| Author | Message | ||
     Dynarider |
If you are going to quote qtr mile times, at least get them all from the same source. Using different times from several magazines holds about as much relevancy as comparing dyno figures from a sea level shop to one thats located at 5000-6000ft. | ||
| Bads1 |
Thats just it Dyna. yours that you posted and the ones I posted are all different.Who knows who to believe and who gives a rats ass really???It starts to get old listening to complaining.Later | ||
| Blake |
How was Dyna complaining? Being contrary yes, but complaining? Come on, you can debate him better than that Dana.  | ||
| Blake |
That said, Dyna ain't answered MY question yet, and methinks t'is cause it exposes the weakness in his stance on the issue. Significantly lighter bike with more power, geared lower... how could it possibly be slower?  | ||
| Captainkirk |
Erik has intentionally stayed with an antiquated(?) pushrod engine for one reason-he believes in low center of gravity (mass-centralization). The camshaft(s) in the XB motor are in the case, hence lower c.g. I can feel a HUGE difference between leaning my Jap inline-4 and my M2 with regards to center of gravity....maybe it's because I know it's there...but I notice nonetheless. Erik&Co. have pared the weight (of the motor) down to 185 lbs. on the XB9...I'm not sure if there's a difference on the XB12 or not...and you can bet his next move will be to better that. And besides, I believe Erik to be one of those rare individuals who, when told, "Geez, Boss, we've squeezed all we can outta this motor" shows them time and time again how WRONG they are. Look at what he did with the plain-jane Sporty motor. I think he's just getting warmed up.(IMHO) Second, I think he's got a bit of an attitude problem-with convention, that is. Just when we think we've got him figured out, he does something-like drop the entire tube frame lineup. Ya gotta love it! Last, anyone who is looking for "Superbike" performance(read;130 MPH+) is reading the wrong catalog. Life's not a racetrack. Buell's not a Superbike. Why build a street bike that goes 160MPH when all that's gonna do is get you (or someone else)killed? I've never ridden on a racetrack, or ridden a Superbike, but I'll bet they're finnicky, unstable, cantankerous bastards to ride...in short, not a hell of a lot of fun.My Buell is FUN.  | ||
| Rocketman |
If I wanted, I could spout tales "Ducati killing" with my '97 Cyclone, and on a race track no less. Well Blake, if you were the worst rider out there, which you're not, I'd say that's a hell of an achievement, but I'd bet my next weeks wages if you were riding the Duc's you'd beat yourself on your M2, but this isn't about tube framers. Kirk, your last paragraph disqualifies you from having a valid opinion, though it does prove Buells demographic exists - and you fit it well. Beam me up Erik Rocket | ||
| Steviejay01 |
I bought the buell because I love the look and sound, I'm not really looking for top speed anyways, who the fuck wants OR DOES 160mph on a regular basis anyways?? Lets be honest by the time you hit 160+ mph on the road you have warm feeling leaking down your leg that smells very much like piss as you miss the next corner and screw your head into a 500year old oak tree. No I'm VERY happy with my bike and the attention it gets as I ride about, ( I'd get less looks riding naked through a busy town on market day spanking my monkey) but this ONE time that I'm gonna let rip with the boys on some nice big highways, I just wish it had more top end. Like the chap up there said.......I'll just have to make sure I ride well in the twisties and leave the straight line hero's to it. Fuckers. hehe edited by Steviejay01 on February 21, 2004 | ||
| Rocketman |
Southern fairy!  Rocket | ||
| Bads1 |
Blake if it helps The motorcyclist mag. Qtr mile time that I posted is corrected to sea level standard conditions(59 degrees F,29.92 in. of mercury. | ||
| Steviejay01 |
You spotter. | ||
| Rocketman |
Steve, give us a shout in June, on your way to Assen. I'm only a few miles from your ferry. Maybe I'll have the big Buell sorted by then. Hope so! Rocket | ||
| Dynarider |
Blake, MCN has not to my knowledge used the correction factor for any of their tests. The numbers they get are the ones they post. Even if they are or are not corrected, the numbers all come from the same magazine & the same group of testers so the numbers stand by themselves. Dana, as Blake pointed out how was I complaining? Im just saying if you are going to use numbers to back you up, at least use the same source. Hell I could find numbers that were posted for the XB's that are slower than those used yet I didnt. What I pointed out is when people claim that the XB is significantly lighter & faster than the tube frames...well thats just not true. The XB12S weighs 461 lbs...just what does the R weigh? Perhaps a couple lbs more because of the fairing & the larger tail section. An M2 weighs 469 lbs wet. The X1 weighs more due to the large aluminum tail section. So lets see now..M2 at 469 & the XB12 at 461..is that significant? I dont consider 8 lbs huge. Did I ever say the XB12 was a slug? Nope. Simply posted qtr mile times that show the X1 is not some archaic pile that the XB will run circles around. Those 2 bikes are a lot more equal than you might think except in 1 area & thats reliability, the XB has to date proven to be much more dependable. But that doesnt make it faster or quicker. I do think it has the potential to be the superior bike with just a couple minor mods tho. | ||
| Dynarider |
BTW Blake, you are quite correct about the wheelbase affecting the times. The XB can be a bitch to launch properly. You want to drag race a v-twin...get a HD. The long wheelbase really helps. Build up a HD to some decent power levels, its not hard to do at all with the EVO or the TC & you can have a fun time at the strip. | ||
| Blake |
Dyna,Uncorrected numbers are not very meaningful in a discussion about which bike is quickest. The numbers Dana posted are all by motorcyclist and are all corrected. An M2 weighs 469 LBs wet? Interesting. And for which M2, the pre-'99 or the '99-'02 models? Where did you find that information? I've been trying to find that for a long time. | ||
| Dynarider |
Blake, so long as all the numbers for the different bikes come from the same magazine & the same testers, then it doesnt matter if they are corrected or not. The differences between the times would remain the same even after they were corrected. And as far as the correction factors go, who really cares? I mean honestly posting the sealevel numbers at a specific temperature wont mean squat to the guy who lives in the mountains of N.Carolina or in Denver. I dont recall if it was a pre 99 M2 or not, but it was in an issue of MCN. I personally prefer those guys tests because they dont have a hidden agenda. A lot of the bike mags im sure you would agree are extremely biased 1 way or the other & I simply dont have a lot of faith in the numbers they produce. MCN is not affected by advertising & they have no qualms about posting the truth. | ||
| Blake |
Dyna, "so long as all the numbers for the different bikes come from the same magazine & the same testers, then it doesn't matter if they are corrected or not. The differences between the times would remain the same even after they were corrected." You are egregiously mistaken my friend. If they test the X1 on a cold dry day, then tested the XB on a hot humid day, you really don't see how uncorrected numbers will grossly misrepresent the relative performance of the two bikes? Well it absolutely will. The correction factors at the drag strip are similar to those used in dyno testing. Any drag racer will tell you that varying weather conditions can have a HUGE effect on performance. The corrected numbers indeed do mean something if you are attempting to compare the relative performance between different bikes that were tested on different days, and in different conditions. I just recently started taking MCN. Initially I was positive about their reporting. I've since learned that they are staffed by writers who are severely lacking in their objectivity or at least their understanding of honest statistical analysis. They certainly do seem to have a bias, and their apparently disingenuous manipulation of statistics is very sad. On the whole though, I recommend the magazine. They do a good comprehensive job in their reporting/evaluations of aftermarket parts/accessories. Do you recognize their bias? Maybe "scorn" would be a better word. From the little I've read, MCN does not like Harleys at all. But my opinion is still evolving, will need a couple more issues to be sure. | ||
| Blake |
One more thing... the drag strip numbers need not be corrected to sea level at standard temperature and pressure (STP) for a valid comparison. They just need to be corrected to the same conditions, what those conditions are matter not. It's the same exact principle of using corrected dyno test results rather than actual performance numbers. Same exact principle. It's just convention and easier for everyone to use the same correction scheme, and the SAE or STD scheme is most widely accepted and those both correct performance to sea level, dry air, at something like 59oF. Don't quote me on that, but you get the idea. | ||
| Dynarider |
I understand where you are coming from. As far as MCN not liking HD's thats simply not true. Dave Searle has owned a couple & liked them but he is a huge BMW fan. Fred Rau the senior editor has owned many HD's & is his main ride of choice. From the tests I have read regarding both HD's & Buells they have been very objective. Compare the writeups on the XB12 between MCN & Motorcyclist. MCN reported that the XB12S has Big grunt from the engine=big fun Chassis & suspension is great when sorted Still a technological marvel There gripes were Hard seat Heavy clutch Skittish over choppy bumps in turns. Overall a very glowing writeup. And the 2 testers for this writeup were steveNatt who owns an X1 & Walt Fulton who used to own an S3. Whereas motorcyclist basically bitched about everything. Suspension sucked, motor lacked hp & revs, blah blah. Who's numbers would you tend to believe? The magazine where the editors & writers have actually owned the bikes & dont appear to have a hidden agenda against them, or the magazine that firmly has their lips wrapped around Hondas C__K? | ||
| Dynarider |
PS..just did a bit more research & MCN does correct their numbers for valid comparisons across the board. PS#2. This magazine is also the one that has been instrumental in getting Honda to acknowledge the frame breakage issues with the new Goldwings & also has led the charge against HD & the TC cam bearing issue. | ||
| Bads1 |
Dyna it doesn't matter does it really???Every and I mean Every test I read and I have all the major magazine tests on the 12 are different times and weight.Sportrider weighs the 12R at 461lbs wet.The 12S is 1 lbs. Heavier they all vary one way or the other. | ||
| Dynarider |
Dana, I already said earlier that it didnt really matter. For 1 thing its next to impossible for any of us to even come close to those numbers..they are good for bench racing & thats about it. Compare the numbers you see in the mags with what actual normal owners are getting & there is a huge difference. A mag might claim a bike can do the qtr in 11. flat, yet in the real world the times you usaully see are a full second or more slower. I know I have seen Buells that were claimed to be mid 11 second bikes be very lucky if they could do a high 12. I have seen supposed low 10 second Kaws & Hondas that were running in the 11.2 range. I dare anyone here to take a stock 600cc sportbike that the mags are claiming to be high 10 second bikes & even come close to those times. PS..how could the S weigh more than the R?? | ||
| Blake |
Quarter miles times are one thing. Editorializing and biased commentary are another. Which do you choose to discuss? I certainly agree about the bias of the majority of the crew at Motorcyclist. I do not believe that their dyno testing or quarter miles times are biased. That is what we were discussing no? In their corrected quarter mile times, the XB12 beat the tube frame. Case closed. As to MCN, I'll quote you the comments written by Mr. Rau concerning HD that lead me to call him biased... "No matter how much (Harley owners) are charged, how long they have to wait for a bike or service, how badly they are treated, or how many problems they have with the bike, they still fervently cling to the bar-and-shield." That is an obvious exaggeration and has no place in an objective report. It strongly indicates a negative bias on behalf of the author. and... "... (Harley Twin-Cams) are relatively low-tech and overpriced, compared to other bikes on the market." How can they be overpriced if they sell out as they do? The author fails to recognize any possible valid reason why a customer would prefere a Harley over a comparable other brand machine. Mr. Rau also makes mention of a high speed wobble that is reported by 15% of their poll respondents. he never bothers to suggest that such a wobble could easily result from low tire pressure or any other number of factors. No, he instead, with absolutely no evidence indicts the bikes' frame misalignment as the sole factor causing the problem. That is not only biased, but egregiously irresponsible reporting. Mr. Rau also makes questionable use of a dubious sample of statistics. No sample from a discreet readership of one magazine is a reliable indicator of the population as a whole. MCN readers probably comprise a fairly tight demographic within the motorcycling community (think of who would be willing to pay the fairly steep subscription). Any survey by them is thus likely to be skewed towards the common traits of that demographic. In short, basing conclusions about the entire population of Harley riders upon one MCS survey is patently irresponsible and invalid. That is scientific fact, not my personal conjecture. Overall though, I rate MCN as a good and worthwhile publication. But don't tell me there is not bias in it. EVERYONE has some form of bias and it is virtually impossible to prevent it from creeping into ones otherwise objective commentary. Yes, Motorcyclist sets the standard for Pro-Japan bias. I'll not argue against that.  | ||
| Bads1 |
Dyna years have passed since I have had the V-MAX but after said and done with what I had done to the bike.It was bored,light head work,cams,pipe,Flat slide carbs.even had chain conversion on it that an older fella that dragged out at the grove did these conversions on max's did for me.Brian Vaille,you would know him as Shorty at Puma's did the majority of the work when he worked at Ace Honda.Now were talking a really fast bike stock but built and with me on it I could only pull a 10.56,ok thats fast then I let Kurt Woodward ride it one run and it pulled a 9.80's.Your absolutely right most of us will never be able to get those bikes do what they say they will.As far as the S being heavier then the R thats what I have got in my mags. I would of never thought that either. | ||
| Dynarider |
In their corrected quarter mile times, the XB12 beat the tube frame. Case closed. In that case motorcyclist is using the fastest XB they have tested against the slowest tube frame they tested. Their tests are far from objective as pointed out numerous times when they had the huge comparo & they absolutely beat the crap out of the CBR so it would barely surpass the times posted by the XB9 on the road course portion of their test. Did they put the same amount of effort into running the XB as hard? Obviously not. I dont totally agree with Fred being biased. Just because you like & prefer a certain brand of bike or car or anything, does not mean you have to agree with everything the company does or even like all of its products. "No matter how much (Harley owners) are charged, how long they have to wait for a bike or service, how badly they are treated, or how many problems they have with the bike, they still fervently cling to the bar-and-shield." Thats actually true, look how many die hard HD loyalists dont care how much they are gouged, how often their bikes break down, etc. They will still stand on top of the mountain & declare their brand of bike as the bestest. Substitute the word Buell in place of HD in Freds quote & tell me it still doesnt make sense? We have many many documented cases of bad dealerships, bike breaking down, etc. Yet no matter what happens the true blue loyalists will overlook all of it. "... (Harley Twin-Cams) are relatively low-tech and overpriced, compared to other bikes on the market." Yes I know its all about what the market will bear in regards to price, but look at what he compared the price of HD's to..other bikes on the market. Its a fact that they are much higher priced than the Kawasaki, Yamaha & Honda cruisers. They are lower tech too. Does that mean they suck? No, it just means for the gear heads out there that there are higher tech machines with a lower price tag. As far as the wobble goes, that is currently going thru the court system. It has been documented by many people including several police forces who utilize the bikes. I havent been 100% dutiful about reading it but what I have read is that in some cases the wobble was cured by different tires, in quite a few cases the alignment bewteen the front & rear tires was off..sometimes by as much as 2". Aligning everything properly has cured the wobble in quite a few cases. | ||
| Blake |
"In that case motorcyclist is using the fastest XB they have tested against the slowest tube frame they tested." How on earth do you come up with that rationale? We'll have to agree to disagree on the bias issue. Especially if you think that.. "No matter how much (Harley owners) are charged, how long they have to wait for a bike or service, how badly they are treated, or how many problems they have with the bike, they still fervently cling to the bar-and-shield." is honest commentary. Maybe you can explain to me what makes the Japanese or other cruiser offerings more "high tech" than a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Cause I don't see it. I see a LOT of things in a Harley that are simply higher quality and better designed from a style standpoint. THAT along with the appeal of an American icon of motorcycling is what warrants the higher prices. Made in American does mean something to a lot of people including me. Not that I've ever owned a Harley. What is the MSRP of the current Dyna Superglide? The XL883? The XL1200? There are plenty of dealers who sell at MSRP. Plenty that don't. What does a fully decked out Valkyrie go for? A Road King? The prices are not THAT damn much far apart. Propagating conventional wisdom leads to the opposite. | ||
| Dynarider |
What is the MSRP of the current Dyna Superglide? The XL883? The XL1200? When "most" people refer to the prices of an HD as being high they are not referring to the bottom rung models. If that were the case then you could make a point that Buell are dirt cheap because the Blast goes for $4500. The Fatboys, Ultra classics, Softail customs, wideglides, etc are what folks are referring to. Sure there are some bikes that approach the prices of a HD & in some cases even surpass it. Goldwings, Victorys, & Indians were all right there. And the Valkyrie? If you are considering one of those you were never & never will be a potential HD customer. The Yamaha warriors, the roadstars, the V-stars, Hondas Shadow lineup, Kawasakis lineup are all many thousands of dollars less than the HDs. Now remember that I am a fan of HD & I love the looks, the sound & the ride of the HD's. But they arent the end all-be all-bestest bikes of all time. HD just introduced FI on the big twins a few years ago, they still have carbs..which I prefer on a number of bikes. They still have 2 valves per head while a number of the competitons bikes are sporting 3& 4 valves, overhead cams, 2 plugs per cylinder, greatly improved brakes over anything in the HD lineup. The japanese cruisers have bigger fron tires than HD usues for the rear of their bikes, some have inverted forks for reduced unsprung weight. HD has made strides in the last few years but it was more of a catch up than anything else. In that case motorcyclist is using the fastest XB they have tested against the slowest tube frame they tested." How on earth do you come up with that rationale? Its easy..take a look at the numbers. These were posted Motorcyclist Magazine "Hard Numbers" Buell XB9R Firebolt ('02) 11.71 @ 113.74 in the quarter Buell S3 Thunderbolt ('99) 11.90 @ 113.2 in the quarter That is clearly the slowest number I have ever seen posted in any magazine for any tube framed bike. I posted awhile back many examples of much faster times. Motorcyclist had faster times on quite a few tube framers but they conveniently left those off that list. The case for fastest Buell is far from closed. | ||
| Blake |
You didn't answer my questions. What's the matter, don't wish to expose the fallacy of your argument? You would rather compare the most expensive Harleys with the cheapest competition? Whatever. Show me any motorcycle that is "the end all-be all-bestest bike of all time." I can't debate you. You prefer deflective rhetoric, and misdirection. I prefer facts. The facts are pretty simple. Harley offers plenty of models that are closely priced to their competition, even less than some of their competition. Motorcyclist tested an S3 that put down over 90 RWHP and it was slower in a corrected quarter mile than an XB9R. That was one very pumped up S3, and it was STILL not able to beat the XB9R. Add another 12 rwhp and what do you think the XB12R would do? You want to argue against simple physics, you'll have to find another participant. | ||
| Captainkirk |
Rocket, I never claimed to have a valid opinion. I just ride to get a warm, fuzzy feeling (and throw in my 2 cents when nobody's looking!) Cheers!  | ||
| Chainsaw |
Anyone want to factor in resale value? What's a 4 year old Valkyrie worth compared to a 4 year old Road King? A quick look at Cycle Trader says a 2004 Valkyrie is $24,000. A 2000 Valkyrie averages $10,000. A 2004 HD Roadking is $17,000. A 2000 Roadking is about $15,000. The Honda has a 49% depreciation. THe Harley has a 12% depreciation. What's the topic again? Oh yeah... 132 mph. | ||
| Court |
Boy is Harley-Davidson, who announced plans to increase production to 400,000 (from a tad over 200K) by 2007, going to have their bubble burst to learn they are underpowered and overpriced. I'm thinking, as a stockholder, that these yahoos, as they continue to post records among USA corporations for numbers of consecutive quarters of increasing (as in up every consecutive quarter) gains and show unbeleivabel increases in profits, gross and net, would see the light. In addition, it is not like the profits HD is making (perfectly justified in my own mind) are a state secret. Any one who buys, or intends to buy a Fat Boy (thanks for the name Jerry...but, that's another story) knows exactly the profits that HD is making. Whiners say I. Bother anybody that Ford made more on my F-250HD? About 120MPH. Court |
