| Author | Message | ||
     Mfell2112 |
Now the bike is getting critsized for lack of engine braking in the new Cycle world. Here is a quote from the review: Brian Catterson describing the new Uly engine. "It's like straddling a big yo yo. The giant millwheel of a fly wheel dominates. Talk about your anti-engine braking system - roll off the throttle and the bike just keeps on going." What were they thinking running the bigger flywheel? This being a dirt bike of sorts why in the heck would you want a bigger flywheel anyway?I think Buell may lose lots of sales because of this IMHO. Regards Mike | ||
| Daves |
I doubt it. I'm thinking the heavy flywheel would lend itself to better low and midrange power? To slow down is what the brakes are for? | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Because your looking at it as a strictly dirtbike, and this bike will spend 90% of its time on the road, not the dirt. The "heavier" flywheel is better for touring then a lighter flywheel. Its a game of compromise, and in this case Buell decided on the roadgoing side more then the dirt side. | ||
| Frausty12r |
That, and there is such a thing as downshifting? In which I'd think a heavier flywheel would be better for engine braking as it absorbs more inertia from the downshift trying to spin the engine up. But then again, what do I know.. I ride a buell *grin* | ||
| Crusty |
A heavier flywheel also means that there's less vibration for the rubber mounts to dampen. | ||
| S1eric |
Seeing how I been dirt biking for A few decades. The way I see it, A heavier fly wheel makes the bike harder to stall in the tight stuff, Mud or maybe A sand wash. Moose racing used to sell Fly wheel weights for motocross bikes, That were converted for enduro or woods riding. I think little extra fly wheel inertia is A good thing for the Uly. As usual the Buell engineers did their homework. S1Eric | ||
| Davegess |
Sieric has it right on the money. | ||
| Al_lighton |
I've only spent 3 miles on the OHV trail on my Uly, but I can't say I felt like it's flywheel was uncomfortable. Felt like a big heavy version of my XR400. I'd say I felt more limited by the tires than the engine. But as Mikel said, THAT is tradeoff that's worth it for the 95% of the time it will be on the road. It handled rocks/gravel just fine. It's achilles heel is sand. It is too heavy, and the tires too smooth, for it to get much front end purchase and it wants to wash if you push it too fast. On my XR400 on sand, you just slide your butt back and gas it harder, deal with the front end ambiguity, and be ready to jam a foot down or bail if necessary. On a $13000 500 lb street bike, you think a little bit more if you really want to go faster and/or jam a foot down on loose sand. I admit that I am so used to the sporty based lump that it's hard for me to characterize the engine as Catterson did. It doesn't surprise me that someone like he that spends so much time aboard race machines would think that the engine lacks braking. But it feels pretty natural to me... I'm surprised the motojounalists don't praise one of the things about the Buell driveline that I like best: the least amount of driveline lash of any bikes in the industry. The lack of snatch as the engine transitions from driving to driven seems a very nice thing on the dirt (or anywhere, for that matter). Al | ||
| Blake |
Who said the flywheel is heavier. Has that been verified? | ||
| Al_lighton |
I'll look at the parts manual when I get to work next. I hadn't heard that. I'd only heard that the ECM was tweaked for low end driveability. Al | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Blake I think he is "implying" the use of the 12 flywheel/stroke which from personal experience "Feels" heavier due to the slower reving of the motor. I do not know if there is in fact a difference in flywheel weight of the 9 and 12 motors. His comment was taken from the CW review and Mr. Catterson's commentary about the heavy flywheel. | ||
| Blake |
Pretty sure Mike, the creator of this thread said... "What were they thinking running the bigger flywheel?" "What bigger flywheel?" says I. And who says the XB9 revs quicker? That is a myth. More HP revs quicker, period. Yes, I'm talking from equal speed equal rpm standpoint. (Message edited by blake on August 14, 2005) | ||
| Mbsween |
Hey, doesn't Catterson spend the vast majority of his time on Italian twins and inline 4s? A Buell sure revs much slower than either of those. I wouldn't say he's critizing, just describing how the bike feels to him, comparing it to his "normal " experience. Jump on an inline4 or a Ducati twin sometime. You'll notice the difference immediately. | ||
| Whodom |
I think there is a blurb in the Cycle World article that implies Buell may have increased the mass of the flywheels, but it sounded as if the writer was guessing. Seems like I've seen a post since then that said the engine was the same as all other XB's, except for possibly the FI mapping. | ||
| Indy_bueller |
You shouldn't use the engine for braking anyway, in my opinion. Thats what the BRAKES are for. Sounds like someone thats looking for something to complain about. | ||
| Steve_a |
CW did not say that the Ulysses had more flywheel than other XB12s. It doesn't. The crank assemblies and alternators are the same on all of them. The CW comment was that the Ulysses (as other long stroke XBs) does have more flywheel than most any other sporting bike (except perhaps a Guzzi), and Catterson was responding to how the Ulysses felt compared to the Ducati and BMW. It requires a slightly different riding style in the dirt, one using more rear brake instead of relying on engine braking. You notice that kind of stuff when you're hopping off one bike to another, but if you ride one all the time, you simply adapt. The flywheel certainly keeps any XB12 more controllable on a loose surface than it would be otherwise. Blake, the XB9 has both less flywheel and proportionally less intertia for its power level, and does rev quicker. If you ever get a 9 and 12 together, rev them up in neutral, and you can tell the difference. If you ever get a chance to look at a 9 crank and 12 side-by-side, the difference is obvious. Al -- the amount of flywheel of the XB certainly helps smooth driveline snatch. That, and the preloaded belt, and a fairly tight fit on the shifting dogs, does make the XB driveline smoother than many other machines -- as long as the primary chain is kept in adjustment. (Message edited by steve_a on August 14, 2005) | ||
| Tramp |
yet another thread title spawning new, negative internet rumours about erik's most audacious project to date. smells like an excellent opportunity to use some custodial powers to "correct" this Orson Wellsian thread title... (will this BS never end?) | ||
| Daves |
Thank you Steve. I didn't have parts books to look to see if they were different flywheels. | ||
| Al_lighton |
24215-04A is the part number for the flywheel assy on both the Uly and the XB12 lightning models. Steve, true about the primary chain... And your comment about the rear brake is also true. I've accepted the Buell argument over the years that the rear brake is sufficient, given it's purpose on the street. It might actually deserve an upgrade on a bike like a Uly. When I rode Ebears Tuono, the driveline snatch drove me nuts. My tube frame Buells with no preloaded belt have MUCH less driveline snatch. Whatever there is on the Xb9 or Uly is almost unnoticeable. Throttle on/throttle off seams seamless to me. Al | ||
| M1combat |
Tramp - That would be censorship for the sake of censorship... | ||
| Tramp |
no, actually, m1, you're mistaken. it would be a site ensuring they're not openly proliferating a falsehood. the thread title states that the uly has a heavier flywheel. thanks for the unsolicited answer to the question i didn't ask, though. what time are you due back in ethics class, again?  | ||
| M1combat |
Uh... I think that if Mfell (or anyone else for that matter) reads this thread they'll realize that the Ulysses does not indeed have a heavier flywheel. That would be this board doing one of the things it's meant to do... quell the tide of techless assumptions made by the masses about Buell  , seems all good to me. In any case, there's really no reason to insult my code of ethics. Censorship is pretty much always bad IMHO. | ||
| Daves |
I really notice the "snatch" of the chain drive on the Mille R. Drives me nuts! The Buell and my belt drive HDs are much smoother. | ||
| Xbolt12 |
That snatch on the Mille R and the Tuono was one of the deciding factors in my test ride comparision which lead to my decision to buy the xb12r instead of the Aprilia two years ago. Seems like for some reason this is very noticeable on those bikes and is often mentioned in magazine tests as one of the few (very few) faults on the Tuono. | ||
| Steve_a |
"When I rode Ebears Tuono, the driveline snatch drove me nuts. My tube frame Buells with no preloaded belt have MUCH less driveline snatch. Whatever there is on the Xb9 or Uly is almost unnoticeable. Throttle on/throttle off seams seamless to me." The biggest part of that is the flywheel mass. As engine low-speed running has gotten smoother because of better mixture control, better spark, and better engine design, most manufacturers have cut flywheel weight. BMW Twins are a great example. Ride an old airhead R75/5 and a current BMW oilhead, and the difference is night and day. You even see this in an Evo 1340 versus a 1450 Twin Cam. The lesser flywheel gives you a zippier feeling engine, less weight overall, and measurably better acceleration. You can also get much more engine braking at the extreme end of things, which I think is largely a negative. We measured this for an article in CW not too long ago, and if I remember correctly, a Yamaha R1 was using up most of its rear tire traction with engine braking it you chopped the throttle at redline in 1st. That's why racebikes (and some streetbikes) have torque-limiting clutches or some other mechanism to reduce engine braking. We measured a Buell XB as part of that test, and it had less engine braking than any of the sporty bikes. That means you can be awfully ham-fisted with throttle on-off transitions, and the bike doesn't get upset. It also makes the engine feel slower than it might measure. BTW, perhaps the smoothest driveline I've ever felt was on a 1962, pre-unit construction Triumph 650 Twin. That was almost certainly because of a truly massive flywheel, tight gear-dog freeplay, and no cush drives in the driveline. Interestingly enough, shifting ease almost tracks this in reverse: the lighter the flywheels and the more space available between dogs, the quicker and easier shifting can be. For Buell to achieve the shifting quality they have on the 2006 bikes while maintaining heavy flywheel is a significant achievement. (Message edited by steve_a on August 14, 2005) | ||
| Blake |
Revs quicker in neutral. Okay. What about when you put it in gear and accelerate? | ||
| Steve_a |
Blake, the more powerful engine (the 12) will rev quicker when accelerating in gear. But a lot of how engines feel is determined with how they behave under no load or during gear changes. It's easier to blip the throttle and match revs with the 9 than the 12. The 9 will come up to speed more easily on a downshift, and put less shock into the driveline on a hard upshift. I think this is some of why there are people on these boards who prefer the 9 to the 12 -- along with the broader operating range and generally smoother running. Then there are those who simply have to have more power . . . I think the Ulysses has a near perfect balance for its touring/bad road/some dirt/ mission. | ||
| Tramp |
m1 combat said: "------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Uh... I think that if Mfell (or anyone else for that matter) reads this (hold it, right there, mr. "combat"..."if" is a huge assumption- i read the title many times prior to actually clicking on the thread. when someone sees the thread title , they might not find the title exciting enough to actually click on and read the thread, but they'll still be left with the misinformation that the uly has a heavier flywheel)thread they'll realize that the Ulysses does not indeed have a heavier flywheel. That would be this board doing one of the things it's meant to do... quell the tide of techless assumptions made by the masses about Buell , seems all good to me. seeeems all good to you, but that doesn't make it all good. the thread title is still a banner proclaiming a falsehood In any case, there's really no reason to insult my code of ethics. Censorship is pretty much always bad IMHO. you were insulted by a quip i made asking what time you were due back in ethics class? c'mon... incidentally...if you consider correcting a falshood to be "censorship", you have bigger issues regarding ethics than i thought. shame on those censors who told us that dewey did not, in fact, defeat truman... ...it IS a private site, by the way, so "censorship" concerns don't really apply. | ||
| Frausty12r |
I agree... the title can be changed for benefit of intrigue, and correctness by simply removing the word "why" from it. "Why did buell run a heavier flywheel in the Uly?" "Did buell run a heavier flywheel in the Uly?" See? still a question, still pertains to the posts, and it also draws attention better. When you prefix a question with "why" you perceive that it's been found as truth, which in this case.. its not. I agree with deleting just one work to make a thread more interesting, and less condemning all at the same time.  (Message edited by frausty12r on August 14, 2005) | ||
| Crusty |
Now we should be Politically Correct in how we word thread titles? |
