| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 04:17 pm: | 
|
"It doesn't seem likely anyone, or any amount of information, or facts, is going to change YOUR mind that Buells are the best motorcycle ever built."
Why make any kind of issue concerning which bike Spike, I or anyone else happen to personally view as "the best motorcycle ever built"?
That is an entirely subjective personal point of view.
For reasons that escape psychologically healthy folks, and even me too, some people try their best to belittle Buell motorcycles and those who prefer them.
Such people are not welcome here.
People who intentionally violate the terms of use of this site are not welcome here. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 04:46 pm: |
|
Court,
I'm not a big supporter of our nation's economy. I've never spent $30K on a motor-vehicle of any kind. However, Michele is constantly going on about the new BMW SUV. The high-def television commercial where they show it negotiating the Nürburgring is enticing. But no; having a BMW parked in the driveway would ruin my image.
So I'm busy trying to convince her of the cool factor of her "classic" 1994 Ford Exploder. Yes, I've employed irrefutable logic and advanced mathematics. It ain't selling. Her response is likely to be that she'll simply return home one day with her new vehicle, one entirely pleasing to her well-tuned sense of design. Friggin' architects.
The $20 table lamps at Walmart are fine with me. My astutely design-tuned designer/architect-wife prefers $300 cordless Italian models.
Taking a que from Michele, someone with a very discerning sense of excellent versus very good versus okay versus ho-hum design, that motorcycle would need to offer something vastly different and very much innovative and ground-breaking in design and function in order to garner such an elite price. Yeah, it would need to be more like a Buell.
For $40K, if I had to spend it on motorcycle(s), I'd much rather have an XBRR for the track and a Uly for the road fun. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Interesting discussion!
I don't understand picking 1500 RPM for the start of the inline four range and 2500 for the start of the Buell range... Does a 4 naturally idle at half the speed of a twin? I don't recall what my last inline 4 idle speed was.
And to be fair, if we are comparing a GSXR750, shouldn't we be picking a consistent single horsepower point to count as "the bottom of the powerband". If 50 RWHP is enough to count as the start of the powerband for an XB12S, it's enough to count for a GSXR750, given the GSXR is probably even lighter then the Buell.
Otherwise, you are arbitrarily punishing the GSX for having higher horsepower.
It think that might better capture the true state for people concerned mainly about how fast a bike goes. |
Spike
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 05:16 pm: |
|
quote:And to be fair, if we are comparing a GSXR750, shouldn't we be picking a consistent single horsepower point to count as "the bottom of the powerband". If 50 RWHP is enough to count as the start of the powerband for an XB12S, it's enough to count for a GSXR750, given the GSXR is probably even lighter then the Buell.
I could see either side of that argument. The same horsepower should be enough to count as the start for the powerband for both bikes, but if one bike goes on to make much more power then that starting power will feel relatively weak in comparison. In that sense the bike is being punished for having higher horsepower, but that's the nature of having a high horsepower vehicle. If you have a bike making 150hp, it will feel like you're out of the power if you're riding it down in the rpm range where it's only making 50hp. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 05:41 pm: |
|
Bill,
My idea was to compare not the magnitude, but the character of one engine's power delivery to that of another, meaning not quantitatively, but qualitatively.
It would be just as valid but a different comparison to compare magnitudes of HP across the power curve, which a dyno chart does extremely well. That point of view is what we use when we talk about the instantly available power.
In general, the IL4 engines are much smoother and able to more comfortably operate at lower rpm compared to any two cylinder machine. It's just the nature of having more cylinders to help smooth out the power pulses.
But note that in the comparison, to be more fair to the IL4, we used the same lower boundary for operational rpm for each engine. We used 1500 rpm for each. 
I like those words, "quantitative" and "qualitative." ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) |
Thepup
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 06:20 pm: |
|
"Both of those are attempts to side step the issue. What you actually claimed is that in a roll on from 3500rpm a 600 with less power and torque would walk away from a bike making more power and torque. I've already stated that if each bike is brought up to it's peak power the bike with more power will walk away, you guys are implying the opposite will happen. Try not to clutter it with extra data. Just explain how a vehicle with less power can out accelerate a vehicle with more power aside from any large differences in weight, reciprocating weight, or gearing"
Spike,guess what there is large differences in weight,reciprocating weight,and gearing.Real world testing showed that every 600 thru 1200 IL4 bike(except R6) has better 1/4 mile times,60-80 and 80-100 mph roll on times.So it would seem as I said the Buell is out accelerated by bikes with less tourque.Having both a XB9 and a IL4 bike,there are differences in the power delivery down low,but anything above 3500 the IL4 walks away.I understand the XB12 has more torque though. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 06:52 pm: |
|
"but anything above 3500 the IL4 walks away."
That is not accurate at all. A 600cc IL4 will fall flat on its face at 3500 rpm. All the way through its rev range, a Buell is putting out about twice the RWHP as the typical IL4 600cc repliracer. |
Thepup
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 07:51 pm: |
|
Blake,I have a 750,not a 600 |
Houriganj
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 10:20 pm: |
|
guys i am constantly seeing the debate or comparison of the jap bikes as to the buells and there is no way they can be compared. it is not an apples and oranges comparison it is more like apples and lettuce. they are both produce (as in sport bikes) but no where near related. No pun intended as to the bikes. i had a jap bike when i was younger and they are fun but now my riding style has changed and have a buell now. i dont know but just my opinion. p.s. cant we all get along |
Cycleaddict
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 11:15 pm: |
|
$$$ aside i think the ROEHR is cool! how could you "not" like a v- twin sport bike ? |
Indy_bueller
| | Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 11:17 pm: |
|
I agree with Houriganj. You can't compare the two. There isn't anything wrong with either of them, each have thier strong points and weak points. Really what it comes down to is the fact that the engineering ideas behind each of them are radically different. |
Aj06bolt12r
| | Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 01:40 am: |
|
All I have to say is that the roehr is a really sexy looking bike, if i was filthy stinkin rich enough to drop fourty grand on a bike than I would buy it just for looks, engine be damned, I could always buy a gixxer thou or sumthin for the adrenaline rush if I had to at that point and would probably have 20 bikes in the garage. The bolt would probably still get the most time on the road tho, just comes down to personal preferance. But yeah... pretty bike! |
Spike
| | Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 02:13 pm: |
|
quote:Spike,guess what there is large differences in weight,reciprocating weight,and gearing.Real world testing showed that every 600 thru 1200 IL4 bike(except R6) has better 1/4 mile times,60-80 and 80-100 mph roll on times.So it would seem as I said the Buell is out accelerated by bikes with less tourque.Having both a XB9 and a IL4 bike,there are differences in the power delivery down low,but anything above 3500 the IL4 walks away.I understand the XB12 has more torque though.
1/4 mile times, 60-80, and 80-100mph roll-on times don't tell us anything about what is happening at 3500rpm, so they're nearly irrelevant to this discussion. They do demonstrate that the vehicle with the most power will likely accelerate quicker, but I already stated that once the 600, 750, or 1000 is allowed to be revved to the point where it's making more power it will out accelerate the bike with less power.
Differences in weight, reciprocating weight, or gearing may allow one vehicle to take advantage of the power it has to out accelerate a vehicle with slightly more power, but the mechanical advantages of a 750 aren't nearly enough to overcome a 100% advantage in power over the XB12 at 3500rpm. There is simply no way your 750 will accelerate harder than an XB12 from 3500rpm. |
Spike
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 10:38 am: |
|
Here's an XB9 dyno chart for comparison:
This one is particularly useful since it also shows a Ducati SS800 and a few 600s. It's pretty obvious from this chart that once you get the 600 above 9-10k rpm the XB9 doesn't stand a chance. However, below 8k rpm the XB9 has a huge power advantage over the 600. At 3500rpm the XB9 has about a 60% advantage in power, at 7k rpm it's closer to a 50% advantage. I'm sure some would like to cite the weight advantage of the 600, but that isn't as great as one might think. The lightest 600 of the bikes in the above dyno chart is the '06 YZF-R6S at 419lbs wet. Sport rider lists the XB9R from the same test at 460lbs wet. Give each bike a 150lb rider and the numbers jump to 569lbs for the R6S and 610lbs for the XB9R. That means the XB9R is a little more than 7% heavier than the R6S.
To give credit to Thepup, the power numbers between an XB9 and a 750 are much closer, with the XB9 holding a 5-10rwhp advantage from 3500-7000 rpm. The weight numbers are also closer, with the XB9 being 3-6% heavier than the 750. |
Ridrx
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 03:47 pm: |
|
I REALLY don't want to start "the" debate, but do you have the torque curves for those same bikes? Just curious. |
Spike
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 04:15 pm: |
|
quote:I REALLY don't want to start "the" debate, but do you have the torque curves for those same bikes? Just curious.
I don't, but sportrider.com does:
I've been pulling up the previous charts from their site, right-clicking on the charts and selecting "copy image location", then pasting that into the post using the \ imagelink {} function. The exception was the GSX-R chart from the previous page. It wasn't a single image, it was a series of about 10 images side by side, so I had to use ctrl+print screen to get a screen shot and then crop it to just the dyno chart. |
Ridrx
| | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 09:01 pm: |
|
Thanks Spike. That's the graph that makes me want to ride. |
|
