| Author | Message | ||
     007blast |
mr. grumpy i have owned two tube frame buells. A 2000 M2, & a 2002 X1. I loved both of them. I worked at a harley dealership, lead the harley & buell demo tours & got to ride all the new models. including the 1200xr In my OPINON the tube frame buells are the better performing all around bike, & they cost thousands less. just my two cents. i say ride whatever you want. i just think its cool that we all can disagree, & be gentlemen about it. only in the badweb community!  (Message edited by 007blast on June 07, 2010) | ||
| Reepicheep |
In my opinion, the fact that it is so close between a 2002 M2 and a 2010 XR1200 is what shows the XR1200 is so far behind. Think about it... by 2002 the M2 had the updated primary chain tensioner, the new shifter setup, the new front exhaust mount, new high contact ratio cams, etc. It still didn't have the metal primary and rocker box gaskets (IMHO big problem) and replacing the belt took an act of God (IMHO big problem). The XR1200 is stupid expensive for what it is (IMHO) and overweight and under powered (IMHO). Not to mention stylistically underwhelming. All the quirks of hints of early 80's design studios, without the genius of a singular vision. A design that tried to be great but that was ruined by committee. I'm biased, as I got my 2000 M2 with 6000 miles in 2001 for $5000. So in my minds eye, its a cheap bike. Maybe if I paid sticker for it it would be closer. So comparing the two bikes, I am pretty much down to "how hard is it to replace the belt on the XR?" to try and pick a winner. Then lets toss in the development costs for the XR versus the M2... and I suspect things start to look REALLY embarrassing for the XR... Both bikes pale in comparison to my XB9SX. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Reep, you forgot the cost of "THE NAME".  | ||
| Hughlysses |
Thread divergence alert! What does the XR1200X vs. the M2 have to do with the rumor of Erik going to work for HD?  | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Oddly enough, I agree with this: "The XR1200 is stupid expensive for what it is (IMHO) and overweight and under powered (IMHO). Not to mention stylistically underwhelming. All the quirks of hints of early 80's design studios, without the genius of a singular vision. A design that tried to be great but that was ruined by committee." ...except, the "ruined by committee" part. Which is why I said earlier that I wouldn't buy one. | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
Hugh... Erik is going to work for Harley because they want him to make a new Cyclone from the XR. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
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? I believe YOU made that exact statement from your own experience. "And the 2011 XR1200X is a "better" all-around motorcycle. I base this upon having just returned from Road America where Harley introduced the new XR to us fourth estate folks. We spent a full day on the track thrashing these beasties. " "There are several other reasons why I think the XR to be a better mo'sicle" How would anyone read these words and construe them to mean anything other than Bike A "outperforms" Bike B? | ||
| Davegess |
Out performs means - it depends on what performance you want. A goldwing out performs a GSXR if you are talking long distance comfort. It is all relative | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
uh...FB... and? We're really going in circles here (and not on the track). Yes, I believe the XR to be a better all-around motorcycle, thus it outperforms the M2 by my definition. "All-around" is the operative phrase. OK, I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal, but I think we're boring people. I gotta leave for the American Sportbike meeting. I've been here at the computer all day 'cause I'm writing my piece on the XR. Thanx to all of you for your insights and opinions | ||
| Jramsey |
>>I think we are boring people... That is an accurate statement. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No rebuttal from me. When you put statements in writing as specific as the quote above and we read it, you can't then say that you didn't say them. There is no other way for the reader (us) to construe your statements. You've ridden both Tubers and XRs on the track and made the statement that you found the XR to "outperform' the tubers. When called on the statement you deny you said it, that you made the comparison, that you never compared the two on the track. I don't really care whether you feel the XR is or is not a better bike. Given the upgrade in engine technology, mounting systems, exhaust system, fuel injection, etc., I too feel that there are some things the XR has as advantages over a tuber. Just don't call us crazy or Buell blind when we read what you write for exactly what it says. I guarantee you that you wouldn't let the inverse happen were the shoe on the other foot. I'm no Buell fanboy or HD basher. Just trying to keep the discussion honest. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
once again, please keep in mind the year of the model Buell M2 Cyclone when comparing with the present Harley XR1200. The years 1997 and 1998 Buell M2 Cyclones had 83 HP and in 1999 and after they used the High Compression Heads that boasted the HP to 91. I just test rode a new XR1200 last Friday and I feel it would out perform the 97 & 98 M2's, but I'm not so sure with the 1999 models and later. While I loved my 98 M2, I would have traded it for a XR1200 in a heartbeat, but NO WAY would I ever give up my 2006 Ulysses for a XR1200. The Ulysses handles better and has much more power, plus the riding position is far better on the Ulysses!  | ||
| Court |
>>>Erik is going to work for Harley because they want him to make a new Cyclone from the XR. Can't happen. | ||
| Moxnix |
RW 750 engine being updated in the barn? | ||
| Court |
We could update the RW750 if you can find the timing data ..... We kinda. Er, "lost" it. :-) | ||
| Reindog |
Way to go, Cyclonedon! I love my two Ulys. | ||
| Rick_a |
The 1997-1998 Cyclones are down about 7-8RWHP on the Harley, while the Harley is down on torque about 5-6 lb-ft. The Cyclone is an honest 130lbs lighter and over four inches shorter. The XR even gets worse fuel mileage despite EFI. I wish I had my old motorcycle rags here as I'd compare all the published performance figures. No doubt the XR1200 is more refined and more comfortable. That's a given. I guess next the XR1200X will draw comparisons to 1996-1997 S1 Lightings  The 1996-1998 tubers are as raw as usable motorcycles get. That's why I like them so. Maybe when I start aging the virtues of the XR1200's will become more apparent. To be exact, the Thunderstorm heads weren't higher compression than the Lightning heads they replaced, but used larger valves, a re-shaped combustion chamber, and an angled squish area with 15 degree domed pistons. The exhaust ports were also made smaller for a better match to the headers and exhaust gaskets. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Reg, I've always found your writings to be of interest. So much so that I still have every issue of Battle2Win ever published. Having said that (a phrase you can well recognize) you can at times be, (both in person and in writing), obstreperous, opinionated to the point of arrogance, and obtuse to the point where I wonder are if you are trying to be clever or just trying to cover all bases. Yeah I know it's a run-on sentence with rather odd punctuation but I hope you catch my drift. G | ||
| Gregtonn |
...obtuse to the point... G  | ||
| Patches |
"We could update the RW750 if you can find the timing data ..... We kinda. Er, "lost" it." The Barton Buell first heard of the small, privately held general-purpose engine maker Barton (based in Great Britain) in 1981 - he bought their limited-production racer, powered by a water-cooled 750cc Square Four two-stroke engine. Unfortunately, the bike was very poorly manufactured, used such cheap materials and the engine was plagued with gremlins to the point of being unmanageable. However, with Buell's engineering background (and unwaning optimism), he felt that he could refine the weak points using his own designs and make the engine work for him. Slowly, as parts failed he re-engineered them to increase reliability, and in many cases saw performance gains with his modifications. The chassis was a different story, however - Buell deemed it a lost cause from the beginning and designed his own chassis from the ground up. Nonetheless, the engine would often have failures before even completing a race. Barton may have the timing data. I thought Erik Designed that Engine Himself? As far as Erik returning to Harley- Who else would have Deep Enough Pockets to Fund Buell to keep Price Per Unit down? If he Builds a bike that Cost more than $10,000.00 most here won't buy it. | ||
| Court |
I agree and celebrate that . . . . . and I can be the same way. The world of motorcycling is full of folks "opinionated to the point of arrogance". . . . like cars, planes, handguns or watches passion seems to insure there are few wishy washy passive opinions. The wonderful part is that there are folks, Reg is among their number, perhaps their leader, who's "opinionated to the point of arrogance" observations are based on fact and experience. There are times Reg and I . . . both holding "opinionated to the point of arrogance" have disagreed but never once I've failed to listen or learn something. In a word where opinions tend to be based on what someone's cousins neighbors teachers son told them . . . I like that. The internet has greatly eroded the art of conversation and has replaced passionate debate with pissy arguments. What a shame. Erik had nothing to do with the design of the Barton engine and spent what could have been described as a lifetime compressed into about 4 years trying to straighten it out. A Barton, when running, made amazing power. The trick was keeping it running. I suspect, given the piles of prints and drawings that were uncovered while cleaning the barn, we may wander on the the specs but until then the few remaining, as tempted as folks may be to start them, RW750s are relegated to static display status. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Last time I spoke to Sean (Rocketman) he had some Barton stuff for Erik & was waiting for him to get in touch. Don't know if he still has it or even what's in there though. I agree with Court (happens sometimes ) about debate being a dying art, some are more articulate than others & some just like to argue for the pleasure of putting someone down. When it gets to that point, I generally drop out as if not I'd end up getting booted like Sean. | ||
| Doug_s |
reg, you said: 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. i say: huh? re-read my post a few posts before yours. you know - the one where i stated that your definition of "outperforms." is exactly what i was talking about, when i stated, among other things, that i would prefer a buell m2 over a new hd 1200xr? perhaps my posts are not wisible on your computer...  and, fyi, re-read this thread, and the other about the "new" hd - there's others who have similar opinions as myself. seems when you are challenged, you are the one w/no answer... of course, if you prefer the new hd over the m2, that's ok - it's your opinion. doug s. | ||
| Court |
While we're tossing about opinions . . I wouldn't pay $5,00 for one of those goody looking XR1200X with the 49# exhaust hanging out behind the bike. If someone gave it to me I'd swap it for a 2002 M2 Cyclone in a heartbeat. In my opinion . . . the XR1200X is simply ugly, regardless of how well it, at long last, tried to handle and brake like a more sporting bike. The XR simply, in my opinion, looks like a rolling collection of design compromises made in a vain effort to recapture something from the far gone XR-750 days . . .days in which few of the folks working on the XR were even born. The M2 on the other hand was largely designed by a couple of guys, led by Marty Brown, who operated under the radar while most the folks at HD and Buell were otherwise consumed working on the S1WL and trying to structure the ugly February 1998 deal in which HD took over Erik's portion of the ownership. There were able to spend time really getting some of the M2 systems dialed in nicely. The M2 is a bike that attempts to be nothing it isn't . . .it simply works. By 2002 it's quirks had been well sorted and it was a really good standard motorcycle, We'll see how the XR works in the market for HD. If the XR1200X doesn't fare any better in sales than the XR1200 I suspect some of those looming layoffs at HD may be accelerated. I respect Reg's opinion that the XR1200X rides better than past attempts but when I look at that gawd awful exhaust . . . . well, I'd run back to the M2. | ||
| Trojan |
I respect Reg's opinion that the XR1200X rides better than past attempts but when I look at that gawd awful exhaust . . . . well, I'd run back to the M2. And of course the stock mild steel exhaust on the M2 was a work of art that owners were keen to hold on to? dealers were full of discarded tube frame exhausts from brand new bikes because nobody wanted them either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course and I wouldn't expect anyone with a Buell background to be complimentary about anything from H-D, but c'mon Court I think your rose tinted specs may be interfereing with your objective judgement here somewhat  The XR1200 doesn't pretend to be a Buell, but a 'sporting' Sportster as it should have been a long time ago. The market for these probably isn't huge in the USA but in Europe and elsewhere the model is selling very nicely thank you | ||
| Rocketsprink |
did you hear Erik's returning to HD? What the hell does all the posturing on opinions of which bike is better have to do with the topic? I'll solve the debate. They both suck. XB's and 1125's are leaps and bounds better. There. Problem solved. | ||
| Trojan |
They both suck. XB's and 1125's are leaps and bounds better. There. Problem solved. no argument here | ||
| Reg_kittrelle |
You're right, Doug, I did miss your def. What questions haven't I answered? And, no, I do not prefer the XR over the M2. As I wrote, given a choice I'd take neither. (Given a choice of all tubers ...it would be another S1) Greg, "Having said that (a phrase you can well recognize) you can at times be, (both in person and in writing), obstreperous, opinionated to the point of arrogance, and obtuse to the point where I wonder are if you are trying to be clever or just trying to cover all bases." I think there's an element of truth in that. I can be all of the above, not intentionally so, but I do have a tendency to fall in love with my opinions. I also try to separate opinion from fact, but also realize that many "facts" (both mine, and those of others) are often better defined as strong opinion. I try to steer away from "clever" as I learned a long time ago that clever is really just a wide opening for those more clever to walk thru. Thanx for your comment. It is always instructive to learn how others see you. | ||
| Road_thing |
I learned a long time ago that clever is really just a wide opening for those more clever to walk thru. Reg, you just went up another notch on my "smart guy" scale! rt ...and, if it matters, you were already way above the median value... | ||
| Rohorn |
Speaking of the M2 and development - what ever happened to the twin shock design that I heard about around 1996? Sort of like a happy accident between an S1 & FXR? Was that the M1? Any other questions I'm not supposed to ask? My 1999 M2 was a far better performing and more comfortable bike than the earlier ones I rode. Was told that the forks were the same as the first year Suzuki RF900's. |
