| Author |
Message |
    
Anonymous
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 10:10 pm: | 
|
As a motorcycle engineer, all I can say is that there is more wrong, stupid stuff on that bike than could be believed. It's about as close to being able to be competitive on a race track as is an OCC chopper. The guy should have stuck with architecture. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 11:40 pm: |
|
Yeah, but he's thinking outside the box |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 12:03 am: |
|
Anyone can think outside of the box. It's creating a new box that takes skill. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 01:05 am: |
|
The rear suspension configuration looks horrible to me. The front end might have potential though. The tailpipe won't work for a superbike racer let alone a GP racing machine. The engine/tranny look to have a huge polar moment of inertia in the roll axis, the worst possible axis for high inertias.
What else? |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 01:07 am: |
|
The front brake caliper support looks like it could be problematic. |
Timbo
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 01:10 am: |
|
Front brake caliper configuration looks very odd, like those bolts would have to take lots of stress.
Radiator plumbing that looks like its touching the exhaust header. |
Timbo
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 01:14 am: |
|
I also agree about the rear suspension. At that angle from the pivot, it seems it would not be very effective and would have wear issues.
I will however be the first to admit I am NOT an engineer, nor do I know any of the particulars of this machine. |
Timbo
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 01:18 am: |
|
Are the front brake disks solid? |
Wyckedflesh
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 03:36 am: |
|
I am not so keen on those front forks Blake...they remind me of the old style twisty forks. I can see the brace going across the top of the fender, but those outer tubes look too short to keep the inner tubes from twisting alot. |
Gschuette
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 05:37 am: |
|
Thanks Lpowel02 |
Davegess
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 09:35 am: |
|
<It's creating a new box that takes skill.>
Particularly if you want this new box to actually work as a box. Of course if all you want is an ego massage than this thing is working perfectly. |
P0p0k0pf
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
"The engine/tranny look to have a huge polar moment of inertia in the roll axis, the worst possible axis for high inertias."
That is why the suzuki block was cut in half, with one half spun around 180 degrees. The inline four now has two counter-rotating pairs of cylinders to eliminate the moment of inertia that acts upon the roll axis. |
Wyckedflesh
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
But in practice, MotoGP engine builders in the past that tried to run seperate banks inline with the framework found handling to be affected less by putting the banks across the frame line. IIRC Suzuki ran a "Square 4" with dual counter rotating cranks in the late 80's early 90's that they ended up not only rotating the motor 90 degrees to make it transverse mounted but ALSO ended up adding 2 counterbalancer shafts on the outside of the cranks to keep the motor from ripping itself apart.
The front brake caliper looks like a Kawasaki Radial Mounted setup. I am wondering if the front disk is some exotic material which is why its solid and not ventilated. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 05:51 pm: |
|
JC (p0p),
You are confusing gyroscopic effects with inertia. The engine/tranny inertia is unaffected by motion of internal parts no matter which direction they are moving.
They did eliminate gyroscopic effects through mutual self-cancellation. |
Sportsman
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 01:00 am: |
|
The shocks do appear to be misalighned with the swingarm piviot, but I like the piviot being the output shaft. Does away with chain tension guessing and slop without a tensioner. |
Charlieboy6649
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 02:40 am: |
|
I really don't like the comments Czysz made about Buell. He's comparing apples and oranges in his Cycleworld interview. I don't like people who don't make fair comparisons. And yes, I'm partial to Buell |
P0p0k0pf
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 08:44 am: |
|
I gotcha Blake-
It seems, however, that the inline motor would do the opposite for powertrain inertia. The roll axis pivots from a point roughly where the tire touches the ground, right? Wouldn't an inline motor place more of its mass toward the center of the bike, consequently reducing inertia? This would be in camparison to the same motor in a transverse orientation that would move mass outwards from the centerline, and also further from the pivot of the roll axis. |
Kenb
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 08:57 am: |
|
Well I for one wish this team success. It's nice to see an American in there to challenge the Japanese,Italian,and Malaysian manufacturers. |
Nedwreck
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 09:14 am: |
|
Any old chance for CycleWorld to take a swipe at Buell will do.
Bob |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
That may be true of Motorcyclist, but having followed both Cycle World and Buell for some time now, I have to disagree.
Cycle World has always had at least two people that "get" the Buell thing and are allowed to say so in print. With the last review they printed that I read (the one for the 9sx), it sounds like even the skeptics are turning around and starting to understand and communicate what the bikes are about effectively.
Maybe it's me, but it also sounds like all the moto magazines are starting to get more rational about the whole "peak horsepower" thing and keeping it in perspective.
Motorcyclist on the other hand, clearly has some sort of axe to grind, and keeps putting out ignorant hit piece after ignorant hit piece. Which is fine, as I found every other aspect of their magazine as annoying as hell anyway. Even the fonts and layout got on my nerves.
(Message edited by reepicheep on January 24, 2005) |
Charlieboy6649
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 02:05 pm: |
|
Right Reep,
I was pleasantly surprised at the spread on the SX in Cycleworld. I like Cycleworld, think it's a descent rag. And while I don't like what Czysz said, I still wish him the best for the same reason that Ken said. |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 05:27 pm: |
|
Could you please quote what Mr Czysz said about Buell in Cycleworld?
In the Jan 05 article about the bike, the word Buell is not mentioned.
In the Road Racing World Article, Buell is not mentioned at all.
Is this the March 05 issue you are talking about? |
Court
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:45 am: |
|
>>>Could you please quote what Mr Czysz said about Buell in Cycleworld?
In fact, if you could do it today it would be VERY helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Court |
P0p0k0pf
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Cycleworld, Mar. 2005, p.20 has a letter from Mr. Csysz responding to the Initial C1 article. He corrects some inaccuracies in the article. Primarily, he mentions the motor orientation is not to make a narrow bike, but to "reduce gyroscopic forces that are inherent in a transverse crank" because these forces "inhibit the motorcycle fom rolling over, or turning in." Furthermore, the logitudinal orientation "resists pitching (wheelies and stoppies)."
Nothing in this article refers to Buell, but many reader responses on the same page do. One reader referred to the Buell powerplant as a hindering " boat anchor of tradition". He accomplished nothing other than receiving an editorial response (suprisingly) defending Buells. |
Benm2
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 01:12 pm: |
|
quote:I am very happy with what he managed to do with the XB's.
Yes, yes, we're all well versed in what wonderful streetbikes the XB's are. The battering ram of Buell defensiveness regarding their suitability as streetbikes is in full force, as usual.
I was asking, though, what Erik might do with those funds to build ONE RACEBIKE. I suspect that such a machine (1) exists in his mind and (2) would be more drool-inducing than this one.
The thing that was puzzling to me, though, was the use of two clutches. One for power transmission & one for slip. In theory it sounds good, one tool one job. But if you can get one tool to do two jobs, you use less parts, and less things should break. IMHO..
Ben |
Davegess
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:30 pm: |
|
The thought of Erik, with the goal of winning the MotoGP cahmpionship and the budget and man power to do that, is indeed a tempting fantasy. You are undoubtedly correct that he has ideas on the subject.
Anyone with a spare 200 mill they want to spend? |
Smitty
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 08:11 pm: |
|
In the early stages the new Excelcissor Henderson had a lot of people going ga ga . Where are they now. Buell is still here even with a lot of negative press.
Buell motorebikes have people voting with their dollars buying the product.
Is the MotoCzysz C1 the new E/H?
Time will tell.
They do have Steady Eddy speaking and saying good things.
Tim |
Benm2
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:33 pm: |
|
How bout Erik & Kenny Roberts Senior? Maybe Rainey, Schwantz, and Lawson as consultants too...
S**t, I'll be happy with a podium at Daytona. Go Buell!!!
Ben |
Davegess
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Kenny SR has to be in charge, anyway the guy to have today is Rossi along with his crew chief. Those two know how to make a bike work. |
X1tx
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 09:59 am: |
|
Rossi and Burgess together could probably get competitive lap times with a Rupp........ |
|
