G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Motorcycle Forum » Old School Buell » Archives OSB 001 » Archive through May 29, 2007 » Best tube frame to start a build up? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanchez
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 01:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I plan to build another tube frame Buell from the ashes of my M2, and I'd like some guidance on where to start. I don't want another M2 frame because I'm looking for something more aggressive with better ground clearance. IMO, the S1 looks better than any other tuber, so that's where I think I'll start, but I'd like to get some other opinions. Do other frames have better geometry or other features (like belt change cut outs) that I should consider? I haven't ruled out the possibility of starting with an S2, S3, or X1 and swapping the tail section with an S1.

Is there anything else I need to know in planning this project? My M2 engine and fuel tank will fit any tube frame, right? Tube frame rear axles/wheels are also universal?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lake_bueller
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Where to start...

I'd probably choose either the S1 or X1 frame. The X1 has the nice "cut outs" for belt changes. But I think the S1 geometry might be slightly more agressive.

The M2 tank will NOT fit the X1 frame without some modifications. You should be able to do a search to find more about the tank fit.

The swingarm, axle, wheels, etc, etc, etc should also be interchangable.

If you're looking for a better "handling" bike, concider swapping the M2 forks to the inverted S1/X1/S3 forks.

I'm hope that helps (at least a little).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oldog
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

What Lake said, having done a belt change in the parking lot here, almost painless
some thing about a wrench .....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rotzaruck
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 06:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

well, we do know, you've got to have a frame to fit that tank
If it survived that last ride you took it on, it deserves a rebirth
and alas, you've got a while, for plotting and planning (stinks don't it)
ROTZARUCK!!!!!


(this from the guy who never has any practical or useful information, but just can't shut up)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanchez
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 04:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

> you've got a while

Yeah, unfortunately. 5 more weeks on crutches, then 4 weeks in a walking cast, then probably another 4 weeks of physical therapy and rebuilding muscle strength. I might get a sweet Mad Max leg brace after the walking cast comes off. How about you?

> The M2 tank will NOT fit the X1 frame without some modifications.

I searched around but couldn't find any info on differences in mounting. I do see that an M2 tank can't be used on an actual X1 because it has a petcock instead of a fuel pump. That won't be an issue since I'll be running a carb, but there's still the possibility that the tank just won't fit on at all.

Here's what I've gleaned from some searching, though some of this information is controversial:

1. S1, S2, S3 frames have the same geometry.
2. X1 frames have a different (more aggressive?) geometry
3. S2 and X1 frames have the cut out for belt changes
4. M2 parts will swap with the S1/S2/S3 frames. I can't confirm or deny swaps with X1.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djkaplan
Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 05:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The last generation S3 has the same frame (no sideplate) and geometry as Nugget did. Sideplates aren't important if you go to a chain, btw (they do make isolator changes easier, though). I'm thinking an X1 would be a great starting point for your project.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bomber
Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 09:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I believe that the X1 and M2 frames had very similar, if not identical, geometery -- X1 had higher quality forks, with more adjustability, of course

I agree with DJK, almost entirely due to the presence of the side-plate on the X1 -- makes the ISO changes so much easier, you'll do it when it needs to be done, rather than putting it off (DAMHIK)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanchez
Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

How's the ground clearance on the X1 frame? I never liked how low the M2 pegs were to the ground.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djkaplan
Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I do remember the X1 having a steeper fork angle than the M2's but I can't recall the exact specs.

The pegs on an X1 are higher and not as prone to dragging. I think it's almost comparable to an M2 with peg risers, maybe a bit higher still. Funny about peg clearance on the M2 - when I first got my bike, I thought I'd never ground the pegs. It took me only a few rides in N. Georgia to see how wrong I was - the pegs dragged like a mofo. Then I got peg risers and thought I was good to go.

After riding with the 3%'ers... wrong again!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mikej
Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 04:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Found this:
http://www.american-v.co.uk/roadtests/head2head/s1 m2_v_x1/body.html

which includes this:

quote:

Make and Model:
Buell X1 Lightning
2000 Racing X1 Red Stripe Edition
Buell M2 Cyclone

Torque:
116Nm @ 5,600rpm
113Nm @ 5,600rpm (Stock)

Power:
95hp @ 6,200rpm
93.5hp @ 6,100rpm (Stock)
87.3hp at rear wheel (Stage 1)

Fuel System:
Dynamic Digital Fuel Injection (DDFI)
Single Keihin 40mm Carburettor with Thunderslide Stage 1 kit

Fuel Capacity:
16.33l (low fuel light at 1.9l)
20.84 litres (includes reserve on carb version)

Front Suspension
Showa Inverted forks with adjustable compressions and rebound damping
Showa forks with adjustable rebound damping and preload

Ground clearance:
1250mm
1320mm

Rake/Trail:
23 degrees/890mm
24.5 degrees/970mm

Wheelbase:
1410mm
1410mm

Dry Weight:
200kg (440lbs)
197.3kg (435lbs)




Better formatting is on the link.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbsween
Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 05:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Here's stats from the S1,

The items of interest
Rake 25 degrees
Trail 3.9"
Wheelbase 55"

From http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/cycles/s1sp ec.html

1996 S1 Lightning
Engine
Type: Four-stroke,45 degree Harley-Davidson V-Twin; air cooled with pushrod actuated overhead valves;Two valves per cylinder.
Displacement: 1203cc
Bore and stroke: 3.5 x 3.8 in.
Compression ratio: 10:01
Carburetor: 40mm Keihin CV
Exhaust: Free Breathing 2 into 1 collector
Air Cleaner: Helmholtz Volume Power system
Torque/HP: 85 ft. lbs. @ 5200 rpm; 91 hp @ 5800 rpm
Oil Capacity: 2500cc
Oil Filtration: Screw-on disposable element
Transmission
Type: Five-speed, constant-mesh
Ratio: (1)2.78, (2)2.03, (3)1.49, (4)1.22, (5)1.00
Primary Drive: Triplex chain to wet clutch; ratio 1.6
Final Drive: kevlar belt; ratio 2.26
Chassis
Frame: Tubular perimeter chrome-moly with Uniplanar powertrain system; titanium finish
Wheelbase: 55.0 in.
Rake: 25 degree
Trail: 3.9 in.
Front Suspension: WP 4054 IBS inverted with adjustable compression and rebound damping
Rear Suspension: Chrome-moly rectangular tubing swinarml WP extension type damper with adjustable compression damping, rebound damping and spring preload.
Front Wheel Travel: 4.7 in.
Rear Wheel Vertical Travel: 4.9 in.
Front Brake: 340mm cast iron floating rotar; six piston Buell P/M caliper.
Rear Brake: 230mm cast iron rotal; Brembo caliper.
Front Wheel: Cast Marchesini, 3.5 x 17, titanium finish
Rear Wheel: Cast Marchesini, 5.0 x 17, titanium finish
Front Tire: Dunlap Sportmax II, 120/70 ZR 17
Rear Tire: Dunlap Sportmax II, 170/60 SR 17
Fuel Capacity: 4.0 gallons (includes .6 gal. reserve)
Miles Per Gallon-EPA Test Regulations: 45 City/53 Highway
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating: 820 lbs.
Dry Weight: 425 lbs.
Load Capacity: 395 lbs.
Seat Height: 29.0 in.
Ground Clearance: 5.2 in.
Instruments
Speedometer, tachometer, odometer, tripmeter, warning light for low oil pressure, indicators for high beam, turn signals and neutral.
Electrical
Charging System: 297 wat AC alternator; solid state regulator/rectifier
Battery: 12 volt, 19 amp-hour, fully sealed Genesis type
Headlight: Quartz halogen 60/55 watts
Taillight: 5/21 watts
Turn Signals: Manual cancelling
Colors
Red Snap, Carbon Black, High Voltage Yellow
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sanchez
Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Ah ha! And here are the X1 specs:

Wheelbase: 55"
Rake: 23°
Trail: 3.5"

A smaller rake and trail should equate to quicker steering, yeah?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sjh
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 11:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

The X1 tank mounting is different at the rear of the tank, but would take a very simple fix to get a carbed tank to mount. The carbed tanks use a singe bolt and top clap, while the x1 uses a "U" shaped clamp that bolts on each side.

most parts are interchangeable with the tubers except for some of the shifter and brake levers and some body work.

As you know from the Nugget, anything can be done with a little thought.

In my opinion, nothing looks tougher than a S1, but with performance and comfort in mind I like the X1. You get a little more comfort in riding, while you also get a stiffer frame with the factory welded frame brace. If you decide to stay with a belt, I would highly recommend the X1 frame as it makes belt changes much easier.

Another thing to consider if you always ride solo is that the X1 has removable passenger peg brackets. I like this since the bike looks much better without them, but in about 5 minutes and 4 bolts later I can go two-up
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Djkaplan
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 12:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"A smaller rake and trail should equate to quicker steering, yeah?"

Yes, that is a correct statement. I find the X1 to be more 'nervous' (but not unstable) compared to the heavier steering M2. I've never really ridden one at speed though.

The X1 also has that removeable subframe. If you really wanted to get jiggy, you could fabricate your own subframe for a variety of options as far as seats and tailsections go. I always considered the X1 frame to be a 'low-boy' chassis and the M2 and S3 to be 'high-boys'.

I'd love to see an X1 with a different subframe and Manta tank.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Wile_ecoyote
Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 07:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Sjh even has your frame a waitin. Check the 'fieds.
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration