Talk:Buell 1125R

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2007[edit]

We need a new motorcycle page, for the Can-Am motorcycle. I put in a link to Can-Am and discovered that it goes to the CanAm auto racing series. I do remember that group 7 racing, great cars. Regardless, a new page for Can-Am motorcycles is required. Probably the Bombardier snowmobiles are named Can-Am again; there is a new three wheeled motorcycle coming out this year from Can-Am.
Jdlyall 04:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wet weight[edit]

I believe the wet weight measurement listed on Wikipedia & elsewhere for the 1125R as 456 lbs is wrong. Please observe my calculations below.

On a standard day 20W-50 weighs 7.34 lbs/gallon and gasoline 6.103 lbs/gallon[1].

The 1125R is listed as having a dry weight of: 375 lb (170 kg) (dry)[2].
The 1125R uses 0.8 gallons of 50/50 Water & Ethylene glycol as engine coolant according to the owner's manual.
Water weighs 8.3454 pounds per gallon[3] & Ethylene glycol weighs 9.29 pounds per gallon[4][5], so 1 gallon of the 50/50 mixture weighs 8.8178 lbs.

1125R

  • Bike (dry) = 375 lbs
  • Oil: 3 quarts (0.75 gallons) = 7.34 * 0.75 = 5.5050 lbs
  • Gas: 5.3 gallons = 6.103 * 5.3 = 32.3459 lbs
  • Coolant: 0.8 gallons = 7.0542 lbs

Total wet weight = 419.9051 lbs (420 lbs)
PaulMEdwards (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wet weight figure was added without source by an anonymous editor with this change [23]. I'm not surprised if it's wrong. We should just remove what's listed here until a source can be found. — Brianhe (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in my 2008 Buell 1125R owner's manual and it lists the Weight (wet) as 455 lbs / 206 kg. Not sure where I went wrong with my calculations above, but I'm no mathematician... I'll update the main article to reflect this. Dry weight is accurate per the manufacturer's website[6] - PaulMEdwards (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the manufacturers are rather shamelessly optimistic in their claimed specs. The 1125R is listed in the Motorcycle Consumer News Performance Index, so I cited that instead. See also WP:MC-MOS; third party stats are preferred for controversial stats like power, weight, fuel economy, etc.

Sport Rider says it's even heavier, 474 lbs wet, 440 dry. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the battery. 69.7.116.143 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.vansairforce.com/community/archive/index.php?t-30718.html
  2. ^ Buell 1125R
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol
  5. ^ http://google.com/search?q=1.1132+grams+per+cubic+centimeter+in+pounds+per+gallon
  6. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20100209004918/http://www.buell.com/en_us/bikes/sport/1125R/specifications.asp

Top Speed[edit]

I corrected an error with the reported top speed. The 1125r has a top speed in sixth gear of 172 mph. It is readily verifiable all over the web and can be verified mathematically given the max rpm, primary ratio, transmission ratios, final drive ratio's and tire size. It previously stated 158 mph which is the top speed of the 1125CR. The CR has a lower final drive ratio. It is not the same motorcycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.116.143 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 August 2014‎

http://badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/290431/290556.html

Blogs and web forums are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. You need to find an an independent, reliable published source. -- Brianhe (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'd add that the cited source, the MCN Performance Index, does say they tested an 1125R, not CR, in their 8/08 issue. You can't calculate top speed based on gear ratios alone. Besides the inaccuracy of the nominal tire size, which changes with wear, heat, and centrifugal force, you're not accounting for rolling resistance and most important of all, air resistance. You could make anything go 1000 mph on the moon. "Top speed in gear" is not the same thing as "Top speed". And on-board stock speedometer readings are totally unreliable; you need a speed trap, radar gun or GPS. And posts on forums are self-published. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry for the confusion. I see your point. If MCN is a valid source you should view the following page where they say the top speed is 170mph:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/mcn/bikereviews/searchresults/bike-reviews/buell/1125r/

They don't give a source for their specifications so perhaps they were manufacturer provided? Is the top speed still valid if it's a manufacturer specification, or does it have to be radar verified by a magazine editor? If the MCN page you quote is a valid set of numbers than why isn't this page also considering it comes from the same source? If the 158 came from a test they ran, how do we know under what conditions it was tested, for what distance, was the bike allowed to wind completely out or did they run out of track? Was it done on the highway during rush hour? I also have my doubts about their site as a source since they say the 1125cr will run a 11.28 quarter mile which is not even close to reality. In the real world, the CR is significantly faster than the R in a quarter mile drag and with a good rider will place in the 9 second range. You don't have to believe me on that either, but common sense alone would dictate that the same bike with a little less weight in the faring and shorter final gearing will accelerate faster.

Dennis, I don't think those numbers are valid in any way since they are performed at their facility using their equipment. The information is only valid as a relative comparison, and that is only if they were truly consistent in their methodology. Since they admit that the data was taken on different days, it really isn't even valid for comparison since, by their own admission, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, winds, and track condition all change from day to day. From a scientific perspective, no result is valid until it's repeated and peer reviewed. They don't say testing technique for top speed other than they use a radar gun. They don't even specify that the bike is running, how much space it's had to accelerate, or if it's on the back of a semi. All we know is that the speeds are taken with "Stalker radar". Their data has absolutely no validity since we have no idea of the methodology used to collect it. It wasn't even generated by scientists. On the other hand, if the top speed on the page i sited was provided to them by the manufacturer than it most likely came from their engineering department. Engineers use consistent, repeatable techniques and calculations. 69.7.116.143 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCN can mean Motorcycle Consumer News, a US no-advertising magazine, and a UK bike magazine, Motor Cycle News. The source I cited was Motorcycle Consumer News. They do independent tests with their own speed traps and radar guns. They test under industry standard conditions, and they use standard correction factors for altitude and temperature, the same as everybody else is supposed do. I verified in my copy of the print magazine that they bike was an 1125R; they make no mention of an 1125CR. In general numbers Motorcycle Consumer News reports are consistently lower (in speed) or greater (in time or weight) than commercial oriented publications like Cycle World, and Motorcycle Consumer News is generally considered less biased. A citation from the Motorcycle News UK magazine would be also acceptable; we can report that they disagree with Motorcycle Consumer News. But the stuff they put up on the web, like this page is a combination of their magazine tests along with reader-submitted data added online. The actual print Motor Cycle News is different than that specs page. It's not totally reliable because you can't tell what bits are from the magazine and which ones come from readers.

I'll look for other publications that ran tests of the 1125R. What's the point here anyway? What's so terrible about saying Motorcycle Consumer News clocked it at 158? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I just added the stats from the June 2008 Cycle World. They're slightly better, but not significantly so, than Motorcycle Consumer News. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1125CR[edit]

Isn't it appropriate to either have a CR page, or a mention on the R page as a variant of the 1125R?69.7.116.143 (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think adding the CR to this page is the best thing. Just add a subsection and a second infobox with the stats. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buell 1125R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buell 1125R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for answers[edit]

Not a web forum

My buell 1125r seems like it is puting out alot of engine heat but not because of not having any water but motor heat an i had someone tell me that the 1125r has a tendency to catch on fire because of the heat issue melting the wires around the motor does anyone know if that has happend an does anyone who has a 1125r puts out exsesive heat while riding it like mine does. Ken 1125r (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buell_1125R&oldid=1200424526"