| Author | Message | ||
     Rocketman |
What am I talking about?  What will we do when the XBRR is outdated as a racer? Buell have said they can't afford to go racing. Does this mean they can't afford to develop a fresh racer for the near future too? Frankly, I want a job at Buell so I can put the ultimate streetbike into production, or at Racing so I too can understand what it's like to be ridiculed when I've done so well with my racebike creation. And what's with all these star ratings. Is someone f*cking with me?  Troy | ||
| Jimidan |
Blake sez: Jimi, When some folks vote multiple time and others who have no business voting do so anyway, you might be right. Some folks here are doing just that. I say the following as a friendly fellow Buell enthusiast: You sure can be a smart-ass for an older gent. I just tried to vote twice and it didn't take it. Am I the only one that can not vote twice? Can't you fix it so nobody can vote twice...that is downright un-American! RE: the smart-ass compliment, thank you very much. I take it as a personal challenge to try and keep up with you young whipper-snappers. It is becoming painfully obvious to me that I am not quite as sharp as I used to be...old age is a biatch. But I do try and keep it lively on the discussion boards...wouldn't want the paint to dry under our feet, now would we? Besides, you wade through most of these guys like a hot knife through butter, so I try and help keep you artful. A mind turning to mush is a terrible thing. BTW, I prefer to call it 'obnoxiously self-assertive antagonist'  }...but I will take what I can get at this stage in the game. Cheers, jimidan | ||
| Davegess |
"Frankly I think Mr Buell bit off more than he could chew and now he wants us to forgive him for a monumental f**k up." Rocket I say up yours. Erik took a gamble; if he built a race bike and got it to the track that he could find sponsors to allow the dealers to continue the process. His team made a monumental effort to find said sponsorship and failed. In my book that qualifies as a failure not a "monumental f**k up". Buell had PLAN A for getting even more Buells out racing, a bunch are already racing at the club level, and racing in the AMA with a chance of winning. PLAN A did not work. Rocket I am willing to bet you a case of Yorkshires finest ale the The Boys and Girls in East Troy are not sitting around licking the wounds of this failure, they are working on PLAN B. What this plan is and when we may see it I do not know, I just know the parties involved and failure does not mean the end, just a new beginning. I am sorry it didn't work. I am sorry so many people are disappointed. I am even sorrier that a few people feel the need to proclaim what a dismal failure Buell is. I know different. 20 or so years ago the RW 750 crashed in flames taking Erik's life with it. So he simply started another life with a new company and a new bike. That bike was a success for a while but never accomplished what Erik wanted in racing. Erik struggled with that project for years and fought bankruptcy by getting HD to invest but at a very high cost to him. Here we are 25 years after and Buell in not only building bikes but building a bike with the most advanced chassis and braking system in the world. Oh I know folk's will say it can't be that good because no one has copied it. Guess what; until the patents expire on the brakes they can't copy it. With the chassis it is not so much the patents but knowledge. it seems that no one has figured out HOW the thing works. How do you use that chassis geometry and make a stable STREET bike? Some people have suggested center of gravity, it is a LOT more than that. It also features the most advance aircooled motor on the market, that will get the BMW airheads up in arms! And they are making 10,000 times as many motorcycles as they made 25 years ago. No other motorcycle company has seen that kind of growth since likely the early days of the last century. (If anyone has production numbers for Ducati in the first 25 years I would certainly love to see them.) Top this all off with the fact that Buell is making a profit and I say that they are very successful. Have they made mistakes? More than you know. Will they keep on? Yup. Will they go racing again? Absolutely!!! Now let us leave them in peace. | ||
| Crusty |
You know, If Buell somehow managed to attract a Race Team sponsor with pockets deep enough to field a factory race team; and if the XBRR started to win races and consistently ran with the front runners in FX; then some people would bitch that it wasn't a real Superbike. No matter how much Buell does or accomplishes, it will never be enough. | ||
| Ducxl |
Ducati is a small company and make a 999 Superbike.IT'S a GREAT machine.The 916-998 were GREAT superbikes' also.If Buell made a SUPERBIKE it would be the GREATEST SUPERBIKE EVER. BUT, they've never done it yet.The XBRR STINKS,racing a 1350 against a 600 is KOOKY.Ducati races with an equal displacement to others within it's class Buell doesn't.Buell COULD satisfy the MASSES but won't. The Revo was originally a Buell design but was TAKEN away by Harley-Davidson?? Harley-Davidson is Buells' AMF,They are bleeding off Buell.I of course love my X1+XB,but want a real Buell Superbike,like my 996.I guess Buell looses and Ducati gains a sale..And i'll be labeled a hater? come on...I just want what Buell can't do.. | ||
| Jscott |
"Ducati races with an equal displacement to others within it's class Buell doesn't." Untrue. Ducati will be racing the 749 in FX against 600cc 4 cylinders, with an allowment of up to 850cc. Ducati is also heavily pressuring the FIM to allow twins a 200cc increase for 2008 World Superbike (hence the 1098, and probable 1198). "Buell COULD satisfy the MASSES but won't." True, but they may (hopefully) in 08. "come on...I just want what Buell can't do.." Untrue. I'm positive that Erik Buell could create the ultimate Superbike. | ||
| Ducxl |
"Ducati races with an equal displacement to others within it's class Buell doesn't." That would be an accurate statement. I was of course speaking of WSBK or,well,AMA,until they left it. Racing a 1350 against a 600 and losing is a joke.But,what've i accomplished,except my desire for someone else's bike,"Economics101".And even BMW makes an aircooler with OVER 115 HP | ||
| Blake |
"Racing a 1350 against a 600 and losing is a joke." Not if you are intelligent and understand all aspects affecting engine performance. For instance, it would be equally ridiculous to say the following: Racing a 17000 rpm rev limit against an 8500 rpm rev limit and losing is a joke. I guess that the Japan Inc marketing juggernaut has done a very good job of brainwashing the sport bike crowd that displacement is the only true gauge through which to equate engine performance. That is just plain ignorant. Take a look at the CCS rules concerning displacement limits for all the classes sometime. They are wonderfully inclusive. Many race organizations including F1, World Supersport, AMA Formula Xtreme, CCS, NHRA Pro-Stock Motorcycle, and others allow different displacement limits for different engine configurations, all in the name of fair, inclusive competition. | ||
| Bigdaddy |
One of you really smart guys (Blake, Nance, Unknown?) needs to explain dynamic v. static displacement, etc, etc, etc. Maybe it'll put the 1350 v. 600 stupidity to rest (I know it won't.) | ||
| Jlnance |
lol - I'm flattered that you include me in the list of smart guys. The magic of engines is not at all one of my strengths. | ||
| Bigdaddy |
Right in your sweet spot Jim,,,,, I can only line 'em up for you  Measurement of volume based on time or something something. | ||
| Slaughter |
Ducati might race with equal displacement but they're NOT racing with intake restrictions that the litrebikes are. | ||
| Cluckcluckpush |
Sponsors will show up to support a competitive american sportbike in FX. But there isn't one. Sponsors shouldn't be expected to pay the R&D costs involved. I would guess there were some big dollar sponsors waiting to jump aboard, but couldn't justify it until it performed. This year would have been a logical season to make that happen....... Sponsors don't back an unproven machine. AHRMA wins don't count, and neither do CCS/ASRA wins. Trying to sell this to a savvy marketing dept. of a major company would be very hard, if not impossible. Does disappointment make me a naysayer? I think I speak for all the "naysayers" here, when I say "Prove me wrong, kick some Japanese 600 ass" and we will all be wrong....smiling over our beers. Deep down, we all wanted this to work. | ||
| Rocketman |
Rocket I am willing to bet you a case of Yorkshires finest ale the The Boys and Girls in East Troy are not sitting around licking the wounds of this failure, they are working on PLAN B. What this plan is and when we may see it I do not know, I just know the parties involved and failure does not mean the end, just a new beginning. Dave, put another record on. That one's been playing for 8 years now. I'm still waiting for Erik's Honda C50 beater too. Or has he shelved that whilst he figures out what it takes to throw a few quid behind Trojans UK sole race effort that could have put Buell in at least the British limelight? Everything Buell does is great but not everyone thinks so. Do you ever stop and wonder why there are so many who are openly criticising Buell for not going full scale balls out bike racing? Facts are, Buell has relied heavily on word play and bull shit and brought about a false dawn, and at Buell 'racing fans' expense. Maybe those fans are somewhat embarrassed because they stuck their necks out cheering for Buell. Now those same people are being laughed at by their BMW riding friends. With the chassis it is not so much the patents but knowledge. it seems that no one has figured out HOW the thing works. How do you use that chassis geometry and make a stable STREET bike? Some people have suggested center of gravity, it is a LOT more than that. Actually it's a LOT less. It's the lack of cylinders and their associated components. It's the lack of cooling system requirements including radiator. It's the lack of anywhere between 125 to 175 crankshaft horsepower. That's why the goofy LITTLE XB chassis works. It's also the reason no one's figured out how it works, because it's useless to anyone else other than Buell because only a pushrod V twin would suit the XB chassis. Any good engineer could work that out Dave. The great thing about the XB for Buell is that no one would ever need, never mind want to copy its chassis quirks as they suit no other motorcycle company. As for BMW airheads I think you're wrong there. And the profit you speak of is NOT being spent on racing, which I'm sure is a bone of contention for many who held the XBRR in high regard. Back to Ducati. The next generation of Ducati's, the ones with the larger displacement, will not have it as easy as some would have you believe. In the early days of 916 race bikes, which were actually 955cc, once it became obvious they were unbeatable they were penalized by having minimum weight allowances increased. All manner of modifications have been allowed - not allowed for different configurations over the years in an attempt to create a competitive parity. Recent years have allowed Ducati more engine modifications than the multi four campaigners but that too has been somewhat refined in favour of multi fours. The problem Ducati were facing until recently was the engine, whilst still competitive, being close to its maximum limit of tune. There was simply nowhere left to go to gain anymore power from the capacity they were at without increasing capacity itself. In seeking to increase capacity for inclusion in Super Bike racing (there are different governing bodies to consider for different series) my understanding is the widely accepted agreement sees Ducati allowed the increase in power but the price they pay is much less engine modification as was previously allowed. In short Ducati's next generation of race bikes will be closer to street models in the motor department than has been the case for the 916 / 999 genre of race bikes. Mind you, early indications show the 1099cc engine to be very powerful so Ducati should be well in the fight. Especially so if they have another 101cc to exploit! Rocket | ||
| Anonymous |
Rocket, You're claims around the XB chassis are incredibly absurd and ignorant. I wouldn't of course suggest that you are actually absurd or ignorant; I'm sure it's only the claims that you make that would lead one to that opinion. Did you ever think what might have become of you if you hadn't let your true self be masked by this apparent rudeness and stupidity? What a waste of a potential world leader, I am sure. | ||
| Jima4media |
Wait, did I hear that correctly? Anonymous poster says that Rocket's true self is masked? Who is that masked man? | ||
| Blake |
The DNFs aside, which were not caused by engine issues, running head to head against other similarly funded non-factory efforts, the XBRR proved itself competitive in AMA FX. It needs development and full season funding is all. You don't finish 8th with a non-competitive machine especially one that is sorely lacking in development and test time. | ||
| Blake |
Rocket, Your arrogance is once again on display. You are embarrassing yourself, if only you were humble enough to see it. | ||
| Blake |
"Deep down, we all wanted this to work." So on the surface you didn't hope for XBRR success in Formula Xtreme? Me? I was all hoping for success right up on the surface; so were all Buell enthusiasts. Good point Greg! Dynamic displacement, how much the engine at peak rpm displaces in power-strokes per minute. For an XBRR at 8500 RPM the dynamic displacement in round numbers is 8500/2*1.34L=5,695 Liters per Minute (LPM). An FX 600cc machine at 17,000 rpm has a dynamic displacement of 5,100 LPM. The two valve and two cylinders versus four valve and four cylinders factors are also deserving of consideration thus the AMA found that the 1350cc limit for the low revving two-valve twin cylinder Buells was fair and equitable. The clucker's profile entry for the "Life History/Philosophy" entry says "FTW". Very telling. Go away troll. | ||
| Rocketman |
Anonymous, you being an 'insider' and all that, you obviously have the data to prove me wrong, so why not show it and do so? Here's some simple questions for you. 1. How will the XB chassis adapt logistically for any other configuration of engine. Especially a liquid cooled one? 2. Where would you place the air box and intake? 3. How low / high in the XB chassis could you place a multi cylinder configuration before lean angle and CG become deciding factors? 4. Is there enough height available to get a wet sump multi cylinder engine in an XB chassis? 5. Where would you place a radiator for a liquid cooled multi cylinder engine given we need a sizable one suitable to perform well for the sort of (high) performance we're looking for? 6. What would an XB handle like with 130 or more RWHP? 7. With regard to handling an XB with 130+ RWHP, would you say it would be a machine best in the hands of experienced performance orientated riders or ok with old duffers use to touring around on Nighthawks? 8. Would you agree with me that you won't participate in answering these questions? Not even for fun? Rocket who already inspires thousands. Just like Jesus did - no election necessary | ||
| Rocketman |
3 single star votes and yet not one reply. What gives anony? Cat got yer tongue - or where the questions too hard? Rocket | ||
| Anonymous |
Questions are absurd, as would be expected from you. Single star votes come from the general attitude of everyone here to you, other than a couple of fellow Buell haters. here are the answers.jack*** 1) Easily, it's been done. How can a claimed expert designer of reknown such as yourself even ask such a question? It's absurd. 2) Where it is now, duh. 3) Wherever the math said it worked, depending on the engine. 4) Yes. 5) Any of a number of places. It's been done. 6) Like an XBRR with less power. 7) As easy to ride as the engine powerband and controlability will allow. With a Nighthawk motor, it should be fine for you. 8) Participation complete. Your reputation soiled further. What's the point of embarassing yourself? | ||
| Jimidan |
In the meantime, let me give these a shot. Rocket's "simple" loaded questions: Here's some simple questions for you. 1. How will the XB chassis adapt logistically for any other configuration of engine. Especially a liquid cooled one? The XB chassis was designed around the motor that is in it...because that was their only choice of power plants. If Buell were to come out with a different motor, Erik and company would design a chassis at the same time to be an integral part of the package. I suspect that they would incorporate some of the geometry and innovative ideas into the new bike, but they would not be bound to them. So you're trying to set up a hypothetical based on the false premise that Buell would simply try to fit a watercooled engine into a current XB chassis. It is hard to say how good of a motorcycle Buell could produce if the engineers could start with a clean sheet. So far they have been saddled with having to produce a motorcycle around the constraints of using the Sportster based engine. Why should Buell have to deal with these constraints...when the V-rod didn't? 2. Where would you place the air box and intake? They would be in the best place engineering wise in a completely new design, and not restricted by the present XB design. Why would Erik want to use the current XB design with a different power plant anyway, and hamstring his engineering team? He is much smarter than that. 3. How low / high in the XB chassis could you place a multi cylinder configuration before lean angle and CG become deciding factors? I believe that the lump of an engine in the XB now presents more change of direction/CG issues than any new design would. Plus, having a much lighter flywheel assembly would have to be better for these factors. The gyroscopic effect on that flywheel was a problem for Jeremy to get the bike to change directions. 4. Is there enough height available to get a wet sump multi cylinder engine in an XB chassis? Same answer as above. 5. Where would you place a radiator for a liquid cooled multi cylinder engine given we need a sizable one suitable to perform well for the sort of (high) performance we're looking for? The answer is the same as above. 6. What would an XB handle like with 130 or more RWHP? We already know that answer based on FX bikes produced by Hal's and Innovative Technologies in the early years and the XBRR this past season. The answer is 'not well enough to beat the top factory teams'. 7. With regard to handling an XB with 130+ RWHP, would you say it would be a machine best in the hands of experienced performance orientated riders or ok with old duffers use to touring around on Nighthawks? I am an old duffer and I would love to ride an XBRR, although I would prefer to have it on the track where I could use it to wring me out a bit (I am sure not going to wring it out). 8. Would you agree with me that you won't participate in answering these questions? Not even for fun? Maybe he is on holiday...give him some time. jimidan | ||
| Anonymous |
By the way, how could anyone other than Rocket be stupid enough to vote above a 1 on his last 2 posts? The mental capacity of the handful of trolls that hang out here is incredibly small. Oh, right, that's why they don't like Buells! It all makes sense now! | ||
| Ducxl |
That's an unfair post.Especially as an anonymous one.The cowardice of hiding behind Anonymous and making personal attacks  . I can't stress enough that i love both of my buells'.But the brand i love most doesn't seem to be going anywhere rebadging the same product over and over and over...We have all wished for many years that Erik would build the machine we want............But he won't.The racing effort was noble.But then you QUIT | ||
| Buellshyter |
If Buell were to come out with a different motor, Erik and company would design a chassis at the same time to be an integral part of the package Wasn't there a post some time back about bids being put out for a new frame?? | ||
| Rubberdown |
Wow. Whatever the intent and objectives of the XBRR program it sure has created a lot of negativity about BMC. This is not good. Harshly defensive posts from an annony (ostensibly connected with BMC) hardly help the cause. Sure are a lot of hurt feelings here. Happy New Year folks. | ||
| Rocketman |
Anonymous, you're twisting the point of my questions, the point of which I thought were obvious. Those questions were put up specifically to show that an IL4 liquid cooled type of configuration commonly used by Japanese manufacturers would not work in an XB chassis, thus providing a reason why the (for example) Japanese manufacturers would have no desire to mimic the XB chassis. Something you would have us believe they can't or won't do because there is some magic going in that only Buell has managed to fathom, when in fact the truth is much simpler. Thus your answer to question 1 is a V rod motor. That is not what I meant and you know it. An IL 4 air box will not fit where it does for a V twin or V four in an XB chassis. As an IL 4 engine is wider across the frame its lean angle is reduced unless it is placed high enough in the frame, which places significance on CG too. Engine architecture also comes into play. Wet sump increases overall height, which in turn places certain demands again on how high or low in the frame the motor will sit. Could an IL4 motor sit between the frame spars of an XB even? Big problem there me thinks. As for the handling characteristics of a liquid cooled IL4 high horsepower engine in an XB chassis, I'd say you could not place such an engine in the ideal place so the whole concept simply wouldn't work, thus there is no other manufacturer looking to go down the same road Buell have, which was the point of my questions. Your insults are unfortunate simply because I'm smart enough to see the smoke and mirrors bull shit you spout about the XB chassis bearing some hidden wizardry no other manufacturer has worked out the magic of yet. There isn't any and they've no need to. Frankly mate you talk a lot of shit sometimes. Now be a good chap and show us a pic of that V rod type engined XB seeing as I'm the first person in 4 years of arguing to actually get you to admit such a Buell exists. Rocket | ||
| Jackbequick |
"..that an IL4 liquid cooled type of configuration commonly used by Japanese manufacturers would not work in an XB chassis..." So lets see if I have this right. You are saying that, if Buell were to build a bike that could serve as a basis for SuperBike or MotoGP racing, the engine and chassis would have nothing in common with any Buell production motorcycle ever built. Is that about right? Jack | ||
| Rocketman |
No Jack that was not the point. To be clear, I had said Buell could have built 50 very special super duper S1's capable of 170mph or more and received much more positive attention from the motorcycling world than what the XBRR project had done etc etc etc. Dave came back at me with this..... Here we are 25 years after and Buell in not only building bikes but building a bike with the most advanced chassis and braking system in the world. Oh I know folk's will say it can't be that good because no one has copied it. Guess what; until the patents expire on the brakes they can't copy it. With the chassis it is not so much the patents but knowledge. it seems that no one has figured out HOW the thing works. How do you use that chassis geometry and make a stable STREET bike? Some people have suggested center of gravity, it is a LOT more than that. To which I replied; actually it's a LOT less. It's the lack of cylinders and their associated components. It's the lack of cooling system requirements including radiator. It's the lack of anywhere between 125 to 175 crankshaft horsepower. That's why the goofy LITTLE XB chassis works. It's also the reason no one's figured out how it works, because it's useless to anyone else other than Buell because only a pushrod V twin would suit the XB chassis. Any good engineer could work that out Dave. The great thing about the XB for Buell is that no one would ever need, never mind want to copy its chassis quirks as they suit no other motorcycle company. These comments of mine prompted some humour (I'm sure) from anonymous, and this......You're claims around the XB chassis are incredibly absurd and ignorant. That Jack is how we got to Q&A time. All I'm waiting for now is the pic of the multi cylinder liquid cooled XB, which of course will not be anything other than a modified V rod engined machine. Of course, my smartness irritates anonymous because he knows I talk sense and not with secretive agendas in mind and forked tongue. In the interest of fair play, here's a pic of a 1970's tube frame with air cooled IL4 motor. Note the geometry is close to the XB's. Could Buell have copied the geometry of this British design by guess who?  Rocket |
