| Author | Message | ||
     Kenb |
I was a little confused about the writeup of these 2 bikes in the December issue of Cycle World. The xb9sx had a 1/4 mile time of 12.28 while the Triumph had a 12.20 but the 0-100 mph time is a full second quicker for the Triumph, how is this possible ? Or is there an error here somewhere ? | ||
| Firebolt020283  |
it is cuz the buell has good acceleration but not that much top end | ||
| Ftd  |
I am pretty darn sure that both these bikes hit over 100 mph in the 1/4 mile. Thus, some of those numbers don't make sense. Frank | ||
| Fullpower  |
neither machine comes with gearing suitable to reach its top end in the quarter mile. | ||
| Ray_maines  |
The Triumph is quicker in the quarter and quicker to 100 mph. What's the mystery? Not only that, but the Tiger is the slowest Triumph 955 made. | ||
| Kenb |
the question I'm asking is: does anybody else think these numbers just don't add up ? I mean how can a bike that is a full second quiker to 100 mph only be .08 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile ? 1/4 mi Triumph 12.20 sec @ 110.70 mph Buell 12.28 sec @ 106.85 mph Triumph Buell 0-30 mph 1.4 sec 1.3 sec 0-60 mph 3.6 sec 3.8 sec 0-90 mph 7.3 sec 7.9 sec 0-100 mph 9.3 sec 10.3 sec | ||
| Reepicheep  |
I threw the times into Excel and charted them (I *think* I did this right), and the curves look rational.  | ||
| Steve_a |
Looking at Reepicheep's chart and the numbers, the 0-60 times are close, and the 0-30 is slightly better for the Buell. The Buell would actually be ahead in distance for the first seconds of the quarter run because of the better launch. The Triumph ends up finishing the quarter about 12 feet ahead of the Buell, traveling faster. If it weren't faster, it would never have caught up and completed the quarter mile quicker than the Buell. The numbers are reasonable. The Triumph has more top end and a better power to weight ratio, and the Buell launched better in this particular test. The Triumph spent much of the quarter mile trying to take back the ground the XB9 made up on the launch. These numbers, by the way, are generated by a Stalker ATS radar system (radar gun generating 30 speed readings a second to a tenth of a mph, feeding to a laptop computer for analysis), and are reasonably accurate and repeatable. | ||
| M1combat  |
Sounds like the bikes weren't launched by robots to me... | ||
| Fdl3  |
Gearing anyone?  | ||
| Fullpower |
consider the source: Cycle World as a data reference? the only one with any brains on that staff is Kevin Cameron, and he is too busy writing really informative technical/historical treatises to take part in drag racing stock street bikes with overweight operators. i see no reason to assume their 0-100 mph numbers are any more accurate than their vehicle weights. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I hear that Anderson fella is pretty sharp  I have read most of the major bike mags at one point or another, and Cycle World is the only one that has not driven me nuts on my "idiot meter" annoyance scale. (Message edited by reepicheep on December 09, 2004) | ||
| Fullpower |
i admit to being a subsciber. the tiger is a fine motorcycle, but not very similar or directly comparable to the city-x. my best advice, if you are shopping or considering purchase, is to test ride both. | ||
| Fullpower |
now the speed triple: theres a naked standard bike to play quarter mile dashes with. | ||
| Ray_maines |
Even the Speed Triple is geared weird. The stock gearing is 18/42, but the bike works much better for most people at 18/45(or more). The stock gearing will get you an indicated 160ish mph. Best guess is that the speedo is 8% too fast meaning a real top speed of about 145 -150mph. That's WAY too fast to be riding a necked hooligan, street fighter type bike. BTW: I don't mean to start a verbal food fight or anything, but I've found that a chain isn't all that hard to keep care of, it lasts forever and it's easy to make small gearing changes. I'm a chain and sprocket kind of guy from here on in. My son and I each had Y2K M2s with a total of 40,000 miles on them when we both crashed and totaled our bikes in July of 2002. The boy had broken two belts (I still had the original belt) at the time of the big crash. Right now he has over 30,000 miles on his Speed Triple and I have 23,000 on a Sprint RS and both chains and all four sprockets are in near perfect shape. | ||
| Buellnuts  |
this is all you need to know!  Think Triumph Bob | ||
| Kenb |
My title was a little misleading, I was just comparing the 2 bikes because of the seperate magazine tests nothing else. I'm not sure if I'm in the market for a new bike this spring but my current oogle list is; xb12s, xb9sx, and xl1200r. Sorry guys Triumph isn't in the running, if I wanted straight line speed I'd buy an R1. Belts versus chains ? The used S1 I bought has the original belt, run'em loose and they last forever. You want chain breaking stories ? I have over 20yrs and 150k miles of broken chain stories. | ||
| Brucelee |
BTW-chains dont last forever. They stretch and rarely break. My cousin replaced two on his SV due to stretching. The second time, he has to redo both sprokets too. Could have been a bad bike but you get the picture. | ||
| Kenb |
Okay so maybe in those 150k miles I've only had 2 actually break and one that the rollers were so bad that I had to baby it to a dealer. All different motorcycles also, I'm a convert to belts. Never wanna own a chained bike again unless it's a dirt bike. | ||
| Crusty |
Wait 'till you're sitting on the side of I-71 0n a Sunday afternoon with a broken belt. A belt gives no warning when it's about to let go. If you ignore a chain to the point that the rollers are that bad, then you'll never see the hole in your belt that a stone put in it, until it snaps. It's easy to tell when a chain is worn out. I've never had a chain break on one of my bikes. I had three belts snap, one ripped most of the teeth off while cruising at 70 MPH, and one had a hole through the center from a piece of gravel. I've got a Tsubaki O-ring chain on my M2 and I'm very happy with it. | ||
| Brucelee |
I am not defending belts, simply saying that chains do break from time to time. Same result, you are stranded, no? | ||
| Ray_maines |
Hey............ !!! How am I going to maintain my reputation as the suppository of all motorcycle knowledge if you guys keep calling me on things? The belts on our M2s were loose. I've said a dozen times in print and on-line that "Looser is Gooder" and I really believe that. None the less, two belts broke in a combined 40,000 miles and our chains have proved to be easy to maintain and ultra reliable. No, nothing lasts forever but the chains and sprockets are doing pretty good so far. BTW: I just got back from the IMS in Seattle and I've got to say that the new Triumph Speed Triple rear end is super ugly! The cheese grater on the Buell Lightning is a little dorky but the Speed Triple is way over (under?) the top UGLY! Not only that but I don't see any cheap/easy way to fix it.. The rest of the bike is pretty cool (upgraded suspension, radial brakes, short fat mufflers, a great looking gas tank, an extra 100 cc's, really nice wheels......) but the rear fender/tail light area is U G L Y ! ! ! | ||
| Buell_brener |
Strange how many Triumph converts from the NW. Maybe the Buells just don't like the weather. | ||
| Buellnuts |
Our riding season is short and having a Buell broke down in the garage just makes it even shorter. Power delivery, Handling, suspension, warrantee, reliability etc. they are all factors turning people to the dark side.    Heading to the IMS BOB |
