| Author | Message | ||
     Racerx |
Now u are going off on a tangent that doesnt exist. I KNOW THE HORSEPOWER IS LESSENED BY DRIVE. I still dont get and your not explaining the equation on how you figured the Blast's torque to be over 100. right? | ||
| X1glider |
Aaron, I bet you're just loving every minute of messing with everyone's head here, aren't you? I would too.  Alright already! My FXDX has 75.4 HP at 3600 rpm in 4th gear (3.862 overall) and therefore 425 lbs/ft and significantly more in 1st! Happy? Play on words. Next thing we know, there will be a discussion on the difference between ft/lbs and lbs/ft.  | ||
| Aaron |
Okay, 26.8 ft/lbs of torque at the engine. Times the 1.6 gear reduction in the primary drive (56 tooth clutch basket divided by 35 tooth crank sprocket). Times the 2.963 gear reduction in the final drive (80 tooth rear pulley divided by 27 tooth front pulley) Equals 127 ft/lbs of torque at the rear wheel. There's another way to do it, too. The Blast has 14rwhp at 2750rpm, right? So, if the engine is turning 2750 rpm Divided by the 1.6 gear reduction in the primary drive Divided by the 2.963 gear reduction in the final drive Equals 580 rear wheel rpm. Horsepower = (torque times rpm) divided by 5252 Or in other words, torque = (horsepower times 5252) divided by rpm We have 14rwhp, so rear wheel torque has to be: (14 times 5252) divided by 580 Which is 127ft/lbs of torque. Now, "A tangent that doesn't exist"? You said you "don't understand how you figure the HP staying the same from the crank to the rear wheel". I tried to explain that point. In a nutshell, it doesn't matter whether the horsepower measurement is made upstream or downstream of the friction source, the loss associated with that friction will still be reflected in the measurement. That's why the horsepower is the same at the crank as it is at the rear wheel, if those things are connected, and in the real world, they are. It's only when you disconnect them that the crank hp goes up. You can disconnect them physically or mathematically, the latter option being available if you understand the frictional and inertial losses in the system. | ||
| Two_Buells |
you don't need to take the swingarm off to change the belt on the XB. It looks like pieces of the swing arm bolt off. I'm wondering how much the tires, from the HD dealer are for the XB. that is the only place to get them.  they are a few lbs lighter that the normal 207's | ||
| Aaron |
X1G: I know, I was jut messing with ya ... looks like I hooked someone else, though  There's a big misconception that the dyno shows rear wheel torque. It doesn't. Easy way to prove that ... the lines cross at 5252 *engine* rpm, right? If it was rear wheel torque, they'd cross at 5252 rear wheel rpm. They'd have to, if they were following the formula! The dyno needs the tach pickup before it'll even show you torque. It needs that so it can calculate engine torque. | ||
| Raymaines |
Aaron, you're so darn smart you're a danger to yourself. You should take up serious drinking or drug addiction or something. About 30, maybe 35 years ago, there was an installment series in one of the bike magazines about a guy that wanted to build a sub 200 lb. big bore dirt bike. He started with a 350 Kawasaki motor and put it in a Rickman frame because they were the lightest motor and frame available. He then weighed EVERTHING that he put on that bike and found the exact lightest parts he could use for every area of the bike, including the tires. So what?, you might ask. That was just a nice introduction to what I really want to say. Would one of us please weigh a sample of every brand, model and size tire that fits a Y2K M2, front and rear. When we find which tire is the lightest we would know how much weight we could save by making the right choice next time we buy tires. For all I know Metzler tires might be 3 lbs. lighter than similar Brigestone tires, or vice versa. A light weight Dunlop 207 tire from your local HD dealer might still be way too heavy, or it might be well worth the extra money. Somebody needs to do some research. After we find the weight of every possible tire we could price those tires and figure a cost per ounce. Then, if we still have time and energy, we could factor in the expected tread life and figure a cost / ounce per mile ratio for all of our possible choices. And if you’re working on a Masters degree you could figure in the coefficient of friction between the various tires and different road surfaces. My God, just think of what’s possible here. It blows the mind. Go for it!! Keep me posted. RaY2K | ||
| Court |
Gads....I leave you guys for a couple hours. Dave G goes riding and doesn't answer his phone. Blake becomes a comedian Aaron teaches physics And STEVE ANDERSON (yes, I remember you from the day you, Erik and I had breakfast at the S-1 intro) checks in. To those of you who are unfamiliar, listen tight to Steve, he knows of what he speaks. This is getting interesting! Court | ||
| X1glider |
Aaron: I always thought torque was measured in conjunction with the tach pickup, then HP calculated as the mathematical byproduct. Or is this misconception related to different types of dynos (engine vs chassis)? Maybe a DJ250 would do it differently than a DJ150? Uh, no offense intended when I call your beloved HP a mathematical byproduct.  I can be funny too! | ||
| José_Quiñones |
The dyno talk..... Belongs in the KV!!!!(sorry Aaron) We got Steve Anderson checking in here, let's take advantage of that! Steve, I got the magazine in the mail today and overall I think you all did a great job. HOWEVER, if you are trying to determine the best STREETBIKE, you left out two important factors, which might have tilted the field a little bit in the Firebolt's Favor: 1. Yearly maintenance costs Burns mentioned this about the Ducati, ie $500 6 hour valve adjustments every 6000 miles. The fact that the XB's belt has to be replaced every 15,000 miles is the only real "high maintenance" issue on the bike. For most people that might mean once a year. Even with that issue, a belt beats a chain any day for everyday street use! Everything else on the bike will be pretty much maintencance free. You should have done like Motorcycle Consumer News, and determined what the typical maintenance costs would be per year for each bike, based on the recommended service intervals. 2. Yearly Insurance Costs!!! For the pre XB Buells, this has always been nice feature, the low insurance costs. The XB, with its clip on handlebars, seems to be getting hit with "sport bike" insurance rates, even with 76 hp. The two factors you evaluated, the passenger and long distance touring capabilities, definetly fall outside of the Firebolt's intended use. Now a Firebolt with X1 tube handlebars, lower pegs, and optional FACTORY color matched hard bags, that would do pretty well....... Too bad you could not include the FJ1300R Yamaha..... | ||
| José_Quiñones |
The most amazing quote of that whole article, which will make a great bit of Firebolt trivia in the future is the following:
Ok, what trail did he originally specify????? (Production trail is 3.3 inches) Dave, Court, R, Harvey Mushman, Aaron??????? __________________________________________________ My take on this whole "stands up on trail-braking" is that 95% of most street riders will never run into this cause most of them don't trail brake into the turns anyway. If you are trail braking on the street, you're not leaving yourself much room for emergency maneuvers. If you ride at "the pace" you get all your braking done before you lean over anyway, so this is something that won't bother you. | ||
| Two_Buells |
I still don't understand what these riders are talking about the bike standing up while trail braking. I use both brakes deep into a turn just so I can plant the bike in the turns better. ok, Now I did it. I gave away my best BattleTrax secret I'm kinda bummed this week. the last time I rode the XB was on Monday. I had to go to Kansas City for a week and left the XB home.  But, I'll be back on Friday  | ||
| Dust_Storm |
Aaron - thanks so much for making me feel really stupid  . Just when i thought I had a grasp, you threw in the mathematics that made me re-read EVERYTHING from the start, twice, until I grasped the concepts. Darn you and your math. Both you and Blake need to be locked up somewheres.. 2Buells - Thanks for the tip! I was always heavy on the front, I'll try your method. Barnette HD on El Paso finally got around to calling me, they have the XB in!! (Or so they say...) I'm off tomorrow to spend a goodly amount of time oogling over the masterpiece. All this from the the "Worlds Largest HD Dealer" that stocks over 200 HD's, but only 4 Buells.. What a lie... [Ds] | ||
| Blake |
Steve A. et al, I at least owe you a thoroughly objective critique. Never suspected you were lurking. I agree with your assesment. I have NO real qualms with the article overall or the results of the CW testing to determine "The World's Best Streetbike." Y'all are free to test whatever bikes you like according to whatever criterion you desire. What really rubbed me wrong was that even in the one test/evaluation where the XB9R excelled, your well qualified tester had nothing much but negatives to offer. However, when it came to the inferior performance of the third and fourth place bikes (a distant 2.3 and 2.7 seconds, respectively, slower in the course), Canet cannot contain his overwhelming praise and admiration, lauding over an inferior third place Honda and a fourth place FZ1. I read the article objectively. I simply could not get past Canet's niggling comments and jabs at the XB9R's expense. It is all to obvious that Don has let his personal preferences cloud his objectivity. And the fact that Mr. Canet sees the tendency of a motorcycle to stand up under trail braking or that it requires constant input to keep it leaned over as undesirable/negative traits tells me he was evaluating racebike performance rather than streetbike performance. BTW, raise the forks 1/4" and the steering will become neutral, just watch out for the onset of head shake (add a damper). More of CW's critical comments concerning the XB9R... "The front brake needs better feel" For a racebike, maybe. For a streetbike? Why? "Not for the one bike owner" Why not? Does CW have any clue how many American motorcyclists put less than 3,000 miles on their bike every year? Not every biker wants to ride two up and/or for miles on end. "Useless mirrors" That statement is outright exaggeration. "Drop swingarm replace drivebelt at 15,000 miles" Does the swing arm really need "dropped" to replace the belt? I think not. Nice editing, NOT! The summary review was fair. I appreciated hearing comments from other than Mr. Canet. That's a very interesting piece of information about the Firebolt's trail. It's so very dissapointing to learn that HD staff are having final say over EB on such basic technical concerns as front-end/steering geometry. Applying cruiser design constraints on a sport bike? Genius that eh? Fuck off HD meddlers!!! Put the egos in check and leave Buell to do their thing. Unfrigginbelievable. Steve, just a few more critical observations.  While honoring the XB9R as an honorable mention in the "Ten Best Bikes of 2002" article, CW says "If there was an award for the Best Air Cooled, Belt-Driven, Pushrod Twin Cylinder Sportbike, the cool new Buell would be a Ten Best shoo-in. If that isn't a slam I don't know what is. Other than Buell models, there are NO other bikes fitting CW's silly overly specific contrived Buell-only category. You must admit, CW is obvously a bit full of itself. After stating the above, the honorable mention text goes on to say... "The fact that it was one of the ten bikes chosen for this month's "World's Best Streetbike" comparo is pretty high praise, though." My aren't we so fortunate that CW even mentions the name Buell. Give me a break! And since we're on the topic of the top ten list... since when is a gixxer 1000 a superbike??  Aren't the repliracer IL4 liter bikes considered "Open Class", at least until 2003 when WSB will loose the IL4 literbikes to battle the now dominant twins? Y'all meant to pick the GXSR750 right? I'd rather have the Duc 998 or the Aprilia Mille-R, or RC51 thank you. Y'all totally wimped out. The revolutionary new Buell deserved a place in this years ten best, but for supposed lack of a fitting category CW wimped out. How about "Best Middle Weight"?!! Please pass my comments on to your associates at CW and thank them for their hard work. I do enjoy the rag, not for the contrived comparos though, more for Kevin Cameron's column, the Race Watch, and the info on new models. I really like "The List" and "Hard Numbers" that Motorcyclist maintains. CW ought to improve on those items and adopt them as semi-regular features. Thanks for taking time to commune in our little corner of the web. | ||
| José_Quiñones |
I think what has Blake really upset is that the VROD won the Best Cruiser in CW's ten best, while the XB got an honorable mention. BTW, the MotoGuzzi V11 or Lemans (with a shaft drive) could also compete with the XB in that "category" Why did Buell come up with the silly name "sportfighter"?? Because it doesn't want to be directly compared with a "Sport Bike" like the CBR600 (which is in the ten best). There are many more "Sport Bikes" out on the market than there are "Sportfighers". Buell chose to be classified that way, so they pay the price for it too. CW's quarter mile times for the XB were 12.21 seconds at 107.48 mph. These numbers are meaningless to the minority of motorcyclists who place handling over outright engine performance, is nevertheless the number the majority of motorcyclists look at when looking to buy the "flavor of the week" and get most of their information from Cycle World and Motorcyclist Think about it, that HEAVY, BIG, EXPENSIVE VROD spanks a Firebolt at the stop light to stop light derby. To be fair, that's what the VROD was designed for. But most people live in that environment, not at Deals Gap. And us 'mericans like power (right Aaron ) As far as CW's comments, I don't agree with their comments about the front brake, it was actually my favorite thing on the bike. I agree with them about the mirrors, they are useless and on the bikes I rode they never cleared up. Their up's and Down's were pretty funny: Up: Feels quicker than it is Down: Slower than it feels. | ||
| José_Quiñones |
Mike Y, That must be my problem, I NEVER use the FRONT brake at Battletrax. The ONE time I used the FRont Brake at Battletrax was at York in 1998 on my XL1200S. I dropped it right in front of everybody (I think you were there). I have never used it again........ Will you be at Laurel with the Demo Truck this weekend? | ||
| Davegess |
Hey, Steve thanks for the comments. Don't take Blake's personal, I know you won't Steve is IMHO one of the original Buell guys, probably the first magazine guy to get what Erik was trying to do. And besides he rights for CW he doesn't tell them what to do. | ||
| Spike |
I have to comment about the XB mirrors: They're terrible. Honestly the least functional pair of mirrors I've ever used. I tried adjusting them, but there's just no way to see around my elbows to what's behind me in my lane. In order to see what's behind me I have to move all the way to one side of the lane and tuck my elbow in as far as it will go just to see anything. They do look nice though. Mike L. '99 Cyclone | ||
| José_Quiñones |
Well yeah, doesn't that explain their choice in engines?
Buell would not be around today without those HD meddlers. | ||
| Superbad |
Spike, You have gotten used to mirrors mounted on the bars. Almost every sportbike has crappy mirrors, or they are almost 2 feet long. My 94 VFR had mirrors that were at least 13" long each, this is the only way to get them to see around your elbows. BTW I think these mirrors are 100% better than the mirrors on my 748 Ducati. Its all what you are used to. Bobby | ||
| Jrh |
Dang it When i got my Cycleworld and ran down here and made a post saying you guys were gonna like the article that included the FB i really thought you would.I still think it shows the FB as a real contender,right in there with those other bikes.So a couple testers dont like what they feel are some stand-up tendancies while cornering hard,thats their thoughts and their job is to report their thoughts. Then Steve A is brave enough to come here and explain the purpose of the article was to decide in their opinion which was the best sporting street bike(+ the bikes long distance ride comfort was included here,which you have to admit,the FB is way too focussed to worry too much about comfort). I still say overall that article made the Buell look mighty tempting to the type of riders Eric designed it for and its a good step forward for getting the word out on the new Buell+ the even better ones to come. Im just sittin here way out at the Rim watching + its looking good, maybe you guys are just too close to the Center to see.  | ||
| Cro13 |
I have to chime in on the mirrors. This weekend I plan to fit a pair of old Honda mirrors on the XB. They have a 7' stalk compaired to the 3'OEM. I don't know how it's going to look yet. Carter | ||
| Jim_M |
"Well yeah, doesn't that explain their choice in engines?" Of course, I've been wondering, in a perfect world, what Erik might have used as an engine, without any constraints placed on him (financial or otherwise)...would it still be the XB engine, or a clean sheet design? | ||
| Jasonl |
I really hate to say this considering the audience here but I don't read American cycle mags anymore for this very reason. They aren't very helpful to me. I do read Performance Bikes, Ride, and Bike regularly. I pay $8 for each issue as well. But they're well worth it. I don't read these magazines because they favor Buells. In fact PB likes the FB, hated the X1, and raved about the M2. Not once did they say that a Buell was a superior trackbike or that it compared with repliracers on the track. They know the Buell's place. It's a STREET bike. Not to be compared, on the track, with racing tackle. They will compare Buells with these cycles for road-use, and they have. The consensus is that the tube frame Buells were "coarse road fun" while the CBR600 was a good street bike that would do most anything you asked of it. The main difference I noticed in reviews of both bikes was that the CBR was pictured leaned over in a corner with a rider in full leathers and looking properly serious. While the Buell was shown, in a series of 4 pictures, doing a rolling burnout! They get it. Why can't CW? The other problem I have with issues like this one is that CW reads like advert copy for each motorcycle it tests UNLESS it is going with popular opinion. People are threatened by what they can't define. The Buell is undefinable in the American Cruiser v Repliracer dichotomy we put up with. The FB is neither a cruiser or a race bike with lights. So most American riders are willing to dismiss it quick. Cruisers don't like it because "it ain't a real harley" while the sportbike guys can't look past it's stats on paper. So CW follows along. Lets get an example...the TL series tank slappers. Suzuki designed the TLS and it developed some nasty tank slappers. While the Brit cycle mags were quick to talk about how the Suzuki was trying to kill people the american mags were busy selling the damned thing. Personally, I want the truth and I want a real riders perspective. I don't want advertising drivel touted as a "real world comparo". Now, did CW not talk about the slapper problem for fear of ticking off an advertiser or because they're riders never rode the bike enough to find it? FYI - later Suzuki would fit a steering damper on all TLS's. I'm not railing on any particular writers or editors here. What I am saying is that American cycle mags are useless to me because they lack any information I find useful. To get upset about them would be tantamount to getting upset about the Polish Times Dispatch. It doesn't apply to me so why bother? But it does irritate me. Why are the british the only people who can make reading about cycles informative, fun, and useful. We can do that here just like we can build a motorcycle that competes with Japan's best, contrary to popular opinion. | ||
| Davegess |
XB MIRRORS, they seem fine to me. I am used to sport bike mirrors however. I have mine set to show cars overtaking me. I use them for lane changes. If I want to see the guy behind me a quick lift of my left elbow and a slight head turn (I call it the sportbike shuffle) and I can see behind me just fine. Bar ends might look cool and give a better view. dave | ||
| Mikej |
"Of course, I've been wondering, in a perfect world, what Erik might have used as an engine, without any constraints placed on him (financial or otherwise)...would it still be the XB engine, or a clean sheet design? " If you mean no liability issues, no EPA constraints, no Corp image/guidelines to follow, true clean sheet design? I'd suggest looking back at the first Buells. 4cylinder 2-stroke screamers comes to mind. Can you say "true crotch rocket"? I knew you could. I wonder, does anyone know the actual power that 2-stroke four put out? | ||
| Jim_M |
I thought that was for the Formula One series at the time...I'm talking about today, for a street bike... | ||
| Elvis |
JRH, I agree with you. I think the track times (against some impressive bikes) will make some people in the industry take notice. This bike does what a motorcycle is supposed to. I frankly can't understand why anyone would consider buying a big, heavy bike with a huge fairing designed to be comfortable cruising on the highway. If I want to be comfortable cruising on the highway, I'll take a car. Some people on this board are so passionate (and we love them for it) that they are stung by any criticism. Blake certainly has a point with his comments about pro Honda bias. I've noticed since the 80's that cycle world (and it's competitors) seem to love Honda and always give the intangibles to them. It seems that if Bike X goes against a Honda and beats it in acceleration, braking, handling etc. the author will say something like "the Honda just feels better". Wheather this is based on any gifts or favors from Honda, a deep respect for Honda or an actual Honda magic touch, I have noticed it for more than 20 years (even when I have read articles with no rooting interest). The bottom line is that the XBR is proving itself to be exactly what it intends: the best handling bike in the world. For a company like Buell to even come close to that lofty goal is cause for great celebration. Take good care of those steel framers. They'll be collector's items some day. | ||
| Davegess |
mikej, I recall 167 hp for the RW750 Dave | ||
| Superbad |
I wish Eric would build me a chassis for my RZ500. I would LOVE a bike like the original Buell's. I currently am upgrading the chassis on the RZ. The RZ engine in the Xb9R frame would be BLISS! I really wish that Buell could get ahold of the new KTM twin motor. It is lightweight, compact and puts out over 100 Horses. That is what the Firebolt is crying out for, although I wonder if the bikes chassis wasn't designed with the heavy engine in mind and wouldn't perform the same without the heavy weight below the CG. Just wondering Aloud. Bobby | ||
| Jrh |
Superbad Glad to hear you of all Buellers,who owns the new + i now agree,Very nice new Buell,who i know loves his new Buell very much,still cant help but wonder about that chassis with the KTM twin Rotax engine in it.I talked about that a few months ago and a brawl about broke out here. I didnt mean to sound like i was knocking the FB we have now,back then and im still not knocking it now,but with an engine like the Rotax,that chassis would rule the real street bike world,the race track world,my dream world.Now im feeling like Court or one of the true Buellers,from just seeing these 2 magazines reviews of the FB i think its a winner in its present state(if it has no major reliability issues)+ i expect it will be a success sales wise,but when it gets the engine the chassis really deserves its gonna be without question the best sportbike on Earth.Its gonna happen. And everyone Please note,i did say im very impressed with the FB as it is now,so no brawls please |
