| Author | Message | ||
     Funjimmy |
It's all disappointing to me! Really, KTM will be on the market with their new Duke II in 2004. This rather new manufacturer will power their V Twins with a very powerful OVERHEAD cam v twin producing approx. 100HP from under 1000cc. Honda has also announced the naked SP2, powered by the now, World Superbike proven RC51 engine at 1000cc. We should be wowed by Buell introducing another overpriced/under powered pushrod engine. If you wait long enough, Moto Guzzi may kick some Buell A$$ too. There! Flame on. Cheers FunJimmy | ||
| Dynarider |
Possibly, probably end up carbureted as well. Throw a different set of cams in it & swap heads..ez shit to do. | ||
| Rocketman |
Well I'm sorry you guys see it that way. As far as my opinion goes I thought MCN were pretty diligent in their report and if that report caused some people to 'throw rocks at it' because they got the HP incorrect that's unfortunate BUT at the end of the day MCN brought it here and everywhere else first which is more than you, Anon or Buell or anyone else did so I'd be tempted to say, seeing as this is a Buell forum, they did a marvelous job either way you look at it, either spoiling the party or bringing the scoop. In any case I don't believe MCN lied but it seems some of you in the know behaved covertly because of what they reported. Was that wrong? Depends which side of the fence you're on I suppose. Rocket  edited by rocketman on July 15, 2003 | ||
| Dynarider |
I agree Rocket, MCN got the scoop first. Maybe not 100% correct but close enough. Anon is just pissed because MCN wouldnt follow thru on the media embargo. Oh well, lets see who posts pics & specs of the new V-Rod family member & the revamped XL lineup. | ||
| Thunderbolt |
I'm trying to get this straight: 1. XB9--92 crank hp, per BUELL website 2. XB12--103 crank hp, per BUELL website 3. XB12 has "sixteen to eighteen" more hp, per BUELL insider, aka anon. a little 1st grade math coupled with a little second grade logic tells me that at least one of these facts must be wrong, either that or I'm missing something. then, later on, Anon (for obvious reasons i don't know if it's the same person) implies that the XB9 has 84rwhp and the new XB12 has 95rwhp, a difference of 11hp. So which is it, 11hp as the published facts say, or 'sixteen to eighteen' as this 'insider' is claiming. and as far as the notion that the new XB12s will dyno better, if that's true, what would posses Buell to rate the new engine at 103crank hp if they could have said 110 (which nobody would bat an eye at if it really puts down 95rwhp). Also, I thought the XB9 dyno like 70-somehting rwhp bone stock, not 84...I must not be the only one confused... | ||
| Glitch |
it'll flip you over backward for the crime of whacking the throttle open while cruising along in 3rd gear Ya think I might find some cheap used go-fast parts (Like that new exhaust header, and throttle body) after a few squids underestimate the power? Hehehe  | ||
| José_quiñones |
depends on what country you're at too.... | ||
| Aaron |
T-bolt, the 84rwhp figure he referred to was the stock XB 78hp plus the 6 additional claimed by MCN for the XB12. He's saying there's a big difference between that and the 95 that it's really going to be. At least that's the way I read it. | ||
| Jim_m |
that makes more sense than what I read ;^D | ||
| Aaron |
Also, notice the other things he said: "the 103 horse number is conservative" "It's almost six up on a White Lightning, with a powerband that looks like that of a race-kitted tube framer." He's giving you the answers to your questions right there. Stock S1W's were rated at 101 at the crank and generally made mid to upper 80's. He's telling us that 103 is a "conservative" crank figure and to expect mid 90's at the rear wheel. I don't know how he can make it any clearer. | ||
| Jim_m |
Do you do any runs off of the crank? I'm curious how independent crank readings compare to facotory claimed readings. In other words, 6 up on a WL would lead me to believe that the bhp would at least be in the 107 bhp region... I would think that the factory would jump on a claimed 107 faster than a claimed 103. | ||
| Aaron |
If you could actually tap into the crankshaft, you'd get the exact same result as you get at the rear wheel. To get a higher number at the crank, you'd have to disconnect the crank from everything else to eliminate the losses they bring to the party, and when you do that, you have no way to start the motor anymore. Engine dyno's typically let you keep the primary and gearbox hooked up, measure from the front final drive sprocket, and then give you a way to estimate the losses from the primary and gearbox and back them out of the results. We don't have that kind of dyno, though. Ron at Axtell does. edited by Aaron on July 15, 2003 | ||
| Reepicheep |
Don't stop there Aaron. Tell us what some of the other "real" RWHP figures are. Like those magic 105HP honda F4i's. (*cough* 87 RWHP *cough*). I don't know for sure where they really fall, this site is the only place I can find with honest dynos. But I bet Aaron has seen plenty going through the shop. | ||
| Aaron |
Oh, there's been lots of bikes that surprised me by not making anywhere near what they were supposed to. For example there was a 112hp RC51 not that long ago. But unless I see multiple ones like that, I hate to draw a conclusion. Could be something wrong with the guy's bike. | ||
| Jim_m |
Then where do the factories derive their claimed numbers? From the front sprocket, or through calculations off the rear wheel, factoring in the parasitic losses from the crank to the rear wheel, or through plain calculations? (I'm curious, though I have a feeling you've covered this one before) | ||
| Crusty |
My '98 S3-T dyno'd 84.5 H.P. and 74.9 Lbs. Ft. If it's as reliable as the Blast and XB9 models, they've got a real winner. I just wish they'd make a T variant. I like hard bags, and I like to travel. | ||
| Blake |
An engine crank dyno is a specialized tool for testing an engine out of the bike. It measures crankshaft torque output and rpm and calculates brake horsepower (bhp) output at the crank. The transmission and remainder of the drivetrain are not included nor are their associated losses. Inertial losses are also averted as the brake dyno prevents the rapid spin up of the engine/flywheel. The typical inertial dyno measures torque and engine rpm at the rear wheel fully stressing the complete drivetrain and suffering the associated parasitic losses. It also fails to account for any significant inertial energy lost to flywheel, drivetrain and even the rear wheel assembly. But because of this, it most closely replicates the real world. When you wack the throttle open on your bike, it accelerates. The engine brake dyno is the ultimate engine performance diagnostic tool as it eliminates the variables that are of no concern as far as engine tuning is concerned. I think.  | ||
| Thunderbolt |
whoops. Aaron, that looks like a much more plausible explanation. but you say "I don't know how he can make it any clearer." c'mon that was as clear as mud. even you initially had to disclaim "At least that's the way I read it." Now, to the real point...I think it's safe to assume that the losses due to the transmission, etc would be nearly the same for both the XB9 and XB12, no? They rate the 78rwhp XB9 @ 92crank hp, about a 15% loss between crank and rw hp. This is consistent with other bikes, including previous Buells. Now, with their most powerful bike ever, they decide to change the way they rate the engines (in a manner that makes them appear less powerful)? Crank hp of 103 and rwhp of 95, less than an 8% loss, just about half of what was typical last model year? Well time will tell, but I, for one, will be shocked if an independent dyno (e.g. Motorcyclist) gets this thing, bone stock, to put down 95rwhp. just doesn't seem realistic, but it would be cool though. my guess is-get this-15% less than 103. We all know that Buell suffers an image problem of 'not enough power' with most of the sportbike crowd. Wouldn't Buell be pulling every trick out of the book to get this thing to look as good as possible on the spec sheet? it's already down mucho hp compared to the competition, they ain't going to throw away an extra 7hp that's already there. If they could have rated this thing at 110crank hp, they would have. Anon, or anyone else, is there any explanation as to why there would be such a drastic reduction in difference between the crank and rw hp rating for this bike compared to the XB9 (and all other Buells). I would think that with the bigger displacement the '12 would have a bigger flywheel, and that, if anything, would reduce the rwhp measurement on an inertia type dyno more than the '9s lighter flywheel...(for all I know they have the same flywheel). still confused. | ||
| Reepicheep |
No matter how "optimistic" they make the weight and Peak HP published values, they ain't going to turn the head of anyone looking for an R1 or GSXR1000. If I were them, I would be inclined to just stop playing the game as well, publish reasonably realistic specs, and let the bike speak for itself, and wait for the reviews to educate people that care. Heck, if it were me, I would have published "Enough to loop the bike with the throttle in gears 1, 2, and 3" instead of giving horsepower numbers at all, right there on the spec sheet. The whole bike is kinda defining a whole new niche in the market, one with a bunch of potential.. sportfighter is as good a name for it as anything, they are streetfighter style bikes with a serious sport orientation. The first in the niche might as well establish the ground rules... like "lets stop kidding ourselves about weight and horsepower". | ||
| Dynarider |
lets stop kidding ourselves about weight and horsepower". If we arent concerned about weight or horsepower, wouldnt that be a tad bit like your average Harley rider who buys a 700 lb bike with 55 hp? | ||
| Reepicheep |
I meant stop kidding ourselves about how every maker of every sportbike publishes pure fantasy about the weight and horsepower their bikes produce. I am not saying make a heavy bike with low horsepower, I am saying that if you are defining a new market niche, you don't need to carry over stupid traditions from an old one. Or maybe you do... never underestimate the ignorance of a consumer. | ||
| Smadd |
"Numbers"... gotta have "numbers"! LOL They used to mean something to me... not anymore. I look more to the "sum of all parts"... the "total package". I'm aware of the numbers, but they don't drive me like they do some people. So many people point to weight, 1/4 mile time, HP, Torque, etc.... and the media accomodates them (the "ignorant consumers"?)until that's all that matters. I like your method... "power enough to loop the bike in three gears." How 'bout "fast enough to have your license suspended indefinitely"? Or... "Powerful enough that inexperienced riders need not apply"? I like those!  | ||
| Jmartz |
Remember you all that peak HP needs some time to be attained. I recently rode a modified Buell whose owner claimed it produced 130 HP. It performed superbly but it did not have the seat-of-the-pants acceleration I've experienced on mu budddy'd 115 HP 916. There is something to be said for shorter strokes. I firmly believe this 3.5 x 3 13/16 configuration is not the best base for a performance motor. More bore and less stroke should produce better results. Wish I could try one of those 3.815 x 3.25 Nallin modified XB's. | ||
| Smadd |
You rode the wrong "130 HP" Buell! A true 130 HP Buell would have you changing your pants! 52 inch wheelbase... Tons 'o Torque... 130 HP. I know a guy who races a Top Fuel bike who said riding a customer's 136 (?) HP Buell flat out scared him. Did your friend's bike have a wheelie bar? | ||
| Jmartz |
Fear is relative Smadd. | ||
| Smadd |
whatever | ||
| Budo |
Quote 'No matter how "optimistic" they make the weight and Peak HP published values, they ain't going to turn the head of anyone looking for an R1 or GSXR1000.' Or a SV1000, which should put 100 hp to the ground and sells locally for $6,999.00. I have been told many times that if Buell does not build the bike for me then buy something else and I have. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Budo... if your main concern is engine specs, then why not get the FZ1 or GSXR-1000? Both spank the TL ^h^h SV 1000? Just curious... | ||
| Torqd |
Jmartz Well watch who is telling you they have 130 hp Buell...there are not a whole lot of them around...and let me tell you they are not boring to ride...I have one of those 130 hp buells and it does not take long at all to hit the limiter in 5th...damn...my bike will smoke an r1 till 120 or so then the aero stuff and gearing comes into play...anyway... different strokes for different folks:-) | ||
| Mzoomora |
Jmartz I dont think the engine design in a Buell could handle a short stroke/ large bore design at 1200 cc's. It would rev beyond the valve trains limits. All those high revving import bikes are overhead cam- more stable valvetrain with less valvetrain weight. You can make a Buell rev, but not with the money the factory wants to spend for springs/ valves/etc. I would like to see a high revving v-twin also, but would prob. have to build it myself. |
