| Author | Message | ||
     Court |
>>>>Could we even coax the man himself to come out of hiding to discuss something like this? It's much easier to get him started talking that to get him to STOP talking . . . Three people, not long ago, ended up in a locked room reminiscing about the "old days". I heard stories I'd have never believed and, in fact, my new personal "best" story was replaced by a damn bass. It was an amazing time and it wasn't until afterward that the Zoom H4 I'd been demonstrating prior to the meeting was found to have been left on and recorded the entire 2 hours or what was supposed to be 10 minutes. The digital files have been seized . . . but I, for one, would gladly forgo the soto voce' "Buell History" talk at Homecoming next year in favor of a camp fire next to the barn and a 2-hour session of "The Best of Buell Racing". Buell. . . uh, the person. . has a more incredible racing history that most folks could possibly imagine. By the way . . .the only really great way to hold that event is with Henry Duga to one side adding the "shy Henry" signature nod and grin and Dave Gess on the other filling in names and details. . . . Talk about something neither love, money nor passion could BUY from any other motorcycle company in the world. This guy has lost not one grain of passion. | ||
| Davegess |
Hell the public talk he gave at Homecoming was revealing and things were said that no one at Juneau would have approved of. Nothing really terrible mind you just things that would not fit the corporate fantasy. I hope that our book capture even a bit of Erik's passion and pride; that would make me very happy. | ||
| Davegess |
The Bass, Court remind me did we tell that story in the book? Just teasing, yes we did although not vehemently as Erik did; I may have to edit it to juice it up a bit. Erik telling a racing story is like hitting the afterburner on a fighter jet. There is a very big noise and then lots of stuff happens real fast. | ||
| Buellnick |
...back to FULL FAIRINGS...and aero (rather than power) Does anybody have aerodynamic data on the old and new?? Coefficient of Drag? Coefficient of Pressure? Relationship to CG... etc etc etc... The RR was supposed to have been quite the aerodynamic bike of its day. It would be interesting to know where the 1125r stands. | ||
| Davegess |
The RR 1000 and 1200 and the XBRR are very slippery. I suspect the 1125 is also very good and likely surprising so for a partially faired bike. It is likely that the rider will help complete the air flow over the top and sides of the bike. | ||
| Zac4mac |
I put 185 miles on mine today. Somewhere along the way I realized my knees were closer together than on my Firebolt, but the 1125R is wider than the 9R. All sucked in tight, I had almost as good wind protection for my legs as a full fairing. Couldn't find that really silent place tho. I was in a sidewind, 25-35 mph is normal for Cheyenne, and I barely felt any push. My hand got cold on the windward side. It's slippery. Z | ||
| Court |
>>>Erik telling a racing story is like hitting the afterburner on a fighter jet. There is a very big noise and then lots of stuff happens real fast. That's an accurate statement and I recorded the Homecoming talk too . . . the salient thing about the Homecoming chat was that he got nailed with a couple tough questions and responded in a damn frank and honest fashion that I am sure would have sent the suits quaking in their wing tips. I thought it was fitting as he stood in front of that Buell Values sign with you next to him. The "Bass Story" is a total classic . . . | ||
| Court |
By the way . . one stat that I am fuzzy on . . . can anyone nail down the TOTAL NUMBER OF VANS that Erik Buell has totaled in his career? I'd put my guess at about 6 based on 4 confirmed augmented with 2 presumed. We really need to know this number. | ||
| Tom_k |
I remember reading about one of those totaled vans in the back of Motorcyclist a couple of years ago. TK | ||
| Gregtonn |
The RR was supposed to have been quite the aerodynamic bike of its day. Actually I believe it is the most aerodynamic production motorcycle ever built, even to this day. Some one please correct me if that has changed. | ||
| Jaimec |
I always thought the "hideous" BMW K1 was the most aerodynamic production motorcycle ever made... | ||
| Buellnick |
The BMW K1 had a Cd of 0.34 Anybody have a figure on the Buells? | ||
| Davegess |
I unfortunately don't have numbers but the RR1200 was better than the BMW, the current Suzuki is pretty close, Buell has numbers for many current bikes I am sure. Wind tunnels are a bit like dynos however; numbers will vary from tunnel to tunnel so an exact comparo is hard to come by BUT Several folks have used the Buell RR bodywork to set Bonneville records - some on bikes not powered by HD engines - and I don't know that anyone is putting Suzuki bodywork on a Yamaha to set records. | ||
| Davegess |
I do recall talking with the BMW North America dude and telling him we didn't much care for their ads proclaiming themselves the most aerodynamic bikes sold. The ads stopped. Don't know if the discussion has any effect. I think the RR was quite a bit better than the K1 | ||
| Court |
>>>in the back of Motorcyclist I think it was in Roadracing World . . not sure, but I had my copy signed and framed. . . a true classic. The RR (and I have no paper to prove this and fully understand that I risk having my entire holiday season pissed away debating this on badweb so take it as MY PERSONAL OPINION . . . and if you disagree . . . well say so . . . it's the frickin' internet . . if you can prove me wrong . . . get down and get right after it) is the most aerodynamic motorcycle ever produced. I remember the numbers and I remember the number of the Porsche 911 and the comparison between the two. I'm not willing to take on that battle . . suffice to say that it's a very aerodynamically efficient shape. | ||
| Firemanjim |
"suffice to say that it's a very aerodynamically efficient shape." I am counting on it,will test later this year. | ||
| Steve_a |
The BMW K1 did not have a CD of 0.34. It might possibly have had a CDA (CD times frontal area A)of 0.34 meters squared, and a CD of under .6, if it was really good. Motorcycle companies pull that stuff all the time, quoting a CDA figure without giving units or in weird units, expecting people to mistakenly compare it to good automotive coefficient of drag (CD) figures which hover just below or above 0.30. No street going motorcycle, other than perhaps a Ecomobile (do the search) has a drag coefficient that isn't far more than double that of the best car -- a GM EV1. (Message edited by steve_a on December 20, 2007) | ||
| Buellnick |
Re: Drag Coefficients... the BMW K1 sported a streamlined front tire and, in wind-tunnel tests, recorded a record low drag coefficient of 0.34, The maximum speed benefited considerably: the K1 could achieve almost 150 mph on just 100 hp... I CANT FIND SPECIFICS... Cd, Cda ? More importantly for modern times... Anybody know the Buell bike figures? RR, 1125r ?? | ||
| Rocketman |
I'm curious about the RR1000 design being down to Buell alone. What part did Caltech play in its design, and what was Vetter's involvement, if any? I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than just one man with a drawing board and slide rule. Rocket | ||
| Davegess |
The Caltech work informed the work on the Buell. Erik was privy to it. Caltech was not involved in the design of the RR in any way. The RR bodywork was developed from what was learned by Caltech as well as by racing the RW750 which used bodywork fairly close to what HD used on it's road racers. The RR has several unique features including the very tall bubble and the use of heated air released into low pressure areas to reduce drag. It required a lot of thought, work and creative solutions to function on a street bike so it is not anywhere near a copy. The RRs could be and were run on the street in traffic. The rear cylinder actually ran cooler while the bike was moving than did a stock Sporty. Buell gets credit because he was the first to produce actual street bikes using what was learned at Caltech and other places. The 1200 was better than the 1000 because of lessons learned from the 1000. Vetter gave Erik a pitifully small amount of money to get his name on the side of the first bike. He bought it for $5000 buck and Erik actually bought it back form him so Vetter essentially got free press. One really odd thing about it was that Vetter proclaimed they had gotten involved with the RR project to show they they were more than a fairing company. How does sponsoring a radical full coverage bike say that??? | ||
| Steve_a |
Buellnick, I'll bet you $100 that the BMW K1 coefficient of drag isn't 0.34. Matter of fact, I'll bet you that it's not 0.44. BTW, the 1125 will go 150 mph on 100 hp. You should see what it does with what it has . . | ||
| Court |
The 1125r is an excellent motorcycle. | ||
| Gregtonn |
The RR has several unique features including the very tall bubble and the use of heated air released into low pressure areas to reduce drag. Another of the unique features were the pockets around and above the footpegs that blended the riders feet and knees in for less drag. The more you study the bike the more impressive the design becomes. This was no "I think I'll do full fairing 'cause it'll look cool" design. | ||
| Reepicheep |
 | ||
| Buellnick |
w/r to BMW K1 - it's published data. Take it for what its worth. The newer K1200S has a similarly low Cx and does not break a sweat reaching 150, The difference-power (100HP vs 167HP). It takes power to overcome drag and weight. The old K1 was a 100HP machine so at peak HP it could push its shape (and weight) to 150...(and keep its tires on the ground)-not bad. Generally, sportbikes have Cx values between .3 and .6, touring bikes have values between .4 and .9, and cars tend to have values of between .26 and .36. Of course, there's more to this "aero" stuff than the drag coefficient number. It seems that as far as Buells are concerned, even that number is elusive. So far, we know the 1125r feels good and I'm glad about that because I'm patiently waiting for mine. We also know the RR was good... I just can't find the data... BTW: I believe the next revolution in sport bikes will involve aero not power...the better aero, the less power you need to go fast. | ||
| Jaimec |
The K1 got a much lower Cx with a rider in full tuck in the saddle, by the way. I remember those diagrams in Cycle World magazine (or was it Cycle? I forget which year that magazine ceased publication). | ||
| Blake |
When approaching peak speed, limited by aerodynamic drag, weight (mass) is not a factor. Here's the math for any scenario where peak speed (V) at peak power (Power) is limited by aerodynamic drag (Drag); "A" is frontal or incident area: Power = V*Drag Drag = V2/391*A*CD Power = V3/391*A*CD V = [Power*391/(A*CD)]1/3 Note that CDA = A*CD If I recall correctly a typical sport bike has a frontal incident area of around 5 square feet; considering that and a drag coefficient of 0.34, the top speed of a 100 HP (100HP*550FT*LB/s/HP=55,000 FT*LB/s) bike would be... V = [55,000*391/(5*0.34)]1/3 = 225 FT/s = 159 MPH  | ||
| Spike |
Blake, Using that math, couldn't we calculate the drag coefficient of the 1125R based on the horsepower produced and the top speed, assuming it wasn't limited by another factor (gearing, etc.)? | ||
| Sarodude |
I'm guessing 150MPH w/ 100HP is an interesting data point. -Saro | ||
| Steve_a |
Buellnick, I'm sure that the number 0.34 is published data if you say so. It's almost certainly the CDA in meters squared, not the CD. It makes a difference. For why, see this thread: http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/384 2/91983.html?1032058218#POST121649 |
