| Author | Message | ||
     Tangumans |
Fazing out the XB's? Dang, they'd better not! Know what I hate? Putting as much scratch into modifications as the cost of the bike itself, then hearing a bunch of knuckleheads tossing around rumors that it might all be for nothing. I'm just about to get into racing XB's and want them stay BMC's darling child!!! | ||
| Kowpow225 |
The badweatherphysicist strikes again. | ||
| Rocketman |
You are absolutely right . . sounds to me like you are quoting Erik from his recent speech in Boston. Well, I was at least 4000 miles away, so I'll take that as a compliment. The first it has to be said in several years. You're learning. Scott, your 'newer' frame flex description was beautifully simple. Thanks. Rocket | ||
| Court |
>>>You're learning. No problem. When Buell was taken to task and someone made the bizarre claim that the Ducati and Suzuki frames were better . . well, Buell did the same thing my Honda friends in Torrence, CA (Honda R&D) did . . they went and bought competative bikes. . . and TESTED the frames. They both got identical results. The Buell frame was light years superior. Court | ||
| Phillyblast |
I still can't figure out how buss-man came to the conclusion my S2 was built in a garage - I always thought it was built in a barn? | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
wow i haven't been on bad web in a while so i just sat here for the past hour or so and read this whole topic and came up with one conclusion. Every one of you that dislikes the xb's or has something bad to say about them would ya'll please give them to me and i will use them for what they was built for and ride them. As for as the next buell I personally would love to see a street version xbrr or at least use some of the new stuff on it on the street bikes. Oh and for the argument about american cars having colom shifters untill jap cars came along thats b/s most all of the SPORTS/MUSCLE cars had floor shifters. | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
Oh yea aobut buell "pulling out of racing" wasnt that there plan in the first place? wasnt the idea to build 50 race bikes and sell them to privaters and use the 06 race season to get the "bugs" out of those bikes by being more involed for the first year? Besides that they dont seem to be to uninvoled seeing as how on there website they are advertising a million dollar Contingencie program. wich sounds to me like they still want to go racing. | ||
| Rocketman |
No problem. When Buell was taken to task and someone made the bizarre claim that the Ducati and Suzuki frames were better . . well, Buell did the same thing my Honda friends in Torrence, CA (Honda R&D) did . . they went and bought competative bikes. . . and TESTED the frames. They both got identical results. The Buell frame was light years superior. Friends Court? I didn't think you knew them until you invited yourself to see the NAS. Whatever. So now you're expecting us to believe Buell and Honda R&D shared their findings? Wow, seems no one is trustworthy in the industry these days. Again though, if I welded a series of triangles together and put wheels at either end making the strongest motorcycle frame known to mankind, that misses the point somewhat. The XB's frame strength I'd wager is not a big factor in its handling and performance credentials. But hey, I'm just learning. Rocket | ||
| Aeroe |
website they are advertising a million dollar Contingencie program. wich sounds to me like they still want to go racing. I'd say that's a good point. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Friends Court? I didn't think you knew them until you invited yourself to see the NAS. Whatever. So now you're expecting us to believe Buell and Honda R&D shared their findings? Wow, seems no one is trustworthy in the industry these days. It takes no cooperation for two R&D departments to BUY a competitors bikes and test components. Coming to the same conclusion, that the Buell frames are better, takes no cooperation either. Getting the "loser" to admit that the competitor's frame is better is the real trick!  | ||
| Rocketman |
But how do they know they came to the same conclusion? BS I say. Rocket | ||
| Blackxb9 |
Everybody knows Erik's fascination with war planes. This is really what he has intended for the future of Buell  ...  | ||
| Naustin |
gee whiz. I'd like to see the exhaust system! | ||
| Midknyte |
That is awesome (Message edited by midknyte on March 05, 2007) | ||
| Spatten1 |
The new motorcyclist has a chopper with a similar engine on a bike built by Jesse James. His engine is turned with the crank in-line with the bike. Seems like Jesse's will cool the cylinders more evenly, but it does not look as good as this one. | ||
| Rocketman |
 Rocket | ||
| Aeroe |
 | ||
| Blake |
Puppy, "Blake,the SV,Ducati,RC51 have a 90 degree V-Twin.The 45 degree twin of the Buell makes it harder to get the weight lower,so they came up with a frame that works very good for Buell." Nice non-answer. Try again?... Where is the fuel tank located in the RC51, or the SV650, or the SV1000, or in the V-Strom, or in the Ducati Twins, or in the Aprilia twins?" Try to stay focused. One part, two jobs, ZTL brake system, Fuel in frame, oil in swingarm. These are innovative things that the competition does not have. Trying to belittle the amazing innovations of Buell motorcycles by deriding a few static engine mount bits as "extra parts" is funny. | ||
| Thepup |
When did I belittle any of these "innovations"?Blake,what bike do you think is more top heavy?A Buell with both of it's cylinders up high or a bike with 1 cylinder and a few gallons of gas?.I believe you said less parts on a sport bike where a good thing,I just pointed out where buell goes the opposite direction.I see you mentioned nothing about the oiling system and the primary.Once again,If you don't drink the kool-aid,you are accused of putting Buell down. | ||
| Spike |
When you tried to say they weren't innovations and that the Japanese had mastered them years ago.
Would you like to quantify that argument and compare the number of parts on an XB vs the number of parts on ANY other current sportbike? I'll grant you the chain-driven primary drive is behind the times, but are you honestly not aware that the dry-sump system is a superior oiling system? In the XB's case it's hardly even using more parts. Since the oil tank is actually the swingarm, the only extra parts are the oil lines to the tank and the extra parts on the two-stage oil pump. | ||
| Thepup |
Spike,when did I say that the Japanese had mastered them years ago.Are you not aware that the rim mounted rotor has been around for 30 or so years,Buell is the first to use it on a production bike.Spike,why is a dry sump oil system superior?It has it's pros and cons like any other system. | ||
| Spike |
It wasn't a direct statement, it was an implication. Here's a perfect example:
We're all aware that the rim-mounted rotor has been used before. However it's never been used in the way that the XB is using it. Being on a production bike is only part of it, although that required some innovation in itself. I could be mistaken, but I believe Buell is the first come up with a mounting system that allows the rim-mounted rotor to actually float, which was likely a big key to making it a viable option for a production bike. Also, Buell's mounting system is such that the rotor is not truly mounted to the rim, but to the base of the "spokes" very close to the rim. This means that the rim could suffer damage due to road debris and not compromise the braking system. The bigger advantage of the ZTL brake is not the actual braking, but the unsprung weight. In previous rim-mounted brakes the goal was increased stopping power, so the wheel was left alone. In the case of the XB, Buell redesigned the entire wheel to save weight since the wheel would no longer have to withstand torsional loads. The result is that the wheel/rotor assembly was/is several pounds lighter than that of its competition. If that doesn't count as innovation, we need to alert Webster's so they can change the definition. Buell came up with a new mounting system for the rim-mounted rotor, a whole new benefit of using the rim-mounted rotor, and utilized it on a regular production vehicle, yet when we cite it as something unique to Buell, you cast the whole thing aside with a single sentence, claiming that it had been done before. A brake rotor mounted to the rim had in fact been done before, but not to the extent Buell is doing it.
That was just answered last night in another thread by another poster, so I'll cut and paste from that thread: "Dry sump systems have several important advantages over wet sumps: Because a dry sump does not need to have an oil pan big enough to hold the oil under the engine, the main mass of the engine can be placed lower in the vehicle. This helps lower the center of gravity and can also help aerodynamics (by allowing a lower hoodline). The oil capacity of a dry sump can be as big as you want. The tank holding the oil can be placed anywhere on the vehicle. In a wet sump, turning, braking and acceleration can cause the oil to pool on one side of the engine. This sloshing can dip the crankshaft into the oil as it turns or uncover the pump's pick-up tube. Excess oil around the crankshaft in a wet sump can get on the shaft and cut horsepower. Some people claim improvements of as much as 15 horsepower by switching to a dry sump. The disadvantage of the dry sump is the increased weight, complexity and cost from the extra pump and the tank -- but that's a small price to pay for such big benefits!" There's the list of pros and cons, and clearly the pros outweigh the cons. If you would like to debunk the pros or if you can think of any more cons, feel free to add them. | ||
| Spatten1 |
"There's the list of pros and cons, and clearly the pros outweigh the cons." True, for race cars. Unfortunately the XB does not take advantage of all of the pros. The Buell engine is high enough to stuff a few wet sumps under it. The bike was designed around an existing engine, so placement was not maximized. The Buell does not use much oil, so oil capacity is not an issue. Sloshing of oil- not a problem for the thousands of repli-racers that have wet sumps, this is a problem for older machines without proper baffling and oil pickup in the pan. HP advantage: quite possible. i don't know what the power loss is in the wet sump MC engines. I hope the XB is gaining power from the dry sump system. You must ask youself though, if the repliracer's get a $250 million engine redesign every few years, wouldn't they go dry sump if HP was seriously impacted by the wet sump? They are in ferocious competition for power, and they are not stupid. Are there modern innovations in sump and crank design that minimize the power loss, I'd love to know the answer to that one. So, one possible pro, and one definite con are applicable to this machine. | ||
| Spatten1 |
IMNHO: The XB chassis were designed clean-sheet, and recently. They are brilliant and innovative. They use a somewhat modified engine that was designed 50 years ago and had a big makeover 20 years ago. To argue that the powertrain is brilliant and innovative is ridiculous. It is a great engine, but for crying out loud, it is not high-tech or innovative or powerful, or, in my experience, bullet proof. The Buell is a wonderful combination of a beautiful old engine that feels great in a state-of-the-art chassis. Erik Buell did not design this engine, he designed the chassis around it. | ||
| 45_degrees |
Yeah, but Erik Buell likes this engine, otherwise he wouldn't have wasted his time designing a bike around it!!! It is a powerful engine, just not if you compare it to the hyper sewing machine engines of the super sport machines (that's HP, but the torque is equivalent or better, or superior if you're talking 600s) Torque is more important for most people on the street, whether they realize it or not. I know an H2 Kawi will rip your head off if you're not careful... It's a powerful engine that makes a mere 74 hp and 57 ft. lbs. torque. BTW, the Rotax 1000 is a dry-sump engine, an engine that some people think is some kind of gem. I personally think the Rotax is thrashy and rubbish, but dry-sump engines are superior! You wouldn't want the Thunderstorm mounted any lower than it is!! This is one of those wiseacre threads that get really annoying to read and are almost a waste of time!! Excessive amounts of horsepower do not contribute anything at all to handling or going fast through sections of tight twisties! Anyone that thinks that it does is seriously confused. Take a good super-moto, even a 250, and it will kill the finest handling super-sport from Japan or anywhere through a nasty section of really tight curves, even a Buell. Why rant?? Just wait and see what comes, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Obviously, many people think Japanese bikes are superior!! Why don't you buy them, or more of them if you already own them, and sell the Buell that pisses you off so much because it's not just like them!! If it's a good bike, who cares where it comes from! Especially if it's fun! That's what it's all about, and I know my Buell is the most fun to ride out of all of my bikes, be it Japanese, Italian or whatever. That's whats important to me! FUN... and looks of course Hard to beat Buell in the looks department. Oh, but it just so happens to be an American bike and I don't mind that at all! IMO I wouldn't brag about "sophisticated" engineering. The definition of sophisticated is basically complicated and overly complex!! I would say Buells are not sophisticated, but extremely innovative. Also, I wanted to add one last remark and take a famous Sean Connery line and modify it a little to fit... If Buell motorcycles aren't innovative, then my ass is a banjo!! (Message edited by 45 degrees on March 06, 2007) | ||
| Skully |
I'll grant you the chain-driven primary drive is behind the times... A chain is a very efficient method for transferring power. Want to take a guess at how most over-head cams are driven in motorcycle engines? | ||
| Spatten1 |
"Yeah, but Erik Buell likes this engine, otherwise he wouldn't have wasted his time designing a bike around it!!!" Well.... I guess he likes it much more than he liked the 1340. That would have made a great sportbike, huh? Kawi H2???? Man, that was considered fast 35 years ago. What century are you living in? Now a Vincent Black Shadow, there's a really fast bike. Don't forget about those Norton triples. I give up. | ||
| Blake |
Puppy, "When did I belittle any of these "innovations"?Blake,what bike do you think is more top heavy?A Buell with both of it's cylinders up high or a bike with 1 cylinder and a few gallons of gas?.I believe you said less parts on a sport bike where a good thing,I just pointed out where buell goes the opposite direction.I see you mentioned nothing about the oiling system and the primary.Once again,If you don't drink the kool-aid,you are accused of putting Buell down." Another non-answer. A divisive and insulting one too. I understand that your ignorance is frustrating for you, but please don't take it out on me. Try again?... Where is the fuel tank located in the RC51, or the SV650, or the SV1000, or in the V-Strom, or in the Ducati Twins, or in the Aprilia twins?" Spike did a wonderful job of educating you on the issues you raised. But please, try to stay focused. One part, two jobs, ZTL brake system, significantly lower unsprung weight, first ever of its kind. Fuel in frame, oil in swingarm. These are significant innovations that the competition does not have. Trying to belittle the amazing innovations of Buell motorcycles by deriding a few static engine mount bits as "extra parts" is funny. The oiling system has more parts?  Other than possibly a few oil lines, I don't see it. Where is the oil pan and it's gasket and fasteners? If Buell cares to do so, they can put in a gear driven primary drive tomorrow. They obviously see advantages to the chain. You've not been paying attention. For sport bike responsiveness in handling, a higher CG can be advantageous. What is most advantageous is to have as much of the bike's mass located as closely as possible to the bikes CG. Thus moving the fuel closer to the CG of the machine is a very advantageous thing to do. Which raises the following question: Where is the fuel tank located in other V-Twin sport oriented bikes like the RC51, or the SV650, or the SV1000, or in the V-Strom, or in any of the Ducati Twins, or the KTM V-Twins, or the Aprilia twins?" There ain't another V-Twin sport bike made that is able to locate its fuel load anywhere near as close to the bike's CG as the Buell XBs do. Thank you fuel in frame. Advantage Buell. That ain't kool aid. It is raw fact and 100% valid engineering innovation. Again, advantage Buell. | ||
| Blake |
Steve, You don't give up do you amigo?  It's not high tech if not leading in HP/cc? The low maintenance, class leading high-efficiency, air-cooling and arm stretching big low end power are meaningless to some folks, I understand that. I just have a different view. As an engineering professional, I cannot disagree more strongly that HP/cc is the only measure by which to gauge a sporting motorcycle's engine's state of technology. I personally don't give a darn what technology is utilized as long as the engine provides what I most want. The Buell does just that with its big low end power, very artful and aesthetic looks, zero maintenance valvetrain, no big ugly radiator and associated plumbing, and a wonderful sound. My next choice of engine would be a Ducati air-cooled twin, then the Beemer R1200 mill, then the Moto Guzzi sport mill. High tech is being able to cool an engine without needing a bunch of water and a big ugly radiator. High tech is being able to continue cooling and engine after shutdown to avoid the oil cooking effect of cylinder head heat soak. High tech is being able to meet stringent anti-pollution restrictions without the use of catalytic converters or air injection. High tech is making over 100 BHP and still achieving well over 50 mpg on the highway WITHOUT A FAIRING. The next Buell engine will surely utilize even more advanced engine technology. I'm betting it will be aimed at reduced weight and improved sporting performance. Then we'll all be happy, yes?  Or will some folks still see a 50 year old engine that lacks that "high tech" radiator and a maintenance intensive valvetrain? (Message edited by Blake on March 06, 2007) | ||
| Ducxl |
The Buell is a wonderful combination of a beautiful old engine that feels great in a state-of-the-art chassis. And THAT'S why i own Buells'! I can easily buy a Superbike to do the "other" things that the Buell won't do.But a friend is going Nitrous...I'll see what a laughing gas Buell will do.... |
