| Author | Message | ||
     Peter |
Misato, Just a tip to save space on the server. If you have already posted the picture here (like on the "The New XBs", or it's on another website), you can link to it like this. \imagelink{http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/4062/32729.jpg} In this case I've used the URL for your first pic. | ||
| Josh_ |
Damn that's ugly. | ||
| Newfie_buell |
So are the tube framers But I love my S1, If thats the new XB - sign me up. | ||
| Turnagain |
Mr. Van Voast was kind enough to send me a few pics from Laguna of Mr. Jones taken this past weekend.
The cases also look gray, so I'm wondering if Buell sent him a 12 motor to beat on.  | ||
| Glitch |
I'm wondering if Buell sent him a 12 motor to beat on. Or to test, while we speculated what was to be... | ||
| Mikej |
Is that XB12 swingarm thicker/wider/taller than the previous XB9's? http://www.dcbrag.org/JVV_CG.htm http://www.buell.com/en_us/products/motorcycles/lightning/9s/9s_gallery.asp Probably just the angle and my post-lunch eyes. (Couldn't get the imagelink deal to work for me, could be post-lunch fingers.) | ||
| Misato |
ahh. thanks | ||
| Gravedigger |
Blake, While I think the new machines are absolutely beautiful and I really like the improvements they made to the bikes. (especially the black xb12s) I do agree with Jose' on the lack of frame slider mounts. As the old adage goes, "there are two types of motorcycles, those that have been on the ground and those that are going to be on the ground." It would have been a nice addition to the new models. Keith | ||
| Koz5150 |
"As the old adage goes, "there are two types of motorcycles, those that have been on the ground and those that are going to be on the ground."" Dude... you can ride WAAAAAAAY ahead of me. | ||
| Elvis |
Here's something interesting. Take a look at this chart: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/performancedata/ I calculated the torque/weight ratios of some of the more interesting bikes on here. Aprilia RSV Mille - 0.139 Ducati 996 - 0.146 Honda RC51 - 0.147 Buell S3 - 0.152 Honda 954RR - 0.156 Yamaha R1 - 0.166 Then I divided the factory torque value (84 ft. lb.) by an estimated wet weight of the XB12S at approx. 440 lb. and got . . . are you ready for this . . . 0.191 With the tiny wheelbase and low center of gravity, these XB12's have to be just about the most responsive bikes ever built . . . period. They might not have the stratospheric peak HP of some bikes, but when you open the throttle, these things will go, when you lean, these things will turn. On paper, I can't think of any other bike ever made that will have the ability to respond to rider input in the way these bikes will. You want a world-beater? These bikes may be it. | ||
| José_quiñones |
apples and oranges to compare at the crank torque to wet weight, either use dry weight and crank torque or go to full wet weight and torque at the wheel. | ||
| Mikej |
Wet at the wheel is when the rubber hits the road. | ||
| Jim_m |
Well, looking at MOs numbers for the XB9, we have a 425 wet weight, and 59.8 lbs-ft of torque, giving us .141, right on the heels of a 996. if we take the claimed and true torque for the XB9s (from MO, again) of 68 and 59, respctively, we get a correction factor of .867...applying it to the 84 lbs-ft claimed for the XB12 gives us 72.8. I figure the wet weight will be around 445 (call me pessimistic), which would give us .163775, so let's call it .164, which would then be second only to the R1. But, more important will be the power curve. When do we get to see those? | ||
| Aaron |
What is all this "torque at the wheel" bs? You guys know better than that  | ||
| Dynarider |
What is all this "torque at the wheel" bs? You guys know better than that NO NO PLEASE!!! No more math, Aaron makes my head hurt  | ||
| Elvis |
apples and oranges to compare at the crank torque to wet weight, either use dry weight and crank torque or go to full wet weight and torque at the wheel. Huh? Sorry, but I don't understand this statement. I'm not comparing, I'm creating a ratio. If the motorcyclist values are wheel (I was under the, possibly mistaken, impression that torque is always measured at the crank) torques and the Buell values are crank torques than they're not comparable, but if both torques are similarly measured I don't see why comparisons of the ratios aren't relevant. | ||
| Jim_m |
Here I thought I'd impress you and Blake by throwing some math out, and I run the risk of starting the torque at the rearwheel discussion again  | ||
| Mikej |
"Contact Patch"  | ||
| Reepicheep |
I don't think a torque to weight ratio means anything, which is what Aaron is getting at. Torque simply defines what gearing the bikes designers will likely choose when designing the bike. Lower torque just means higher revs to produce the same power. And by in large you gain more by adding revs then you gain by adding torque... A more interesting value would be the area under the horsepower curve, which is probably the thing that you know you feel and that you know that is there and that you are trying to capture and articulate. *That* would mean something, and I bet the XB12 would look pretty good in that regard (though still nowhere near a GSXR-1000 or TL-1000). It would certainly expose the inline four 600's as the "emperor that is not wearing any clothes" that they really are. All peak power measures is what your bike is doing the moment you can no longer do it anymore (you then have to shift). Most squids on squid bikes, the way they ride, have a bike that is lucky to be making 35 horsepower at the rear wheel for 95% of the time they are riding it. Heck, even the median horsepower value ought to mean something. Assuming you are spending most of your time riding the bike at about half of redline, that's the "max power" your bike makes most of the time you are riding it. Torque leads people astray because the units make it smell like a unit of work, which it is not. It is force measured *at* a distance (which is just a force) on a hypothetical rotating post, not a force moved through a distance (which is actual work). The distance unit is just there to allow it to be discussed consistently. Without the "revolutions per minute" figure to indicate how far that force will move over a given time, the torque factor really is meaningless in terms of what it will make a bike do. Think about it. I could build a motor that will produce 100 foot pounds of torque, but will only revolve once an hour. It would not make for a fast motorcycle. | ||
| Aaron |
What he said. | ||
| Elvis |
Well said Reepicheep, now if only we had a dyno chart to integrate . . .  | ||
| Buckinfubba |
aaron come on do some math for us....but you are correct and like you said...what he said... I've been reading stuff all day long and now I hurt in my poor head... I like the new bikes...I am still glad I got my poor lil9r'r...this winter I'll have some fun with it... like ya'll said I want that black and gold stuff....just makes me giddy..... | ||
| José_quiñones |
Aaron, sorry I knew that would get you to chime up! Elvis, what I mean is that you created a ratio by using one "factory claimed" number and your guess of an "actual" number. to be consistent you need to use only "factory claimed" numbers or "real" numbers. BTW, the XB12's will be closer to 460 pounds, not 440.
That's not what they teach the Dealer Buell salespeople when they go to the school in Milwaukee. They think it's an important number to use to compare with "competitive" bikes. | ||
| José_quiñones |
You can use some "real" numbers as measured by Sport Rider by clicking HERE | ||
| Piggos |
My calculator says 422.0 full fuel and full oil. | ||
| Jprovo |
battery? | ||
| José_quiñones |
The Factory "claims" 385 pounds dry weight for the XB9R, most magazines have measured 450 pounds full of fuel. The Factory "claims" 395 pounds dry weight for the XB12R....... edited by josé_quiñones on July 15, 2003 | ||
| Two_buells |
I just replace the Battery on my S1 with that "Battery replacement kit" I bought two months ago. The last time I rode my S1 was Open House (Sept) last year. I rode to work today with the S1 and thought, "boy I wish my XB had this kinda power" or "I wish my S1 handled like my XB" I'm getting a XB12R and have the best of both worlds! | ||
| José_quiñones |
Are you going to sell your S1?????? | ||
| Tripper |
I realize your demonstrate an impressive torque level of the 12R, but who cares. A bolt will not be on the heels of any 996 much longer than the time it takes him to get deep into 2nd gear. HP talks, TQ walks. In any case I do love my torque at 3K on the street. |
