Unofficial Royal Enfield Community Forum

Royal Enfield Motorcycles => Bullet with the UCE engine => Topic started by: emskee on December 02, 2009, 03:30:13 pm

Title: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: emskee on December 02, 2009, 03:30:13 pm
A buddy of mine passed me (duh) on the freeway going home a week or so ago and snapped this with his cell phone.

Gotta work on my posture......

That's all.

Later,

Mike
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: PhilJ on December 02, 2009, 10:14:52 pm
And your buddy needs to work on his focus!  ::)

With those solo seats correct posture only occurs if your lucky enough to fit the mold.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: Philbomoog on December 03, 2009, 04:38:33 pm
Just curious, but what have you got on you legs?
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: emskee on December 03, 2009, 07:43:10 pm
Philbomoog,

Those would be Kakadu Walk-a-Bout pants

http://www.kakadutrader.com/pantsindex.html

They are water proof (pretty much) (more so than my rain pants) and I've used them to ride at about 30 degrees and they ain't so bad.

They are big (biger than the sizing chart would suggest).  I am 5'8", 33" waist and 32 " inseam and the large I bought is fully cinched at the waist and still a bit loose (this being over my jeans and belt) and they drag on the floor.  So order accordingly.....

But they are great along with the duster I'm also wearing in the pic.

Phil J,

Picture not bad for a cell phone stuck out the window while passing shot.  It's a keeper along with the even more poorly focused photo attached which he snapped after I realized he was there.

Be well,

Mike
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: REpozer on December 04, 2009, 07:30:24 pm
Remind me not to ever post my riding photo. :o
I been told I look like a monkey riding a football (a U.S. football).... not soccer ball.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: cyrusb on December 04, 2009, 09:13:45 pm
I'd try vertical stripes ;D
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: t120rbullet on December 06, 2009, 01:32:52 am
Remind me not to ever post my riding photo. :o
I been told I look like a monkey riding a football (a U.S. football).... not soccer ball.

A guy at work told me I looked like a gorilla on a tricycle when I'm on my Bullet.
Funny how they don't feel small when your riding em.
CJ
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: emskee on December 08, 2009, 05:41:09 pm
A guy from Italy wrote me at my personal email after seeing the photo.


He writes something like "I'm considering buying a bullet.  I saw your picture.  One consideration when buying a motorcycle is the asthetics.  How tall are you?  I'd like to compare your height with mine before I buy."

"asthetics"

(.....ouch.....) 
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: pushrod on December 12, 2009, 07:34:16 pm
Motorcycles have gotten bigger these days and so have many people, I used to thing I was a big guy till I stood next to the new kids at work :)
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: Chasfield on December 12, 2009, 08:15:51 pm
A Bullet is about the size and weight of an old Triumph 500 twin, which was a junior big bike in its day but would definitely seem small and nimble by today's standards.

Royal Enfield apart, they just can't seem to make such a thing these days. They build them from plastic, aluminium and carbon fibre and still end up with 450 pounds of machine, which is Vincent 1000 twin territory.

I started out on a BSA Bantam and I am over six feet tall. I guess I must have looked a bit like a clown on a circus mini bike, but riding around on that wee cycle felt cool and the two stroke pre-mix smelled real nice.

 :)
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: ace.cafe on December 12, 2009, 08:41:33 pm
A Bullet is about the size and weight of an old Triumph 500 twin, which was a junior big bike in its day but would definitely seem small and nimble by today's standards.

Royal Enfield apart, they just can't seem to make such a thing these days. They build them from plastic, aluminium and carbon fibre and still end up with 450 pounds of machine, which is Vincent 1000 twin territory.

I started out on a BSA Bantam and I am over six feet tall. I guess I must have looked a bit like a clown on a circus mini bike, but riding around on that wee cycle felt cool and the two stroke pre-mix smelled real nice.

 :)

Well, I suppose that they have alot more "stuff" on these newer bikes, that makes them heavier.
Like maybe about 8 pounds of coolant, for one thing.
And a water pump, and water hoses, and thermostats, and a radiator, and a cowl for the radiator.
And 4 exhaust pipes instead of 1, and 4 pistons and 4 cylinders and heads, and 4 carbs or throttle bodies, and stuff like that.

So, it all begins to add up.
But with 180hp, I guess they don't worry about it too much.

Our older Iron Bullets weight about as light as the most titanium and alloy and plastic super-duper low-weight crotch rockets out there.
And nearly everything is steel except the engine and tranny castings.
It sort of shows how a simple machine can have advantages.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: holodeck on December 12, 2009, 11:54:33 pm
To me the bike looks fine but ,IMO, the rims and tires are too small. I wish they had the look of the old Bulliet.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: Scott Gilmore on December 13, 2009, 12:48:48 am
Well, I suppose that they have alot more "stuff" on these newer bikes, that makes them heavier.
Like maybe about 8 pounds of coolant, for one thing.
And ....
Of course, while the big four Japanese manufacturers don't really make anything quite like a Royal Enfield, they do make some bikes that are loosely speaking in the same class as far as displacement is concerned (speaking very loosely, mind you); single cylinder water cooled (since you mentioned coolant, etc.) 5-speed street bikes.  So let's see how they compare.

Royal Enfield G5 DeLuxe wet weight: 412 lbs (http://www.enfieldmotorcycles.com/models/deluxe-g5.html#specs)
Suzuki DR-Z400SM curb weight: 321 lbs (http://www.suzukicycles.com/en/Product%20Lines/Cycles/Products/DR-Z400/2009/DRZ400SM.aspx?category=supermoto#specifications)
Kawasaki KLR650 curb weight: 432 lbs (http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/product-specifications.aspx?id=415&scid=14)
And just for giggles, the air cooled Suzuki DR650SE curb weight: 366 lbs (http://www.suzukicycles.com/en/Product%20Lines/Cycles/Products/DR650SE/2009/DR650SE.aspx?category=dualsport#specifications)
And the air cooled Honda XR650L curb weight: 346 lbs (http://powersports.honda.com/2009/xr650l/specifications.aspx)

Specifications are either listed on the pages linked, or available from the linked pages.

What with all the sheet metal (rather than plastic) and steel (rather than aluminum), it isn't surprising that the G5 weighs a bit more than most, but not all, comparable Japanese bikes.  The difference is small though, and I certainly thinks it's worth the few extra pounds.  However, Japanese bikes are a marvel of engineering, and though they can be accused of many things - like being boring and unlovely - they aren't heavy for what they are.

Regards,
Scott Gilmore
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: ace.cafe on December 13, 2009, 01:17:17 am
Yes, the UCE bikes have gained a little weight, compared  to the older models.
My 2000 Bullet listed a curb weight of 360 lbs.

After setting up my bike with solo seat and aftermarket muffler and such, it's probably down around 330 lbs. The stock muffler on these bikes weighs a ton.

I'm not really sure where the extra weight is on the UCE, and I have to assume it's in the power  unit,  because the rest is very similar to the older bikes.
But in any case, it's still a manageable weight, even if a bit porky compared to the older models.

If I were to pick out  the most comparable Japanese competitor, that isn't really a dirt bike with a new name, I'd pick the Suzuki S40 Boulevard 600 single, at a curb weight of 381 pounds. http://www.suzuki-bikes.com/2010-suzuki-boulevard-s40/ (http://www.suzuki-bikes.com/2010-suzuki-boulevard-s40/).
So, the G5 would be about 30 pounds heavier than that, but the old Bullets over 20 pounds lighter.
Times change, things get heavier, it seems.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: Chasfield on December 13, 2009, 04:58:03 pm
You would have thought that the UCE engine would be a bit lighter than the previous bolt-together semi-unit incarnations. For example, less ironmongery to hold stuff together and things like the inner primary chain case being a flaring out of a crankcase half, rather than a separate bolt on assembly, etc, etc.

I wonder if you could get a Bullet under 300 pounds, if you went for plastic fenders and light alloy everything else. In my youth, I had a four valve Honda 250 single that weighed in at  a genuine 300 pounds - a good weight for a motorbike. I would have loved to have that machine in a bored and stroked 400cc version. That would have been a nice, nimble ride. The 250 was ok, but it didn't have enough torque to hold motorway speeds and I spent most of my riding time winding it up in fourth gear, then letting it bog down in fifth. I have to say that it was almost right though, and it gave me 80 to 90 miles per gallon.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: ace.cafe on December 13, 2009, 05:27:34 pm
You would have thought that the UCE engine would be a bit lighter than the previous bolt-together semi-unit incarnations. For example, less ironmongery to hold stuff together and things like the inner primary chain case being a flaring out of a crankcase half, rather than a separate bolt on assembly, etc, etc.

I wonder if you could get a Bullet under 300 pounds, if you went for plastic fenders and light alloy everything else. In my youth, I had a four valve Honda 250 single that weighed in at  a genuine 300 pounds - a good weight for a motorbike. I would have loved to have that machine in a bored and stroked 400cc version. That would have been a nice, nimble ride. The 250 was ok, but it didn't have enough torque to hold motorway speeds and I spent most of my riding time winding it up in fourth gear, then letting it bog down in fifth. I have to say that it was almost right though, and it gave me 80 to 90 miles per gallon.

I'm almost certain that an older Bullet could get down to 300 pounds or less.
It might be pretty bare, but I'd say it could be done.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: Scott Gilmore on December 14, 2009, 02:50:22 am
Yes, the UCE bikes have gained a little weight, compared  to the older models.  My 2000 Bullet listed a curb weight of 360 lbs.....
I don't know the specifications of a 2000 Bullet.  Is that an electric start 5-speed model?  If not on either count then, strictly speaking, is that really a fair comparison to the new UCE model?

The current specs for a 500 Bullet Classic state 370 lbs dry weight.  If we consider the practices of motorcycle manufacturers in general in listing dry weights of models before 2009 (things really changed with this years specs - pressure from the press finally have had a beneficial effect on the veracity of listed weight specs by the OEMs), and take the extra weight of a 5-speed gearbox and electric start into account, we may find the 412 lb wet weight of current UCE bikes is better than we think.

I reiterate that I don't know the specifications for a 2000 Bullet.  If that year/model bike did have a 5 speed gearbox and electric start (and electronic ignition*), then I stand corrected.

*Electronic ignition systems - generally - add a little weight to a bike, all else being equal.  The low and high RPM sending components of the EI stator along with the electronic ignition box itself outweight a points/reluctor system.  The difference is very small though, and well worth it in my opinion.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: ace.cafe on December 14, 2009, 03:39:31 am
No the 2000 models don't have electric starters or 5-speed gearbox.
Not sure that the 5-speed is any lighter, because the 4-speed is not a lightweight.
But definitely the e-start and associated components do add significant weight.
I'll bet that telephone pole of a muffler with the cataclysmic converter in it is a real boat anchor too.
Even the old Bullet OEM muffler like were on my year bike, were absurdly large and heavy

I only compare it to the new model because I have a 2000 Bullet, and so I draw the comparison to that because it's my reference.


Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: Kruiser on December 14, 2009, 01:58:28 pm
Yes, the UCE bikes have gained a little weight, compared  to the older models.
My 2000 Bullet listed a curb weight of 360 lbs.

After setting up my bike with solo seat and aftermarket muffler and such, it's probably down around 330 lbs. The stock muffler on these bikes weighs a ton.

I'm not really sure where the extra weight is on the UCE, and I have to assume it's in the power  unit,  because the rest is very similar to the older bikes.
But in any case, it's still a manageable weight, even if a bit porky compared to the older models.

If I were to pick out  the most comparable Japanese competitor, that isn't really a dirt bike with a new name, I'd pick the Suzuki S40 Boulevard 600 single, at a curb weight of 381 pounds. http://www.suzuki-bikes.com/2010-suzuki-boulevard-s40/ (http://www.suzuki-bikes.com/2010-suzuki-boulevard-s40/).
So, the G5 would be about 30 pounds heavier than that, but the old Bullets over 20 pounds lighter.
Times change, things get heavier, it seems.

R.E.US is saying that despite the advertised weights, the new UCE bikes are lighter than the old models.
Title: Re: For what it's worth, me going home.
Post by: ace.cafe on December 14, 2009, 02:32:47 pm
Maybe it's this "curb weight" vs "dry weight" thing that Scott was talking about earlier.
Perhaps people a few years ago thought that dry weight was curb weight, and used incorrect terms