| Author | Message | ||
     Ian03xl |
Ok I'm on the search for another buell, but can't really seem to find any long framed buells in my price range. So since I've never ridden a short frame and don't have access to one to ride I'd like to hear some opinions from those who have ridden both as far as comfort or anything really. I'm more interested in the lightnings, but all opinions are welcome. If it matters I'm 6 foot and 220 pounds. | ||
| Panhead_dan |
I loved my '03 9s. I'm only an inch or so shorter than you and at first it seemed very tiny but after getting familiar with it, it seemed like a weapon. Bad assed bike! The only reason I don't still ride it was one of practicality. It has no storage and a backpack was too small to carry my carpenter tools, lunch and a days worth of water. The Uly has room for all that plus beer. While I do like beer, I miss that 9 dearly. What a great bike! | ||
| Boliver |
IMO the shorter wheel based bikes are not very stable 2-up. I'm a very lightweight fellow and my wife isn't very tall or round either.(lol) I thank God she never wants to ride because it is kind of scary. BTW I have the SCG which is shorter in height as well. If you are gonna ride one up you should be fine other than the storage space issues already addressed. | ||
| Bartimus |
I had an XB9 and an XB12ss. Both fun bikes. The 9 was an excellent canyon carver. The 12long was so comfortable, I had the touring seat, and S3 handlebars on. If your a big fellow, get the long. | ||
| Mikef5000 |
Does the long versus short make any difference in rider ergonomics? Handlebars to seat is the same distance (same air box in between). Pegs aren't lower are they? How is a long more 'comfortable' than a short? That being said, the long will be better 2up or if you're planning on rigging up luggage. Although I added a ventura rack to my Scg and did plenty of 2up and touring.  | ||
| Coolice |
Nice setup Mike | ||
| Gunut75 |
I have an 05 12r (short frame) with a long frame swing arm. Im 6'2", and weigh 190 with gear. I also put dirt bike bars on that mimic the Lightning riding position. I have the choice of a stock or select seat, which are totally different. I also run the S pegs, which are an inch lower than the R pegs. Works great for my lanky frame. Performance wise; it takes a harder hit from the throttle to bring the front up, and the extra leverage of the handlebars makes The handling just right for me. Look where you want to go, and it takes you there. I have no steering stabilizer, and can let go of the handlebars at 80 mph with no shakes. I think that has more to do with the R fairing though. Thats what I have, and the results. Cheers! | ||
| Bike_pilot |
I think the longer frames hold more fuel too. I know I find the fuel range on my (long) 12 barely adequate and I'd not happily give up any more fuel. Maybe a short 9 would get better mpg and balance out the reduced capacity. I think a 9 motor in a STT chassis would be way cool. I can say that my XB12XT is ultra comfortable and relaxed, but still corners quite well. I just love the thing. (Message edited by bike_pilot on November 25, 2011) | ||
| Ian03xl |
Thanks for the responses the fuel capacity is a pretty major concern for me too. What's the range of the short? I could easily get 160 miles sometimes as much as 180 miles from a tank on my STT. It seems the scg and ulysses models are fairly abundant and I'd like a uly, but unless I can sell my current bike (1997 fxdl) I'm restricted to dealers for trade in price and that's not much. Therefore the scg would be a more economical way to go as they are less expensive, but they have a short frame. I went tohttp://cycle-ergo.com/ and the knee bend from a scg to a Ss is about 7* difference and the uly is about 16* less than the scg I had an STT and loved it so maybe the scg ergos wouldn't bother me too much. (Message edited by ian03xl on November 25, 2011) | ||
| Froggy |
9 gets lower fuel economy due to the shorter gearing. I've never seen fuel economy numbers on a 9 with 12 gearing, so thats always a possibility.
It is about a gallon less in fuel, so depending on your riding 40-70 miles difference in range. | ||
| Bigdaddy |
The following is strictly my personal opinion on Buell platforms and comfort...grain of salt may be necessary for consumption. 1st: The Uly hands down 2nd: M2 Cyclone. Amazing bike and vastly underrated. 50mpg, cruises at 80 like butter, dead nuts simple to self service everything on the bike. I'm bigger that the original poster too. Also, my son, a beastly man in size, says the M2 is the champ in comfort too. Both of us use the passenger pegs after reaching cruising speed as it relaxes our feet positions. More money: Uly Less money: M2 | ||
| Mikef5000 |
I went tohttp://cycle-ergo.com/ and the knee bend from a scg to a Ss is about 7* difference That difference is the low seat... which you would NOT want. Trade that out for a regular S seat or a Buell Select gel seat to eliminate the 7* difference. Add the XB9SX seat to actually reduce the knee bend of the short compared to the long. My Scg fuel experience: Normal 80% city commute and 20% highway/country roads = 135 miles to fuel light (2.5 gallons means 54 MPG, so theoretically it should go to 189 before running out). Riding all country roads nets me about 150 miles till the fuel light, which figures out to about 60 MPG. I had a Cyclone before, and it was a very versatile and comfortable bike. My problem was after every long ride I took it on, a different gasket was leaking oil. It was always easy to fix, but even still, that got old quick. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The 9 motor is a more oversquare motor than the 12... that gives better power per cubic inch (because it can rev higher without exceeding the maximum possible velocity of piston ring to cylinder wall that will maintain an oil film). But it gives worse fuel mixing and lower economy. It would be interesting to have a "hyper economy" ECM program (that might require a modified throttle body or fly by wire system of some kind). | ||
| Syonyk |
How lean of a mixture will they light? Throttle by wire & an engine that will burn a very lean mixture can lead to some quite nice economy numbers, but I don't think it's something you could do with the stock ECU. You also need an awesome ignition system with the option for a lot of timing advance (lean mixtures burn slower). You basically use the throttle until you're at WOT as lean as you can burn, then modify power by adding fuel to gain power as you get richer (on the lean side of peak). Works great for airplane motors. I'm not convinced it's a great option for street motors, but a good throttle by wire system could do it. | ||
| Ian03xl |
Though this post is not about fuel economy your theory could not work like an airplane. Airplanes afr can be adjusted on the fly, motorcycles you cannot there has to be an average afr for the given altitude. Also given the tendancy of these engines to run hotter a lean afr just don't work well. A lot of timing advance and a lean afr is a recipe for a hole in a piston on these motors. | ||
| Bike_pilot |
Syonyk, it works great on cars too, but can lead to high combustion temps which causes nor NoX than the EPA likes to see I think, it also tends to result in poor throttle response (at least until the ECU figures you you really wanna go and then dumps in the fuel). My wife's '93 Civic VX gets ~53mpg on the highway and doesn't have any dumb hybrid batteries. It is a very lean-burn engine. I think the stock Buell O2 sensor would have difficulties with a lean-burn setup, but you might be able to pull it off with a wide band O2. | ||
| Phwx2 |
I am 6 ft 2 inch and have a 03 xb9sl (meaning low). I am at any time 170 to 180. I have no issue with the size of the bike.I can image that if I got on the highway and turned my brain off and rode straight and steady I might have some issues. But I ride back roads as much as possible. MPG about 49. My hybrid car get 50-55 (2000 Honda insight) if you want mpg go Blast - 69 mpg no matter how much I abused it. Good luck. |
