Author |
Message |
Sanchez
| Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 01:38 pm: |
|
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? |
Lake_bueller
| Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:09 pm: |
|
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). |
Oldog
| Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 02:25 pm: |
|
What Lake said, having done a belt change in the parking lot here, almost painless some thing about a wrench ..... |
Rotzaruck
| Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 06:30 pm: |
|
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) |
Sanchez
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 04:53 pm: |
|
> 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. |
Djkaplan
| Posted on Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 05:02 pm: |
|
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. |
Bomber
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 09:45 am: |
|
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) |
Sanchez
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:29 am: |
|
How's the ground clearance on the X1 frame? I never liked how low the M2 pegs were to the ground. |
Djkaplan
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 10:55 am: |
|
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! |
Mikej
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 04:45 pm: |
|
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. |
Mbsween
| Posted on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 05:10 pm: |
|
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 |
Sanchez
| Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:57 pm: |
|
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? |
Sjh
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 11:01 am: |
|
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 |
Djkaplan
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 12:45 pm: |
|
"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. |
Wile_ecoyote
| Posted on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 07:40 pm: |
|
Sjh even has your frame a waitin. Check the 'fieds. |
|