Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-14-2001, 03:25 PM   #31
granny
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Re: I pass them all the time...

It's perfectly obvious to any experienced rider that an experienced rider on almost any bike will blow past a beginning rider on almost any bike. Either you are not very experienced or your posting is hopelessly disingenuous.



Keep this in mind, it won't take many track days before the guy on the GSX-R1000 starts to get hard to shake. It's only a matter of time. When talking to or about beginners remember to keep your words soft and sweet in case you have to eat them.



I'll reserve my judgment on this Buell till I've seen tests and perhaps ridden one, but at first blush, it has characteristics that I enjoy. The presumably light wet weight and fast turning would be attractive to a flyweight rider like me. However the fact that the bike is cheaper to maintain does not ofset the unbalanced motor. It needs a vrod motor.
granny is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 07-14-2001, 03:45 PM   #32
granny
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Not all the parts are cheap...

The frame looks costly. Almost any low side will probably trash the frame and total the bike. I speculate that the fuel is in the frame perimeter beams so that means that you will need to repair the frame for more than purely cosmetic reasons. Since the frame is a fuel tank, welding on the frame will be like welding on a gas tank. More than likely, a sane welder will insisted on a complete disassembly and cleaning prior to making any repairs. This will not be inexpensive. Better install frame savers (but where?) even if they spoil the looks.
granny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 03:51 PM   #33
granny
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 149
Default Re: 2002 Buell XB9R Firebolt

Uh, no. horsepower = torque * rpm. You can get all the road torque (i.e. torque measured at the back wheel) with suitable final drive gear ratio selections. A comparison of rear wheel torque between this bike and an R1 will likely show the R1 to be far superior over most of the operating range. That doesn't mean the Buell's not a worthy bike.
granny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 04:17 PM   #34
starvingstudent
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 486
Default Female riders

Also notice that the seat height is 30.5 inches. I've known several females riding things like EX500's who want bigger, more powerful sportbikes but don't want the 31.9 inch seats that go along with them. It's about time SOME manufacturer realized that not all sport riders are tall or leggy.
starvingstudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 04:20 PM   #35
starvingstudent
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 486
Default Safety hazard?

Am I the only one who's afraid that the first time someone highsides this bike, the frame will crack open and the gas inside will detonate? If the bike goes down, it looks like the gas-filled frame will be the main point of contact. I'd hate to see a few people die for the cause of lowering center of gravity.
starvingstudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 04:45 PM   #36
john
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 356
Default Re: 2002 Buell XB9R Firebolt

Squirrel, realize that they were measuring HP and Torque at the crank on the Buell, and it is at the back wheel on the R6, apples to apples here, please. Also, i am doubting it will weigh less than the R6. It might come within 5 lbs, but i doubt it will weigh less. We shall soon see. But I agree with you on the rest of your points. I just hope they get the rear suspension right on it.....the reason sportbikes don't use the simple linkages like on the firestorm is to make the suspension more efficient. Maybe that showa is just that good, otherwise you might be cracking a nut over railroad tracks!
__________________
You shouldnt wave at a guy with no hands, he might think you are ****y. Look at what i got, mother****er.
john is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 05:38 PM   #37
BuellBoy
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 38
Default Re: 2002 Buell XB9R Firebolt

Unless you spend MOST of your time sitting at traffic lights you don't have to worry about blurred eyeballs. Once the Buell gets moving, it smooths right out; and any vibration that does get through is more of a gently "thrumming" than the hand-numbing tingle of a high-revving four cylinder.



My Cyclone holds 5 gallons of gas and gets about 50 mpg with spirited backroad riding. I do agree that the Firebolt holds too little gas to be really useful, though...
BuellBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 05:44 PM   #38
Gecko
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 31
Default Re: Safety hazard?

We have all heard of Ford Pinto's and Chevy trucks blowing up when the get hit. It would surprise me if the NTSB allowed anothre vehicle on the road with a bomb like gastank. The way that I have heard it is the gastank is withing the frame not the gas is in the frame. Semantics yes but also likely engineering. As for reliablity This motor is based on the Blast...differant pistons and heads as well as a second cylinder but other that a slightly differant clutch it is still just a 2cyl. Blast. The blast engine is nothing if not reliable. I've done 10,000 miles with 4 oil changes and 2 tires.
Gecko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 05:44 PM   #39
BuellBoy
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 38
Default Re: Safety hazard?

And how is this different than putting all of the gas in a big tank on top of the bike? I've seen more smashed gas tanks than broken frames in the salvage yards.



If you're REALLY concerned about that, you should only be riding GoldWings or ST1100s (who place the tanks below the seat protected by the frame rails)...
BuellBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2001, 05:46 PM   #40
BuellBoy
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 38
Default Re: Safety hazard?

Odd... I've never heard of anyone getting trapped inside a burning motorcycle. Why do you think this design will force the rider to remain stuck to the bike during an accident??
BuellBoy 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