| Author | Message | ||
     Jimidan |
I recently replaced my front isolator on the ol' S2 right before my trip to Summit Point, WV, for the races. About 400 miles into the trip I noticed the dreaded vibration increase that spells front isolator failure. This is not an uncommon phenomenon with this S2, but I had never seen one disintegrate quite as fast or completely as this one. I toughed it out for the remainder of the trip, some 1,100 miles, with little more than a case of Sporty hands. I stopped by the HD dealership where I bought the part and talked to the service manager about it. I was told that indeed, they had received a "bad batch" of these isolators, and had been replacing them on all the bikes where they had been installed. He said that these isolators are also on some HD models, besides the tube framed Buells, and therefore, the new ones were on order. I don't have the part number of this isolator in front of me, but I will post it later if anybody needs it. Of course, there is a kicker in my case, as I had purchased two of these bad batch isolators more than 90 days ago and put them on my shelf, since my bike is hard on them (by contrast, the rear isolators are the original ones, after 40,000 miles of hammering with an 88"!). The limit for HD warranty on parts is 90 days, so I was told that mine would not be covered under warranty. I maybe can understand how under normal circumstances that 90 days is a reasonable time to guarantee parts, but these were a defective part that they knew about. It sounds like they should have been recalled and everyone who had purchased the part should have been notified. It would seem appropriate for every one of the "bad batch" isolators to be replaced by HD at no charge to the owner, regardless of when they purchased them. The service manager said he would call HD to see if they would waive the 90 day limit...we will see. Anybody else have this problem with the bad batch of isolators? I plan on updating my frame with an additional heim joint on the cylinder head bracket to see if taking the lateral movement away will increase the life of the isolator. Any other ideas? jimidan | ||
| Whodom |
Jim, I just had a ~6 month old front isolator fail on my S3 (see my story in Old School Buell). About a month previously, I had removed the link at the cylinder head trying to reduce the vibration to the handlebars and I thought this might have caused the problem. However, M2's don't have the link and don't seem to be prone to eating front isolators. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
I had my front replaced the end of last year. Do you think it is of the same batch? | ||
| Mikej |
I'm just about to replace mine, think I'll hold off a bit until the numbers are verified. | ||
| Steve_mackay |
Of course! I just picked up one a couple of weeks ago, and was going to replace it this weekend. | ||
| Daves |
What part number do you have that is the bad one? They recently(a couple months ago) changed the part # The HD ones do not fit the Buells anymore, I sent one out to a customer and the hole for the bolt on the HD one was too small. Looked up the new part # and sent him a new one and it was fine. | ||
| Tgroghan |
So Part # L0501.2 would be the new part number? | ||
| Daves |
yes, that is the new number | ||
| Jimidan |
My isolator's part number was 16219-79C...and that according to my service manager was the "defective batch". He even had it memorized, like he had been dealing with it a lot. Does this make any sense to you Dave? Jimidan | ||
| Steve_mackay |
Of course, I'm pretty sure I have the 16219-79c part. Thanks a lot for the heads up guys. | ||
| Daves |
I hope you don't have that part number, the Isolator part number is/was 16207-79C 16219-79C is a stabilizer? | ||
| Jimidan |
Dave (of course) is right, I picked out the wrong receipt. My broken isolator is #16207-79C and has BARRY 28043 molded into the TOP, with an 05 year. Dave, were you told there was a bad batch of isolators out there? Is this just a regional thing? Jimidan | ||
| Whodom |
My broken isolator is #16207-79C and has BARRY 28043 molded into the TOP, with an 05 year. Jimi, I believe that matches mine (the top is so torn up I can only read "BARRY 2804". I got mine from Dave near the end of last year. Here are the photos of mine which failed on Memorial Day. Note that this is after riding about ~160 miles with it in this condition. I originally blamed it on my having temporarily removed the front link, but now I'm not so sure.  Top view from rear.  Top view from front. The "chunk" is from the top front of the isolator.  Note how the rubber is completely separated from the metal around the bottom (isolator shown upside down in this photo). Hugh (Message edited by whodom on June 07, 2006) | ||
| Tramp |
riding an S2 sans front link would do that to a perfect iso, very quickly. stick with your original hypothesis | ||
| Whodom |
Tramp, I intend to until proven otherwise. The question is, how do M2's function without the link? | ||
| José_quiñones |
Don't confuse which front links you're talking about... All the "old" Buells prior to the 1999+ X1/S3 had three links, one behind the engine, one at the top of the engine and one at the front down by the oil filter. The X1 and S3 had a fourth link, right under the front isolator, connecting the frame and the front head mount. This is the one I removed and noticed a decrease in vibration felt at the handlebars on my S3. I believe you had one of the 'bad' ones. I have the wrong/bad one (the HD part # mentioned above) in my garage, I'll try to return it to my local dealer where i bought it recently and get the Buell one. (Message edited by josé_quiñones on June 07, 2006) | ||
| Jimidan |
Hugh, Yours looks worse than mine after another 1100 miles that I put on it after it initially broke...but not by much. Jose, You removed that stabilizer link (heim joint) and noticed that there was less vibration...makes sense. Did you also have a failure of the front isolator? Do you think that removal of the link contributes to failure? I am assuming that Buell engineers installed that extra front link to take the load off of the isolator. I am getting ready to weld on a tab to my frame to allow installation of that extra link, as my front isolator breaks too often for my tastes. I don't know if it is because of the extra torque of my 88" or what, but the vibration tears the rubber on the top (above the frame mount) front side of the isolator. I have been able to get double duty on these by turning the isolator around and remounting it...there is no back and front, just top and bottom. It will usually last for several thousand more miles that way, assuming it isn't a bad batch. This one I have that is in the bad batch crumbled a LOT more than the older ones I have had...almost like the in the photos above. I still haven't heard from the Service Manager yet on whether they will honor a replacement. If they say no, I am making a complaint to the Buell factory. There is no way that they should balk at replacing a known defective part.  jimidan | ||
| José_quiñones |
That "fourth" link was added to increase 'torsional rigidity' not to take stress off the isolator. It was a racing derived development. I spoke to Shawn Higbee about this last year at the Homecoming while sitting in the stands at Road America. He said that it improved turn in, ie it reacted quicker to input from the handlebars, but that only he was 'sensitive' enough to notice it during testing. I could not notice any difference in turn in, but I did notice less vibration in the fairing and handlebars. I guess I should stick the link back no and ride them back to back to confirm my thesis, once I removed it I was happy with how it rode and left it that way. It's possible that it contributes to premature isolator failure, but remember, it was only standard on the X1's and S3's, not on the same year M2's. All other Buells, S2's, S1's Blasts even the XB's, use only three links between the engine and the frame. The times I have had problems with mine are when I carry a passenger or otherwise 'overload' it. Two isolators replaced due to that reason. | ||
| Mikej |
Got home last night and went out to the garage to check the number on the isolator I haven't installed yet: 16207-79B. Is that a good earlier one or something else? I didn't look to see if any text was in the rubber itself. | ||
| Whodom |
Glad to see the interest in this thread. My isolator seemed to fail suddenly and completely. I rode to the NW corner of SC (~220 miles away) last Sunday with my wife on board. This was my first trip minus the 4th link and my hands seemed noticeably less fatigued after the ride than they had on previous long rides. I hope we can pin this failure on a bad isolator because I really think removal of the 4th link made a big improvement in the long-range rideability of the bike. We got up Monday morning and rode several twisty roads between SC and NC, finishing up on highway 276 south from Brevard, NC through Caesar's Head, SC (one of the best roads in the area) and on down to Greenville, SC. The bike went from almost no vibration to literally rattling my teeth by the time we'd gotten to Greenville, ~30 miles south. I didn't hit any potholes or bad railroad crossings during that time, and we were out of the twisties by the time it failed. I think it must have just given up somewhere in the 30 miles between Caesar's Head and Greenville. José, do the front isolators really give up that quickly with a passenger? If so, I may be buying a Uly sooner than I'd planned.... (Message edited by whodom on June 08, 2006) | ||
| Daves |
This is the first I have heard of the "bad batch" I doubt it is regional since all Buell dealers get them from Buell and it looks like I may have sold a bad one to Whodom, the one I sent him is the 79B one. This must have been before they changed the part number. Mikej The one you have is an earlier part number of the same part so it was upgraded or changed since then. I will try to get some info today from the factory | ||
| Mikej |
Thanks, I'll be replacing them on the S2 and the M2 both this summer sometime. Got a sketch pad going writing up an order for you sometime in the next month or so. | ||
| Henrik |
Just got a note from Court wrt. the isolator question: Someone sent me a note about a week ago that someone on Badweb reported a "bad batch of isolators". That is inaccurate information, there never was a bad batch. There were significant changes. I got the thing about a week ago, contacted HD tech services and have all the current info. Have him drop me a note at court@canfield.net if he hasn't had it satisfactorily resolved. I have the folks at the factory standing by to help him. Henrik | ||
| Road_thing |
Daves: Do you happen to have a record of which part #'s were on the front isolators you sent me a few months back? The parts are still in the boxes out at the ranchito, I haven't installed them yet. Thanks again for the party last Friday! Sorry you missed out on the okra... rt | ||
| Daves |
you got the 79C ones. please check them as if they are the wrong ones, the hole for the isolator bolt will not fit in the hole. I got word from the factory. There is no "Bad Batch" of isolators out there. The part number was changed because of a change in the part that make it not compatible with both HD and Tube Frame Buells. For those of you with issues, please contact me and I can give you the info you will need to provide your servicing dealer. If you are the servicing dealer, then I will try to get them replaced for you. | ||
| Road_thing |
Thanks, Daves, I'll try to get a look at them this weekend. rt | ||
| Whodom |
Dave, Sent PM with isolator info and list of some other parts I need. Hugh | ||
| José_quiñones |
Put the fourth link back on the bike and went for a ride this afternoon. I felt more vibration, particularly at 4,000 rpm, which is my cruising rpm. I'll ride it for a day or so but it's coming back out. | ||
| José_quiñones |
The more I think about it, that link does not provide any vertical support between the engine and the frame. The isolators do that, the links are for lateral support. Think about what those links do, they let the motor vibrate back and forth (it moves on the vertical plane) but not from side to side (laterally) relative to the frame. I think the fourth link takes some of that back and forth vertical motion and feeds it into the upper part of the frame, causing the vibration felt at the handlebars. I don't think it had anything to do with your isolator failure. | ||
| Whodom |
José, I basically agree with you, but it does seem possible that the absence of the link could allow some lateral flex in the mount which could stress it slightly more than when the link is installed. You mentioned having a couple of isolators fail when riding with a passenger. That worries me more than the link issue. Were these more-or-less immediate failures or just shortened life of the isolator? |
