| Author | Message | ||
     Mr_grumpy |
  Top photo, Landrover Discovery, 1997, 300tdi. (Mine) 2.5l 4cyl direct injection turbo diesel, mechanical pump & turbo control. Produced 1989-98 Bottom photo, Landrover Discovery II, 2003, Td5, 2.5l 5cyl full electronic control. Produced 1999-2005 There aren't many interchangeable parts between the 2 vehicles, even though they look very similar, different chassis, albeit an evolution, different motor, different body panels, wiring loom.................... The point being, just saying it's all different doesn't really mean that much. The 1125 looks like an XB, I'd guess Buell wanted it to ride like an XB too, they certainly seemed to want it to look like an XB Frame. If it looks like a duck & goes quack, it's probably a duck! | ||
| Blake |
Sir Grumpy, That the 1125R frame shares similar form and external appearance with the Buell XB frames was not at issue. The original point of contention raised was that the 1125R frame was easily derived as a mere computer crunch derivation of a Buell XB frame. That contention is complete and utter nonsense. "If it looks like a duck & goes quack, it's probably a duck!" The more accurate analogy might be to say that another large bird with wings may share similar traits with ducks, but upon inspection, folks who know of such things can easily see that it's not a duck, it's a raptor. Besides, Ducs all have tube/trellis frames. ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) (Message edited by Blake on January 09, 2008) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Are you saying I'm Quackers?  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I don't doubt for a minute that, the 1125 is a bit more than "easily derived" my point is that Landrover, who were at the time owned by BMW, spent millions developing the Disco 2 ,what was effectively an all new vehicle, & you could hardly tell it apart from the old one at 50 paces. The same seems to hold here, nobody has said the frames are identical but one is surely derivative of the other. Which came first is still unclear to me, but to say they're unrelated is just not possible. One could equally say the XB12R & 12X frames are a bit more than " easily derived" too I'd think that a fair amount of time & money were poured into that developement also. The Duck reference is this, The 1125, I think will ALWAYS be generally perceived as an XB, only a few purists will really debate the issue whether it is or not. (what breed of duck) Yeah we now know it's called a Helicon platform. Most people know 2 sorts of Buells, tubers or XBs, well I'm sorry, but it looks like an XB not a tuber, (a duck not a goose). These same debates have been going on for decades in the Landrover fraternity, with their evolution. A Discovery is a Discovery is a Discovery, in the US they call the Disco 3, a LR4, but EVERYBODY knows its just a Disco 3, & that the LR3 is a Freelander2. I reckon the same thing will happen with the 1125. Anyway, since when have Americans let facts get in the way of belief?  | ||
| Blake |
Land Rover Discovery example shows an evolution of the same model vehicle. In contrast, the Buell 1125R is a completely new model, yes one that shares a similar appearing frame and the same wheels as other Buell models. I think the XBikes are defined and distinguished by a lot more than their frame configuration. But what do I really know; I used to think that all red wine was pretty much the same and only came in big bottles with screw tops. Later I learned that you could get the stuff in boxes too.  | ||
| Doerman |
Ah.. I get it. It is totally clear. The good Senator from Yorkshire has engaged in a filibuster. | ||
| Rocketman |
So now we resort to belittling someone else's opinion because it doesn't suit you Asbjorn? Typical. Rocket | ||
| Doerman |
No. Filibustering is an approved method used in US Congress to push through a view and delay a vote on an issue. I just recognized the same tactics here. That is not belittling you. If it were, I would also be belittling US congress. And with the patriot act going and all I would not do that. | ||
| Rocketman |
Blake, I'm going to try and nail this as simple as possible. It doesn't matter how many different ways the 1125 frame is modified, nor how much more work went into its manufacture. That it is a creation of Buells unique fuell in frame design which first came to light on the XB platform, then that is what it is. An XB type frame. From that it is me that is willing to deduce that the XB type frame offered design constraints that lead to Buell designing a quirky looking motorcycle. All I've asked from day one is this. WHAT WAS BUELLS REASON FOR GOING THIS ROUTE? That I have asked this question in several different ways is not beyond your own fault when you yourself have asked me to point out what I saw as, for example, some of the 1125's design constraints. Were you just baiting me in an effort to find an opportunity to try and ridicule me? Or have we reached the point where the BadWeB's integrity has to be upheld for all the 1125 yes men? Rocket | ||
| Dbird29 |
Rocket Ask the man yourself and then STFU. http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/406 2/328879.html?1199901608 You are quite tiresome with the filibuster. Man up and call in. | ||
| Rocketman |
As I have not changed my argument or the context of my posts in this thread recently, I'm drawn to the conclusion that you're implying that somehow I've employed Grumpy as my filibuster, right? I've sailed on the Arctic Freebooter, so I'm well aware of the term thanks.  Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
Ask the man yourself and then STFU. Ain't gonna happen. This is my thread where I get to masturbate with as many Coke bottles as I please  Rocket | ||
| Doerman |
No no no... Mr Grumpy chimed in.. You've been the speaker on the floor and quite diligently so for many days I might add. On the other hand, since you maintain that the 1125R frame is noting more than a geometric modification to the XB frame, then I would guess you also maintain that there has been no significant steps forward to the unibody chassis design in the car industry since Morris introduced it? The 1125R frame is significantly different and improved from the XB as witnessed by myself by riding both (sample of one). In other words, the fuel in frame concept carried forward with significant improvements. Why not continue to evolve a winning concept? | ||
| Court |
Whatever. . . . . | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I'm a big boy now, I don't fili for anyone, buster! | ||
| Doerman |
Now Mr G. I said nothing about your Philly or Buster. I never comment on somebody's private life.  | ||
| Newfie_buell |
I thought it looked like it was derived from the XB platform as well. Technology already designed then just made to suit the new bike. The 1125 is definately more XB than anything else. Except for those bug ugly sidescoops, why didn't Buell sandwich the radiator under the seat somewhere. Now isn't there a seal somewhere I can club!!!!! | ||
| Court |
>>>Now isn't there a seal somewhere I can club!!!!! Yes. . . the seal left on that bus with the folks who gave a rat's ass. . .  | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
from the outside it looks similar (hell, a stock XB airbox cover will fit on it), but it doesn'thave the "x" like the XB's.  | ||
| Rocketman |
It would be interesting to see the measurements for steering angle, distance between steering head and swing arm pivot, relationship to wheelbase, balance factor of engine placement, and a few more measurements, for the 1125 and XB. Rocket | ||
| Dbird29 |
No it wouldn't.  | ||
| Hdbobwithabuell |
Holy crap... Rocket, go find Buell Girl and live miserably ever after. Oh yeah, and buy something other than Buell's! | ||
| Rocketman |
This thread was set up at the behest of the BadWeB owner. The title should give you a clue. If you keep getting a smack in the mouth, why come back for more? Rocket | ||
| Grancuda |
459 posts later, I still say it is hands down about the most ugly bike I have seen. | ||
| Jackbequick |
Are the Buell XB's and the 1125R the only motorcycles in the world that use a hollow cast aluminum structure as the major frame component? I thought one or more of the rice rockets has something similar. At any rate, if Buell is the only or primary user of that frame type, maybe they ought honor Erik and name it for him. Call it the Buell-type frame or something like that. In spite of the similarities in the frame designs, I consider the 1125R as a major departure from the XB's simply because of the major differences in the power plants. Jack | ||
| Rocketman |
Are the Buell XB's and the 1125R the only motorcycles in the world that use a hollow cast aluminum structure as the major frame component? Buells design is patented, or had you forgot that? But that of course has me wondering. If the XB and the 1125 frames are so different as some would say, therefore in these peoples eyes that has nothing to do with the controversial styling of the 1125, why are there not patents for the differences between frames? Rocket | ||
| Grancuda |
1969 CB750 1972 750 Mach IV 1986 GSXR 1100 1992 CBR900RR 1996 916 1998 R1 1999 Hayabusa and finnally what we have all been waiting for 2008 1125R | ||
| Slaughter |
In the OPENING paragraph of this much belabo(u)red thread, our persecuted and self proclaimed hero opens with: Seems every thread I'm in I seem to upset the Buell faithful. So, here's one dedicated to upsetting some, but hopefully not all (bla bla bla, yadda yadda yadda) -and then finishing the opening shot in this purportedly constructive first post in this thread: Buell to some extent are shitting on you. And just the latest: This thread was set up at the behest of the BadWeB owner. The title should give you a clue. If you keep getting a smack in the mouth, why come back for more? Clueless. ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up! DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. ARTHUR: Shut up! DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! ARTHUR: Bloody peasant! DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you? (Message edited by slaughter on January 09, 2008) | ||
| Rocketman |
Steve, it's called sarcasm. That it is in my first post was a poke in the eye to those who had whined at Blake so much that he placed a restriction on my posting. This thread was conceived for/with/at the lifting of said restriction. That you and the likes of your cliquey Buelling buddies don't like the 1125 merits being scrutinised by this idiot from Yorkshire is not my problem. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire. Rocket | ||
| Doerman |
With forays into the finer points of model nomenclature, design restrictions/criteria and other sideroads on the topic of the 1125R, it comes down to this point for you, which is: Is it ugly or is it not. Your contention being a huge disappointment that it just could have been so much more. Does that about sum it up? If I have not put undue words in your mouth, then it does come down to a personal argument regarding aesthetics. You could not possibly draw conclusions yet about its prowess as a bike (aesthetics aside for a moment) without having ridden it or read the official mag reviews. You don't lack in passion for stating your position. This whole thing reminds me of a similar argument raging back when I was a kid about whether the Saab 96 was ugly or not. That argument was never settled either, but the Saabs sold anyway. It sold because it was a damn good car and those who bought them liked them.  The Saab evoked passion in some people and those who bough them were happier drivers than the average. Same with the 1125R. It evokes deep passion in some people, enough people I'd say to make it a success. It isn't a be all end all for all. But those that buy and ride them will just have a tad bit more fun than the average motorcycle rider. Asbjorn |
