is still new, but the gearbox doesn't really seem any better than on my old R80 airhead. The old bike's box is pretty clunky, but at least it goes into gear OK. The new Rockster is still clunky -- and it can take a few tries to get into first from neutral at the lights, and I had a few misses shifts on the trip I did a week ago.

I can live with it because I sorta expected it. But as for the claims of "new and improved", I've yet to be convinced!

[Pussy]

I agree. I had a 1978 R80/7 and my Rockster feels very similar. The R80 was more comfortable, the panniers were better and she used less fuel so is this progress? Puss.