| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:34 pm: | 
|
Guys, I'm here to tell you, the preoccupation with peak HP is silly. How often do you really push your engine that hard? Give me low end and a fat mid range please. Like 80 FT-LBs at 3k rpm.  |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:38 pm: |
|
You're in the box, Vik, looking at only how things are and assuming that's the way they have to be.
How do you know that those power levels can't be achieved in a production bike? Isn't that a huge assumption? I mean, if an independent shop and a home mechanic can accomplish this, how do you know a team of engineers couldn't do it and make it practical?
What if they redesigned the heads? Changed the shape and direction and lengths of the runners? What if they changed the valve sizes? Added valves? What if they came up with a low cost way of CNC machinining all the ports? And the chambers? What if they got rid of the common crankpin? Or what if they just took the direct route and made the motor bigger?
I mean, these results were achieved without any drastic design changes at all, just an optimization of what's already there. And what's already there is a long way from being state of the art, BTW.
Just thinking about it logically, why wouldn't a well designed air cooled motor be simpler, more reliable, lighter, cheaper, and nearly as powerful as a water cooled version?
So far, nobody's answering that question. From where I'm sitting, people are asking for water cooling without knowing why. The only thing they have for a reason is that current state of the art water cooled motors are better than old design air cooled motors. So what? |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:39 pm: |
|
JQ,
You are correct sir. A bike's gotta have at least moderate power to keep me grinning. I don't accept that a Blast will out handle my M2. It may be more "manueverable" and more flickable, but it's inferior suspension and frame would reveal themselves in aggresive riding at speed. But mainly, I', 6'-3" and look silly enough riding a '97 M2. I'd love to have a Blast racer like XGecko's to kick some arse on the track though, complete with Nallin 44" kit of course.  |
Aaron
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:01 pm: |
|
Vik, you're of German descent (as am I), right? And you have one of them fancy German sports cars, right?
Wasn't it up until just a few years ago that 911's were air-cooled? And didn't they absolutely haul ass?
I'd be real hesitant to conclude that the current XL mill is representative of everything that can be accomplished with an air cooled motor. Even one worked over heavily is still working against some basic constraints that wouldn't have to be there in a fresh design. |
Elvis
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:20 pm: |
|
I'm with Aaron. When you look at the firebolt, every nut and bolt shows innovation and creative thinking. Some of it works and some of it is of questionable value, but all of it challenges the imagination and makes the statement "forget about how you think motorcycles have to be put together".
If this sort of thinking can be applied to the engine, we may see things we never thought were possible. |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:25 pm: |
|
I wish I had the technical proclivity to play here but I do have the ability to "see" outside the box.
A couple years ago, folks dismissed the perimeter rim rotor for how it effected the steering response. That thinking, however, was predicated on all other things (the weight of the wheel) being equal. All the data (See Reg Kittrelle's comments) was from perimeter rim systems mounted on bikes designed for hub rotors.
Buell went "clean sheet" and assumed nothing. The results are eveident in the Firebolt with it's much, much lighter wheel. Things work as systems.
I've learned, over many years, not to "assume" anything in the world of Erik Buell.
I think the next several weeks, and the coming years, are going to yield tremendous excitement and a collection of "hey..I never thought of that's".
Just my thoughts...
Court |
Elvis
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:51 pm: |
|
Court,
I'm glad to hear you say that. I've been trying to keep my expectations low for the upcoming show thinking that we saw most of the innovation last year and this year would be realtively simple variations on the theme.
I'm still trying to keep my expectations low, but you're giving me hope that I may be pleasantly surprised. |
Java
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 11:06 pm: |
|
O.K., here's my two cents. There is not a bike in the world that would'nt be better if it had 30 more horses, and another gear in the tranny. Over 100 hp is nice, but I'm getting old and lazy. I'm tired of keeping 16 valves adjusted, I want hydraulic lifters. I'm tired of adjusting chains, I want a belt. I'm tired of rowing up & down through my silky-smooth 6 speed tranny, I want TORQUE! I want a small, light, good-handling bike. If it has a reputation for being down on horsepower, then that just makes it MORE fun to ride around the outside of your average squid on a GSXR/R1/ZXR/CBRR.....Thank you Erik, for what IMHO is a near-perfect bike! |
Eeeeek
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 01:16 am: |
|
Aaron:
Yes, they absolutely made gobs of power. So riddle me this: Why did they go to watercooled?
Vik |
Buellbob
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 02:01 am: |
|
I agree with Blake on the HP issue. Torque is what gets you up and running, and low to midband is where its needed. Diesel engines tell that story, ok HP but Massive amounts of torque. Most max. HP shows up way to far up the rpm band to do any good, it sounds impressive but lots of torque low down for a quick launch and getting up to speed faster is better. Besides running around at the rev limit just means you'll be doing a rebuild that much qiucker, because I also like Javas' slant on things low maintenance is good. I'm tired of wrenching stuff.
BOB |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 06:39 am: |
|
Quote:Just thinking about it logically, why wouldn't a well designed air cooled motor be simpler, more reliable, lighter, cheaper, and nearly as powerful as a water cooled version?
Yes it would be all those things, but it would also be TOO NOISY TO PASS THE EPA DRIVE BY TEST.
The whole problem that Buell has had historically is getting power out of the XL without going over 80db in the drive by test.
Why do you think they have never increased the bore in a stock production motorcycle???
NOISE
I must Link to this article again, y'all need to re read it! |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 06:43 am: |
|
From the article:
 |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 06:48 am: |
|
From the Erik Buell Interview at Gazette 9
Quote:The only thing we can't compete with as well is sound deadening - but man, from every other standpoint there's an advantage
So we really couldn't find a reason to make it water-cooled. Everything said, make it air-cooled. Now, maybe under optimum situations, you design an engine for racing, to work at a certain temperature, to get the peak efficiency out of it, yeah...but for all-around-use engines? Air-cooleds are wonderful.
Quote:We'll probably do water-cooling, cause some customers want it, and there may be some advantages; but, to have to do it across the board? It's gonna be a long time before that has to happen.
|
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 06:51 am: |
|
Blake
Yes the Blast is more "manueverable" and Flickable. That's what I mean when I say it handles better than a Firebolt, especially for the novice rider.
Ground Clearance/suspension is definetly the Firebolt's domain. But I found the bike to be heavy steering compared to the Blast. Which is why I OPINE that the Blast is better handling for most street type riding. |
Aaron
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 08:28 am: |
|
Uh, they DID increase the bore, in the TC88.
No question sound deadening is a big advantage. The other is that it allows a little more compression.
Notice that the TC88 also did a number of things to reduce noise.
So, all these people who are asking for water cooling are doing so because of the EPA?
Isn't it just a tad presumptious of us to tell them they must do water cooling because that's the only way to pass noise emissions tests? Wouldn't it be safe to assume they know a ton more about that stuff than us?
Why not say "we want a small, light, powerful, reliable, low maintenance engine"?
I don't believe that's the motivation for asking for water cooling at all. I believe a number of people are making a huge assumption, that water cooling is necessary to make power.
With what little I know about motors, even I can look at the XL mill and see several things wrong from a performance point of view. There's a LOT of room for improvement.
I still don't understand why they didn't do port injection with true downdraft ports. All I can figure is the motor is also targeted at a cruiser. |
Jrh
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 10:16 am: |
|
On the engine horsepower discussion, i still want the most i can get.There's a vocal group of Buellers here who seem to be saying hi hp is only good for ridiculous top speeds,so far i havent read of anyone mentioning the acceleration a 140hp engine can give.I absolutely agree,that on a public road,riding at any speed much over the legal posted speed is simply idiotic and only a matter of when,not if,big trouble pops up,but you sure can have fun,if the road+safety conditions are just right,going from just 0-60mph.Wouldnt we all want an XB(if the engineers could make it just as lightweight+uncomplicated)with more power?
On the air cooled engine talks,obviously we all agree that aircooled, with its less complexity would be the way to go if engineers can get the power,reliability,low noise levels etc.I really wonder how much engineering research has been done in these areas lately?When you look at an air cooled engine,you sure dont see much innovation,maybe,like you guys say,if some "out of the box"type thinkers focus back on aircooling there's still alot they can do to improve it.What about different metal alloys,different densities of these materials in specific areas of a cyl.head for example,ceramics,composites,air flow directed in certain ways on the outside of the engine,etc.etc.Apply computer technology thats now available and aircooling could certainly be improved upon,it seems. |
Eeeeek
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 10:30 am: |
|
Aaron,
we want what works. Small, light, reliable and powerfull. I couldn't give a rat's ass about the EPA; however, the DMV seems to care when I go to register my bikes.
I'm not an engine guy, but when even the last of the die hard performace companies goes watercooled, that says something. I know liquid cooled works today. Maybe one day someone will make a knock yer socks off air cooled engine that will pass all the tests, but if the lil' bolt is any indication, not any time soon.
Vik |
Aaron
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 10:47 am: |
|
Well, that's my point exactly. So far, the only evidence that's been offered up that water cooling is necessary for big power is that everyone else is doing it.
But we're talking about Buell here. Doing things differently and making it work is what they're known for.
Personally, it's a major selling point for me. I think the world of motorcycling would really lose something if they decided to follow the herd and do things the same as everyone else. Honestly, I probably wouldn't even buy one. The Japanese already make that kind of motorcycle, and they do a damn fine job of it and sell it dirt cheap. What would be my compelling reason to buy a Buell? Patriotism? Brand loyalty? Not good enough for me.
I'd much rather see them turn conventional thinking upside down (again) and do something different with the motor. Silence all the naysayers who say it can't be done that way. That's what impresses me, people who think outside the box and come up with things nobody else is doing. Copying other people doesn't impress me at all.
Sure, we "want what works". The question is: is water cooling the only thing that works? People seem convinced of that. I'm not so sure.
I think the fact that independent shops and home mechanics can get competitive power out of the current motors, without addressing the fundamental design and serious limitations of the engine, speaks volumes. If we can do that, just think what could be done with an engineering staff and a clean sheet of paper to work from.
I suspect the XB motor was seriously compromised to also service the cruiser market. Just look at the ports and injection. That's not the way it's done on high performance motors. You create a straight shot down. Why would they come up with an all new head and put an S-bend in the path like that? The only explanation I can come up with is that it's designed for a cruiser.
Then there's the flat squish band with the fuel obstructing dome. WTF? Again, it makes sense for a cruiser, lose the dome and you have a pretty good design for low compression and mass production. But man, an angled squish band without the obstruction is the way to do it on a performance motor. Or a flat top piston with a flat chamber and 4 valves with narrow angles.
I'm not sure what the common crankpin is costing them, power wise, but it's something else I look at as a cruiser thing. Creates nice sounds and vibes but is it a good thing for power? 'Course, their engine mounting system kind of relies on it.
At least they went oversquare. That's the only real high-performance oriented change I can see. I think the oil squirters will help with a lot of the reliability issues, too. |
Peyote
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 01:18 pm: |
|
aaron,
you're right. you don't know a lot about engines. When I agreed that water-cooling was needed, I suggested it as another product line. I never said that it should replace air-cooled engines. And it's not because everybody else is doing it. It's because the weight/hp ratio that it adds. And only idiots don't understand that. Sorry. I like air-cooled and it'll be around, but if you don't want a water-cooled buell don't buy one. Why would you not want them to make it just because you don't want it? If it sells, it's good for all buell fans. sheesh. |
Elvis
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 01:45 pm: |
|
José's 6:48 post above clearly hints that Erik intends to offer both. That is the first time I have noticed he said that (he said it two years ago so it's nothing new, just the first time I noticed it).
That quote seems to show that a line-up including both air and water cooled bikes are in Buell's future. I personally don't think the water cooled variation will look anything like the VRSC, and I don't expect to see it for at least 2-3 years or longer.
I'm in the camp that says "air-cooled, water cooled, I don't give a crap, I just want a good engine". On the off, off chance we see a brand new, light, efficient, water-cooled engine introduced in a couple weeks, I better take a change of pants to work with me that day. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 04:05 pm: |
|
Peyote,
You tell him!
BTW, have you put together any 115 RWHP stock displacement Buell engines lately? Or maybe you've been racing stock cars? Or have you been spending your time preparing to be the first to field an American V-Twin that breaks the 200 mph barrier at Bonneville?
I bet you'd even put a rev limiter on a high performance competition engine... pshaw.  |
Aaron
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 04:12 pm: |
|
"It's because the weight/hp ratio that it adds. And only idiots don't understand that."
Now there's an intelligent argument. Say it's so, without explanation, and anyone who doesn't understand must be an idiot!
Want to hear my definition of an idiot? 
Can you tell me how it helps the weight/hp ratio? You still haven't done that. What exactly does it do to help the weight/hp ratio?
Can you tell me conclusively that an air-cooled motor can't get there? Why? And don't tell me because the Firebolt motor isn't there. The Firebolt motor is a cruiser motor.
"Why would you not want them to make it just because you don't want it?"
And just where did I say I don't want them to make one?
I want them to do whatever it takes to get us more power, reliability, low maintenance, simplicity, and light weight. If that takes water-cooling, so be it. But what I don't understand is why everyone assumes that to be the case. Like Erik, I can see pros and cons to water cooling. I'm waiting for an explanation as to why water cooling is being requested. So far, all I've heard is that everyone does it that way and the EPA will require it (despite Erik's statement to the contrary) and it's better and if you don't understand that, you must be an idiot. |
Phillyblast
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 04:42 pm: |
|
I'm not opposed to a water-cooled Buell motorcycle, I just don't see the revo motor fitting into the Firebolt chassis, or one like it, without introducing a level of complexity I'm not comfortable with. Ducati sells air and water cooled bikes, right? No reason Buell can't have a lineup comprised of both. But for me, the complexity added with water cooling far outweighs any advantages it may provide, and while hydraulic lifters and pushrods limit the amount of revs, and therefore peak HP, I get out of my motorcycle, I'm willing to take that tradeoff for the decreased maintenance required for the aircooled pushrod mill. I ride my bike, every day, to work, the store, sometimes just for the hell of it. I plan on racking up some miles on the new-to-me S2, and I don't want to send it to the dealer every 6K for a valve adjustment, etc. I also do a lot of short hops, and as EB said in the gazette9 interview, an aircooled motor is great for that type of riding. |
Jrh
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 09:47 pm: |
|
On the valve adjustment issue of some of the other non H-D engine types;i havent read any factory recomended valve adjustment intervals for anything recently except an R1 i had(now sold)I was told by two different mechanics,at two dealerships,Yamaha recomends the 1st check at 26,600 miles.I still refused to actually believe that until i bought a factory service manual+it does say 26,600.So...i dont think valve adjustments are a real big deal in that particular engine.When the time comes,if when clearance is checked +it needs adjusted,yah,you have to pull out 2 cams.Ive never done this on a watercooled engine,but ive done countless cam removals,reinstals in Kaw.Zs+Suz.GSs+im sure every guy on this website who can remove +reinstall the top end of a Buell can just as easily work on one of these type engines(if he even wanted a bike with one of these engines,which i know most of you here dont)My point is though,these engines,with a few tools+a manual could be worked on by anyone who wanted to bad enough.BTW,im not arguing for 5 valve heads,4 cylinders or any particular engine type,just mentioning doing some of the work on non hyd.valve engine types aint so bad.Some of the Suzuki+Kaw. air cooled had buckets+shims(shims on top of buckets)+all you had to do was use a $12 factory tool to lever down the bucket,r+r the shim,slick+simple.
Oh yah,if the the one guy on this website id really want to work on my Buell+share his knowledge with us is an idiot,man,i could hardly type that word,i must be Mooky the cave man in the FARSIDE comicstrip. |
Jrh
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Uh,Aaron,you're the one guy i meant,just to make that clear,not the other guy. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Saturday, June 29, 2002 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Aaron,
I was talking about the 3.5" bore XL which has never been increased from the Factory.
I wansn't talking about the TC88. That one has 3.75" cylinders and they're pretty thick/big to keep the noise down. So the heads have to be larger too.
Those heads/cylinders wouldn't fit inside a Tube or XB frame, would they? |
Aaron
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 12:22 am: |
|
José: I have a 4" bore motor that fits in a Buell tube frame.
Look at it this way ... going from a 3.5" to a 4" bore, with the same cylinder thickness and fin size, would make the cyls 1/2" bigger diameter, right? 1/4" on each side. Do you have 1/4" clearance inside your tubes? Of course.
Ever look at a set of Millenniums? Thick cylinders. Noticeably heavier than the stockers. Had to clearance the bejeezus out of'em to get'em to clear the pushrod tubes (Blast). They fit the stock frames fine.
I think the TC88 looks big because they put a lot of fin area onto it.
The 88" motor Gary was talking about used cast iron Axtell cylinders. Wonderful product, but also known for transferring noise a little more.
Jrh & Blake: thanks, I appreciate your support, but don't worry about it ... insults generally say more about the person giving them than the person receiving, doesn't phase me. |
Eeeeek
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 02:43 am: |
|
I'll answer why I'm hung up on water cooling. The little quote by George Santayana comes to mind: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
What we know:
The last crop of air cooled Buell engines suffer huge midrange dips so that they can get an EPA seal of approval. The lil' bolt doesn't seem to have this dip; however, it has less power all around.
So I start jogging my memory and think to when all the bikes started going liquid cooled. I remeber the GSXR was the last of the hold outs in the high performance category, and they threw in the air cooling back in what, '94?
Maybe I never gave the bolt engine a chance from the get go. I want a liquid cooled engine becasue I don't think that anyone can get a high performance, light wieght air cooled engine through the EPA, much less carb. Sure, you can slip a 113 ci S&S engine through, but now you've got a big, heavy beast.
Call me a nay sayer. If I'm wrong, then I'll be happy. I'm just going by what I know which is not very much.
Vik |
Jmartz
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 09:20 am: |
|
Aaron:
I am glad you are speaking out about the the FB's poor head design. They used the same head casting, didn't even bother to remove the casting bosses from the breather/carb mounts and then added an extra turn to the manifold. Performance enhacement they were not after.
Never condidered the cruiser angle but with your commnets now and with circulating rumors of an all new Sportster I'm puttng 2 & 2 together.
My best wishes got out to BMC and I wish the them great success but the FB powerplant might not get too many out there excited enough to purchase one. |
José_Quiñones
| | Posted on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 09:40 am: |
|
Quote:José: I have a 4" bore motor that fits in a Buell tube frame.
My point is that it can't be done and still keep the noise down enough to pass the EPA drive by test, where it must be below 80 db as it drives by the meter at 55% of the available rpm or something like that.
you have a DB meter there somewhere in your garage?
HD/Buell have spent a lot of money making the TC88 quiet and some of what they learned has rubbed of on the XL's (the lifters, high contact ratio gears, etc}. But, hopefully the found something new (maybe that noise cancellation stuff.....)
Vik
The XB still has the "dip" but it's not nearly as bad as a stock X1 "DIP". |
|
A VROD Based Streetfighter?! »
Archive through June 30, 2002