Author |
Message |
Lake_bueller
| Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 04:47 pm: |
|
My vote is for the 1998 S1W.
I've ridden almost every Buell made since 1995. The S1W is by far my favorite (with the exception of the 1125R). |
Werewulf
| Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 05:31 pm: |
|
when we get to the poll of which one runs the worst, it will be my 08 xb.... |
Cyclonemduece
| Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 08:51 pm: |
|
lake bueller why is the kickstand grey? |
Tombo
| Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 01:30 am: |
|
Should be the X1 (inverted forks, slightly different frame geometry, braced frame, raised pegs, and alloy swingarm. late S3 should be close second (inverted forks, braced frame, lighter turning with frame mounted headlight etc...) I have and S1, and other than the better leaning angle, my S3 simply handles better. The S2 has better suspension and a frame that uses less bends in the tubes, but it also has heavier flywheels which impact handling. |
Xldevil
| Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 10:19 am: |
|
And the winner is. My M2 Cyclone Ralph |
Lake_bueller
| Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 11:55 am: |
|
why is the kickstand grey? It's actually not grey any longer. That bike was/is a project build. The frame, wheels and bodywork were rescued from a chopper builder. The motor and forks came from an extra S3T that I had in the garage. The chopper guy shipped me everything except the kickstand. I've since had the grey one powercoated white to match the frame. BTW...you're the first person to notice that from all the times I've posted pictures of this bike. |
Chasespeed
| Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 11:58 am: |
|
CARBON X1 is the best I will have to second that..... Chase |
Wile_ecoyote
| Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 11:54 pm: |
|
Thats two of us, we're gaining on you M2 guys. Everyone knows carbon is not only lighter but FASTER. LOL |
Rex
| Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 06:00 am: |
|
S2. you let the bike do the turning. the M2, you do the turning. rex |
Rex
| Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 06:02 am: |
|
|
Jstfrfun
| Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 06:26 pm: |
|
It's the X1, no question. Engine, chassis, suspension. Only limitation is the rider. However that IS a tasty S1! |
Ratbuell
| Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 07:55 pm: |
|
I don't think the S1W came with a white kickstand to begin with - technically, I believe gray is correct. I'd have to find pictures, but the totally unmolested one I bought with 1,100 miles on it has a gray stand (and is Liberace white/white/white). Most "normal" S1's had gray frames...and the S1W had choices of frame colors IIRC (white, black, nuke blue, maybe orange?). Too many choices for a pedestrian sidestand, I'm sure they were all left gray. |
Buellerthanyou
| Posted on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 08:20 pm: |
|
"Hey guys...does anyone have a link for those 1" dropped footpegs? I think they would help me out a lot. thnx" Dave, he's referring to the touring peg mounts that came stock on an S2-T. They bolt on in place of the reguler peg mounts and drop the pegs 1". The part numbers are: Left N0410.8 Right N0420.8 They probably won't work on an S1 without some fiddling/fabricating. We put some on a woman's X1 and it moved her pegs forward 1" instead of down 1". I guess the cam-slot that they bolt into on an X1 is 90 degrees off from that of an S2. Not sure about an S1 though. Also, they're a bit spendy, like $64 per side! Anyway, there ya go. HBJ |
Kyrocket
| Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 03:00 pm: |
|
#205 Carbon +1=3 Looks like we may have it boys. |
Not_purple_s2
| Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 03:17 pm: |
|
The S2T dropped pegs are outrageously expensive compared to the standard S2 pieces. The standard ones were like $15 for the set. The really cool thing is that it was easy to swap them around/upside down to get 1in up for more clearance. When I had them in the low position they were scrapping in the turns. |
Oldog
| Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 07:26 pm: |
|
X1 and yes CF is a color, similar to black more like "Hot Black" and while my CF is not factory it adds to eh the unique factor, hence the speed and maneuvourablility (SP) |
Kyrocket
| Posted on Monday, June 16, 2008 - 09:52 am: |
|
If you don't like "Hot Black" Oldog just let it sit in the sun for a few days then you get a, well... kinda "Mossy Green". It's just like that chameleon paint only it takes much, much longer to change colors. |
Moosestang
| Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 08:15 pm: |
|
I love the tubed buells because the frame let's you see more of the motor. That is one sweet looking bike, but is that seat even remotely comfortable? |
Nevrenuf
| Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 08:29 pm: |
|
depends on what you have and what your butt can handle. didn't like the corbin but my buddy loves it on his. so i let him use it. |
Steveford
| Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:32 pm: |
|
All of them handle pretty well. My X1 with a better shock (Works) handles the best, the S2 has a more compliant ride, the S1 and S3 have you perched up a bit higher but go around corners quite nicely. Not a loser in the bunch, Erik Buell is a genius when it comes to making motorcycles handle properly. |
Randymoser
| Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 02:54 pm: |
|
I’m a relative newcomer to this whole Buell thing, but my brother owns a last-gen FI S3 and I recently picked up a 1997 M2. The S3 certainly felt more planted, but the Cyclone is much more flickable. I think 30lbs or so separate the machines, which translates (I think) to even less steering effort on the Cyclone. I would imagine the S1 above would be the best of both worlds – lightweight AND equipped with better suspension parts – but this honor might go to the X1. I don’t know much about the X1, but it always struck me as being a bigger machine than the first-gen S1 and M2, maybe because of the larger tank. If it’s also around 480lbs (the number I’ve seen listed for the M2), with more ponies and a fire-breathing engine, it would be a hard bike to beat! Randy In Squirrelly Asheville |
Kyrocket
| Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 04:49 pm: |
|
If memory serves me (and it's serving less and less everyday) the literature of the day had the X1 listed as 440lbs. dry. Add to that a tank of gas and subtract most of the heavy factory doo dads such as the under seat panel and muffler and you could probably get it in around the 420 to 430 mark. |
Randymoser
| Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 01:24 pm: |
|
Hi Kyrocket, Was that 440lb spec listed by the factory or tested by a magazine? I think the M2 / S1 was listed at 435lbs out the door, but have seen reviews putting it between 468lbs and 488lbs. I coughed up for Ian Smith's portfolio of all the tests ever made of the M2 in the US, and it went from 468lbs in 1997 to 488lbs in '99, according to Rider. Many mags will just print the factory-supplied specifications. And most factories lie like rugs. Randy Leaving for the parkway on a sunny Sunday afternoon |
Djkaplan
| Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 - 03:37 pm: |
|
Shipping weight is what most companies refer to as dry weight. When they say 'dry' they really mean dry; no oil in the engine, forks, transmission, and of course no gas. Before sealed batteries, even the battery was shipped dry. The dry weights for watercooled bikes are even more misleading because of the dry coolant systems. I intend on getting an 'all up' dry weight measurement for my M2 on a shipping scale at work. I think I've shed quite a few pounds off of it with the V&H muffler and tailsection removed... we'll see. I suspect the all up dry weight (just no gas) is going to be near 430lbs for my particular bike. If that's close, it would not be bad at all for a machine with no magnesium components and a steel frame. I bet the conventional fork on the M2 is lighter than the Showa USD fork used other Buells... but with more unsprung weight, of course. |
Kyrocket
| Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 09:17 am: |
|
Randy, it was on the brochures that I picked up from the dealership. I have since sold them to a fellow Badwebber and don't have them for reference. I think it was 4cammer, I either sold him Buell lit. or a Playboy, I don't remember, it's all soft porn if you think about it. Michael |
Court
| Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 09:29 am: |
|
>>>>And most factories lie like rugs. Although that makes fun internet chatter. . . . I will share with you that in the 14 years I've been doing the Buell "internet thing" I have yet to have one person back that statement up. In fact, the last time I tested two bikes for a magazine the Ducati for the test was damaged in shipment. The dealer, Europa in Anaheim, sent me out on a new 916 for 3 hours while they uncrated another Monster they had in stock and set it up. The bike that Ducati, NA sent from Woodcliff Lakes, NJ never got started. Similarly when we went to get the Buell from Bartels it was not ready so we we told "pick whatever you want" from the Buell demo van. I chose silver (actually Billet Metallic) just cause I thought it looked cool. While bikes are often put through (or SHOULD be) an arduous "get ready" I'm not aware of actual "loaded decks" being played. Court |
Randymoser
| Posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 - 07:11 pm: |
|
I know I’m a geek, but I find this discussion fascinating. If Djkaplan is right, maybe I’ve been badmouthing motorcycle manufacturers for years for no real reason. I would see specs listed in Motorcyclists or Cycle, then read the weighed numbers in Rider, Sport Bike, etc… and assume that someone was lying, but maybe companies are listing shipping weights and it’s the moto press that’s reporting incorrect numbers Maybe the additional weight IS all fluids, which would mean claimed weight of air-cooled bikes WOULD be nearer to correct, real-world weights. Ducatis, Buells, ‘Guzzis and Harleys would probably weigh within 15-30lbs of the shipping weight, since fluids accounts for so little overall… I honestly assumed that HD and Moto Guzzi reported near-accurate numbers because they weren’t competitive against the Japanese. Buell’s spec of 435lbs for the 1997 M2 sounds almost right if you add four gallons of gas (7lbs x4 = 28lbs), two and a half quarts of oil (3.5-4lbs), a quart of tranny fluid (1.88lbs), and fork and brake fluids to come up with the weighed 468lb mark in Rider. The 1999 model adds another 7-10lbs for the extra gallon of gas, maybe a couple of pounds for a beefier frame and full clocks… Pretty close. Thing is, there is a fabrication here in the form of Japanese liquid cooled bikes like the SV650, which Suzuki lists at 365lbs (or there abouts) when it hits the road at, what 440lbs? (75lbs for fluids?) Or Triumphs that cheat the spec sheet at 416lbs – the new S3 – when I would be surprised if they come in under 480lbs. I KNOW that my M2 feels featherweight compared to the Sprint ST I sold to get it, and Triumph listed that machine at 456lbs. That’s a mad fabrication in my book. Randy In rainy Asheville, bush kingdom of the Southeast |
Jsimpkins
| Posted on Friday, July 04, 2008 - 01:02 pm: |
|
My vote is the late model X1 as long as you put much better rubber on than stock. That SportMax front tire really sucks. If I can keep the engine running, it smokes any bike out there in the twisties. I have a sh-- pot full of mods to make it better. First is the seat, then the tires, race kit, EBC brake rotors, EBC race pads, a real fairing, re-valve forks, etc... |
Bigblock
| Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 04:53 am: |
|
WHY, OF COURSE THE M2 CYCLONE IS THE BEST BIKE EVER MADE...
|
Buellistic
| Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2008 - 07:54 am: |
|
IMHO my 2000 P3 "BLAST" is !!! After all, the BLAST came out before the XB's ... |
|