One thing that continues to come through is just how easy these bikes are to ride with confidence – though judging by the number of demo bikes that have been thrown down the road by over eager potential customers, perhaps too easy. Before that becomes the next stick with which people are going to beat Buell, you’ve got to appreciate that tyres can only do as much as their compounds have been designed to do and after that it’s down to gravity to assist in gluing you to the road … well, that and discretion, experience and common sense.

For all its radical engineering, the XB12 represents a welcome return to the engine characteristics that have won the praise of its fans. Outsiders are anticipating high speeds from the bigger lump but while that is inevitably part of the package, roadgoing Buells have never been about absolute speed. Buells are about exhilaration, and about rider skills. With the XB12 they’ve never been better placed to provide the means to hone those skills, but they’ve also never been better positioned to punish those who take the mickey. Don’t get me wrong, the 985cc motors have their place, but it’s not as a replacement for the 1200, and I wonder whether I mourned the passing of the motor more than the chassis when the tube-framed models were withdrawn in 2001.

I got my answer a couple of weeks ago when Patrick Yates from Robin Hood Harley-Davidson dragged a couple of 1200s over the hill from Nottingham: a 2004 XB12S, and a 1998 M2 pre-Thunderstorm Cyclone. With my own ’99 Thunderstorm Cyclone, and a mate with an X1, we resolved to see how the development progressed from an early factory bike through to the latest and greatest of the XL derived Buell motors, and a broad range of views and opinions.

Buell started using XLH1200-based motors in 1988 when the supply of XR1000s was exhausted, but they’ve always been that little bit more than the lump that Harley have fitted to the Sportster. Early models had hand assembled motors, with lightened cranks for easier quick spinning, and bigger valves to benefit from the greater ease with which the engine could suck and blow, with a more efficient squeeze and bang thrown in for good measure. By the time our early Cyclone rolled off the East Troy production line, the motors were pre-assembled to Buell’s specification at Harley’s Milwaukee engine plant, losing some of the quality of the hand-finished attention to detail, but still shaming the XL that was built alongside it.

It was made in the same year that the White Lightning made its debut, equipped with the Thunderstorm motor, which was basically Buell’s new version of an XL with reworked heads and a higher compression ratio – it was also the year when I first rode one, or rather four: a stock Cyclone, a staged Cyclone, a staged S1 Lightning afterwards, and then the White Lightning immediately after that and I’ve not looked back since.

My own Cyclone was made the following year and the differences were considerable: the White Lightning’s Thunderstorm heads were standard across the board, as was a bigger tank, and a bigger, more comfortable seat. There were a few detail changes to the chassis too, notably the box-section swing-arm being replaced by an alloy casting, a different line to the frame member that runs outboard of the frame, and a different exhaust. But for the addition of a rev counter in 2000 it developed no further.

Dave’s X1 is a 2001 model but is not far removed from the 1999 launch model but for a few finishes, and it represents the next stage in the engine’s development: fuel injection. It was the main distinguishing feature of the Lightning’s engine compared to the Cyclone’s, and gave it another one and a half horsepower in stock trim.

And then we have the XB12S. All the technical improvements introduced on the Blast single, and reworked in V-twin form on the XB9, plus a few more tricks. Well, the added torque from the bigger motor, and a trick exhaust that smooths the power delivery by varying the length of the exhaust path according to engine speed.

The chance of a day away from the computer beckoned. Well, you know what they say about all work and no play. Just glad I’m not called Jack … not called Ferris either, but there you go.

Patrick joined us because it would have been cruel to leave him sitting in the van, and because having campaigned a Lightning and his own Cyclone he’s by far the most experienced of us. Mark was given a day away from his design screen to reacquaint himself with a bike that is the antithesis of the sort of bikes he rides, being very much more a radical chop and a forty-five man. Dave chaperoned the X1 that he bought new from Paddy when he was at Big Rock, twelve thousand miles ago, as a replacement for his Speed Triple. And just in case you think it’s all fun and games – and to explain why there are just three bikes in most of the moving pics – I started the day lying down in the back of Dave and Clare’s hatchback, wedging the tailgate open with one foot, taking photographs, and wondering how the law stood on carrying passengers in the boot of a vehicle – and women say we can’t multi-task.

Four bikes, four riders. Lots of common ground, but masses of differences in style, ability, volume and technology. And the bikes were quite diverse too.

Four shit-eating grins to go please.

The Ex-Rocker’s Tale Words: ANDY HORNSBY

I’ve not so much as swung a leg over an early M2 since they were current models. I vividly remember being impressed: more by the White Lightning than the Cyclone although I do recall the odd sensation of the exhaust gas exiting by my left boot as I blipped the throttle on the staged example. Having embraced the later model, I mistakenly assumed that all Cyclones were the softer, comfier models of Buell’s range, but I’d forgotten just now much difference the original tank and seat made.

I fully expected the pre-Thunderstorm motor to be a shadow of its successor in the power stakes, and believing the Stage One on my bike to be well sorted, thought that would serve to increase the gap further, but I was mistaken. The ’98 Cyclone has also been treated to a freer breathing intake and exhaust and any difference due to the Thunderstorm’s head work was lost in its delivery when riding the original, purer form of the same bike. The firmer seat and smaller tank made the bike feel a lot more aggressive to ride. Less compromised, less sophisticated and less flexible but a hell of a way to cover miles. Better looking too from all angles, and positively diminutive in black, it made me wish I’d looked harder for an S1 to add to the pack, just to see how much more aggressive that was by comparison. If its successor wasn’t laying claim to the space in the shed, the little black ’98 Cyclone would perhaps be my ideal second bike.

It’s hard being objective about your own bike, but I’d hope that after three years I’m able to see past the first flush of enthusiasm for it and even possibly be a little tired of it by now, but no. If anything I’m even more hooked than before, because having fitted a pair of Avon Azaros I’ve got sticky rubber in place of the oem tyres that I ran too long, and it makes me smile again every time I take it out. Okay so it’s portly compared to the original, but it gives it a longer range and it makes an excellent machine two-up. In fact it holds joint first position in the comfort stakes as a far as Marie’s concerned, with another bike that would be considered as unlikely: a Kawasaki ZL900. You wouldn’t imagine a bike like this to be competent as a medium haul tourer, but it’s a real eye opener. While struggling to be objective, it is the bike that I’ve got a better handle on than the others, to the extent that I have a wish list for it. The tacho kit would be nice, at the expense of the simplicity of the stock instrumentation, and I’m reliably informed that while my Thunderslide might have released a few ponies, the best thing to do is to stick a Mikuni HSR42 onto it – finally, I’ve still not fitted the US gearing which might have given it the edge over the ’98 model, and encourage me to spin it harder, but I’ve not felt too compromised with the higher gearing, even if I know I’m going to spend the vast majority of my time way below half of the 165mph potential that its Dyno run showed. The scuffed exhaust? Previous owner, I’m delighted to say, and one day I’ll get round to replacing it, or be in the right place at the right time to land on a bargain.

The X1 Lightning is a radical departure from the S1 that went before. It’s got a seat, as much as anything. That’s being a little unfair as there are people out there who don’t have a problem with them, but even they’d be hard pressed not to get saddle envy at the sight of the X1. Apart from the replacement of the ugly airbox with a less ugly filler piece beneath the tank cover, the main difference between the Cyclone and the Lightning – visually – are the upside-down forks. Great trump cards to play in bar-room bragging sessions, upside-downies offer a lower unsprung weight than the conventional teles on the Cyclones, but I’m still impressed by the tracking capabilities of the lesser examples enough to wonder how much better they could be. In reality, I wasn’t really aware of them as I was coming to terms with just how sophisticated the Lightning was compared to the bike that I’d always considered to be the flexible one. It wasn’t that the Lightning was soft, it was just that it was smoother, and the Cyclone was the sit-up-and-beg streetfighter by comparison – reversing the M2 / S1 comparison.

Glitch free injection is increasingly commonplace – and soon an inevitable requirement – but it doesn’t stop people from suggesting that the best tuning trick for an X1 is to stick a carb on it. It’s certainly the easiest trick if you want to tweak it yourself and have half a day and a handful of jets, but most people won’t get massive benefits from the changes, and while tuning injection systems can be expensive, it’s cheaper than buying a carb.

The fuel injection seems to have taken the motor into another dimension. Despite common dimensions, it’s a revvier motor than the Cyclone and feels less comfortable at low revs but that only serves to keep you in the main power area, which comes in at 3k and up – as set up at the ECU – and it is nice to have a tacho there to confirm your gut feeling as to what’s happening beneath you. The lower gearing on the X1 Lightning meant I was running at higher revs in the same gear at any given road speeds than I’m used to, but I was surprised how little difference there was in the speed through the gears.

Even against a trio of other Buells, the pretender to the long stroke Buell crown couldn’t fail to impress. It’s got the power of the old machine in a lighter, tighter chassis, and the exhaust trick really does work. The XB12S was the only bike in this group that wasn’t Staged but it could show a clean pair of heels to any of them, and that is purely down to the broader spread of power. Exhausts are always a compromise. Drag pipes are excellent for high engine speeds, and hard acceleration but are rubbish round town in normal use. Tuned length pipes are great at the engine speeds they are tuned for, but change the speed and you need to change the length – which is what Buell have done with the Interactive Exhaust. It’s not infinitely variable, offering a single alternative, but it’s a start, and an effective one. Long stroke Buells usually pull strongest from 3k, but this was happier for longer from lower down to higher up.

The frame is as per the XB9, which means too small for my gangling frame, and downright scary when descending a hill marked as 25% – or 11.25 degrees – which makes a significant difference on a frame with a 21 degree rake and makes you very, very cautious about overuse of that extraordinary front brake: I’ll leave the stoppies to Craig Jones. For the record, that hill was not the smoothest of surfaces and I was interested, after we stormed up it with reckless abandon, to hear Patrick’s assertion as a rider of sport bikes, that the combination of incline and surface would have caused no end of headaches on modern generation sport bikes.

Realistically we didn’t spend nearly enough time with any of the bikes to form a lasting impression, but certainly enough to realise that while development is ongoing, it is starting from a good base. There is certainly a family resemblance there but just as a couple of contemporary Harleys are more different than they have a right to be, so too are the Buells, and the differences over the five years that cover these models can be summed up in one word: sophistication.

The Circuit Racer’s Tale Words: PATRICK YATES

I started the day on the original injected X1 and it still surprises me just how stable it is for its weight. X1s have never thrown any nasty steering or suspension incidents at me, although a bit of force is needed to help tip it in to the tightest of corners, and they’re still sharp handling bikes to such an extent that I wouldn’t feel the need to alter the suspension or add a steering damper.

The 1203cc engine copes well providing the tacho needle doesn’t fall below 3000rpm and it seems to enjoy it best around 5000rpm, which is where the power is. Drop much below and you’ll often feel the need to change down to get the revs back up. The easiest way to improve the bike is to fit the filter kit, ignition module and free flowing muffler.

In traffic the standard gearing isn’t to everyone’s liking, being so tall, but many owners opt for the US gearing thus shortening 1st gear for round town. Distance isn’t a problem, and I tested this over five days in the South of France.

The riding position feels right for my six foot frame, with the wind at 70+ taking the weight off your arms. Push to over 110 and the need to drop below the small screen is a must on extended runs, but get back into the tight twisties and it’s back into its real role in life. The engine, trellis frame, underslung muffler and rear shock will always make a talking point with any stranger that comes to chat which, to some people, is part of owning a Buell.

Having switched from the X1 to its replacement, it surprised me how quick and well planted the new bike feels. The new 1200 motor pulls cleanly, strongly and responsively all the way through to 5800rpm and being physically smaller and shorter than its earlier cousin, the new Lightning can easily pull an even tighter line: it’s as though you think and point and the bike does the rest. Even with so a short wheelbase there was never a hint of the bike or suspension getting out of line, thanks to the steering and chassis geometry – I know a chap called Keith who rides a standard XB9S in the UK Super Motard race series and finishes in the top three aren’t unusual – which gives you plenty of confidence. Mess up a tight corner and it’s no problem: lean on the inside bar and you’ll find it will tighten your line no problem. The radical front brake is more than adequate and there’s really no need for a dual set up: R1 Yamahas on tight twisties are no contest – the Buell will win!

I found the wind protection is surprisingly good, and the tank range okay but it’s restricted for being in the frame, with the air box being in place of the fuel tank. As a dealer, we’re looking forward to the Buell race kit arriving as, apart from the sound, the extra performance will be welcome as it all goes towards making this Buell a good alternative to the Ducati Monster or Suzuki SV1000s.

Better than the earlier X1? No, I just think it’s another alternative.

I hadn’t ridden a first generation Cyclone since ’98 and it’s even more relaxed than I remember, even though it was considered just as much of a hooligan bike as the S1 in its day. Its easy going nature made riding at law abiding speeds no problem, and I felt no pressure to break them. I didn’t even miss the tachometer. It must be the more relaxed riding position making it a very neutrally steering bike, but push it on and it will cope easily, and it’s a real bonus these days if you can get riding enjoyment at sub-100mph speeds: a real world road bike. Rider comfort on the longer journeys can be a pain but with the smaller tank range it’s not the issue it could’ve been.

The engine feels ever so smooth and free, and with 16,000 miles on the clock shows it has been cared for well, and compared with later models I’m didn’t miss the Thunderstorm heads with their extra power. A lot of people will ignore this model opting for the higher profile S1 or the later M2s but for value for money and looks it’s an option to seriously think about.

Finishing the day on Andy’s M2, it seemed to fit me perfectly and I must admit I tried to hang onto the keys a little longer than I should. The carbureted motor gives good strong torque low down and the ability to pull cleanly from 2500 rpm – which the X1 struggles to – and apart from the Stage One kit, muffler and US gearing, no more modifications are necessary. Again, the bike can be ridden hard or slow and it will adapt easily to either. Ride it harder though, and the limiting factor is the lower position footpegs, which will touch down with ease. The wider seat will help eat up the miles and before you know it it’s onto reserve and a fuel stop is due. Front stopping power is more than impressive, although the Buell rear brakes seem to be vague: could be me not the bikes.

If you’re looking for an all-round daily work horse / tourer / odd track day bike, this is more than capable to take on the role. Maybe I’m a little biased as I own one too but it makes a good alternative to the X1 range.

The Spacehopper’s Tale Words: MARK

The 1998 M2 Cyclone (seen here with black bodywork and frame) is the least compromised bike of the four. There are fewer concessions to rider comfort which give the bike a definitive edge when it comes to purity of design. Of all the bikes it also has the nicest looking frame, that, when viewed side on, has an almost unbroken line that runs from the bottom yoke to the centre of the rear wheel. It also has the smallest tank and the narrowest seat unit, which give the ’98 Cyclone a more elegant profile than later models. In my opinion, the shape of the frame coupled with this particular bike’s smaller, carbon fibre air filter, makes this Buell the nicest bike of the four to look at.

All well and good, and while Buells are attractive to look at for some, the looks are clearly not what these machines are all about. It’s the riding experience that really matters, so what’s it like to ride? Anybody who has ever ridden a Triton, or indeed any café racer of similar ilk, would be straight at home on the ’98 Cyclone. The narrow seat – and its lack of padding – reinforce this feeling, as do the low handlebars and therefore the café racer-esque riding position. The induction roar from the air filter and the boom from the Scorpion exhaust give gratifying acoustics and the footpegs are slightly rearset, which work well.

The ’98 M2 Cyclone is the least powerful bike here, but there’s still 86 bhp to play with (compare that to the 70 bhp that the 2004 Sportster delivers), which makes the bike a bumper pack of fun. The chassis is taut, the handling safe and predictable. With its Showa telescopics up front, and the box section swingarm at the rear, the handling is comparable to, and reminiscent of, a well set up Norton Wideline: a chassis famed for its ability to out-handle just about anything else.

It is nice to note that under normal conditions the ’98 Cyclone doesn’t struggle to keep up with the others, in fact it would take race track conditions for the earlier Cyclone to be seriously shown up by any of the other tube-framed bikes.

The 1998 M2 may well have 10% less power than the 2001 Lightning, but the bike is no sluggard and it is testament to the build quality that the Buell still feels as ‘together’ now as the day it was first built. If anything it feels better for its years, the motor feeling as though it was run in with a great deal of care and then meticulously looked after, resulting in a smooth, free-revving pedigree engine.

1998 saw the introduction of the Thunderstorm engine, instantly recognisable by its black cylinder heads, and Andy’s Reactor Yellow ’99 Cyclone is a good example of the next stage of development for the Buell marque.

So what are the differences with the Thunderstorm? Well, reshaped combustion chambers, bigger valves and reworked ports, all of which mean that power output is up from 86 to 93.5bhp and there’s more torque to boot. Both bikes use the same brakes and front forks, but the ’99 model has a different frame and a cast aluminium swingarm.

The first thing that you notice when you sit on the bike is that compared to the ’98 M2, the ’99 is much more comfortable thanks to more generous foam and a wider seat unit. The wider petrol tank makes the whole package feel more substantial, but for me it’s a trade off in the looks department. The extra power is welcome, but, to be honest not immediately noticeable. When you give the bike a big handful there is more power there, but the difference is – at best – slight.

Both Cyclones are great bikes, both exciting and engaging to ride. Both sound glorious – Andy’s Cyclone benefits from a Yosimura exhaust and the same air filter employed aboard the other Cyclone – and both handle with the same confidence. They are both very similar machines, and when considering which machine is right for you, it may well be worth remembering that the difference between the two Cyclones isn’t that great, and for me the choice between the two M2s seems to be more about looks and rider comfort than the extra few horsepower.

I didn’t ride Dave’s 2001 X1 Lightning, but the lineage from the M2s is clear. The frame is the same basic square shape as the ’99 Cyclone, but with a totally different seat subframe. The bodywork is also totally different, and the 2001 Thunderstorm engine was uprated still further to produce a very healthy 95 bhp. No offence to Dave, but to my eye the Lightning is the most ungainly of the bikes, particularly from the timing side where the sculpting of the airbox does little to disguise its bulk. Mind you, at least it’s not the matt black camping toilet that graced the timing side of the standard Cyclones. The X1 Lightning does look fantastic on the move, and sounds superb through the Vance & Hines pipe – the nicest sounding bike by far – and it clearly doesn’t hang about either ...

Which brings me nicely to Buell’s current offering – the XB12S Lightning. Apart from the fact that it says Buell on the petrol tank and is powered by a Harley-derived monster of a V-twin engine, the XB12S has very little in common with anything that went before it. The most obvious elements in this transformation are the dramatic beam frame and the mega wide wheels, the front one sporting that huge rim-mounted disc.

I’m not quite sure how Buell have made so much bike fit in to such a compact package, but the vital statistics clearly illustrate the difference between the tube and beam-framed bikes: the 1998 M2 Cyclone’s wheelbase is 1410mm, the 2003 XB12S is 1320mm. more than three and a half inches shorter in real money. And you notice it too; the XB feels tiny in comparison to the tube-framed bikes. It feels like a modern 250 and the temptation is to give it a big handful and slip the clutch as you set off for the first time. The resulting launch and blistering acceleration make you treat the bike with a little more respect the next time you set off. It’s relatively easy to power wheelie a XB12S, and that’s not a tip for the throttle-happy hooligans amongst you, it’s just a fact because there is so much power on tap in such a short bike.

Ever seen the bike racing game in an amusement arcade? The one where you sit on a ‘bike’ and lean around the corners? Well, the XB12S is the closest thing to it on the road; it feels as light, and is just as flickable.

The XB12S fools you on many levels: its diminutive size belies its ferocious power output; the styling does little to suggest the absolute sports bike that it is.

After climbing off any of the tube-framed Buells and getting straight on to an XB, you feel as though there isn’t ‘enough’ of it. The steering head is closer to you and a lot lower, the pegs are higher and the short wheelbase all work together to make the bike feel a lot smaller than it actually is. Before you get used to the bike, it feels as though as sharp pull on the incredibly effective front brake will see you flying over the top yoke. Quite how Buell have made a bike with such a steep angle of rake so stable at both low and high speeds is nothing short of engineering genius.

Any criticisms? Well, the front brake isn’t as progressive as I’d like, but it definitely works. The rear brake pedal isn’t easy to operate, but I was wearing chunky boots, so I can forgive it that. The XB12S also looks, well ... weird. To me, the frame – and while I’m at it – the rear mudguard and seat unit, are downright ugly but, like all Buells, the beauty is in the engineering solution, and everything, including the aesthetics, play second fiddle to that.

To be honest, the XB took me a little while to get my head around, not just because of its unusual looks, or its compactness, but because it doesn’t feel like anything else on the road. That’s because there isn’t anything else like it. Imagine shoehorning a balanced 100bhp Harley motor into a RGV250 and then fitting and wheels and brakes off a passing 500GP bike, finishing your creation off with a pair of Renthal handlebars and an aftermarket streetfighter seat unit, and you’re somewhere close. Somehow it all hangs together: it works. And not just well, but incredibly well.

Before you get used to the bike, your mind tells you that the XB shouldn’t perform as well as it does, and it took me a little while to get comfortable with its unusual feel. Riding one, it seems, is all about confidence, and once everything clicks, the XB will deliver just about anything you ask of it. It holds a line in a bend with such a sure footing that even bouncing off the most savage pot hole mid-bend doesn’t upset the bike unduly, it just corrects itself, and allows you to continue at the same speed and angle. It would take a braver rider than me to find the limits of its handling and its power, and I think that would be true for the majority of riders. The XB12S Lightning is a bike that combines state of the art geometry and handling, all the power most of us will ever need, plus all the engine characteristics of a thoroughbred American made V-twin. They say that the best things come in small packages, and for a lot of riders the Buell XB12S Lightning represents just that.

It was fascinating riding the Buells one after another, and a few general points about the marque became clear as I rode each bike. Buells are pure sports bikes with sensible power delivery, which seems an unusual word to use for such exhilarating bikes, but by sensible I mean that the engine delivers usable power from tickover all the way up to the redline. There’s no hanging about waiting for the engine either to come on cam or to hit a power band, and Buell’s theory about low unsprung weight means that the handling is absolutely spot on for European roads, which makes them more of a realistic sports machine than most Japanese offerings, and a good number of Italian ones too. Plus, perhaps because the engine is Harley-derived, Buells are happy to cruise as well. It’s absolutely fine to roll along on a whisper of throttle and proceed at a pace that would be boring and uncomfortable on many a modern sports machine, and, of course, it’s perfectly okay to crack open the throttle, take off like a scalded cat and sweep through a series of S-bends quicker than you imagined possible. It’s this flexibility that makes a Buell, any Buell, such an appealing bike – a revelation for a growing number of Harley-Davidson riders and sports bike fanatics alike.

The Ginger Monkey’s Tail Words: DAVE

I arrived late, turning the corner to see the other Buells, all clean and shiny. I’d thought about doing the same to mine but that was as far as it went, as usual, although I did manage to clean off the dogshit that I’d stepped in on the way there. Typical!

But enough of that: this was an opportunity to ride the new XB12S and to see how I felt it compared to my own 2001 X1 Lightning – leaving the technical stuff to the experts as I don’t have a clue.
First look. It’s bright red, and in my eyes – blinkered as they may be – a bike should be black: that’s how I like them. Nice gold wheels though.

Everyone must have heard or read the press banter of "it’s like a 250cc" etc. Well, guess what? It is. Its predecessor is THERE: you can see it, feel it and you know that you are on it. The dash is big, the tank is big and there are big bits of plastic either side. There, no denying it, it feels BIG. The XB12S on the other hand feels, and is, incredibly small and light. I had a definite feeling of being perched on top watching the road go under the front wheel, rather than sitting in the bike, as on the X1.

Off down the road we go. I won’t bore you with where we went or what we did, apart from saying that the XB12S cut out on me halfway down a straight road, giving chase to Patrick, at just slightly over the national speed limit, and while it didn’t happen again, it did colour my impression of the bike. That aside, there wasn’t the excitement in the ride compared to the X1. The X1 thumps along, especially with a Vance and Hines can, at a steady pace until you want it to do something else. Open the throttle and your head snaps back, brake into corners and fly out again: it’s a very forgiving bike, and I believe I should know, having ‘Steve McQueened’ mine over a ditch off a wet, diesel-drenched roundabout: the bike suffered minor damage while I came off worse.

I just didn’t get that excitement from the XB12S. It’s all there: the great brakes, great engine etc, but to me it lacks presence. At the end of the day you can give a bike new this, new that, a revolutionary something else, but it still doesn’t guarantee that it will have the "IT" factor. Undoubtedly, everyone’s "IT" is different but, as I said, this is my opinion.

My X1 is, has and does everything I want in a bike. It goes fast when I want it to, it flies round corners and it turns heads ’cos it’s loud, black and purple. Mechanically it has never let me down, touch wood, despite what most bike mags say. The only problem has been with the drive belt snapping on my way to the 10,000 mile service, but that was down to picking up a sharp stone and my not seeing it.

Giving up the XB12S, I slung my leg over a bike I feel is almost on a par with the X1, the M2 Cyclone. At first glance the two bikes look remarkably similar, although this M2 is Buell’s subtle yellow in colour, it’s slightly taller and the airbox has been replaced. Sit on the M2, and your backside feels the difference immediately due to the wide seat and the slightly lower pegs. The riding position seems far more upright.

On the road, the M2’s first three gears gave more than enough power around the roads and lanes of Cheshire. On the X1, I had the rear pulley changed to US spec and I find gear-changing needs to be more frequent, but power-wise, I found the two to be about equal.

One difference I found was that steering felt far lighter on the M2, especially at slower speeds. Why? I have absolutely no idea. Like I said earlier, I ride them and leave the technical bits to those that know.

What I do know is that the M2 comes pretty damn close to the X1 – although yellow’s not my colour either – and at the end of the day, it was an opportunity for me to ride something new and most of all to fully appreciate that, for me, my X1 Lightning is second to none, just!