| Author | Message | ||
     S320002 |
The more I think about it, the more I think a hotted up but reliable Blast! engine in an XB frame with decent slide protection would become an instant "cult bike". Especially among the track day crowd. A lightweight, back-it-into-the-corners, no frills, low cost, low maintenance, just-try-to-wipe-this-grin-off-my-face hoot! I'll try to wait 'til next year. If they don't have one by then I'm going to build it myself!!   Greg edited by S320002 on June 29, 2003 | ||
| Jprovo |
That's what I'm talking about! XB6R Fireblast! I know that there is a place in my garage for such a machine. I'd buy one before a Firebolt. James | ||
| Ezblast |
I'm with you there - fi and that air box - in Black - I'd be right behind you! - Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! Ez  | ||
| Blake |
Yeah, and you could add another fuel cavity in place of the missing cylinder/fan. | ||
| Fssnoc2501 |
Jeez, I've started a revolution. Ray  | ||
| Darthane |
Yeah, and you could add another fuel cavity in place of the missing cylinder/fan. <~~Blake Blah, screw that, a 600cc single would get plenty of range out of 3.5 gallons...cram a turbo in there! | ||
| Benm2 |
What would a 600cc 45-degree Vee-three sound like? One front, two back. That would be "different in every sense" | ||
| S320002 |
Turbos? Fuel injection? Fuel pods? Forget 'em!! We're talkin' a Kabar for the corners here! K.I.S.S.!! Greg | ||
| Blake |
Darthane wins my vote... a 600cc turbocharged Thumperbolt with 70 rwhp in stock form. Heck yeah. Cut the weight down to 395 LBs wet and now we're talking! Ben, How would a V-Triple sound? Confused?  That's an interesting configuration I'd not ever considered. hmmmm... kinda like... "ka-thumpa-tato"? With one up front and two rear cylinders, I assume the ignition firing sequence would be in 315o/(45o/405o) intervals? Greg, I assume you intended "K.I.S.S." to mean "keep it simple smarty."  Seriously though, the XB frame is way overkill for even a 50rwhp thumper, don't you think? | ||
| Jprovo |
Blake, Try 295 lbs not 395! A Firebolt weighs 385, and a Blast 360. I don't know how feasable it would be to get that low with the XB frame though. If Buell made a 70 rwhp thumper (which would have to be priced less than the twins), they would have trouble selling 75 rwhp twins. The XB frame may not be overkill, look at the Ducati Supermono. James | ||
| Bykergeek |
Why not put the Blast based flat trackers into production? Retro is *in* and the Supermotard thing is starting to catch on too.  edited by bykergeek on June 30, 2003 | ||
| Bykergeek |
Here's one.  edited by bykergeek on June 30, 2003 | ||
| Blake |
Jprovo, The XB9's weigh in at ~455 LBs wet. The 385 LB figure is without fluids or battery, typical dry "shipping" weight convention used by most moto manufacturers. If you are going to use the same chassis, there isn't a lot you can do to shed more weight. Personally, I'd rather have a purpose built tube framed thumper more akin to that shown above. | ||
| Jprovo |
Blake, I thought that you said dry... Okay, a stock Blast weighs 360 add what ~10 lbs battery, 15 lbs fuel, 6 lbs oil. ~390 wet Okay, 295 is way too low, but you need to shoot for at the most 375. Heck, the stock Blast exhaust weighs 15 lbs, you can loose 10 there, and at least another 5 with rearsets. The XB6R should weigh less than a stock Blast, or a least very close. I personally have little interest in the flat track style Blast. Where's the rubber mounting? They are cool, but I'm not too sure about making a street mount out of them. James | ||
| S320002 |
I assume you intended "K.I.S.S." to mean "keep it simple smarty." Yeah, something like that. Seriously though, the XB frame is way overkill for even a 50rwhp thumper, don't you think? Probably, but its already there and without any extras its fairly light. It beats trying to reinvent a damn good wheel. I know a couple of dirt roads through mountain passes and a few fire/logging roads where a flat tracker would be lots of fun but I wouldn't have much use for one on the street or RR track either. Greg jttwtgomf | ||
| Fssnoc2501 |
The XB6R could be more reality than you give credit Blake. The XB chassis is a reality, very light weight great handling, adjustable good suspension. The 600cc motor isn't a real stretch from the Blast motor with improved shifting etc. the XB, the XB timing, cam, induction. A powerhouse thumper is not a real stretch of the imagination. The product I have in mind keeps the very principles of Buell in mind. With this we add the joy of a thumper with real factory thump. Added together we have a winning combination without reinventing the wheel from the start. Great handling, real world technology, impressive factory thump, mostly based on present parts availability. IMHO it'sa win win proposition. Ray | ||
| Ezblast |
I Concur | ||
| Blake |
Listen guys, the moto world already chastises Buell for putting an "underpowered" engine in the XB chassis. What do you think they will think of even less power. Sorry, I don't see it. I have some experience in product development. While on the surface it might appear a no brainer to take an existing well proven product and adapt it to a new/different configuration, the truth is that unless such an approach to product development is pre-planned, it seldom works out as well and as efficiently as hoped. It may appear that to remove one cylinder from the XB is a no brainer, but it really doesn't make sense. The rest of the bike is designed support 130rwhp or more. Putting a 60 HP engine in that chassis with that swingarm and that rear wheel goes against everything Mr. Buell stands for. For one thing, it dilutes the value of every twin cylinder Buell using the same frame. Like it or not, that is how it would be perceived. No, if Buell were to release a more aggressive form of the Blast, it would be in a lighter chassis purposefully designed to work with the thumper engine. Not many people are going to want to pay $7K for a 600cc street thumper. It will need to be value engineered some. That frame and swingarm have got to be expensive and you don't want a 180 series rear tire sucking up all the acceleration of your thumper do you? With one cylinder, there'll be more room for fuel and oil to be stored in more conventional locations. Personally, I like the existing Blast platform. The frame is stout. Make a racer version of that... rearsets, minimal bodywork, more aggressive handlebars, 600cc's, 50 rwhp, 150 series rear tire, upgraded suspension and swingarm, 17" spoked wheels, first class fit and finish and integration, lose the electric starter. ![:]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) | ||
| Sarodude |
I'm with Blake. Keep the basic Blast platform. I only disagree on the 17" wheel front. I believe the majority of the Blast's flickability comes from the 16" wheels. -Saro | ||
| S320002 |
"Listen guys, the moto world already chastises Buell for putting an "underpowered" engine in the XB chassis. What do you think they will think of even less power. Sorry, I don't see it." Blake, I think it would be more accurate to say that the moto world chastises Buell for putting an "underpowered" engine in their top of the line bikes. 'Sides I don't give two hoots what the "they" say. If it was up to "them" Erik Buell would have turned Japanese long ago. I also have some experience in product development. One method of bringing costs down is using some of the same parts on multiple platforms. Your beloved M2 is a good example of that. Even with a 600 or 650 engine in it you wouldn't want a shorter wheel base than the XB frame already has. There is also no good reason to make the frame walls thinner. You could design a lighter swing arm but dollar wise it would probably be cheaper not to. That leaves plenty of other components to down grade, or not. My version of the XB6R wouldn't be a down grade of the 9R or an upgrade of the Blast! it would just be different. Like the 9R is different from the 9S. Okay so you don't get it. It doesn't really matter to me because I've got it bad. Once again if Buell doesn't build one for me I'll build it myself. Greg jttwtgomf | ||
| Blake |
jttwtgomf?  That's a new for me. Why didn't Buell just put a Blast engine in one of the truss frames then? Answer... it doesn't make sense. A motorcycle is a complete package and it all needs to work and fit together. Sticking a 600cc single in the XB chassis would be like putting an XL883 engine in an Electra Glide. But hey, if that's what you think you might want, go for it. It would seem to be fairly simple to convert an existing XB9 to a single. It would be cool. I just don't see it selling for a profit is all. NRE and tooling costs melt away pretty quickly when you start talking about production runs in the tens of thousands. It ain't even a question in my mind... Design a new purpose built chassis. If Buel is gonna go for an exotic high performance street thumper, they need to do it right. What did BMW abd Ducati do for their big street thumpers? If they could do a street thumper with 60 rwhp and come in under 350 LBs wet, now THAT would be something. | ||
| S320002 |
jttwtgomf=just-try-to-wipe-this-grin-off-my-face Posted earlier. "Sticking a 600cc single in the XB chassis would be like putting an XL883 engine in an Electra Glide."??? No comparison whatsoever. Obviously our opinions differ on this subject. Putting a single in a truss frame doesn't make sense for many of the same reasons putting it into an XB frame does. Specifically size, weight and cost to build. Tube frames are very labor intensive to build. That is one of the reasons Buell has chosen not to build them anymore. In quantity the XB frame would probably cost half as much to build. The tooling is already in place and there aren't that many welds. The size of the XB has often been compared to a 250 GP bike and in fact has a wheel base 3" shorter than the Blast!. Seems like a pretty reasonable fit for a 650 single. The fuel and oil loads are also a pretty fair match. I don't have specific figures on Blast! vs. XB frame weights but I'd bet they're pretty close. I also don't know if the single would be a direct bolt in but it wouldn't surprise me. You keep talking exotic and I keep saying simple. If Buell were to build such a bike fine. If they don't that's fine too. I'll build my own and enjoy doing it. 883 Electra Glide indeed. Where did you get such an idea? Greg jttwtgomf | ||
| Blake |
You keep saying make it simple, I keep saying make it right. If they are compatible, okay. Let's investigate further... Do you want to keep everything on the XB9R in place except for the rear cylinder? Doesn't the rear cylinder tie to the frame? Would the lateral Heim joint connection to the frame need changed to adapt to a single cylinder engine? Probably. The frame is gonna change. Would you want to move the battery lower? If so, how do you support it? Gotta change the frame design? So much for a common frame. Would you want to push a heavy power robbing 5.5" wide rear wheel and a 180 series tire with a 600cc single? I wouldn't. You'll want a swing arm to match a 4.5" rear wheel and a 160 series tire. So much for the common swing arm. Will you want to change the final drive ratio? That will affect the belt and it's idler pulley and possibly the swingarm. If you don't address the above issues, you'll have a poorly designed motorcycle. I don't think Buell wants to release a poorly designed motorcycle. Those are just a few things off the top of my head. It can get real messy in a hurry. Not saying it cannot be done. It could be. No doubt. But if I were the program manager, I'd fight for starting fresh and designing a chassis specifically for the Super-Blast/Big-Blast. You're gonna sink a bunch of R&D and testing into the engine right? Why put a great new engine into a marginally configured chassis? So it is cheaper? I'd have to no bid that option. | ||
| Bykergeek |
I still have to vote for the Supermoto approach. Here is a market where top end HP is less important than torque. Sounds like Buell territory. OK, you can't keep much from the XB9 and pull this one off but it is a growing market segment that H-D should consider if Buell doesn't hop on it. | ||
| Jprovo |
Greg, What's the plan? The main problem I have starting this project as a homebrew is finding the XB frame. Since I can't go out and buy an XB frame, I have to find a crashed bike that has a frame that isn't too mangled, or an XB that someone is parting out, or one with a broken engine. And damn the Buell reliability , I haven't seen one with the con rods poking out of the cases. I'd love to see Buell do this right. I also think it can be done simply, with as much off the shelf parts as possible. James | ||
| S320002 |
Blake, Changing wheel/tire width/profile doesn't require redesigning the swing arm. You only need to change the wheel. Like changing from a PM to a cast wheel on your M2. I said earlier I don't know if the single would be a bolt in. Could be a show stopper but I seriously doubt it. If there's a mounting point for the rear cylinder on the twin there's a mounting point that can be adapted to the single. I have dealt with many more difficult issues in my career. Why move the battery? Changes in fuel load and rider weight have much more impact than a minor battery relocation. Do the US and European versions of the XB use the same gear ratio? I don't know but I doubt if the engineers at Buell are so short sighted that a simple gearing change would require a major redesign. Blake you're grasping at straws. We already know you don't like the idea but it can be done and done well. In case you missed it the first two times, I'll say it again. It doesn't matter if Buell builds an XB single or not, I will. Greg jttwtgomf | ||
| Ezblast |
Again - I concur! The mods Blake is talking about are much simpler than he would have you imagine, keep the wheels 16" but bigger rims for the larger sport sizes available - there is a larger assortment in this area than for the current Blast (though not as large as the choice for 17" - lol). I suspect much of the R & D for the bigger motor has already been done as a matter of course, Buell's been swapping out pulleys for so long it would suprise me if they did'nt already have one waiting, Really - leave the battery where it is, save the rear void for looks (that space looks cool - one of the reasons Blasters go to different intake designs) and to give the aftermarket someplace to put that turbo;0) - lol - This is a design exercise that the should be embraced just because 90% of the development is already there and the fact that there is a growing demand for performance singles. Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ  | ||
| S320002 |
James, You're right. Finding an XB with a trashed engine could be the toughest part of the project. Greg jttwtgomf | ||
| Benm2 |
I still like the 45-degree triple. Don't think anyone's tried THAT combination before. As they wouldn't have the bores lined up (front to back), you wouldn't have to use common crankpin. Heck, you could even use a plain-bearing crank. What's the firing order on the 955 Triumph's? Does it use a 120-degree crank? I think it would have some wierd vibration characteristics, but it might be more "auditorially interesting" if the firing order was uneven. You could probably get it to have better vibration characteristics in the vertical plane than the existing configuration, but you'd introduce a side-to-side shake. You could always build a small bore/small stroke Feuling W-3. I think one of the bike mags described it as sounding similar to a radial B-25 engine. | ||
| Elvis |
It's an interesting concept, and I like the idea of a higher performance, fuel-in-frame blast. The thing that worries me is, if you're not careful, you end up with either an over-priced Blast or an under-powered XB. |
