| Author |
Message |
    
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 11:04 am: | 
|
As low as it is, and since you have to add ballast to get it up to the minimum weight anyway, I'm thinking the weight of the stock can doesn't matter all that much. You know, assuming you didn't replace it with a race can anyway. |
Xblaw
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 11:40 am: |
|
True. Weight down low is not nearly that much of a problem and the ballast weight is a very good point. No better place to have ballast to reach the weight requirement than as low as possible. Still looks awful and ugly.
I know, I know. Who cares? Function over form. The can is still ugly.
As far as my wild *** guess on weight: I am willing to bet it weighs 1216 lbs.* |
Xblaw
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 11:43 am: |
|
I will say this though. Do not think for one moment my opinions on the exhaust system would prevent me from buying this bike over any other ~$40k bike (if I had that to blow on a new bike). It just is not aesthetically pleasing to me at all. Everything else is magnificent. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Feats of engineering aside, and I know they work well, but I think (and this is just me, I have no inside info) that Buell might not want to spend a ton of money on stock exhaust systems that they know owners are just going to replace with aftermarket soon after they purchase the bike. Makes sense to me anyway. Make it perform, make it legal. Who cares how it looks? |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Actually. . . . . it's not weight down low . . . it's weight as close as possible to the center of mass.
This Cartesian coordinates and trying to minimize the value of the weight. Pilots who have worked weight and balance calcs are very familiar. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 01:31 pm: |
|
>>> Actually. . . . . it's not weight down low . . . it's weight as close as possible to the center of mass.
Thank you for stating that truth.
It's a myth that always putting mass lower is better on a sport bike, if you want it to handle anyway. |
Scottorious
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 02:11 pm: |
|
This is just a question. Do they figure rider weight when they are centralizing the center of mass? Or does the rider weight not play much of a difference? |
Pkforbes87
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 02:38 pm: |
|
My '08 Yamaha Zuma 50 has all the weight down low, and the handling SUCKS
But it's hard to complain while getting 100mpg  |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Perhaps I should have said "since it is not hanging out near the rear of the bike off to one side". |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 04:11 pm: |
|
Huh. A mass debate. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 - 04:29 pm: |
|
That's exactly what I'm doing. 
This thread needs more pictures. |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Or maybe not! |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Now... find me a hot dude that knows how to turn a wrench and doesn't lie..
Show me a woman that doesn't think she's always being lied to |
Andyss1w
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 12:21 pm: |
|
anybody know someone to let me in at the indy dealer show this weekend? i would love to meet erik and see these bikes. i promise I'll sneak some more pics!! |
U4euh
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 02:33 pm: |
|
center mass! |
Skinstains
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2011 - 05:39 pm: |
|
I think someone is trying to disguise it as a two-stroke... |
Smoke
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 06:56 am: |
|
Court, always trying to interject facts into conjecture! keep it up!
tim |
