buell's

does ANYONE like buell's? im new to the biker world , and looking at getting something new , and really liked the design concepts of the buell's , and frankly , find the firebolt to be more comfortable then an r6 or zx-6r , so i serched on here , and can find nothing but buell bashing , anyone actually think theyre ok? i was actually looking at an 06 firebolt xb 9

i like buell's. they're torquey and handle well. they have a short wheel base too so they're wheelie machines. my buddy has an 03 xb12r firebolt, it's nice.

buells aint even a sport bike there just a POS

Buells aren't bad machines at all. I actually remember reading a recent biker magazine (can't remember which one) that ranked the best turning 50 bikes, and a Buell was actually #1. I was quite suprised to say the least. Its short wheelbase and low curb weight really help the handling in the twisties, and the torquey engine enables the rider to pull hard and smoothly through them, however; I still find the engine to be its weak spot even as much as I love torque. Their engines output is simply no longer competitive compared to other makes.

great bike. it handles well, sounds great and looks good but i don't really like the front end since i'm used to the sportbike front fairings

i havent really heard anything bad about buells. i used to want one until i took both the 05 lighting and firebolt for a test drive. stock they arent that fast and sound like s#@%. if you got money for exhaust and the chip upgade than i would consider maybe getting one. it comes down to personal preference. if the buell is the only bike you ever ride you'll probably love it but theres alot of nice bikes out there before you commit to anything take out a couple different dont be blinded by harley, there is other stuff out there. they do look cool though.

I've heard far to many nightmare stories about Buell reliability to ever consider one. They have/had a recall list a mile long, and after the customer service I've seen them give, I'd be even less likely to consider one. I think my favorite was the "fix" for oil misting out of the breather tube... the factory given solution was to buy a small air filter for a weed eater and attach it to the tube to catch the mist. A guy at the last Buell rally that came through did this and it gradually filled up, and began to drip... right onto his rear tire. That's great tech work right there...

To their credit, they are supposed to handle pretty well, and some of them have good braking power. It's not premier level, but its good. They have decent spec sheets, but they still don't have sportbike level engine performance. This was a huge design flaw for Buell if they ever wanted to make it a serious machine. They picked the most primitive and ill-suited engine design they possibly could have to power it. Even though some Buells have over 100 horsepower, you're only getting performance equal to an 80 horsepower tourer or entry level, older sportbike. They can't produce the engine speed for any "real" performance. They are very torquey, though, so they will make for a great street ride from a "work" standpoint. No gearbox rowing or heavy revving required.

All in all it really comes down to what you want out of a bike. I would do some serious homework on them before dropping coin, though. They have more of a cult following, but I've seen many sportbike riders get off of them grinning from ear to ear after a flog through the mountains.

buells aint even a sport bike there just a POS

Do you ever post anything that isn't completely retarded?

thanks for all the input guys , im erally lookin for just a nice bike , and i live in cali , between suburbia hell and hills , so i definatly have some twisty's i can enjoy , and the reason i like it so much , i just like the styling , and all thier desgin concepts , and that front brake just looks cool too , only thing i, worried about , is that im a stone cold beginer , i have the self control to keep a decent speed , and how fast is too fast , how long does anyone think it would take me to fully grow into , or atleast fell somewhat comfortable? again , any input is greatly apprecaited , ah yes , and frankly , i kind of prefer the torque , im not to big on haveing to run thru 6 gears to go down the street , just something easy riding , and the sport aspect too , im not a fan of crusiers

You should get what you want. I have a cruser a 99 M2 Buell and ride a Busa for the hell of it. the Buell will hold it's value unlike the Busa or other rockets, The buell have more upright seating. I will agree it is not as fast as some, but I can ride at 142 on the buell and if I want faster I can drive the Busa. But for me the Buell is much better when I am playing in the hills. Get what you want, pick up a used rocket for dimes on the dollar from new. Just have fun and learn to ride before you open up on those twisties.

you mean unlike you of course!

I can ride and afford what I want. The question was about buells, I have 40 years of riding on two wheels, I have raced on both dirt and track. So you may need to make sure your facts are correct before you add your .02 cents that is not worth that much.

Buells aren't bad machines at all. I actually remember reading a recent biker magazine (can't remember which one) that ranked the best turning 50 bikes, and a Buell was actually #1.

That list was in a British bike magazine, and they included and overemphasized a bunch of criteria that actually has nothing to do with handling or cornering ability, I suppose for the sake of entertainment value of the article, which severely skewed their results. There is a second listing in the article that removes the subjective criteria and only takes into account: Lean Angle, Flickability, Corner Speed, and Drive Out. The second list is much more accurate, and things like GP 2 strokes and Japanese 600's take their rightful spots at the top of the list as the best handling machines.

I can ride and afford what I want. The question was about buells, I have 40 years of riding on two wheels, I have raced on both dirt and track. So you may need to make sure your facts are correct before you add your .02 cents that is not worth that much.

Don't worry about him. Every forum has its prepubescent kid that spams useless drivel when mom isn't properly supervising, and he's ours.

lol, PWN3D

That list was in a British bike magazine, and they included and overemphasized a bunch of criteria that actually has nothing to do with handling or cornering ability, I suppose for the sake of entertainment value of the article, which severely skewed their results. There is a second listing in the article that removes the subjective criteria and only takes into account: Lean Angle, Flickability, Corner Speed, and Drive Out. The second list is much more accurate, and things like GP 2 strokes and Japanese 600's take their rightful spots at the top of the list as the best handling machines.


Your right :) . As I said I was suprised to say the least, but objective testing doesn't always paint a full picture (at least for some riders). And thats where point of views allow more room to understand how a bike feels rather than what their capable of. A bike that can handle well easier may seem like a better value to everyday riders as opposed to one that takes more experience and talent to extract its true potential. With all that said bikes are kinda like gloves (ok here goes my weird analogies :lol: ). Its not about which is better, its about which one fits.

I said it before... Buell needs to change their supplier of motors. May be they should follow what Euroean private manufacturers did, like Bimota or Benelli and use Suzuki/Yamaha engine. Ducati is on pressure all the time and constanty researching on twins to keep up with desmo stuff, yet Buell figures they can just get away with outdated Harley potato-choppers.

WOW man you can send a e-mail without a way to respond and not have the manhood to put it on the forum that stated it. So in all this talk on this post all that was said is that Trash should ride what he wants, for you to consider me a HOMO maybe you want to hook up at the sturgis rally or 4 corners and I will let you see pics of my family as yoou dig you head out of your rear end. I come to these sites for information and to respond to post. I sure hope I can see you grow up some day. Let me know I will respond to a e-mail if you got the idea you are all grow up. Sorry everyone else for wasting space.

People who Buell bash are generally missing the whole point, which is Buell doesn't build sportbikes because THEY AREN'T TRYING TO.

That was never the intetion. So all the talk about needing different powerplants and whatever is just nonsense. That motor is perfectly suited to what the bike was intended to do.

A Buell is a streetfighter, a hooligan bike, a quick turning corner smoking effortless wheelie fun machine. They never had any intentions of having superbike performance or top speed. As the man himself says "Who the hell actually has the opportunity to use that? We build bikes to be fun in the real world."

The engine is perfect for that purpose. The Buell tweaked Sportster engine is has an incredibly broad and flat torque curve, the 1200 makes over 55 ft.lbs. under 3000 RPM and climbs to it's peak in the 70's at the limiter. Most sportbikes don't have enough torque to take the lid off a jar of pickles until spinning over 8000 RPM. It's all about torque for Buell.

I've watched guys on them cruise alongside me in third at maybe 35 mph and suddenly twist it and lift the front wheel a few inches and disappear.

Anyhow, most sportbike afficianados know zip about and aren't concerned with torque, because at the revs a sportbike can turn and the speed those free-revving motors can reach it, it's not a factor.

If Eric wanted to build a sportbike, believe me he could do it. He originally bought the rights to a racing engine built at the time in England, a very unconventional sqaure four with dual crankshafts 750cc that was a freakin' firebreathing terror but unreliable as hell due to primary balance and other vibration issues.

He took that motor and basically re-engineered it to smooth out the glitches in the design, and ended up with a racing motor that's power output put other racing motors of the time to shame, but the only drawback was that the powerband was so abrupt and explosive when it came on, it wasn't well suited for racing use as it would tend to break the rear loose and spin it no matter how carefully the rider tried to baby the throttle. He realized that this motor was not going to be the plant he wanted, he was searching for a design that would have massive torque, but predictable delivery.

He's always been a big advocate of air cooling, and swears he will never do a liquid cooled motor because it's not neccessary if the air path and casting finning are done correctly.

The Sporty motor was indeed somewhat of a compromise, but it had the broad torque curve and simplicity he was seeking, was air cooled, lends itself easily to modification and being able to tap into HD's vast cash reserves to do R+D for his own brand while not having to worry about turning a profit right away was obviously very appealing.

For Harley's part, they get to reap the benefits of Eric's inventiveness, incorporating his advances into the production Sporty and other models. The new Buells have a clutch with a much improved lever pull effort, while at the same time having better feel and grip, this advance will also be included in the '06 Sportsters as well.

I expect to see more of his work with the Sporty Evo to appear in the production Sportsters, head work, perimeter brakes and fuel injection would be my first picks.

Anyway, give them a break, please. I'm guessing that anyone who is a diehard sportbike freak would still have a big smile after running the dragon on a '06 XB1200. There is nothing quite like a motor that pulls really strong out of a curve, without being peaky or having to carry a lot of RPMs through it. Just twist and feel the rush, it's wonderful....

I agree...my only problem with Buell is the price. Of course I can't afford it so I complain. Buells are as reliable as any other bike out there so long as they are maintained...its the story for everything except GM cars...hehe

All of what Buell hoped to attain could have been had 10 fold by developing a twin suitable to a performance application. You need not look any further than the Italians to see how a twin should perform. By using the Harley engine they have effectively done three things:

1) Limited the potential performance output of the motorcycle.

2) Turned away potential buyers in the sportbike enthusiast market.

3) Set themselves up for a slew of reliability issues by maxing out the early 1900's H-D engine design from the get go. I do not know the current state of recalls/reliability issues with Buell, but I know that just a few short years back they were riddled with problems, both mechanically and otherwise.

I would also like to know why they chose not to balance and blueprint the engine. I know the cruiser crowd likes the inefficient, vibrating setup, but if you're going to use it in a performance application... why not fix it?

The chassis is fine for its intended purpose, and I think it has the potential for being a great machine (and it's not a bad bike as it sits now), but they need to cut the H-D ties if they want to turn out a "better" motorcycle. After the VR1000 fiasco, I'm surprised anyone would EVER ask Harley for a hand in a performance application again.

jeff , thanks greatly for the input , youve clarified even to myself , what a buell is , and what it wass meant to do , i defintaly want one , just something that will make me smile everytime i get on it , but the way i look at it , yeah , an I4 is faster in a line , but reguardless , barely any car on the planet can ever be as fast as a 600+cc sport bike. speed is not my concern , driveablitiy and comfortablity , and seeing as ive been on a buell , i know theyre confortable , well , the firebolt at least , definatly on my to get list. seeing as im still very new to bikes , i question how difficult of a time ill have with it as a begingers bike , but i am very paraniod of EVERYTHING , i think im a bit more aimed towards the XB9r tho , and btw , the xb12 puts out 84 ft lb of tq , :)

All of what Buell hoped to attain could have been had 10 fold by developing a twin suitable to a performance application. You need not look any further than the Italians to see how a twin should perform. By using the Harley engine they have effectively done three things:

1) Limited the potential performance output of the motorcycle.

2) Turned away potential buyers in the sportbike enthusiast market.

3) Set themselves up for a slew of reliability issues by maxing out the early 1900's H-D engine design from the get go. I do not know the current state of recalls/reliability issues with Buell, but I know that just a few short years back they were riddled with problems, both mechanically and otherwise.

I would also like to know why they chose not to balance and blueprint the engine. I know the cruiser crowd likes the inefficient, vibrating setup, but if you're going to use it in a performance application... why not fix it?

The chassis is fine for its intended purpose, and I think it has the potential for being a great machine (and it's not a bad bike as it sits now), but they need to cut the H-D ties if they want to turn out a "better" motorcycle. After the VR1000 fiasco, I'm surprised anyone would EVER ask Harley for a hand in a performance application again.

First off, have you ever ridden anything with a Sporty motor?

I'm guessing not, or you wouldn't be so critical of it's abilities.

But again, all-out top performance was not (and never was) the goal at Buell. The mantra is loads of torque and mass centralization, and utilizing physics to enhance performance.

Like the ugly under frame exhaust. Yeah, it looks like crap. Eric agrees. It also teases out a lot of horsepower from the motor with precise flow tuning and a power valve, while getting the exhaust mass low and central to the bike's CG, making for even quicker reaction to steering and balance inputs.

The way Eric explains it to those who think it's insignifigant is this: Hold a typical sportbike exhast system up at the height it mounts on the bike, then swing it back and forth all at once, as if it was mounted to a bike that is switching back and forth through curves. It takes considerable effort to do so. Now take his system and hold it close to the ground and essentially rock it side to side, since that is the axis, nearly in line with the axles, you see it is almost effortless. That shows up in how easily a bike will flick from one lean to the other.

The perimeter brakes have move the effort exerted on the wheel to the outside, where it should be in order to act on the tire, instead of having to transmit braking torque through the spokes (loosing torque in the process, and stressing the wheel). That is why the Buell wheel can be the lightest it can be. To have a wheel that light with a typical sportbike braking system, you'd have to resort to exotic materials (like carbon fiber) in order to be strong enough to handle the stress without failing.

The swingarm/oiltank design also brings weight down in line with CG and axle axis, and has the added benefit of acting as a cooler also, the movement of the swingarm gently sloshes the oil around internal baffling/heat sink features.

Ditto with the in-frame fuel storage. Ever ride a bike with the tank off? I did, once. I had a funnel full of gas stuck in the fuel line of an old Suzuki 185 I was working on, the tank was being boiled out, but I couldn't wait to see if it would run right. Dangerous, I know. And I was probably smoking while riding it, knowing me.:lol: But it was the oddest feeling, without the weight of the tank and the fuel up top, it would respond so fast to my lean inputs, I almost put myself on the ground a couple of times just going around the block!

That's the effect of the frame-tank design. You don't have that big ball of weight resisting your inputs.

I know there were a number of service and warrantee issues with the earlier models. Very few had to do directly with the powerplant itself, but rather with peripheral systems that had kinks that needed ironing out. Eric also realized that was turning buyers away, and new models are now extensively ridden to death by company engineers and design teams until (hopefully) all the bugs have shown themselves. Like Eric said recently "It's not fair that the customer should be the beta testers for the product..."

Anyway, back to the question. Have you (Deal's Gap) ever ridden a Sporty Evo powered bike (objectively, not comparing it to what you ride, that's like comparing apples to frisbees), and felt what torque without extreme RPM feels like? I can appreciate ALL cycles and the motors that power them. It's an unreal rush to hear an inline 4 spooling up instantly like an electric motor, hitting it's powerband suddenly and whisking you off in a rush of adrenaline.

But it's also very satisfying to feel each individual power stroke's massive leverage on the crank as it muscles you forward effortlessly at low RPM, pounding like a heartbeat of a running animal.

Sportbike torque curves look like this:

---------------------------
10,000 RPM







T
T T
T T 6000 RPM
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T 2500 RPM
T
---------------------------


A healthy Sporty is more like:
----------------------------





T T 6500 RPM
T T T T T T T T
T T
T
2500 RPM
-----------------------------


There is just no way to justify comparing them. Two completely different characters. What feels good to the way you ride is your own business. No point in saying that Buell needs to do this and that to be competitive. He's not trying to compete, rather create a new niche in the sport that people don't even know they'd enjoy...yet. But it's starting to catch on. The new XB12X may be the one that brings 'em in the doors. A bike that can do anything reasonably well, from off-road to paved twisties to distance riding.

Hmmm. My "dyno charts" blew up when it posted. Oh well, you get the idea.

I'm not going back to twins until they're little bit more refined. :D

The extra engine braking and on/off throttle transition wasn't much fun for me. The pluses were instant power on tap, no need to tap gears, makes passing a breeze. With 10.5K redline, I kept hitting the peak often, no significant power up top.

jeffco:

I have more experience on twins than I do I-4's, and have a large amount of seat time on both the 2 valve air-cooled Ducati streetbikes and the 4 valve superbikes. After riding those machines, I cannot help being anything but critical of the H-D engines. A perfect example of how a streetfighter twin should run is the Ducati S4R Testastretta. Smooth as silk, power on tap everywhere, revs extremely quickly, and rock solid reliable. The H-D engine is simply too low tech and out dated to extract enough engine speed for the type of bike they are using it in. I pulled just about dead even in a drag race with one of the earlier 1200's while riding a docile BMW sport touring bike putting out 80hp. That really says something about the flaws in that engine design.

Buell wouldn't even have to go the route of Ducati and use an exotic desmo re-tuned superbike engine for their flagship streetfighter, they could create a 1 off of a Honda or Aprilia twin and still be lightyears ahead of where they are right now in terms of performance, while having great street usability and reliability, without breaking the bank on developing a cutting edge twin design.

Z-

It really comes down to a preference thing. I'm perfectly at home with big engine braking because I learned on a twin, and I'm in love with the drive out of a corner a twin can provide. Take a spin on a 749 and you won't want any more top end!

jeffco:

I have more experience on twins than I do I-4's, and have a large amount of seat time on both the 2 valve air-cooled Ducati streetbikes and the 4 valve superbikes. After riding those machines, I cannot help being anything but critical of the H-D engines.

So I take it your answer is no, you've never ridden one?

I have ridden the xb12 that I made mention of above.

I have ridden the xb12 that I made mention of above.

Didn't like it? No fun at all? I rode the Firebolt when it first came out, and had a BLAST with it, really wanted to get one but couldn't see riding any distance on one...bent over and having to have my head all the way back to see what's in front of me. Not big on the "sportbike crouch":grinno:

I've ridden sportbikes, although older ones, a 600F2 and a GSXR-750 come to mind right away, Also loads of fun but just not my style.

So you see, for a rider like me, without the skill or interest in learning to use a sportbike to it's potential, a Buell is just what the doctor ordered in a sport-type bike. I wouldn't even consider buying a GSXR or a CBR, so the fact that I even got curious enough to look and ride and think seriously about purchasing says to me that there are others like me who would find it the perfect bike for their style.

If they had the XB12X when I was looking, their new model the wide seat, upright seating position and taller bars, and the trail riding capability, I probably would have bought it. I'm still debating....

Didn't like it? No fun at all?

It was OK, but not my cup of tea. There are many sport-standards I'd rather own, for sure.

I actually prefer the sportbike positon with clip-ons. The bar-risers and forward pegs makes me feel kinda disconnected.

i've ridden a buell lightning (not sure what year but it was fun as hell) i love that bike. i used to be not so sure about motorcycles, but since my fiance's dad owned one, and sold it to his brother, whom will sell it to me when i get my money together, i am in love with that bike. it has had no reliabilty issues, and when i rode it, it was a bit of a vibrator, but what bike isn't (besides a bmw)
i just hope that no one bashes the bike because they just don't like how it looks or read up on the history. i think this was the best decision ever made in creating a bike like this. for the "i want a machine" meets "i want a crotch rocket" biker.