| Author | Message | ||
     Fdl3 |
I was pondering the other day on how in the world did Buell come up with the decision to produce the new XB frame. I mean, Buell went from producing tube frames to the XB frame. There has to be an amazing and interesting story there. Do any of you have any insights into this? Links? | ||
| Spiderman |
here is the patent ifo on it http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,484,837.WKU.&OS=PN/6,484,837&RS=PN/6,484,837 patent number 6,484,837 edited by spiderman on April 02, 2004 | ||
| Spiderman |
here is another interesting one filed in 1988 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetah tml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4951774 | ||
| Fdl3 |
Yep, those patents are good reads; but they do nothing to explain how Buell came to the decision to produce the XB frames, you know what I mean? Ducati makes very good use of a tubeular frame. Why was the tube frame no longer "good enough" for Buell? Please don't mis-understand my post: I am not bashing at all. Quite the opposite, I am enamored at the innovation behind the XB frame and the whole XB series. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
The patents are the foundation for the XB framework. Erik likes the idea of mass centralization, ELF tried to do the same by mounting the fuel tank under the motor. Erik went the more sensable route by mounting it around the motor. With the Tubers that was the ground work for his dream. The XB is the next step up that dream ladder...what I would really like to see is what his next step up that ladder is going to be... | ||
| M1combat |
Yeah, mass centralization and a better route for air/fuel mix would be my guesses. | ||
| Spiderman |
Well from my small stories I have heard from various sources... Erik wanted to do this looong ago. But before H-D bought in this feet was finacialy imposible. I am sure a lot of R+D also went into this frame to make it safer, IE. 6mm thick side panels, tear away neck, the ability to be in a major accident an not drop a leak of fuel. In my second posting you will see that Erik's original design was filed in 1988. So I belive Erik woul have produced the old RS models in the XB frame if money would have allowed it. Could you imagine where the BMC would be now if Erik had more finacial backing an no involvement from H-D? | ||
| Sarodude |
My understanding is that the XB frame design was driven by packaging constraints. Key design criteria for the bike - 52" wheelbase. Apparently, trying to fit an airbox, fuel tank, and oil tank in such small confines AND in areas that don't compromise handling is a tough task. This way, they got to use up the volume normally taken up by a fuel tank for a nice large airbox. Quiets noise & keeps pressure deltas to a minimum. I mean, think of the tubers. They had these god awful airboxes hanging off the side messing with the lines of an otherwise beautiful bike. Basically, one thing led to another. The frame almost seems like it's the means, not the end. -Saro | ||
| Fdl3 |
Wykedflesh: I, too, am keenly interested to know what might be the next rung of the ladder! To me, the XB series is very exciting, and it makes one wonder what will come next... M1combat: Those are all well documented aspects of Buell's current philosophy. What I wonder is whether these design goals drove Buell to the XB frame, or if the XB frame was thought of first and all these other things fell into place. If I had to guess, all of these things probably fed each other, no what I mean? Spiderman: Since there is an initial patent dated back that far, it is easy to conclude that Erik had a vision for this frame long ago. And you do pose a very interesting question: what if Erik had had the financial backing then? As if the XB series is not innovative enough today, just think about if something like this came out back then! Sarodude: I agree. The frame is a means to an end, not the end. And I understand how this frame allows the achievement of all the stated goals. | ||
| Fasteddieb |
The early reviews of the Firebolt said the frame was built by Verlicchi, in Italy. Clearly to Erik Buell's specs. FWIW, Verlicchi also makes some BMW frames, including the on for the K1200RS.  Just a tiny bit of family resemblance? | ||
| M1combat |
Well, it seems a little backwards to me to say "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to have a frame that goes around the engine??". It seems more likely that someone would decide on a good philosophy and then think of ideas that can help to make that philosophy take form. I would imagine that Erik was sitting there thinking about what he wanted to accomplish based on his design goals (mass centralization, low unsprung weight, low COG etc...) and quite frankly was brilliant enough to come up with what I believe are the key design choices that led him to the XB frame, swing arm, front brake rotor and exhaust. Keep in mind that fuel/oil in frames isn't really a new idea. It's just been done much more functionally by Erik. | ||
| Fasteddieb |
Anyone remember the ROKON Trailbreaker? www.rokon.com Still made, and can carry 3.5 gals of fuel (or whatever) IN EACH WHEEL! Talk about unsprung weight! | ||
| Roc |
It allowed a big airbox, quiet, and also it wraps the engine in some nice thick/dense material, quiet again. I think nosie constraints were another reason for this configuration. All around genious design. | ||
| Davegess |
I think the original idea grew out of Erik's never ending quest for smaller and lighter with less parts. The genuis comes from coming up with a radical way to save weight, I liken it to Colin Chapman and the monocoque frame in race cars. He jumped far ahead of the pack but thinking of a new way to save a lot of weight. | ||
| Anonymous |
The original idea grew out of a seed that started the search for mass centralization. As anyone who ever rode the Daytona 200 (especially in the era before tire changes at the same time as fuel changes that we have now) on a conventional fuel tank bike can tell you, the difference in handling between right before you pit for fuel and right afterwards is amazing. Come in on a nice handling bike; go out on a pig. But it's cool that it also can do so many other things (big airbox, parts reduction, etc.) | ||
| Xb9er |
It's a brilliant design. Like a lot of Buellers I catch flack from other sportbike riders because my XB9R is "too different" from their cookie cutter machines. Our dealer is having a big open house soon and inviting all sport bike riders. I think a lot of them will be surprised at what XBs have to offer. All it takes is just a short ride on a properly set up XB and it will open up a whole different world of riding than what the typical sportbike rider is used to. Just like it did for me. Mike. edited by xb9er on April 03, 2004 | ||
| Rocketman |
Verlicchi also makes some BMW frames, Ever heard of DUCATI? Rocket | ||
| Boulderbiker |
Ditto on Aprilia, well at least their last gen. of mille anyway and falco, dunno bout the new one. |
