| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Detroit |
On the subject of tires...... My local dealer wanted $250 for the rear and $225 for the front (for an S1). Almost $500 for new tires. That sucks. I would say if I cant have the local Moto dealer put the tires on it would cost me an extra $200 for tires. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Don Canet of Cycle World set up his best idea of a mile long real world road test course to evaluate the handling/performance what CW percieved as the best street bikes from each of nine manufacturers plus a CBR600F4i, their top middle weight pick for 2002. Yeah that's right, Honda gets two entries. Whatever...  Results follow:
I rounded the CW results to the nearest tenth of a second. With only three runs around the course for each bike, it's not valid to place the bikes down to 1/100th of a second. Don Canet/CW however reported the CBR600F4i as clocking 0.07 second quicker (1:27.15 versus 1:27.22) through the course than the XB9R. Canet did reluctantly admit... "...the XB9R proves that it can run with the best-handling sport bikes in the world, just like Erik Buell claimed." What gets me is all the recurrent whining about teh XB9R's supposed slugish handling and tendencies to stand up under trail braking. Unfortunately, it's all to obvious, the bias that has infested the crew at CW. To quote Mr. Canet further on the Firebolt... "Holding the tight line repuires constant input, though, as the bike wants to right itself when leaned over. The Buell may be light and compact, but it's a bit like wrestling a pit bull through the slalom. Clutch pull is ultra-heavy, and under hard use the front brake also requires more lever effort than any other bike here. Then again, more aggressive bite would only amplify the bike's insistence on standing up while braking.}  WTF!!??? If I were to only read his description above, I'd think the bike were a total pig, virtually unridable through the twisties in any aggressive manner. Yet he says of the CBR... "Light and neutral handling carried the F4i to the top time around our handling course, though I had to get a bit aggro with it. Going a tick quicker than the Buell required revving the pee out of the Honda as it lacks the midrange delivery enjoyed by the others here - I could have used the extra horsepower our '01 testbike put out. This was more than made up for by perfectly balanced suspension and brakes, and lots of cornerning clearance. Winner!" Something is starting to stink at CW, and it is wafting from the vicinity of Mr. Don Canet. I seriously wonder what the test result would have been if Mr. Canet hadn't pushed so hard on the Honda, a 21 pound lighter bike with 10 more HP, trying to go "a tick quicker than the Buell", or conversely if he had been more "aggro" on the Buell trying to better the F4i's best time? The Buell virtually ties for first, and is seriously down on HP compared to its closest competitors, yet according to the guy riding it so fast, piloting the XB9R through the slalom is like "wrestling a pit bull"? Of the third place Interceptor Mr. Canet lauds... "A solid third place finish by almost half a second." The XB9R kicked the viffer's ass by well over two full seconds. No mention of that by old Don Canet though. The stench is stifling and Mr. Canet's lips reak of the sphincter residue of American Honda's marketing executives. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. NOT!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reepicheep |
Just finished scanning the Cycle World "Worlds Best Sportbike" article. I will avoid try to avoid all the "spoilers", but the 'bolt did not get it. It did get positive reviews however, and did VERY well on the "real world handling course" they set up (kinda like a high speed battletrax). In terms of pricing, the Buell was around 4th out of ten in terms of low cost (beat by the Vstrom, the F4i, and the FZ1), but it was still on the cheap end of things. The price seems reasonable given the company the bike runs in (shame its too expensive for me). I think the eventual winner they picked was a reflection of their testing setup... a 600 mile two day trip through all sorts of terrain. The bike the picked (no spoilers remember) was one that is probably the most flexible touring bike, not the best "streetbike". I think 600 miles in two days warrants a "touring bike", not a "streetbike". If I decide to take a 600 mile trip on my streetbike, I expect to be uncomfortable. I think a "streetbike test" would be more about 100 mile trips, commuting to work on nice days, working your way through traffic during rush hour, running up to the grocery store, and weekend rips through the twisties. But thats just me. They also completely ignored things like sound and feel. The made passing mention of the fact that the F4i had to be run at 10,000 rpm and up to be competitive, which would drive me nuts for a "streetbike". More like riding a dremel tool. They also want to ding the bike for requiring a lot of counter steering to move from line to line. *shrug*... I'm no expert, but my only beef with the otherwise EXCELLENT handling SV-650 is that it does not require ENOUGH countering steering. I want to have to keep pushing to keep turning, it gives me more control. A bike that returns upright when pressure is released feels more fluid, natural, and stable to me. Bikes that hold the line without counter steering are uncomfortable to me. My aggressive turns are... well... aggressive. I want the inputs to such a turn to be aggressive as well. All in all a pretty fair article, although a little biased towards the tourers. The winning bike was a suprise to me (and to them), and you wonder if it got there because it was "not nearly as bad as it looked like it would be" and once the suprise wore off it would be less enamoring. Their number two bike is probably the real number one bike, but I digress. Some choice (positive biased) quotes from the article:
Exciting stuff, exciting times, fantastic bike. Sounds like the perfect bike for me, I will go buy one in 5 years when I can afford a used one  While I think the bike is perfectly balanced and targeted, along Aarons comments, us 'mericans like power, and the moto-journalists are even more off the edge like that. If Buell could find a way to get the top end of the F4i with the low end they already have, be it with a big bore kit or whatever, they will have beaten the Honda F4i at it's own game... which is simply stunning to me... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Superbad |
Ihave always felt that the American magazines kiss Honda's A$$. Normally you would think an American publication would take an American slant, but not when it comes to Motorcycles. Look at it this way, the Buell had the least horsepower yet tied for fastest time! What would happen if the Buell had 90+ RWHP... IT would spank everything and then CW couldn't suck up to the Japanese manufacturers! If this bike doesn't at least tie for Bike of the year...then the magazines truly are Corporate shills! The only other possible(to me) is the new R1, it is beautiful, but not nearly as technologically advanced as the Firebolt. It sure seems like these "journalists" don't want to love the Buell but can't help it and are trying hard to find ways to not love it. They will fail! Just see what the Brits are saying...they love the bike! In the "BS" world that these journalists live in, they have to really try to find faults with all the wonderful motorcycles available. It just seems like they are going out of their way to find them with the firebolt. Bobby | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Davegess |
Well I got a little bit of a ride at lunch. 1 hour, 50 miles. A few nice twisties but half in on the interstate to get to them. 85 degrees with a 15 to 22 mph cross wind on the freeway. Bike was dead stable at 80 mph on the freeway with lots of trucks. The windshield deflect the air cleanly. It hit me just below my head but was not turbulent. Did have a lot of turbulence on the outside of my shoulders, I am pretty sure that was the result of the 2o mph crosswind. I am up to 160 miles and starting to wind it up to 5000 rpm. Makes good power, pulls well from 2000 and is pretty strong from about 2800. really starts to go at 4000 and keeps feeling stronger as the revs go up. Can’t wait till I can rev it up. The handling is impeccable. I was not trying to break any records, too many driveways, spots of gravel and cops to be a hero but I was certainly over the posted speed through out most of the turns. Easy to turn, no drama. You do have to give it a heave to do a left-right transition. Nothing awful you just need to give it a firm push over. Very confidence inspiring. Goes where you point it, lets you change your line mid turn, on and off the power or bumps don’t seem to bother it. At least not at the gentle pace I was riding. That is if 60 mph through a turn marked 25 is gentle. I need to take it out to western Wisconsin where the roads are twisty but wide open with little traffic and few cops. It certainly feels like this thing will eat up any curve you want to toss at it. Certainly the best handling bike I have ever ridden. Dave | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reepicheep |
Oh yeah, one more thing, under "downs" for the bike, they listed: "Drop swingarm, replace drivebelt at 15,000 miles". Huh? Since when do these belts die that soon? More like 25,000 miles so long as you don't do something stupid with adjustments (which with the bolt would be tricky, as there are none). And I thought those two little bolts above the rear axle allowed a section of the swingarm to be removed for belt replacement without pulling the swingarm. If they are not for that, what on earth are they for? And then how come they did not mention for all the other chain drive bikes under downs: "Replace chain every 15000 miles, adjust chain every 5000 miles, oil chain weekly, wipe disgusting and messy spooge from all over back of bike after every ride". I don't understand how they can turn belt drive into a negative. Bill | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Libnosis |
Blake Great post!  You related to Dennis Miller? lib | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Davegess |
Detroit, for an S1 i would avoid the HD dealer like the plaque, way too expensive. BUT on the XB I want the right tires even if they cost me many bucks. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| X1glider |
Gimme a belt any day. My dad has 60+k on his full width belt. and I've got 24k on my narrow belt. It handles 110 lbs of rear wheel torque just fine and I never worry about it's reliability. I must admit to hearing of people breaking it because they picked up a stone between the pulley and belt. But that's why we have guards. The only down I can think of for a belt is the extra weight of the pulleys, because of their width. On left side drive bikes, like big twins, it limits the size of the rear tire unless you want to offset the engine. But on a Buell or XL's right side drive that doesn't factor in. It seems like every time my girlfriend and I pull into a gas station, we put her bike on the center stand and she checks her chain for adjustment and lube. I just fill up and go. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jrh |
Maybe because im not right now in the market for any new bike($ wise)im reading the MO and the CW magazine articles a little differently than some of you guys.Remember at the summaries of both of these articles other test-riders(writers)seem to be saying this heavy handling issue some testers were whining about,is probably caused by those testers particular riding style. I wont waste the space for his full quote but in CW, one guy says...."and probably the most advanced chassis in sport motorcycling",referring to the Buell. Both of these magazine articles have the FB right in there with the best of the imports+it holds its own with them,even with its 75 hp.engine.Im not exactly one of you Buellreligion guys but im totally impressed with what Buell has done with this thing.I have to wonder what that bike would(will?)do to the competition with more HP. You guys told me before dont wish for a more powerful engine,but i still am,and in a year or two i think its gonna happen.hehehe A US built bike will be the one setting the new standard in the world of sportbikes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aaron |
110lbs of rear wheel torque? Either it's geared to the moon, or it's an exceptionally weak engine. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| X1glider |
110lbs of rear wheel torque? Not my X1, my FXDX with stock gearing. I know the HP is not up to your standards though. X1 is still a stock weakling. Soon to change. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sarodude |
Riding impressions are BUNK. They are just that - impressions. Very colored. Even if objectivity is the intent, not everyone has the ability to sample all the data they need all the time. I was a the track with a buddy helping him set up his kart once. "Man, it's oversteering like there's no rubber in the back!" We made a chassis adjustment to REDUCE UNDERSTEER (one an oversteering kart?) based on my external, non driver observation. His kart stopped oversteering. His times dropped a bunch that day. In that particular case, the kart was SOOO pushy on entry that he was cranking the crap outta the wheel on turn-in. As he transitioned to power the steering input (along with the weight jacking of a kart's front end) would cause the kart to snap oversteer. His DRIVING was causing the oversteering while ineffectively trying to deal with the corner entry push. A literbike test some time ago mentioned how nobody liked riding one bike (the Gixxer I think) because it felt squirrly. Then they looked at the times and the 'squirrely' Gixxer was going 2-ish seconds a lap quicker than the next quickest bike. I think they felt kinda dumb. The bottom line is this: We all love Buells. We all want the Firebolt to kick some serious ass. Just about ANYTHING we read to the contrary will upset us. Set up a test to 'allow' the Firebolt to show it's strengths and you'll be handicapping the other bikes - just like the Firebolt may have been handicapped in various tests. If you love Buells, go buy an XB and chase down some squids. Bad reviews simply mean less of a demand premium and a more exclusive bike. The bike does not stop kicking ass because a reviewer (even a highly respected one) doesn't have the oomph to pull in the clutch (too heavy? WHAT?!?!?!?!?!) or crank the bars. And Minime at MO, the most vocal 'bike has a tendency to stand up' guy, could not believe how well he was going despite the 'crappy' handling of the bike. This bike will succeed at its mission regardless of - and sometimes in spite of - what people perceive. Stop expecting things to be a certain way. FEEL your machine. The conversation is 2 way. Some people are just too busy talking to listen. I guess I'll shut up now. -Saro | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Xgecko |
That is one of the most prophetic statments that I have heard lately. One that I have come to beleive today as I ran some errands on base. I dipped into a turn that I normally take in second gear and as I leaned into it and rolled on the throttle I found I was exiting a lot faster that I normally do. OPPS I'm in third not second and I'm scrapping a toe  . the guy behind me was blown away at how well Buell's second best handling bike can turn. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aaron |
110 ft/lbs of torque at the rear wheel of a stock geared FXDX? Man, did you remove a spark plug? Bone stock, a BLAST puts out just about that much rear wheel torque, in TOP gear. Substantially more in the lower gears. i.e. 6500 engine rpm / 4.74 overall gear ratio in top gear = 1371 rear wheel rpm. 27rwhp & 1371rwrpm = 103 ft/lbs of rear wheel torque, from a Blast in top gear! (torque = (hp * 5252)/rpm) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Steve_A |
A few words on the CW test: the criteria as it was explained to me by the editor was to pick the best sporting streetbike, with an emphasis on overall street performance -- which included long distance comfort and two-up comfort to some extent. Given that criteria, the FB was not going to win, no matter how much it excelled in some areas. That criteria also explained why the Suzuki did so well -- it wasn't exceptionally excellent in anything, but did everything reasonably well. Given the criteria of the test, I voted for the Suzuki as the best bike, as did many others of the CW staff. Most of the rest went for the Honda VFR, which is a very nice bike. However, people don't buy machines that do everything adequately -- they tend to buy machines that excell in what most interests them, and don't even try in other areas. That's why the VFR has always done well in magazine tests, but hasn't done that well in sales. Instead, edgy machines, that do one thing better than anything else, machines such as Softails and Goldwings and GSX-Rs, sell well. I predict that the FB will fare better in the marketplace than in a test that pitches its touring capabilities against an enduro and dedicated sport-touring bikes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Josh |
(psst x1glider, I think yer confusing engine torque as calculated on chassis dyno w/ the torque yer tire puts to the road which has been multiplied by several gears) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Racerx |
Aron what Dyno did you use to get that reading on a blast??? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aaron |
Which dyno? Mine!  Actually, I understated it's rear wheel torque quite a bit. At it's torque peak it has 26.8ft/lbs at the engine, which means 127ft/lbs at the rear wheel, substantially more the X1G's Dyna! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Racerx |
WHAT! Dyno sheet says 26.8 are you factoring in no Gravity direct drive? Please explain to me how you got that figure cause if its true my friends M2 with 90ft/lbs is actually 437ft/lbs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
RacerX, The torque that you see reported on a dyno sheet is engine's crankshaft torque referenced at the rear wheel (it accounts for losses in the drive train). Dyno torque is as Aaron said, the RWHP/rpm*5250. So to get the torque at the rear wheel, you would need to ratio the engine torque up by the overall gear ratio which varies depending in which gear your dyno run was performed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Racerx |
So u mean to tell me that the Dyno at your local dealer measures crank torque. I.E. a bone Stock M2 is 91 HP at the crank and when Dynoed it is 70 at the crank also? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jrh |
INCREDIBLE Steve A must be Steve Anderson of Cycle World magazine,the "guy" whos quote i just gave in part in my post above.Steve,thanks for checking in here at BBS and sharing the info on the test criterion for that article. Of course if you're not the CycleWorld guy;thanks for helping me look like a moron  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aaron |
Or, in other words, a dyno shows engine torque as measured at the rear wheel, not rear wheel torque. There's a big difference. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Racerx |
well then how do you figure that out and then i'm right about my friends M2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aaron |
RacerX, the hp stays the same throughout the system. Horsepower is the combination of torque and rpm. So when we apply gear reduction (i.e. the primary drive, the gearbox, the final drive), we change the mixture of torque and rpm but the horsepower is the same on both sides. All 3 of those steps, primary, gearbox, and final drive, apply gear reduction. So in other words, the clutch basket is spinning slower than the motor but has more torque, the front final drive pulley is spinning slower yet but has more torque yet (except in 5th, where it's the same as the clutch basket), and the rear wheel is spinning slower yet but has more torque yet. But since hp is the combination of the rpm and torque, it stays the same in all places. That 91hp figure for crank hp is taken without the the primary & gearbox & final drive hooked up. So the frictional losses associated with those things are not in the figure. In the real world, though, those things are hooked up, and the rear wheel horsepower is the same as the crank horsepower. Cheapest, quickest, easiest way to increase rear wheel torque: gear it shorter! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Steve_A |
JRH -- Dave Gess will vouch for me. Steve Anderson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Racerx |
ok? all i care about is how fast my ass gets out that corner, and i know all about the friction loss on crank versus rear wheel, i dont understand how you figure the HP staying the same from the crank to the rear wheel then you contradict your self in explaining the whole friction rule | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Racerx |
Man this site needs a chat room  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aaron |
The power is being produced in one place, at the engine. It has to overcome the frictional losses all the way through the primary and gearbox and rear wheel. All of those losses are a parasitic drag on the engine, right? Therefore, after overcoming those losses, there's less hp left at the engine, right? I mean, it doesn't matter whether you're pushing a sled or pulling a sled, you, the power source, are going to see that friction, unless you disconnect the sled. The only way you're going to get a higher measured number at the engine than at the rear wheel is if you disconnect that drag from the engine. And that's what the factory does when they come up with the hp ratings. Or, they try to correct the measured number, using factors for all of the losses. Axtell does it this way with their engine dyno. There's some well-founded speculation that Dynojet does some of that correction, too ... but the problem is, the actual losses will vary with the bike that's put up there. |
