| Author |
Message |
    
Trojan
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 05:57 am: | 
|
Handle properly? That's why the Buell won Bike magazine's 50 bike shootout for the best handling production motorcycle on the road right?
That quote from Bike magazine has been done to death now, and has been taken out of context on a number of occasions. Plenty of other magazines have also tested the Buell and have not come to the same conclusion as Bike did. If you are familiar with Bike magazine you will know that it isn't exactly a sports/performance publication. Their handling test was carried out in very artificial conditions and certainly not on real roads at all.
Buell have used that one article to publicise their bikes but have ignored all the other articles that complain about bad build quality, brakes that fade too quickly, lack of power and all the other complaints that arise time and again in road tests.
Yes the XB handles well, but it doesn't handle US$4000 better than an SV that's for sure. |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 06:53 am: |
|
As I recall, the title wasn't "Best Handling Bike" it was "Best TURNING Bike." Not exactly the same thing. And I recall thinking it was rather strange that the Lightning, which is identical to the Firebolt except for body work, scored several places LOWER. Obviously a very subjective test (but the authors stated that at the beginning of the article). |
12r
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 08:22 am: |
|
One thing that has become very clear to me during my time on this board is the marked differences in opinion between Buellers on either side of the Atlantic.
I agree 100% with what Matt says, it seems so obvious I don't know why there's any debate. And yet it's clear from the comments Stateside that the feeling is very different.
If we were all the same the world would be a dull place, but let's accept that the motorcycling scene in England is different to that in the USA and what works for you doesn't work for us.
The XB was hot poop in 2003/2004 but now it is very tired and doesn't compare well against the huge choice of motorcycles in our market. The worthwhile innovations have been plagiarised and a Saturday morning stroll around our multi-franchise outlets proves this.
The handling has been done to death.
The real-world power delivery has been done to death.
The fuel-in-the-frame/perimeter-brake/oil-tank-swingar m is yesterday's news.
Let's move on and set the biking world on fire. |
12r
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 08:29 am: |
|
BTW Jaime, the Lightning placed lower than the Firebolt because of its lower pegs and higher bars, which somehow rendered it much less 'chuckable'.
The magazine also factored in the consequences of a crash, which immediately consigned all exotica to the 'also-ran' category  |
Sik_s
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:23 am: |
|
Posted by Jaimec
"As I recall, the title wasn't "Best Handling Bike" it was "Best TURNING Bike." Not exactly the same thing. And I recall thinking it was rather strange that the Lightning, which is identical to the Firebolt except for body work, scored several places LOWER. Obviously a very subjective test (but the authors stated that at the beginning of the article)."
It was "Best CORNERING Bike" |
Cgocifer
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:24 am: |
|
To each his own. After having numerous Japanese crotch rockets, my XB12S is one of the funnest, best handling, most economic, stylish bikes I've owned. Until something comes along that totally blows my socks off (besides the too expensive for me 1098), I'll stick with the "old" XB. It was and is a milestone bike for Buell and still has enough looks, character, and curiosities to turn heads of more than a few people. That's more than I can say for the hundreds of cookie cutter bikes out there. "Oooh, did you see that blue and white GSXR go by?" hey if you nay sayers are so down on the Buell, go get a new bike. You know, just because a bike doesn't have the newest tech, the freshest equipment, or the highest performance specs, doesn't mean it should be put out to pasture. Look at the MV Agusta F4. Some updates, but still the same old bike after many years. Oh, and that one costs like 20 grand. |
Altima02
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:03 am: |
|
I passed one yesterday, we kinda checked out each other's bike. I wonder if he was as jealous as I was? |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:10 am: |
|
Matt,
Geez. I guess you missed the articles in Motorad and Performance Bikes that lauded the Buell XBs for their superior handling and build quality. There are plenty of others. I've not seen any articles slagging the XBs for poor build quality. I don't read many moto rags though.
I've not seen any SV650 win a national level race in a 600cc supersports class. The XB9 did so right out of the box way back in 2002. It did it on a tight handling track at Loudon, New Hampshire.
Buck up mate? |
Trojan
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:47 am: |
|
Matt,
Geez. I guess you missed the articles in Motorad and Performance Bikes that lauded the Buell XBs for their superior handling and build quality. There are plenty of others. I've not seen any articles slagging the XBs for poor build quality. I don't read many moto rags though.
I've not seen any SV650 win a national level race in a 600cc supersports class. The XB9 did so right out of the box way back in 2002. It did it on a tight handling track at Loudon, New Hampshire.
Buck up mate?
Blake, I was actually at the test that Performance bikes did last year on the XB12R at Bruntingthorpe, and witnessed the brakes fail after 3 laps and the rear suspension adjusters seized solid. This was on a bike supplied by H-D UK specifically for the magazine to test so there was no excuse (It also had a rusty exhaust, but that comes as standard). They were less than complimentary about the build quality, performance and handling. Other magazines have echoed these sentiments, but they just don't get quotred like the infamous Bike article that is trotted out on every occasion.
The SV has not won any national level 600 Supersports races because it isn't allowed in that class. It has however won more than a few UK and US Thunderbike races, beating a few well prepared XB's along the way (including ours and Hal's) in the hands of Ed Keys (US) and Rob Wittey (UK). SV's win club races around the world every week, and for every XB victory there are hundreds of club level SV winners. I'm not suggesting that the SV is a perfect bike, but I just used it as anexample of a bike that provides everything that most people could want at a fraction of the cost of an XB.
I am not saying that the XB is a bad bike at all. Jeez I have owned 5 of them so I should know a little about them. What I am saying is that the XB is now outdated and expensive compared to the newer, faster opposition in the same class. The Buell doesn't even get included in magazine group tests of either naked bikes or sports V-twins over here any more, so that should be ringing alarm bells somewhere in Buell Towers.
Now we have the Ducati Hypermotard entering the same market as the XB12TT, and priced within £500 of it. The Ducati is positively dripping with expensive components, exotic parts and top notch build quality, plus of course it has a desirable tank badge. Just compare the pictures and initial launch reports of the Hypermotard to the XBTT, and you'll see that the Buell doesn't exactly cover itself in glory. I wouldn't buy a Hypermotard myself, but plenty will, and they are the customers that Buell needs to attract rather than watch them wander into other dealerships and ride off on competitors bikes.
Unfortunately I fear that it is the factory that need to buck up, and unless Buell have an urgent update it will quickly become a very minor player once more, certainly here in Europe. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 09:14 am: |
|
And I'm not sure that all the Buell XB owners in Europe and elsewhere are going to be convinced that they threw money away in purchasing their motorcycles. Fact is that even now after being on the market for five years, the Buell XB platform remains the most innovative motorcycle with the most advanced chassis and front brake/wheel system that is available to the average income sports bike enthusiasts. The Buell XBs are also among the best quality machines on the road today.
In my view, one would do just as well comparing a Hyundai to a Corvette or Jaguar as compare an SV650 to an XB12.
If one wants a good cheap bike, one just like so many others, one that competes in the small change market, then the SV650 is one very competitive way to go. It seems obvious to me that Buell does not currently look to compete in that bargain basement market.
However, if one wants something unique, something innovative, something unlike anything else on the market, something with a visceral character, something "different in every sense" that also offers a lot of very attractive features and excellent performance, the Buell is one very competitive way to go.
Two very different markets for two very different types of customers.
I'd never slag a Jaguar or a BMW for costing so much more than a Hyundai.
What do your dynamometers report for a stock SV650?
As far as hard performance data go, even with its significantly shorter wheelbase, the XB12 is superior to any SV650 in any acceleration contest. The XB9 is faster as well.
Corrected Quater-Mile & Dynamometer Performance & Wet Weight
| Bike | ET | Speed | HP | Torque | Weight | | 2004 XB12S | 11.4 s | 118 MPH | 92.2 HP | 71.9 FT*LB | 462 LB | | 2003 XB9R | 11.7 s | 114 MPH | 78.2 HP | 61.8 FT*LB | 455 LB | | 2004 SV650 | 11.9 s | 110 MPH | 73.5 HP | 47.1 FR*LB | 429 LB |
The above are taken from the Motorcyclist Magazine performance listings.
I've not seen any dyno chart comparison for a stock SV650 that showed it having more power than an XB9 or anywhere near that of an XB12.
The ones I've seen all resemble the following:
Buell XB9 VS SV650 |
Trojan
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:03 am: |
|
Blake, this has gone off at a complete tangent, and you can quote all the 1/4 mile times etc that you want it still doesn't change what I said originally.
The XB has SIMILAR performance to the SV 650, which costs a considerable amount less to buy, run, insure and tune. Look at the top speed figures for an SV650 against an XB12R and they will not be very far apart. I could have chosen any number of other bikes with similar performance that cost less than the XB, but chose the SV because it is a V Twin and is extremely popular. It may be a budget bike, but with the $4000 saved you could buy a lot of tuning parts
What I was getting at originally was that the 5 year old Buell XB package now finds it hard to compete on performance or spec with bikes costing around the same, but if you compare it against bikes with similar performance then it loses out on price.
the Buell XB platform remains the most innovative motorcycle with the most advanced chassis and front brake/wheel system that is available to the average income sports bike enthusiasts. The Buell XBs are also among the best quality machines on the road today.
Whilst I agree that the chassis was innovative 5 years ago, it is not now.
Innovation moves on, or we would all still be saying that the drum brake is innovative.
There are plenty of bikes out there now that will handle/corner/turn just as well as an XB and then disapear in a cloud of dust as soon as the road straightens out. I won't get into the brake discussion again because you know my thoughts on the matter. Suffice to say I would choose a good twin disc radial setup and put up with the little extra weight, and every other motorcycle manufacturer seems to agree.
I want to see Buell release a bike that can compete on both price and performance with the very best sports bikes in the world, period. If the bike costs £8000 then it should be comparable to every other £8000 bike on the market in both performance and spec.
I don't want gimmicks or corporate B***it, just quality components, top notch build quality and a bike that can stand it's corner against anything else in the world. At the moment I don't think the current XB can do that anymore, regardless of how many makeovers it gets. |
12r
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:05 am: |
|
From the UK p-o-v, no-one is slagging anything. I'm a Buell fan and I want to see Buell go from strength to strength, not rest on the laurels of a bike that is four years old.
An SV650 offers similar performance to an XB, and for the difference in price the SV could be made one helluva lot better. But the real issue is that the XB's price pitches it in with finest confections from Europe and in this company it looks distinctly second-rate. The biking world has moved on but Buell is stuck in 2003.
The XB was innovative four years ago but not any more. And as for quality, all I can say is that English XBs must be different to the USA XBs. |
12r
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:07 am: |
|
I guess we posted at the same time lol |
Trojan
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:03 am: |
|
hear hear  |
Spike
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:19 am: |
|
quote:If the bike costs £8000 then it should be comparable to every other £8000 bike on the market in both performance and spec.
By that standard, everything other than a Japanese I4 loses. Nothing touches them in the sheer price/performance category.
Fortunately, the rest of the world doesn't determine the value of bikes on the price/performance ratio alone. Even hardcore guys who pick the latest-and-greatest as their track weapon of choice acknowledge that the price/performance ratio is a poor indicator of a good street bike. Street riders choose their bikes based on ergonomics/comfort, tractability, ease of maintenance, overall usability, fun factor, and the ever subjective "character." It is in these areas where the XB really shines.
As for innovation, I agree that the XB is still resting on its laurels from 2003. However, what new innovation are we seeing from the big 4? We could look at the market as a whole and cite slipper clutches, steering dampers, and adjustable mapping switches, but none of these are new and it would be false to claim that these are now standard. The least innovative of the few, the steering damper, is the only one that is really becoming common, with the slipper clutch still only showing up on a few select models. The adjustable mapping is currently only available on one model and it just showed up in the past month. Consider the 2003 CBR600RR. Although it was a ground-up redesign, it brought nothing to the market that wasn't already here. Now consider the 2007 CBR600RR. Although it has been changed and improved in almost every way, it still brings nothing new to the market. On top of that, it brings no innovations that weren't available on the '03 model, aside from the HESD. Even more interesting is that while the CBR600RR has steadily increased in price from 2003, the XB has continually decreased in price from 2003. |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:51 am: |
|
>>>Whilst I agree that the chassis was innovative 5 years ago, it is not now.
Frankly, that's an inaccurate statement.
If I adopted that mindset, Ducati should have trashed the long dated trellis frame years ago.
There are a host of excellent chassis designs out there. We've pretty much been spared some of the wiggle wagons of the past.
Buell, as a result of their association with Harley-Davidson, gets a lot of unwarranted "outdated technology" comments.
The Buell frame is a gifted piece of engineering. It was when conceived and patented in 1986 and it was when it was finally built in 2002.
There are a lot of good frames. There are none better than the Buell.
Court |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:57 pm: |
|
The Buell frame is very rigid, and indeed that is part of Erik's "Trilogy of Tech." However, the rest of the market is learning that a rigid frame is not necessarily the end-all and be-all of handling performance and that explains why everybody else is exploring "tuned flex" frames.
Even the best motorcycle suspensions most efficiently absorb road shocks when the bike is 90 degrees from vertical, but the farther from vertical the bike goes (cornering), the less efficient the forks and shocks work. That's where "tuned flex" comes into play, and it means MORE on public roads than on perfectly surfaced race tracks.
So yes... Buell IS behind the curve on frame technology. Time marches on (unfortunately). I love my Lightning, but I'm not blind to its shortcomings either. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 01:11 pm: |
|
The Buell frame is very rigid, and indeed that is part of Erik's "Trilogy of Tech." However, the rest of the market is learning that a rigid frame is not necessarily the end-all and be-all of handling performance and that explains why everybody else is exploring "tuned flex" frames.
Even the best motorcycle suspensions most efficiently absorb road shocks when the bike is 90 degrees from vertical, but the farther from vertical the bike goes (cornering), the less efficient the forks and shocks work. That's where "tuned flex" comes into play, and it means MORE on public roads than on perfectly surfaced race tracks.
Erik hasn't wanted to talk about it until recently for fear of giving away unique technology, but Buell frames were designed for different stiffnesses in different planes for a very long time, from before when you heard any talk about this in motorcycle magazines. |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 01:38 pm: |
|
>>>>Buell IS behind the curve on frame technology.
That's a patently (pardon the pun) inaccurate statement.
Tell us about the engineering shortcomings of your Buell frame and give us some details of who does it better and why.
Buell is much deeper into this frame design and analysis than perhaps some folks are aware. It's not simply welding some stuff together to create a handy and easy place to suspend the motor.
In fact, if you want to honk the old grunulator . . take a close look at that fabulous single member that snakes from one side of the S-1 frame to the other.
You suppose Buell decided to yield the higher "looks good" frame ground to Ducati and their trellis frame? Or. . . just suppose for a moment that at about the same time the book was (literally) written on Finite Element Analysis (you'll find it in your finer universities) by a Buell Engineer the changes were entirely driven my cosmetics.
When was the last time you saw Erik Buell do anything (including his own cheesy shoes that he wore with the hole in the side for 4 years) for the sake of cosmetics?
There is. . . I suspect. . . more to this than meets the eye of the idle net chatterees.
There are some amazing frames currently in production, more on the way. The rising tide of technology and manufacturing has carried all boats. The frame Erik envisioned in 1986 was incapable of being built, neither the manufacturing technology or material existed, at the time he invented it . . . visionaries are like that.
In addition, the ability to gather data far more sophisticated than "feels fine by me" has expanded dramatically. I think I need to think about taking someone on a virtual tour of product development . . the old days are gone. There's as much left to chance and luck as there is when Aaron goes to Bonneville.
Please note. . I've not implied that the Buell frame was the "best". . Erik has no franchise on keen engineering.
I will emphatically say . . "There are no better".
Court |
Diablobrian
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 02:01 pm: |
|
I think I remember a comment about the fuel (and the oil in the swingarm) helping to tune
and dampen flex in the chassis.
The XBs are far from carved from billet. The tuned flex chassis are done by connecting
cast and billet pieces with stampings and extrusions. Sound familiar? Anyone else wonder
if there is more to the Uly/SS/STT/RR frame stampings change than just a marginal fuel
volume increase? How about the new swingarm?
hmmmmmmm Do I see a trend? Maybe continued revision and innovation?
For those wanting a new revolution....I'd say that the 2008 model year (25th anniversary model)
is going to be released in July, but that's purely a guess on my part.
FWIW the sv that Ed Key is racing is as far from stock as you can get and still call it an SV.
The man is unbelievably fast on anything he throws a leg over, make no mistake, but his bike is
to a stock SV650 what Bilanski's current thunder bike is to a stock XB9R. It uses the same
frame, the same engine cases, and is the same (general) shape as the stock bike.
(Message edited by diablobrian on May 10, 2007) |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 03:59 pm: |
|
I think Buell has been milking the XB platform for all it's worth but that just means in addition to building cool bikes they also know how to run a business.
Some of you make it sound as though Buell will never come out with another entirely new bike ever again. Patience people !!! Buell is in it for the long haul.
Build quality, seizing brakes?...first I've heard of this. Some of you may recall these folks from last year http://enlazandoamerica.com.ar/index.html who purchased Buells in Maryland and drove them across country ending their journey in Argentina. Over 13,000 miles and no mechanical issues....basic maintenance |
Spike
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 04:01 pm: |
|
quote:For those wanting a new revolution....I'd say that the 2008 model year (25th anniversary model)
is going to be released in July.
I usually try not to get too involved in the "next year" rumors, but '08 has received enough comments from the "right" people to have my attention. As of today I would tell you I don't have new bike money, but if in mid-July you suddenly see a bunch of my toys show up in the classifieds you'll know why. |
Kowpow225
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 04:36 pm: |
|
"Oooh, did you see that blue and white GSXR go by?"
Laughing inside. Great quote. Where'd you get it? |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 07:07 pm: |
|
Matt,
I'm at a loss as to how the XB12R, a bike with 25% more HP that is half second quicker in the quarter mile, can be characterized as having "similar" performance. The XB9R I can give you, but no way the 12. Additionally, the top speed of the XB12 bikes is limited by gear ratio and rev limit, not engine performance. I doubt that is the case with the SV650.
You also are most likely comparing sticker prices where the Buells often sell for a discount, while the SV650 goes for the tag number, yes?
The dollar is supposed to be weaker, so it seems like the bikes should be less expensive.
But my friend, isn't the bottom line that if the Buells are selling, your argument is pretty silly? In the end, it is the consumers who set the price, yes?
You should ask Jeremy McWilliams about how his Buell XBRR's ZTL brake performed. Or maybe talk to the top season finishers in ASRA Thunderbike. Your experience notwithstanding, there is just way too much evidence showing the serious benefits of the innovative, revolutionary really, ZTL concept. And rest assured that if other sport biker manufacturers could produce the ZTL, they surely would. I'm reminded for instance of Honda's clumsy implementation of a perimeter disk on the front of one of their fantastical prototype models a few years back. They want it; they want it badly, but Buell owns the patent because Buell was the first to integrate wheel and brake and also implement the disk in a floating configuration.
If you knew physics like I know physics, you'd likely be a lot more enthusiastic about loosing pounds of mass from the front wheel/brake assembly of a road-going sport bike.
Oh and there is more good news! We may now purchase the 8-pot ZTL race caliper for our own XBuells.
Buck up mate. Don't you sell stuff for Buell motorcycles or something like that?
Even more good news, Sparky seems to think there may be some interesting developments coming from Buell for the 2008 model year.
Are you ready to tool up and hit a new market running? |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 08:18 pm: |
|
Erik hasn't wanted to talk about it until recently for fear of giving away unique technology, but Buell frames were designed for different stiffnesses in different planes for a very long time, from before when you heard any talk about this in motorcycle magazines.
Easy to say in hindsight.
It's worthy of note that magazines are talking about frame stiffness in recent times because of Rossi's involvement with developing the seemingly ill handling first generation Yamaha 990cc M1 Moto GP bike.
I seriously doubt there has been a production frame yet manufactured for a production sports bike, particularly a Japanese one, that has been modified for the next generation model with the intent of 'dialling' out frame stiffness. Manufacturing and production costs / methods are closer to any truths. The 'stiffness' thing is just manufacturers 'spin' used to associate the potential purchasers importance given towards connecting his choice bike to its distant cousin GP racer. Such leads me to wonder, if there were any significant differences in the way Buell built in stiffness to the XB frame, then why not spin it up for themselves? Answer - because there isn't any. The XB frame holds no hidden magic, and I have challenged such claims on BadWeB months ago, only to be met sometime into such debating (as usual) with silence.
Ducati should have trashed the long dated trellis frame years ago.
Trellis framework is not one singular design. Trellis simply explains the way tubing is used - in Ducati's case, to make up many different frames.
Tell us about the engineering shortcomings of your Buell frame and give us some details of who does it better and why.
The simple answer is, for Buell it works great, but would it ever work for an IL 4 motor? I think that would be an engineering shortcoming if you wanted to go looking for one.
Is a Buell frame better than a 1200 Bandit frame? Depends in what way we ask the question, but with Buell only ever willing to tell us his design is superior to all before it because of some hidden magic, we'll never really be able to judge nor question the relevance of the Buell design. On the other hand, most other manufacturers are very open about how, for example, they change or develop or whatever, their frame designs. Only Buell claims his frame is so secret in its design in making such a short wheelbase steep raked steering geometry work, that he feels the need to hide such. This seems strange considering whatever alleged magic is going on is virtually useless to any other manufacturer given no one else builds a motorcycle like a Buell. Not even remotely so.
take a close look at that fabulous single member that snakes from one side of the S-1 frame to the other.
Oh but that's a whole different bag of snakes to an XB frame.
The S1 frame is a stunning thing to look at, but it has its shortcomings. It's sometimes reported as twitchy, particularly with lightweight riders , necessitating steering damper fitment. Steering head bearings take a pounding. Rear isolators cause issues when worn. Tie bar adjustment is factory set and otherwise complicated. Front head mounting bolt failure is perhaps an issue of engine to frame mounting design complication. Curiously Buell didn't fit an additional tube on the left side, which has become an accepted norm for many owners to retro fit, be it by welding in a tube or using an aftermarket brace. I often wonder why Buell have remained tight lipped about why or why not that tube is or isn't there.
You suppose Buell decided to yield the higher "looks good" frame ground to Ducati and their trellis frame?
This and your comment about Mr Buell's worn shoes is suggesting Ducati trellis frames are of cosmetic importance? That's just dumb. I suppose the same was true of the 'birdcage' Maserati?
There is. . . I suspect. . . more to this than meets the eye of the idle net chatterees.
Then bring the facts surrounding the XB frame design to the table rather than attempt to ridicule those wanting explanation of the XB frames alleged magic.
There are some amazing frames currently in production, more on the way. The rising tide of technology and manufacturing has carried all boats. The frame Erik envisioned in 1986 was incapable of being built, neither the manufacturing technology or material existed, at the time he invented it . . . visionaries are like that.
Great save - nearly, but that is an inaccurate statement. Take a look at the CHASSIS from a Lotus Elise S1 - its envision born about the same time you claim for Buell's frame.
Then I'm reminded of Nikko Bakker (still designing and building frames) and Fritz Egli, and wonder how they managed to build motorcycle frames in 'the old days', risking much left to chance and luck (apparently). Yet they proved they worked, often on the race tracks of the world, without the aid of Finite Element Analysis and Windows XP.
Ah, the 'old days' were the best. Frame flex back then would have been dialled out by ones right wrist!
Rocket |
Trojan
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 04:51 am: |
|
If I adopted that mindset, Ducati should have trashed the long dated trellis frame years ago.
I never said the Buell frame wasn't clever, that it it didn't work, or that it wasn't innovative when it was introduced. My point was that innovation is a transient thing, and that what is innovative this year is next years standard part.
I'm at a loss as to how the XB12R, a bike with 25% more HP that is half second quicker in the quarter mile, can be characterized as having "similar" performance. The XB9R I can give you, but no way the 12. Additionally, the top speed of the XB12 bikes is limited by gear ratio and rev limit, not engine performance. I doubt that is the case with the SV650.
You also are most likely comparing sticker prices where the Buells often sell for a discount, while the SV650 goes for the tag number, yes?
Quarter mile figures are misleading, as you are probably aware, and have very little to do with real world motorcycling performance. The XB does very well in the 1/4 mile tests because it has loads of torque and gains at the bottom end. What are the comparative top speeds of the SV650 and XB12R compared to comparative retail price? I have never said that the XB is not a good bike, I just think that it is now dated in comparison with the opposition and needs an update to justify the price. I am also not on a DSV650 crusade here either, but use that bike just as an example.
You would be in for a real shock if you were to look at bike prices in the uK Blake. Buells are seldom discounted (unless tye are trying to unload last years models), whereas most of the Jap bikes can be bought at big discounts and attractive deals. The relative strength/weakness of the dollar has never affected Buell prices here, so I can only assume that that the weak dollar just means more profit for H-D/Buell UK. Buell sales in the UK last year were poor, although I am sure that the mothership will deny that of course, and without a model range update soon the brand will not continue to expand in the way it has done in previous years.
You should ask Jeremy McWilliams about how his Buell XBRR's ZTL brake performed. Or maybe talk to the top season finishers in ASRA Thunderbike. Your experience notwithstanding, there is just way too much evidence showing the serious benefits of the innovative, revolutionary really, ZTL concept. And rest assured that if other sport biker manufacturers could produce the ZTL, they surely would. I'm reminded for instance of Honda's clumsy implementation of a perimeter disk on the front of one of their fantastical prototype models a few years back. They want it; they want it badly, but Buell owns the patent because Buell was the first to integrate wheel and brake and also implement the disk in a floating configuration.
The brake that JW used is not the same one that we all get on our road bikes, so the comparison does not hold water. You may as well compare the works Ducati front brakes to that of a 900 Monster. They are both Brembo and both twin discs, so they must be the same? If the stock 6 piston ZTL caliper was great, the 8 piston ZTL caliper would be unecessary wouldn't it?
You also forget that, having run 2 Buell race bikes, I tried very hard to get the ZTL brake to work well on the track for a whole season before switching to twin discs but could not get it to perform as well as a conventional setup. When you are literally running out of brakes in 3 laps every weekend because of overheating it was Hobson's choice really.
There have been a few other versions of perimeter brakes over the years, all originally designed to offer the same benefits of reduced weight as the Buell brake. Braking had a twin perimeter setup available to fit the M2/S1/X1 a few years ago and Ten Kate tested in in WSB for a while. These are still fitted as standard to Ghezzi & Brian Furia. The technology is not new but the way it has been implemented by Buell is. If the system offered significant advantages over traditional brakes then the other manufacturers would get around the patent issue in a moment, either by licensing or just blatant copying. Just about every other worthwhile technological advancement has been copied if it makes sense.
Buck up mate. Don't you sell stuff for Buell motorcycles or something like that?
Exactly! Which is why I talk to Buell owners all day every day, why I hear their moans and dislikes as well as their likes, and why I think I am qualified to offer an educated opinion about Buell motorcycles. Of course I want Buell to sell more bikes. That way we sell more products. However I am also a motorcycle enthusiast and am not blinkered to what the rest of the industry is doing and how that relates to Buell. I have said this before, but it bears repeating, I am passionate about Buell motorcycles (more than the official importer it seems), and have owned no other bike since 1997 (when Buells came as standard with stainless steel mufflers!). It pains me to hear other people slagging Buells off for no reason, and I have defended and supported the brand to the hilt for years. However I do now feel that some of the criticisms are justified and find it hard to defend things like a mild steel rusty silencer on a new motorcycle costing £8000+ when the opposition has moved up a gear. I would rather see Buell more expensive but with quality components than let down by just a few cheap parts.
If that makes me as popular as a Taliban at a Texas bible reading then so be it  |
Mark_in_ireland
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 07:15 am: |
|
Another brilliant post by Trojan, keep them coming. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 03:40 pm: |
|
Matt,
So dyno performance and now quarter-mile times are not fair measures of real-world performance? I think drag racing is about as real-world as you get with performance evaluations.
You make a point to note the advantage in running a quarter-mile offered by the lower revving power band of the Buell, but you neglect to recognize the significant disadvantage in a quarter-mile run of the Buell's much shorter (by 4.5 inches!) wheelbase.
And these are not rank amateurs taking the bikes down the track; the Motorcyclist testers surely know well how to optimally launch a bike and feather the clutch for best quarter-mile performance. These are the same folks who also test 600cc repli-racers. So I doubt that the power-band characteristics came into play in their testing except possibly for leaving the SV's clutch abused and beaten.
Maybe top gear roll-on performance is more to your liking?
Quater-Mile, Dyno HP & Torque, Wet Wt. & 60-80 MPH Top Gear Times
| Bike | ET | Speed | HP | Torque | Weight | 60-80 MPH | Wheelbase | | 2004 XB12S | 11.4 s | 118 MPH | 92.2 HP | 71.9 FT*LB | 462 LB | 3.85 s | 52.0" | | 2003 XB9R | 11.7 s | 114 MPH | 78.2 HP | 61.8 FT*LB | 455 LB | 4.73 s | 52.0" | | 2004 SV650 | 11.9 s | 110 MPH | 73.5 HP | 47.1 FR*LB | 429 LB | *4.44 s | 56.5" |
* The 2003 SV650S 60-80 MPH roll-on performance was 5.61 s, quarte-mile performance was 12.5 s @ 105 MPH; A difference in final drive ratio significantly improves acceleration performance for the unfaired versus the windscreened "S" model.
The above information is taken from the Motorcyclist Magazine performance listings.
The SV offers no damping adjustability in its suspension which utilizes only the most basic conventional damping pot forks and rear shock.
The XB offers full damping adjustability front and rear, inverted cartridge-style front forks, and a remote reservoired rear shock.
How much would it cost to purchase a new suspension comparable to the XB's for the SV and have a competent shop perform the upgrade/installation?
Don't ya just love the el-cheapo exposed spot-welded seam skirting the sides of the SV's steel fuel tank? puke
Let's compare chassis further, let's look at the frames...
Buell Frame and Swingarm
SV Frame
Note the cut rate el-cheapo open-section style of the SV frame. That cost optimized style of frame is highly sensitive to damage. It is much cheaper to manufacture. Structurally it is utterly inferior to a closed-section design like that of the Buell XBs and other higher quality sport bikes.
First you talk about real-world performance and poo-poo quarter mile as an indicator for that, then in the next breath want to compare top-speed performance?
From what I can find the SV650 tops out between 125 mph and 130 mph. The XB9 will reportedly do 135 mph. The XB12 bangs into the rev-limit right around 135 mph; it's top speed being limited by drive ratio, not power. I've personally measured via radar numerous passes by a stock XB12 running at 134 mph down the straight at Texas World Speedway. I asked Don Canet what the speedo was indicating at the time; he said he was too focused on the impending turn 1 to notice the speedometer.
If in the UK the Buells are selling for a high sticker price and the SVs are selling for below, well, doesn't that indicate that the consumer sees a heck of a lot more value in the XB than the SV?
Most any shmo can bolt a disk to a rim and call it a perimeter brake. Well the Buell ZTL system is about as close to that level of sophistication or the lack thereof as a supercomputer is to an abacus. The reason others couldn't/didn't get the perimeter brake to work is because they couldn't and/or if they could they missed recognizing the huge benefits in being able to utilize a significantly lighter front wheel.
Folks at Suzuki will invest hoards of money in order to lighten their the front wheel/brake systems of their repli-racers by mere onces, but you are unable to accept that removing pounds from the unsprung mass of a front wheel/brake assembly is not a huge innovation?
I dunno, maybe one needs to be trained as a mechanical engineer to see it. |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 05:05 pm: |
|
Blake, we all know you love Buells... we ALL do or we wouldn't be here. But you're missing the point! Matt is being KIND by comparing it to an SV650. The fact that such an inexpensive bike, made of such inexpensive components, can run neck and neck against the XB12 in club racing alone should tell you that the Buell is in need of an update.
He COULD have compared it to a YZF-R6 or a CBR600RR. Both of those bikes may have twice the number of cylinders but (at least here in the States) they are priced at or less than the XB12, and will absolutely STOMP the Buell in almost any performance category you'd care to try EXCEPT torque performance on the dyno.
I don't think either supersport could match the Buell in every day livability and practicality... but buying motorcycles very RARELY has anything to do with practical considerations (if it did I might be riding a Suzuki Burgmann, for example).
Of all of the opinions I've read here on BadWeb, Matt's seem to be the most strongly based on reality. He loves the bikes, he makes a living off of them, and he races them... but he's not blind to their faults either.
Believe it or not, I didn't buy my Buell because I think I'm a gnarly street fighter tearing up the canyons. For one thing, Long Island is rather deficient in canyons.
No, I bought the bike because I'd rather ride than fiddle, and the belt drive, two spark plugs and hydraulic valves go a long way of removing a lot of maintenance tedium. The rational riding position makes it easy to ride in bumper-to-bumper traffic and also makes it comfortable for the occasional all-day or weekend sport tour.
Yeah, I can do all of that (and far more cheaply) on the SV650, or the new Kawasaki 650 twin... but then I'd be messing with an oily chain again... and there is something cool about riding something people don't see every day. That, and I figure that, in a pinch, there are parts of this country where you can't throw a rock without hitting a Harley mechanic so if anything MIGHT go wrong on the road, I'd be covered.
But I'd STILL like to see a no-holds barred, no excuses, take-no-prisoners SUPERBIKE with the Buell name on it, dicing on Sundays with the Ducatis, Yamahas, Suzukis, Hondas and Kawasakis in the PREMIERE class... not one of the supporting classes. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels that way. |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 06:56 pm: |
|
But I'd STILL like to see a no-holds barred, no excuses, take-no-prisoners SUPERBIKE with the Buell name on it
And what do you think that would cost? 30k? So, in other words, some of you wouldn't mind paying high dollar for a superbike but don't want to pay 10k for a mediocre one. Fair enough but you can't have it all. Buells are made in America by non-union employees. I don't think they can be made much cheaper. Maybe, if they moved the factory to the border and hired illegals they could get the price down but beyond that what would you suggest? I don't think Buell is gouging us on the price. You must remember, Buells are a low production motorcycle built in America. |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 07:05 pm: |
|
I never said Buell was gouging us on price. If you look at my previous posts, you'll see I argue the Buell is priced rather FAIRLY compared to its competition.
Don't you just hate when people read just every other word and respond to what they THINK you said, rather than what you ACTUALLY said?? |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 09:15 pm: |
|
I wasn't responding to just YOU. Yes, I started with your quote but my commentary went beyond just your post. In hindsight, I should have formed my opinion more clearly. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:42 am: |
|
"Blake, we all know you love Buells..."
Then you and everyone who's mind you are apparently able to read are dead wrong. I do not love Buell motorcycles. Sure, I like Buell motorcycles. I like plenty of motorcycles. I totally dig the BMW R1200GS and the new Ducati Hypermotard. I'm a sucker for a Road King. I happen to own a Buell motorcycle. I'm not in love with it, never have been, never will be.
What I am and have been since I can remember is an enthusiast for the art and elegance of brilliant engineering. It's why I dig the Ducati desmo and the BMW telelever and the ZTL brake/wheel and other fantastically innovative, brilliantly implemented, beneficial engineering technology that abounds in modern motorcycles.
Where some folks see a common crank-pin configuration, they see old tech. When I see a common crank pin configuration that works and works well, I see elegant optimization of material (one crank pin doing the job of two) and the most elegant engineering solution for eliminating lateral imbalance in a two cylinder engine.
I'm an engineering purist. Simplicity and elegance rule; with all else being equal, the fewer parts, the less material the better.
If you can eliminate 6 pounds from the front wheel/brake assembly of a motorcycle while maintaining excellent performance, that is incredible! Buell did it.
The fact that I like Buell motorcycles is neither here nor there with respect to the veracity of the points I've made in this discusion. Not sure what your point is to bring me personally into the topic of discussion.
"The fact that such an inexpensive bike, made of such inexpensive components, can run neck and neck against the XB12 in club racing..."
That is pure baloney.
I've beaten GSXR1000s and Ducati 998s racing my Buell Cyclone. I would never have the gall to imply as a result that the Buell Cyclone "can run neck and neck against the GSXR1000s and Ducati 998s in club racing. That's just baloney. The same is true wrt the SV650 versus the XB12.
"He COULD have compared it to a YZF-R6 or a CBR600RR. Both of those bikes may have twice the number of cylinders but (at least here in the States) they are priced at or less than the XB12, and will absolutely STOMP the Buell in almost any performance category you'd care to try EXCEPT torque performance on the dyno. "
Baloney. If you'll investigate, then you'll find the 60-80 MPH top gear times to be comparable between the XB12 and the repli-racers you mention. There is certainly not any kind of a "STOMP" of the Buell going on in that very real-world performance category.
You are aware that handling is a major category of motorcycle performance, yes? How about fuel efficiency? I guess to some folks the only performance category of any significance is peak HP and top speed.
I think most folks considering the purchase of a Buell are much more astute and much more discerning motorcyclists than that.
But if all one cares about is peak HP and top speed type performance, then by all mean they should look elsewhere than a Buell XBike. If anyone imagines that with all else being equal an SV650 can keep up with an XB12 at the race track, they should seek reality counseling.
"there is something cool about riding something people don't see every day."
Exactly! And that coupled with superiour quality and significant, revolutionary even, innovation is worth more to the potential customer who is looking for just such a machine.
My take is that Matt is contending that the Buell XB12 costs too much on account of there are bikes being offered that provide comparable performance that cost less. I say baloney and I say that a LOT more than just performance determines the value of a motorcycle in the marketplace.
For instance...
1. Beneficial Innovation
2. Uniqueness
3. Engineering Artistry (looks)
4. Character (visceral in the case of Buell)
5. Simplicity
6. Sound (kinda goes with "Character" but is a major factor for some)
7. Maintainability, Serviceability, Warranty, etc, etc, ...
What's the warranty on an SV?
In all seven categories above, the Buell STOMPS most all comers in its class. Numbers 4 and 6 are subjective, so for those that is my own personal opinion.
"But I'd STILL like to see a no-holds barred, no excuses, take-no-prisoners SUPERBIKE with the Buell name on it, dicing on Sundays with the Ducatis, Yamahas, Suzukis, Hondas and Kawasakis in the PREMIERE class... not one of the supporting classes. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels that way."
Me too! But I darn sure won't be telling folks that it costs too much because it is priced well above the typical Japan Inc literbike repliracer du-jour that offers similar performance, ESPECIALLY if the performance of the Buell Superbike is in reality significantly superior.
Buell motorcycles are not anywhere near to being in the same el-cheapo cookie cutter bargain basement market as the Suzuki SV's.
I'm not sure how it could ever be considered a kindness to equate the value of a Buell XBike to that of an SV650. The whole idea seems utterly ludicrous to me.
The bottom line is that the market determines the price. |
Tleighbell
| | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Haven't been on the site for a while so I was surprise to see this thread still going. Lots of really great comments an viewpoints. I have to agree with most of them. The debate reminds me of the arguments between fans of the newer Japanese bikes and the old Triumphs and Nortons back in the 70's. People just like what they like and can find plenty of reasons to justify it. It is just easier to take support from objective criteria like reliability and performance. The subjective qualities, which is where the Buell excels in my opinion, are harder to explain. But if you can appreciate that magic that makes a Buell special, you won't want to switch, no matter how much you might envy the bells, whistles and numbers that so many of the others have.
I had an 04 SV 650 before my first Buell. Objectively it really was very close, especially when you consider price. It would be difficult to explain why it was just not in the same league as the Buell. You could point to the suspension which was clearly inferior but having ridden a full race SV on the track, there is more to it than that. It may come down to something like overall balance or integration which is why it is still cutting edge, despite the competition from single innovations and gadgets (frame flex, slipper clutch)which are nice but don't fundamentally change the overall dynamics and feel of the bike.
It is interesting to argue which bike is better, but there is no winner. The best bike is the one that gives you what you want. On the track that is the lowest lap times. On the street it is enjoyment. In that venue, at least to me, numbers are of little relevance. |
|
