| Author | Message | ||
     Easy_rider |
I came across an odd difference last night. I have a stalled rebuild for a '96 S2. I decided I could at least move forward with getting the turn signals placed where the rear screens are. At one point in the rebuild I decided to use a tailpiece I bought on Craigslist rather than what came with the bike. The lenses are cut, and I'm trying to decide how to fit in a light housing and I notice there's barely any room on the "new" piece, and I didn't have that problem when playing with the original piece. Turns out the subassembly for the license plate holder was much narrower for the original part compared to the new part. The new piece flares out to the width of the tailpiece - the original is within the outline of the seat. It's going to take some effort to make this work without cutting something (something that seems sinful at this point). The original is taunting me with all of that room! Any ideas as to whether this was a '95 vs '96 thing? A vendor change? Design improvement? It's trivial, but curious to me. | ||
| Velocity |
Wonder if the one with less room is an after market, I forget the company that was selling replacements. I have put turn signals in the vent area on both 95 and 96, they mounted the same. No difference I could see? Scott | ||
| Easy_rider |
I don't think it is. They are both heavy. The Airtech parts are advertised as much lighter. Mine does have the same outline as the one pictured on the Airtech site. I realize I need to post pics, haven't taken time to do that yet. | ||
| 1313 |
There was a key difference between 1995 S2 and 1996 S2 bodywork. The 1995 S2 bodywork was made with polyester resin while the 1996 S2 bodywork was made with epoxy resin. The epoxy resin strengthened the fiberglass, but had no noticeable affect on the parts size. I'm pretty sure that what you are seeing is ultimately due to the S2 being produced in higher volumes than originally anticipated. Back in the days of developing the S2 the original target for production volume was 300-400. With such a low production target a decision had to be made for what method to use to manufacture the bodywork. Since Buell had experience with RTM (Resin Transfer Molding) fiberglass from the tail end of the RS/RSS days and the useful tool life for the large and complex molds that would be needed was right around the same volume RTM seemed like the right choice. That is until the expected production volume of the S2 kept going up...and up...and up - remember the final tally for 1995 S2's was nearly 1400 bikes. All the molds would be maintained as best they could during their useful lives, but at some point each and every mold had to be replaced - and likely for most of them - multiple times. Since the molds were handmade, there were slight differences between each set of molds. Most often these differences were minor details like where exactly the parting lines were and such. But I wouldn't be surprised one bit if some of the parts changed in other ways, over time, due to different molds being made. Assuming both parts are original Buell manufactured parts, this is the only reasonable explanation I can come up with. Pics would be great! 1313 | ||
| Phat_j |
i happen to be in need of a tail section if your interested in parting with one for a decent price... | ||
| Easy_rider |
Cool background. Got me off my butt to take a pic. Let me know if more detail is warranted.  The one on the left has an open shot to the vents. The one on the right, not so much! It hit me that I have two add'l tailpieces. They look more like the one on the left. Funny thing is, the one on the right has clear marking in four lines that led me to believe it is the real deal. The four lines are: 320 SL 2 (with an underline) 24 | ||
| Easy_rider |
Phat_j: PM sent. | ||
| Phat_j |
didnt get it easy | ||
| Jvv |
1313.......thanks for the history lesson down memory lane.............great stuff!! |
