Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Buell News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-13-2006, 08:29 AM   #21
bmwdude
Founding Member
 
bmwdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Milton, WV, USA
Posts: 424
Default Re: Buell Not Quite Ready for Prime Time.

I think you've nailed it exactly!



Is it purely a political thing keeping Eric from putting a real engine in his bikes?



Like many of the rest of you I just don't get it?



In the long run a successful race effort could only help HD and Buell. If, that is they are competitive and win a few. This could be the focus of a marketing campaign that would bring younger riders into their showrooms and keep them there. But it will take a large investment and a commitment now to make it happen.



To me it seems as if HD/Buell are being penny wise and pound foolish with their lack of R&D for this effort.
bmwdude is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 04-13-2006, 09:51 AM   #22
The_AirHawk
Founding Member
 
The_AirHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Leanin' Tower O' P-P-P-P-POWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Posts: 11,491
Default Re: Buell Not Quite Ready for Prime Time.

Waddyer mean "Real Engine"? The Hardley is the *ONLY* "Real" Engine out there - all that japcrap is just freakin' Toys - that crap'll never hold together in racing.



Why, EVERYBODY knows you race a Hardley Flat-tracker if you wanner Win - an' that VR1000 was a winning engine, just didn't have any winning riders.



It was all part of the Japanese Conspiracy to discredit the US of A that killed that program...........



(I've heard this crap from Hardley fans all my life - "The Man" keepin' the last bastion of American Iron down - used to be, I was one of 'em spoutin' this rhetoric, too)
__________________
Parfois, on fait pas semblant
Sometimes, it's not pretend
Oderint Dum Metuant
Let them hate so long as they fear
политики предпочитают безоружных крестьян
Politicians Prefer Unarmed Peasants
Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along now...
The_AirHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 10:02 AM   #23
SRMark
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,465
Default Re: Buell Not Quite Ready for Prime Time.

Great times fer sher and RIP Cal. I still feel that loss so many years after. To have been in England for those races...
SRMark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 10:08 AM   #24
Mike_L
Registered Member
 
Mike_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 70
Default Re: Bummed

Man, there's that stupid displacement argument again . . .



Do you really not understand the other aspects that determine power output? What about the 4-stroke MotoGP bikes getting a 198% displacement advantage over the 2-strokes, was that unfair too?



A water-cooled, DOHC I4 is going to make more power per displacement than an air-cooled, pushrod v-twin. The only way to make the two competitive is to allow the twin to get a displacement advantage. What would you have Buell do, develop a high-rpm I4 just like everyone else? What purpose would that serve, other than pleasing the simple minded folk who can't get past displacment? We'd then end up with even more of the same exact bikes chasing each other around the track, making FX even less interesting.



Wishing for Buell to fit your idea of competitive is dumb too. Buell builds bikes with large displacement air-cooled v-twins. That makes them really fun streetbikes, but not well suited to racing against high-rpm imports. If you don't like what Buell builds, you're welcome not to buy them or not to cheer for them when they race. However, it makes no sense for you to sit here and wish Buell would build bikes that everyone else is already building. If you like what everyone else builds, go buy that. Saying that you want Buell to build what everyone else builds so you can cheer for an American bike is just plain stupid. I can see it now, "Gee, I'm really proud of my country now that an American company has completely copied a Japanese company." How much sense does that make? It's like some odd blend of fair weather patriotism.



I can't finish without addressing the "rules" comment. Which part of the rules were bent for Buell in this case? Air-cooled twins are allowed unlimited modification. The XBRR motor certainly fits in the unlimited category. They didn't even switch to overhead cams or 4-valve heads.
__________________
Mike Luddy, Jr.
'04 XB12R Firebolt
'82 Sabre V45
'98 KTM 250 E/XC
'99 Z50R
'01 XR100R (wife's toy)
Mike_L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 11:51 AM   #25
cgarrison2k6
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 28
Default Re: Bummed

Did you read my post? You seem to have ignored the fact that I said I wished Buell would field a competitive bike that truly follows the rules and doesn't require them to be bent severely.



I do understand "the other aspects" that determine power output.. a mechanical engineering degree helps out with that.. as does work with Ford and others.. But it's easy to attack someone you know nothing about because they disagree with you, so feel free to do so, as it's very entertaining.



I did not say that displacement was the problem. The fact that they have a 233% displacement advantage with an engine and motorcycle that don't follow the same rules that everyone else follows is the problem. I don't want everyone to make DOHC I4's, and that's part of the reason I own a Ducati. I have never owned an American motorcycle, nor an American automobile, so get over that little lightbulb that went off in your head.



I think I made the point very clear, that it would be nice for an American motorcycle to be competitive because it would help make the sport more popular. I don't have any "fair-weather patriotism" as I already watch motorcycle racing, without any real American involvement. Score another one for your useless attack.



"Which part of the rules were bent for Buell in this case?"



From RoadRacing World magazine:



"The bike has new cylinder heads, a new crank, new rods, new piston and cases that were 'modfied' by melting them down and casting the metal into completely different cases (with a change in the alloy used as well) with relocated camshafts.. the bikes frame tubes, which serve as the fuel tank, were also enlarged to hold more gasoline... AMA Pro Racing Director of Competition Merrill Vanderslice signed off in writing on everything.."



It goes on to quote Vanderslice and Erik Buell on how the FX class rules are very liberal and the bike meets the rules because it is a modified XB9R. Cycle World calls it a modified XB12R. Either way it's a modified XB.. except that it really has few similarities with the XB series, other than design philosophy.



-The rules were bent by creating a motorcycle that has no street-legal production equivalent. I thought that was the point of the FX series, to race motorcycles based on (not similar in appearance to) production models. It's clear that Buell being an American company gives them special concessions when the rules are made. They didn't break the rules, but it's clear they can't be competitive if they follow the rules that others do. You're right, it's not just about displacement. Buell should produce a street version of the motorcycle, with all these parts, and then the entire controversy would be dead.



"They didn't even switch to overhead cams or 4-valve heads"



-You ask whether I understand what determines engine power, are you saying that you can't make a powerful pushrod motor? See the Corvette. Do they need 4-valve heads if they have 1339cc worth of displacement? If they know that they can do pretty much anything they want with the bike because the AMA wants diversity in the FX class, they have room to keep a few Buell design ideas in the bike in order to be able to point to those as signs that the bike is in fact based on a production Buell.



One last comment on MotoGP 2-strokes vs. 4-strokes.. That's a completely different issue altogether. MotoGP is a decidedly non-production, prototype racing class. Not only did the 4-strokes get a displacement advantage, but the current engine configurations dictate different minimum weights for the bikes. The rules are very clear and anyone can get on the action. It's all very fair, and the diversity in engine configuration and design ideas that you see in MotoGP I think reflects that.



Feel free to attack me some more, as it apparently makes you feel better about yourself. Anyone else with the time to make rational posts on the issue would be greatly appreciated.
cgarrison2k6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 02:10 PM   #26
SezaGeoff
Registered Member
 
SezaGeoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 32
Default Re: Bummed

People who ride Ducatis shouldn't complain about rules being bent in racing. Remember the 1000cc twins vs 750 fours in World SuperBikes? It was the visibility from that rule-delivered domination that helped Ducati survive.
SezaGeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 02:35 PM   #27
12er
Founding Member
 
12er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF
Posts: 2,801
Default Re: Buell Not Quite Ready for Prime Time.

Did you hear the GP boys run at laguna last year? Bone shakingly awesome... Cant wait for July...
12er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 04:00 PM   #28
cgarrison2k6
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 28
Default Re: Bummed

I'm certainly glad Ducati is around, but I don't think it relates to the Buell situation. If the objective of the FX class is to race production based bikes, Buell should be required to race a production based bike.



If Buell introduced a 1339cc XB13R production model of the XBRR and they were allowed to race the XBRR, so be it. Giving them the opportunity to make "unlimited modifications" is a bit different than giving a twin a 250cc advantage.



I hope Ducati is able to stay competitive in the years to come at equal displacement against the I4s, but I have my doubts.. As for Buell, it would be great if they entered as well, bring along a pushrod, air-cooled beast if the rules allow it. Preferably the rules would be designed to provide parity, while adhering to the basics of the class.
cgarrison2k6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2006, 02:37 PM   #29
ksquid
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: My new favorite site is CycleWorld.com
Posts: 3,775
Default Re: Bummed

Well said my engineering bro... B.S.E.E. here..
ksquid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2006, 05:30 AM   #30
Mike_L
Registered Member
 
Mike_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 70
Default Re: Bummed

It's 5 days late, but here is my response . . .





<blockquote>I did not say that displacement was the problem. The fact that they have a 233% displacement advantage with an engine and motorcycle that don't follow the same rules that everyone else follows is the problem.</blockquote>



You say displacement isn't a problem, then you add it in with the list of what you consider to be a problem. Either you consider it a problem, or your speech contradicts you. If it truly wasn't a problem you would have only stated that they didn't follow the rules. By adding the displacement back into the list of problems, you indicated that you consider it to be a problem.





<blockquote>I think I made the point very clear, that it would be nice for an American motorcycle to be competitive because it would help make the sport more popular. I don't have any "fair-weather patriotism" as I already watch motorcycle racing, without any real American involvement. Score another one for your useless attack.</blockquote>



So the sport is already popular with you, you just want an American bike to compete so the sport can be more popular with everyone else in America? That's not proof of my "attack" being useless, it's you sidestepping. Those who wish for an effort from any country to copy the efforts of another country solely to add pride to their country are still partaking in fair-weather patriotism. That may or may not apply to you.







<blockquote>-The rules were bent by creating a motorcycle that has no street-legal production equivalent.</blockquote>



On that point we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my book unlimited means you can swap cases, in yours it doesn't. In my book all of the FX bikes are loosely based on production bikes but heavily modified. In your book enlarging the fuel tank and changing cases make the Buell non-production, while a $100k+ race bike that looks similar to an $8k street bike is still considered production.



<blockquote>They didn't break the rules, but it's clear they can't be competitive if they follow the rules that others do.</blockquote>



This overlaps my previous point, but Buell runs under different rules because they're using an air-cooled twin. If they were using a water-cooled I4 their motors would follow the same rules the Japanese have. If the Japanese built an air-cooled twin, they could follow the rules that Buell follows. If the rules stated that water-cooled I4s could have unlimited mods and the AMA didn't allow the Japanese to swap cases, we would have a case of the Buells not following the rules. As it stands, the rules for air-cooled twins allow unlimited mods, the rules for water-cooled I4s do not. The different rules follow the engine, not the manufacturer.



<blockquote>are you saying that you can't make a powerful pushrod motor? See the Corvette.</blockquote>



I didn't say that at all. I'm well aware a pushrod motor can make lots of power. However, given equal displacements an overhead cam motor can make more power than a pushrod motor. My point was that despite being allowed unlimited modifications Buell kept the original valvetrain layout.





<blockquote>One last comment on MotoGP 2-strokes vs. 4-strokes.. That's a completely different issue altogether. MotoGP is a decidedly non-production, prototype racing class. Not only did the 4-strokes get a displacement advantage, but the current engine configurations dictate different minimum weights for the bikes. The rules are very clear and anyone can get on the action. It's all very fair, and the diversity in engine configuration and design ideas that you see in MotoGP I think reflects that.</blockquote>





Non-production and prototype are erroneous to the displacement issue. In GP the engines with the less efficient layout get a displacement advantage to keep up with the engines with a more efficient layout. If an air-cooled pushrod motor was entered into MotoGP it would need a displacement advantage to produce similar power to the current 4-strokes.





<blockquote>It's all very fair, and the diversity in engine configuration and design ideas that you see in MotoGP I think reflects that.</blockquote>



Agreed. It would be nice to see the same diversity allowed in FX without people like you claiming that the displacment principles accepted in MotoGP don't apply to any other type of racing.





<blockquote>Feel free to attack me some more, as it apparently makes you feel better about yourself.</blockquote>



Ditto to you and your accusations of attack and boasting of your own mechanical knowledge. Perhaps more flaunting of your education and working experience would help?
__________________
Mike Luddy, Jr.
'04 XB12R Firebolt
'82 Sabre V45
'98 KTM 250 E/XC
'99 Z50R
'01 XR100R (wife's toy)
Mike_L is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off