Author |
Message |
Gomo
| Posted on Monday, March 25, 2002 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Just read in the Motorcycle Consumer News and spoke with the local HD/Buell Dealer, that 2002 will be the last year for the 1200 Buells. No more Cyclone,Lightning, or Thunderbolts. Just the Blast and Firebolt to start, then more than likely other models based on the "NEW" motor and/or frame. I'm not sure if its good or not. I just hope they make a sport-touring version like the S3T (meaning hard bags and maybe a top case this time) GOMO BRAG/HOG/AMA |
José_Quiñones
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 09:20 am: |
|
Not to bust your chops, but that's old news around here. I don't know what it is, I predicted some stuff back in March of 2000 which looks on target so far. But everybody has their favorite theories: Maybe a new M2? (ie a firebolt with a headlight, tube handlebars, lower footpegs, larger frame/tank?) Maybe a larger, 570 cc (3.75" x 3.125" ) dirt track looking Blast? Maybe a 1280cc (3.75" x 3.5" ) fully faired Pro Thunder lookalike? A new S3/S4? Who knows? Wait till June to see what's next |
Ara
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 10:53 am: |
|
Beats the heck out of me. There is NOTHING wrong with the tube frame, and I like not being hamstrung by the inadequate fuel capacity of the beam frame. Russ |
Jasonl
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 11:24 am: |
|
I'll bet we see a new S4, named XB12S(?), with 1200cc's for touring. Then we'll see a XB12R that will utilize the same motor but with much more peak power. |
Mikej
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 11:55 am: |
|
My wonderings go along the line of: "If they offer an additional Buell model beyond the Blast and the Firebolt, will it utilize the same frame as either of those, or will it (the new model) have a new/different frame?" If we knew if there would be a new frame, or if we knew which of the existing/new frames a new model would be based on, then we could form all sorts of new assumptions.
|
Blake
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 02:48 pm: |
|
How much more fuel would fit in the XB9R style frame if it were stretched 3 inches? |
Court
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 03:28 pm: |
|
2.82 Liters |
Blastin
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Thats 0.74 gallons for those of you who haven't been enlightened to the ways of the metric system. 1 gallon = 3.8 liters (a calcualtion good for most applications) |
Blake
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 03:53 pm: |
|
...and a hushed realization settles over the room... |
Mikej
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 04:07 pm: |
|
That was a bit too quick and precise to be a flipant remark or a calculated guess, and 52" & 55" seem to be the current magic numbers for wheelbases (not factoring in steering geometry that has some effect on various stuff like steering and felt handling). Now think about all us backyard mechanics who would just love to remove the f.i. and plop on a downdraft carb, then play around with micro-fuelcells in the perimeter of the gastank-looking airbox. Another .74gal in the frame, an additional gallon or so up top, now you're finally getting some decent range into the thing. Apart from all that, I still think there's something major coming with the engine though, and I think the XB engine is just a transitional platform to utilize some existing tooling. But that's just a total guess on my part. |
Grizzlyb
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 05:17 pm: |
|
Hey fellah´s What happend to the idea `To hell with looks, as long as it works` Put on the gastank from the Adventure GS and you´ll have 30 ltr (7.92 gal) Grizzly `may the V2Flat2 be with You (temp OBCO) |
Loki
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 05:48 pm: |
|
One could go crazy here, I tell ya So you stretch the frame a couple inches. Next someone might come up with....fatten up the beams by an inch(where it counts). Now how much can be added? Loki |
Brianh
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 07:03 pm: |
|
If they ever start using the right motor, there will be no need to store fuel in the frame, eh? Maybe it'll be used for anti-freeze instead. |
Peter
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 07:17 pm: |
|
Cecil, So will this "right" motor just run on air then? PPiA |
Rick_A
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 07:38 pm: |
|
Well, may the tube framers rest in piece. I'm glad I've got what I consider the best iteration of that configuration. Anyway...many of the last of these tube framed Buells will likely be sitting in dealerships for years, so no worries! There's always plenty of used Buells for sale dirt cheap in private hands, as well. I just hope to one day see the Blast they should've made!... 17" rims and with normal sized meats, full floating front brake rotor, fully adjustable suspension, at least 650cc's, a real tailsection, a sport oriented riding position... if not...I'll do it my damn self |
Gomo
| Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 09:05 pm: |
|
Anyway...many of the last of these tube framed Buells will likely be sitting in dealerships for years, so no worries! - Rick_A That is a fact for sure. I did speak with someone from a different dealer (the one where I bought my S3T) than I deal with and he stated that they still have 99 and 00 models still in crates in their warehouse. So while we are waiting for something new, there is still plenty of OLD out there to play with. |
Blake
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 01:05 am: |
|
Over three gallons of coolant? C'mon Brian, you can do better than that. |
Arbalest
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 06:39 am: |
|
Rick A. AMEN!!! |
Brianh
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Seriously, the main reason why they went with fuel in the frame is because of the intake. Correct? The engine is way tall and they couldn't fit a real gas tank over top of the motor. Now, suppose they go with a 60 degree liquid cooled job. They will be able to use a normal gas tank again. I'm also assuming that an oil tank would no longer be necessary either. Therefore, you have your choice of swingarm or frame to store the coolant. That way we can avoid ugly radiators and maintain a clean naked bike appearance. I'd suggest the frame only because it's more exposed to the air. They MUST have something drawn up already for a liquid cooled motor. There's no way the company will survive without one. |
Blake
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Brian: I think the 52" wheelbase had more to do with oil in the swingarm and fuel in the frame than the engine configuration. As did the desire to have yet hide a huge nonrestrictive airbox. Plus with a liquid cooled engine you now need to find a space for a clunky ole radiator. It really is a very difficult design problem trying to fit a liter sized engine into a 250 GP sized chassis. You gotta be impressed by the integrated package Buell has assembled in the XB9R. Funny, Kawasaki is now touting "mass centralization" on some of their motorcycle web page listings. |
Davegess
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:26 pm: |
|
Blake, I think you are right, the tall engine had little to do with it. IF and I do mean IF Erik does liquid cooled it will be so much different that we will all be wondering how he thought of it. Sorta like how in the world did he ever build a 52 inch bike around that engine. The frame would likely make a lousy radiator, plus putting the gas tank on top of hte engine does not help the center of gravity at all. Dave (who is hoping to be riding my XB in about 6 weeks) |
Henrik
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:27 pm: |
|
Interesting thought Brian (pretty boy ) With a bit of modification that frame would be a killer "radiator". Henrik |
Kevyn
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:33 pm: |
|
I certainly understand the need to carry enough fuel to go for a stretch, but why go back to a 'fuel tank'? I'm willing to work with the fuel in the frame concept and have great confidence that more capacity will be added in the future bikes...but then, I'm just here to have fun anyway. Kevyn S1W2T |
Mikej
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:37 pm: |
|
Dave, 6 weeks? Delivery or demo??? Hal's has their party scheduled for April 27th so far. |
Ara
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:48 pm: |
|
Frame as radiator... It could be done. If the leading, trailing, and inside surfaces had cast-in cooling fins and the surface area was great enough, it could be made to work. "Why go back to a fuel tank..." You talk like that's a BAD thing, Kevyn! |
José_Quiñones
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Quote:Now, suppose they go with a 60 degree liquid cooled job. They will be able to use a normal gas tank again....
|
Mikej
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 04:01 pm: |
|
There's a lot that can be done with internal and external cooling fins and external airflow, based on experiences with a non-motorcycling industry (but that's all I can say about that). |
Ara
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 04:29 pm: |
|
There's another cooling option, one which would probably work well for large comparitively slow moving pistons in separate jugs: aggresive oil cooling. Suzuki has successfully done this in 600cc and 1200cc transverse fours. You spray oil under pressure at the underside of the pistons, hang a surprisingly small oil cooler in the airstream, and move the oil through the system with a high capacity pump. Does the trick and doesn't involve the further complexity, weight, and parasitic drag of a water pump and plumbing. Russ |
Eeeeek
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 04:40 pm: |
|
Honda already solved the radiator problem. Mount them on the side and hide them under a half fairing ala Superhawk or full fairing ala RC-51. Vik |
Davegess
| Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Mikej, I am number 6 on the list at Uke's (only HD dealer I will buy from if at all possible) for delivery. So I am hoping that he gets 6 bikes in the first few weeks. He is probably going to get close to 2 dozen total. So my six weeks is until delivery( I hope!!!) I can't wait Dave |
|