I suppose they figured they hadn't given the isolator enough tolerance in the S2, and thereafter, notched the headstock tube to give more clearance?

_________________
2006 XB12Ss..... 1998 S1W..... 1996 S2T
We do not need the help of our friends so much as confidence that they will help us when we need it. –Epicurus

There we go then, convex side upwards, manual and parts books have the wrong diagrams.

Thanks Maz...

_________________
08 Specialized Langster

You dont seem convinced Pash ?........tell you what, why dont you fit the washer upside down on one of your bikes......I'd wager that it will virtually contact the headstock.

In fact, I'm fitting a billet front mount today.......I'll try it

_________________
Mithered ta death.
92 MB
96 S2T
98 S1W
00 M2
01 X1
03 P3
10 CR

My S1 has been running like that for 18 months and 5000 miles. If there are any problems, they will have shown up by now. This is not to say it will have failed, but more to say there will be witness marks on the headstock. I will check.

I take in what you say, and even if I may think the convex facing down is the right way through design, it is evident that:

1. the factory fitted them with the convex side facing up
2. the newer mount has a top hat

My feeling is that the original intent was to have the convex side facing down, however due to some "issues" found, they flipped it...

An expensive convex washer used, where that kind of design is not needed is a waste of cash. I think it is a lagacy issue...

_________________
08 Specialized Langster

And our findings are?

I was mucking around fitting tanks to my S1 last night but I didn't think to check as I hadn't read this thread but looking at the pictures I think it was fitted as per the second picture

_________________
Buell S1
Buell S3 (Topless for now)
Buell XB12S
Piaggio X8 400ie
Yamaha XTZ750 Super Tenere (x2)
Suzuki GSXR750WR
BSA B441VS
FJR1300

Cant for the life of me get my head around Pash's thinking on this

The rear suspension on a tuber is desperately trying to drag the front isolator out of the frame.The design of the rubber NEEDS the flat of the stubber to limit deflection in order to preserve the longevity of the isolator and allow the rear shock to do its thing with minimum impact on chassis geometry.

The idea that machining a convex washer costs more and as such was done for a reason, is irrelevant as its a H-D parts bin item that Buell 'borrowed'.

_________________
Mithered ta death.
92 MB
96 S2T
98 S1W
00 M2
01 X1
03 P3
10 CR

I agree with you Maz...

I'll flip it over and we can be friends again...

_________________
08 Specialized Langster

We'll always be mates Pash........thought we were having a discussion re. the design of tuber front isolators and why you think the stubber should be fitted convex down

Even though you are patently incorrect in your thinking, I'm still interested in your opinion

_________________
Mithered ta death.
92 MB
96 S2T
98 S1W
00 M2
01 X1
03 P3
10 CR

_________________
08 Specialized Langster

I fitted a new iso when I replaced my broken motor mount last fall, now I have to check what I've done. I know I followed directions, but which ones .

Worse off than before, ignorance really is bliss.

_________________
Every Curve Has A Highside, So I've Got That Going For Me

Bad Decisions Make Good Stories

I think its all about appearance. Picture 1 just doesn't look right.

_________________
In a purple fug

Just for reference mine is fitted as per picture 2.

_________________
In a purple fug

They're ALL as pic 2.......unless some numpty has assembled it incorrectly !

_________________
Mithered ta death.
92 MB
96 S2T
98 S1W
00 M2
01 X1
03 P3
10 CR

_________________
08 Specialized Langster

Would it be a problem to fit the engine without the front isolator?

As in: rigid mount it to the frame as per old HD's?

I am rebuilding an X1 but I really don't see why I would rubber mount my engine...

Would like to hear your opinions!