| Author | Message | ||
     Reg_kittrelle |
...and (SOME folks) that buy overpriced Buell whineasaurs aren't worried about facts, all they want is to drape themselves in an aura of smugness. | ||
| Doug_s |
reg, you said: "Outperforms" might require a little more explanation. First, I was surprised that no one asked me to define that. I used that term specifically to generate a discussion. My bad. My criteria re motorcycle performance might be different than many of yours. It has nothing to do with racing from property line to property line in Kansas, nor stoplight to stoplight in L.A. It does, however, have everything to do with the complete package: reliability, handling, brakes, quick/fast, and ergonomics. this is exactly what i was referring to, when i was questioning how a new 1200 could outperform an old m2. better bike? give me a m2 over that new 1200 any day. the only areas that are lacking w/the m2, imo, are the suspension, and possibly the brakes. easy/relatively inexpensive to upgrade. but, i'd still take a stock m2 over the 1200. of course, i prefer my '95 s2, w/engine upgraded to the later 101hp/90ft-lbs spec, with race ecm/hedder/exhaust kit, to either the 1200 or the m2. 40k miles and counting, relatively reliable. (knock on wood). personally, i believe that the s1/s2/s3/x1 is a far more fair comparison to the top-spec'd hd 1200. compare the the m2 to a lesser 1200, or even the 883... doug s. | ||
| 007blast |
all i am saying is that this bike is a little late to the party. thats all. buell has already been there done that. it was the tube frame buell years. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
So why is it necessary to say it in a way that slams other riders? What "party?" 007? The implication is that once a company has done something, all others need not apply. The tube frame Buells were seminal motorcycles. The S1 some day will be recognized as a very significant bit of motorcycle history... which is why I own two of them. Be this as it may but, they were unfinished motorcycles that suffered a host of problems, and used a motor that was far too extended from its original intent. If it makes you feel better, feel free to tell me you believe I'm full of shit, but that won't change the facts. | ||
| 007blast |
reg i dont think your full of anything. you have your opinion, & i respect that. fact of the matter is there are a lot of "East Troy" in this bike (engine improvements)etc. its just really heavy, low on power & it weighs a ton! all the facts I need !  | ||
| Glitch |
If it makes you feel better, feel free to tell me you believe I'm full of shit, but that won't change There, fixed that for ya. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Yep, EZ, you're right. One of Harley's big failures is the absence of any recognition for the contributions that East Troy made to the Harley products. | ||
| 007blast |
oh... i almost forgot it cost alot too. | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Never send a Harley to do a Buell's job  | ||
| Buellkowski |
Where do Sportys carry their add'l 100 lbs. of weight (over a tuber), anyway? Can't all be in the frame and one extra shock, can it? | ||
| Court |
>>>I was ever able to see more than a true 120mph, mebbe 125 mph on a stock M2. If you do it's the result of speedometer error. . most likely about 7% on that bike. The internet is a changing place. Agree or disagree . . I listen to folks like Reg. Listening is a lost art. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I was simply trying to understand "outperform" as well, Reg. | ||
| Moxnix |
Buell was significant, both the man and his company, in our country's motorcycle history. What did Buell accomplish? It's in the book and the Bad Web archives. What Buell did not accomplish is up for discussion. Didn't change H-D's metabolism. Harley is in the Big Twin business and the Sportster business, but cuts its fattest profit margin hog on lifestyle clothing and chrome, no question. I'm pretty much in agreement with Reg and Trojan. Stopped into a couple of Harley emporiums last week to see how soft the prices are on 2009 XR1200s; think it might be softer just before or after the 2011 models hit the floor. Might just pull the trigger on one, same as finding my XLCR that had sat on the floor for 2 years, bought it at a decent discount. Erik Buell back to Harley? C'mon, the man is a genius. Wandell just knows the secret CEO club handshake and is at the helm of a company deeply in debt with a core market losing jobs. I really wouldn't want to be in the business these days. Maybe Harley is trying the old "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" theme with the XR1200. We'll see if it works. | ||
| Rick_a |
Correction in red Pretty much where they always have...all over. And also: Outperform=Prefer Fact=Opinion Ok, now we're gettin' somewhere. Reg, I really see what you're trying to say, but your indirectness really doesn't translate well in type. | ||
| Buelet |
Where do Sportys carry their add'l 100 lbs. of weight (over a tuber), anyway? Can't all be in the frame and one extra shock, can it? First thing that pops into my head is average rider weight over Buell rider - but there may be more to it than that.  } | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ahem. Not every Buell owner is scrawny.  | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Rick, So, help me out here, Rick. What am I "really" trying to say? There's no doubt that a lot of my "facts" are based upon opinion. The unfortunate aspect is that there's no way to confirm them, either way. What I have written is drawn from my experience with both motorcycles. And, no, outperform does not equate to preference. Given the option of either of those motorcycles ...I'd choose something else (and did) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
In the absence of the ability to confirm one over the other, aren't we left with having to base at least come of the comparison on spec sheets? Beyond the objective, isn't the rest subjective? | ||
| 007blast |
"Beyond the objective, isn't the rest subjective?" well said! | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Yes, FB, that would be the case. However, I was discussing real-world use, not spec sheets. Both the use and spec sheet issues are largely moot, given we're discussing two motorcycles 14 model years apart. But it is fun to joust over these things. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
The weight is from using a pigiron frame. It's a rubber mounted engine that is NOT used as a stressed member like the tubers. The frame not only has to keep the bike together but also hold the 1200cc lump from getting away. The old solid-mounted evo sportsters were about 100 pounds less. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But your real world admittedly is largely your subjective impressions. Couldn't someone else take an M2 and the XR out onto the same track and come up with different "real world" outcomes? I don't think the point of the debate was as a direct comparison of the two models but rather to marvel at how similar the two bikes were 14 years apart. Both are 45* air cooled Sportster engine based bikes. Both have 17" street tread. Both are belt driven. Now if we were comparing two IL4 bikes that were water cooled with 17" street tread and chain driven, would we not be amazed if the two were as close in spec sheet and performance envelope? Wouldn't we make one of two statements: 1) Wow, you'd think that in 14 years that the new bike would out perform a 14 year old bike by more of a margin. 2) Wow, given the performance envelope of the new bike, the 14 year old bike appears to be ahead of its time. I don't the "heat" of the discussion is as much about how bad the XR is but rather how ahead of the times the M2 was given the resources supplied in its creation. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
FB... "But your real world admittedly is largely your subjective impressions. Couldn't someone else take an M2 and the XR out onto the same track and come up with different "real world" outcomes? " Both these issues go back to my definition of "outperforms." Youse guyz keep putting words in my mouth. Then, when I challenge it ... no answer. Fer example; Where did I compare the two on the track? | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
...and very importantly... I would certainly agree that the M2 was "ahead of the times the M2 was given the resources supplied in its creation." | ||
| Firstbuell |
I'm one of those happy M2 riders, lotsa fun miles - perhaps the XR1200 really is the closest 2011 H-D to a tuber like mine doesn't matter - the XR's in no way 'the same thing' as my beloved M2 imagine what $10-12k could produce, using: [a] donor M2 [or S3] [b] XRX or XBRR forks + Penske shok [c] 88" or 90" 'built' motor now that would get my attention!! | ||
| Elvis |
If someone said to me that Car A or Bike A outperforms Car B or Bike B, I would infer (and obviously the use of the word infer implies some subjectivity) that they were reffering to higher speed (either in a straight line or on a track) and/or better handling and/or better braking. I think that would be the general convention. When a publication lists "performance numbers" they generally list 0-60, top speeds, roll-on acceleration, etc. If you buy parts at a "performance shop" you would generally be buying parts that allow your car or bike to go faster (you wouldn't likely be looking to make it more comfortable, more reliable, less costly etc. I think "performance" has a generally accepted definition in the world of vehicles . . . though obviously it is a broad term that could be applied in a number of different ways. . . . particularly in the hands of a highly skilled word-smith who wants to break some balls.  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Just out of interest, How many posting on this subject have ridden or owned either an M2 or an XR? For myself, I've done many thousands of miles on an M2 & still own it, I've also ridden a stock XR1200 which although not a bad bike wouldn't live with the M2 in standard form. The X version with it's upgrades wouldn't be far behind the Buell & with a bit of work could match it in all but tank range I reckon. I fully agree with what many have said that there's better bikes out there for the money, but hey that was said about Buells too. A new M2 in '99 was $8999. Adjusted for inflation todays price would be $11777 according to the US Bureau of Labor's calculator. Well there's a surprise. I think Reg has done an admirable job of presenting his findings & I find it strange that so many try to twist what he's said to suit their own bias. So cut the man some slack & respect him for the time & effort he's put in. The long & short of it is, it's not a Buell, it will never be a Buell & it was never meant to be a Buell. Be thankful for it all you tuber owners as it means a continued supply of adaptable parts. | ||
| Davegess |
Reg has an opinion. It is different that others. He has logged a lot of miles and I respect his opinion. From what I have read it seems that part of the opinion is that the XR is a pretty nice bike and works OK. Close enough to an M2 to compare the two. He is not saying the M2 is a POS. Now if you think the XR is a POS and someone says it is not too far from an M2 which you think a cool bike I can see where you might take it a little personal. You guys all need to relax a little. I think Reg likes the XR and likes the M2. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
...and I believe I explained what I meant by performance. To me,in particular, handling, brakes, and motor are all tied together. This isn't the first time my def has caused a stink. I remember quite vividly the response when I wrote that the original Yamaha V-Max was piece of crap. Most were extolling the virtues of its straight-liner performance; I mentioned that it very reluctantly went around a turn, and you had to notify the brakes in advance of any stopping intentions. This crowd's a bunch of sissys compared to the V-Max bunch. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
"You guys all need to relax a little. I think Reg likes the XR and likes the M2." Yep. |
