| Author | Message | ||
     Molly_hatchet |
see ya learn somethin new every day...even on badweb..even in the presence of rocket and the horrible thread he started...sometimes an even keeled mind will toss up some nifty tidbit of information. | ||
| Rocketman |
I have watched quietly for the last 10 to 15 years as the big bike manufacture evolve to the fundamentals that Eric based our Buells on. Now it appears we are evolving towards the Big manufactures designs. How long before an I4 will appear in Buells? Joe, I am glad you say that for this reason. It has touched upon something I have thought about in recent times, and something that I've decided to open a new thread about. It is about half way complete, as I'm having to write it in 'word' being it's so long. So keep an eye out for a thread soon to be on the QB. It will probably be headed "SUBCULTURES: Why Did Erik Buell And His Merry Men Disown Me?" Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
Blake, Brian, I don't doubt there's an element of truth in your offerings. But I don't personally believe the 1125 frame was conceived without datum points being included in the redesign from the XB chassis. I believe the same is true of the Ulysses chassis in how it differs from the XB chassis. It's essentially the same frame, just bashed around more by a computer until a suitable design solution is found. The 1125 may well have needed more bashing around by a computer than the Ulysses frame required, but I'd still argue the platform is essentially the same. Thus when Buell come to redesign the 1125 frame, and have manufacture transferred from Italy to America, it would be logical to use the design and manufacturing programs set out from the XB design and modify them to include the new data in order to arrive at the 1125 frame. I'd wager the manufacturing processes are very similar, if not identical too, despite the change of country and manufacturer. After all, we are talking essential about computers and robots making these frames. To simplify. The XB frame is a modular design. Its purpose is not just to serve one production of motorcycle. It represents a design that with cost effective alteration in manufacturing and tooling, can be made to suit other models of motorcycle the company wish to produce. Yes it's an all new frame, but only in as much as it hasn't ignored previously used design solutions specific to this type of frame. Ditto engineering and manufacturing processes previously used in this type of frame manufacture. With that in mind, a great deal of science from the XB chassis must have been carried over. If it were not the case, please explain how Buells patent serves to protect the design? If this is an entirely new design as you say, what's to stop another manufacturer copying it? Surely anyone doing so could lay claim to their copy being that of an all new unpatented design could they not? See where we're going here? Rocket | ||
| Court |
Lotta errors there . . .keep reading. . . the info is all out there. I'l get ya started. 1125R frame was well before the XB. . . . .the XB had a feature never dreamed of when the 1125R was conceived that required over 100 crash tests to validate and the processes are quite different. Manufacturer . . . for instance needs to have an "s" appended in at least one case. Let's just keep this in context and be mindful it's a frickin' internet equivalent of a bar room discussion between a Saab mechanic and a construction worker. I don't wanted some poor SOB coming in here and presuming anything they read to be fact . . . . . | ||
| Rocketman |
Let's just keep this in context and be mindful it's a frickin' internet equivalent of a bar room discussion between a Saab mechanic and a construction worker. Indeed it is, except you claim to know exactly how the 1125 frame is manufactured, but only by giving out riddles. Yes it's entirely possible the 1125 chassis was conceived before the XB production line came on song. But to be honest, I think you're playing with dreams here. We are aware Erik Buell says he thought of the fuel in the frame idea whilst racing, but that hardly qualifies as, well what exactly? A specific date the design for the 1125 frame was conceived? Let's put it another way. How long has it taken Buell to design, fund and manufacture the Helicon engine? I doubt the design was even on the drawing board before the XB's were, so how is it possible the 1125 frame came before there was even an engine for it? I'll tell you what I think as a simple Saab mechanic. It's a play with words. Chicken before the egg? Egg before the chicken? What it says to me is no matter which frame design came first, be it the XB or 1125, it is essentially the same thing modified for a different style of motorcycle. But now you have me questioning something else. Given the Harley derived air cooled engine fits the XB chassis well, could it be that Buell decided to launch the air cooled version first in an effort to establish a style of motorcycle that would pave the way for an already designed but somewhat quirky looking water cooled version that might not engage the buying public so well? Hence the need to establish a trend in design with the XB platform? In other words, the team at Buell responsible for the 1125 creation knew it was ugly from the start, and without the XB's first, Buell would have a mountain to climb? Just wondering. Rocket (Message edited by rocketman on January 08, 2008) | ||
| Gregtonn |
Sean, ...liquid cooling on motorcycles has been around 100 years, and is still working fine. Buell haven't found a better, or worse for that matter, way to do it. Actually they have found a better way to do it. The packaging of the Buell system is ingenious for many reasons which are not readily apparent and not just the ones previously mentioned. Try to clear your mind of preconceptions and prejudices and spend some time considering how the design fits into the bike on all levels. If you can get by the usual preconceptions of how a cooling system should look you will see the true genius of the design and its integration into the whole. Or not. Greg | ||
| Crusty |
Try to clear your mind of preconceptions and prejudices Don't ask the impossible. A Troll is a Troll is a troll... | ||
| Court |
>>>Actually they have found a better way to do it. My favorite . . . the quote from the Engineer at BRP Rotax to the effect that the Helicon offered the chance to correct some mistakes and incorporate some things learned doing the Aprilia motor. I think folks will enjoy some of the 20 year old photos in the book . . . one of the motors may look somewhat familiar. Combination motorcycle frame and fuel tank Patent number: 4951774 Filing date: Jan 6, 1989 Issue date: Aug 28, 1990 Inventor: Erik Buell Assignee: Buell Motor Company, Inc. Interestingly enough . . . just over 10 years after Erik F. Buell, a student in Gibsonia, PA, successfully had a patent granted for a solar powered mass transit system. There is so much you don't see . . . | ||
| Molly_hatchet |
http://www.pnwriders.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60 571 i dunno if u guys can read this or not my computer logs in automatically if u can it might be interesting to see what the other half of the world thinks...not one mention of the 1125.. | ||
| Davegess |
Rocket, the 1125 is very much a new design. It builds on things learned from the XB but shares very little in the way of parts or tooling. A huge amount of man hours and computer time went into it and to imply that a few mouse clicks on the the XB frame was all it took is simply not true. Is the design a compromise? Of course it is, every design is. There is always a selling price target, there is always a limit on how many man hours you have and how much computer investment you can make. Even the 1098 is a compromise. I do not have any reason to think Erik is lying to me when he says the side mount radiator is there because it is the best location. The first running fuel in frame liquid cooled Buell dates back 20 years and had side mounted rads (see the book for details) so I don't think they shoehorned this motor into an XB frame. It is more that they adapted the original concept to the AC lump they had available 5 years ago. As far as how well it works, we will have to wait a bit. The mags will have full tests soon. So far the owners are liking the thing and those who don't like are not buying. We will have to see how sales go over the next year to see how well Buell has done. It sure looks like a winner to me. Pricing is inline with the Japanese bikes but it offers performance and uniqueness that is closer to the Ducati and KTM. And don't you Europeans tell me the KTM is close in price to the Buell, may be true in Europe where you seemingly can buy a KTM but not an 1125. Over here the KTM is way more expensive as is the Ducati. | ||
| 46champ |
BAD Karma IMO the aircooled engines will never go away, they seem to have one advantage and that is fuel economy. The only disapointing thing about the 1125 is the fuel economy the owners are reporting. Mid 30's seems to be the general reported millage. I'm getting 50 out of the M2 or better, heck I was getting 45 out of an 88 inch Sportster with V9 cams and a S&S G carb, granted an 1125 would still kick its butt you only make horsepower one way by burning more fuel. | ||
| Old_man |
I don't think the fact that an engine is air-cooled has much effect on fuel economy. If my buell had a water jacket and radiator, everything else the same, I believe the fuel economy would be just as good. One of the reasons I chose to buy my Buell was the hydraulic lifter air cooled engine. Easier maintenance and great fuel economy, with more power than I really need. | ||
| Slaughter |
The 1098 is a tube/trellis frame The Monsters are tube/trellis frames The MV is a tube frame. The Rickman Metisse was a tube frame. Just a keystroke of difference between them | ||
| Court |
Although I can never recall buying a motorcycle or any vehicle based on fuel economy (I'd darn sure not be driving a full size pickup in NYC) I do enjoy the range twinxt stops on the S2. Think about it . . . . the difference between $4.00/Gal and $2.00/Gal is . . . . well. . . just a keystroke. | ||
| Ducxl |
Think about it . . . . the difference between $4.00/Gal and $2.00/Gal is . . . . well. . . just a keystroke.   | ||
| Reepicheep |
Fuel economy *was* a factor for me, for what thats worth. I don't need more power as much as I want to keep my money  | ||
| Ducxl |
I live less than two miles from work.If my Superbike got 12 miles to the gallon it would be inconsequential.Even as a recreation machine,if the 1125r gets *only* 27 MPG....for a sporting motorcycle that's still....inconsequential | ||
| Rocketman |
I don't have a problem seeing the patent for design dating back all those years. I'm talking about the execution of the design. Chicken before the egg. Egg before the chicken. It doesn't really matter. What is important is how the Helicon engine fits into the design. I'll extrapolate (look it up in the dictionary) a little. So Buell has the idea for a V twin liquid cooled engine way back nearly 20 years ago. Buell has the idea to place this engine in a fuel in the frame (as we know it today)design. No matter which came first, there are lots of things that Buell could not have predicted to enable what has been produced today as the culmination of both ideas to be competitive, or even accepted in the market place. That the XB chassis sets the style if nothing else, and even if there were an 1125 frame already built, the XB is a physically small bike. I believe that is something to do with the handling magic we've been told of before, but no one else knows how to do, apparently. But if the XB is small, why is the 1125 only slightly larger. Did Buell know all those years ago he'd be putting an 1125cc engine into the frame he had in mind, or was he thinking a physically smaller engine altogether. Reminds me of the V Rod engine been designed first for Buell at a physically smaller size, until Harley ran with it for themselves. See what I'm getting at? That the 1125 is the shape and size it is, and the Helicon engine is the size and shape it is, seems to me like the two collided at these sizes for two purposes. The 1125 to retain the XB's known handling formula, and the Helicon to be able to compete with the growing opposition and their similar engines offering the same or even more performance. I think we're being duped into believing the 1125 and Helicon engine were the perfect marriage, when the truth is more likely both are where they're at in an effort to keep the 1125 competitive in the handling and in the performance areas. Otherwise Buell might have been better placing a smaller lighter engine in the 1125 chassis, freeing up some room for a more conventional cooling system which wouldn't need to work so hard as a larger one does for a harder working engine. The result might have been a water cooled looking XB styled bike with a conventional placed radiator, but obviously a middleweight sports rather than a superbike pretender. As it is the way it is, the whole front end is bulky and out of proportion to disguise the necessary efforts to get to XB handling with 1125 performance whilst sticking to Buells patented frame design and Trilogy of Technology theory. I think what really happened is Buell desperately wanted a superbike in their line-up, and Buell went with what they had and knew already to get there. Like I said days ago. If it really was a clean sheet design, why end up with a bike that looks like a rehashed XB, except an uglier one at that? Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
Ah, erm, yeah, where was I. Side mounted radiators done the Buell way. The packaging of the Buell system is ingenious for many reasons which are not readily apparent and not just the ones previously mentioned. Try to clear your mind of preconceptions and prejudices and spend some time considering how the design fits into the bike on all levels. If you can get by the usual preconceptions of how a cooling system should look you will see the true genius of the design and its integration into the whole. Please Greg, do enlighten me as to what these not so readily apparent benefits are? How and why you come to the conclusion the Buell design integrates well with the 1125 is based on factual scientific evidence? Clearly you have your own preconceptions and prejudices at play here, as there are many that aren't sharing your forward thinking. I mean, what do you see as my preconceptions and prejudices towards the design? The only one I've given is it's clearly not attractive to all. Worse still. Some say it's ugly. Think of it like this. Elvis is the King. Hendrix the greatest. What would be the collective thoughts of most everyone regarding the 1125? I'll leave that to you as I might be prejudice in my suggestion. Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
And after all the effort I've put into this and other threads, we are thrown a bone or three regarding the 1125 design, yet I'm a troll in some peoples eyes. Don't make me laugh. Who are the ones that dare not question, but rather just bow down and lick Erik's boots in worship of the great man? Without the troll, these Buell worshipers would know less. Far less. To them - kiss my royal arse All hail those who dare to question. All hail the troll. Rocket apologies for the overexuberance | ||
| Blake |
"Blake, Brian, I don't doubt there's an element of truth in your offerings. But I don't personally believe the 1125 frame was conceived without datum points being included in the redesign from the XB chassis. I believe the same is true of the Ulysses chassis in how it differs from the XB chassis. It's essentially the same frame, just bashed around more by a computer until a suitable design solution is found. The 1125 may well have needed more bashing around by a computer than the Ulysses frame required, but I'd still argue the platform is essentially the same. " What do you imagine a computer can do with a few datum points?  It is a fantasy. I'm not "just" a construction worker or a Saab mechanic. I happen to have a bit of experience with the engineering of commercial products and what many folks like you would perceive as minor variations of them. What you imagine is pure fantasy. All anyone with pertinent experience need do is objectively compare the two frames, that in lieu of merely observing their superficial external appearance.
But yes, superficially, the 1125R frame/fuel tank appear similar. | ||
| Pammy |
I must say that this is one of the more interesting threads I have seen here in a while. It has kept fairly civil, but for a few wildly slung barbs, and that is refreshing. Some interesting views have been raised. I think what would make it even more interesting if Erik or one of the other engineers would explain some of the building blocks and mind sets that may have been used to get to what we may now purchase. Rocket, you are one of my favorite people. The reason that I address you and no one else is because of my undying affection for you in particular.... "Who are the ones that dare not question, but rather just bow down and lick Erik's boots in worship of the great man? Without the troll, these Buell worshipers would know less. Far less. To them - kiss my royal arse " The likes of the statement in quotes are NOT what make you an interesting character to me. Smooches... | ||
| Blake |
I can't find right quick any photos of XBike frames, but I think the following will demonstrate to anyone familiar with the XBike frames just how different the Buell 1125R frame really is.          | ||
| Molly_hatchet |
im sure il be corrected if im wrong ...but did i hear the 1125 was in development before the XB ...that creates a whole shitload of questions and answers right there... | ||
| Gregtonn |
Sean, ...do enlighten me as to what these not so readily apparent benefits are? How and why you come to the conclusion the Buell design integrates well with the 1125 is based on factual scientific evidence? I'll not do all your thinking for you but consider this; How does the placement of the radiators affect heat and airflow with respect to the throttle bodies? Keep looking, there is more, ...much more if you will take the blinkers off. You keep dancing back to the same spot on the floor... You think it's an ugly design. That was apparent long ago. Try letting that go and look at the design for what it is, not what you would like it to be. If you prefer to continue with the same old song and dance you may be more comfortable with a new screen name. Rockette perhaps? Greg  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I'm interested as to why it's taken 12-13 pages, before we get any real information from people supposedly "in the know". Why is this? Did they have to get authorization to disclose or something? I'm more than a little perturbed at the "I know but I'm not going to tell you" attitude that seems to be coming across from certain parties. I don't recall anybody, including Sean, saying that they were the same frame, it's a similar frame granted, so why couldn't this information & pics have been posted sooner? instead of all this condescending "That's not true, but you're not worth explaining it to" crap. I have to say I'm disappointed, I expected better. | ||
| Blake |
Grumpy one, BadWeB is mostly a Buell enthusiast discussion forum, and not really so much of an official Buell Tech Information Seminar. I very much understand your peevedness though. Mostly it comes down to the difference between having knowledge and being able to present it publicly in an acceptably clear and concise fashion. It takes a LOT of work and time to do so, yes? It's just as perturbing to me when arrogant jerks refuse accept the word of someone with the actual professional qualifications, experience, and integrity to speak to the issue at hand. <sigh> People are funny. As to the above pics, I just dug them from the internet, nothing special about them. I wish I had more pics of the XBike frame(s). (Message edited by Blake on January 08, 2008) | ||
| Rocketman |
Pammy, it wasn't one of my better moments. I was smiling at the time though. Sometimes it's good to gloat. Smooches back. Sean xx | ||
| Rocketman |
Greg, I'm not interested in all that babble. I am aware there are benefits such as those, but I'm dancing on the same spot because those benefits need dealing with differently simply because the biggest disadvantage the 1125 has right now is appearance. So yes, I'm still dancing on the same spot. Perhaps I could be cynical and suggest Buell purists prefer the tube frame Helmholtz box then? Or did everyone the world over throw them away for a more attractive solution? Yes I know the circumstances were very different. But it shows looks count. Today the 1125 needs looks more than anything else. Heat exchanging and air box benefits might be a plus point of the Buell design. But at what price? Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
Mostly it comes down to the difference between having knowledge and being able to present it publicly in an acceptably clear and concise fashion. It takes a LOT of work and time to do so, yes? It's just as perturbing to me when arrogant jerks refuse accept the word of someone with the actual professional qualifications, experience, and integrity to speak to the issue at hand. Blake, no one of such qualifications has mentioned a thing about the 1125 design since the bike hit the pavement. Several professionals have gone out of their way to discredit me and make me look stupid though. Then there's you calling me an arrogant jerk because my posts challenge the professionals to speak up. You're unfair mate. I've taken a lot of flack from some people one would expect not to behave in such fashion. I've taken a lot of flack from several others too, that to be fair, as Grumpy said, I'd have been shut down for the same. Regardless. I'm a big boy and I still love you. Rocket |
