| Author |
Message |
    
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 02:42 pm: | 
|
"Why would HD build a sportbike from an engine that died in 2001?"
Who's on 1st? I'm getting lost. What's the point. Mine was that Harley should have made a Brutale type bike with a lighter, smaller viarient of the Revolution.
And now watching the videos, that's the direction they were headed with it. But then the sportbike part fell by the wayside and they weren't going to build two motors. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Harley should have made a Brutale type bike with a lighter, smaller viarient of the Revolution.
Agreed completely. Had they built it, it would have been a Buell.
Unfortunately, they didn't.
The issue that kicked all this off was the reference to the Revolution engine. It is NOT a VR. Pining for the Revolution engine makes no sense, and that was my point.
"Why are people still pining for the VRod motor?
It's not THAT great a motor."
The VR and Revolution engine have very little in common from a final application standpoint. |
Fast1075
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 02:57 pm: |
|
If we are discussing what could have beens...if the EPA hadn't tightened emissions so much that it throttled out 2 smokes....I wonder *sigh* what it would have been like to have a RWs (street) 750 once the snags had been worked out of the engine...that would be one bad boy...if it was truly as rip snortin' as they say. I have ridden a TZ750 which is reportedly less powerful and heavier...but as close as I ever got to an OW was across the paddock...my brain can still smell the hot castor... |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 03:07 pm: |
|
The most significant point of the MV design has been totally missed in this thread.
It gives HD something that it has never had; a high performance I4 engine.
Why throw that out the window just to redo something you have already done?
G |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 03:13 pm: |
|
Oh, I agree completely.
Does an I-4 meet Erik's design criteria? |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 03:19 pm: |
|
"Does an I-4 meet Erik's design criteria?"
Doesn't matter. Erik is the CTO of Buell not MV.
G |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 03:22 pm: |
|
>>>>Doesn't matter. Erik is the CTO of Buell not MV.
I'd agree.
HD's involvement with MV has nothing to do with product and I'd be very surprised if it ever involved anybody or anything related to Buell.
Can you say "Holiday-Rambler"? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 03:27 pm: |
|
If there is no cross pollination of technology, it doesn't really matter what MV has. |
Elvis
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 03:34 pm: |
|
I don't think the limits of the Helicon have even begun to be pushed.
Steve Crevier is keeping up with the inline 4's in Canadian Superbike:
http://www.cdnsuperbike.com/index.php?option=com_c ontent&task=view&id=1502&Itemid=247
I don't know what kind of modifications Deeley/Ruthless is making, but we know from the rules that it's still 1125 cc.
With international and domestic racing rules allowing twins 1200 cc for the foreseeable future, I don't see why Buell would need an inline 4.
They just need to develop the Helicon to its potential. |
Fast1075
| | Posted on Friday, June 12, 2009 - 04:14 pm: |
|
I have no idea what the design parameters for engine life for the 1125 are...but I'm guessing at least 50K miles without major internal problems....if so, the engine is relatively lightly tuned....hence...much more room for development for racing use. |
