| Author | Message | ||
     Lornce |
Resonably new to Buelling, so please bear with. What are the main differences between the S2 and S3 models, beyond the subtle bodywork variance and engine tune. I'm interested in chassis specs: wheelbase, rake, trail etc. Thanks for your time. Lornce | ||
| Kevyn |
Hey Lornce, Welcome to worldBuell! Trying to evaluate an S2 or S3 by chassis specs is like trying to describe an elephant to a blind man---it's hands on man!! I have an S2 so I know what that's like. Never had the chance to ride an S3 until this weekend...it's not an S2 in any way shape or form. Two entirely different bikes despite the relative characteristics. Sit yer hiney in the saddle and give the ponies some reins son. You'll know which one suits you soon enough. | ||
| Rick_A |
Chassis specs are very similar. Both 55" wheelbases, and similar, if not exact, rake/trail. The frames are very different, though look much the same. The S2 frame tubes are actually better triangulated. It took until 1999 for Buell to catch up on most of that. S2 instruments and fairing bolt onto the sides of the frame, while the S3's bolt to the headstock. The S3 is a simplified design over the S2...it uses welded on forgings for the footpeg/isolator mounts instead of the removeable sideplates on the S2. This makes the S3 1" narrower between the footpegs and a real pain in the ass to remove the swingarm, engine, or isolators. There's other features reducing the number of parts in S3's...but I forget exactly what the difference in the # of parts is. S2's have a longer tank, 1" H-D controls on weird high rise clipon bars, and foot controls that are slighlty higher and forward over the S3. IMO S2's are much better looking machines than S3's. Soooo pretty. I've never rode either...so I can't help ya there! | ||
| Aaron |
There's a pretty significant difference in seating position, too. The S2 puts your butt farther back, and the bars are narrower and lower. Both of those things change the handling characteristics of the motorcycle dramatically. The S2 is a much more stable feeling motorcycle, the S3 has more of the big dirt bike feel of all the later Buells. The S2 also has more premium components. The S3 is a cost reduced version. | ||
| Newfie_Buell |
I rode the S3 and if I had to go a long distance I would choose it over the S1. But for pure fun the S1 is the way to go. I can not comment on the S2 as I have no experience with one. If I were to purchase another Buell (start a collection) I would have to find a good S2. | ||
| Josh |
I've put 44,000miles on my '99 S3T (NallinStg1), 1000miles on my 98 S1WL(RaceKit, pro bars), 600miles on my RS (RevTechHeads+?) and 1mile on Kevyn's S2(Racekit?). For short exciting rides give me the S1, for midrange rides the S2 or RS, for touring the country with a passenger the S3. it's amazing how bikes with very similar rake/ trail/ wheelbase feel so different. If I were starting the collection over... I'd get an S2 (for $4000-4500 on eBay is a really really good deal) and an S1WL. For distance a fmj1300? or BMW or something big and fast with a power 'shield, radio and lots of heat. Josh teamelves.com 91RS1200 98S1WL 99S3T 00Blast | ||
| Phillyblast |
Josh said - >For short exciting rides give me the S1, for >midrange rides the S2 or RS, for touring the >country with a passenger the S3. Josh likes to have a CD player and A/C  Personally, I've ridden both (and Josh's S1WL) and like the S2 better. As Aaron mentioned, it definitely feels more stable at speed. When I say speed, I mean cruising just shy/over a ton. When Aaron says "speed" he means 200+. I think there's a reason he chose the S2 as the basis for the new LSR bike. The power output from the S3 and the S1 is definitely a bonus, but that can be fixed on the S2. Think of it this way, you can make an S2 have the RWHP of an S3, but you can't make an S3 into an S2. As for long range touring, it'd be a tossup. I'm single so the passenger accomodations don't matter as much to me, but the S3 perch appeared a little more passenger friendly. | ||
| Jim_Sb |
Howdy, I've got a '96 S2 with stock WP inverted forks and clip-ons and the 1" stock grips & HD controls. Had right wrist surgery a few months back (fixing a very old injury) and now the 1" grips are really bothering me. I would very much like to convert to the newer style 7/8" bars which would be easier on my wrist. Note that my S2's clip-ons rise significantly above the top triple clamp. I would not want to go any lower (although an inch higher would be fine) or lose any pullback. I have not found any suppliers who make what I'm after. I am looking for suggestions here, ideas currently floating around are: 1. Convert top triple clamp to '97 S3 item and use S3T bars. Sleeve the stock '96 HD controls to fit on the 7/8" bar -or- convert to '97 Buell controls as well. Any reason why this would not be doable? 2. I have a set of S2T clip-ons as well (1" also). Can I send them to a customizer (Banke, perhaps?), have them cut off the bar ends and weld in a smaller 7/8" bar end somehow? Seems to me someone with a milling machine or metal lathe could make a 7/8" grip that could taper (if necessary) to fit inside a cut-off 1" clip-on. I would appreciate input from those of you that know both models well. [I realize I could trade for an S3 but I like my S2 thanks...]. Jim in Santa Barbara | ||
| Lornce |
Thanks for the input folks, helps to clear up some of the smoke. Am interested in Aaron's comments re. an S3 being cost reduced over the S2. My '98 wears the same WP fork as an S2, which I'm sure was costlier to source than Showa's fitted to '99 and later S3's. Perhaps the S3T bodywork is less costly? Nissin over PM brakes cheaper too? In any event, I'm diggin the '98 S3T. And yes: with that bar (S3 on mine, not S3T) and those pegs it has the ergos of a big dual purpose bike, not a sport bike. Suits me fine for most riding. I can see rear sets and clip-ons for the S1 though.... ~ : ^ ) Lornce | ||
| Aaron |
Actually, the S3 has a less costly set of forks on it than an S2. The S2 has Roma forks, each leg has rebound and compression. Plus it has removable side plates, aluminum oil tank, clip-ons, separate fuel tank/cover, stiffer frame (although it interferes with service), CF air cleaner cover, etc etc. 'Course, there is that little issue of the sidestand ... | ||
| Lornce |
Thanks for the additional information Aaron. The only S2 I've looked at was a '95. Will have to look more closely at the forks, thought they were the same. Appreciate the heads up. If you have time, could you explain details of the frame differences or point to a URL where the info or pics are available? Thanks much. This is a very informative list. | ||
| Aaron |
The S2 was the first model after the Harley buy-in. Dave G or Court could tell the story much better, but as I understand it, there was a major push to get a new bike to market ASAP, cost be damned. Evidently they lost money on every one they made. Can't stay in business long doing that! The S2 retains many of the design aspects of the old Buell Motor Company bikes (Buell Motorcycle Company came about with the Harley buy-in). It's really more similar to an RS1200 than it is to an S3. Kind of a refined version of the RS. There's nothing wrong with cost reduction per se. Done properly the customer doesn't even notice. But, I can point to a few things where perhaps maybe they went just a little too far. For example, ever hear of an S2 isolator going bad? Try to pull the primary cover off an S2 sometime, you'll immediately see a difference in the frames! At least it can be done on an S2 without major surgery. Can't say the same for the RR. Basically, this chassis design started out with a lot of straight tubes, priority one through ten was stiffness, and over the years it got bent around to make the bike easier to work on, and perhaps to make the frame more manufacturable. The S2 was part way through that process. | ||
| Rick_A |
Them bent tubes sure are pretty, though. | ||
| X1glider |
So Aaron, does that explain the use of the S2 frame with the RR bodywork? The bodywork fits fairly easily? I kinda figure it was used for it's geometry being better for high speeds. Or was it for both reasons? Just curious as to why you chose it as a base. |
