| Author | Message | ||
     Court |
There was NO "T" model anywhere in 1995. I am sitting about 2 feet from a bike with parts marked "test" and "proto". The parts, such as fairing lowers, bags and the fiber thingy to keep the swingarm from chafing the frame were developed during 1995, sold as a 1996 for the first time. You'll recognize them by the gray frame on the bikes. Court | ||
| Tramp |
remember, as well, guys, when sorting through vin-speak of your s2s, that the S2 and the S2T have different letter designations (S2: first 3 characters: 4MZRT, while the S2T is 4MZFT, so the timing cover for a "T" will show a numeral preceding a slash (/) followed by a lower 'run' number than that of the S2. The numerals which follow the RT or FT are the cal. vs. 49er designators. it follows that a 4MZRT56 is an S2 california, and so on. | ||
| Tramp |
as i'd said, this thang IS in fact a "T" with the charcoal frame, bought new as such, titled as an rr1200, original color: parkway blue.... jeeeez , i apologize, i absolutely believe you, court, maybe that prototype was a prototype for something else more exotic that never actually made it to production? i know this scoot sounds weird, and i've heard it plenty of times before, man. maybe it was prototypical in some way? and agin, believe me, i'm not trying to be a wiseguy here, but ya did say, originally, that there were NO '95 S2s at all in california, and then obviously that statement warranted some amendment, being there were, you know... 86 '95b s2 californias manufactured... then, on the 'tube frame differences' thread you state the s2 seat height as 29.8, and the s3 as 29.5, while both of my owner's manuals (s2 & s3) state both seat heights at 29.5, and both of my sales brochures from the respective years state both heights as 29.5, and now there were NO s2ts anywhere in the world? i'm not doubting your sources, and if i sound like a wiseass or a skel, i apologize- that's not my objective. isn't there a good chance, assuming that you are neither illiterate or dishonest (clearly you are neither) that buell puts out some very convoluted and confused and often erroneous service and production literature? I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was no OFFICIAL S2t in '95, but the S2t i bought back then, which was titled as an rr1200, is still an s2t. (Message edited by tramp on November 07, 2004) (Message edited by tramp on November 07, 2004) | ||
| Court |
Tramp: I do not think you are being a wiseguy. I do think there is some serious misinformation surrounding the mutant bike you seem to have acquired. Regardless, you asked me to cite my sources....I confes...I got drug in an pulled two cases of the S2 files. I'll leave it to you to decide if this is credible sources of Buell S2 information. Best of luck with the bike..whatever it is  and if it is indeed titled as an RS you are sitting on a gold mine. Court         Ride safe, lean much and smile more..... | ||
| 1313 |
Court, I was going to take some pictures of the manuals (parts and service) and some of the other older literature that I have on the S2's and post them here, but you beat me to it. The fact of the matter is, as Court states, the S2-T was not available until 1996, and all 1995 S2 Thunderbolt's were 'only' S2's. Incidentally, Parkway Blue was not a color until the 1996 model year. Parkway Blue was actually (as most already know) a Ford color. The only colors for 1995 S2's were Red, Pearl White, Pearl Yellow, Black Sapphire Metallic and Candy Carribean Blue. There was one 1995 S2 that had straight black paint - no overcoat to make black sapphire metallic - and the frame and swingarm were powdercoated black instead of their normal colors of white and silver (respectively). This S2 was built for Hal's H-D/Buell to go racing with. BTW, it sure is good to see Court's old tag line: Ride safe, lean much and smile more..... 1313 | ||
| Buelliedan |
Tramp, I got to side with Court and 1313 on this one. I own a 1996 Parkway blue S2T. It is a 96 only model. So I think your dealer mistitled it. | ||
| Tramp |
as i said, i don't doubt your sources one iota. my owners manuals, both s2 and s3, state the seat height for both models as 29.5, as do both sales brochures for each model. and again, if these sources are infallible, why the statement that there were NO '95 s2s in california? i do not doubt, for a moment, that you could produce genuine pix of this document as well. my point, which seems to be getting swept under the carpet,here, is that the technical (and sales) literature (and data) is "inconsistent" at best. i'm sure we're all aware of the 'official' intro year ('96) for the T model. maybe the mfg. month threw matters off for the scatterbrained boys at bmc back in the zany '90s. any you 'data' guys have an answer for my query regarding the exact reason for the edelbrock aspiration on the cal. models? as i said, three dealershgips told me it wa sdue to a "noise" emission issue in california (!). and waht year, exactly, did the rr and rs actually cease production? i have honestly heard a few different end-years for the rs, and the "noise emission" explanation as to the edelbrock always sounded fishy to me. sounds like y'all could edify me on these items. and honestly, no, i never wondered who penned the first draft of the signature series letter , being that mine was signed (en masse print)by an 'eric buell' . who exactly is the ghost writer of this missive that would make mr. buell a plageurist? i'd like to return mine and request the signature of the actual writer, should this allegation hold merit  | ||
| Tramp |
buelliedan- i was not aware there were "sides" clearly my dealer mistitled the s2t cali. in my possession, because, as i said, several times, now- it was titled as an RR1200- oddly, i purchased it IN '95, with fairing lowers and bags, believe it or not. would you have "sided" with these gents on the "there were no s2s in california in '95" statement? would you have backed up the "cal. vins had a different letter" statement in an earlier post on this thread? ...please let me know. seriously, i would really like to hear your response on that one. and again, i wasn't aware there were "sides", my objective is not to 'win' any arguments, or even cause any. heck, y'all sound like guys i can really learn alot from and with whom i'd love to ride. and court, you're only 40 minutes away. i am sure you've forgot more than i'll ever know about buell  i'd think that anyone reading this could see that there is a considerable degree of misinfo printed by bmc concerning the s2 series. please, s2 and s3 owners, carck open your owner's manuals and lemme know what the seat height is stated as. jeeez, fellers...ever think everything you see in print might not be true? (Message edited by tramp on November 07, 2004) | ||
| Buelliedan |
Tramp, You are way over reading the word "sides" from me. I just meant I agree with them on that the bike is a 96 model not a 95. Now as to your question; There were no 95s in California. that is true. You have a 96 that was built and delivered in 95 just like mine. My 95 was built in Sep 95. But it still is a 96. | ||
| Tramp |
so fireman jim and 1313 are wrong as well, in earlier posts on this thread, when they mention '95 s2 californias? i have serviced many of 'em myself IN california. as far as mine being a '96 that was built and delivered in california in '95, that makes sense. esp. considering the weird mistitling. the title says '95, but NOT s2  . as to there not being '95 model year s2 cali., nope- there were- and again, in rafferty's "illustrated history of harley davidson motorcycles" (isbn# 1840652594) there is a clear pic of a '95 cal. s2 in what appears to be pkwy poiple. so the 86 examples produced as '95 model year s2s in the abovementioned pots of fireman jim (who also seems to own one) and 1313, how do you explain that? regardless, your explanation re: my own frankenbolt makes good sense. thanks! whaddaya think, court? sounds like you have some good inside tracks with buell production info- could mine be '96 model s2t that was delivered in '95 (as is customary) and was mistitled somehow by an inept f&i mgr. or a sales admin clerk? any info appreciated, and court, i'll give ya a cool t-shirt if ya can help me out on this case- thanks fellas, whatever side you're on  | ||
| Buelliedan |
Tramp, Would it surprise you to know that I have a 1992 RSS that was sold in California, at Bartels to be exact. The only stipulation is it was a "kit bike" and had a very special cali only VIN. I believe Jims S2 is also a kit bike vin. So if thats the case everybody is correct. No real Buells were sold in cali before 96. Only kit bikes which weren't officially being sold in cali. | ||
| Phillyblast |
Tramp, You have just cleared up the "95 RS1200" ebay auction (S2 pictured) question. And yep, I'm actually in Philly. Brandywine is beautiful country. | ||
| Court |
>>> "inconsistent" at best Inconsistenet is likely an understatement. The original Buell plan, when we were in the Woodcrafters building, never anticipiated demand for the S2. We were overrun and had to learn things like heating the mold (thank you Brankin) to speed assembly. >>> three dealershgips told me it wa sdue to a "noise" emission issue in california The dealers are wrong. It ws a huge deal and had nothing to do with noise. You;d need to talk to Derek yuen for details. Bear in mind that the RS and RS motorcycles were made by a completely DIFFERENT company than the S-2. Buell MOTOR Company as opposed to Buell MOTORCYCLE Company. The names were intentionally close, but the companies a world apart. BMC eventually became EFB Designs. >>>ever think everything you see in print might not be true? There are LOTS of bugs in the books. Read,and I have no idea where it is now, the story I wrote about Harley-Davidson Technical Publications grous and how manuals come to be. >>>1992 RSS that was sold in California, at Bartels to be exact. The only stipulation is it was a "kit bike" and had a very special cali only VIN That is an accurate statement. Paul Rogers, while saying with me recently, was treated to a glimpse of the inside of Buell R&D...some old stuff, some future stuff. It's a much more precise science than it used to be. I have a set of black hand laid fairing lowers that we used when toying with the idea of the "T". In addition, I used to have a collection of various heights (tlled is not better) windscreens that I used on test bike S3001. While we are on the subject, think about an S2 with four bag...two where you are used to seeing them and two flanking the front forks. Impossible...? Could be the best handling Buell ever..... Ride safe, lean much and smile more, Court | ||
| Smoke |
the date stamped on my 95 s2 frame neck is jun 94. i don't know who bought it first, where or when or even what color. when i got it, it was and still is painted a silver metallic. tramp, pm your vin to court and he may be able to find out some info for you. ride safe, tim | ||
| Court |
Don't get too hung up on the mfg date...some folks will recall the "hospital" of 1998 when acres of S1WL say waiting, unfinished, for a single part. You can not (yes, I know HD did in the 70's) legally ship a motorcycle that is 99.999% complete. Similarly, I am not saying that there weren't (I do not know for sure) some CA Vin'ed bikes made that were unable to be shipped into CA until our little SNAFU was resolved. | ||
| Tramp |
'mornin' all- what year did the rr & rs production cease? what was the first mfg. mo/year of the s2? thanks for the info, buelliedan- if you take a peek at fireman jim's vin, you'll see it's a very standard 49-state vin. i remember the big selling point that the kehin retrofit was in california in the 90s on the s2s. i remember well because i had about 3 dozen 'like-new' cvs at home in an attic above my old shop, (from doing mikuni, delorto and s&s installs for customers) which i had my old partner ship to me for cali retrofit. did a brisk biz in the bay area in '97 & '98 smoke- thanks for the advice, but as i'd said, i don't share my vin with anyone but the heat. | ||
| Firemanjim |
Tramp,if you are talking about the 1B9RT--vin,that was from S-2 #2.My original S-2 (A 1995 CALIFORNIA model) was # 4MZRT-----And I dug out my timing cover,title and owners manual to check them all.All say 1995 Buell S-2.     | ||
| Tramp |
thanks firemanjim- no further questions- your witness- um...buelliedan- do you STILl wann run with your "no real buells were sold in california before 96" statement? (7 posts back on this thread) or your "there were no 95s in california" statement? (9 posts back on this thread) hey- nothing personal, i'm just being told my bike doesn't exist, i've been "edified" that my own seat height measurements and my manuals' were wrong, etc., and here's firemanjim's vin info, complete with a photo of his sig. ser. timing cover, clearly marked: 95s2ca 36/86. (that tells us, AGAIN, that there were 86 1995 model year S2 CALIFORNIA Buells produced. again, i'm not trying to be a wiseass here, but i'm being told my own 'cycle doesn't exist, i'm being told i'm wrong, and my repeated, simple questions (such as: what were the last official model years of the rs and rr) remain ignored in preference to misinfo being bandied about here. there WERE 86 '95 buell S2 CALIFORNIAs produced. please see preceding post. my own S2T was mf'd in E A R L Y 1995 (nineteen ninety FIVE), it has a charcoal (really gunmetal blueish) frame, (orig. powder) , "pkwy blue" (yeah, i ,know the whole "the colour we received was NOT the Blue we ordered, but we went WITH it anyway" story) bodywork, incl. fairing lowers (although this pkwy blue is admittedly much bluer than the '96 colour, and much more purple than the '95 blue, and it's stock to the gelcoat- a guy bought all my bodywork from me in '00 telling me it was an "extremely rare" colour and he paid me a scheisseload for it- like more than i could sell my entire bike for, now) it has the low pegs, but i did swap out my S2 frontend for an s3. the scoot was titled rr1200 as i'd said, but the vin is a 4mz prefix. the fairing mount appeared (showroom new) to be bare 1040 chrome-moly, and it had (i've rarely seen this) a dual-disc frontend and weird-looking pms. not the marchesinis which i later fitted. i got good $ for the pms from the same clown who palmed me the 2 large for the bodywork. the scoot's no rr1200, but i'm hearing there WAS no '95 S2T, and I certainly remember the T as being unveiled in '96. oh, yeah- the qwicksilver carb was the larger version sold in the aftermarket, not the standard cal. version smaller qwicksilver. weird, right? | ||
| Firemanjim |
So,what happened to the dual disc front brake set-up?? Oh,and my owners manual says seat height is 29.75". | ||
| Sportyeric |
And where did the 1B9RT series start and stop? | ||
| Tramp |
my own dual-disc setup i sold to a guy in the bay area, he was really excited about it and the bodywork. sounds like either buell corrected a misprint or lowered the seats sometime in production years 94-95. and what was the deal with those 1b9rt prefixes? i'm hypothesising, based upon what court mentioned re: 2 different buell dbas at the time, that each company was assigned separate vin prefixes. court could shed some light on this one, i'm thinking. | ||
| Firemanjim |
The 1B9RT bikes are the early 1994 build date bikes.As told to me by Erik at San Diego BRAG event when I queried him on that same vin question--He said they never planned on actually selling that many S-2's and they ran out of #'s in first series.Had to start new vin series--hence the disparity. | ||
| Court |
>>>2 different buell dbas at the time, That did not happen. There were no "overlap" bikes. | ||
| Tramp |
there also were "no '95 s2s in california" and i have an s2 that was titled an rr. does anybody here know the end model and mfg. years of the rr and rs? i always found it weird that my '97 s3 cal. was titled as an rs, and my '95 s2T cal. was titled an rr. i'm now thinking, based on court's info re: b motor co and b motorcycle co., that dmv clerks in some states (such as california) erroneously entered buell motor company because that was the name listing that came up first on the computer, just above buell motorcycle company, so they just went with that. | ||
| Court |
I'm not going to get drug much deeper into this conversation except to say much of the information is inaccurate. Time, and a powerplant that has to go on line next June, precludes the time and effort. In Tramp's case, I am confident he is telling the truth as he knows it to be. He's the innocent victim, it appears, of some really shoddy public record keeping. In case you are wondering, last bike built by Buell Motor Company was in September 1992. It was a 1993 RS 1200 sold to Blocker Enterprises that same month. It was purchased from that dealership a dear friend of mine. I hope that helps. Court | ||
| Tramp |
thanks court- public and (in the case of bmc) private record keeping. 'in case you were wondering' - what are you kidding me? i asked a half-dozen times thanks for the rs info, court, as well as the rest. and firemanjim, thank you much for posting photos of your timing cover identifying your '95 model year s2 california. | ||
| Sportyeric |
Please! My question about the 1B9RT series relates to the Signature plates. If someone has 4MZ......258 and is sitting on Signature plate #258/1399, then they have don't have the right plate for the bike and should give it to me. (Mine being 1B9R......258). Or am I missing something? Bursting bubbles,perhaps? | ||
| Court |
It may be easier, for the sake of this conversation, to just say that sales of S2's commenced in CA 12 months after the other 49 states and that a good number of them were made and sat in East Troy under a paperwork snafu (that's all it was) was resolved. I actually am going to "debrief" the fellow who handled all this today as I you now have me questioning my memory. | ||
| Court |
Okay....let's lay it to rest.
Goodbye and goodnight from New York | ||
| Firemanjim |
Well that matches up with my build date of 3/95.When were the 1996 models released?If it was like the cars then a 1996 could have been sold in 1995. |
