Motorcycle Chassis Design Digest #731-740
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, August 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 731
1. "Griffiths, Duncan" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
2. Dick Brewster Subj: MC-Chassis Material selection, was Hard Anodize
3. "Thacker, Heath HW" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
4. "Matthew O'Conner" Subj: MC-Chassis Are there any Germans on this list?
5. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis 2 WHEEL DRIVE / V8.
6. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hard Anodize
7. "Thacker, Heath HW" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
8. Tomas Tallkvist Subj: MC-Chassis alu rims
9. anders.harmala@WARTSILA.FI Subj: MC-Chassis New subscriber
10. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis 2 WHEEL DRIVE / V8.
11. Julian Bond Subj: MC-Chassis Romanelli & Ducati FFE
12. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Measuring lean angle etc.
13. mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com (Mike Dean) Subj: MC-Chassis Hydraulically tilting three wheelers..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:55 -0800
From: "Griffiths, Duncan"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
The Rathwell designed suspension linkage is called the SRS link and sold
by Fox. The progression curve is the main difference. I don't know if
it also alters rear ride height, but different side links might handle
this. In the past I have seen adjustable side links, basically at pair
of RH/LH thread spherical rod end bearings like a gearshift shaft, which
would allow you to dial it in to exactly what you need.
Duncan
====================
About the Rathwell links for the '88-'89 GSX-R750: apparently, the rear
suspension in stock form was *way* too progressive (read: initially very
soft, then instantly rock-hard), and hard to come off corners well with.
D Hixon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:32:22 -0700
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: MC-Chassis Material selection, was Hard Anodize
Clvin wrote:
<< ....
The wheel bearing distance piece, bearings and associated
spacers
are all in line for this same load. I would venture that barrel
distortion of the long spacer between the bearings would be the
week
link in compression. This is in the stiffness category (Young's
Modulus) Surface hardness should not have much effect on this
deformation. Although pre stressed skins could be investigated.
>>
Prestressed skin will have no effect on stiffness as long as you
are dealing with a material that as being used where its
stress/strain relationship is linear.
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:13:00 +1000
From: "Thacker, Heath HW"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
> From: D Hixon[SMTP:fshixon@muskie.lerc.nasa.gov]
>
> About the Rathwell links for the '88-'89 GSX-R750: apparently, the
> rear
> suspension in stock form was *way* too progressive (read: initially
> very
> soft, then instantly rock-hard), and hard to come off corners well
> with.
>
Thanks for the information. I'll be looking for some of those links.
With the stock shock, it was very much like this, the WP shock has
helped, but not as much as I was expecting. Sounds like these links
will do the trick.
> A 7-11 GSX-R would be a *really* fun race bike -- I've been
> half-considering
> tuning one down for the 102 hp class (try to get 102 hp *everywhere*
> in the
> rev range).
>
Sounds like a good idea. My brother is out of the country right now, I
wonder if he would notice his 1100 engine has shrunked to a 750 whilst
he was away. :-)
> BTW: the 750 front forks are also very good out of the box.
> Apparently
> Race Tech doesn't even sell a Gold Valve for them; they're good as
> they
> are.
>
Thanks again,
Heath.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Matthew O'Conner"
Subject: MC-Chassis Are there any Germans on this list?
If so, I am looking for info. on marriage in Germany (as I may be doing
that soon).
Please reply off list if you can help.
matt
sohc4 #14
omrra #82
wmrra #282
Matthew D. O'Conner, Attorney at Law
matt@seattleu.edu - Seattle, WA
_____________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:25:05 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis 2 WHEEL DRIVE / V8.
For all those interested in my 2X2X2 DRYVTECH 'Experimental' I
have some news. It has been 'aquired' by the Donington Collection.
This is a predominately a F1 car collection ( they don't like the word
museum ) situated at the Donington Grand Prix circuit in England.
OK - most of the listers are US based - but you are more likely to
travel to the UK than Oz . A mockup of the 750-V8 motor ( only )
will also be part of the display.
On the V8 front - the present development is on the fuel injection
system which features similar rotary throttle bodies as with F1 cars.
( And Morbidelli / Norton too ) 8 FCR Kiehen carbs are just too
hard to open - even with lighter springs and a few other mods.
BTW - these will be for sale a little way down the track - I'll post
a note then.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 19:00:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hard Anodize
- -> "good" material to it's greatest advantage. Steels' strength
- -> advantage over aluminum allows smaller sections to achieve the same
I have an older engineering book called "Weight-Strength Analysis of
Aircraft Structures." It is, as the title implies, oriented toward
least-weight solutions to common engineering problems. I have found it
quite useful over the years. It was published by Dover Books, which
tends to keep stuff in inventory practically forever; it wouldn't
surprise me if you could still get a copy.
==dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:05:15 +1000
From: "Thacker, Heath HW"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
Thanks for the info Duncan,
I'll contact Fox for a price.
Heath.
> ----------
> From: Griffiths, Duncan[SMTP:duncan.griffiths@horiba.com]
> Reply To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 August 1998 7:55
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tyre Loading & Lean angle Clearance.
>
> The Rathwell designed suspension linkage is called the SRS link and
> sold
> by Fox. The progression curve is the main difference. I don't know
> if
> it also alters rear ride height, but different side links might handle
>
> this. In the past I have seen adjustable side links, basically at
> pair
> of RH/LH thread spherical rod end bearings like a gearshift shaft,
> which
> would allow you to dial it in to exactly what you need.
> Duncan
> ====================
> About the Rathwell links for the '88-'89 GSX-R750: apparently, the
> rear
> suspension in stock form was *way* too progressive (read: initially
> very
> soft, then instantly rock-hard), and hard to come off corners well
> with.
> D Hixon
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:22:09 +0300
From: Tomas Tallkvist
Subject: MC-Chassis alu rims
Can anyone give me a advice who make and/or sell the lightest spoke wheel
rims on the market !
Thanks
Tomas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:35:47 +0200
From: anders.harmala@WARTSILA.FI
Subject: MC-Chassis New subscriber
Hello!
My name is Anders Harmala. I am living at the west coast of Finland, near
Vasa town. I am a classic racer competing in the Scandinavian Classic Racing
Cup. I am racing a Honda CB 350 -72.
Most of the time I am having problems with engine reliability. I know the
cure - but I am still trying to keep my racing on a budget.
I am one of three members in Norrshine Classic Racing Team, Finland. The
others are: Tomas Tallkvist - BSA GS Seeley and Erik "Ecca" Andersson -
Ducati or Honda?
Even if I am no lightweight myself lightweight machinery has always
fascinated me.
One of my goals for the future would also be to build a chassis that works
for my Honda.
I am looking forward to many interesting mails!
Best Regards
Anders Harmala
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis 2 WHEEL DRIVE / V8.
WAY TO GO IAN !
mitch
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Ian Drysdale wrote:
> For all those interested in my 2X2X2 DRYVTECH 'Experimental' I
> have some news. It has been 'aquired' by the Donington Collection.
> This is a predominately a F1 car collection ( they don't like the word
> museum ) situated at the Donington Grand Prix circuit
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:50:35 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: MC-Chassis Romanelli & Ducati FFE
In article <199808120248.TAA03878@mail2.sirius.com>, Michael Moore
writes
>I'm not sure I see any big improvements overall, but it was
>interesting to see the design.
Well, well, so FFE are starting to appear again. With apologies to list
members that have successfully built these, but... A while ago I had a
good rant about FFEs and specifically that nobody had yet produced a
version that performed better overall than the current state of the art
in teles. It seems to me that virtually every design so far has one or
more major problems that make them significantly worse.
As an engineer I'm as appalled by the motorised bicycles we currently
ride as the rest of you, but if we don't improve function with our
designs what's the point of all the effort.
I really hope Ducati try this and that they make a better effort of it
than Bimota did. They are probably the only major manufacturer with the
will, ability and desire to make it work. You can be sure that whatever
they come up with will have to prove itself in racing at least.
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Dispose Thoughtfully <
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:55:48 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Measuring lean angle etc.
In article <199808131011.MAA11533@mx1.global.co.za>, Stewart Roger
Milton writes
>At the following site there's an interesting bike designed and used by
>Keith Code for teaching leaning to extreme angles and sliding the rear
>tyre.
I looked at this thing and started to see a possible mechanism for
controlling a fully enclosed M/C. With a small hydraulic pump and some
electric valves, you could build a totally enclosed M/C that couldn't
low side or high side and stayed upright at stationary without putting
feet down.
I wonder how narrow the outriggers could be made and still work?
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Dispose Thoughtfully <
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:00:55 -0400
From: mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com (Mike Dean)
Subject: MC-Chassis Hydraulically tilting three wheelers..
>I looked at this thing and started to see a possible mechanism for
>controlling a fully enclosed M/C. With a small hydraulic pump and some
>electric valves, you could build a totally enclosed M/C that couldn't
>low side or high side and stayed upright at stationary without putting
>feet down.
>Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
DeLurking briefly...
Hey! I kind of had this idea a while back when we first started talking
about three wheelers, but didn't get time to really develop the idea in my
head, and as such had little to offer up..I keep very busy with work.. I
really enjoy reading the list though.
But here are my thoughts on a tilting, enclosed three wheeler with hydraulic
shocks and electric valves.
ok, basic premise is as Julian stated, you control the flow rate of the
cylinders with valves, and direct pressure where you want it. (julian, if I
am misappropriating your comments, I apologize)
You build the vehicle with automotive, flat rear tires, and with a
motorcycle front tire, that steers with hub steering, maybe a fron
suspension like romanelli's, or maybe something adapted from the GS1000.
My focus is on the riding aspect..
I tossed around aircraft yokes, joysticks (cool!) and standard motorcycle
controls...
Let's talk about the joystick.. I like this idea.
At a stop, the vehicle is powered upright hydraulicly. As you pull out of
parking places, you drive it like a regular Wing type trike, push the stick
right, it turns the wheel right, squeeze the trigger on the back of the
stick for throttle, drive forward, and center for straight.
Similar for pullling out of the parking lot. But, after a certain MPH is
reached (say 15?), the hydraulics that keep the vehicle upright release, as
they are not needed. Now, if you push joystick to the right, the vehicle
will actually turn left, due to countersteering. And the vehicle will lean
into the corner..
But wait! On the joystick we have a large thumb operated rocker switch.
While arcing through a left hand corner, we can push on the left side of the
rocker to engage the hydraulics, which push the vehicle body down to the
left... Talk about throwing it into a corner!
regardless of whether you pushed it down with the hydrualics, valves
restrict the flow of the fluid such that your speed of returning to upright
is restricted...
And, with the rear wheels out there, you could push it until the rear wheels
slide, but you won't high side when they catch, because the hydraulics hold
you in the leaned over position..
Now, I can't say that I would trade my HawkGT, or my F2 for this item, but
the Goldwing in the garage might not be as much fun as this machine,
especially if there was room for a passenger behind me (dual controls?) and
enough storage for an overnight bag and a laptop..
Now the action of the joystick could be alot of different ways, and other
controls might work better, but the vehicle idea would be the same, no
matter how you manipulated the controls..
Yeah, much of this idea comes from listers ideas, if I am infringing, don't
worry, I haven't time to build it anyway. I would however buy one..
Hope you guys don't think I am nuts, better get back to work...
Mike Dean
mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #731
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Thursday, August 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 732
1. mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com (Mike Dean) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hydraulically tilting three wheelers..
2. Mitch Casto Subj: MC-Chassis Enclosed Feet Forwards not falling down
3. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hydraulically tilting three wheelers..front suspension
4. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Romanelli & Ducati FFE
5. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis ducati supermono exhaust
6. "Stewart Roger Milton" Subj: MC-Chassis Outriggers and FFE's
7. Mitch Casto Subj: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
8. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Romanelli & Ducati FFE
9. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed Feet Forwards not falling down
10. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Measuring lean angle etc.
11. Mitch Casto Subj: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
12. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Outriggers and FFE's
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:04:04 -0400
From: mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com (Mike Dean)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hydraulically tilting three wheelers..
>suspension like romanelli's, or maybe something adapted from the GS1000.
Yamaha GTS 1000. Not GS1000..
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 15:14:19 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: MC-Chassis Enclosed Feet Forwards not falling down
Julian,
Doesn't the ecomobile have such a device?
http://polysoft-consulting.com/ecomobile/intro_english.htm
mitch
Julian Bond wrote:
> In article <199808131011.MAA11533@mx1.global.co.za>, Stewart Roger
> Milton writes
> >At the following site there's an interesting bike designed and used by
> >Keith Code for teaching leaning to extreme angles and sliding the rear
> >tyre.
>
> I looked at this thing and started to see a possible mechanism for
> controlling a fully enclosed M/C. With a small hydraulic pump and some
> electric valves, you could build a totally enclosed M/C that couldn't
> low side or high side and stayed upright at stationary without putting
> feet down.
>
> I wonder how narrow the outriggers could be made and still work?
>
> --
> Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
> CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
> >8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> > Dispose Thoughtfully <
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:01:43 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hydraulically tilting three wheelers..front suspension
Pretty nice site about Yamaha GTS 1000 at:
http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~neelin/motorcycle/gts1.html
mitch
Mike Dean wrote:
> >suspension like romanelli's, or maybe something adapted from the GS1000.
> Yamaha GTS 1000. Not GS1000..
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:43:27 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Romanelli & Ducati FFE
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Julian Bond wrote:
>In article <199808120248.TAA03878@mail2.sirius.com>, Michael Moore
> writes
>>I'm not sure I see any big improvements overall, but it was
>>interesting to see the design.
>
>Well, well, so FFE are starting to appear again. With apologies to list
>members that have successfully built these, but... A while ago I had a
>good rant about FFEs and specifically that nobody had yet produced a
>version that performed better overall than the current state of the art
>in teles. It seems to me that virtually every design so far has one or
>more major problems that make them significantly worse.
Alan Cathart seemed fairly enthused about the Britten and Hyperpro bikes
when he rode the for bike mags.
Yousuf
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:06:38 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis ducati supermono exhaust
As I understand exhaust tuning, the shockwave created by the exhaust
leaving the pipe travels back to the exhaust valve and if it arrives at
the right time it would assist in exhaust flow. What effect would the
splitting of the pipe right at the end like the supermono have? (for a
look at what I mean:
http://www.micapeak.com/DPG/ducati/supermono/mono.jpg)
Or what effect does larger or smaller mufflers have?
Yousuf
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:48:56 +0200
From: "Stewart Roger Milton"
Subject: MC-Chassis Outriggers and FFE's
On the subject of FFE's, Julian wrote:
>A while ago I had a good rant about FFEs and specifically that nobody had
yet >produced a version that performed better overall than the current state
of the art
>in teles.
This is probably true, but it's not a problem with the concept. The current
telescopic fork, like the internal combustion engine or the Porsche 911, is
not as good as it is because of the inherent concept but because of the
amount of development which has been put into it.
Compare Bimota's Tesi or one of Tony's front ends with a set of teles from a
1950's Triumph and you'll be comparing the concepts at the same era in their
development. Take the Bimota or Foale front end, and build five or six
hundred different designs a few million times over the next 50 years and you
can compare that with the set of Teles from today's Superbikes.
>It seems to me that virtually every design so far has one or
>more major problems that make them significantly worse.
>As an engineer I'm as appalled by the motorised bicycles we currently
>ride as the rest of you, but if we don't improve function with our
>designs what's the point of all the effort.
Development! If no-one ever builds another one because the first ones didn't
work as well as the current teles, they'll never get any better.
>I really hope Ducati try this and that they make a better effort of it
>than Bimota did. They are probably the only major manufacturer with the
>will, ability and desire to make it work. You can be sure that whatever
>they come up with will have to prove itself in racing at least.
If Ducati put their FFE into SBK racing it will probably cost them their
winning ways for a season or two ( and give them an excuse for not beating
the new Japanese Twins!). However if it's done with commitment and a huge
budget we might get some working FFE's for the next generation of Sport
Bikes.
In conclusion the FFE, like the FF motorcycle, requires a huge investment in
design, development and production to make it a viable product. Until
someone is prepared to put in the time and cash we'll be left with homebuilt
and small business attempts which, as good as they may be in concept can
never hope to meet the quality and price of a top quality production item
with 50 years of development behind it. Ducati's attempt is laudable, I hope
they have the determination and funds to make it work.
Regards,
Stewart Milton
SRM Engineering cc
srmilton@global.co.za or
srm@technologist.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:00:00 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
Stewart,
I like this thinking very much. One of the most appealing things about
motorcycles in general is the rapid innovation and variety. Almost everyone here
on this list sneers at Harley-Davidson for their outmoded designs. But, aren't
we all sinners? The harley contingent says that the design as of 1950 (I'm not
sure exactly where to peg the year) was all that was ever needed. Is the rest of
the motorcycle community doing the same thing except cutting the year of a
couple of decades later?
More specifically on your discussion of alternative front suspension, your point
about the huge amount of development given to telescopic forks is important. To
ignore the advantages of such millions of hours of work would be forgetting
something outrageously important in the comparisons. Please do not limit this
idea to suspension- it can apply to any aspect of motorcycle design.
I would like to add that other sorts of vehicles should be looked over for ideas
that can apply and possibly improve motorcycles. At some point suspension is
suspension no matter what sort of vehicle it is on. Would you by a car with
telescopic forks? I guess not. Why- do you have reasons or are you just
following convention ?
I've always followed motorcycle technology because it has traditionally been
considerably more advanced than automobiles, especially American ones. However,
it seems that in many ways motorcycles have been falling behind despite the
advantages of little safety or pollution regulations, short life, and pretty
much used only as good weather pleasure vehicles. There are a lot of sharp
engineers on this list who don't have to have to problem of being just following
the crowd because they can't think for themselves and who know what it takes to
develop an idea and know that a few good tries by mostly a few individuals is
not a fair comparison with long-term industry-wide efforts.
On his site, Ian Drysdale says that he feels that the japanese dominated
motorcycle industry has reached a plateau. I hope that he isn't the only one
that thinks that way.
mitch
Stewart Roger Milton wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Compare Bimota's Tesi or one of Tony's front ends with a set of teles from a
> 1950's Triumph and you'll be comparing the concepts at the same era in their
> development. Take the Bimota or Foale front end, and build five or six
> hundred different designs a few million times over the next 50 years and you
> can compare that with the set of Teles from today's Superbikes.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:53:44 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Romanelli & Ducati FFE
In article <199808192042.NAA29332@m5.sprynet.com>, yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
writes
>Alan Cathart seemed fairly enthused about the Britten and Hyperpro bikes
>when he rode the for bike mags.
Ah, But Sir Alan (for it is he) has been riding, racing and testing FFE
bikes for years and he rarely criticises them. (would you if Bimota
*gave* you a Tesi to race?). Having said that he probably has more
experience riding FFEs than anyone else, so it would be interesting to
hear what he really thinks.
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Dispose Thoughtfully <
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:58:48 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed Feet Forwards not falling down
In article <35DB240B.78861224@wvit.wvnet.edu>, Mitch Casto
writes
>Doesn't the ecomobile have such a device?
No, they are outriggers that are fixed in one of two positions, fully up
or fully down.
The race school device allows the outriggers to move and the machine to
bank, but you can limit or block the hydraulic flow with a button on the
handlebar to stop the bike from changing attitude. The idea is that you
bank into a corner, hit the button, and the bike won't change it's lean
angle. At the exit, you release the button and the bike can change it's
lean again. During the corner, it's as though the machine becomes a
temporary 4 wheeler that can't fall over. In theory, this means you can
radically slide the bike without fear of falling off.
I just wonder if this sort of device has some applicability for the
street.
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Dispose Thoughtfully <
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:12:11 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Measuring lean angle etc.
Julian Bond wrote:
>
>
> I looked at this thing and started to see a possible mechanism for
> controlling a fully enclosed M/C. With a small hydraulic pump and some
> electric valves, you could build a totally enclosed M/C that couldn't
> low side or high side and stayed upright at stationary without putting
> feet down.
>
I think it's called a 'car'...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:03:28 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
Now, Now Marty, that's not really fair. What julian is looking for is
smaller and narrower than a car (more nimble). It also has a smaller frontal
area, and less weight that sets off a cascade of weight reducing benefits
(such as one only has the weight of two wheels and one doesn't have to have
the extra chassis to hold two more wheels). Also, only half the tire
friction- I could go on and on.
Julian, I like what you are trying to do, but I'd be afraid that the
outriggers would snag, get hung on something and cause an accident. That's
why I think the QT, Maxmatic, etc. three wheelers are a good compromise.
With an enclosed two wheeler, maybe a flywheel on a gimble- but that one
seems like an awful lot of problems to solve and so more like a science
fiction idea than something realizable.
mitch.
ps
I don't remember what the site was, but one site showed the ecomobile in
video self-righting itself on a parking lot- while in motion at least.
Marty Maclean wrote:
> Julian Bond wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I looked at this thing and started to see a possible mechanism for
> > controlling a fully enclosed M/C. With a small hydraulic pump and some
> > electric valves, you could build a totally enclosed M/C that couldn't
> > low side or high side and stayed upright at stationary without putting
> > feet down.
> >
>
> I think it's called a 'car'...
>
> Marty
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:08:58
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Outriggers and FFE's
At 10:48 AM 8/20/98 +0200, you wrote:
>>A while ago I had a good rant about FFEs and specifically that nobody had
>yet >produced a version that performed better overall than the current state
>of the art
>>in teles.
My second FFE won second place at it's first race and that was only because
I had to put fires out twice while leading (and it wasn't the FE burning
either). Observers and test riders all said it was much better handling and
it was definitely faster too; possibly that is because it is more
rigid/controlled than a fork and you get better feedback and response.
The problem in most FFE seems to me to be that with all those pivots one
needs take extreme care in design and construction to get the thing rigid
enough at the bearings. I paid a lot of attention to that and it pays off
in practice.
Take the Bimota or Foale front end, and build five or six
>hundred different designs a few million times over the next 50 years and you
>can compare that with the set of Teles from today's Superbikes.
Not necessary, all you need to do is make them well-hung. Bimota may have
been a success if they had merely given the bike a frame.
>>It seems to me that virtually every design so far has one or
>>more major problems that make them significantly worse.
I would like to see some of those discussed if no-one minds.
>In conclusion the FFE, like the FF motorcycle, requires a huge investment in
>design, development and production to make it a viable product.
It's much simpler than a fork all in all and should be easier to come up
right with. Worked for me and the development time in No 2 was only three
months.
>and small business attempts which, as good as they may be in concept can
>never hope to meet the quality and price of a top quality production item
The home-builder is much more apt to do it right than the bean-counters.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #732
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Thursday, August 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 733
1. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
2. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
3. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
4. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
5. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
6. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
7. "Stewart Roger Milton" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
8. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
9. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
10. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
11. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:02:57
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
At 09:00 AM 8/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>suspension no matter what sort of vehicle it is on. Would you by a car with
>telescopic forks? I guess not.
Can you say "McPherson Strut"?? That's about what they are.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:53:58 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
Hoyt,
I don't know much about the pro's and cons of suspension types, but I gather
that struts are the the lowest cost compromise for suspension on modern cars and
so not the finest for handling.. Can you elaborate?
Does this have any meaning for motorcycle suspension?
mitch
batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
> At 09:00 AM 8/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >suspension no matter what sort of vehicle it is on. Would you by a car with
> >telescopic forks? I guess not.
>
> Can you say "McPherson Strut"?? That's about what they are.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Hoyt
>
> Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
> Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
> Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
> =>May you live in interesting times <=
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:58:05 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
Mitch Casto wrote:
>
> Now, Now Marty, that's not really fair.
> > >
> >
> > I think it's called a 'car'...
> >
> > Marty
Next time, I'll write "(joking)" after my smart-assedness, OK?
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:38:27 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
Marty Maclean wrote:
> Next time, I'll write "(joking)" after my smart-assedness, OK?
> Marty
Weren't all the great thinkers smart-asses? I bet Shakespeare could
really pour it on. In fact I think he did. What about Leonardo?
mitch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:38:38 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
Really, we should take a look at the Mc Phearson system. This would
be "Chapman Strut" if applied to the rear end.
The benefits if this design are many
First we need to note that the strut systems take out all lateral and
fwd -aft loading by pivoted Links or A arms. Not cantilevered
"forks". The strut itself replaces the King Pin or as I sometimes
call it , the "Vertical upright". This is the wheel spindle carrier.
Torque and camber loads are taken in bending on the strut itself.
Combining duties often includes the damping and springing elements,
but this is not a requirement.
The geometry of struts allows a horizontal roll axis, and camber
change on a one to one basis with chassis tilt. Best cornering power
would require the wheel NOT tip with the chassis. This is almost
possible with Double A arms.
The book "Design of the Racing Sportscar" has a useful description of
strut geometry and text on the application in Lotus autos.
FFE Applications on motorcycle that have a telescopic upper element
would be derived from these principles.
I would be most interested in discussions regarding KNOWN weaknesses
in non tele front ends, as I am taken by the work of Foale.
Fior/Hossack and Britten.
My present belief is that we are accustomed to the "feel" of
tele's, and so have a hard time accepting alternatives. In
competitive efforts, I wonder if the compression of the front end on
corner braking is not a benefit to overall corner speeds. In the
ideal world, we would like to make a smooth transfer of braking loads
to cornering loads with no "bobbing". If a smooth Rider can do it
with tele's, perhaps there is no need for alternate geometry, except
for weight and mass considerations.
Tire flex and resonant flex of tele's can erode cornering power. The
stiff connection and straight load paths offered by hub center
designs may then put all the guilt on the tire. Small changes in air
pressure often have significant effect on this. Has anyone heard if
chatter under conditions of high load and high grip is really reduced
with alternate designs? We should all get to ride a Britten or
Bimota for a day on our favorite roads! When the trend for some is
to revert to smaller diameter fork tubes( tuned flex?) Are tele's
already providing the stiffness required?
If high quality dampers are applied to the front end (tele lever)
this would be a good thing. Has anyone an archive that may include
J. Whittners efforts in this . This feature was part of a Guzzi
Special I was involved in during the early 80"s , but not enough
riding was done to make appraisal and I did not ride it at all before
the setup was destroyed by crash.
Enough in this post, and I really should not have entered a double
subject.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Mitch Casto
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 11:53 AM
>
> Hoyt,
>
> I don't know much about the pro's and cons of suspension types, but
I gather
> that struts are the the lowest cost compromise for suspension on
modern cars and
> so not the finest for handling.. Can you elaborate?
> Does this have any meaning for motorcycle suspension?
> mitch
>
> batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
>
> > At 09:00 AM 8/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
> > >suspension no matter what sort of vehicle it is on. Would you by
a car with
> > >telescopic forks? I guess not.
> >
> > Can you say "McPherson Strut"?? That's about what they are.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Hoyt
> >
> > Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
> > Best MC Repair-
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
> > Camping/Caving-
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
> > =>May you live in interesting times <=
> >
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:48:27 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
Mitch Casto wrote:
>
> Marty Maclean wrote:
>
> > Next time, I'll write "(joking)" after my smart-assedness, OK?
> > Marty
>
> Weren't all the great thinkers smart-asses? I bet Shakespeare could
> really pour it on. In fact I think he did. What about Leonardo?
>
> mitch
Thanks for the comparison - but I don't think you'd find me lurking in
the same high-rent gutter as Bill & Leo. Then again...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:03:49 +0200
From: "Stewart Roger Milton"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
Hoyt said:
>My second FFE won second place at it's first race ...
>Observers and test riders all said it was much better handling and
>it was definitely faster too; possibly that is because it is more
>rigid/controlled than a fork and you get better feedback and response.
>
Yes, but I think you missed my point. The point is not that it will take 50
years to catch up, but that the tele fork is now very well developed and the
technically superior designs are still in their infancy. If you've built one
better than teles, that's great, but it says at least as much for the
superiority of the design as it does for your development capability. I'm
sure having built and raced number two there are already things you would do
differently on the next version. Given fifty or so such iterations you may
be approaching FFE perfection, and be so far ahead of the current state of
the art teles it won't be funny.
>The home-builder is much more apt to do it right than the bean-counters.
>
Agreed, but no matter how much money you put into building your own tele
forks it's unlikely that you'd surpass production items by Ohlins or even
Showa et al. Their production items have a lot of development behind them,
and they can build stuff down to a production price better than the
homebuilder could build as a one off for ten times that much.
Hoyt, out of interest, do you have any web published pictures of your FFE's?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:46:59 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Whilst teles may be stiff enough, or too stiff, when submitted to
breaking or cornering forces the bending motions will bind the
suspending action. There is no reason that FFE couldn't build in
flexibility if that is what is needed. Mr Cathart commented after
riding the Hyperpro back to back with a standard TRX that the level of
feedback was so great he could feel it if he ran over a dollar bill.
When the home builder is constructing a FFE (or anything) I assume you
aim for plenty strong, instead of just strong enough, so you may lose
some cornering speed, but chances are most people aren't going fast
enough so flexi-forks provide much of an advantage. Plus you can make
up time under braking and if you are not in that final percentage of
traction the stiffer suspension may allow you to ride around bumps.
To surmise my rambling: regardless of rigidity FFE will almost always
give better suspension action and you can have Ohlins suspension in the
front for less than several thousand dollars.
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:04:15 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Yousef
Are you sure the units bind? Is increased damping (friction)
undesired? I am thinking in regards to the "best executions" not the
worst. It is true, that for a period of time in the 80's,
compression damping was increased during breaking by suitable
mechanical and hydraulic circuits. These systems are not seen now.
Can you offer comments from those who have tried both?
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 1:46 PM
>
> Whilst teles may be stiff enough, or too stiff, when submitted to
> breaking or cornering forces the bending motions will bind the
> suspending action. There is no reason that FFE couldn't build in
> flexibility if that is what is needed. Mr Cathart commented after
> riding the Hyperpro back to back with a standard TRX that the level
of
> feedback was so great he could feel it if he ran over a dollar
bill.
> When the home builder is constructing a FFE (or anything) I assume
you
> aim for plenty strong, instead of just strong enough, so you may
lose
> some cornering speed, but chances are most people aren't going fast
> enough so flexi-forks provide much of an advantage. Plus you can
make
> up time under braking and if you are not in that final percentage
of
> traction the stiffer suspension may allow you to ride around bumps.
> To surmise my rambling: regardless of rigidity FFE will almost
always
> give better suspension action and you can have Ohlins suspension in
the
> front for less than several thousand dollars.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Yousuf
> WMMRA 935
> FZR 400/600
>
> "It's not my fault" - Han Solo
> "It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
> ______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:22:48 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
>
> To surmise my rambling: regardless of rigidity FFE will almost always
> give better suspension action and you can have Ohlins suspension in the
> front for less than several thousand dollars.
>
When..?
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:36:49 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Two sites with analysis:
http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~neelin/motorcycle/gts1.html
This site has various press comments on the 1000 gts Yamaha with a hub
center front end
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm
This is Tony Foale's analysis
mitch
Calvin Grandy wrote:
> Yousef
> Are you sure the units bind? Is increased damping (friction)
> undesired? I am thinking in regards to the "best executions" not the
> worst. It is true, that for a period of time in the 80's,
> compression damping was increased during breaking by suitable
> mechanical and hydraulic circuits. These systems are not seen now.
> Can you offer comments from those who have tried both?
>
> Regards
>
> Calvin Grandy
>
> ----------
> > From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
> > To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> > Subject: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> > Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 1:46 PM
> >
> > Whilst teles may be stiff enough, or too stiff, when submitted to
> > breaking or cornering forces the bending motions will bind the
> > suspending action. There is no reason that FFE couldn't build in
> > flexibility if that is what is needed. Mr Cathart commented after
> > riding the Hyperpro back to back with a standard TRX that the level
> of
> > feedback was so great he could feel it if he ran over a dollar
> bill.
> > When the home builder is constructing a FFE (or anything) I assume
> you
> > aim for plenty strong, instead of just strong enough, so you may
> lose
> > some cornering speed, but chances are most people aren't going fast
>
> > enough so flexi-forks provide much of an advantage. Plus you can
> make
> > up time under braking and if you are not in that final percentage
> of
> > traction the stiffer suspension may allow you to ride around bumps.
> > To surmise my rambling: regardless of rigidity FFE will almost
> always
> > give better suspension action and you can have Ohlins suspension in
> the
> > front for less than several thousand dollars.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Yousuf
> > WMMRA 935
> > FZR 400/600
> >
> > "It's not my fault" - Han Solo
> > "It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
> > ______________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #733
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, August 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 734
1. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
2. JBAKER1@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
3. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
5. "Tony Foale" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #733
6. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
7. cmgfam@sover.net (Calvin Grandy) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
8. cmgfam@sover.net (Calvin Grandy) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #733
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
10. GD Subj: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
11. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:04:23 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
In article <35DC3AC0.B6DBCC6D@wvit.wvnet.edu>, Mitch Casto
writes
>I don't remember what the site was, but one site showed the ecomobile in
>video self-righting itself on a parking lot- while in motion at least.
There's one Eco owner who's party trick is to ride round a parking lot
until the outriggers touch down, come to a stop and then ride off and
steer into the corner to right the machine again.
The big difference compared with a car is that such a device would still
lean into corners.
I take the point about pot holes. I wonder how big the outrigger wheels
would need to be to be safe and how much sprining would be needed.
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> pH Balanced <
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:57:19 EDT
From: JBAKER1@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Enclosed two wheeler instead of 4 wheeler and outrigger idea.
In a message dated 8/20/98 4:12:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
julian_bond@voidstar.com writes:
<< I take the point about pot holes. I wonder how big the outrigger wheels
would need to be to be safe and how much sprining would be needed.
>>
I think the trick is how much compliance the outriggers would have, this would
somehow want to be fed back into the control loop for the hydraulics. Its all
possible, it just depends on how much time and effort one wants to put into
it. On my unit I will just have cushioning springs on the outriggers. Perhaps
the next generation will have a more interesting control mechanism. This
really is the key to building a good enclosed feet forward machine and
deserves a good discussion.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:22:04 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, "Calvin Grandy" wrote:
>Yousef
>Are you sure the units bind? Is increased damping (friction)
>undesired? I am thinking in regards to the "best executions" not the
>worst. It is true, that for a period of time in the 80's,
>compression damping was increased during breaking by suitable
>mechanical and hydraulic circuits. These systems are not seen now.
>Can you offer comments from those who have tried both?
>
>Regards
>
>Calvin Grandy
>
Well, no I'm not certain that it binds, But since they are bending I am
assuming (yes, yes, possibly making an ass out of me) that the pressure
on the bushings will bind. All yer anti dive with the FFE usually come
from geometry. I'm thinking that even if binding caused usefull results
the same results would be better achieved through other means. Hmmm...
Well I'm not very clear, but I hope you get my drift.
BTW when I said you could have cheep Ohlins front suspension, I was
referring to the fact that Ohlins forks are several thousand dollars,
where as a ohlins shock is only a few hundred.
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:21:19 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
I'd rather try to control suspension through adjustable damping than
variable friction from binding suspension units.
I think the Wittner fork being referred to was a telescopic that had
a standard damper connected between the upper fork crown and a fork
brace at the top of the sliders. GCB Ceriani sold a unit like that,
Sandy Kosman designed and may have tried a similar unit for drag use
in the 1960s, and I've seen other bikes from the 60s or earlier that
had the same arrangement. The fork tubes don't contain any damping
mechanisms, and will suffer from friction under bending loads just
like a regular set of teles.
If having the forks bend back/dive is such a wonderful thing
(reducing rake/trail/wheelbase) then you might as well just design a
front suspension that does that for you all the time. Tony has
demonstrated that rakes in the vicinity of zero degrees are
rideable. My friend Craig built a set of roadrace LL forks that
maintained constant trail, but with the trail figure set to the
minimum that would be seen in the compressed tele fork. They worked
just fine, and were a noticeable improvement (greater stiffness, less
unsprung weight, more sophisticated damping) over the teleforks of
the mid 80s which were in use at the time.
One of the last Elf 500 GP (Elf 3) bikes had essentially a
MacPherson strut front end.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:51:54 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #733
>>Can you say "McPherson Strut"?? That's about what they are.
I think that BMW's telelever is closer to McPherson strut than normal teles.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:09:32 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
When you get down to it, many of the FFE are basically a sort of car
suspension/steering, so it isn't like they are really new concepts.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:42:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: cmgfam@sover.net (Calvin Grandy)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
>I'd rather try to control suspension through adjustable damping than
>variable friction from binding suspension units.
Yes,. Minimal "stiction" and load induced friction would provide the most
consistant performance both in the corners and over the bumps. New
suspension units are remarkably friction free and robust. At last years
race at Loudon, I saw a technicial twirl the fork tube in the slider and it
must have continued it rotation for 3/4 of a revolution. (off the bike)
>
>I think the Wittner fork being referred to was a telescopic that had
>a standard damper connected between the upper fork crown and a fork
>brace at the top of the sliders. GCB Ceriani sold a unit like that,
>Sandy Kosman designed and may have tried a similar unit for drag use
>in the 1960s, and I've seen other bikes from the 60s or earlier that
>had the same arrangement. The fork tubes don't contain any damping
>mechanisms, and will suffer from friction under bending loads just
>like a regular set of teles.
>
Yes, that is the set up , and the one that was built, but not developed, in
my own experience. We even used carbon fiber for the "fork Brace". This was
in '83 The design would benefit from greater overlap of the sliders, as does
the tele lever system.
>If having the forks bend back/dive is such a wonderful thing
>(reducing rake/trail/wheelbase) then you might as well just design a
>front suspension that does that for you all the time. Tony has
>demonstrated that rakes in the vicinity of zero degrees are
>rideable.
Yes rideable, and with different feel than "normal configurations" but what
may be superior? My own riding habits like the feeling of turn-in after the
chassis is snugged down in it's springs by application of brakes. Anti-dive
geometry would alter this feel, as well as the rake/trail numbers. Not
everyone runs the mechanical anti-dive linkages, so some must accept this as
OK, if not "good".
Issue 69 Jan/ feb 1998 of Classic Racer features an interview with Vernon
Glashier who rode a Hossack Honda, open singles. He has since changed to a
Seely G50 but says only that the Hossack Chassis was "tired" I should like
to talk with him about the ride.
My friend Craig built a set of roadrace LL forks that
>maintained constant trail, but with the trail figure set to the
>minimum that would be seen in the compressed tele fork. They worked
>just fine, and were a noticeable improvement (greater stiffness, less
>unsprung weight, more sophisticated damping) over the teleforks of
>the mid 80s which were in use at the time.
I think it very easy to improve on the systems used in the 80's. I would
like to compare to contemporary units. Classic racing may not consider the
complete rework of the front end not in the spirit of the class. Do you
have any comments on the attitudes on this regard in your area? I have
access to the Guzzi and have thought to go racing. The front end is a bit
of a question.
The Betor forks I selected for a Champion Framed Yam in 1972 were quite
good in the damping qualities when compared with the Japanese units at that
time. But I think larger tube diameters and "Gold Valve" damper technology
may do much better.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: cmgfam@sover.net (Calvin Grandy)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #733
>>>Can you say "McPherson Strut"?? That's about what they are.
>
>I think that BMW's telelever is closer to McPherson strut than normal teles.
>
>Tony Foale
>
>España ( Spain )
>http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
>
Agreed
Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 20:57:53 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> My friend Craig built a set of roadrace LL forks that
> >maintained constant trail, but with the trail figure set to the
> >minimum that would be seen in the compressed tele fork. They worked
> >just fine, and were a noticeable improvement (greater stiffness, less
> >unsprung weight, more sophisticated damping) over the teleforks of
> >the mid 80s which were in use at the time.
>
> I think it very easy to improve on the systems used in the 80's. I would
> like to compare to contemporary units. Classic racing may not consider the
> complete rework of the front end not in the spirit of the class. Do you
> have any comments on the attitudes on this regard in your area? I have
> access to the Guzzi and have thought to go racing. The front end is a bit
> of a question.
Hello Calvin,
When Craig built the forks he used Hagon/Gas Girling dampers. These
gave better quality damping than the typical damper rod fork. The
2.5" stanchion tubes, 2x1.5" tubular links with3/4" pivots with
tapered roller bearings and 25mm axle made for a lightweight and very
stiff unit. The triple clamps were welded to the stanchion tubes,
which also helps. If you have to have a steering head I think there
is quite a bit, even today, to recommend the short-LL fork.
I don't think there would be any problem in AHRMA with running a LL
fork on GP/Formula bikes. It would be the work of moments to put
together a handful of photos of Carcano/Sprayson/Foale/et al versions
to justify their use.
> The Betor forks I selected for a Champion Framed Yam in 1972
> were quite good in the damping qualities when compared with the
> Japanese units at that time. But I think larger tube diameters and
> "Gold Valve" damper technology may do much better.
The easy way to go on your Guzzi would be a set of 38mm Ceriani or
Marzocchi forks. I've modified the 38mm Cerianis on my Laverda race
bike for Race Tech Cartridge Emulators.
Craig has put Emulators in a number of vintage forks with excellent
results. He says that now that his TL250 trials bike has them you
can run the front wheel into a 6-10" step and it's like it isn't even
there - he was quite impressed.
You can see pictures of Craigs LL forks and the modified damper rods
and adapters from my Laverda on the web site.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:51:04 -0700
From: GD
Subject: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
I would like to hear from anyone
who has worked on any of the shocks
that the valving can be changed on.
I am interested in doing some work
on the shocks of a dirt tracker and
think that it would relate to road
racing. I would like to hear your
thoughts.
GD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:15:13 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement.
I have admired Craig's work by way of the LL front end posted at your
site.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Michael Moore
> When Craig built the forks he used Hagon/Gas Girling dampers.
. If you have to have a steering head I think there
> is quite a bit, even today, to recommend the short-LL fork.
>
> I don't think there would be any problem in AHRMA with running a LL
> fork on GP/Formula bikes. It would be the work of moments to put
> together a handful of photos of Carcano/Sprayson/Foale/et al
versions
> to justify their use.
>
>
> The easy way to go on your Guzzi would be a set of 38mm Ceriani or
> Marzocchi forks. I've modified the 38mm Cerianis on my Laverda
race
> bike for Race Tech Cartridge Emulators.
>
> Craig has put Emulators in a number of vintage forks with excellent
> results. He says that now that his TL250 trials bike has them you
> can run the front wheel into a 6-10" step and it's like it isn't
even
> there - he was quite impressed.
>
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #734
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, August 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 735
1. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
2. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
4. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
5. RWa11@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
6. Dick Brewster Subj: MC-Chassis McPherson Strut
7. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
8. GD Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
9. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
10. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
11. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:36:03
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Convention killing possible Invention
At 11:53 AM 8/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hoyt,
>
>I don't know much about the pro's and cons of suspension types, but I gather
>that struts are the the lowest cost compromise for suspension on modern
cars and
>so not the finest for handling.. Can you elaborate?
>Does this have any meaning for motorcycle suspension?
The struts are simply the same as one side of an MC fork. They guide the
alignment of the wheel in castor and camber and the axis of steering
rotates on them. They are of course not the same as a fork in that the
lower ends are guided by a lateral link and that also serves to locate the
spindle fore and aft, but this itself does resemble a Beemer's tele-lever.
My comment was as to their being essentially the same device in terms of
damping and springing. They are low-cost and a pretty good compromise for
extra links and separate damper/springs, but they do have most of the
problems that a fork does and that doesn't seem to prevent people from
utilizing them.
best wishes,
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:53:29
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
At 07:03 PM 8/20/98 +0200, you wrote:
>Hoyt said:
>Yes, but I think you missed my point. The point is not that it will take 50
>years to catch up, but that the tele fork is now very well developed and the
>technically superior designs are still in their infancy.
Not quite I think. The superior part of any fork is in the hydraulics; the
mechanical parts are pretty simple. But in fact there is still a
fundamental flaw and that is that they're overhung. FFEs have less of that
or none to speak of and they still have access to the same hydraulic
technology too. And as in forks, the rest is simple mechanics.
and in fact the fun If you've built one
>better than teles, that's great, but it says at least as much for the
>superiority of the design as it does for your development capability.
Anyone paying attention to the details as I did can have a winner too;
those problems are trivial ones once you get past the fundamental thing
about the overhang.
I'm
>sure having built and raced number two there are already things you would do
>differently on the next version.
No, it's light-years ahead on the fundamental point alone.
>Given fifty or so such iterations you may
>be approaching FFE perfection, and be so far ahead of the current state of
>the art teles it won't be funny.
No need. Try one, you'll like it. The reason we don't have scads of them in
production already is that the bean-counters won't let them shine: too much
precision involved in them. That's also why standard bikes have ordinary
tolerances in the forks too.
>
>Hoyt, out of interest, do you have any web published pictures of your FFE's?
You can see it on M Moore's site. Think he still has it listed under my
first name Ollie.
Best regards.
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 07:10:59
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
At 10:42 PM 8/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
> Anti-dive
>geometry would alter this feel, as well as the rake/trail numbers. Not
>everyone runs the mechanical anti-dive linkages, so some must accept this as
>OK, if not "good".
I've run Petty-style anti-dive link on an RM (bt of course I made it
instead of buying) and natch I have anti dive on my FFEs. In both cases the
bike has better braking and better feel during braking. The braking action
is more immediate, with no waiting for the dive to be completed before the
braking begins. You also have an easier time braking in bumps. Think this
would work better in standard forks with a bit less spring rate.
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 07:14:43
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
At 09:51 PM 8/20/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I would like to hear your
>thoughts.
I've worked on and changed damping on those to which this can be done and
also to a group of those to which this cannot be done (proving nothing is
impossible, I guess, even if you have to saw to get in there and braze back
together). So, what of my thoughts were you interested in?
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:29:50 EDT
From: RWa11@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
In a message dated 98-08-21 10:01:57 EDT, you write:
<< The reason we don't have scads of them in
production already is that the bean-counters won't let them shine: too much
precision involved in them. That's also why standard bikes have ordinary
tolerances in the forks too. >>
Hello Hoyt,
Wouldn't the close tolerances required for a succesful FFE, imply this type of
front end may more suseptable to wear? I don't know how long ago you started
using your front end, do you have enough miles/hours on it to get an idea of
the wear rate?
Rex Wallace
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 07:56:48 -0700
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: MC-Chassis McPherson Strut
Tony wrote:
<< I think that BMW's telelever is closer to McPherson strut than
normal teles.
Tony Foale >>
If you are speaking only of the basic kinematics of the different
suspension systems, then telelever appears to be the same as a
McPherson strut, both are a basic slider-crank mechanism while a
tele is a completely different animal.
IIRC, if you get into the details, a true McPherson strut uses
the anti-roll bar as the lower suspension link, but this really
doesn't have much to do with the geometry of the "strut".
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:42:17 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
>The braking action
>is more immediate, with no waiting for the dive to be completed before the
>braking begins. You also have an easier time braking in bumps. Think this
>would work better in standard forks with a bit less spring rate.
>
>Hoyt
Keith Code (I think) was discussing braking and he explained that at the point
at which you stop braking and begin the turn, your suspension should be about
as compressed from braking as it will be from cornering forces. With a larger
percent of anti-dive than standard teles, would there be a increased time
where the suspension "settled" into the corner.
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:46:55 -0700
From: GD
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
I was hoping to get some info on the piston and spring pack. I want to
come up with something that I can work on to change the dampening. I fell that
this is one of the areas that I can find a performance increase.
GD
batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
> At 09:51 PM 8/20/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >I would like to hear your
> >thoughts.
>
> I've worked on and changed damping on those to which this can be done and
> also to a group of those to which this cannot be done (proving nothing is
> impossible, I guess, even if you have to saw to get in there and braze back
> together). So, what of my thoughts were you interested in?
>
> Hoyt
>
> Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
> Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
> Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
> =>May you live in interesting times <=
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:09:17 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Hoyt I have experienced two stages of breaking action. That which
occurs before weight transfer loads the front tire, and that which
occurs after tire loading. The first moments of braking action are
not as linear as the those that come later. Your work seems to have
focused on the dirt side, (low friction). Can you comment on the
feed back through this weight transfer and braking power as pertains
to pavement applications? (I love it when the front tire howls, and
the rear brake goes non-op)
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: batwings@i-plus.net
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 3:10 AM
>
> At 10:42 PM 8/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
> > Anti-dive
> >geometry would alter this feel, as well as the rake/trail numbers.
Not
> >everyone runs the mechanical anti-dive linkages, so some must
accept this as
> >OK, if not "good".
>
> I've run Petty-style anti-dive link on an RM (bt of course I made
it
> instead of buying) and natch I have anti dive on my FFEs. In both
cases the
> bike has better braking and better feel during braking. The braking
action
> is more immediate, with no waiting for the dive to be completed
before the
> braking begins. You also have an easier time braking in bumps.
Think this
> would work better in standard forks with a bit less spring rate.
>
> Hoyt
>
>
>
> Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
> Best MC Repair-
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
> Camping/Caving-
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
> =>May you live in interesting times <=
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:15:38 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
I am planing to produce spring washer type pistons for the Mar-zook
forks on my Morini, so am listening too. I am sure that buying "gold
valves" would be easier, but so? (I may buy anyway)
I plan to buy a selection of washers and start stacking. I was
hoping for some comments from someone who knows comparable
applications, before I installed the first set.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: GD
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 12:51 AM
>
> I would like to hear from anyone
> who has worked on any of the shocks
> that the valving can be changed on.
> I am interested in doing some work
> on the shocks of a dirt tracker and
> think that it would relate to road
> racing. I would like to hear your
> thoughts.
>
> GD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:24:37 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Mitch
Thank you for these references. I have reread each and cannot find a
rigorous analysis of conventional or alternative systems. Rather
just comparative comments (Though highly respected) at Tony's site,
and manufacture's press speal at the gts site.
Have I missed something?
regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Mitch Casto
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 3:36 PM
>
> Two sites with analysis:
>
> http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~neelin/motorcycle/gts1.html
> This site has various press comments on the 1000 gts Yamaha with a
hub
> center front end
>
> http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm
> This is Tony Foale's analysis
>
> mitch
>
>
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #735
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, August 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 736
1. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
2. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
3. Mitch Casto Subj: MC-Chassis suspension/ steering patents
4. Hnry@aol.com Subj: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
5. Bill Heckel Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment - book still not here
6. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
7. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
8. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis suspension/ steering patents
9. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
10. "Frank Camillieri" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment - book still not here
11. "Frank Camillieri" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
12. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:09:11 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Calvin, I'm sorry but that's all that I found on the web. Once again, its
up to you and the other brainy people on Michael's site in cyberspace who
must fulfill this mission. What did Yoda say,"You must feel the force."
May the force be with you,
mitch
ps does anyone have the mags that guy quoted on the gts site?
Calvin Grandy wrote:
> Mitch
> Thank you for these references. I have reread each and cannot find a
> rigorous analysis of conventional or alternative systems. Rather
> just comparative comments (Though highly respected) at Tony's site,
> and manufacture's press speal at the gts site.
> Have I missed something?
>
> regards
>
> Calvin Grandy
>
> ----------
> > From: Mitch Casto
> > To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> > Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> > Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 3:36 PM
> >
> > Two sites with analysis:
> >
> > http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~neelin/motorcycle/gts1.html
> > This site has various press comments on the 1000 gts Yamaha with a
> hub
> > center front end
> >
> > http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm
> > This is Tony Foale's analysis
> >
> > mitch
> >
> >
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:24:54 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
Calvin,
just in case you didn't notice, on the gts site there is a "Bibliography
of GTS Publications" with brief quotes if you scroll down a little ways.
Does anyone have these magazines? I'd call the article on Tony's site an
analysis, but I suppose I'm misusing the the word analysis when referring
to the gts site. The chassis list is the only place that 'analyzes' this
sort of subject. I've enjoyed the posts so far, you guys really come up
with some stuff.
mitch
Calvin Grandy wrote:
> Mitch
> Thank you for these references. I have reread each and cannot find a
> rigorous analysis of conventional or alternative systems. Rather
> just comparative comments (Though highly respected) at Tony's site,
> and manufacture's press speal at the gts site.
> Have I missed something?
>
> regards
>
> Calvin Grandy
>
> ----------
> > From: Mitch Casto
> > To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> > Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> > Date: Thursday, August 20, 1998 3:36 PM
> >
> > Two sites with analysis:
> >
> > http://www.mbnet.mb.ca/~neelin/motorcycle/gts1.html
> > This site has various press comments on the 1000 gts Yamaha with a
> hub
> > center front end
> >
> > http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm
> > This is Tony Foale's analysis
> >
> > mitch
> >
> >
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:56:00 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: MC-Chassis suspension/ steering patents
> Hi, front suspension & steering people,
You will probably enjoy looking around on the ibm patents site for our
current subject:
http://www.patents.ibm.com
Try putting motorcycle in the top box and then in the bottom box you could
enter either suspension or you could enter steering and then neat stuff will
come up including drawings. No real analysis here, but these are not
salesmen's nonsense either.
Be sure to click the long range of years before executing the search command.
mitch
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:59:43 EDT
From: Hnry@aol.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
Hello,
Thinking about some mixing & matching parts from different machines... Looking
for rules of thumb, some do's and don'ts, born of this list's experience.
Imagine a 50 hp road racer. Its front wheel and rear wheel are aligned and
centered relative to each other.
1) What describes the centerline of the frame, other than the steering head?
2) Must the wheels' centerline be "on" the centerline of the frame, too?
3) Is there an acceptable tolerance for the wheels "off" centerline?
4) If tolerance is acceptable, are the centerlines necessarily parallel?
5) Is the center of the front wheel always center of fork legs?
6) Why doesn't my copy of Tony's reprinted book arrive? (I'm chomping at the
bit.)
Scott Jameson
Greenville, South Carolina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:41:04 -0400
From: Bill Heckel
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment - book still not here
I was wondering if the mail carriers were designing a frame or something, I
haven't gotten mine yet either. ( Now I don't feel so bad, the international
mail is just slow I guess, They must just strap it to a turtle and fling it
off the coast of europe... )
Hnry@aol.com wrote:
>> 6) Why doesn't my copy of Tony's reprinted book arrive? (I'm chomping at the
> bit.)
>
> Scott Jameson
> Greenville, South Carolina
- --
Bill Heckel pittsburgh PA ( USA )
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:52:46 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
Okay, this is not exactly list material, but I'm looking for some
advise.
The master plan involves one more race weekend then the closing of that
money pit for the season. I was thinking of buying a dirtbike to learn
how slide 'n stuff then building a frame to RR in the next year or so.
Any thought on bikes? I know the husabergs are nice and light, but also
rarer and more expensive than yer SRX/TT/XR. Price/performance and
other pro/cons would be helpful
Thanks
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:12:34 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
Comments on the list.
Three points determine a plane.
If the plane is acted on by forces in the plane, the reaction will
take place within the plane,
In the simple case, two tire contact patches and the steering axis
can serve to define the principle axis of a motorcycle. Direct
impacts from the road surface should act thru the steering pivot to
minimize deflection. In fact the forces will react thru the center
of mass as the forces are fed thru these pivot points, so it all gets
a bit thick quickly. If the centerline is not the center of
symmetry, then the behavior will differ on a left of center or right
of center response.
I think it safe to say no real bikes are made with the center of
mass aligned with this simple plane. The rider has much to do with
this too.
The Computrac people will say there is a well defined line of
acceptable performance. I don't think I can tell the difference at
this level.
An example of engineered compromise is seen in the K series BMWs
where spacing shims in 2 3 and 5 mm thickness are offered to off set
the rear wheel to allow fitment of wider tires. The swing arm cum
drive shaft housing on these models allows very little extra room.(
my K75s has one 2 mm spacer with about 3 mm distance from tire to
SA.) There has been some discussion of this aspect in the BMW lists,
with some saying that the offset is poor engineering causing uneven
tire wear from tipping the cycle in compensation. Others say bunk
and accept the offset (if any).
There have been some mention of factory values as delivered, when
evaluated by the Computrack people. and the numbers were in the +/-
3-5 mm for most features. This effort to better scrutineer the
"Stock" classes.
The center line of the tire should align with the steering head or
virtual pivot for FFEs. else the reaction to displacement(bumps) will
change depending on where in the travel the event takes place There
is no requirement to symmetry of the fork tubes.
All this can be applied to the rear end as well. And the rear should
track the front on a line, not parallel to a line
Regarding question 6, I assume that surface mail really is!
Regards
Calvin Grandy
> From: Hnry@aol.com
>
> Thinking about some mixing & matching parts from different
machines... Looking
> for rules of thumb, some do's and don'ts, born of this list's
experience.
> Imagine a 50 hp road racer. Its front wheel and rear wheel are
aligned and
> centered relative to each other.
> 1) What describes the centerline of the frame, other than the
steering head?
> 2) Must the wheels' centerline be "on" the centerline of the frame,
too?
> 3) Is there an acceptable tolerance for the wheels "off"
centerline?
> 4) If tolerance is acceptable, are the centerlines necessarily
parallel?
> 5) Is the center of the front wheel always center of fork legs?
> 6) Why doesn't my copy of Tony's reprinted book arrive? (I'm
chomping at the
> bit.)
>
> Scott Jameson
> Greenville, South Carolina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:57:02 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis suspension/ steering patents
Mitch Casto wrote:
>
> > Hi, front suspension & steering people,
>
> You will probably enjoy looking around on the ibm patents site for our
> current subject:
>
> http://www.patents.ibm.com
>
> mitch
My brother is a patent attorney whose firm represented Kawasaki some
years ago (and may still). There was a case in which Suzuki sued
Kawasaki for patent infringemnt regarding the 'Full Floater' rear
suspension system. I found some old book showing a bunch of race car
suspensions that included a system that was effectively the same thing
on the rear of some sports car. Eventually, Kawasaki won the case based
on something to the effect of "yeah, we stole your idea, but your patent
was no good in the first place, so it doesn't count".
I just thought that was sort of interesting...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:00:44 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
>
> ... I was thinking of buying a dirtbike to learn
> how slide 'n stuff .... Price/performance and
> other pro/cons would be helpful
Get the cheapest 125 MX bike you can find and flog it to death - that's
what it will take to learn how to be comfortable sliding around.
Anything bigger and more expensive and glamorous is just going to cost
that much more to fix when you dump it - and you're not going to learn
anything unless you plan on dumping it a whole bunch of times.
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:25:12 -0400
From: "Frank Camillieri"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment - book still not here
> I was wondering if the mail carriers were designing a frame or something, I
> haven't gotten mine yet either. ( Now I don't feel so bad, the international
> mail is just slow I guess, They must just strap it to a turtle and fling it
> off the coast of europe... )
My son found his copy of Tony's book at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore.
Frank Camillieri
Chester, NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:36:45 -0400
From: "Frank Camillieri"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
> An example of engineered compromise is seen in the K series BMWs
> where spacing shims in 2 3 and 5 mm thickness are offered to off set
> the rear wheel to allow fitment of wider tires. The swing arm cum
> drive shaft housing on these models allows very little extra room.(
> my K75s has one 2 mm spacer with about 3 mm distance from tire to
> SA.) There has been some discussion of this aspect in the BMW lists,
> with some saying that the offset is poor engineering causing uneven
> tire wear from tipping the cycle in compensation. Others say bunk
> and accept the offset (if any).
I made a frame for a Triumph back in the 60's and found out the rear wheel was
laced 5/8" off center ( they said it was for flattracking ) the day we were leaving
for a race. I didn't have time to fix it so I raced it as is. I found it handled just
fine so I wonder if most problems have to do with flexible frames rather than
alignment. When I first started racing I had a friend that aligned his chain and
sprockets so they ran centered and didn't worry about the wheels being in line.
He was one of the fast guys.
Frank Camillieri
Chester, NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:29:55 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
If sliding is what you want, go for the twin shocks on the older
bikes. Flat track bikes don't ya know. If you can do it on a Honda,
you can do it on anything!
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Master plan advise
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 3:52 PM
>
> Okay, this is not exactly list material, but I'm looking for some
> advise.
> The master plan involves one more race weekend then the closing of
that
> money pit for the season. I was thinking of buying a dirtbike to
learn
> how slide 'n stuff then building a frame to RR in the next year or
so.
> Any thought on bikes? I know the husabergs are nice and light, but
also
> rarer and more expensive than yer SRX/TT/XR. Price/performance and
> other pro/cons would be helpful
> Thanks
> ______________________________________________________
> Yousuf
> WMMRA 935
> FZR 400/600
>
> "It's not my fault" - Han Solo
> "It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
> ______________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #736
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, August 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 737
1. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
2. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
4. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
5. Dick Brewster Subj: MC-Chassis symmetry
6. cmgfam@sover.net (Calvin Grandy) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis symmetry
7. David Weinshenker Subj: Re: MC-Chassis symmetry
8. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment - book still n
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
10. David Weinshenker Subj: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 17:48:36 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
Frank
I ran both flat trackers and Moto X (twin Shock) with the chain run
first priority. ( you can't finish first if you don't finish) Often
swapping wheels (usually Barns) with out the least bit of interest in
tracking alignment. I guess "loose" is how things are termed when
the rider makes all the adjustments!
- ----------
> From: Frank Camillieri
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment
> Date: Friday, August 21, 1998 5:36 PM
>
> > An example of engineered compromise is seen in the K series BMWs
> > where spacing shims in 2 3 and 5 mm thickness are offered to off
set
> > the rear wheel to allow fitment of wider tires. The swing arm
cum
> > drive shaft housing on these models allows very little extra
room.(
> > my K75s has one 2 mm spacer with about 3 mm distance from tire to
> > SA.) There has been some discussion of this aspect in the BMW
lists,
> > with some saying that the offset is poor engineering causing
uneven
> > tire wear from tipping the cycle in compensation. Others say
bunk
> > and accept the offset (if any).
>
> I made a frame for a Triumph back in the 60's and found out the
rear wheel was
> laced 5/8" off center ( they said it was for flattracking ) the day
we were leaving
> for a race. I didn't have time to fix it so I raced it as is. I
found it handled just
> fine so I wonder if most problems have to do with flexible frames
rather than
> alignment. When I first started racing I had a friend that aligned
his chain and
> sprockets so they ran centered and didn't worry about the wheels
being in line.
> He was one of the fast guys.
>
> Frank Camillieri
> Chester, NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:56:06
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: MC-FFE's
At 10:29 AM 8/21/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Wouldn't the close tolerances required for a succesful FFE, imply this
type of
>front end may more suseptable to wear?
No, it is merely that with all the joints, precision bearings are
necessary. Hossac/Fior got away with Heims but I'll bet they wore out fast.
I decided to go all out, plenty of rolling element bearings with seals and
o-rings as needed. It means a lot of little precisely-made parts and you
have more problems getting the right-sized mechanical bits into the desired
geometrical envelopes, but once it's done right, they last a long time and
give great results.
> I don't know how long ago you started
>using your front end, do you have enough miles/hours on it to get an idea of
>the wear rate?
Yes. I built the first one starting in 1983. It was regularly ridden during
development and races for five-six years and irregularly since. The second
was built in the late 80s and has been ridden irregularly since. Neither
has ever had any bearing problems as such, In terms of general reliability,
I have bent/broken one front end on one and one steering linkage idler arm
on same, both in crashes. I have had these down at various times too and
always find the little bits are happy, most of them still snuggled down in
their original grease and set up just like I left them. The one bearing I
did have fail was actually an original Yam steering bearing still being
used in that job under the top clamp on No 2.
This is all in keeping with my philosophy so often echoed by others that if
things are well-aligned and move precisely, the basic layout of the
suspension isn't critical. Mine certainly were different from each other,
but both are very good. All this means the pilot has a lot less to occupy
his reflexes while processing visual input out there, and those free-up
cells make it all easier and faster or at least more crash free. Of course
if you have a very well made and fitted fork, your results will be
excellent too, but you'll still be better with the more rigid FFE. I'd
certainly be willing to build a frame for someone in RR to prove this if
Brittain didn't already, write if interested. Otherwise talk to the bean
counters.
best wishes,
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:14:14
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
At 08:42 AM 8/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>at which you stop braking and begin the turn, your suspension should be
about
>as compressed from braking as it will be from cornering forces.
That's probably true but not general enough since even in racing context
one may brake w/o cornering and that's much more common in the context of
street and MC in general.
With a larger
>percent of anti-dive than standard teles, would there be a increased time
>where the suspension "settled" into the corner.
The context in the dirt is still more different. We routinely have lots of
braking ripples and extended forks during braking is a good thing. Much of
my advantage the times I raced these came from being able to dance down
harder into corners than the rest, and that was contributed to by not only
the improved rigidity and anti-dive but by less striction in the pivots for
a more supple feeling with better feedback. But even then, I liked some
dive, for turning off a bit quicker, so I limited the anti- to about 50% or
so.
Anyway, the bike is still turning even though it may be settling down on
the suspension at the same time so Keith seems to have made an observation
without much effect, yes? Well, if it's already low, it might turn in a bit
faster ...
best wishes
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 14:40:12
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Shock Absorber Info Needed
At 01:15 PM 8/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I am planing to produce spring washer type pistons for the Mar-zook
>forks on my Morini, so am listening too. I am sure that buying "gold
>valves" would be easier, but so? (I may buy anyway)
>I plan to buy a selection of washers and start stacking. I was
>hoping for some comments from someone who knows comparable
>applications, before I installed the first set.
It's quite a help to the hydraulic action as well as alignment and lateral
stiffness to have things working closely. That's because the whole fork is
the pump which sends the oil through the little holes. In most cases, if
you have wear on things like rebound piston ring or lower Hatta-style fork
leg bushings (or low-tolerance parts), you have lost some of the valving
efficiency. The same thing is true to a lesser degree with cartridges,
because although they're divorced from mechanical loads, they still have
fitting and local wear problems. Much the same applies to rear dampers.
Once your asm is gone over and done up, chances are it will work better and
stock damping will seem OK. Most times though it helps to improve stiffness
in rebound and it usually helps more to improve the ratio of rebound to
bounce. I have drilled open many sets of bounce holes and often leave out
some of the bounce washers. Often the rebound holes should be enlarged too,
and the action restored by extra spring washers; this seems to give better
response over larger bumps.
>
>Hoyt I have experienced two stages of breaking action. That which
>occurs before weight transfer loads the front tire, and that which
>occurs after tire loading.
Exactly, while thr fork is diving the load isn't quite all on the wheel.
>Your work seems to have
>focused on the dirt side, (low friction).
We can get brakies often enough these days, but the bikes have higher CG in
proportion. The average DB CoF is probably about 50%
> Can you comment on the
>feed back through this weight transfer and braking power as pertains
>to pavement applications?
If you transfer the same weight and get the same suspension reactions, the
feeling is about the same. On my XRCR200, I could get 2/3 of the fork
travel down in simple braking maneauvers but for turns one always releases
it as one leans over. But these are not big factors in dirt, even though
you're turning often as most cases you are not accelerating and braking a
lot between turns. I found things like shorter bars made more difference to
lap times because you could turn tighter off trees and brush hence lean
over farther and go faster between. This is an alien thought to most
pavement riders.
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:23:20 -0700
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: MC-Chassis symmetry
Calvin wrote:
<<....
The center line of the tire should align with the
steering head or
virtual pivot for FFEs. else the reaction to displacement(bumps)
will
change depending on where in the travel the event takes place
There
is no requirement to symmetry of the fork tubes. >>
It would seem that if the loading of the forks is not symetrical,
then the forks will twist during braking.
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: cmgfam@sover.net (Calvin Grandy)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis symmetry
>Calvin wrote:
>
><<....
> The center line of the tire should align with the
>steering head or
>virtual pivot for FFEs. else the reaction to displacement(bumps)
>will
>change depending on where in the travel the event takes place
>There
>is no requirement to symmetry of the fork tubes. >>
>
>It would seem that if the loading of the forks is not symetrical,
>then the forks will twist during braking.
>
>Dick
Dick
There are several examples with compression dampers in one leg and rebound
dampers in the other.( Guzzi, Gas Gas)
The ridgidity of the AXLE is the equalizer. Single sided front ends are
every bit as do able as single sided rear ends, from a loading point of
view. But as mentioned by others, the execution would likely not be as
elegant as when supported from both sides.
I remain confused when claims are made regarding "center line" brake discs
preventing "pull" This doesn't seem to play out when the forces are
resolved. But perhaps I miss something here too.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:20:26 -0700
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis symmetry
Calvin Grandy wrote:
> I remain confused when claims are made regarding "center line" brake discs
> preventing "pull"
Sounds like a workaround for inadequate rigidity -
like the old practice of "matching" twin shocks
in hopes of keeping the swingarm from twisting...
If something isn't stiff enough, I guess the next best thing
may be to get both sides to flex the same. :)
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:33:11 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Wheel-Wheel-Chassis Alignment - book still n
> My son found his copy of Tony's book at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore.
Hello Frank,
That is pretty amazing - I wonder where they got it since no one else
has been able to find any in the U.S. since Motorsport sold the last
of their N.O.S. copies.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:33:11 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis are teles good enough?
> I've run Petty-style anti-dive link on an RM (bt of course I made it
> instead of buying) and natch I have anti dive on my FFEs. In both cases the
> bike has better braking and better feel during braking. The braking action
> is more immediate, with no waiting for the dive to be completed before the
> braking begins. You also have an easier time braking in bumps. Think this
> would work better in standard forks with a bit less spring rate.
Hello Hoyt
Standard forks with less spring rate is how Craig and I set up our
anti-dive links on the street bikes and road racers.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:01:31 -0700
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
It should be possible to make an anti-dive system using air
pressure to preload the forks under braking: Use a regulating
valve (as on a welding tank), except replace the spring &
handwheel mechanism with a small hydraulic piston to
be actuated by brake line pressure. The idea would be to
pressurize the forks proportionally to brake line pressure,
for example 5 psi air @ 100 psi brake fluid pressure
(and arrange to bleed off the air when brake pressure was
released).
The mechanism would have a diaphragm (connected to the air
space in the forks) opposing the piston, with the net motion
operating a "3-way" valve that could either pressurize the
forks with air from a reservoir, or vent off the pressure.
This would require on-board compressed air, but don't some
Gold Wings already have little compressors to adjust
suspension air pressure?
- -dave w
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #737
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, August 23 1998 Volume 01 : Number 738
1. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
2. David Weinshenker Subj: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
3. "Stewart Roger Milton" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
4. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
5. camillieri@earthlink.net Subj: MC-Chassis Tony's book
6. Neil Collins Subj: Re: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
7. "Max Hall" Subj: MC-Chassis Tilting Trike maiden voyage
8. geoff@pop.ihug.co.nz (Geoff Merryweather. ) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis ducati supermono exhaust
9. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Tilting Trike maiden voyage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:28:09 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:01:31 -0700
> It should be possible to make an anti-dive system using air
> pressure to preload the forks under braking: Use a regulating
> valve (as on a welding tank), except replace the spring &
> handwheel mechanism with a small hydraulic piston to
> be actuated by brake line pressure. The idea would be to
> pressurize the forks proportionally to brake line pressure,
> for example 5 psi air @ 100 psi brake fluid pressure
> (and arrange to bleed off the air when brake pressure was
> released).
>
> The mechanism would have a diaphragm (connected to the air
> space in the forks) opposing the piston, with the net motion
> operating a "3-way" valve that could either pressurize the
> forks with air from a reservoir, or vent off the pressure.
Hello Dave,
Eric Buell built a system that had a canister connected to the forks,
expanding the free air space in the forks. Under braking the lines
to the canister would be shut off, increasing the air spring effect.
I may have some of the details slightly wrong, but it sounds a bit
similar and it has been a while since I saw the article.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, SF CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:28:52 -0700
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
The proposition has been put forth: that,
since mild steel tubing and chrome-moly
tubing have a similar elastic modulus, and
stiffness is going to be more of a factor
than outright strength in selecting
material thickness for a bike frame, that
there may be little advantage to the stronger
material.
Michale Moore quotes Kevin Cameron:
"Not everyone is skilled enough to crash just hard
enough to bend the MS frame, but not quite hard
enough to bend the CM frame." and continues: "CM
is useful on dirt bikes as they are more prone
to being dropped in rocks etc, and the CM won't
dent as easily as MS."
However, I wonder about the following points:
1) Cold rolled mild steel tubing is work-hardened
in rolling, and in forming into tubing. Welding
(or brazing) will leave annealed zones, as does
the seam welding process.
Chrome-moly tubing (at least the "aircraft" type)
is supplied in the "normalized" (annealed) condition,
and thus the weld zones may be much closer in
characteristics to the bulk material elsewhere in the frame.
2) In the un-hardened condition, chrome-moly should
have a higher yield strength, no? In a bike ridden
hard, and subjected to large doses of high-frequency
cyclic loads from engine vibration, medium-frequency
shock loads from bumps, and high-amplitude low-frequency
cyclic loading in cornering maneuvers, it seems there's
going to be a whole spectrum of stress levels. Won't
the chrome-moly respond elastically to some of the forces that
would yield the mild steel? Isn't this going to give
the frame a longer service life before it builds up
fatigue and begins to crack?
Isn't this why chrome-moly is standard for welded
tubular aircraft structure that may be subject to
turbulent air loads, and needs to have a long service
life without cracking?
Jim Reed's book on race tuning RD350's comments,
"The mild steel Yamaha production racer frames of
the 60's and 70's were notorious for breaking up
after being used for more than a season." He
recommends using the RD street frame (same basic
layout, heavier wall tubing).
Would the original racer frames have been more
durable if made in normalized chrome-moly?
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:12:04 +0200
From: "Stewart Roger Milton"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
>2) In the un-hardened condition, chrome-moly should
>have a higher yield strength, no?
Yes
In a bike ridden
>hard, and subjected to large doses of high-frequency
>cyclic loads from engine vibration, medium-frequency
>shock loads from bumps, and high-amplitude low-frequency
>cyclic loading in cornering maneuvers, it seems there's
>going to be a whole spectrum of stress levels. Won't
>the chrome-moly respond elastically to some of the forces that
>would yield the mild steel?
Yes, except as Michael said, the only time you should be exceeding the yield
strength of either is during crashing.
>Isn't this going to give
>the frame a longer service life before it builds up
>fatigue and begins to crack?
Generally, yes, but fatigue is a long subject! If you're running two
specimens of the different steels at a cyclic stress close to the yield of
the MS, the MS will probably initiate cracking first. However, once the
harder steel initiates, the crack will grow faster as the harder steel is
less forgiving to the intense stress concentration at the crack tip (the ms
yields at the crack tip, blunting the crack, whereas the higher yield steel
will not to the same extent.) Add the original stress concentrations built
in to the frame, and you may or may not get better life. The above is also
governed by the fact that fatigue is a random process, so even with a lot of
effort to design for it, your work is based on probability, and the better
design may still break first! And the above is a huge generalisation, some
CrMo steels may have better crack growth resistance than some mild steels.
The a/c industry would certainly be the place to look for them.
After saying all that, in a situation where you are designing for fatigue
life, rather than stiffness, go for the higher yield strength which should
avoid the initiation in the first place, then polish all your stress
concentrations out, i.e weld toes etc.
>
>Isn't this why chrome-moly is standard for welded
>tubular aircraft structure that may be subject to
>turbulent air loads, and needs to have a long service
>life without cracking?
They use high strength steel in aircraft because they need lighter weight
for a given strength. If a mild steel aircraft ever got off the ground at
all it would weigh twice as much, and have a correspondingly lower payload.
They run the CrMo Steel at stresses that would rip ms apart statically never
mind in fatigue, and accept the deflections and fatigue as part of the
compromise. Obviously the design is optimised for fatigue, deflection and so
forth, but the primary consideration is weight. Structural safety factors in
the a/c industry are commonly 1.50, which shows you how close to yield they
are running the steel or Aluminium (Aluminum, if you insist) components.
Components are then designed either fail safe, where if they break the
aircraft integrity remains, and then make sure they are inspected regularly,
or safe life, where they are thrown away after so many hours before any real
possibility of failure exists.
>
>Jim Reed's book on race tuning RD350's comments,
>"The mild steel Yamaha production racer frames of
>the 60's and 70's were notorious for breaking up
>after being used for more than a season." He
>recommends using the RD street frame (same basic
>layout, heavier wall tubing).
Both were ms, one heavier, therefore running at lower stresses. You could
probably have kept the lighter frame a lot longer if they had just polished
their welds during production (I've never seen one, they may have done this)
Obviously the racer frames were not designed for long life, but light weight
and cheap production, and like the aircraft above run into the fatigue
regime by running the material at higher stresses.
>Would the original racer frames have been more
>durable if made in normalized chrome-moly?
Yes, they could probably have solved the problem by using CrMo instead.
If asked, Yamaha would have said they were 'safe life', i.e they'll run
without breaking for a seasons racing, and then there'll be a new model out,
and no-one will want to use these any more. If racing bikes were designed
with classic racers in mind, they would have been uncompetitive or at least
more expensive when new!
Regards,
Stewart.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:02:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
- -> Eric Buell built a system that had a canister connected to the forks,
- -> expanding the free air space in the forks. Under braking the lines
- -> to the canister would be shut off, increasing the air spring effect.
HD did that on one of their models in the early '80s. A friend and I
had invented it on our own, and were researching 12v air valves when we
saw the advertising for the new models. Drat, foiled again...
As far as I know it worked okay.
==dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:01:45 -0400
From: camillieri@earthlink.net
Subject: MC-Chassis Tony's book
Michael,
I was mistaken about where he got Tony's book. It was at the local
mall at B. Dalton's book store about 5 years ago. I never knew he
had it until I mentioned Tony being on the list.
Frank
Frank Camillieri
Chester, NH
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 00:32:29 +0930
From: Neil Collins
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
>>Would the original racer frames have been more
>>durable if made in normalized chrome-moly?
>
>Yes, they could probably have solved the problem by using CrMo instead.
>Regards, Stewart.
Hello Stewart and other List Members
In Australia the only materiial that is available for the manufacture of
motorcycle frames is either ERW (electric resistance welded) mild steel or
imported 4130 chrome-moly in an annealled condition at an expensive price!
I am currently undecided on the material choice. Mild steel tubing or
chrome-moly tubing of 1 inch diameter. For my replica 1967 250cc road-racer
frame of conventional design with twin downtubes. My exiting frame has
cracked, been repaired many times and quite frankly is beyond a useable item
besides it weighs about 30 lbs. I definately want something lightweight if I
am going to the expense and effort of making tooling, a frame jig, together
with the associated welding expenses.
How thin for each material can I go???
Previous recommendations to me have been 1.6mm or 0.065 inches or 16 swg for
ERW mild steel brazed welded for my first home built frame!
List members comments would be most welcomed especially for chrome-moly tubing.
regards Neil Collins
South Australia
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:45:31 -0400
From: "Max Hall"
Subject: MC-Chassis Tilting Trike maiden voyage
To "The List" of like-minded rolling types from a beginner:
I am proud and tickled to announce that I took my tilting trike for its
first ride today.
The coolest thing? I have been pushing the tilter here and there in the
garage, and the driveway, as I do the work on it, and the tilting was stiff,
and the steering cranky (friction of the tire on the tarmac) but damn, once
you get rolling, HAH! Heaven!
Just as you can't ride no-hands on a bike at low speeds but get stability
once you get moving, so too with the tilt trike: the steering became
comfortable, solid-feeling, and, that's right... neutral after about 5 or 8
mph. Steering became a matter of gentle pushes of my toes against the tilt
control pedals, and the steering levers would just do what they had to if
you left them alone. And for anyone who doesn't believe in countersteering,
well, this becomes a laboratory for the phenomenon: no choice for sharp
turns.
I figure MC-Chassis will appreciate this lark more than any other community
on the planet. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- -Max Hall
- -maxo@iname.com
- -The Commutamatic can be seen at: http://www.maxmatic.com/electcar.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 21:51:54 GMT
From: geoff@pop.ihug.co.nz (Geoff Merryweather. )
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis ducati supermono exhaust
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:06:38 -0700, you wrote:
>
>As I understand exhaust tuning, the shockwave created by the exhaust
>leaving the pipe travels back to the exhaust valve and if it arrives at
>the right time it would assist in exhaust flow. What effect would the
>splitting of the pipe right at the end like the supermono have? (for a
>look at what I mean:
>http://www.micapeak.com/DPG/ducati/supermono/mono.jpg)
>Or what effect does larger or smaller mufflers have?
It has an effect on silencing - having 2 small mufflers can give you
more surface area for an absorbtion glasspack muffler to work with,
and hence more effective silencing. Increased weight, cost and
complexity are obvious drawbacks.
Geoff
- --
Radar detector FAQ, Forte Agent automation FAQ, bathroom fan FAQ
and THE WORLDS BEST CHRISTMAS PUDDING RECIPE
are at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
REMOVE "DELETEME" SPAMBLOCKER FROM ADDRESS TO REPLYTO USENET POSTINGS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 20:53:12 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tilting Trike maiden voyage
Dear Max,
I AM JEALOUS!
C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S !!
mitch
Max Hall wrote:
> To "The List" of like-minded rolling types from a beginner:
>
> I am proud and tickled to announce that I took my tilting trike for its
> first ride today.
>
> The coolest thing? I have been pushing the tilter here and there in the
> garage, and the driveway, as I do the work on it, and the tilting was stiff,
> and the steering cranky (friction of the tire on the tarmac) but damn, once
> you get rolling, HAH! Heaven!
>
> Just as you can't ride no-hands on a bike at low speeds but get stability
> once you get moving, so too with the tilt trike: the steering became
> comfortable, solid-feeling, and, that's right... neutral after about 5 or 8
> mph. Steering became a matter of gentle pushes of my toes against the tilt
> control pedals, and the steering levers would just do what they had to if
> you left them alone. And for anyone who doesn't believe in countersteering,
> well, this becomes a laboratory for the phenomenon: no choice for sharp
> turns.
>
> I figure MC-Chassis will appreciate this lark more than any other community
> on the planet. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>
> -Max Hall
> -maxo@iname.com
> -The Commutamatic can be seen at: http://www.maxmatic.com/electcar.htm
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #738
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, August 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 739
1. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis ERW vs. CrMo tube
2. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re:Book delivery
3. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis Teles disadvantages
4. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
5. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis Where do aging GP bikes go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:30:36 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis ERW vs. CrMo tube
> In Australia the only materiial that is available for the manufacture of
> motorcycle frames is either ERW (electric resistance welded) mild steel or
> imported 4130 chrome-moly in an annealled condition at an expensive price!
ERW is fine for the main part of the frame. Particularly if you
have it well triangulated.
1.6 mm wall is fine - but 2.0 is also OK. Beware of imported tube
as 1.6 is usually more like 1.4 wall - the bottom tolerance.
I actually use HILLS tube - which is made in Sth Oz - a very good
quality product and 1.6 nominal measures 1.6 mm.
I use a bit of CrMo but only in highly stressed applications - it's
yeild stress is higher but as has been covered - it's Young's Modulus
is near enough to the same and there is the stress cracking to worry
about.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:41:39 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re:Book delivery
To those that ordered the book reprint.
In many cases delivery is taking much longer than anybody would have hoped
for. The bulk of the early orders were sent on the 13/07/98 and started
reaching their destinations about two weeks later, however I'm still getting
messages that they're still arriving in some cases, over 6 weeks later.
This message to request that those that have received the book send me a
confirmation note so that I've got some idea as to the extent of the
problem.
To those that contacted me about non-delivery, I must apologise for the
slowness in responding but I've not been in my office much lately and got
way behind with answering email. However, I think that I've now caught up
and have replied to everybody waiting.
Michael, perhaps you'd be kind enough to post this to the other groups also.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:14:42 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Teles disadvantages
Here's an interesting note: A local racer purchased a pair of Ohlins
forks for his Ducati 995 for 6k, however in order to get them to fit he
also needed (or so I was told) the entire WSB spec front end. Total
cost: 20k
Even the highest priced penske shock can't be more than 2k
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:24:29 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive - an alternative to linkage??
>Eric Buell built a system that had a canister connected to the forks,
>expanding the free air space in the forks. Under braking the lines
>to the canister would be shut off, increasing the air spring effect.
>
>I may have some of the details slightly wrong, but it sounds a bit
>similar and it has been a while since I saw the article.
Michael, you are correct: that is exactly how E.B. set up the front
suspension on HD's Electra Glide. The reservoir was built into the crash
bar. Aparently, it works quite well.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:29:14 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Where do aging GP bikes go?
Even a 5-6 year old ROC or Harris 500GP bike would be endless fun (and
probably maintainance). A few years back Nick Ienatch put a TZ750 on
the street, I'm suprised I havent seen at least one in a magazine
special. I mean it'd be fun to run in a formula ultra/usa/xtreme class,
even at club level. Make an R1 look slow. So where do they go. Maybe
the factory bikes get taken back by the factory, but there should be a
few ROC's and Harris's running around
______________________________________________________
Yousuf
WMMRA 935
FZR 400/600
"It's not my fault" - Han Solo
"It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #739
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, August 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 740
1. Andrew King Subj: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
2. Mitch Casto Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Where do aging GP bikes go?
3. Paul Kellner Subj: Re: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
4. "Gary Beale" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
5. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
6. "joel" Subj: MC-Chassis welding MS to CrMo
7. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis welding MS to CrMo
8. eric sherrer Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
9. Mark Mason Subj: MC-Chassis master cylinder
10. David Weinshenker Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel
11. les Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel
12. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
13. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis welding MS to CrMo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:49:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Andrew King
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
I am setting up a 1986 Yamaha ZXT600 dual-sport bike for street riding.
I have been considering changing the front wheel from the current
3.00 X21 to something smaller (3.00 X 19?).
The main motivation would be to increase the number of options for front
tires.
I am inclined to think a smaller front wheel would lower the front and
reduce the trail. I'm not sure I would like the change in handling.
Any opinions? Or any suggestions for 21 inch front tires?
Andrew King king@charlie.iit.edu
IIT Physics, Chicago 312-567-3021
technology is the answer, what was the question?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:50:40 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Where do aging GP bikes go?
Yousuf,
I don't know where they go, but here is an interesting GP website. You
should click on the "GP Machines 1988-1998 Models" and there are nice
photographs of GP bikes arranged by year and model for the past ten years.
Someone did a lot of work !
http://www.europark.com
mitch
yhakim@m5.sprynet.com wrote:
> Even a 5-6 year old ROC or Harris 500GP bike would be endless fun (and
> probably maintainance). A few years back Nick Ienatch put a TZ750 on
> the street, I'm suprised I havent seen at least one in a magazine
> special. I mean it'd be fun to run in a formula ultra/usa/xtreme class,
> even at club level. Make an R1 look slow. So where do they go. Maybe
> the factory bikes get taken back by the factory, but there should be a
> few ROC's and Harris's running around
> ______________________________________________________
> Yousuf
> WMMRA 935
> FZR 400/600
>
> "It's not my fault" - Han Solo
> "It's not my fault" - Lando Calrisian
> ______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:49:58 -0400
From: Paul Kellner
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis various flavours of steel tubing
Neil wrote:
>Previous recommendations to me have been 1.6mm or 0.065 inches or 16 swg
for
>ERW mild steel brazed welded for my first home built frame!
Hello Neil,
FWIW: just some info on tube sizes for 60's racers I've found:
- - Rickman frames: Reynolds 531 tube; 1 1/4" OD; 16 swg
- - Rob North triple chassis: T45 tube; 1 1/4" OD; 17 swg
- - Seeley MK1: Reynolds 531 tube; 1 1/4" OD; 16 swg
- - Seeley MK2-4; Reynolds 531 tube; 1 1/8" OD 17swg
For a classic double loop frame 1" OD seems a bit small to me! The "Yamsel"
TD2 and TR2 were made out of the MK3 Seeley frames!, so I would guess that
28mm OD x 1,5mm would be a good bet for your TD1C.
I had bought some lengths 32x1.5mm seamless mild steel tube for my (long
running)
Kawa H1 project. Cost was approx. $5,50/mtr here in Holland, (CrMo is
unobtainable).
Hope this helps,
Gotta go, must finish the tank mould for my TD1B/YDS5 racer project......
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 13:54:00 -0400
From: "Gary Beale"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
Andrew, you can compensate somewhat by dropping the forks down in the
triples. Plus many early-mid '80s bikes came with pretty raked out forks
anyway, so the change might actually create an improvement. I don't know
specifically about the bike you mention, but early '80s Ascots provide much
better front end feedback with the triple clamps dropped an inch or so past
the end of the fork tube (tubes sticking out the top.)
If you can get the published stock rake and trail figures, or take
reasonably good measurements, you could calculate what the new rake and
trail would be. John Bradley's book tells how, and gives comparison
numbers from other well known bikes. By going through this little "due
diligence" exercise you will have some level of confidence how your change
is going to turn out.
Gary Beale
gbeale@atlanta.dg.com
>I am setting up a 1986 Yamaha ZXT600 dual-sport bike for street riding.
>I have been considering changing the front wheel from the current
>3.00 X21 to something smaller (3.00 X 19?).
>The main motivation would be to increase the number of options for front
>tires.
>I am inclined to think a smaller front wheel would lower the front and
>reduce the trail. I'm not sure I would like the change in handling.
>Any opinions? Or any suggestions for 21 inch front tires?
>
>Andrew King king@charlie.iit.edu
>IIT Physics, Chicago 312-567-3021
>technology is the answer, what was the question?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:35:02 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
Andrew
Only the outside diameter of the tire is important here.
Moto crossers of the 70's were converted to track service by the
replacement with 19 inch wheels all the time with no ill effects.
I feel you should make the swap and trust that you will be able to
get the ride quality you want by tire selection, shock length,etc.
I think you will like it, except in the loamy dirt and tight stuff.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Andrew King
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 12:49 PM
>
> I am setting up a 1986 Yamaha ZXT600 dual-sport bike for street
riding.
> I have been considering changing the front wheel from the current
> 3.00 X21 to something smaller (3.00 X 19?).
> The main motivation would be to increase the number of options for
front
> tires.
> I am inclined to think a smaller front wheel would lower the front
and
> reduce the trail. I'm not sure I would like the change in handling.
> Any opinions? Or any suggestions for 21 inch front tires?
>
> Andrew King king@charlie.iit.edu
> IIT Physics, Chicago 312-567-3021
> technology is the answer, what was the question?
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:01:35 -0400
From: "joel"
Subject: MC-Chassis welding MS to CrMo
Good day to all..
I've recently resurrected an old project that has been buried
for some time. While it is close to completion, it's not quite
there yet. Out of laziness I guess... I'd like to mate a mild steel
assembly I have from another bike to the frame in question, which
is 4130 CrMo.
This assembly is basically to support the seat/rider and is
of no structural importance to the frame of the bike.
Any thoughts/suggestions/warnings/techniques etc... in regards to
joining these two metals? Or is there nothing to worry about?
thank you much. Joel W.
To anyone who may be interested:
In an effort to clear the way for new projects I need to get rid
of some past ones that never quite got started.
Anyway... Free to anyone who has an interest.
Yamaha RD250 and Suzuki T500
both are stock.. and haven't been touched in years.
location is eastern usa.
for details email me direct preferably at vicnorton@juno.com thx.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 18:10:11 -0500
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis welding MS to CrMo
Joel said "I'd like to mate a mild steel assembly I have from another
bike to the frame in question, which is 4130 CrMo.
Any thoughts/suggestions/warnings/techniques etc... in regards to
joining these two metals? Or is there nothing to worry about?"
If you use mild steel rod, you should not have any trouble. Use standard
procedure for welding the 4130, and the 1010 MS will be fine. (Gas or
TIG only, please.)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 20:25:05 -0700
From: eric sherrer
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
Regarding the wheel change from 21" to 19"...
I did this to a 1986 KLR600 and was initially concerned about stability
but it hasn't spit me off yet. Seems that enduro bikes come with quite a
bit of rake and trail stock; unless you can really compress the forks
under braking I dont think you will have a problem. As a side benifit,
the brakes work better due to the smaller dia. wheel.
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 00:30:22 -0400
From: Mark Mason
Subject: MC-Chassis master cylinder
I need a hand operated master cylinder for vertical (joystick)
operation. I was thinking a remote reservoir one would do the
trick. If anyone has any recommendations for one to get (preferably
on the cheaper side) or where to get one I'd appreciate it. I've
got an XS650 (almost identical to a SR500 unit) one on now but
it's leaking due to being vertical (no surprise there). It doesn't
seem to have any problems with getting air into the lines, which
is good news.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:14:45 -0700
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel
> Regarding the wheel change from 21" to 19"...
brings back memories...
Bike I had years ago - XL250 honda thumper, '74 model...
replaced stock 1.60x21 front rim with 1.85x19,
tires Dunlop K81 Roadmaster 3.60x19 front, 4.25/85x18 rear
(on stock 2.15x18), geared it tall (16/40 if memory serves),
Mototek CD-350 magnetic trigger CDI, 34mm Blue Magnum
flat slide carb. Replaced 13.5 in. shocks with Boge
Mulholland 13 in. "Street Strokers" and lowered front end
1/2 in. by sliding tubes up in clamps. The front wheel swap
did quicken the geometry, but not beyond the point of rider
acclimation!
I was most pleased with the results and wish I still
had the bike (this was almost 20 years ago). Once above
4000 rpm (the big carb did increase the XL's natural
tendency to have trouble drawing fuel at large throttle
and low RPM) the flat slide carb gave really crisp
throttle response, and the K81's on that light bike
let me put it where I wanted it once I learned to relax
and not overcontrol. On the lower Angeles Crest, I could
maintain a 70 mph pace with less effort than 45 mph on my
BMW R60/5 and more sense of cornering power in reserve.
One interesting characteristic was that it had absolutely
no tendency to stand up and run wide on the brakes, but was
perfectly happy to spiral in tighter with the brakes clamped
hard.
As for the front brake, it initially seemed anemic, so I
started attempting to abuse it in hopes of making it fade
out completly, and forcing myself to examine upgrades
such as the cable-operated disk from the CB200 twin.
However, its power soon greatly improved, and I think
that, with its previous "trials universal" tire, that
brake had never yet been used hard enough to properly
bed the shoes in to the drum!
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:18:56 +0800
From: les
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel
David Weinshenker wrote:
> As for the front brake, it initially seemed anemic, so I
> started attempting to abuse it in hopes of making it fade
> out completly, and forcing myself to examine upgrades
> such as the cable-operated disk from the CB200 twin.
UPGRADE????
The only thing that would be an upgrade from would be two bars of soap
attached to the soles of your sneakers!
- --
ATB, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
URL: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:10:29
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: smaller front wheel for XT600 street bike
At 11:49 AM 8/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I am inclined to think a smaller front wheel would lower the front and
>reduce the trail. I'm not sure I would like the change in handling.
>Any opinions?
Just do it. The difference won't be so great. You'll be happy.
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 07:18:13
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis welding MS to CrMo
At 07:01 PM 8/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
> Any thoughts/suggestions/warnings/techniques etc... in regards to
>joining these two metals? Or is there nothing to worry about?
There's probably nothing wrong with welding them, but if it were me I'd use
a good quality brazing rod, lower the heat to medium red, and fillet the
joints with a nice fat layer.
Enjoy,
Hoyt
Belfab CNC: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/belfab/belfab.html
Best MC Repair- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/best.html
Camping/Caving- http://www.freeyellow.com/members/batwings/caving.html
=>May you live in interesting times <=
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #740
******************************
Back to the home page
© 1997 Michael Moore, all rights reserved
Most recent update: 30 January 1998
For more information contact webmeister@eurospares.com