| Author | Message | ||
     Barker |
http://www.pr.com/press-release/66924 The Man & the Company: Buell Motorcycles Founder and Chief Technical Officer Erik Buell Looks Back at 25 Years on January 16 Ride! Toronto, Canada, January 09, 2008 --(PR.com)-- This year, Erik Buell celebrates 25 years since he created his first racing motorcycle. He developed a square-four, two-stroke dubbed the RW750 to compete in the AMA Formula One road race series. Unfortunately, it was declared ineligible for the class because of a rule change. But it didn’t deter him from turning his talents to designing and building sportbikes for the street. Buell Motorcycles Inc. has become known for its innovative engineering. Among other unique features, the company was the first manufacturer to use upside down front forks and braided steel brake lines on a production motorcycle. After years of building bikes equipped with air-cooled twins supplied by Harley-Davidson, Buell has just unleashed its first water-cooled Superbike, the 1125R. "Seeing the first 1125R come off the line marks the start of a significant new era for everyone at Buell," says Erik. "The 1125R is designed and built from the rider down to take Buell to a new performance level.” Besides this latest milestone, Erik will take a look back in the rear-view mirrors at where his company has been and where it’s going. And he’ll answer listeners' questions during the broadcast. (Listeners can call 1-347-215-8723) Stay tuned for this live broadcast January 16 at 7 p.m. EST on Ride! on the BlogTalkRadio Network (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ride). (If you miss the live show, a podcast will be available on the Ride! website.) | ||
| U4euh |
Ought to be interesting, wonder if his wife call in again this time!! | ||
| Cyclonedon |
I had to work and didn't get a chance to hear Erik, did anyone hear this? What did he have to say? | ||
| Guell |
you can download it to your comp, i started it but didn't get to finish it. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Did Rocket get through?  | ||
| Gregtonn |
Two significant points of interest regarding the 1125R. 1. The split radiators were an intended part of the design from the beginning. 2. The frame is a completely new design. Greg  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Well he would say that, wouldn't he!   | ||
| Rocketman |
I called collect, but Erik was too skint to afford the call due to HD's falling revenue! 1. The split radiators were an intended part of the design from the beginning. As they would need to be before one could consider such a short wheelbase whilst shoehorning the Helicon motor and ancillaries in there. Someone should have asked, with all that time to design it, how come you made such a pigs ear of it? 2. The frame is a completely new design. But did anyone get the measurements out of him? I bet they're not a new design, and keep the chassis geometry very tight to that of the XB's. Rocket | ||
| Buellerandy |
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ride | ||
| Davegess |
I bet they're not a new design Rocket, there you go again. Straight from the horse's mouth and you dispute it. There is a very straightforward translation for your phase above-"Erik is lying"-I know you don't know the man so maybe you don't know how important telling the truth is to him. You could hardly hurl a worse insult at the guy. Don't expect kid gloves in return. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
Rocket should know a lot about horses since he is a horses's ass! it's Buells and their riders that he doesn't know anything about! | ||
| Court |
| ||
| Reepicheep |
Why on earth would anyone *choose* to put a radiator in the front? It has an exhaust header behind it, a big front wheel assembly in front of it (blocking air), and it's right in the blade out plane of any crap the front tire might want to throw out. And it creates all sorts of havoc and adds all sorts of stupid constraints about how you have to package the motor relative to the chassis, you have to add a big fat radiator sized hole up there... remember that the front wheel will be moving up and down on its suspension (wasting even more space). Then you probably also have to curve the radiator to wrap it around he front wheel and down away from the tank, which makes your radiator a heck of a lot more expensive to fabricate. And if you bonk your front end? Instead of ramming your front wheel into your engine mounts, where it probably does little more then further messing up a front wheel that is already toast anyway, you trash a radiator. I just don't see many good reasons to put it there, unless you already have a pig of a motor that is already way too wide. Or maybe if you have a single, boxer, or parallel twin and have room there to burn. Maybe you do it to be cool. Because you are slavishly married to the status quo, and "want to look like the other guys", even when it harms function. If I could put the radiator anywhere, I would *like* put it under the seat, a small efficient unit with forced air routed out the back / bottom of the tail section. Of course if I did, I think I would be infringing on a Buell patent. And there may be reasons why that is too fragile / unreliable. The side mounts with both forced and passive air routing systems are probably better. Both fans can probably be dead in the water, and the bike probably still works fine when in motion. So a dead fan won't stop whatever adventure you are in the middle of. The weight is low and central, it gives some wind protection to the rider, and it serves as a great set of sliders. One thing doing three jobs. I don't understand the controversy about side mounted radiators. It is why anyone would put front mounted radiators on a longitudionally mounted V engine that has me befuddled. | ||
| Scott_in_nh |
Reep in Rockets defense, it is not the location of the radiators but the look that he objects too As they would need to be before one could consider such a short wheelbase whilst shoehorning the Helicon motor and ancillaries in there. Someone should have asked, with all that time to design it, how come you made such a pigs ear of it? | ||
| Oldog |
I missed it! I'll bet it was the shiznit! On the radiator thing, the 1125r reminds me of another Deadly serious machine  If I had one My plate might be F4u and I would consider a narrow red stripe around each pod inlet. | ||
| Barker |
"I called collect, but Erik was too skint to afford the call due to HD's falling revenue!" I love it! | ||
| Oldog |
They have phones in England ?? | ||
| Rocketman |
Rocket, there you go again. Straight from the horse's mouth and you dispute it. There is a very straightforward translation for your phase above-"Erik is lying" Que? I disputed nothing of the sort. Nor have I called anyone a liar. But did anyone get the measurements out of him? I bet they're(the measurements) not a new design, and keep the chassis geometry very tight to that of the XB's. And Dave, if you're going to insult and accuse me consider, not only is your spelling questionable, so is your ability to read the written word and understand it. In the radio interview Erik makes no mention of the 1125 frame geometry, but he does say he gave his designers specific interface points, engine V angle, and cylinder placement parameters. That the frame is entirely new is not disputed. That it is an XB type frame is pretty obvious. What isn't obvious are those interface points Erik talked of, and my argument has always been that they are very close, if not identical, to those of the XB. Yes the wheelbase is longer, and the rake less steep, but I'd wager if the XB frame and the 1125 frame were laid over each other on a computer screen, there'd be a lot of similarities physically and geometrically that one could see. And that is why the 1125 has styling constraints brought about by necessity to place heat exchangers without interfering further with the frames physical length, and overall wheelbase anymore than necessary. What bugs me about this whole argument is you guys don't know why you're arguing . You appear to be saying, Rocket thinks Buell haven't put enough effort into the 1125 because the frame is the same as an XB. Rocket isn't saying that. Rocket is saying, if the frame is an entirely new design, despite it mimicking the XB frame if in nothing else but looks, why did Buell design the appearance of the 1125 to have controversially styled side pods? Could it be that staying close to the XB's proven geometry, they had little choice? I have no problem what so ever with the engine, frame, performance, handling, whatever. My problem is wondering why the 1125 is ugly, and I'm pretty certain I've been answering my own question for several weeks. Why admitting I'm right in my assumptions is impossible for some to do is absolutely ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that some would rather fight me than understand the styling behind the pods. My comments aren't a stab at Buell. They're not a put down of what a fine sports motorcycle the 1125 no doubt is. They were only ever intended to find out the reasoning behind such a controversial style on a motorcycle. Controversial only because one would think Buell with a proven track record of stunning designs in their repertoire, would have done something much more appealing to the eyes. I'd like to see the 19 year old sketches of the concept bike Erik had in mind. I'd wager it didn't have side pods. I'd further wager side pods came about because the XB geometry proved to work and Buell wanted to retain it at all costs. Hence side pods. No doubt the book will prove me correct? I'm pretty sure Erik would agree with me too. Rocket I'm going to paste this post into the argument thread. That is the appropriate place for it if anyone wants to continue down this line of discussion. And can we keep the trolling and accusations out of it too please. Thanks, Rocket | ||
| Jcbikes |
I thought the interview with Erik was very interesting. This is one of the reasons I love his bikes. You can not get that type of one on one connection with other cycle manufactures. He is one of us. Also, I grew up in Pennsylvania just a few miles from him. My first motorcycle was purchased from the shop where he was working as a mechanic. Just neat to know that he found his dream! | ||
| Gregtonn |
 | ||
| Cityxslicker |
DAMN-iut, I missed it, I was hoping to ask him if it was HIS toes that the XR1200 stepped on, though I do not see how. | ||
| Court |
VERY COOL | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Interesting Mr. Buell mentioned the original Buell factory is going to be open for tours at Homecoming. | ||
| Court |
>>>the original Buell factory is going to be open for tours at Homecoming. That is an accurate statement. And it is very cool. With the exception of the Studebaker parked in the middle, it's like they just walked out yesterday. There are parts and pieces still sitting on machines. It's an absolute "don't miss". | ||
| Dhalen32 |
Reepicheep said: "Why on earth would anyone *choose* to put a radiator in the front?" Reepicheep: I believe it is chosen for two reasons. The primary one being that it is probably easier to get good airflow through a single heat exchanger and thus cool most effectively for the lowest cost. Most liquid cooled vehicles have their radiators in that position so that when they are moving forward the airflow resulting from that forward motion cools the engine without need of any fans to assist. Splitting and side mounting the radiators is more mechanically complex (increased cost) and not naturally prone to getting the best airflow. I think the second reason is aesthetics. On a fully faired sport bike it is fairly easy to conceal a front mounted radiator. I'm still waiting to see an 1125R in person before making up my mind on it's looks. Rocket is right about one thing; the styling of the bike is controversial. Dave | ||
| Reepicheep |
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion Dave. Mechanically, you are right, it is more complicated, though that probably assumes that you are comparing it to a single flat front radiator. If you are comparing it to a complicated compound curve radiator, it is probably closer to a wash... two flat radiators with plumbing is probably simpler / easier then one radiator with two compound curves. And I would agree with the airflow thing on a car, but on a motorcycle, the airflow disrupted by a front wheel. With the pods, the air that the front wheel displaces is routed right through them. If you could get the radiator in front of the front wheel, then that would be the best place. Second to that, I think the side mount gets the best air flow (which when you think about it, is closer to where radiators sit on car... they are beside the wheels, not behind them). | ||
| Court |
Is anyone wondering WHY (I'd wager it's not mere coincidence) that the Buell "pods" and the intakes on the F4, A6 and AV-8 look similar? | ||
| Ceejay |
Hossack levers, oh wait  I'd imagine given the folks designing the intakes were more concerned with function over form, thus I'd guess that the shape of an intake is as such in order to control airspeed and reduced/control "eddies". | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
 Could it be because as the intake narrows, the airspeed increases? | ||
| Court |
Am I the only one who just absolutely goes ga-ga over aviation pics like that? I had some friends in the USMC who flew A-6's and loved them. What a GREAT VIEW! Go get me a head-on of an AV-8B and an F-14!~ P.S. - I hope American Sport Bike introduces "remove before flight" air intake covers like that for the 1125R. How fun would it be to park an 1125R in Times Square and slap the covers on it? (Message edited by court on January 18, 2008) (Message edited by court on January 18, 2008) |
