| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Electraglider_1997 |
I'd love a 500 mile per charge electric motorcycle. Naw, make that 1000 miles per charge. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Buewulf |
The bike definitely deserves a 6-speed, but the only option is a too-short final + too-tall first or even-shorter final with perfect first. I am going to give it the swap a try. FWIW, every 600cc I4 I've ever ridden has a much wider powerband than the XB12 which has the shortest powerband of any "sporty intentions" bike I've ridden. I know they probably needed to make HP numbers for the brochure, but it seems a different state of tune to broaden up the curve would have been worth less peak hp in this bike. And I have to agree with Franken Frog on this one - It is all relative, but the XB12 is certainly not a smooth bike, but that is OK with me. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rodclement |
@Froggy: If you are going to dump it on the ground, send me  those windshield adapters you no longer use on that blue bike! I can use them! Rod | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Etennuly |
Well Blake, what ever it learns, running it as close to extremely hard as this old body can do.....it learns to run harder/faster easier. It does so for several start cycles of running it easier later. Perhaps it does what older engines used to do and just blow the crap out of them to where they want to run faster. I don't know for sure, but it does wake up if I run it harder. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
>>> every 600cc I4 I've ever ridden has a much wider powerband than the XB12 which has the shortest powerband of any "sporty intentions" bike I've ridden. Only if you measure the powerband in rpm, which would be misleading. When measuring as one should by percent of total rev range, no 600 IL4 I've ridden comes close to a Buell. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bike_pilot |
I agree that % of rev range is what matters, but even by that standard the XB12 isn't even close to competitive. An XB12 pulls sort of hard (for a basis of comparison I used 75+ hp to the wheel) from about 55-6800rpm. That's 18.3% of the rev range where you get decent thrust. An '09 CBR600RR (not the fastest 600cc by a long shot, just happened to have a reliable dyno chart for one) does >75hp from 10,000 to 15,500rpm. That's 35.5% of the rev range - almost double the powerband width of an XB12. It also has a slick shifting 6speed to make it easy to keep it there. A CBR1000RR (also not the fastest 1000cc) breaks 75hp around 5,500 rpm and pulls to 13,000 rpm. 57.7% of the rev range. A 1198 does >75hp from 5,300 to 10,500rpm (just wait for the 1199!). And if you want to stick with air cooled 2-valve twins, a ducati 1100 motor does >75hp from 5800-8500 rpm - 31.8% (that with ~128cc less). All numbers could vary a bit based on dyno etc, I used reasonable dyno charts for each - you could find ones showing a lot more hp as it certainly isn't uncommon for dyno ops to tweak things to get big pretty numbers. I love the buell and its a lot of fun. Its by far the worst performing so-called sporting motorcycle motor I've dealt with. Still, its the buell keys I grab most days, just love the comfort combined with decent handling and a motor with a bit of character. (Message edited by bike_pilot on November 01, 2011) (Message edited by bike_pilot on November 01, 2011) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arcticktm |
Don't make the swap thinking it will make your bike run better at low rpm. It's just gearing, and will not change the way the ECM makes the engine run in any way. What WILL change is that you will be running a slightly higher RPM for given speed, so your bike will be smoother feeling at low speeds due to being at a higher RPM (and also have more torque and power available at that higher RPM when you twist the wrist. If you want smoother low RPM running, make sure you have worked on the air intake side first. For my '06, that meant an '07 airbox lid, and this year a K&N filter. I also did a breather re-route this year, but cannot say I noticed any difference. I did it to get crud out of the intake, not for performance. The airbox change along with the XB9 swap made my bike much smoother at "typical" in town traffic slow speeds of about 20mph. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Guaging by an arbitrary HP value is not a fair comparison either when one bike has more power than the other. You'd have to gauge by % of peak HP I think to be fair. The 600 IL4's do have a significant over-rev, as much as a couple thousand rpm for some. That inflates the powerband the way you are measuring it. Most folks shift once the power dips. The Buell pulls hared right smack into the 7,100 rpm rev limit. I don't agree that a powerband begins at 75 RWHP, an arbitrary number. I usually shift before that, not always, but most often. Try 30 HP. For me, the Buells pull hard from just over 2K rpm. For a 600cc IL4, the revs need to be up around 5K. That just irritates me. (Message edited by blake on November 01, 2011) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bike_pilot |
By your standard you could just limit peak power to 30hp and have the best motor ever! 100% of peak from about idle to red-line! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Court |
Kinda cool when you look at the motor that spins the rooftop restaurant of the Hyatt . . . . something like 1/4 HP and 400,000 lb/ft of torque. Gearing baby. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Going with 50% of peak HP, and eyeballing the dyno plots from SportRider.com I got the following:
The rev limits for the 600's were taken from the dyno plot, so they may be short, I don't know for sure. Considering the 600's significant over-rev though, I think my sense of the relative performance is valid. Neglecting the significant over-rev of the 600's, the Buell is comparable to the 600's, so your view is tough to support. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
>>> By your standard you could just limit peak power to 30hp and have the best motor ever! 100% of peak from about idle to red-line! We're not characterizing "best motor ever", just the breadth of the power band. Try to focus. By your view, no engine putting out less than 75 RWHP even has a powerband. Powerband is relative to each motor, not some arbitrary HP range. I think the above table does a fair job of comparing engine power bands.  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Here's anther thing that I just realized, motorcycle engines don't operate below around 1,000 RPM, so that unused portion should not be include in the analysis as it is never used, not part of the engine's operating rev range. The table above then changes as follows:
% Rev Range is Pwrband/(Rev Limit - 1000 RPM) * 100% Advantage Buell. I think the above characterizes pretty well what a rider senses on the bike. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tootal |
Unless your in a modern car with variable valve timing your cam shaft will make power in a certain range. It will also run the most efficient in this range. The late intake closing of the Buell cam causes this "on the cam" range to be at the top of the rev range. Although true, the Thunderstorm makes tons of torque everywhere, it's the surge of power that you feel at high rpm's that we're talking about here. If you advance the cam by a tooth, or two, it would bring this power down lower which would be nice for normal riding but you would lose out on the top end. Everything's a compromise and in order to get 103 HP out of this tractor motor you have to use the right cam. Now if these engines had 8:1 compression they would be a dog at low rpm but at 10.5:1 it helps keep the low end a fun place! As I've said before, this engine has two personalities. One stump puller, short shifting, fun to play with torquey motor and then the high rpm, get ready to shift, two stroke mentality. To keep this thing "on the cam" needs a quick left foot and lots of real estate! Pick your poison, they're both fun as hell!!  Oh, and the primary swap just means you need a faster left foot when in two stroke mode!!  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Eulysses |
I wonder how many Buellers also have diesels? I do. Low RPM torque is attractive to me. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Buewulf |
I agree that the XB12 is a tractable motor and has a useful operating range. But I still stand by the opinion that it doesn't really get "on the cam" as Tootal put it until very late in the rev range. It wakes up around 4500 and lights up at about 5500. Then the fun is over almost immediately after. Using what Blake has been describing as a powerband (what I call usable power), one could say the SV1000 (for example since I know the bike) has one twice as wide as the XB12. The SV feels very similar to the XB12 from 3500 and 6000rpms (without the clatter, vibration and heat ) at which point it ignites and zips on towards a 10K redline. I've ridden several motorcycles that produce very satisfying low and mid-range torque while still providing a nice zing up top, giving the best of both worlds. That is the type of engine I like most. Though I haven't ridden one, I imagine that is what the Rotax mill has provided for the 1125 models. As for diesels, I like them. They are great for pulling trailers and even for propelling most passenger cars IMHO. The instant, brutal grunt is very pleasing and useful in everyday traffic, and you get good economy to boot. I would not want a diesel in a Porsche, however, and I feel the same way about my bikes. Different strokes for different folks (literally)! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tootal |
I agree that the XB12 is a tractable motor and has a useful operating range. But I still stand by the opinion that it doesn't really get "on the cam" as Tootal put it until very late in the rev range. It wakes up around 4500 and lights up at about 5500. Then the fun is over almost immediately after. That would be two stroke mode!  (Message edited by tootal on November 02, 2011) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wbrisett |
who would have thought this topic would end up being so technical.  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tankhead |
Try to focus, Wbrisett.  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
For Buewulf:
Rev Range = (Rev Limit) - 1000 rpm % Rev Range = (Pwrband)/(Rev Range) * 100% Advantage Buell. I think the above characterizes pretty well what a rider senses on the bike. Advantage Buell. I think the above characterizes pretty well what a rider senses on the bike concerning it's relative power-band. Of course a bike with 111 RWHP is going to pull harder overall than a bike with 90 RWHP, but that is pure HP, not breadth of power-band. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Road_kill |
Ok, I've got 15k miles on my '08 Uly since the XB9 primary swap (40k total on the bike). My mission was to reduce the amount of clutch slipping needed while driving off road - especially on the sandy roads of south Georgia and north Florida. Mission accomplished! The stump puller mode is better. I love it! Overall, average gas mileage is down 2mpg for me; 50mph relaxed cruising on the back roads - same mpg; spirited rides - down 1 mpg; super slab 80+ cruise mode is where the biggest difference is - down 3mpg. When I first did the swap, I noticed more buzz in the seat and handlebars around 75mph+. I replaced the front motor mount (not broken but "softer" than new) and it has been smooth for 15k miles. Thanks again to Tootal for letting me demo his bike at Buelltoberfest before I swapped mine. It confirmed to me that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages for my riding style. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Froggy |
Buell 1125CR (Bone stock American Sport Bike test) - 10500 - 9500 - 121.6hp - 71hp - 5250 - 6000 - 63% Advantage Buell.... with the pods  (Message edited by froggy on November 04, 2011) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
And really, the operational rev range is probably better represented with a minimum of 1500 or 2000 rpm, which would only make the Buell power-band even more impressive in comparison. We ought to look at the 1125 too...
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hughlysses |
I think an even better comparison would be to compare torque curves for these bikes. THAT's where the air-cooled lump is going to shine. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Froggy |
Not really. The 1125R torque curve is flat and makes usable power just as low as the XB does.  Here is a dyno chart of a modified xb12 vs a stock 1125  Stock pistons and exhaust will bring them closer together, and below 6000rpm they feel very similar on the butt dyno. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
The torque curve and power-band of the 1125 is world class for sure. Not quite as good down low, but with another 3,400 rpm up top, it is a real arm stretcher. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Buewulf |
Blake, I may be just missing your point altogether. Sorry if that is the case. I am not talking about the SV1000 pulling harder overall. One would expect it to. I am talking about that part of a bike's rev range where the engine really starts cooking. On the Buell (mine at least), that is about 5000 - 6500 rpm. If I want to keep the XB at its go-go-juice range, I row the shifter much more on the Uly than I do on an SV1000 or a ZX6R keeping those bikes moving proficiently. I don't have any interesting tables or charts to demonstrate that, just my own experience. Just because you can exit a corner at 3500rpms on the XB doesn't mean that is a particularly fast way to do it. Granted, I lack the skill to ride any of these three bikes to their maximum potential; and perhaps if I could, I might have a different perspective on this. With respect to the SV1000, if I never exceeded 7000 rpm, I could say it feels very much like the Uly performance-wise, torquey with a hit of power kicking in around the 5.5K mark. Forget % of rev range, 50% power numbers and so on. They feel similar between those engine speeds. And if they feel similar with neither having a significant advantage over the other up to 7000rpms, then having an additional 3K rpms of real estate beyond that mark is a clear advantage in my point of view. We are either misunderstanding each other, or we will just have to agree to disagree. (Message edited by Buewulf on November 07, 2011) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Buewulf |
This primary swap thing sure morphed into some interesting conversation. Threadjacking ain't all bad! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Jeremy (Buewolf), Hahah, great profile pic. Story with that? >>> I am not talking about the SV1000 pulling harder overall. One would expect it to. If by that you mean it has more HP, then I can agree. The XB12 pulls much harder down low and all the way to 7,000 rpm. Plus the Buell pulls hard right into the rev limit, so I don't know why you'd stop at 6,500 RPM. Maybe that's what's giving you a different impression than what the actual performance data shows.
Or if you prefer to start from 5000 rpm...
All Values taken from Sport Rider Dyno Charts I once got so dehydrated, worn out and cramped up during a summertime GT race on my Cyclone that I all but stopped shifting gears lapping the track, all except one part where I had to upshift from 3rd to 4th to continue accelerating. The rest of the track I left the thing in 3rd gear. My lap times didn't suffer near as much as I thought they would. The Buell 1203cc engine is a stump puller down low. Your point seems to based on what you think you are feeling. The tables I've assembled show the actual data. You can certainly change the definition of what you think constitutes the power band though. Maybe the results would be different then. Instead of 50% of max HP, use 60% or 70% to find the lower rpm bound of the "power-band." >>> if they (Buell XB12 & SV1000) feel similar with neither having a significant advantage over the other up to 7000rpms But they don't. Imagining that they do is probably what is confusing you on the issue I think. That additional 3K rpms you mention is a definite advantage as far as max HP goes. If you're having to paddle the XB12 shifter a lot to stay in the power-band, then I'd suggest something is wrong with the bike. You might want to have the compression checked. Anything over 3,500 on mine is arm stretching. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Buewulf |
Hahah, great profile pic. Story with that? That is at 10,000 ft. elevation in the Colorado Rockies. Hit a rock on the trail that was concealed by snow which deflected me into the tree line. Due to the two feet of snow in that shaded area and the incline, we couldn't muscle it out, so we went back to get a quad to winch it out. By the time we were ready to go out after it, it started snowing freakishly hard. So we had to wait it out until morning. By then, we needed a snowmobile to get back to the Katoom. Getting back to the trail head was pretty scary and absolutely exhausting. I couldn't see the terrain at all. I fell - a lot. It took me about 20 minutes to get to the point where I got the bike stuck. It took about two hours to get back. Picking up a 500 pound bike 50 billion times in deep snow is the most fatiguing thing I've ever done. Still, I remember it as one of the best rides I've taken. |
