| Author | Message | ||
     Mackdaddy |
What if Erik forgets the old BMC and HD and starts a new company? He could source the engines from Rotax, maybe not exactly the same 1125 engine since HD should have the rights on it, but a similar one to save on development, then toss it into a updated tuber frame, that should be way easier to manufacture in weld jigs at the old barn than the xb frame. The rest of the components can be sourced from showa, ohlins, brembo, nissin and the like. Distribution can be done trough multi-brand dealers or direct sales Probably Erik doesn’t have the energy he had 25 years ago, but for sure he has a huge head start compared to the original Buell, he has a deeply loyal customer base and a lot of the technical stuff already figured out. For financing, someone already suggested contributing by buying shares from the new company and maybe these can be traded for a discount when the first bikes start to roll out. Just my two cents. Mack | ||
| Moxnix |
Don't know, but doubt he would backtrack from the fuel-in-frame. | ||
| Discochris |
I haven't really commented on this here, since I don't know (and most of us don't know) anything about the inner workings and dealings of HD and the Buell shutdown. That said, if anyone was likely to buy the remains and start making bikes again, it would seem that it would most likely be Bombardier (Rotax, Can Am, Skidoo). The reasons they're really the only company that makes sense, is that: 1. They already make motors and other parts for motorcycles for Aprilia, BMW, and Buell. They're familiar with the market. 2. They're poking their toes in the motorcycle market with the Can Am Spyder, but don't make an actual road going two wheeler (though they did for a time in the 80's or so.) 3. They have a history of doing something similar when they bought the remains of OMC (Evinrude/Johnson) out of bankruptcy, and as such, have a presence in the Midwest. 4. They have a dealer network already (though I've found that snowmobile dealers are often in odd places, like farm implement and lawnmower dealerships, but it's better than nothing.) In addition, when they bought OMC, they've kept up support for older models (granted, outboards really don't change much), and older customers, which is a good thing. | ||
| Two_buells |
Bombardier would be a great fit! | ||
| Firstbuell |
I want the "New Buell" to happen NOW !! [yes, I know, it's only been 9 days] can any of us even begin to imagine what Erik's been doing/thinking/feeling? 2010, mebbe 2011, we'll see something that'll lead to something that we can buy..... | ||
| Jaimec |
Remember: The 1125R was the bike he wanted to build for over 20 years. And if you don't believe that, read Court & Dave's book. I doubt he'd want to go back to the tube frame. | ||
| Mackdaddy |
Well, I don't think the fuel in frame is really that mandatory, I read that it was a solution they came to adopt because the engine was tall and the tank didn't fit well there, so Erik suggested putting the fuel in the frame. Now, lets not forget that some of the best and most exclusive bikes out there have trellis frames, namely Ducati, KTM, Triumph, MV Agusta, Benelli, some Beemers, etc. and I'm sure no one rides an XB or 1125 because of the fuel in frame but the handling, torque, etc. that gives us the Buell experience that we all have come to love, I know, maybe I'm being partial because of my loved M2, but still... Mack | ||
| Jaimec |
Putting the fuel in the frame both allows the bike's handling to NOT change between full tank vs empty tank (read what racers say about the early laps of a race with a full fuel load). The other option some companies use (fuel between engine and seat) stretch out the wheelbase, and fuel under engine was already tried (unsuccessfully) by Honda (though I THINK Confederate does this today in the Wraith). Fuel in the frame also allows the liquid fuel to dampen frame flex when heeled over in turns (where the frame is your main suspension component). Lots of advantages, not many disadvantages when you analyze it. | ||
| Jramsey |
>>liquid fuel to dampen frame flex.... That is utter nonsense. | ||
| Jaimec |
Not having luck with the search function, but many years ago when I commented on the other manufacturers engineering "tuned flex" into their frames and Buell was simply making their frames rigid it was pointed out that the Buell "franks" were engineered for this PLUS as a side benefit the fuel in the frame helped to dampen out a lot of the resonance as well. | ||
| Richsm2 |
reduce the number of components to a minium, meanwhile retaining all primary guidelines, mass centralization,strength to weight ratio.,etc,etc. the frame weight was with in a few lbs of motogp frame. | ||
| Hellgate |
The problem with fuel in the frame is heat saturation in hot climates. In Texas during the summer it doesn't work. The bike will vapor lock and run like crap as the fuel gets lower and lower because there is less fuel to absorb the heat. The motor has a metal to metal connection with the frame and the heat moves along that point of contact and into the frame and the fuel. As far as fuel dampening resonance..what difference does it make? So if my bike is at half tank or lower it will vibrate and explode or something? That is complete and utter bologna sandwiches...BS. I'd like to see the new Company begin with a fresh sheet of paper and move completely move on from the HD era. The bike as we see it now is not the ultimate bike. 30/40 years from now people will look back and say, "Well that was interesting." Let's look forward, not to the past. | ||
| Dbird29 |
Maybe they will put Erik in charge of HD. Since there is endless speculation going on here. Ruthless! | ||
| Cyclonedon |
Maybe they will put Erik in charge of HD. from what I've seen coming out of Harley lately, they could use a new CEO for sure! | ||
| Ski25r |
I just found out the news. I have been traveling for the last couple of months. I was angry at first, now I am just confused. I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. concept. However, this one is not simple from my point view. Here is where I am confused: You don't take potentially profitable products and drop them from your line. - Company reduces lineup and cuts overhead. - Cease all nice to do's - Push employee stock options - Cut pay - Close - Liquidate assets What happened to the top four? This outcome is coming from something else entirely Ie. Buell Vs. H-D personality conflicts or board wanting to force something Erik couldn't bear to give? Can someone please fill me in on what I missed?  |
