| Author | Message | ||
     Hkwan |
http://www.canyonchasers.net/reference/images/2005triplevsNakeds.pdf | ||
| Uwgriz |
Personally I don't really care much about the "shootouts" that the bike mags always do (my bike is the best bike for me), but just for fun: On their "scale" Power - 5 out of 8 bikes get perfect scores Handling - 6 out of 8 bikes get perfect scores Usability - 5 out of 8 bikes get perfect scores Fun - 4 out of 8 bikes get perfect scores Value - 1 out of 8 bikes got perfect score So for 4 out of 5 categories, at least half of the bikes received perfect scores. Doesn't seem to me like that kind of scoring is going to help you discern anything. So without a good scoring system, it just seems like a battle of opinions to me and you know what they say about those... | ||
| Johncr250 |
I think the Buell is the best looking bike in the comparision by far. It always comes back to the same thing with the Buell, the motor. The XB gives up almost 50hp to some of those bikes. No wonder the Buell came in next to last. | ||
| 2dflyer |
The XB gives up almost 50hp to some of those bikes. No wonder the Buell came in next to last. Too bad some people let the spec sheets do the talkin instead of the seat of the pants. If they'd just ride they'd figure out you can't run }a bike on the street at 13K RPM where those bikes are making all their HP. | ||
| M1combat |
"My favorite was easily the Brutale - It's just the revs and the way it sounds" Paul Harrison. It's comments like this combined with their acknowledgment of the fact that the Buell is a superior handling bike (even with the stock tires mind you  ) to ALL the other bikes in the comparison that leads me to doubt the riders/writers credibility and subjectiveness. I could care less about the points they awarded, but the only thing they had to say that was bad about the Buell was the engine. I think they didn't spend enough time with it myself. They keep saying that other bikes had more grunt down low, then print numbers that disagree... I'm not so sure they know what "down low" is anymore. Engines are indeed a good thing, but I'm pretty sure that for the price of the more expensive bikes in the comparison you could have Aaron make you a MUCH faster toy. MUCH faster. And it would still handle better. That's something you really can't do much about... Thank you Erik . | ||
| Geoffg |
Now, I'd kinda like a Brutale myself... However, back here in the real world, I got what I thought was the best bike I could afford, an 03 Buell. | ||
| Sleeper_777 |
I give the magazine a 1 out of 10 based on my findings that are factual opinion. Read MCN instead, no advertising dollars and subjective. | ||
| Rocketman |
Just to clarify..... MCN UK said "The Buell's reputation for handling like a superbike and steering like a 250GP bike is well deserved. Scratching on the handling circuit at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground in Leicestershire, it doesn't take long to realise that out of the box, the Lightning out-handles all the bikes here. But that's not all - if you could get an R1 to brake, steer and feel as solid mid-corner as the Buell, you could give it to Rossi to play with. Through really tight stuff it can even hang with the Brutale, flicking from bend to bend like a supermono. But once the road opens up it doesn't have the power to keep up, the revs run out abruptly and the rev-limiter cuts in too soon. If the Buell had more go it would be sensational." In the verdit MCN said "The incredible handling of the Buell took us by surprise, too. You'd never guess when pootling around town with its Harley-derived engine throbbing beneath you that the Lightning will delicately dance its way around a race track with more poise and stability than any current batch of supersport 600s can muster. Incredible." Please let's not knock the British press until you've read the whole story. Rocket | ||
| Alf1929 |
One question about this article: The raw performance data [1/4 mi, 0-60, even hp ratings) appears to be on the low side when compared to tests in US rags. For instance, the XB12 is rated at 95hp. In the US, it is what? 103 or 105 crank, 85 rwhp. The 1/4 mi for the Buell is 12.2s in the article. I've seen it stated to be around 11.3, 11.5 sec. Ditto for the Z1000: 1/4 mi - 11.5 sec, here 10.7 to 10.9 sec (below 11 sec usually). Not that it matters much, just curious! | ||
| 1badbuell |
I think in last month's Motorcyclist mag...their long term Brutale was only clocking 20mpg...so out of the twisties and on to the straights...I'll pass him while he's fueling back up  | ||
| Rocketman |
There's a lot of truth in the fuel race! Last year MCN UK set a motorway, dual carriageway and twisty road course, 300 miles long if I remember correctly, and pitched a Goldwing against an R1. The Wing won by about 10 minutes taking a fast but steady pace. The R1 had its neck wrung all the way between fuel stops! But what if we introduce a boredom meter LOL Rocket | ||
| Djkaplan |
Well, I for one, think that the test was credible. I think it's amazing that a Buell was even considered for a comparison with those bikes. The fact that it even beat one, the Japanese bike no less, is a victory in it's own right. Buells are great, innovative, fun motorcycles, but nothing will make up for the fact that they're powered by an engine designed in 1957. I don't feel bad the Buell didn't finish better; I'm overjoyed that it was taken seriously. | ||
| M1combat |
Interesting... I don't see the XB engine as being designed in 1957 at all. Did you know that there IS actually a crank breather in it? A very neat one too. | ||
| Djkaplan |
Of course the engine is not identical to the original XL released in 1957, but it still uses the antiquidated knife and fork rods, indiviudal cams for each valve, and the pushrods and huge rockers. The layout and configuration of the engine hasn't changed significantly in almost 50 years. I never said this was a bad thing, just stating the obvious. | ||
| M1combat |
Gotcha... The rev limit on our bikes is defined by the chosen stroke length though, so none of those things are the limiting factor in our application. They're good for about 8500 or so RPM from what I hear. Quad cam in our application is also a good thing... It helps to reduce valve train flex because everything is in a line wrt the push rod. The valve train on the twin cams cause the push rod to wobble due to it not being lined up. Again though, it's the stroke length that limits the RPM in that application as well, so it's really not an issue. | ||
| Sleeper_777 |
I prefer MCN over any motorcycle magazine with paid advertising. As for reviews of bikes, none of them persuade me to buy (or not buy) certain bikes. I go ride what I'm interested in and if it fits me, makes me feel comfortable and confident, then it's a good bike for me. | ||
| M1combat |
And that's where it's at... Don't ride spec sheets . | ||
| Buells Rule! (Dyna in disguise) |
The raw performance data [1/4 mi, 0-60, even hp ratings) appears to be on the low side when compared to tests in US rags. For instance, the XB12 is rated at 95hp. In the US, it is what? 103 or 105 crank, 85 rwhp. The 1/4 mi for the Buell is 12.2s in the article. I've seen it stated to be around 11.3, 11.5 sec. Ditto for the Z1000: 1/4 mi - 11.5 sec, here 10.7 to 10.9 sec (below 11 sec usually). Not that it matters much, just curious! From what I have seen over the years it appears as if the UK magazines actually are a lot closer to what a real rider will get in the 1/4 mile, not some 110 lb pro racer. 12.2 for the XB is very credible for what most folks will ever get with a stock bike, the 11.2's you have seen are fantasy. | ||
| M1combat |
As far as I'm concerned it's just like dyno's... I don't look at the number, I look at the curve. If the test was done with the same rider then it's all good, but variance will still show up. To me, I'd look at many sources and average them. This specific subject is moot to me anyway, I could care less about drag races. Just MO though. | ||
| Brucelee |
I think this says it all! "Scratching on the handling circuit at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground in Leicestershire, it doesn't take long to realise that out of the box, the Lightning out-handles all the bikes here. But that's not all - if you could get an R1 to brake, steer and feel as solid mid-corner as the Buell, you could give it to Rossi to play with." | ||
| Rocketsprink |
What it all boils down to is ride what you like and like what you ride. Who really gives a Rat's @ss what others have to say. Not everyone likes what I like. I respect their opinions, but doesn't mean I have to accept them! | ||
| Cataract2 |
From what I have seen over the years it appears as if the UK magazines actually are a lot closer to what a real rider will get in the 1/4 mile, not some 110 lb pro racer. 12.2 for the XB is very credible for what most folks will ever get with a stock bike, the 11.2's you have seen are fantasy. That or 11.2 would be what you get with wheely bars and leaving the line balls to the wall by dropping the clutch. But hey, who here would/could do that without breaking loose right? Besides, if that were the case my FZR would be 11.5 in the 1/4. Reality, I can muster about 12.9-13.4 on it. | ||
| Yeahcmon |
"the revs run out to quickly" DO THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT A PUSHROD IS???????????? | ||
| Rocketman |
Yeah, it's a rod that pushes  Rocket | ||
| New12r |
I managed a 11.7 on a Teresi Drag Dyno, With lots of launch revvs and clutchless shifting. I know I could not have done that on the real strip, I would be on my back and the bike probably on top of me. |
