| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
The published figure I saw (from Buell, but it was a real number) was that the XB front end has 8 lbs less unsprung weight then a Yamaha R1. I don't remember the issue, but I think there was a great discussion of how important this is by Kevin Cameron in one of the Cycle World issues. | ||
| Gregs |
Yes Blake I understand that less unsprung weight is good. But you provide no reference points to prove that the ztl will work better than dual disk and if it does how much better. You said that the ztl will keep you from crashing during a mid corner correction on a bumpy road. This is not based on any fact. It is pure speculation. Your high speed camera idea would be a good test. Why don't you do it and prove your point. As far as marketing the technology: If you have good technology others will want it. If they want it make them pay for it and brand it so it enhances the core brand. This will create demand not only for the new evolving technology but also (if done correctly) will create demand for the core brand. (Buell) How am I getting sucked into this? ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) | ||
| Jima4media |
Blake, Here is the definition of better brakes - A Yamaha R1 stops in 117.3' 60-0mph A Buell XB12 stops in 123.3' 60-0mph Do you want the definition of faster and quicker too? How about the definition of winner and loser?  | ||
| Danny |
I should know better than this, but... to stir the poopie a little more 60mph is 88 feet per second. 6 feet is traversed in .068 seconds. Seems like a reasonable place for error to occur, if someone didn't get on the brakes immediately Danny 95 S2 02 V-Strom Hey! You! Back to work! | ||
| Steve_a |
"A Yamaha R1 stops in 117.3' 60-0mph A Buell XB12 stops in 123.3' 60-0mph" I suspect that a Yamaha R1 might well stop very sightly better than a Buell XB, based on where I suspect its c-of-g is relative to its wheelbase. Both will carry their rear wheel off the ground for the full distance of a magazine brake test, and neither have any control issues with the front brake or any lack of braking power. As I mentioned on this thread earlier, the procedures used for magazine brake tests are not fine enough to make the kind of distinction you're making. For one thing, most magazines use a Stalker radar gun to measure the 60-0 distance, and start the test from 62-65 mph. Thus the Stalker software throws away the entire brake initiation phase, where you actually might see some bike-to-bike variation. What you get instead is a measure of the brakie limit of a sport bike, or the friction characteristics of cruiser tires. And, as all magazines I know of are reporting just the single best stop from a very small number of tests, there's going to be a lot of scatter. The numbers shouldn't be reported to the nearest tenth of a foot, but rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 foot interval. Better yet would be a lot more data points, and reporting both the mean and the variation. I'd take a bike that stopped consistently in 120 plus or minus 2 or 3 feet anyday over one that had a 115 foot best stop and a 135 foot worst stop. And I have seen the kind of variation, which tends to come when the front tire has a sharp cut-off on its slip curve. | ||
| Jima4media |
Steve, You bring up a couple of good points in measuring brakes consistently. In its articles on performance, Motorcycle Consumer News says this - Interpretation - data is gathered at the same test site, but on different days, and can be influenced by temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, winds or the pavement condition.As a result, small differences would be expected on different days. But, it is a beginning point in comparing brakes. There are no tests that measure subjective "feel". And at the end of the day, the first bike around a track is the winner, and that tests the whole bike and rider on a specific day and a specific track. Jim | ||
| Blake |
You go Steve A! I love this stuff! Jim, I disagree, on account of you are wrong. Swap the front brake/wheel out between the R1 and the XB and see which one stops shorter. Care to bet that the R1 with the ZTL would perform virtually identical to itself in its stock form? And likewise for the Buell with the R1 conventional wheel/brakes? That is exactly what would happen. No one wants to tell me why the Japan Inc. repliracers all dounsized their front brake disks? Why on Earth would they seek to reduce braking power?  Greg, It is basic physics. More mass to control requires a more resistive, less responsive spring and damper assembly. I'm not lying to you and Erik Buell wasn't lying to me when he described exactly what I have been saying. Sorry we don't have a video that you can view that illustrates the principle. Of course losing 8 LBs in rotational mass is a great benefit to overall performance in general. So the ZTL would be worth doing even absent any benefit to the performance of the suspension. You don't need to see "proof" of that concept too do you? | ||
| Jlnance |
Repeat after me. "Buell owns the patent." I know you can get it. "Buell owns the patent." No one else can do it cause... "Buell owns the patent." Honda completely missed it and "Buell owns the patent." I've asked this question before and never gotten an answer, so I'll do it again. Maby 3 times is a charm :-) I work in the electronics business, and this is how patents work there. You generally don't enforce patents. You get them so you can sue people who try to enforce their patents against you. Its sort of like having nuclear weapons. The times when lawsuits do occur is either when one party has no patents, and thus cant sue back, or one party actually doesn't make anything, so they can't be sued. Most of the time, companies negoitiate cross license agreements where they promise not to sue each other. Here is a nice story about how the system works. The good stuff starts in the second paragraph: http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html I don't know if the motorcycle business is like this or not, but I suspect it is. Does anyone here know? | ||
| Spike |
Come on Jim, you know that logic doesn't work. You've already posted showing that the Suzuki Marauder stops shorter than the R1. Are you going to claim that the Marauder has better brakes than the R1? How about the stopping distance on the YZF600R? Since it stops shorter than the R1 are you going to claim that it has better brakes than the R1? What was Yamaha thinking when they gave their "softest" sportbike better brakes than on their flagship model? You don't have to agree with Blake (or Steve A) on everything, but at least admit that braking distances are not a good indicator of brake system performance. | ||
| Blake |
Jlnance, Sorry, I didn't noticed your prior presentations of this question. I don't know first hand for the moto industry, but I can tell you that the scenario you describe has never applied to anything I've ever been involved in. I cannot imagine that kind of behavior being applicable to motorcycle design. Recall H-D contemplating patenting the sound of their engine?  I can see how the various multitudinally myriad thronglike hordes of virtually infinite examples of various electrical circuitry design/engineering would be prone to a completely different approach to the issue. (Message edited by blake on July 19, 2005) | ||
| Jlnance |
Thanks Blake | ||
| Jon |
I've been watchin this at work during breaks and can finally sit down and join the discussion. I have learned a LOT about the issue at hand by reading these arguements and recalling Erik's presentation. The arguement that Buell's brakes are inferior is justifiably a matter of one's opinion...personal preference. However, to decry Erik's invention as inferior and stupid is plain out of order. There is no factual basis for such an acusation and the heat being generated by the continual stream if remarks is pointless. They work well, they are lighter and react to sudden input via uneven road surface well, and uh...oh did I mention THAT THEY WORK WELL? If you don't like the Buell, don't buy one. Further.....US OUTTA MY UTERUS!!!!! Ok, I don't have a uterus, but you get the picture...pointless vehement protest. | ||
| Steve_a |
Jima4media -- I'm not trying to slam you or even argue that the ZTL is the ultimate brake. But I am trying to convince you that using some of the magazine numbers as absolute gospel can be dangerous. And I agree with you on something else: a road race course (or super moto course or whatever) will tell you more about brake performance than a few 60-0 mph stops. Lap times on a road course are all about consistency, and braking is repeated multiple times per lap. If you have a brake problem, it will show up on a road course -- at least if you're keeping track of lap times and have a consistent rider. But 60-0 stops are almost a parlor trick, and are extremely technique and skill dependent. If you actually measure a stop from brake initiation (hard to do with a Stalker; easy with a multi-channel third-wheel or GPS-based system), you'll find that "experts" achieve their maximum deceleration rate in the first 0.25 second. Less practiced motorcyclists might achieve a similar maximum rate, but take 0.75 second to do it. The result is a stop that's longer by perhaps 40 feet. There are a couple of good technical papers from Austrian and German safety researchers that indicate that an average motorcyclist might take 170 feet or more to make a stop that their machine, with expert aboard, could make in 125 feet. And motorcycle magazines fundamentally error by providing the best result of a small number of tests. It almost ensures that you'll publish outliers that result from measurement error (some of those 108 foot stops from 60 mph that have been reported), and it also means that comparisons may not be very meaningful. Think about trying to accurately create a bell curve from 3 or 4 or 5 data points. Then thing about overlaying another bell curve created from another 4 or 5 data points atop it. Make a comparison. How sure are you that you've got it right? How sure are you that the data points furthest left on each of the two curves actually fall on the same part of their respective curve? | ||
| Anonymous |
The trick is in moving from the paradigm of measuring everything under a simplified system. Test tracks where stops are performed are nearly perfectly flat, with prepared and consistent pavement. Totally different than the real world. A significantly lighter front wheel will outstop a heavy wheel on an irregular (bumpy) surface every time,and by a much larger margin than the emasurement differences above. It will also outcorner it as Blake says. It is basic physics, and if you don't believe it, that just means you don't have the educational background. Unfortunately, neither do most writers (Steve definitely excepted here!), so the information never gets out or explained properly. | ||
| Blake |
Less varnish on mahogany sounds better. But since Eddie Van Halen didn't introduce the concept, it must be bullshit. Just trying my hand at the illogic presented by some here. | ||
| Blake |
Steve, You speak to me man. Sadly I fear that upon hearing that single most powerful word, "Buell", some instantly are rendered able to hear only the Charlie Brown teacher "wah wah wawa waaahhh wahwah" with nary a fact able to breach the fog of ignorance as bolstered by obstinate preconception. Damn, I put too much booze in my orange juice tonight. | ||
| Steveshakeshaft |
Like I said further up the thread "The more you see, the more advantages there are to this design." I've seen nothing here that changes my opinion one tiny bit. I spoke briefly with Mr Buell about this very topic on his recent Silverstone visit. Make no mistake, that is a very smart design by a very smart guy. Steve www.shs-consulting.co.uk | ||
| Brianh |
Is the XB9 / 12 front wheel and brake weight lighter than the front wheel and brakes of: ZX636? ZX10R? GSXR1000? R6? R1? It just seems to me that Erik (and the point of my critisism) is redesigning parts that don't need to be redesigned. He stated in his presentation that it was more expensive and time consuming to do so. I'm not arguing whether he was successful in performing the task. I'm questioning the logic behind doing it in the first place. As Chop said, is it design for design's sake? Does it provide that significant an improvement over calling 1-800-Brembo? Is the benefit worth the cost? I contest that it was more of a quality control issue than a performance issue. And Buell successfully increased the overall quality of their product and the ZTL was a major contributor to the cause. Great. But shouldn't Buell have focused more on getting a smoother engine? I don't care for the ZTL. It may work just swell, but I don't like it. It looks cheap and cheesy to me. Give me a PAIR of radial mounted Brembos and a Revo motor and I will start liking Buells again. I don't understand why Buell is dabbling in dual sports and redesigning parts that already work extremely well (i.e. reinventing the wheel - literally). Look at what Ducati is charging for a Monster S4R. How much could Buell market a Revo powered sportbike for? I mean, where is the collective head of the company at? A Dual Sport? WTF???? | ||
| Jon |
Howdie, Steve Shakeshaft Good to see your input. | ||
| Davegess |
I don't know if the motorcycle business is like this or not, but I suspect it is. Does anyone here know? In the motorcycle biz patents are gold and treated as such. No one give up anything to the competition. BrianH I believe the XB rotor, caliper, wheel, tire, axle assembly is lighter than all of the ones you listed. Well worth the effort. Beside is Erik tells me it is a good idea I can only think of a handful of people who could convince me he is wrong and all but a couple of those people are unlikly to either talk to me or post here. I know you don't like it or the way it looks and you are entitled ot that opinion. I like the looks and it sure works for me but than I ride slow. | ||
| Bomber |
the electronics buidness is a very different animal in from most others almost all ways, including patents, and the treatment thereof in most businesses, patents are, as Mr Gess sez, treated like gold, or platinum, or fill in the blank with your valuable commodity of choice in some portions of the electronic industry, patents are the only product there is, and represent a large percentage of the assets a company has -- they are often traded and sold for that reason, as there is literally nothing else for sale very different in the durable goods market, or the pharma business, or auto or bikes or what have you . . . . . | ||
| Danny |
Here's what I'm going to do: Every bike that comes in for front tires in the upcoming weeks is going to get the front wheel weighed. We have a lot of riders that bring their new machines to us because we have the 2nd cheapest tires in town and the most modern changing and balancing equipment (plus we're friendly, handsome, and modest, too!). The wheels will be weighed with the brake rotors and new tires already mounted. No calipers or axles unless specifically requested. Expect in the next few days weights on: forged Al 999r , XB9R, 05 ZX10, and any modern 600 that rolls through the door. | ||
| Steveshakeshaft |
Hi Jon! Thanks. I'm Still a Buellin' this side of the Atlantic! I'm enjoying this thread. Steve www.shs-consulting.co.uk | ||
| Reepicheep |
Cool Danny, thanks! I would love to see some data. There will still be an extra unsprung caliper and a little brake line on most of the imports, but that should be pretty easy to guestimate. I would guess 8 to 12 ounces. | ||
| Blake |
Brian, Yes, it is substantially lighter than any of those examples. Define "need" as it applies to motorcycle design innovations. Did you "need" more power? Do we "need" a bike that is 8 LBs lighter? I find your view very disingenuous. But I'll keep playing... I think I finally understand the source of some of your confusion concerning the ZTL issue. When Erik was talking about the greater cost and effort and difficulty in going to the ZTL configuration, I'm pretty sure that he was talking about the non-recurring development costs, meaning all the engineering and testing and production tooling and purchasing/subcontracting efforts that went into creating and kicking of production of the ZTL wheel/brake system. The recurring cost is undoubtedly less than what it would be for a comparable conventional wheel/brake system as teh ZTL configuration has far fewer parts and far fewer closely toleranced machined parts and it even has significantly less material cost. So in achieving a HUGE leap forward in motorcycle front wheel/brake system design that provides very real and significant benefits in significiantly reduced mass, significantly reduced front end unsprung mass, improved/safer road handling, unique looking design, simplicity, and even a reduced recurring cost, the investment in the effort to bring the ZTL brake/wheel to market were well worth it. As to your thought that the brake system on the late model tube framed bikes were suffering problems due to engine vibration... I don't see any evidence to support that. First because the later model tube frame brakes simply didn't suffer any systemic problems that I know of. And second because aside from causing the brake pads to rattle around a bit at idle in early model tube framers, engine vibration played absolutely no part in any Buell brake failures that I know of. Surely you can recognize the value in dropping 8 LBs from a sporting motorcycle? And surely you can understand that it is even more beneficial if in dropping that 8 LBs we also achieve an 8 LB reduction in the unsprung mass of the front wheel/brake assembly. Still waiting for someone to answer... Why did the Japan Inc. invest soooo much time, money, and effort to shave a few ounces off their conventional hub mounted brake rotors? Anyone? Why spend money to reduce braking power? Hello? By the way, does anyone know whether or not the superbke machines use the same stock front brake system as their street bike cousins? I dunno. José? Something tells me that the Superbikes use larger rotors than their stock bretheren. Danny, Absent the calipers pads and axles, the information that you propose to gather and share though interesting will not accurately expose the true overall relative weights of the various wheel/brake assemblies. Maybe you can find a portable scale and get a fairly accurate weight for the brake calipers too, at least for a Buell ZTL caliper and one set from a current model repliracer? I'd leave the tires out of the equation. Different models/brands will have different weights. Your goal is to characterize the weight difference between the wheels/brakes right? Most of us use the same aftermarket non-OEM specific tires, so we should assume them equal, no? Will be interested to see the real numbers. (Message edited by blake on July 20, 2005) | ||
| Josh_ |
>and one set from a current model repliracer? don't forget to multiply by 2  >Different models/brands will have different weights sort of off topic, but the Metzeler Z6s are 1.2lbs (f) and 2.5lbs (r) lighter than the Z4s... (10lbs/8.8lbs and 15.3lbs/12.8lbs) | ||
| Choptop |
again total package is the key. outstanding features mean nothing overall performance in all areas means everything. Should a higher HP bike be faster? Yes, but why then are some lower HP bikes quicker on certian tracks? better package for the situation. but, but, but... this bike has more HP, that means it HAS to be faster... not always bucko. Lighter wheel = better. true Lighter wheel and not the best performing all around package for the front end? Not better. champion the light wheel if you like, I'll take a better performing package anyday, even if it means using a heavier wheel. | ||
| Reepicheep |
So why are you evaluating your "total package" for your *road* bike on a *track*? Worse yet, you are initially basing your evaluation of the "total package" on some extremely low quality metrics (magazine stopping distance figures) that only apply to irrelevant circumstances (straight line stop under optimized and completely controlled situations)? I think the point here is that the ZTL configuration is no worse for "braking distance", and measurably better for handling. Your current measurements you cite for "braking quality" are not measuring the braking quality, they are simply measuring the wheelbase of the bike to which they are attached. And in fact, I bet if you set up a stopping distance test on any one of the crappy road surfaces I deal with on my daily ride to and from work (likely 50% of the intersections from which cell phone talking sport utes are just waiting to pounce), you would actually see a measurable improvement on the ZTL configuration. The worst 20% of track surfaces are probably as good as the best 20% of road surfaces I deal with daily. | ||
| Jima4media |
As Chop said, it is the total package that matters. The only way to really measure a total bike is the lap time around a track. That combines the braking, acceleration, and handling. You can't measure braking or handling by itself. Hell, you can't even measure handling. This is a great discussion, but we haven't even mentioned a lot of the variables in what makes a good braking system, and how they affect the total package. The ultimate braking bike would be 20 feet long with a counter weight at the back end so you could not lift the rear wheel no matter how hard you braked. It would have a drag racing slick on the front for maximum contact patch. It would have two perimeter brakes with 8 pots each on 6 calipers on each of the two rotors. Impractical for every day riding and road racing? Yes. Just as impractical as putting a Dodge Viper V-10 in a motorcycle and calculating that it will theoretically go 450mph. The Honda RC211V and Yamaha M1 are pretty much state of the art in motorcycle design and I don't think they will be switching to a ZTL perimeter brake any day soon. At several million dollars per copy, I don't think I'll be buying one any day soon either. Not that that matters either, Because a Honda CBR600RR can lap a Buell XB during a Formula Xtreme race. Jim (Message edited by jima4media on July 20, 2005) | ||
| Reepicheep |
We are *almost* totally agreed then. My only issue would be that the typical track is *far* smoother then the typical road will be. I know my bike will stop pretty well on nice smooth clean pavement on a warm sunny day. I would also like to know how well it will stop on the gnarled potholed and washboard pavement near just about every intersection around here. I am also interested in how well the front tire will hold on said gnarled washboard when I am full tilt into a turn and nowhere near touching the brakes. One of the two times I hit the ground on a street motorcycle was the direct result of a virtually invisible road defect that caused the front tire to loose contact with the asphalt while I was cranked way over. Had the front wheel assembly been able to follow the contour of the sinkhole without loosing contact with the road surface, I would *not* have lowsided. There are two bike related factors that I can think of that caused that lowside. One is ultimate suspension travel. I don't know if I had enough, it was a Cyclone dragging pegs, which is pretty far over but not nuts. That far over, maybe the suspension simply ran out of travel and never had a chance (it was probably a 4" deep 8" long invisible "cup" in the road surface). The only other cause I can think of is that the inertia of the front wheel assembly was too high, because the unsprung mass of the front wheel assembly was too high, for the suspension to be able to "push" it down into the cavity with sufficient velocity to maintain contact with the road surface. So thats why I am jumping into this whole mess. I currently believe I have *literally* bled as a result of a street bike on the street with a higher unsprung mass. I am not making this scenario up, it is posted in the knowledge vault under accidents and mishaps, and predated the introduction of the ZTL. It is a hazzard that is not uncommon on the street, but that you will likely never see on a track. |
