| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 04:25 pm: | 
|
Outstanding job Brett!
Current poll results are...
quote: SouperPoll :: Oil-Cooled Buell: Minor Detail or End Game?
Is the fact that the Buell XBRR roadrace bike is not merely an air-cooled Twin but an air and oil-cooled twin mean the bike is clearly illegal for the Formula Extreme Class?
Yes. The rules state "air-cooled". The Buell web site says the bike is "air/oil cooled".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
832 votes (17.3%)
No. Lots of bikes, air and water cooled, have oil coolers. It's not relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1290 votes (26.8%)
Irrelevant, the AMA says it is legal, end of story.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
642 votes (13.3%)
I really don't care. Isn't Phillip Island WSBK and MotoGP testing this weekend?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2047 votes (42.5%)
Vote total: 4811
If you haven't voted yet, please do so at http://www.superbikeplanet.com/getVote.jsp?pn=buell0301.  |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 04:25 pm: |
|
Dean is a total Buell hater, and will never put up a fair appraisal. Hagen's diatribe is so utterly full of lies and BS that Dean would either have to be an idiot or in the pocketbook of Honda to post it. As is the case for Hagen himself. Either way they are losers. |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 05:08 pm: |
|
I love Superbikeplanet. I don't think they have an anti-Buell bias at all.
I think the bias is against the American engine handicap, and I tend to agree.
You could win with nearly any outdated platform if the damn engine was bored and stroked big enough. All of the other factories put a lot of money and effort to completely redesign and re-tool their engines every two to three years, and Buell comes along with a 1350 evolved from a 1980's platform to race against their 600s.
Someone should be pissed, but at the AMA, not at Buell. Buell ensured that the AMA was on board, so they have the absolute right to race, and I hope Buell wins.
If you read Superbikeplanet regularly you will find that they have been bashing the AMA for quite some time, and I think it is justified.
I have only been on Buells for three seasons, and love mine, but I'm not going to say that HD deserves to win anything until they put the money into a new engine platform that can compete on its own merits, not with unlimited modifications and double the displacement. |
Xlcr
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 05:34 pm: |
|
What do you mean, outdated? The Buell is the state of the art in chassis design, and the RR engine is arguably the state of the art in air-cooled pushrod engines. It produces the same HP as it's competitors with twice the torque and far fewer moving parts, it weights the same and takes up less space.
The resulting 1340cc bike is shorter, lower, and narrower than the 600cc Japanese bikes, weights in at the same 350 lb minimum, and will turn in quicker in the infield. It is also more aerodynamically efficient, and should easily hold its own on the banking.
I believe it's the Japanese bikes that are outdated. They have changed very little in the last 15 years. Sure, every second or third year they get 2 more HP and weight 1 and 1/2 lbs less, but other than that they are just the same old thing with a few more creases in the fairing and BNGs.
Back in the old days racers used to say, to make a winner, simplify, then add lightness.
The Japanese seem to have forgotten the first half of that rule, but Erik hasn't.
And I think he's built a winner. |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 05:34 pm: |
|
By the way, Superbikeplanet is devoted to racing. Why should they get stoked about Buells? Buells are street bikes, not repli-racers. Buell XBs are heavier and have less horsepower than any of the small or large displacement Japanese repli-racers.
Some of the very people posting above have bashed repli-racers on other threads and made an adamant point that Buells are not made for the track, they are street bikes. Now the same people can't understand why racers would not get excited about them.
Racers look at bikes as tools. They are not emotional or beautiful objects. They are engineered machines that will do the job better or worse than another engneered machine. To a professional racer, brand loyalty doesn't mean squat if you can't win on your bike. |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 05:40 pm: |
|
"State of the art in air-cooled pushrod engines."
Maybe HD should bring back side valve engines and get 1700cc against the 600s. Could you get 2000cc if you use leather main bearings?
Seriously, where do you draw the line with that argument? |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 05:44 pm: |
|
One last thing, Erik Buell did not choose to use the Sporster engine platform rather than design a new engine from scratch. He switched to the HD engines from a square-four two-stroke due to pressue from the boss. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 05:54 pm: |
|
"Seriously, where do you draw the line with that argument?"
You don't. You make the racing competitive. That's what the sanctioning body is there for. It doesn't matter how you get there, just as long as you get there and the sanctioning body doesn't give you too much. I don't believe the AMA gave the XB too much. I think it will be competitive, but not a dominating force. They were already finishing in the top ten with the XB, now I think they'll make the top seven consistently. If it's too much, you can bet the AMA will change the rules so that they aren't dominating next year. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 06:16 pm: |
|
He switched to the HD engines from a square-four two-stroke due to pressue from the boss.
Quite simply not true. The rules in the AMA changed so he could not sell that engine to racers. Then he built a bike to race in the new Superbike based Daytona 200 but that never quite worked out. Now he gets a third chance ot race there.
BTW Don't you think the MotoGP class is unfair? The inefficent old fashioned four strokes get almost twice the displacement as a two stroke. The only way one of those complicated engines can compete with a real race engine is by getting twice the displacment. How is that different than the FX rules. If they didn't have these types of displacment equalizers all the race bikes would be rotaries because per cc none of these old fashioned stroke type engines can compete with them and they would get distroyed by a nice small gas turbine engine. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 06:28 pm: |
|
Come one Scott (Spatten1),
What exactly do you imagine is really truly less state of the art in the XBRR engine compared to its competition? Bigger is less sophisticated? I dunno. Where do the folks who run the Le Mans racing series draw their lines? They have big V-8's going up against higher revving four and six cylinder machines, do they not?
Where does NHRA draw their lines? They have a big pushrod V-Twin competing with excellent parity against a high revving IL4.
Where does the FIM in World Supersport and MotoGP draw their lines? They have a 750cc twin cylinder bike competing with IL4 600cc bikes. They allow reduced minimum weights for machines with fewer cylinders in MotoGP. Why not do away with those rules designed to create parity among entries having different configurations of racing engines?
I'll tell you where I would draw the line. I draw the line at an honest and genuine attempt to create parity in a racing series, that's where. If you want to race using an engine configuration that won't revs to 8,000 rpm, and that has only two cylinders, and two valves per cylinder, then you get a BIG displacement. You get an allowable displacement that coincides with best possible expected performance from such an engine. It's up to you to achieve that best possible performance, no matter what size the engine might be.
If you want to run a 5 cylinder engine that will rev to 18,000 rpm, and that has four valves per cylinder, then you get a smaller displacement. You get an allowable displacement that coincides with best possible expected performance from such an engine and that is on par with others in the class. It's up to you to achieve that best possible performance, no matter what size the engine might be.
Dynamic displacement, defined as the rev limit times total displacement is a very good basic gauge for ascertaining the performance potential of a particular engine configuration.
Add further considerations for number of valves and cylinders and you are exactly where the AMA FX rules end up.
CCS/FUSA used the exact same rules for years.
Proclaiming that the mere use of more cylinders and smaller displacement engines with stratospheric rev limits is somehow inherently more advanced than a bigger simpler lower revving engine configuration is simply buying into the marketing hype sold by Japan Inc et al. It simply isn't true.
How is it that the low revving large displacement Dodge Vipers, Ford Mustangs, and Chevrolet Corvettes are so successful in racing?
I just don't buy the smaller engine is more technically advanced argument, at all.
It is one approach. It is not superior or inferior in and of itself.
The engine in the XBRR certainly is state of the art. Hydraulic lifters, metal matrix composite pushrods, roller main bearings, gear driven cams, no stinking radiator, no water pump, no thermostat and extra plumbing and jacketing. Just some fins and a few ducts is all. How absolutely elegant!
Seriously, step back and take a fresh look at motorcycles. If you are honest, I think you'll see how clunky and goofy it really is to have to stick a giant liquid to air heat exchanger out in front of the engine in order to keep it from overheating.
From an engineering standpoint, if possible, it is always MUCH more elegant to do away with that kind of big clunky extraneous system in favor of a less cumbersome, more direct approach to engine cooling.
Which engine configuration is more efficient?
Which is the far simpler one?
Which is by far less maintenance intensive?
Now tell me again, which is more advanced?
Again, if you can give me an example of specific technology that the IL4 engines have that makes them so much more advanced, I'd sure like to hear it.
Is it the old fashioned journal main bearings that they use?
The giant water to air heat exchanger system they employ?
Is it the wet sump oiling system that is so much more technically advanced?
Maybe it's that they share transmission and engine lubricant?
Could it be the chain that they use to drive their cams?
If it ain't any of those features, Is it the greater number of cylinders and valves, the high revs, and the small size of the engine?
Then you'd rather see a two stroke V6 or maybe a turbine engine?
Seriously though, if you step back and look at the situation with an open mind and a fresh attitude, there is simply nothing to the idea that merely because an engine is bigger and simpler that it is somehow less sophisticated or inferior to a smaller more complex competitor.
8000 rpm * 1.338 L = 10,794 Revolution*Liters per minute
17500 rpm * 0.600 L = 10,500 Revolution*Liters per minute
If someone came out with a 1.35L air-cooled twin cylinder engine that spins up to five figures and has four valves per cylinder, then the rules will need refined.
Until then, the rules should be defined to best create parity among all competitors.
Seems to me some don't care for the rules as they don't care to see Buell motorcycles racing.
That sure is sad to hear.  |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 06:33 pm: |
|
Also "You could win with nearly any outdated platform if the damn engine was bored and stroked big enough..."
Do you imagine that the mass and inertia of the engine is not a factor? 
It really isn't as simply as you imagine. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 06:38 pm: |
|
I'd like to see a new class - the CA class (you can keep your FX class) - I'll run }the Cheap A** class
New rules:
Total fuel use is limited to (XX) gallons
You go 200 miles as fast as you can on the fuel load.
First machine at the checkered flag wins.
Run whatchya brung.
$25000 claiming rule. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 06:57 pm: |
|
Spatten,
Why should Buell have to build a 600cc four to go racing? Especially why should every class be totally devoted to inline fours of the same displacement with 6 speed transmissions?
People get confused sometimes, but basically all race classes have been pushed into a standard configuration by a consortium of Japanese manufacturers. Why not at least have one class that allows some different engine types to compete with each other?
Why different displacements for different engine types? Let's evaluate a Buell motor compared to a 600. A 600cc engine spinning at 17,000 rpm burns 600cc per every other revolution (four stroke, remember?). 600*17,000/2=5.1 million cc/min. The 1350 Buell makes peak power at 8000 rpm, so 1350*8,000/2= 5.4 million cc/min. 5.8% advantage to Buell.
Now, BMEP comes into effect, here, as it is a measure of how well you burn the ccs of air/fuel that go through the motor. We could assume that BMEP is the same for these engines, although that is quite a stretch, as most engine designers would tell you BMEP is strongly affected by cylinder fill and smaller cylinder bores, which definitely favors the four valve 600, certainly by 5%. Almost dead even now.
Ok, now factor in that it is air cooled, which most race folks agree is at least a 10% difference in power between water cooled and air at high race speeds when piston wall frictions are so great, and engines are at maximum sustained torque and heat output. Ok, so the 600s now have almost a 10% advantage.
Now factor in a five speed transmission as opposed to a six speed. Definitely advantage to the 600s.
Now, number of cylinders. More is definitely an advantage...if you want to see how much of an advantage the Japanese think number of cylinders is, check out the MotoGP rules. Let's say 3%.
So where is the problem? Why the fuss about dealers entering bikes with a significant disadvantage against factory teams? Because the Japanese want to be the center of attention, and hate that any American company is in "their" territory. And they stir up the importophiles and Americaphobes out there. It's really a shame. |
Dr_greg
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 07:31 pm: |
|
So where is the problem? Why the fuss about dealers entering bikes with a significant disadvantage against factory teams?
Hear, hear! I find it amusing that "diversity" is sought after by so many in our society today, then when it happens they are the first to cry foul. |
Percyco
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Honda-Yamaha-Suzuki-Kawasaki.....from the folks that brought us Pearl Harbor !
Kick they're A$$E$, Buell Racers ! |
Spike
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:34 pm: |
|
quote:You could win with nearly any outdated platform if the damn engine was bored and stroked big enough. All of the other factories put a lot of money and effort to completely redesign and re-tool their engines every two to three years, and Buell comes along with a 1350 evolved from a 1980's platform to race against their 600s.
I really don't know what's wrong with these people . . .
Do you really want everyone to produce the exact same motorcycle?? Is displacement the only aspect of engine design you can comprehend?? Do you hate large-displacement cars too?? What gives, seriously, I want to know. Why aren't you bashing on the Japs for racing that same old DOHC I4 platform they cooked up in the '60s? |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Update on the pole. Looks like the Buell is winning this one...
Current poll results are...
quote: SouperPoll :: Oil-Cooled Buell: Minor Detail or End Game?
Is the fact that the Buell XBRR roadrace bike is not merely an air-cooled Twin but an air and oil-cooled twin mean the bike is clearly illegal for the Formula Extreme Class?
Yes. The rules state "air-cooled". The Buell web site says the bike is "air/oil cooled".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
901 votes (17.2%)
No. Lots of bikes, air and water cooled, have oil coolers. It's not relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1442 votes (27.5%)
Irrelevant, the AMA says it is legal, end of story.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
704 votes (13.4%)
I really don't care. Isn't Phillip Island WSBK and MotoGP testing this weekend?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2190 votes (41.8%)
Vote total: 5237
If you haven't voted yet, please do so at http://www.superbikeplanet.com/getVote.jsp?pn=buell0301.
Of the folks who care, Buell is taking this poll by more than a two to one ratio, 2149 for the XBRR being legal in FX versus only 901 against. Advantage Buell!
Gotta love it when the public speaks.  |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 06:12 am: |
|
I think the 'any displacement' comment is correct.
There simply has to be a point where race physics / math / science award an advantage to a larger displacement for a Buell type engine over a Japanese type engine when the displacement gap becomes significant enough.
The key to making it fair for all should be down to the race governing body, who in turn should have the consultation of engineers and manufacturers alike to bring parity to the races. Without that we will always be faced with those screaming 'cheat'.
I don't know where in that type of scenario Buell sit with the XBRR, but I'd assume that no one involved in the XBRR project looked to gain a definitive advantage that would for one, look ridiculously unbeatable, and two, not get past the rule book. I'm sure, even if before racing, there may be, or appears to be, an advantage towards the XBRR, I still think either way the XBRR is going to have to race, and race hard, to win. The most recent crop of Japanese 600's are way up with there, almost with Super Bike performance.
I'd be watching for a close and hard fought race if I wanted to shut up those screaming cheat or similar and I hope that's what we get. A real race.
Rocket |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 09:40 am: |
|
All good and well thought out comments.
One disagreement I'll always have with Blake is that I don't believe liquid cooling is just to keep the bike from overheating. They key to me is that tolerances can be kept much tighter, allowing higher rpm and more consistent compression, valve lift, etc. I had an epiphany one time reading the piston clearance and ring gap instructions in a Wiseco box and realized how much of a difference liquid cooling makes to parts expansion ranges. To me liquid cooling is not so unreliable, as I have no concern about my truck having radiator and hose issues when I take long trips, I don't about my bikes either. But that is just me.
I also agree that the Buell needs big displacement advantages. However, This year may be the year the handicapped bike blows by the smaller ones, and the rules will have to be adjusted next year for parity.
I stand by my argument, however, that the Japanese companies do deserve some reward for spending $250MM plus every two to three years to develop each engine platform for maximum performance. I wish HD would do the same. |
Spatten1
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
To clarify my last comment above, I know there are issues of scale and Buell has to be cognisant of them when spending HD money.
I do wish that Buell could develop a cleansheet engine. I think triumph has a good plan, developing engines that are different, but continuing to redesign every several years nonetheless. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
I don't necessarily agree with your last point. I think that once you do the math and determine how much displacement will be needed in whichever configuration of engine you chose you just need to be sure that you understand the actual limits. Essentially... You need to know what your talking about as a sanctioning body or you're going to give an advantage to someone.
If one of an engine's characteristics is that it's a little easier or less expensive to reach that final edge... I say that's a good characteristic. It also makes a good privateer race bike .
Those guys at Buell are smarter than we think I think |
Arbalest
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
An additional advantage of watercooling for street bikes has NOTHING to do keeping metal tolerances stable. All that water in the water jacket makes the motor QUIET...which the EPA thinks is just ducky. Water cooling is done as much to pass EPA noise specs as for any performance advantage. |
Spike
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
quote:I do wish that Buell could develop a cleansheet engine.
Just out of curiosity, what would you like to see them build? What would be your ideal motor? |
Jscott
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
How about a modern watercooled square 4 in 600cc and 1000cc variants? For those who can't get past displacement.
(Message edited by JScott on March 03, 2006) |
Davegess
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
The SCCA has an interesting way of handling production based sports cars. They establish a list of cars that can run in a class based on how competitive they would be with each other. You could have an Acura Integera racing a 3 liter Austin Healy. The limit or allow modifications to each car based on keeping the cars even. Some cars get to change more stuff, others less. And if a particular brand of car proves to be too fast or two slow for a class they will move it up or down as needed.
You hear no arguments that the 3 liter pushrod Healy has an unfair advantage over a 1.6 liter OHC CRX. Of course when a new model is introduced everyone tries to figure out if they can make it a winner in its class and then hope they don't get bumped up th enext year. SCCA has been doing this a very long time and are pretty good at it.
This is very much what FX is trying to do, equalize different types of bikes and make it a competitive class. |
Blublak
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Just out of curiosity, what would you like to see them build? What would be your ideal motor?
Hmmm.. I like that question.. It's an interesting bit of thoughts. Let's see..
A four valve V-Twin?
A six valve V-Four?
A four valve In Line Twin?
How about an eight valve, cam driven V-Four?
A five valve In Line Triple?
A four valve In Line Four (air cooled?)?
A flat Triple?
A 90* flat twin?
A five valve flat six?
A Rotary Four?
A Rotary Six?
A Rotary Ten?
Wait I know..
 A Jet Turbine engine.
...A Rotary Ten, liquid cooled Turbine with Solid Rocket Boosters!
Just the silly musings of a silly musing kind of guy...
 |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Wish there were more forums for truly intelligent discussions on the dispacement rules in the formula.
The Tracy Hagen diatribe on StupidBikePlanet is a perfect example of the BS that is being fed to guys who are enthusiasts but don't have strong technical backgrounds. And Dean Adams is in exactly the same BS world. The true technical situation is that the Buell actually still has a powertrain performance disadvantage, as described in detail above. If it does well, part will be due to some inherent advantages in driveability, or to having a better chassis.
But the likelihood of winning is slim, because it is dealers against the factories. The fair comparison will be of the XBRRs against the privateer teams on imports, and it will be fun to watch. The XBRR is also going to have a dramatic positive impact on race attendance and television audience, as well as providing more rides for privateers. It's the best thing to happen to AMA racing in a long while. |
Midknyte
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
A win is a lot to hope for, but don't ask me not to dream or wish.
A strong show/placement with no mechanical problems across the four teams would do us a world of good. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 01:00 pm: |
|
I am very curious to know what if any connection there is between the whole XBRR eligability and the blood running in the halls at the AMA offices. |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 01:15 pm: |
|
>>>The XBRR is also going to have a dramatic positive impact on race attendance and television audience, as well as providing more rides for privateers. It's the best thing to happen to AMA racing in a long while.
Therein lies the way in which BUELL began to change motorcycle racing at DAYTONA back to it's old glory. |
|
XBRR Threads Consolidated Here! »
Shakin in thier boots.....grasping at straws »
Archive through March 03, 2006