Royal Enfield to the rescue!
-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Interesting motorcycles, not XS650
- Thread starter Kevin Werner
- Start date
Beautiful bike Willis. Congrats on that one. Must sound great! I love the old school tank emblem.
What a beauty Willis. Bought a 74/74 FL from the metro Toronto police in 1982. Foot clutch tank shift. A time machine for a young guy that grew up on dirt bikes and 350cc Japanese stuff. Toured most of Ab and B.C. on it. Sure miss it. Shovels just perfect lines and size.
Thanks, it is a resto-mod in disguise. The front end and hand/foot controls are off a late 90's Fatboy. I also modified a Twincam rear caliper so it has modern brakes all around. Those old banana calipers always sucked. The front wheel is also an aftermarket 18". It is a subtle change that goes un-noticed. The E-start is giving me fits, but I can still manage to get it kick started pretty well. It took a little time to remember the old routine for the kicker, but once you know its all good.
Buell XBRR Development History / 2006 Daytona 200.
Author Erik Buell, September 2nd 2025.
As I remember, I was contacted by the AMA about their new class they were proposing. They very much wanted us to be in this series and had written a set of rules that their technical advisors felt might make parity between different engine types, much as they had done with 750 4-cylinder vs 1000 2 cylinders. They had decided that an air-cooled 2 valve pushrod twin could be 1300 cc. They also had written in the rules that any amount of welding/reconstruction would be allowed to crankcases and cylinder heads, etc.
I and some of the other engineers at Buell and Harley-Davidson sat down and determined that a large bore short stroke XB could make enough power to compete, although of course the crankshaft weight and inertia would be a problem for turning the bike. H-D/Buell marketing wanted to make a batch to sell to dealers to engage them in racing. To get a large bore in, the camshafts would need to move outboard, which could have been done by welding. But it would have been very messy and fraught with quality issues.
So, I called the AMA and said if we take a batch of crankcases, melt them down and re-cast them with the offset we would have done by cutting and welding we would have more durable motors, and as such would that not be better? There would be no performance difference from the cut and welded versions, just better quality. Of course, from my perspective it also would let me build some prototypes of production street engines with big bore and XB9 stroke to replace the struggling long stroke 1200 motor.
The AMA agreed that it met their ideas for the rules, so we started the project. Steve Anderson was the vehicle lead engineer, and I believe Gary Stippich was the powertrain lead. It was super rushed as the Daytona season opener was not far away! The bodywork was made to get the best possible top speed as we knew long high-speed tracks would be the best opportunity for success, as the heavy crankshaft would be a disadvantage on tight tracks, even with the excellent chassis handling. I personally worked a number of all-nighters in the modelling shop making the bodywork design. I was coated with ground body filler and looking like a ghost in the mornings!
We built several prototypes and went to Texas late fall to test them, as I did not want to run Daytona without knowing the engines could finish. We ran two 200-mile tests without failure. The primary chains were destroyed by the end, but they finished. So, we knew there would be a few parts that would need regular service/replacement, but that is pretty normal on race engines. Most importantly the motors would finish Daytona.
The parts pipeline to get the bikes built in time for Daytona was kicked off. It was an insane scramble.
Unfortunately, Harley-Davidson powertrain engineering leadership decided they wanted to implement several new and different parts in the XBRR motors that they wanted to use in future XL/XB motors, and they also did not like one part we had chosen.
I was very upset and asked that they not change from what we had tested, since there were only 50 being built and they were specifically built for racing, not as production test beds. They said they would be dyno tested, and I said that dyno does not equate to track because the loads put into the motor are different. They blew me off. The parts included the lifters, the ignition and something in the transmission.
Four teams decided to run Daytona as I remember, several from Europe and a couple from the US.
In the Daytona 200 the bikes indeed looked quite competitive, especially Jeremy McWilliams who might have won, but every one of the XBRRs had an engine failure. In every case, these failures where those parts Harley-Davidson had changed after the test.
Harley-Davidson leadership berated us at Buell for this embarrassment. Not one time was there ever any acceptance that it was their own arrogance which caused the DNF's.
By far the highest output per cc air-cooled H-D based engine ever built and should have evolved into a super street XB motor. But was not to be.
NCCR Sweden Buell XBRR page: here
H-D Corporate being assholes, who would have guessed?
Those Buell's made so much power that under extreme deceleration for corners they self destructed. If only they could have incorporated a slipper clutch.
I remember reading about it at the time, 1300+ cc, short stroke engine with the crankshaft side discs cut to look like pork chops to lighten them.
I remember reading about it at the time, 1300+ cc, short stroke engine with the crankshaft side discs cut to look like pork chops to lighten them.
I once owned a Seeley (Honda Britain) Phil Reed Replica CB750, fully faired version. I wish I had it now as the prices have soared £££££££.
I had a elsey 125. delightful bike.
This was an interesting watch. Surprised by a few of the motors mentioned. Even if not 100% true, it’s good intel if you’re searching for a new project. There’s another YouTube vid with a similar title. Edit - a quick review of the video showed a bunch of different engines. Will watch tonight.
I'd take lists of that type with a pinch of salt, they're usually written by some clown with no clue and no experience of the bike world. Worse, some of them are just AI rubbish.
The list starts off with th CX500, ffs. One of the most abused, wrecked, shat upon, rode hard and put away wet bikes of all time. It was a never-die couriers' favourite during the 1980s. That says a lot for it and that clown has it down as a disaster. What a fecking joke.
I didn't bother watching any more, if that's the standard.
In the distant past, I owned two Bonnevilles, a 1968 and a 1972 (amongst some other various Triumphs and BSAs). I'm just curious why you name 1970 as the best year?
For me personally, my favorite was my 72...conical hubs, oil-in-frame, gold with white "wings" and black pinstripes, a lovely bike! Wish I still had it...
And I sold my first XS2 to a friend so I could acquire the 72 Bonnie. After a little over the winter work, riding with him frequently, it was apparent the Triumph was at least the equal of the Yammie.
Admittedly I run in those circles infrequently, but you’re the first I’ve heard shed that kind of love on a 71/72 Bonneville. A close friend of mine restored a ‘72 Tiger. I wasn’t impressed with it, even after riding it after restoration. Another close friend has owned a ‘75 Bonnie which gave me the opinion that it was much improved from the first oil in frame bikes.
Photo taken in 2001. The Bonnevilles are a 2001 and 1975.
Well, that view is based on limited personal experience and biker lore absorbed from that internet.
Guy that sold me the TR6 didn't know what he had. Advertised it as a 1971 bike coz registered May1971. But poking about after I had the bike, found it was a 1970 model and one of the very last of the pre-OIF bikes.
The reasoning goes that the pre-OIF bikes in a shorter, lower frame handled better. The Oil-in-Frame was an Umberslade Hall monstrosity Triumph were forced by the BSA group to adopt - initially, the 650 Triumph engine wouldn't actually fit and there was a halt to production until they brought in teams of welders to remake the frames.
And the OIF frame is blamed for the later short-stroke 750 which aficionados say was horrible compared to the longer-stroke 650. And the same aficionados claim the 2-tls on the older bikes was the best brake Triumph ever fitted and better than the conical hub. No personal experience.
And they changed the gear-selection mechanism inside the box to suit the BSA pattern. My bikes had the incorrect later mechanism but we wos able to convert it back and certainly it had a lovely gear-change.
So of the pre-OIF, the reasoning goes that things just generally got better in fits and starts year by year through Triumph's much vaunted constant improvement programme. Making the 1970 bike the best.
I don't know a great deal about the Meriden Triumphs. I was running Japanese bikes then, though British bikes were still very popular in my peer group.
What I do know is that making the Triumph twin a 750 pretty much ruined a fairly sweet 650.
But by the dawn of the 1970's it was all over for British twins, bar the shouting anyway.
What I do know is that making the Triumph twin a 750 pretty much ruined a fairly sweet 650.
But by the dawn of the 1970's it was all over for British twins, bar the shouting anyway.
Similar threads
