| Author | Message | ||
     Rubberdown |
Sign me up! | ||
| Blake |
"Fburn-a 12r with a 52" wheelbase has the same tq as an 1125r with a 54" wheelbase" CeeJay, You're falling into that old trap of comparing engine torque, which other than for characterizing engine power delivery, is pretty much meaningless when comparing the acceleration performance of two vastly different motorcycles. The torque at the rear wheel is what matters, and it correlates directly with RWHP. For instance the torque at the engine for the 1125R may be the same as that for the XB12, but the 1125R is a higher-revving engine with its peak power-band elevated by about 2,000 RPM compared to that of an XB12, and the 1125R has another 1,500 rpm to spare beyond that. So in comparable spots in the powerband, the 1125R will be putting a LOT more torque to the rear wheel. If you've ever ridden a 130RWHP Buell--I have, twice, and they were 55" wheelbase machines--you'll know what I'm talking about. Even with a more forgiving, higher revving powerband, the 52" wheelbase is problematic. With over 40% more power, the bike become a looping wheelie-prone nightmare to ride that would be unsafe to sell to the general public. There is a very good reason why even in the hands of the world's most skilled riders, MotoGP and AMA/WSBK machines employ longer wheelbases. If Buell releases a smaller displacement version of the 1125R, maybe that version will take advantage of a shorter wheelbase. I'd expect so. But who knows? Fun stuff!  | ||
| Blake |
Court, I'm not sure, but I think it may be a bannable offense to talk about drapery in a motorcycle forum. I can see it now, masses of google hits on "drapes", hordes of poor, unsuspecting interior decorators are direct to BadWeB and this thread. Significant atonement may be in order. (Message edited by Blake on January 11, 2008) | ||
| Ceejay |
I don't doubt that the XB frames and the 1125 frames are completely different, as I understand how much work goes into moving a mount point over .125" much less offsetting the rear shock, attaching the motor solidly, and also making attachment points for the rad(although I'm not sure if they attach to the motor or the frame). The most difficult thing for me to understand is why Buell decided to increase the length by 2.5" when the newer bike is such a clean sheet design-I guess I'm wondering why they didn't do what Rocket is saying they did. It seems that if Buell could hang thier hat on the fact that we have this bike with MotoGP type geometry that is being considered the best handling bike of all time why not stick with the most basic geometric distance(the wheelbase) I really like the XB and it's traits, and the way too short 20 minutes I was able to ride the 1125 was a gas. While they didn't seem too different to me(other than the power) I was just wondering why. I really enjoy looking at bikes and study mechE and weldE in my spare time, thus I look at the Buells alot and this one kind of stumps me. I'm sure's there's reasons, as the XB series was kind of like ride it and you'll understand, and the factory doesn't owe me or anyone else an explanation but it would be cool to understand why they did that-unless it was just the fact that moving the angle to 72 and increasing the swingarm because it gave better actuation which are pretty obvious. On the rad placement-why is in front better? I'd think on the sides would be much better, especially if the frame was designed for it(it looks to be like it was). | ||
| Ceejay |
looks like I need to have two screens going at once  Blake I rode the 130rwhp buell currently makes-and enjoyed it immensly, but I still liked the turn in characteristics and overall handling of my XB, now about that power delta...guess I'll be visiting the sponsor pages within a few years the 1125 did about toss me, in a hamfisted moment but that's what I'm getting too, everyone who had ridden an XB was like "ohhh way too short", but after getting it on with one for awhile they were like "hell yeah." Thus why didn't buell just ask them to do the same? | ||
| Rex |
Ducati do, and they managed to build a street version of a Moto GP bike within 2 years. They managed to do so whilst they were redesigning their Monster range. Introducing a brand new range consisting of three different 'Classic' models. Designing two different capacity sportsbikes, the 1098 to include homologated versions to race in national Super Bike series around the world and WSB itself of course. Introduce a new model, the Hypermoto, based on the Multistrada, which they also revamped. Did I mention Ducati won the Moto GP title last year. And that was on an entirely new bike too. And to think the poor buggers at Ducati are penniless apparently. Outstanding,excellent post I could not agree more. What Ducati has done is amazing. I too agree with the above. What is all of the talk about the radiators on the side. I think it is great. Does not the RC 51 have its radiators on the side? did not the britton have its radiators under the seat. the front tire gets in the way of the radiator flow. I think the radiators on the side is a big benefit. Also from what I hear from the northern cal area, those side pods are tough, and if you go down, the covers are cheap to replace. I think it is cool and handles the bill. The radiator does not need to be in front on a motorcycle. | ||
| Court |
There has been (don't ask) an 1125R dropped and the "pods" are quite functional in terms of protection. | ||
| Court |
There has been and I for the life of me don't recall where so save the "Court's a liar" drivel . . . something from Buell corporate basically saying that 146RWHMP and 52.5" didn't play well together. | ||
| Court |
Not sure getting banned wouldn't be a good thing and get me a couple free hours in the day as the semester starts . . . That was a funny day because I got a "where were you on Friday?" call from a co-worker. "I was at work all day . . . ." Then he sent me the clip from Speedvision of the unveiling and me there in my nifty little sportcoat . . . I was SOOOOO busted! The Ducati folks were also kind enough to allow me to host a Buell party in their flagship store and they brought in a Super Mono for display at the event and provided all the attendees with hard cover "The History of Ducati" books . . all autographed. Very nice folks. (Message edited by court on January 11, 2008) | ||
| Ceejay |
Blake-I think that bike would be rocking like dokken(see joesbull-very similar) | ||
| Rocketman |
Court, I haven't brown nosed my way up the Ducati ranks, so I can't say why Fredrico didn't invite me. As I recall though, that was your first Ducati gig, on the strength of your 'press card'. That you've licked enough Ducati arse is credit to you. I couldn't myself stoop so low, and boast about it too. My friends and associates in the motorcycling world are not friends or associates because I brown nosed my way anywhere. I could, save my own embarrassment, drop names too, but it's really not my style darling. Rocket | ||
| Ducxl |
Court is AWESOME. Court...please..please post a pic of you and the Ducati gig/w the draperies...C'mon..go 4 it | ||
| Rocketman |
Sean, I challenge you to an objectivity check. In stark objective terms, devoid of personal commentary/opinion, what has Buell Motorcycle Company accomplished in the past three years? Apart from the dullness of repeating the Buell formula where one basic platform remains for several years in different guises, they've managed to finally get an engine with serious poke, and stuff it into a design that doesn't suit it due to liquid cooling design constraints presented when attempting to marry such with the XB type frame. I say three years on account of some of the achievements that you listed for Ducati happened a lot more than two years ago; the classic models for instance were unveiled back in 2003 over four years ago. Does a year or two really matter? It's the amount of what Ducati have done in what is essentially a very short period of time. Frankly Ducati have reinvented themselves. Buell have done well too in workload terms, I'm sure. But they managed to make a freak in similar time, when really a clean sheet design should have had us biting their hands off. Rocket | ||
| Reepicheep |
I forget which magazine and which comparison, but there was a "zero to 60" times, or maybe standing start 1/4 mile. They were clear as day stating that the Buell came in last, and the limiting factor was the short wheelbase that made it impossible to get all the power to the ground without looping the bike. The wheelbase length is already the limiting factor for acceleration of every XB ever made (even the 9's). Even more so the 100 HP on the short X12 wheelbase. It is already a limitation on effective power delivery under many circumstances. If you were building a 130+ HP bike, some huge percentage of your operational envelope would be "left on the table" if you had a short wheelbase bike. And on a bike that could see 170 MPH off the factory floor, perhaps the greater stability margin of a longer wheelbase would be welcome. It felt balanced to me when I rode it. Not the kind of "go split that edgwise dime with the front tire" feel of my XB9SX, but more of a "I am accelerating down this back straight faster then if I fell off a building" feeling. | ||
| Rocketman |
I don't doubt that the XB frames and the 1125 frames are completely different, as I understand how much work goes into moving a mount point over .125" much less offsetting the rear shock, attaching the motor solidly, and also making attachment points for the rad(although I'm not sure if they attach to the motor or the frame). The most difficult thing for me to understand is why Buell decided to increase the length by 2.5" when the newer bike is such a clean sheet design-I guess I'm wondering why they didn't do what Rocket is saying they did. It seems that if Buell could hang thier hat on the fact that we have this bike with MotoGP type geometry that is being considered the best handling bike of all time why not stick with the most basic geometric distance(the wheelbase) I really like the XB and it's traits, and the way too short 20 minutes I was able to ride the 1125 was a gas. While they didn't seem too different to me(other than the power) I was just wondering why. I really enjoy looking at bikes and study mechE and weldE in my spare time, thus I look at the Buells alot and this one kind of stumps me. I'm sure's there's reasons, as the XB series was kind of like ride it and you'll understand, and the factory doesn't owe me or anyone else an explanation but it would be cool to understand why they did that-unless it was just the fact that moving the angle to 72 and increasing the swingarm because it gave better actuation which are pretty obvious. On the rad placement-why is in front better? I'd think on the sides would be much better, especially if the frame was designed for it(it looks to be like it was). What he said. Will the overriding question ever be answered? Rocket | ||
| Dbird29 |
Rocket knows Glynn Kerr. How's that for a name drop? Did you not see his pencil sketch? | ||
| Rocketman |
I think it is great. Does not the RC 51 have its radiators on the side? did not the britton have its radiators under the seat. Both in their own right unquestionably two very important motorcycles in history, and bloody good looking ones too. Rocket | ||
| Freezerburn |
Rocket's about now probably gone through a half a dozen pints of Guinness and is getting ready to hit the shire's Blue Oyster. He must be ready cuz all that talk of licking arse and calling Court darling makes one wonder. | ||
| Rocketman |
Why would Buell change the formula of the worlds fastest cornering bike of all time because their new engine offers wheelie induced power from get go? I thought Buell 'owned the corners'? You'd think with hydraulic clutch actuation and that new vacuum assisted clutch, Buell would be confident their riders / customers could learn the art of clutch control. Then again, they are targeting an age demographic of old American farts set in their cable clutch ways I guess. I think we're getting closer to the truth here. Maybe at 2.5 extra inches the XB design is at it's limits, given rake played a part in getting there. Like I said ages ago. Would be interesting to know the 1125 v XB chassis dimensions. All in good time I guess. I say the design constraints offered Buell no opportunity to explore a more conventional liquid cooled set-up. Hence quirky looks. Rocket | ||
| Molly_hatchet |
didnt most people that raced buells extend the swingarm a bit to make the bike longer and more stable...along with a chain drive to suit different situations...so why all the bother about it being longer...im still wondering how its a superbike...too bad trojan wont chime in anymore..a few educated knocks on the 1125 and his business was threatned..sad. (Message edited by molly_hatchet on January 11, 2008) | ||
| Davegess |
I say the design constraints offered Buell no opportunity to explore a more conventional liquid cooled set-up. Hence quirky looks. I say you are wrong as I said earlier side mounts are better. There was no compromise. From all reports the bike flat out works great.} | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
That's an accurate statement and if you check the archives you'll find the photo of GUESS WHO . . . standing on the stage as the (SEE WHO ELSE REMEMBERS THE COLOR OF THE DRAPES THAT WERE PLACED OVER THE BIKES) were unveiled. It's puzzled me to this day why Fredrico invited me and not the British expert . . . . Must have needed a construction worker. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION | ||
| Reepicheep |
In order to maximize acceleration, clutch control will be necessary in either case. And when the clutch control is perfect in both cases, the bike with a longer wheelbase will be able to deliver more power to the ground (and accelerate the bike faster) without looping. I never saw any good reason to put a radiator in front of the engine and behind the front tire. Seems like *that* is the kludge. Unless maybe its a single and you have room to burn and can put it up fairly high (like my KLR-250). | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Court : "The purpose of being in the motorcycle BUSINESS is not to win races or be the fastest. The purpose is to conduct business for a profit. If you can't to that, the rest is temporary. " OK that being said, WHO got their toes stubbed over the XR1200?!? What HURT feelings outweighed a cost benefit/production/marketing/delivery/sales forecast for a viable product? There must be a niche for this type of bike, or Storz wouldnt be selling kits for as much as the donor bike. And as a second note, so the 450cc wouldnt compete on the same level as the Japanese big four with the impending racing changes: so it was canceled? There is a big WHOLE in the affordable 450cc DS/SM market that could have been exploited with a well built and executed street legal version of that bike. But then again, what the H3ll do I know, I am just a sales guy and enthusiast. (with over 1100 units to my credit and a degree in marketing / foreign studies) | ||
| Molly_hatchet |
KTM has done a pretty decent job of trying to fill every hole in the street legal dirt bike area...damn have u seen their brochure there must be 20 bikes...they all look the same to me...but who am i but an enthusiast...theres a lot of companies tryin to grab ur dual purpose bucks...that whole dirt bike thing smells funny to me..they would of been a lot better off trying to enter the dirt bike arena then tryin to push a superbike that isnt one on the world. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Hi-po Sportsters and obnoxious dirt bikes... Its just my own private axe to grind. | ||
| Court |
>>>Storz wouldnt be selling kits How many kits do you think Steve sells a year? What part of a 1200cc Harley-Davidson would you describe as "high performance"? Don't get me wrong . . . I've owned a dozen Sportsters . . . I've hot rodded the heck (I mean as in to the max) out of them and they, although fun, were in no way, shape or form a "performance bike". They sounded and looked great. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Would be interesting to know the 1125 v XB chassis dimensions. I can give you one very significant dimension-the 1125R chassis is 10 pounds lighter. | ||
| Diablobrian |
You know I have a 100rwhp 86ftlb tq XB, and even with the chain conversion adding an inch or so to it's wheelbase it is a hand full to accelerate to it's full potential. In fact if I have a passenger on board I leave a dead stop in second gear because the front wheel comes up hard in first gear even with a very gentle hand on the clutch lever. For those that stayed for the first lecture that Abe gave at homecoming last year the math involved in determining what the ideal wheelbase for a motorcycle should be. The cg, mass, and torque are all taken into account as well as available traction a I for one enjoyed his talk, unfortunately many were very quickly in over their heads and left. The wheelbase of the 1125r was not determined by throwing a dart at a wall covered with post-its with numbers on them. It was arrived at using data from the bike, coupled with the average size and weight of Buell rider. And yes, the air behind the front wheel is "dirty" air meaning it is turbulent. placing the radiators out in the "clean" air allows them to be much smaller because they operate with greater efficiency. The RC51 and superhawk were placed sideways and required fans to move air through them at all at low speed. At higher speeds the fairings created a low pressure zone to draw air across them It's the reason there are no RC51 street fighters, They overheat badly without the plastic. So the designs are not really comparable when you look closely. | ||
| Rocketman |
The wheelbase of the 1125r was not determined by throwing a dart at a wall covered with post-its with numbers on them. It was arrived at using data from the bike, coupled with the average size and weight of Buell rider. Which is why it would have been nice to see the figures and see if the 1125 frame , despite being entirely new, shared any of the geometry from the XB. Rocket |
