| Author |
Message |
    
Snakedriver
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 05:55 am: | 
|
I think what Pi ment is that all things being equal a water cooled engine is more tuneable. That a fact. In the 60's Porsche started the swing to liquid. When a little TR-4 could but the heat on one of Stuggarts flagships that sent them to the water cooler. Piston powered aircraft suffer the same delima. Also shock cooling of the leading cylinders is a factor as well. Believe me I like simplicity, but a its hard to beat water cooling in an argument like this. I want a air cooled engine on my bike. But my Triumph, the 4 wheeled kind, needs the radiator. |
Pisymbol
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 08:17 am: |
|
Thanks Snakedriver and Kootenay, you guys hit on the head (no pun intended).
Again, what Buell has done with an air-cooled twin in a sport bike configuration is outstanding and testiment of his engineering prowess.
With that said, I do wish he had more engine choices than a hand me down. |
Kenb
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
flame away but i think the "v-rod motor is too heavy" argument is lame. the sportster based 45°v that we have in our buells cannot be a stressed member because of how bad it shakes so it has to be isolated. the v-rod 60° counterbalanced v is much smoother and could be rigidly mounted and thus a stressed member. how much does the frame weigh on the xb bikes ? using the v-rod motor as a stressed member would reduce the amount of frame needed to just something to hang things off the engine. the proof i offer for this is from the weights and measures section from sportrider.com;
peak hp, wet weight, bike model(year)
120, 483, rc51(05)
111, 485, SV1000S(03)
90, 473, xb12ss(06)
now i'm not saying the v-rod motor is the same as the rc and sv but i'm sure if you removed some cosmetic do-dads and made some buell specific lightweight parts(doesn't HD do that already for the sportster based engines with the whole crankcase/transmission casting ?) you would have something competitive. The v-rod could also be a little more compact since it is a 60° versus 90° layout. just my 2 cents |
Kootenay
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
Pisymbol, the engineer in me understands the advantages of liquid cooling, but the motorcycle rider in me likes the feel of the air-cooled "lump!"
I've ridden a Street Rod, and I gotta admit the engine has a lot of snot--but the bike feels like a locomotive to me, and just doesn't dance like the Buell. I was happy to get my 9 back... |
Kenb
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 11:11 am: |
|
same here i'm not dissing the 45° HD twin I have a fond attachment to that old lump. I just think the weight argument is lame. |
Whodom
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
the sportster based 45°v that we have in our buells cannot be a stressed member because of how bad it shakes so it has to be isolated. the v-rod 60° counterbalanced v is much smoother and could be rigidly mounted and thus a stressed member.
kenb, the engine IS a stressed member in all Buells. It is isolated for forward-aft and up-and-down movement. The tie-bars that tie the engine to the frame use it to reinforce the frame laterally.
Granted, a fully balanced motor could be directly mounted to the frame and the frame probably could be lightened. Alternatively, you could lose the balance shaft(s) and gearing in the V-Rod engine which would lighten it considerably and it could be mounted with isolators.
I still love my lump. |
Pisymbol
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Kootenay, I hear ya....though everyone has their price when it comes to power!
One of the other issues with liquid cooled from Buell's perspective is to avoid the ME-TOO syndrome. There is nothing that quite looks like or sounds like a Buell in the market. I'm true they don't want to lose that.
My only issue is that the current platform as of today has a relatively short shelf life. Someone mentioned you could bore it out a little without losing too much top end or compensate in other ways but I can't imagine this as a long term solution (a 1300cc naked, that's a tough sell).
A new motor has to be in the works. I'm wondering if the HD/Buell relantionship would let Buell design a motor for his bikes and a detuned version for a next generatio Sportster platform. This business startegy IMO makes the most sense - not the reverse strategy of, hear is a tractor, make it a Ferrari. |
Diablobrian
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 01:35 pm: |
|
The frame on the XB's is lighter than most sport bike frames that use the engine as a fully stressed member.
How do you think they keep the dry weight as low as they do with a motor that is heavier than the watercooled sportbike's mills?
It's in lightweight construction and lots of hours doing FEA work. (Finite Element Analysis)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis |
Kenb
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 04:14 pm: |
|
"XB's is lighter than most sport bike frames that use the engine as a fully stressed member" - how much lighter ? not doubting you, just curious |
Diablobrian
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 04:58 pm: |
|
It is not by a lot, and I cannot find the numbers off hand or I would have posted them up before. |
Olinxb12r
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Lets not forget the lower center of gravity by using a 60 or 90 degree twin compared to the 45. I'm sure that with a big enough budget Erik Buell could make a liquid cooled 90 degree twin with a crazy low center of gravity that would rival or smoke a Duc, but that is not what he has. HD doesn't seem to want to let the reins completely loose on him for some reason (probably the bottom line). I would love to see what he could come up with, but we may never get to.
I like my bike exactly the way it is configured for what I use it for, but a part of me still wants to have a full out race bike to ride too. It would be amazing to get the Buell styling and engineering with the full out race replica power is all I'm saying. Since that probably won't happen I will have my Buell and an R1 or something of that sort once the cash flow is there. |
Grimel
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 06:40 pm: |
|
Since some people are still falling for this "more power" got to have MORE POWER. Here is someone's idea of what works.
http://www.buell.com/en_us/buell_way/buell_on_buell/videos/vtwin.asp
We have more power than is needed by a goodly margin NOW. Most any 500 multi has more than enough power.
What I really want to know is why is it that a modern super sport 600 weighs about 130lbs less than my 1100 magna makes roughly the same HP yet it can't out run the old muscle cruiser until it finds some curves.
People are too fixiated on HP. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 08:09 pm: |
|
KenB,
Good thinking, but unfortunately the facts are different. The V-Rod motor is nearly 210 lbs (without radiators and coolant and hoses, etc.), and the V-Twin import water cooled motors run from 130 lbs to about 145 lbs. You don't remove 55 to 70 lbs with a few trinkets!
The truth is that the V-Rod engine program with Porsche was started by Buell as the Revolution program to deliver an engine for them to broaden the sportbike line. Not to replace the air-cooled, but to appeal to the larger market. H-D shortly thereafter decided they needed to share the motor, and then decided they needed to take over the project.
Their needs were so far removed from those of a sportbike that Buell stepped out of the program as it evolved. The reason was that although the engine had become a cool cruiser motor, this meant it became heavily stylized, and was made large to look big in a big bike.
The feeling was that if Buell/H-D made a true water-cooled sportbike it couldn't compromise on the engine. If it did, the bike would be a disappointment and the V-Rod engine would be tarnished by that, even in the market where it works well. So bye bye to that program.
Regarding chassis weight, the XB Buell engine weighs about 175 lbs, and needs about 8 pounds of mounts and tie rods to install in the frame. So about 183 pounds. When you look at the weight of a Buell vs. competitors, and you know their engine weights as well, you find quickly that the Buell chassis is indeed very light. Unfortunately the V-Rod engine weight and it's size make for too big and too heavy a bike to be a sportbike, even in a Buell. Believe me, we know, there were complete running prototypes made in the different ever growing Revolution engine configurations. |
Pisymbol
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 08:53 pm: |
|
I KNEW IT!!!!!
Well that sucks. So the V-Rod engine is clearly out. Its a shame that HD pushed you guys out (I'm reading into your post a little Anonymous (Erik perhaps?) but it sounds like you guys really wanted this engine and HD took it from you).
I do find it very interesting that Buell started an engine program to replace and/or supplement the existing sportbike line. I think that's a good thing as I have stated, Buell needs to find a new engine platform going forward to stay competitive. |
Midknyte
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Buell needs to find a new engine platform going forward to stay competitive.
No, Buell needs to find a new engine platform to placate the masses... |
Eboos
| | Posted on Thursday, August 03, 2006 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Honestly thought, isn't that the same thing? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 09:45 am: |
|
Nope, it's not the same, Eboos. The customers who but A/C bikes buy them for their unique characteristics. So the engine wasn't needed to be competitive, as Buell has done well in the A/C market for years, but to branch out into another market.
And H-D didn't push us out as much as the market differences between customers did. The engine that H-D cruiser customers wanted was not a lean, technical motor, but a big, showy motor. And H-D was funding the project, and couldn't do both motors. Instead, the XB came out, the CityX, the Ulysses, so Buell went another route to bring in different customers. There are many types of customer needs; one bike doesn't do it all, nor does one engine. Luckily the A/C engine works in quite a few diffent bike styles. |
Pisymbol
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 09:56 am: |
|
I stand corrected! Okay Anonymous, but though I agree that an A/C motor attracts a certain customer base which Buell has historically catered too, don't you think that a more powerful L/C version with the same signature Buell package would appeal to even a wider audience? I mean 5-10 years down the line, I can't imagine you guys still using an A/C motor. I could be wrong but with stricter emissions and sound regulations, it doesn't seem feasible (and even if its technically feasible, it doesn't seem prudent). |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
The air cooled, hydraulic lifter, V twin engine was one of the major reasons I bought my XB9S.
I'm not a racer, I am not competing with anyone. The bike has more than enough power for me.
If tremendous horsepower was what I was after, I could have bought a bike at a much lower price.
Since 2003, when I bought mine, Buell has made improvements to the engine and transmission.
It's now an even better package.
I, for one, am happy they are staying with the basic engine. |
Eboos
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
I was not trying to say "replace" the a/c motors, but to add l/c to the line up. |
Old_man
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 10:38 am: |
|
Eboos,
I'm sure that nobody would object to Buell adding other models with a l/cV2 or I/4 or V4 or whatever to their line-up.
But I would still prefer the current engine design.
Jack |
Kenb
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Thanks for your time Anonymous !!
Very interesting piece of history, I never new the whole story of the vr engine development. I also never knew what a big girl the vr motor is, your talking 65-75 lbs heavier than a sv or rc engine. What is a testament to Buells engineering is the fact that using the XL based engine which is 30-40 lbs heavier than an sv or rc mill you end up with a bike that is 23-25 lbs lighter(xb12r vs xb12ss numbers) than the other twins I mentioned. Hmmm, how to shave another 10-15 lbs off the XB mill ? porkchop crank ? stacked transmission ? gear primary drive ? one piece head rocker box assembly ? all things I'm sure Buell engineers work on every day, very exciting. Makes me wonder what the xb12rr mill weighs ? Which leads me to one more thought are the advantages of a twin over an IL4 now a thing of the past as far as weight goes ? the rc and sv are 30 lbs heavier than an R1. I'll stand corrected on the vr motor is way too heavy is lame statement, I've never really given the VRs much of a look. I'll have to study one more the next time I see one. |
Kootenay
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 01:23 pm: |
|
gear primary drive?
Now, that's one design change I'd like to see made, although it would probably add weight. I quite like the belt final drive, but it seems I've gained freedom from final drive adjustment at the cost of primary drive adjustment... |
Whodom
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 01:34 pm: |
|
...I've gained freedom from final drive adjustment at the cost of primary drive adjustment...
Didn't HD's big twins get self-adjusting primaries last year? Maybe that'll carry over to Sportys and Buells eventually. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 03:02 pm: |
|
I think I have a picture somewhere of a woman holding an XB frame with one or two fingers. She didn't look too strained.
With the difference in engine weights and package weights between a modern sportbike (I think I used an '04 R1) I think I came up with the XB rolling chassis being ~50lbs lighter than the rolling chassis of an '04 R1. Can't wait for an engine that's ~50lbs lighter  . We won't even need as much HP . |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 05:15 pm: |
|
quote:The truth is that the V-Rod engine program with Porsche was started by Buell as the Revolution program to deliver an engine for them to broaden the sportbike line. Not to replace the air-cooled, but to appeal to the larger market. H-D shortly thereafter decided they needed to share the motor, and then decided they needed to take over the project.
That's a dead accurate statement. |
Indy_bueller
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 05:54 pm: |
|
Thanks Anony, for filling us in on that story. I'm cutting and pasting like a mad little Bueller here....good info to keep. |
Isham
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 06:06 pm: |
|
Could extra power be made by adding some sorta of DOHC? Are there air cooled DOHC engines? |
M1combat
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 06:27 pm: |
|
There are air cooled DOHCs but our rev limit isn't hampered by the valve train until I think a bit above 9K. Our limitation is bottom end strength and piston speed (friction) as far as I know.
If I'm wrong I would love to be corrected.
(Message edited by m1combat on August 04, 2006) |
Mb182
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 06:33 pm: |
|
Yes, Victory's are AC overhead cam motors.. But that makes the motor much taller.. need clearance to mount and run the cam gears/chaines.
I would rather see OH cam multivalves on a compact AC motor than LC and have to add a radiator, pump, fans, thermostat etc.. (I know, we are all big fan fans already )
MB |
Grimel
| | Posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 - 08:21 pm: |
|
DOHC AC engines have been around a long time. Honda CB750.
The V-4 will give up some low end torque. The problem is NOT power/hp. The problem is people don't know how to ride so they rely on HP to make up speed. |
Kootenay
| | Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 12:55 am: |
|
My 1982 Yamaha has an air-cooled DOHC engine.
When you think about it, the Buell engine is DUHC (dual underhead cam... ) |
Diablobrian
| | Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 02:14 am: |
|
Actually QUHC (Quad Under Head Cam) |
Whosyodaddy
| | Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 02:25 pm: |
|
Didn't HD's big twins get self-adjusting primaries last year? Maybe that'll carry over to Sportys and Buells eventually.
The '06 Dynas did get the mechanical self-adjusting primaries. The rest of the Harley line got it for '07. |
Dbird29
| | Posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006 - 02:40 pm: |
|
Is that reason for the reinforcement of the primary adjuster mount on the '07 Buells? Auto adjusters next year? |
|
