Motorcycle Chassis Design Digest #831-840
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, November 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 831
1. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Trail calcs.
2. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Brake seals
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
4. Les Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Brake seals
5. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
6. Craig Kenfield Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
7. Craig Kenfield Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
8. Craig Kenfield Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
9. bsags@isat.com (David Kath) Subj: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
10. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
11. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
12. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:44:21 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Trail calcs.
David wrote about trail estimation:
<<
Assuming a 13 inch wheel radius, 2 degrees * 1/57 radian/degree *
13 inch is about 0.45 in. This is the length of 2
degrees of the wheel circumference, which is a rough approximation
to what the actual change in trail would be.
>>
This method is only a reasonable approximation for the case of zero offset
between wheel spindle and steering axis. For normal offsets it is not
really useful. Anyway there is no need for such approximations.
<<
A scale drawing based on measured wheel radius and fork
offset would give a more precise answer.
>>
Calculation will be more precise than scaling from a drawing, of course if
the calculations were difficult then scaling from a drawing might make
sense, but the calcs. are not difficult.
A simple sketch will verify the following:
Let R be the wheel radius
and theta be the castor angle
and offset be the normal offset between the steering axis and the wheel
spindle.
Then trail = R * tan( theta ) - offset / cos( theta )
Normally we'd simply measure offset physically but as I don't have the
machine to hand I can simply work backwards from the above. So for the
original question asked:
theta = 27deg and trail = 108mm.
substituting these values with a guessed R = 330mm
we get an offset of 53.6mm
Substitute this for the case of 25deg castor and we get our new value of
trail of 94.8mm.
This will need adjusting a bit if the wheel radius is not 330mm. of course.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:56:10 -0500
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Brake seals
Do the EDM, then disassemble everything and wash in water/detergent then soak in brake fluid. Exposure time should be small, and you want to make sure the parts are good anyway.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Dick Brewster
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Brake seals
> Date: Monday, November 23, 1998 11:20 AM
>
> Les, Way back before dirt was invented, hydraulic brake systems
> were designed to work with alcohol/glycol kinds of fluids,
> partially because they didn't have soft elastomers that would
> hold up in petroleum products.
>
> A brake seal from the last 10 years, may or may not survive
> kerosene. If you have another seal or piece of seal from the same
> source, you could soak it in kerosene for a couple of days and
> see if it deteriorates or absorbs any kerosene.
>
> > > EDM out the pin, tear down the caliper, and reassemble with
> > > new pin, rubber rings, and pads. If the caliper is indeed
> > > otherwise in perfect condition, changing the rubber sealing
> > > bits is generally fairly painless.
> > >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:04:28
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
At 09:36 PM 11/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I would also think these tests could indicate if rockers with a different
>ratio should be used to get more lift, as an alternative to going with a
>custom cam.
Not practical unless you want to move rocker pivots; these aren't Chevies
and don't use pushrods, hence if you change ratio w/o changing the pivot
location, your cam follower will be in the wrong place, or your clearance
adjuster will be. Sounds to me as if moving the pivots would be pretty hard...
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
'It's the end of the world as we know it; I feel fine' <=Michael Stipe
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:07:36 +0800
From: Les
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Brake seals
Calvin, Dick,
Thanks guys.
Les
Calvin Grandy wrote:
>
> Do the EDM, then disassemble everything and wash in water/detergent then soak in brake fluid. Exposure time should be small, and you want to make sure the parts are good anyway.
>
> Regards
>
> Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:45:28 -0500
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
>Does this sound reasonable? (Now that I've written it down I'm wondering if
>the flowstand I want to use is capable of flowing such low volumes of air
>accurately. I might have to figure out a way to bleed off some flow
>upstream of the instrumentation)
Kevin Cameron notes in his recent book that NASCAR engine builders are
using very high volume flow benches. He theorizes that the greater flow
can more realistically predict such phenomenon as sonic choking.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:55:34 -0600
From: Craig Kenfield
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
Thanks for the info everyone,
I'm off to Classic Motorbooks to pick up a couple books now, including one
that covers flow benches (thanks Geoff).
And since starting to write about this I've remembered that the brother of
a friend of mine designed flow meters for Honeywell. A manometer would be
easy... hmm, maybe I'm on to something here!
Strange how so many things occur to me right after I've posted questions here.
- -Craig
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:17:56 -0600
From: Craig Kenfield
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
At 8:04 AM -0600 11/24/98, batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
>At 09:36 PM 11/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>I would also think these tests could indicate if rockers with a different
>>ratio should be used to get more lift, as an alternative to going with a
>>custom cam.
>
>Not practical unless you want to move rocker pivots; these aren't Chevies
>and don't use pushrods, hence if you change ratio w/o changing the pivot
>location, your cam follower will be in the wrong place, or your clearance
>adjuster will be. Sounds to me as if moving the pivots would be pretty hard...
Well, you're right, it's not a Chevy... but actually this engine DOES use
pushrods.
- -Craig
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:38:20 -0600
From: Craig Kenfield
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
>Kevin Cameron notes in his recent book that NASCAR engine builders are
>using very high volume flow benches. He theorizes that the greater flow
>can more realistically predict such phenomenon as sonic choking.
>
>Al
>level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
This is interesting, but I wonder if the applications are so different that
it's not applicable? Doesn't NASCAR limit the area of the intake with
restriction plates? So I'm thinking the max intake velocities they see
would be much higher than anything this engine will see. I need to do the
math to figure out what sort of flows/velocities I'll be looking at.
Now if that pesky wife of mine would just forget about all those little
household chores she finds so important I might have more time for this
stuff! I mean really, why can't the dog eat PB&J sandwiches like the rest
of us for a day or two until I get to the pet store? (My trip to the
bookstore has been postponed. Dang!)
- -Craig
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 09:33:01 -0800
From: bsags@isat.com (David Kath)
Subject: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
Gents.... I also have been reading everything I can find, asking
questions, and attempting to learn and understand the techniques of
porting and flow bench testing. I'm learning.....
Thanks John Schneider, for the source on the Gas Flow book... any thing
else??
One of my sources of info are articles from "Circle Track", magazine.
One article is titled "Flow Testing Basics", by Will Handzel. It is very
informative in that it explains the basics with a good discription of
the mechanics of a flow bench. Another article by Smokey Yunick, who was
a pioneer in hot rod/race car porting is titled "Airflow Analysis". This
article gives good insight into the basics of port improvement. I would
be happy to run some copies of these articles, and trade info with
anyone else on this list. I also am planning to build a bench this
winter.
At this time I'm studying a book titled "How to build and Modify
Chevrolet Cylinder Heads", by David Wizard. Published by Motorbooks
International, Box 1, Osceola, WI 54020. (800)826-6600 I'm finding this
book contains a tremendous amount of info on cylinder head improvements,
with references to flow bench use. I believe it's well worth the cost to
any engine builder. Of course there is a lot of info specific to Chev
heads. But a valve, a seat, a port, etc, work basically the same in all
engines eh?
A few weeks ago I had a tour of the "Kinetic Analysis" shop operated by
Ken Augustine in San Rafel, Calif. Any of you gents who would like a
head "done to the max", may want to contact him. He is quite well known
in MC racing. However may I offer, he is not interested in just making
improvements, but more inclined toward redesign work, of course
depending on the engine involved....
I would enjoy sharing any and all info on this subject. My passion is
playing with BSA Gold Stars.....
dave - NV
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:37:00 -0500
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
- ----------
> From: Craig Kenfield
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 11:38 AM
>
>
> >Kevin Cameron notes in his recent book that NASCAR engine builders are
> >using very high volume flow benches. He theorizes that the greater flow
> >can more realistically predict such phenomenon as sonic choking.
> >
> >Al
> >level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
>
> This is interesting, but I wonder if the applications are so different that
> it's not applicable? Doesn't NASCAR limit the area of the intake with
> restriction plates? So I'm thinking the max intake velocities they see
> would be much higher than anything this engine will see. I need to do the
> math to figure out what sort of flows/velocities I'll be looking at.
>
>
Craig
When velocity goes supersonic flow goes to zero and so represents a HP wall to further development of RPMs.
Check "The Army of Darkness" webb page (the endurance team, not the video game!) for some good info on inlet velocity vs. specific output.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:39:25
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
At 12:37 PM 11/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
>When velocity goes supersonic flow goes to zero and so represents a HP
wall to further development of RPMs.
>
I think you mean 'When velocity goes supersonic, flow quits increasing and
so represents a HP wall ...', no?
Best regards,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:55:13 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
David Kath wrote:
>
..., for the source on the Gas Flow book... any thing
> else??
I bought a copy of this book. Wasn't particularly impressed.
>
...Another article by Smokey Yunick, who was
> a pioneer in hot rod/race car porting is titled "Airflow Analysis".
Get his book titled 'Power Secrets'.
>
> At this time I'm studying a book titled "How to build and Modify
> Chevrolet Cylinder Heads", by David Wizard.
This one is excellent.
>
> A few weeks ago I had a tour of the "Kinetic Analysis" shop operated by
> Ken Augustine in San Rafel, Calif. Any of you gents who would like a
> head "done to the max", may want to contact him. He is quite well known
> in MC racing. However may I offer, he is not interested in just making
> improvements, but more inclined toward redesign work, of course
> depending on the engine involved....
Augustine deserves 'guru' status. If you're serious about making your
engine breathe hard, have him lay his hands upon it. He's not cheap, but
the results are probably going to save you money and grief in the long
run.
I was there not long ago when a fellow came in with his newly 'ported'
Gold Star head. He was wondering why his bike wasn't moving very well.
His head had just been worked over by another fairly well known name
that claimed to be a flow expert. Run on Augustine's flow bench, the
wonder head flowed only moderately poorer than a stock head. A few
minutes with some clay and fiddling by Kenny and the thing was showing a
20% increase.
>
Marty
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #831
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, November 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 832
1. Johnayleng@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis changing rake
2. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
3. Nedragr345@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
4. Mfstj@aol.com Subj: MC-Chassis anti-dive
5. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: MC-Chassis Norton w/spine frame
6. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis A quick ad from the list owner
8. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis List stats and reminders
9. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis A quick ad from the list owner
10. "Tom Melesky" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:06:10 EST
From: Johnayleng@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis changing rake
In a message dated 11/24/98 1:10:56 AM Mountain Standard Time, daze39@grin.net
writes:
>
> Do you plan rigidity upgrades also?
>
Yes I will be doing the standard bracing of the frame. I have done 2 track
days at Arroyo Seca ( In Las Cruces NM), A very tecnical track, and I need
quicker steering. I have already switched to a 18" front wheel.
By the way, here is the site for the track: http://www.zianet.com/arroyoseco
We try to run track days at least once a month, Cost is around 100.00 for
the day.
If anyone would like, I can post when they come up.
Thanks again for the help,
John Aylor NM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:54:21 -0500
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
You know it!
please insert the word "increase" after the word "flow"
My thoughts and words are separated by a similar "wall" at times.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: batwings@i-plus.net
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/Flowing heads
> Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:39 AM
>
> At 12:37 PM 11/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >When velocity goes supersonic flow goes to zero and so represents a HP
> wall to further development of RPMs.
> >
>
> I think you mean 'When velocity goes supersonic, flow quits increasing and
> so represents a HP wall ...', no?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:19:55 EST
From: Nedragr345@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
As a former (and hopefully again) Ascot racer, I too would be interested in
seeing your design, materials used etc. I fell in love with that old lump of a
motor, didn't develop it as far as I had liked before marriage slowed
(presently stalled) my progress. And even though every year the technology of
that engine gets that much more antiquated, I dream of building some type of
custom racing frame for it... the rest of you are thinking "poor bastards..."
Thanks, good luck.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:36:04 EST
From: Mfstj@aol.com
Subject: MC-Chassis anti-dive
Hi,
I've been working on the design for my Hossack front end and have come up
aganst an interesting problem; Is there an ideal value for anti dive? My
thoughts are that idealy the anti dive should keep the center of gravity
height at an optimum level for maximum braking force. John Roberts gives some
equations for working this out in his book (Motorcycle Tuning - Chassis,
Heinemann Newnes,1990) but I cant work out how to combine these with the
actual diving forces or even if it is possible for more than one instance of
deceleration. Any thoughts would be apreciated.
Yours
Matthew Davies
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:37:36 -0600
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Norton w/spine frame
Just got the November issue of the British mag "The Classic MotoCycle".
On page 34 there is a story on the stillborn Norton Model F racer. On
page 39 is a line drawing of the bike with a "phantom" tank so you can
see the frame design. The frame was made by Ken Sprayson (of Reynolds
Tube fame) and it has a 4.5" top spine that also is a 1 gallon oil tank.
The illustration is excellent and really illustrates (pun intended) how
the frame is designed. Is this one of the first uses of the spine type
frame design?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:39:11 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis anti-dive
> I've been working on the design for my Hossack front end and have come up
> aganst an interesting problem; Is there an ideal value for anti dive? My
The anti-dive article on Tony's website discusses that topic.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael Moore
Euro Spares, San Francisco CA
Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors"
Host of 7 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
http://www.eurospares.com
AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 19:42:37 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis A quick ad from the list owner
Yes dear friends, the holiday madness is upon us once again.
In order to save you hours of worry over what to get those near and
dear to you let me suggest a copy of John Bradley's book "The Racing
Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors, Volume 1". This is
sure to be a welcome gift for the technically-oriented motorcycle
enthusiast spouse, relative or friend. Each copy you order will also
make my holiday season a bit brighter, since I'm the North American
distributor for the book (and contact info to order a book from John
for those outside my area is on the website).
Details at:
www.eurospares.com/racebook.htm
Give the gift that keeps on giving - knowledge.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:43:25 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis List stats and reminders
As of 24 November the number of recipients of my lists (regular and
digest) are:
benelli-motobi 21+6=27
lightweight-roadrace 46+10=56
suzuki-gs-twin 81+19=100
vintage-dirt 79+21=100
laverda 75+31=106
vintage-roadrace 97+38=135
mc-chassis-design 107+66=173
Reminders:
Recent bounces to the lists have been for the same old stuff:
1> posting from an address other than the one you signed up from.
These lists are "closed" and won't accept outside posts.
2> Use of reserved or command words in posts. I've got the lists
configured to look for messages where people are trying to sign on/off
to the lists etc but sending the message to the list instead of the
majordomo software. These then come to me, and not out to the lists.
One draw back of this is that the software gets a bit overzealous at
times, and if it sees the words: h*lp, s*ubscribe, s*b (or who at the
beginning of a line) in the subject or message body it will grab that
message and bounce it to me. Please try to word your messages to
avoid using those terms, or replace a character as I did above.
3> Cross posting hasn't been much of a problem of late. If you feel
the need to post to multiple lists, use an individual message
addressed to one list. This is a common request from all the list
owners/administrators for the lists that I'm on so it shouldn't seem
like a really obscure practice.
4> For sale/wanted ads. Everyone has been pretty good about not
spamming the lists, and has kept the ads short and fairly unobtrusive.
Thanks. If you have something for sale, please list the location of
the goods in the original message as there is a pretty widespread
international s*bscriber base for the lists. I've got no problem with
ads in moderation - I've even bought some of the stuff now and then.
5> Replying to persons instead of the list. In re #4, if you have
questions about the for sale stuff, please direct them to the person
who has the stuff for sale, not back to the lists. The same goes for
posts of "me too, I agree" etc messages
6> Trimming out quoted text. Again, most people are being pretty good
about this, but I still occasionally see a multiscreen message quoted
in a reply. This is OK if you need to insert a comment on the original
message every few lines, but if you are just posting a general comment
please pare the original message down as much as possible. This helps
keep the digests a bit more manageable for those who receive them.
6A>Included HTML code. I guess that some of you use a web browser to
do your email. The default seems to be to include both a plain text
version as well as an HTML code version of the text in each message.
Please figure out how to turn that off - it just clutters up the
digests and archives.
6B>Line length. Some of you seem to have your editors set up for a
256 -> infinite line length. My editor often truncates the lines,
losing some of your message, and I'm sure that others probably have a
similar problem. Try to set up for a 60-70 character wordwrap if you
can so we don't miss out on your comments.
7> Courtesy. Everyone has been very good about this, and I
appreciate it. There have been a few small exchanges that I think
were attributable to misunderstandings/lack of clarity in posts, but
they were resolved without resorting to flame wars. Do keep in mind
that the people on the lists are of various genders/sexual
orientations/nationalities/etc. I'd rather you erred on the side of
excessive "political correctness" (a term I find often used by those
who are trying to justify their own lack of civility) than otherwise.
8> Fund drives. Some lists conduct these on an annual basis. I
thought about this and decided it would be more trouble than benefit,
and hard to conduct equitably anyway. Instead I'm going to print up
some list t-shirts and sell those at a nominal markup (and we've
already had the design contest). I'm waiting on a quote for Paul's
shirt design to come in. When that arrives we'll probably need to
have Paul or anyone else who fancies themselves a graphics wiz to do a
little cleanup/modification on the design before sending it to be
printed.
9>Attachments. A few new people have tried sending graphics files to
the list, and they've bounced due to the large file size. Otherwise
it hasn't been a problem. What's with these "card for XXXXXX"
attachments? Can those be turned off?
10>majordomo commands. Just send a message to:
majordomo@list.sirius.com saying "h#lp" (but spelling the word
properly) and you'll get back a list of commands. I've also got
sample uns&b/s&b commands on the website.
If you are going to be gone for the holidays or an extended period any
other time, please uns&b before you go if it is likely that your
mailbox is going to overflow and your ISP is going to start bouncing
messages back. Also, some of you have servers that seem to go down
frequently - if I see bounces on your messages for more than a couple
of days (I'm getting less tolerant and the # of days is getting
shorter) I'll take you off the list. There have been two people
recently on different lists that I've been getting bounce messages
back for days after I've removed them because of messages stuck in the
queue. If you know you have trouble with your local server you might
consider getting one of the free accounts from hotmail, yahoo, etc for
your list traffic (but don't forget to check it so that account
doesn't overflow too).
Don't forget that you can either request backdigests from majordomo
when you sign back on to the list or find them on the website (very
current for the chassis list thanks to Bob Schnick, less so for the
other lists that depend upon me to collate the archives).
I'm running 7 different lists so anything you can do to ease the
number of bounces/admin messages I have to deal with is appreciated.
If you've got questions please feel free to drop me a note and I'll
try to sort out your problem before it gets to be a bigger problem.
Thanks for making the lists the success they are.
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:22:51 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis A quick ad from the list owner
Michael Moore wrote:
>
> Yes dear friends, the holiday madness is upon us once again.
>
> In order to save you hours of worry over what to get those near and
> dear to you let me suggest a copy of John Bradley's book "The Racing
> Motorcycle: a technical guide for constructors, Volume 1".
I've got Vol 1, Mike. Lean on the guy to get the next volume out, then
I'll make you next holiday a little brighter.
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:33:43 -0600
From: "Tom Melesky"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
I hope to have something informative to show the group within the next few
weeks. The new chassis is being built by another racer who has several to
his credit. I spent some time this past season chasing him around various
race tracks, so am convinced they can't handle any worse than a stock Ascot
frame! And the price is right. And my Ascot frame broke in two on the
workbench while taking the motor out after Steamboat!
The bike will have an CBR600 F3 front end and a Ducati 900-spec shock. The
F3 front was picked for being a Honda [many things fit from one Honda to
another, even over a 15 year gulf!]. The shock was picked because it is NOT
a rising rate setup on the Ducati [and won't be on the new frame], and I
have a source knowledgable about things Ducati. Same source is currently
going through the forks. Will run a F2 front and a F3 rear wheel, will allow
use of best tires that are available. Ascot frame is limited by width of
stock swing arm is this regard. Bike should weigh in at 275 - 290 lbs with
near 50/50 weight distribution and should make a bit over 60 hp.
Am also modifying some stock Ascot frames; F3 forks, F2 swingarm grafter to
Ascot frame and converted to twin shocks [necessary for Vintage eligibility]
with adjustable lower shock mounts
Will keep list apprised of additional details as they reveal themselves.
Tom Melesky
- -----Original Message-----
From: Nedragr345@aol.com
To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
>As a former (and hopefully again) Ascot racer, I too would be interested in
>seeing your design, materials used etc. I fell in love with that old lump
of a
>motor, didn't develop it as far as I had liked before marriage slowed
>(presently stalled) my progress. And even though every year the technology
of
>that engine gets that much more antiquated, I dream of building some type
of
>custom racing frame for it... the rest of you are thinking "poor
bastards..."
>Thanks, good luck.
>Chris
>
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #832
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, November 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 833
1. "Rick" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
2. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
3. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
4. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Castor and all that
5. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
6. "Matthew O'Conner" Subj: MC-Chassis lodging in germany? (not M/C related)
7. "LTSNIDER" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
8. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Spines - F Norton
10. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis A quick ad from the list owner
11. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
12. "Glenn Thomson" Subj: MC-Chassis Welding Al
13. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis CAD files
14. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Welding Al
15. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
16. "Michael Moore" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:03:10 -0800
From: "Rick"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
>A few weeks ago I had a tour of the "Kinetic Analysis" shop operated by
>Ken Augustine in San Rafel, Calif. Any of you gents who would like a
>head "done to the max", may want to contact him. He is quite well known
>in MC racing. However may I offer, he is not interested in just making
>improvements, but more inclined toward redesign work, of course
>depending on the engine involved....
I would like to get a hold of Ken Augustine. Anyone have his phone number?
Turbo Rick
350HP Turbo GSXR1100 Street bike And Performance Bikes
Links Page, Chat Room and coming soon the on line parts store
Web Site http://www.ptw.com/~gsxr1100/
EL Mirage Land speed Record holder 204.626 MPH
E-mail gsxr1100@ptw.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:41:34 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Porting/flowing heads
Rick wrote:
>
>
> I would like to get a hold of Ken Augustine. Anyone have his phone number?
>
415-479-0666
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:43:07 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
Matthew asked:
<<
Is there an ideal value for anti dive? My
thoughts are that idealy the anti dive should keep the center of gravity
height at an optimum level for maximum braking force.
>>
You will get maximum braking if you share the load between front and rear
tyres, thus in practice you need as low a CoG as practically possible under
braking.
This might lead one to the conclusion that you therefore need lots of dive,
however that line of reasoning ignores the fact that if you eliminate
braking dive then you can build the bike a bit lower to begin with.
My feelings, based on my own experience and those of riders for whom I've
built bikes with teles, LL and FFEs, is that the optimum antidive is that
which any particular rider feels happiest with.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:47:53 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Castor and all that
After a recent post about calculating front geometry values, I've had
several private enquires about the subject.
So I knocked up a Q & D computer programme to do the job. Anybody can
download it
from
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos/Tf_Setup.zip
just unzip it into any directory of your choice and run it. It's for
Windows95/98 or NT only. It makes no changes to the registry or other
dangerous acts. To uninstall just delete the file.
You input any 3 of the following parameters and then it calculates the 4th.
Castor angle, trail, offset and wheel radius.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:45:54 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
Mark asked:
<<
The illustration is excellent and really illustrates (pun intended) how
the frame is designed. Is this one of the first uses of the spine type
frame design?
>>
NO.
The bike is at the Sammy Miller museum, which is also on the net, I don't
have the URL to hand. There are ( were? ) pics. of the Norton on the web
site.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:23:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "Matthew O'Conner"
Subject: MC-Chassis lodging in germany? (not M/C related)
I will land in Berlin on December 27th, spend three days there, three in
Dresden, a few in Freiberg, a week in Leipzig, and then a few more
days in Freiberg.
I am looking for lodging for two in Berlin, Dresden, and Leipzig and we
only need one bed.
Know anyone over there that I could talk to about finding good (i.e.,
cheap) places to stay? I've heard that many private persons advertise
"free rooms" that they rent out very cheaply, no food, no frills. That's
what I would like to do but I can't find anything on the web.
matt
sohc #14
omrra #82 '96 vintage 500cc champion
wmrra #282
reply to: oconner@serv.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:44:31 +0000
From: "LTSNIDER"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
RE: Norton Model F
The bike is at the Sammy Miller museum, which is also on the net, I don't
have the URL to hand. There are ( were? ) pics. of the Norton on the web
site.
Tony Foale
The URL is: http://motorcycle.com/mo/mcfrank/sammymuseum.html
LYNN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:12:48 -0500
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
In article <011201be18b7$cf08e120$e786fea9@main>, Tony Foale
writes
>You will get maximum braking if you share the load between front and rear
>tyres, thus in practice you need as low a CoG as practically possible under
>braking.
This is presumably on the basis that tyres have non-linear CoF and so
provide proportionately more grip under lighter loads. So if the load is
shared between the tyres you maximise the surface area of rubber that is
being used for braking. In the real world, I wonder how big an effect
this has. There's the other side effect as you raise the CofG, that
there comes a time when the front wheel is taking all the weight, the
back wheel is in the air, but the front hasn't broken traction.
Available braking effort is going to be limited by the back waving
around in the air rather than the front tyre.
For CofG lower than this point, the rider (or machine) has to balance
the front and rear brake so that both wheels are just on the point of
slipping. This is not exactly easy!
- -- --------============>>>>>>>>>> )+( <<<<<<<<<<============-------- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
MegaScooter/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
8650 M/C Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Names Used Are Fictitious <
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:22:59 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Spines - F Norton
> The bike is at the Sammy Miller museum, which is also on the net, I don't
> have the URL to hand. There are ( were? ) pics. of the Norton on the web
> site.
Hello Tony,
Surtees also has one running, and it is equipped with the trailing
link forks that Norton allegedly intended to use.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:22:59 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis A quick ad from the list owner
> I've got Vol 1, Mike. Lean on the guy to get the next volume out, then
> I'll make you next holiday a little brighter.
Hello Marty,
John is working on Volume 2 as he gets time, but he's not a full time
writer and has to fit the writing in with all the rest of trying to
have a life. He'll be as happy as anyone else to get Vol 2 done and
out on the market, instead of dangling like a blunt sword of Damocles
over his head.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:22:59 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Fascot frame
> stock swing arm is this regard. Bike should weigh in at 275 - 290
Hello Tom,
That weight sounds pretty high to me. I'd think you should be able,
with street wheels, to get it closer to 250 dry without a great deal
of difficulty.
Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:46:22 +0000
From: "Glenn Thomson"
Subject: MC-Chassis Welding Al
Hello All,
I've finally gotten around to buying a torch. There are a few
projects in the works for the winter, one of which is to re-learn
aluminum welding. Of course, gas welding Al is a forgotten art, so
the local shop is not entirely sure what to suggest for flux. There
is one flux listed, but it isn't clear whether this is for welding,
soldering, or 'all purpose'.
Does anyone have a part # or name for flux from one of the larger
supply houses to use as a starting point?
Thanks,
Glenn
gthomson(at)bserv.com
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:40:19 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis CAD files
The engine drawings from Glenn and Geo are in the new additions
section of the graphics page.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:45:10 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Welding Al
> Does anyone have a part # or name for flux from one of the larger
> supply houses to use as a starting point?
Hello Glenn,
I think both the Tinman and Fournier can provide an appropriate flux,
and since they cater to AL gas welding it might be easier to go with
their product rather than hassling the local counter person. Then
again, they might even tell you what the brand is so you can get it
locally.
My jar of "Amerigas" aluminum flux says it is for welding or brazing
of all aluminum alloys. No part number is given.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:48:38 -0600
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
Is this one of the first uses of the spine type frame design?
>>
NO.
Curious as to earlier designs using the large spine. BTW, the article
credits Sammy Miller for the excellent resoration (probably was more of
a reconstruction).
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 20:54:58 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
> Curious as to earlier designs using the large spine. BTW, the article
> credits Sammy Miller for the excellent resoration (probably was more of
> a reconstruction).
Hello Mark,
Guzzi V8 - 1955-57, as well as the last 500cc Guzzi single RR
Art Wheeler's Reynolds/Sprayson-framed Guzzi 250
Reynolds/Sprayson NSU (ex G. Duke?)
Vincent's rectangular oil-tank/backbone could be considered a spine
of sorts (though a bit malformed).
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #833
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, November 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 834
1. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
2. "Michael Moore" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
3. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
4. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Norton F type
5. "Matthew Casey" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis foundry patterns and forkless bike Re: MC-Chassis foundry patterns and forkless bike questions.
6. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Norton F type
7. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
8. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
9. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 23:24:38 -0600
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
Michael said "Guzzi V8 - 1955-57, as well as the last 500cc Guzzi single
RR
Art Wheeler's Reynolds/Sprayson-framed Guzzi 250
Reynolds/Sprayson NSU (ex G. Duke?)
Vincent's rectangular oil-tank/backbone could be considered a spine
of sorts (though a bit malformed)."
Thanks Michael.
Wasn't this Norton designed in 1953/54 though? The Vincent predated
that, but some of the others are newer.
Did Ken Sprayson devise this type of frame (excluding the Vincent
example)?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 21:44:51 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Re: Spines
> Wasn't this Norton designed in 1953/54 though? The Vincent predated
> that, but some of the others are newer.
"Built for Speed" says it would have debuted in spring of 1955, so
I'd imagine it was at least a year before that when development
started. The Guzzi Otto Cilindri also debuted in 1955. The spine
frame looks to have appeared on the 250/350 Guzzis in 1955 or 1956.
> Did Ken Sprayson devise this type of frame (excluding the Vincent
> example)?
I don't think so. Wheeler's bike got the Sprayson frame in 1959.
Sprayson built a Manx frame for Duke that had a large OD front
downtube that doubled as oil tank - but I don't remember what year
that was. The Sprayson NSU frame had a curved backbone, like an OIF
Triumph.
The works NSU had a pressed steel spine frame in the early 1950s
constructed along the lines of the later Honda S90 style unit, and
the Ariel Arrow/Leader had a similar device.
The Aermacchi Chimera, debuting in 12/56 not only had a spine frame
but monoshock rear suspension.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:51:40 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
Julian said in response to my post:
<<
This is presumably on the basis that tyres have non-linear CoF and so
provide proportionately more grip under lighter loads. So if the load is
shared between the tyres you maximise the surface area of rubber that is
being used for braking.
>>
Yes, of course.
<<
In the real world, I wonder how big an effect
this has.
>>
People in the car world seem to understand these effects better. The
effects are certainly big enough to be able to significantly alter the
oversteer/understeer/general balance of the car just by changing roll
stiffness at one end of the car and hence changing the side to side weight
distribution on the tyres. For anyone unfamiliar with this, it's explained
more fully in an article on my site about car suspension.
A while back someone on this list quoted a well known (and fast) rider as
saying that he only used the rear brake for emergency stops. I guess that
means that he used it when he wanted to stop quicker.
<<
There's the other side effect as you raise the CofG, that
there comes a time when the front wheel is taking all the weight, the
back wheel is in the air, but the front hasn't broken traction.
Available braking effort is going to be limited by the back waving
around in the air rather than the front tyre.
>>
Couldn't agree more, it then comes down to the skill of the rider.
Although, remember that once the rear wheel is in the air there is no more
weight available to be transferred to the front and so by definition the
bike will then be braking with maximum available effort.
<<
For CofG lower than this point, the rider (or machine) has to balance
the front and rear brake so that both wheels are just on the point of
slipping. This is not exactly easy!
>>
Easier for some riders than for others.
My comments were in response to a question about optimum braking and
implicitly assumed that the rider was up to the job, that of course it not
always the case.
Cars ( road and competition) get around this problem by coupling the front
and rear controls, this is not so easy on a bike to achieve "optimum"
balance because of it's lighter weight and unfavourable length to CoG
height ratio. A change of rider has a disproportionate influence over CoG
position. Competition cars often have onboard adjustments for front to rear
braking balance.
For most riders a low CoG + a good ABS would probably provide the best
setup.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:54:32 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Norton F type
Michael said:
<<
Surtees also has one running, and it is equipped with the trailing
link forks that Norton allegedly intended to use.
>>
Surely that must be a replica? I thought that Nortons didn't even complete
the one bike, let alone have two on the go.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 98 08:23:42 PST
From: "Matthew Casey"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis foundry patterns and forkless bike Re: MC-Chassis foundry patterns and forkless bike questions.
The Bimota Tesi 1Dsr front end including the swing arm, axle, bearings and Michelin tyre 120/70/17 was under 0.5Kg of a complete front end off the Bimota Furano. (Ohlins production forks (circa 1992), Michelin 120/70/17 tyre, axle, Akront wheel, Bimota steering stem, triple clamps and handle bars.).
- ----------
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks again for the welcome and the update on your intresting projects.
>
> I can offer a few resources for your questions on casting shrinkage. I
> do remember the special rulers from engineering school, but, you might
> also call Ivan at San Leandro Pattern Works (510) 672-1483. He has been
> making patterns for my new bike, so it would be OK to say I sent you.
> Also, you might talk to Bret Cobler at Castco (510) 562-7686. They did
> the swingarm and upright castings for the 350 project. Bret is now a
> good friend of mine and will be glad to talk about bike stuff. Tell him
> I said Hi.
>
> As I mentioned in my e-mail to you, I am working on a new bike design.
> It happens to have many cast parts. I am finding that designing for
> srinkage is just one of many considerations. I am learning that uniform
> wall thickness is important. If I have a part with an overly thick
> area, it needs to be relativly close to a gate or riser so that it will
> be fed as the thinner material cools and shuts off flow. I am told that
> if this does not happen, the thick area may actually end up being a week
> area with an internal breakdown of the metal structure. Draft seems to
> be a no-brainer unless I have a pocket with a hight depth to width, then
> extra draft is needed, especialy for green sand. The biggest problem so
> far seems to be parts getting bent or warped during heat treating. I
> will get two identical parts back with slightly different demensions.
> The foundry thinks the parts might have been at the bottom of a pile of
> parts in the tank and bent from the weight. I just have to work around
> it...
>
> I have two questions for anyone's reply : First, Does anyone have any
> information on the Van der Hiede bike that is in Roadracing World this
> month? I am specifically intrested in their patents. I would not want
> to copy something that is protected... I did called Two Bros Racing
> (they were mentioned in the brief article). They have never heard of
> the bike prior to the RRW article.
> My second question is regarding unsprung mass in production forkless
> bikes. Does anyone happen to know if the unsprung mass in the frontend
> of bikes like the Tesi or GTS is comprable to that of a conventional?
>
> Thanks,
> Julian Farnam
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:32:46 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Norton F type
> Surtees also has one running, and it is equipped with the trailing
> link forks that Norton allegedly intended to use.
> >>
>
> Surely that must be a replica? I thought that Nortons didn't even complete
> the one bike, let alone have two on the go.
Hello Tony,
I think that I read Surtees got the nearly complete 350 engine and
some bits, and I'd guess he just built the rest. I don't know if
that qualifies as a replica or not - though it wouldn't be original.
Surtees didn't put an AJS Porcupine style tank on his - the article
said that was just an artists idea for the original magazine article,
and I guess Surtees had a better idea of what was intended to be used
(since he put the TL forks on his instead of the teles that Miller
used).
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:07:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
- -> A while back someone on this list quoted a well known (and fast)
- -> rider as saying that he only used the rear brake for emergency stops.
- -> I guess that means that he used it when he wanted to stop quicker.
Sounds like he doesn't have enough front brake if the rear wheel is
still on the ground...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:30:04 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
> -> A while back someone on this list quoted a well known (and fast)
> -> rider as saying that he only used the rear brake for emergency stops.
> -> I guess that means that he used it when he wanted to stop quicker.
>
> Sounds like he doesn't have enough front brake if the rear wheel is
> still on the ground...
Or that the combined C of G of the rider and bike is low enough to
keep the wheel on the ground even under heavy front wheel braking.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:05:56 -0500
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
Then we should all hear that front tire howling!
This is the case with the Morini, The tire slides long before the rear lifts. Forks go full compression too.
I must admit both situations get my heart to go.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
>
> > -> A while back someone on this list quoted a well known (and fast)
> > -> rider as saying that he only used the rear brake for emergency stops.
> > -> I guess that means that he used it when he wanted to stop quicker.
> >
> > Sounds like he doesn't have enough front brake if the rear wheel is
> > still on the ground...
>
> Or that the combined C of G of the rider and bike is low enough to
> keep the wheel on the ground even under heavy front wheel braking.
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #834
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Saturday, November 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 835
1. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Archive updates
2. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis programmable ignitions
3. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
5. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
6. "Joe Allan" Subj: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air/questions
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Chassis word processing?
8. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air/questions
9. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
10. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
11. Henry Cutler Subj: MC-Chassis introducing myself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 07:50:27 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Archive updates
I've just uploaded to the web site the zipped digests to bring all the
lists up to date (except for the chassis list that Bob Schnick keeps
up to date in html format). The links are on the site's mailing list
page.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 08:54:01 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis programmable ignitions
Someone on my Suzuki GS twin list just posted this URL which will
probably be of interest to some of you. It is about modifying an
RG500 ignition:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Rob.Koopman/HTML/marc02/index.html
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:39:00 -0500
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
In article , Julian Bond
writes
>In article <011201be18b7$cf08e120$e786fea9@main>, Tony Foale
> writes
>>You will get maximum braking if you share the load between front and rear
>>tyres, thus in practice you need as low a CoG as practically possible under
>>braking.
>
>For CofG lower than this point, the rider (or machine) has to balance
>the front and rear brake so that both wheels are just on the point of
>slipping. This is not exactly easy!
>
Apologies for replying to my own post, but I can't find Tony's second
reply.
I've thought for a while that the logical extension of ABS on bikes is
to combine it with linked brakes. What I have in mind is independant ABS
on front and rear with both the hand and foot lever activating both
brakes. This should probably use two circuits for legal and fail-safe
reasons. The bit I'm not sure about is how much hardware you would need
to use to be able to bring both wheels to the point of locking
repeatedly, using either hand or foot. [1]
I wonder how hard it would be to modify an existing BMW setup to achieve
this, or perhaps to mix and match Honda's split calipers (off the ST1100
and CBR1000)and BMWs electronics.
Am I right in thinking that nobody's done this yet? We've had linked
brakes from Honda/Guzzi and ABS from BMW, but never both on one M/C.
If this could be made to work, it would remove a lot of the skill from
getting maximum braking, and remove one of the objections to a low CoG.
Now if we also have "sufficient" power to lift the front while spinning
the back despite a low CoG that removes another. Then add an FFE with
low trail and rake figures for speed of response. Maybe I'm closing in
here on another sweet spot in M/C design that is long and low instead of
being short and high?
[1]I think on cars, they typically use two circuits which each act on
both front and one rear brake. How are the two circuits combined in the
front calipers? Do they have two pairs of pistons with separate
hydraulic circuits?
- -- --------============>>>>>>>>>> )+( <<<<<<<<<<============-------- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
MegaScooter/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
8650 M/C Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Coincidence #23 <
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:52:53 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Has anyone had a chance to weigh both air and water cooled versions
of the same engine to see what the difference (if any) is?
Possible engines that appeared in both forms could be the one of the
2 stroke MX engines, RD350/RZ350 or something like a Husqvarna
thumper.
It seems like the radiator system w/water would be heavier than the
weight saved by deleting the aluminum fins on the air cooled cylinder
and head.
I won't argue that a w/c version of an engine is likely to perform
more consistently and probably with better power/efficiency, but not
having to design a chassis around all the plumbing and heat
exchangers has some attractions too.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:55:31 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
> If this could be made to work, it would remove a lot of the skill from
> getting maximum braking, and remove one of the objections to a low CoG.
> Now if we also have "sufficient" power to lift the front while spinning
> the back despite a low CoG that removes another. Then add an FFE with
> low trail and rake figures for speed of response. Maybe I'm closing in
> here on another sweet spot in M/C design that is long and low instead of
> being short and high?
Hello Julian,
By chance are you leading up to proposing a high tech (to borrow a
phrase from Royce C.) FF? Sneaky, sneaky.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:05:10 -0800
From: "Joe Allan"
Subject: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air/questions
Michael Moore wrote:
- ----------------------------snip---------------------------------
> It seems like the radiator system w/water would be heavier than the
> weight saved by deleting the aluminum fins on the air cooled cylinder
> and head.
>
> I won't argue that a w/c version of an engine is likely to perform
> more consistently and probably with better power/efficiency, but not
> having to design a chassis around all the plumbing and heat
> exchangers has some attractions too.
Hello All:
I've struggled with the idea of converting my air cooled SOHC Honda
750 drag racer to water cooling, on first glance it would be an easy
modification to sheet in the cylinders and pump water through them but I
have these nagging thoughts:
*Would the added weight and power robbing pump be so benificial in HP
gains to be worth it?
*what kind of problems may I cause if it is not plumbed into and out of
the motor right? (Hot spots etc)
*as the head runs much hotter would there be more benifit to jacketing it
as well, or instead? (much, much harder to do though)
*is there any real benifit to just doing the cylinders, (I remember they
did use some sort of aftermarket jackets on the Easyriders HD
streamliner)
*if the cylinders are done could I tighten up on the piston to cyl
clearance? Any other mechanical benifits?
I guess it would look "cool" and be a conversation piece for the pro side
but is the benifit/hassle balance worth it is the bottom line. The added
frame building complexity Michael mentioned is also a factor too.
I am building a XS650 dragger now and the thought of jacketing the cyl
on it has crossed my mind as it is known to be a hot runner when you bore
them out.
Thanks for listening
Joe Allan
Vancouver Isl
Canada
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:02:22 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Chassis word processing?
I thought I'd do a bit of work today on Don Girard's rear suspension
book, so I started inserting equations in MS Word 97 (the equation
editor is, in general, easier to use than in WordPerfect 95).
When I type a minus sign (-) in an equation Word plugs in a rectangle
that is the full height of the nearby characters instead. This
rectangle is what shows on the screen in print preview and what prints out.
If anyone knows how I can get it to give me a real minus sign please
drop me a note off the list.
Thanks,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:07:35 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air/questions
Hello Joe,
> I've struggled with the idea of converting my air cooled SOHC Honda
> 750 drag racer to water cooling, on first glance it would be an easy
> modification to sheet in the cylinders and pump water through them but I
> have these nagging thoughts:
> *Would the added weight and power robbing pump be so benificial in HP
> gains to be worth it?
I wouldn't think that it would since you are running for such a short
time - you'd just bring it up to temp and go, and never get a chance
to overheat.
> *what kind of problems may I cause if it is not plumbed into and out of
> the motor right? (Hot spots etc)
> *as the head runs much hotter would there be more benifit to jacketing it
> as well, or instead? (much, much harder to do though)
If you are only going to do one I think on a four stroke you'd do
the head - the DOHC Rotax single has just a w/c head on a standard
air-cooled cylinder (I think that is the setup, someone is sure to
correct me if I'm remembering wrong).
> *is there any real benifit to just doing the cylinders, (I remember they
> did use some sort of aftermarket jackets on the Easyriders HD
> streamliner)
Probably more beneficial on a 2 smoker I'd think - I've seen 2 stroke
conversions with just a w/c cylinder. That may have more to do with
keeping the cylinder from distorting so badly from all the gaping
holes in it.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 14:21:17 -0500
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
In article <199811271755.JAA17350@mail3.sirius.com>, Michael Moore
writes
> Maybe I'm closing in
>> here on another sweet spot in M/C design that is long and low instead of
>> being short and high?
>
>By chance are you leading up to proposing a high tech (to borrow a
>phrase from Royce C.) FF? Sneaky, sneaky.
Who Me?! Nah! There's actually been some correspondence in MCS&L in the
last couple of months about high siding and the effect of CoG location.
It's involved Andy Stephenson, Royce and a few others with some
wonderful thought experiments involving see-saws and small dogs. That's
what got me on this tack again.
In among all the other bullsh*t that's talked about M/C design there's
some interesting tidbits. To make vast generalizations, Ducatis
generally have a lower perceived CoG and slightly longer wheelbase than
the norm, especially things like the Supermono. This is used as an
explanation for their stability in mid turn. Then we have the perceived
wisdom that shorter wheelbase, steeper rake, and shorter trail is the
way to go with race bikes, which then filters through to the road,
especially in the 600 class.
I would love to see someone build a prototype where these ideas are
turned on their head. In other words, deliberately to build a bike with
dimensions say 65-75" wheelbase, 15/90mm rake/trail and a combined
bike/rider CoG maybe 10" lower than the current norm. Then to do enough
track day optimization to get it in the ball park, and finally give it
to a hotshot who's used to riding current bikes hard for an opinion.
- -- --------============>>>>>>>>>> )+( <<<<<<<<<<============-------- --
Julian Bond
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:34:19 -0700
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Michael,
If I remember right - it was a few years ago - the Husky Thumper was
"claimed by the factory" to have lost about 10lbs when they did the
change-over. Both were 510's. Never was quite clear if this also included
the hoses and the radiator? But even with those the w/c would still be the
lighter. Cylinder castings are generally thinner, and the better cooling
allows the liner to be thinner as well. With the newer composite/ceramic
liners it is lighter still.
Swiss
Subject: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
>Has anyone had a chance to weigh both air and water cooled versions
>of the same engine to see what the difference (if any) is?
>
>Possible engines that appeared in both forms could be the one of the
>2 stroke MX engines, RD350/RZ350 or something like a Husqvarna
>thumper.
>
>It seems like the radiator system w/water would be heavier than the
>weight saved by deleting the aluminum fins on the air cooled cylinder
>and head.
>
>I won't argue that a w/c version of an engine is likely to perform
>more consistently and probably with better power/efficiency, but not
>having to design a chassis around all the plumbing and heat
>exchangers has some attractions too.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:03:28 -0800
From: Henry Cutler
Subject: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Hello all,
I'd like to introduce myself to those of you on this list:
I am a gearhead. First it was bicycles, then cars, then bicycles again, and
now motorycles. My most extensive "chassis" experience is in designing
racing bicycles, which I did as a hobby for the past few years. However,
that was primarily for aerodynamic "time-trial" frames where the
overwhelming concern is molding the rider into the most aerodynamic profile,
while accommodating pedaling biomechanics. It is also preferable the the
rider be able to maintain the preferred "rubber-side-down" orientation.
I've since found an affliction for riding motorcycles and tinkering with them.
My current and only bike is a hot-rod BMW (oxymoron?) that's been serving me
admirably as daily transportation, weekend canyon carver, touring bike and
grocery cart for the past six years. An extra frame is sitting in my garage,
waiting for "improvements".
In time new bikes will join the stable, and none will remain stock. Although
I don't know what the next bike will be, I know its purpose and some of its
important qualities: Its for riding fast in the Santa Cruz mountains and
doing some tracktime. It will be quick, simple to work on and modify, handle
great on twisty little roads, and I'd prefer it to be attractive in a
vintage-ey way (or be genuinely old).
I've plenty to learn, but I hope I can provide a bit of information as well.
Thanks,
Henry Cutler
1000cc BMW R65
daedalus@mediacity.com
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, November 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 836
1. David Weinshenker Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
2. "Ed Biafore" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
3. Julian Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
4. "Ed Biafore" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
5. Henry Cutler Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
6. David Weinshenker Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
7. "Tony Foale" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
8. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
10. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
11. "Glenn Thomson" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 21:24:25 -0800
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Henry Cutler wrote:
> It will be quick, simple to work on and modify, handle
> great on twisty little roads, and I'd prefer it to be attractive in a
> vintage-ey way (or be genuinely old).
You might want to find yourself a Yamaha RD-350. I'm messing about with
one at the moment, and I'd say your description fits it almost exactly.
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 23:24:06 -0700
From: "Ed Biafore"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
> You might want to find yourself a Yamaha RD-350. I'm messing about with
> one at the moment, and I'd say your description fits it almost exactly.
> -dave w
I had a RD a while back, good bike, light, corners well. Just move the pegs
up if you really want to tear it up in the twisties. I dragged the hell out
of mine!! Just ask the local members of the law enforcement community!
Later,
Ed
'91 883/1200 Sporty
Glendale, AZ
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 22:48:17 +0000
From: Julian
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
> > I have two questions for anyone's reply : First, Does anyone have any
> > information on the Van der Hiede bike that is in Roadracing World this
> > month? I am specifically intrested in their patents. I would not want
> > to copy something that is protected... I did called Two Bros Racing
> > (they were mentioned in the brief article). They have never heard of
> > the bike prior to the RRW article.
> > My second question is regarding unsprung mass in production forkless
> > bikes. Does anyone happen to know if the unsprung mass in the frontend
> > of bikes like the Tesi or GTS is comprable to that of a conventional?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Julian Farnam
Thanks to those who have sent me follow-up info.
I am still intrested in finding out the exact un-sprung mass of a Tesi
and a GTS if anyone has ever studied this. Additionally, I would be
intrested in that information divided between the un-sprung mass that is
rotating (tire, wheel, rotors, etc) and that which is not (axel,
calipers, uprights, swingarms and misc. connecting arms). I realize
that this isn't regular magazine trivia, but maybe someone has some
insight...
I'll even throw this out for comment... I think everyone would agree
that less mass is better than more, in most areas of chassis design. In
my area of interest (at least for this week), could anyone comment on
the effect of lighter un-sprung mass in the rototing parts compared to
those which are not rotating? I'm sure that there is a degree of
importance. We all know that lighter wheels are a good thing. I'm just
wondering how good? Is a pound shaved off a wheel much better than a
pound shaved off an axel or fork leg?
Also, has anyone analized the performance and riding characteristics
effected by changes in un-sprung mass?
Thanks, I'm going to go dig up my old engineering dynamics book now...
Julian Farnam
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 23:59:16 -0700
From: "Ed Biafore"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Hi Henry,
Welcome to the list.
> My current and only bike is a hot-rod BMW (oxymoron?) that's been
> serving me admirably as daily transportation, weekend canyon carver,
touring bike > and grocery cart for the past six years.
I have a '91 HD Sporty, with the same mission!!
> In time new bikes will join the stable, and none will remain
> stock.
I don't think I have anything that's stock, I just gotta "improve" all my
toys!!
Later,
Ed
'91 883/1200 Sporty
Glendale, AZ
http://home.att.net/~biafore/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 23:13:20 -0800
From: Henry Cutler
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
At 09:24 PM 11/28/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Henry Cutler wrote:
>> It will be quick, simple to work on and modify, handle
>> great on twisty little roads, and I'd prefer it to be attractive in a
>> vintage-ey way (or be genuinely old).
>
>You might want to find yourself a Yamaha RD-350. I'm messing about with
>one at the moment, and I'd say your description fits it almost exactly.
Yes. That's the sort of bike I'm thinking of. I can think of a number of
options (engine and parts donors?):
common stuff:
Yamaha RD 350/400
Yamaha SR/TT500
Yamaha SRX600
Honda Hawk
or something more exotic:
Special framed "racer" (spondon...)
Ducati 750
Rotax single in a (______?)
am I missing anything obvious?
- -Henry
Henry Cutler
- ------------
daedalus@mediacity.com 1039 Laurel Street 3
ph & fax: 650.328.9201 Menlo Park, CA 94025
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 00:07:40 -0800
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Henry Cutler wrote:
> Yes. That's the sort of bike I'm thinking of. I can think of a number of
> options (engine and parts donors?):
You might perhaps want to consider an RZ350, though the
additional plumbing makes working in the engine bay a bit
of a chore compared to the delightfully simple RD.
Also, of the two, I happen to like the RD a hair better
than the RZ as far as handling in the tightest going -
they're both fine-handling machines in their own ways,
each with light steering and an abundance of cornering power,
but the little RD is crisper and more responsive,
and begs to be tossed around in high-deflection maneuvers.
The RZ, more comfortable over long distances, feels
long and rangy; the RD feels compact and chunky. Is
this what they mean by "mass centralization?" The RD
is so small that there are basically no "non-centralized"
places to put much mass...
Some folks say that a fine thing to build is a "Yama-Gamma"
which is a Suzuki RG250 "Gamma" chassis powered by an
RZ350 motor, but I have no direct familiarity
with this concoction.
Every so often there's something about such hybrids on the
2strokes list or rd.linefeed.com.
I suspect an RD chassis/RZ motor hybrid could have potential,
though you might need to go to dirtbike-style side-mounted
radiators to make everything fit.
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 12:05:10 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
Julian said:
<<
I would love to see someone build a prototype where these ideas are
turned on their head. In other words, deliberately to build a bike with
dimensions say 65-75" wheelbase, 15/90mm rake/trail and a combined
bike/rider CoG maybe 10" lower than the current norm. Then to do enough
track day optimization to get it in the ball park, and finally give it
to a hotshot who's used to riding current bikes hard for an opinion.
>>
I think that I did that.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:12:17 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
Julian said:
> I would love to see someone build a prototype where these ideas are
> turned on their head. In other words, deliberately to build a bike with
> dimensions say 65-75" wheelbase, 15/90mm rake/trail and a combined
> bike/rider CoG maybe 10" lower than the current norm. Then to do enough
> track day optimization to get it in the ball park, and finally give it
> to a hotshot who's used to riding current bikes hard for an opinion.
and Tony replied:
> I think that I did that.
Hello Tony,
Was that when you had Phil Read ride the QL (I think that is the
anecdote you related to me)?
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:43:04 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
> am I missing anything obvious?
Hello Henry,
the EX250 Ninja is quite fun, and you get a near 14K redline in stock
form. You can read a bit about my EX250 engined 125GP project on my
website.
I'm all for small bikes for this type of public roads stuff - your
license is slightly more secure, and if you are on tight mountain
roads with a 50mph physical limit you can't use everything a big bike
has anyway.
SRX250, XL250/350, H-D/Aermacchi Sprint would all be fun to base a
project around. Plus, you can actually find donor bikes like those
with legit titles, avoiding the DMV hassles with a dirt-bike engined
project.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 08:48:12 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
> the effect of lighter un-sprung mass in the rototing parts compared to
> those which are not rotating? I'm sure that there is a degree of
> importance. We all know that lighter wheels are a good thing. I'm just
> wondering how good? Is a pound shaved off a wheel much better than a
> pound shaved off an axel or fork leg?
>
> Also, has anyone analized the performance and riding characteristics
> effected by changes in un-sprung mass?
Hello Julian,
Anything you can do to reduce the large gyro forces in the wheel
will make (I think) the bike easier to turn at speed. The wheel will
also be easier to accelerate or brake as its weight goes down,
especially if you can take the weight off the outside edges of the
wheel rim.
For straight unsprung weight vis a vis suspensin I don't think it
matters where the weight comes off.
The higher the sprung to unsprung mass ratio the easier it will be to
get a good action from the suspension. This is a problem that very
light bikes run into, since sprung weight is much harder to reduce
than the weight of the rest of the bike (and the rider - I'm thinking
of small 125GP riders/bikes).
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 17:43:58 +0000
From: "Glenn Thomson"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
On 28 Nov 98, Julian wrote:
> I'll even throw this out for comment... I think everyone would agree
> that less mass is better than more, in most areas of chassis design. In
> my area of interest (at least for this week), could anyone comment on
> the effect of lighter un-sprung mass in the rototing parts compared to
> those which are not rotating? I'm sure that there is a degree of
> importance. We all know that lighter wheels are a good thing. I'm just
> wondering how good? Is a pound shaved off a wheel much better than a
> pound shaved off an axel or fork leg?
> Thanks, I'm going to go dig up my old engineering dynamics book now...
OK, I'll take a shot at this. This is the no-math version. Terms
will be used a bit more casually than in their strict engineering
sense.
To simplify initially, let's consider removing one lb from the axle
compared to 1 lb from the wheel rim. In both cases, you have
removed 1 lb from the unsprung mass (please don't let's get into
the mass/weight discussion today :-) ). You have also removed
1 lb from the mass you have to accelerate down the road.
However, any rotating mass must be spun up as well as accelerated
down the road: put your wheel on a balancing stand, and you must
do work to spin it. Remove mass at the rim, less work to get it up
to the same rotational speed. Rotational speed is directly related
to road speed (ignoring wheelspin). So what you've done by removing
a pound from the rim is removed a pound of linearly accelerated mass,
as well as some rotationally accelerated "mass". You don't get the
rotational effect lightening the axle. This rotational effect works
on crankshaft bits as well, and the effect is multiplied by the
square (I think) of the gear ratio. Michael explained this in the
Kaw 250 article on his web site.
The amount of this effect depends on the square of the radius of the
mass from the centre of rotation - when you've got the dynamics text
out, check 'moment of inertia'. 1 lb at the rim is worth lots more
than 1 lb at the hub for acceleration, although both help unsprung
weight equally.
Now, to remove some of the initial simplification. For a forkless
bike, or a rear swingarm, all mass is not equal. The swingarm is
actually rotating around the pivot, so removing 1 lb at the axle is
worth a lot more than 1 lb at the pivot as unsprung weight - that
radius squared thing again.
That's about it. There are the gyro effects of removing rotating
mass, of course.
Cheers,
Glenn
gthomson(at)bserv.com
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #836
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, November 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 837
1. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Mass etc.
2. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: MC-Chassis Tire size for 175 racebike?
3. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Tire size for 175 racebike?
5. Julian Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
6. "Glenn Thomson" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
8. Dick Brewster Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
10. "Ed Biafore" Subj: RE: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
11. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:05:45 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Mass etc.
Julian asked:
<<
could anyone comment on
the effect of lighter un-sprung mass in the rototing parts compared to
those which are not rotating? I'm sure that there is a degree of
importance. We all know that lighter wheels are a good thing. I'm just
wondering how good? Is a pound shaved off a wheel much better than a
pound shaved off an axel or fork leg?
>>
Really, the effects from un-sprung mass ( rotating or not ) is really
separate from effects due to rotating, it's really just a conicidence that
the rotating bits are also unsprung (engine excepted).
Unsprung mass affects suspension performance, wheras rotating mass affects
the strength of precessional effects etc.
<<
Also, has anyone analized the performance and riding characteristics
effected by changes in un-sprung mass?
>>
Yes, this is all fairly standard stuff, but you'll have more success if you
search the literature on cars rather than bikes. For the most part it's all
applicable to 2 wheelers also.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:01:59 -0500
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: MC-Chassis Tire size for 175 racebike?
I have a CanAm pile that would make a GREAT AHRMA Formula 125 entry. The
rules allow 2.15 rim width. What would be the appropriate size tires for a
220 lb vintage road race bike? 18" dia of course.
Michael, the new Formula 125 rules might open the door for you and Craig to
race your Honda CB/SL 125/150 { plus} bikes. { and get smoked :--o
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:26:21 -0500
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #835
In article <199811291612.IAA16981@mail3.sirius.com>, Michael Moore
writes
>
>and Tony replied:
>> I think that I did that.
>
>Hello Tony,
>
>Was that when you had Phil Read ride the QL (I think that is the
>anecdote you related to me)?
I guess the problem for me (and the general magazine writing and reading
public) in terms of some sort of proof, is that the QLs had some
slightly quirky design (eg the handlebars) and the BMW variants had a
fairly low tech engine even by the standards of 10 years ago. I'm really
looking for something that is as close to current techniques as possible
and is going to be immediately familiar to current riders, but longer
and with a lower CoG.
As I was thinking about this (in the shower!) I also started to think
about the current trend for mass centralization and reduced Moment of
Inertia in all directions. It seemed to me that reducing moments of
inertia in Yaw and Pitch was much less important than in Roll on a M/C.
In fact, higher Yaw and Pitch MoI might be desirable to make the machine
more stable in those directions. But then would increased Yaw MoI make
high sides more or less likely? In the Roll direction of course, we'll
quickly get back into arguments about where the roll centre is. If you
pictured a M/C as a dumb bell with high density long thin weights at
each end, it would roll very quickly but resist Yaw and Pitch.
- -- --------============>>>>>>>>>> )+( <<<<<<<<<<============-------- --
Julian Bond
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:29:38 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tire size for 175 racebike?
> I have a CanAm pile that would make a GREAT AHRMA Formula 125 entry. The
> rules allow 2.15 rim width. What would be the appropriate size tires for a
> 220 lb vintage road race bike? 18" dia of course.
Hello Ray,
80/90x18 Avon treaded race tires (maybe a 90 on the rear if you think
it necessary) work fine on my WM2-shod Honda, as well as the 250
Ducati I raced last year. I don't know that you'd gain that much
with a 2.15" rim on the front of such a small bike.
FYI - current 125GP rims are 2.5 and 3.5x17.
> Michael, the new Formula 125 rules might open the door for you and Craig to
> race your Honda CB/SL 125/150 { plus} bikes. { and get smoked :--o
No thanks, we need to get them to let the CB125 race in 200GP+ where
it would fit in a bit better.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 17:42:22 +0000
From: Julian
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
Thanks guys, for the detailed responces to my questions on reducing
un-sprung mass. I think the point concerning the ratio of sprung to
un-sprung mass is worth looking at. I had not thought about that, but
it makes good sence and I can see why it is critical on a light race
bike. No one wants to race a Cadilac!
Reducing rotating mass to increse acceleration is also very important
and a seperate issue to consider at a future point.
In testing with my forkless 350, the only real problem was some amount
of front wheel chatter on tracks with high speed (100+mph) sweepers. At
first, I did a lot of adjusting with the shock and pre-load settings.
That helped and seems to be at optimal settings now. Next, I have
compared the mass of the un-sprung components to those of a conventional
bike (FZR600) and found my bike to be much higher. Most of the parts
were designed with safty in mind (I don't want the front end to break
off while going through turn 9 at Sear's Point!).
I have thought about empirical testing with lighter parts, but I am on
to my next project and limited with time and material. If I do modify or
redesign some of the frontend parts, I want to be sure I focus in areas
of most benifit. My concern is in controling vertical motion in the
frontend. I remember from my long lost days of engineering school, that
rototing objects tend to react to outside forces differently than static
objects. But exactly how, I don't remember. So, I am back to the books
and back to the mill to put some chips on the floor...
Thanks again for the valuable input,
Julian Farnam
p.s. If anyone has access to FEA programs and would like to be directly
envolved with my new project, please let me know.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:39:18 +0000
From: "Glenn Thomson"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
On 27 Nov 98, Michael Moore wrote:
> Has anyone had a chance to weigh both air and water cooled versions
> of the same engine to see what the difference (if any) is?
>
> Possible engines that appeared in both forms could be the one of the
> 2 stroke MX engines, RD350/RZ350 or something like a Husqvarna
> thumper.
I may be able to do the RD/RZ comparison, since we're getting into
rebuild season up here. Are you in any particular hurry?
I hope bathroom scale accuracy is OK, although I think I have to
replace mine - they seem to read high these days....
Cheers,
Glenn
gthomson(at)bserv.com
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:52:28 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
> I may be able to do the RD/RZ comparison, since we're getting into
> rebuild season up here. Are you in any particular hurry?
Hello Glenn,
If I were in a hurry I wouldn't have 25+ project bikes.
> I hope bathroom scale accuracy is OK, although I think I have to
> replace mine - they seem to read high these days....
I got a digital electronic freight scale from Office Depot - .5 pound
resolution and I think the max is about 300 pounds. I think itt was
around US$100 but it is cheaper in the long run than crushing
bathroom scales with motorcycle engines.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:50:06 -0800
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Michael Moore wrote:
....
>
> I got a digital electronic freight scale from Office Depot - .5 pound
> resolution and I think the max is about 300 pounds. I think it was
> around US$100 but it is cheaper in the long run than crushing
> bathroom scales with motorcycle engines.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
I've been eyeing one of those. I got a 10 lb digital scale with
0.2 oz (5g) resolution that is handy for tracking changes to
small parts and assemblies.
It's amazing how heavy the little stuff is on mid 1970s Japanese
motorcycle. I've just gotten started, the speedometer, taillight,
rear turnsignal and air cleaner changes reduced the weight of my
XS650 project bike by 9.45 lb while maintaining the appearance of
legality. There's probably another 30 lb of easy stuff, then I
will have to get more creative. I guess this is all a bit off
topic, but the devils in the details whether it's a new chassis
or a rework.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:58:48 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
> It's amazing how heavy the little stuff is on mid 1970s Japanese
> motorcycle. I've just gotten started, the speedometer, taillight,
> rear turnsignal and air cleaner changes reduced the weight of my
> XS650 project bike by 9.45 lb while maintaining the appearance of
> legality. There's probably another 30 lb of easy stuff, then I
> will have to get more creative. I guess this is all a bit off
> topic, but the devils in the details whether it's a new chassis
> or a rework.
Hello Dick,
ever since I read the various lightweight MX bikes articles that
Barry Watkins wrote in the early/mid 1970s I've tried to take a
scale to the stuff I've built as well as stock parts. It is amazing
how heavy some stuff is.
BW did give me permission to reproduce his articles - there were 3 of
them that I can think of: Champion framed DT2, Cheney framed TM400,
and a stock framed but still under 200# RT2MX ( I think that was the
nomenclature on the 360 Yamaha in the post RT1 "real MX" chassis").
All I have to do is dig them out of the heaps of stuff and scan them.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:23:45 -0700
From: "Ed Biafore"
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Dick sez:
> It's amazing how heavy the little stuff is on mid 1970s Japanese
> motorcycle. I've just gotten started, the speedometer, taillight,
> rear turnsignal and air cleaner changes reduced the weight of my
> XS650 project bike by 9.45 lb while maintaining the appearance of
> legality. There's probably another 30 lb of easy stuff, then I
> will have to get more creative.
I know exactly what you mean..... Try a Harley sometime. No wonder they
weight so much! I lost over a pound just making a aluminum chain guard. I'd
like to get at least 50 lbs off of it before I'm done, without getting too
exotic (read expensive!) of course. You guys got any good ideas of places to
pull a little weight from?
I figure if I can get it down around 400 lbs with the motor putting out
around 90-100 rwhp and 90+ ft.lbs. of torque it should be a real interesting
streetbike.
Later,
Ed
'91 883/1200 Sporty
Glendale, AZ
http://home.att.net/~biafore/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:40:13 -0700
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Michael,
I have copies of many of these articles from the 70's. Including the
SL100-125 articles published in various mags. Popular Cycling did a couple
of them. Let me know if you need copies. They were inspirational to me
when I started on my 125 and then my 350 Honda of road bikes. A few of them
were not the latest and greatest for their own time. One was a rebuild of
the TL125 that ended up with a trick 145cc engine and ultra trick English
Trials frame and weighed about 180lbs if I remember correctly. At the same
time that this was constructed, the PopCycling guys and others (including
myself) were riding on sub-175lb MX/Enduro homebuilts. I have used a Baby
scale for many years that reads up to about 28lbs and although not as
accurate as the newer digital scales, was WAY more accurate than a common
bathroom scale on small items.
Jim
"Swiss"
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Moore
To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
>> It's amazing how heavy the little stuff is on mid 1970s Japanese
>> motorcycle. I've just gotten started, the speedometer, taillight,
>> rear turnsignal and air cleaner changes reduced the weight of my
>> XS650 project bike by 9.45 lb while maintaining the appearance of
>> legality. There's probably another 30 lb of easy stuff, then I
>> will have to get more creative. I guess this is all a bit off
>> topic, but the devils in the details whether it's a new chassis
>> or a rework.
>
>Hello Dick,
>
>ever since I read the various lightweight MX bikes articles that
>Barry Watkins wrote in the early/mid 1970s I've tried to take a
>scale to the stuff I've built as well as stock parts. It is amazing
>how heavy some stuff is.
>
>BW did give me permission to reproduce his articles - there were 3 of
>them that I can think of: Champion framed DT2, Cheney framed TM400,
>and a stock framed but still under 200# RT2MX ( I think that was the
>nomenclature on the 360 Yamaha in the post RT1 "real MX" chassis").
>All I have to do is dig them out of the heaps of stuff and scan them.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #837
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Monday, November 30 1998 Volume 01 : Number 838
1. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
2. Henry Cutler Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water vs air.. & weight loss
3. Dick Brewster Subj: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
4. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
5. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
6. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis Air vs water cooled.
7. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
8. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water vs air.. & weight loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 20:50:05 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Hello Jim,
I've got the Watkins' articles (though may need a page from the
Cheney Suzuki article as a previous owner clipped one) and some Pop
Cycle and Modern Cycle Yetman/Van Tech/etc articles. Someday I'll
get everything cataloged and find out just what I've got. I don't
recall anything with a CB/SL125 type of motor other than the one
below.
> were not the latest and greatest for their own time. One was a rebuild of
> the TL125 that ended up with a trick 145cc engine and ultra trick English
> Trials frame and weighed about 180lbs if I remember correctly. At the same
That sounds like the one in Cycle World in which a friend of Bill
Nicholson ( a Colorado trials rider who did some development riding
on the TL125 and TL250 for Honda) built a Miller TL145.
> time that this was constructed, the PopCycling guys and others (including
> myself) were riding on sub-175lb MX/Enduro homebuilts. I have used a Baby
> scale for many years that reads up to about 28lbs and although not as
> accurate as the newer digital scales, was WAY more accurate than a common
> bathroom scale on small items.
I've got a baby scale as well as a ~ 2 kg/equivelant pound electronic
postal scale. However, I think that a 300 pound scale that reads in
fractions of a gram (one scale fits all?) is likely to be beyond my
budget.
I've tried to do my own version of the article with the various drum
brake/caliper/Laverda 750/EX250 articles on the website. If
everyone would weigh stuff as they build their bikes and post it on
the net we might eventually have some idea of what stuff should
weigh.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:09:00 -0800
From: Henry Cutler
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water vs air.. & weight loss
>It's amazing how heavy the little stuff is on mid 1970s Japanese
>motorcycle. I've just gotten started, the speedometer, taillight,
>rear turnsignal and air cleaner changes reduced the weight of my
>XS650 project bike by 9.45 lb while maintaining the appearance of
>legality. There's probably another 30 lb of easy stuff, then I
>will have to get more creative. I guess this is all a bit off
>topic, but the devils in the details whether it's a new chassis
>or a rework.
Sorry to digress, but I find this very interesting. Removing weight from my
83 BMW R65 has not been so easy. The sort of parts you describe are
generally pretty light, while the difficult stuff (engine, rear bevel drive,
frame, swingarm...) is often heavy.
Between lightening and beefing up, the weight remains fairly constant. Of
course this would be very different if this was just a track toy.
To tie this in with the discussion about sprung/unsprung weight...
Can the sprung weight of a lightened street bike be reduced enough to cause
a noticeable decrement in handling? I'm thinking of bikes in the 275-300lb
range. It certainly must be an issue for some race bikes like 125cc
motocrossers and GP bikes.
If so, can unsprung weight be lowered considerably? Tires weight seems
pretty fixed, aside from using the smallest functional size. Fork sliders,
springs and shock pistons can't be greatly lightened. Wheels and brake parts
can be exchanged - Are there great differences in wheel weights. Axles,
swingarms, sprockets and chains?
Problem is that some of these parts would likely be upgraded to Heavier
stuff (wider rims and tires, bigger brakes, larger diameter forks etc.
- -Henry
Henry Cutler
- ------------
daedalus@mediacity.com 1039 Laurel Street 3
ph & fax: 650.328.9201 Menlo Park, CA 94025
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:25:04 -0800
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
Michael Moore wrote:
>
....
>
> I've tried to do my own version of the article with the various drum
> brake/caliper/Laverda 750/EX250 articles on the website. If
> everyone would weigh stuff as they build their bikes and post it on
> the net we might eventually have some idea of what stuff should
> weigh.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
I could post some XS650 weights as I get into it. They would be
good examples of what things -shouldn't- weigh (:-)
So far it's just been lights and misc parts that aren't too
relevant here, but here's some that might be of interest.
A RC0-982 K&N air cleaner weighs 5 ounces. It's an oval clamp-on
type with a 52mm inside diameter in the neck
Some of the following might be of interest for people building
road going motorcycles.
A SIGMA-sport digital speedometer that is good for 300 km/hr
weighs 1 ounce! By changing speedometers I reduced the weight of
the motorcycle 2.03 lb. I also removed 10 parts from the front
hub when I removed the speedometer drive. Hardly earthshaking,
but very satisfying. It's all part of adding simplicity and
lightness.
Lockhart Phillips p/n 122-981C turn signals weigh 2 ounces each,
compared to the 12.5 ounces each for my stock XS650 turn signals.
The black Lockharts like I got aren't street legal or very bright
as they come from the factory, so I painted the inside of them
flat white, and now they are brighter than the stock turnsignals.
Regards,
Dick
Old style DOT approved Lucas clone taillights are 4 ounces
each.
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:50:06 -0700
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
>Hello Jim,
>
>I've got the Watkins' articles (though may need a page from the
>Cheney Suzuki article as a previous owner clipped one) and some Pop
>Cycle and Modern Cycle Yetman/Van Tech/etc articles. Someday I'll
>get everything cataloged and find out just what I've got. I don't
>recall anything with a CB/SL125 type of motor other than the one
>below.
*There were 4 articles. Maybe 5 total, because one of them might have been
just a Preview type of layout thing. The ones I think in Pop Cycling were
the earliest ones where they took an SL100 and set it up for MX by modifying
the frame and building a fiberglass tank/seat base etc.. They built up
wooden frame jigs to do their frame mods and then for a second article they
came back and replaced the stock frame with a chrome-moly copy of what they
had set-up. Rated the weight at 175lbs. These were by Hugh Faulkner and
they detailed the weights of all the parts that they used and replaced.
They also ran an article on comparing the Powroll and Yoshimura and various
homebuilt engines on both the Dyno and the track. Curiously, the Yoshimura
KILLED the rest of the engines on the Dyno, but lost to the Powroll engine
on the track. They claimed that this was due to the Mid-Range power of the
Powroll Stroker engine, but if you looked at the Dyno numbers, the Yosh
KILLED everyone in mid-range also!! I always felt that this was a problem
of having a good chassis set-up for the less powerfull engine and losing
that extra power to wheelspin etc. with the stronger engine. The same thing
happened recently in a Dirt Bike article on the 400 Yamaha and several
different exhaust pipes that were tested. The strongest performance got one
of the lowest ratings on the track. Again, they claimed that the other
engines were "Stronger" in mid-range power. But the Dyno told differently!
The low rated pipe performed as strong as the strongest mid-range pipes and
then left them in the dust at the top.
Anyway, that is a different subject that we can take up another time. There
were 3 articles for the PC/Faulkner bikes, the modified stock frame, the
engines and the new frame. The other ont that I was talking about were also
in PopCycling and involved Fernando Belair and Doug Schwerma. These started
in Nov '73. They basically took an engine with parts from a number of
different sources - Powroll, Yosh, Weber, Branch Flow, Sudco and Bill Bell
and assembled it. Rated it at 174lbs.
>
>> were not the latest and greatest for their own time. One was a rebuild
of
>> the TL125 that ended up with a trick 145cc engine and ultra trick English
>> Trials frame and weighed about 180lbs if I remember correctly. At the
same
>
>That sounds like the one in Cycle World in which a friend of Bill
>Nicholson ( a Colorado trials rider who did some development riding
>on the TL125 and TL250 for Honda) built a Miller TL145.
*Correct, it was the Nicholson (promoted as his construction) bike. It was
funny to me to see this ultra-trick Trials bike with "Factory Honda parts
and seemingly cubic dollars thrown at it" that weighed more than what others
and even I had built for general dirt-biking and racing use!!
>
>> time that this was constructed, the PopCycling guys and others (including
>> myself) were riding on sub-175lb MX/Enduro homebuilts.
>Cheers,
>Michael
Jim
"Swiss">
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:59:17 -0700
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
Does this mean that Michael gets to post a new page listing various weights
of components?? HA!HA!
Jim
"Swiss"
I keep mine in my notebook. Used to drag that baby scale into dealers and
sit down and weigh every knobby tire that they had. Even the duplicates and
sometimes the different tubes! When the local Honda dealer built an XL350
at about the same time as I did, I went down and weighed it. Sure looked
So.CA pretty but he couldn't understand how mine could weigh 25lbs less than
his ultra-trick catalog special! Such Fun!
Subject: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
>
>
>Michael Moore wrote:
>>
>....
>>
>> I've tried to do my own version of the article with the various drum
>> brake/caliper/Laverda 750/EX250 articles on the website. If
>> everyone would weigh stuff as they build their bikes and post it on
>> the net we might eventually have some idea of what stuff should
>> weigh.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>
>I could post some XS650 weights as I get into it. They would be
>good examples of what things -shouldn't- weigh (:-)
>Dick
>Old style DOT approved Lucas clone taillights are 4 ounces
>each.
>
>Dick
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:27:45 +1100
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis Air vs water cooled.
> If I were in a hurry I wouldn't have 25+ project bikes.
>
25 ! At least designing them from scratch means you
can keep inventories down to 3 or 4.
Although it is 'counter intuitive' ( love that word) - it
seems water cooling is always lighter than aircooling.
The stop gap watercooled Laverda 750 head is a full
5 kg lighter than the old air cooled 668 head.
As other posts have said - the castings seem to be thinner.
The water will carry the heat away from a local hot spot
( around exhaust valve seat etc ) whereas an air cooled
motor needs solid metal there as a heat sink - with fins
to cool the 'heat sink' as it were.
Any comments ?? Thermodynamics is not my strong
suit - rather these conclusions are a result of observation.
Cheers IAN
BTW - in a 4 stroke it is pointless just water cooling the
barrel - if you have to pick one cool just the head.
Opposite for a 2 stroke.
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:13:40
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
At 09:40 PM 11/29/98 -0700, you wrote:
>the TL125 that ended up with a trick 145cc engine
Details? I've built several of these using CB750 pistons and am always
looking for more tricks.
Best regards,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:21:21
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water vs air.. & weight loss
At 09:09 PM 11/29/98 -0800, you wrote:
>If so, can unsprung weight be lowered considerably? Tires weight seems
>pretty fixed, aside from using the smallest functional size.
Weigh them. As BW discovered, similar looking things weigh quite a bit
differently.
> Fork sliders,
>springs and shock pistons can't be greatly lightened.
Sliders can be turned down. Honda racer tubes often are reduced in dia
between the clamps.
>Axles,
Bore, or use hollow. Bigger tubular axles are better anyway.
>swingarms, sprockets and chains?
I've cut many sprockets to less than half original weight. You dish them on
both sides, leaving thin web and very small ring of original thickness
under chain. The dish continues to center hole on one side, stops short of
mounting surface on other. Chains are tougher!!
Best regards,
Hoyt
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #838
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Monday, November 30 1998 Volume 01 : Number 839
1. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
2. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
3. duncan.griffiths@horiba.com Subj: MC-Chassis Weight loss
4. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
5. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
6. bsags@isat.com (David Kath) Subj: MC-Chassis Light weight
7. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
8. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
9. Dick Brewster Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
10. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
11. "Tom Melesky" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
12. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling numbers
13. Jerry Wills Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
14. mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com (Mike Dean) Subj: MC-Chassis Scales..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 05:02:52 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: Misc weights. was Re: MC-Chassis water....
> Does this mean that Michael gets to post a new page listing
> various weights of components?? HA!HA!
If people will compile them nicely where I can pull them in as
preformatted text (that is, I don't have to stick html code
throughout the thing) and send me a complete page I'll see about
sticking it on the website.
I'll reserve the right to request modifications to the file.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:00:06 -0500
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
>
> ever since I read the various lightweight MX bikes articles that
> Barry Watkins wrote in the early/mid 1970s I've tried to take a
> scale to the stuff I've built as well as stock parts. It is amazing
> how heavy some stuff is.
>
> BW did give me permission to reproduce his articles - there were 3 of
> them that I can think of: Champion framed DT2, Cheney framed TM400,
> and a stock framed but still under 200# RT2MX ( I think that was the
> nomenclature on the 360 Yamaha in the post RT1 "real MX" chassis").
> All I have to do is dig them out of the heaps of stuff and scan them.
These article were an inspiration and I built a Champion framed DT2 at that time for MX and Flat track use.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 08:35:08 -0800
From: duncan.griffiths@horiba.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Weight loss
Weight loss is a fetish of mine, so I'm finding this all very interesting.
I've been looking for a scale, so these posts have given me an idea of
where to go. The staff here look at me funny when I bring in parts to
weigh (laboratory 300g scale, resolution to 1mg, shipping department scales
for the heavier stuff). I will be using a scale for the fuel tank when I
fill it full of foam to prevent sloshing. Then I won't be able to see the
level or drain quickly to check. This is for a racer, so I need to make
sure I've got enough to finish, but not too much to be a handicap.
I've posted some weight losses on my TZ250 at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ekkensj/DNARacing.html, follow Bikes, TZ,
Maintenance Notes to Modification summary. I've only got half a pound off
it so far, but it's from a few small modifications that will add up to a
significant figure as the off-season progresses. The ZX-2.5 that I used to
race weighed in at ~250lbs. with stock wheels and an empty tank. Almost
all parts were made in steel; no trick materials here. Most of the mods
are listed at the same site.
Duncan
====================
From: "Michael Moore"
I've got a baby scale as well as a ~ 2 kg/equivelant pound electronic
postal scale. However, I think that a 300 pound scale that reads in
fractions of a gram (one scale fits all?) is likely to be beyond my
budget.
I've tried to do my own version of the article with the various drum
brake/caliper/Laverda 750/EX250 articles on the website. If
everyone would weigh stuff as they build their bikes and post it on
the net we might eventually have some idea of what stuff should
weigh.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:34:10 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Braking
Tony Foale wrote:
>
> Matthew asked:
>
> My feelings, based on my own experience and those of riders for whom I've
> built bikes with teles, LL and FFEs, is that the optimum antidive is that
> which any particular rider feels happiest with.
>
> Tony Foale.
One of the best answers I've ever heard.
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:19:01 -0600
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis water cooling vs air
Ed said "I figure if I can get it down around 400 lbs with the motor putting
out
around 90-100 rwhp and 90+ ft.lbs. of torque it should be a real interesting
streetbike."
This might be tough. The lightest Buell weighs 435# and their frame and
forks weigh much less than HD. Of course if you use a good XR750-style frame
and forks, then it is possible...
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:14:50 -0800
From: bsags@isat.com (David Kath)
Subject: MC-Chassis Light weight
Gents... Maryland Metrics lists a large assortment of light weight
fasteners and hardware in titanium and aluminum. I probably found their
address on this list.... Lotsa info. They have data showing metric
fastener weight amoungst other things. I also printed out their
fractional/decimal/mm conversion chart for my shop use.
You will need to download the free Acrobat Reader plug in for your
browser if you haven't already to enable you to read some of their pdf
data files. Don't forget to enlarge the view as required.
http://mdmetric.com/
dave - NV
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:52:53 -0600
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Henry said
"Yes. That's the sort of bike I'm thinking of. I can think of a
number of
options (engine and parts donors?):
common stuff:
Yamaha RD 350/400
Yamaha SR/TT500
Yamaha SRX600
Honda Hawk
or something more exotic:
Special framed "racer" (spondon...)
Ducati 750
Rotax single in a (______?)
am I missing anything obvious?"
The new Suzuki 650 V-twin (coming in 1999 to a Suzuki dealer near you) is
another one to add to your list. It already has about every improvement you
could make to the Honda Hawk GT650. Price is expected to be about $5500.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:09:42 -0700
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
> am I missing anything obvious?"
>
>The new Suzuki 650 V-twin (coming in 1999 to a Suzuki dealer near you) is
>another one to add to your list. It already has about every improvement you
>could make to the Honda Hawk GT650. Price is expected to be about $5500.
>
>Mark
>
Do you really want a bike that you are happy with? Maybe a New Spiffy set
of Decals to really set it off from the Crowd? Think about it!
Swiss
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:24:37 -0800
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Jim Schneider wrote:
>
> > am I missing anything obvious?"
> >
> >The new Suzuki 650 V-twin (coming in 1999 to a Suzuki dealer near you) is
> >another one to add to your list. It already has about every improvement you
> >could make to the Honda Hawk GT650. Price is expected to be about $5500.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> Do you really want a bike that you are happy with? Maybe a New Spiffy set
> of Decals to really set it off from the Crowd? Think about it!
>
> Swiss
Count on Suzuki leaving lots of room for improvement, they almost
always do.
Dick
GSF1200S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:32:53 -0600
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
Jim said "Do you really want a bike that you are happy with? Maybe a New
Spiffy set
of Decals to really set it off from the Crowd? Think about it!"
Swiss
I agree and this is a problem. In fact, that thought is forcing me to
reevaluate the Buell Cyclone. Now there is a bike is just so close to
perfect. If I just...
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:58:09 -0600
From: "Tom Melesky"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
I would add a Honda FT500 Ascot motor to the list. They've been entry-level
race motors for many years, are fairly reliable, good for 50-60 hp and 35-40
+ lb-ft with suitable modification. Engine Dynamics and BareBones both have
experience with Ascot's.
Tom
- -----Original Message-----
From: Henry Cutler
To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
Date: Sunday, November 29, 1998 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis introducing myself
>At 09:24 PM 11/28/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>Henry Cutler wrote:
>>> It will be quick, simple to work on and modify, handle
>>> great on twisty little roads, and I'd prefer it to be attractive in a
>>> vintage-ey way (or be genuinely old).
>>
>>You might want to find yourself a Yamaha RD-350. I'm messing about with
>>one at the moment, and I'd say your description fits it almost exactly.
>
>Yes. That's the sort of bike I'm thinking of. I can think of a number of
>options (engine and parts donors?):
>
>common stuff:
> Yamaha RD 350/400
> Yamaha SR/TT500
> Yamaha SRX600
> Honda Hawk
>
>or something more exotic:
> Special framed "racer" (spondon...)
> Ducati 750
> Rotax single in a (______?)
>
>am I missing anything obvious?
>
>-Henry
>
>
>Henry Cutler
>------------
>daedalus@mediacity.com 1039 Laurel Street 3
>ph & fax: 650.328.9201 Menlo Park, CA 94025
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:21:51 -0500
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis water cooling numbers
I weighed some of the junk around the shop. I have a $10.00 scale that goes
up to 60lbs and is graduated in 4 oz increments. Bought it at a yard sale
:-)
83 RM250 water cooled topend {ie Goldberg spares}
Cyl with ex adapter: 4lb 12oz
Head 1lb
Rad,neck,hose 3lb 4oz
Water 32fluid oz 2 4
Water Pump bits 12
Total 12lbs
CanAm 175 aircooled
Cyl and Head 13lb 10oz
Honda MR175 air cooled
Cyl w/adpt 7lb 7oz
Head 3 12
total 11lb 3oz
The rad I weighed is off an 86 Ninja600. I removed the fan but left on the
steel screen on the front of the rad.
The CanAm 250 has much more fin area than the 175 hence more weight,
probably 2 or 3 lbs.
The MR cyl has about the minimum fin area necessary for cooling.
The Goldberg holds 27fluid oz of water.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 1998 18:55:18 -0800
From: Jerry Wills
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
Julian writes:
>
> I am still intrested in finding out the exact un-sprung mass of a Tesi
> and a GTS if anyone has ever studied this. Additionally, I would be
> intrested in that information divided between the un-sprung mass that is
> rotating (tire, wheel, rotors, etc) and that which is not (axel,
> calipers, uprights, swingarms and misc. connecting arms). I realize
> that this isn't regular magazine trivia, but maybe someone has some
> insight...
>
> Julian Farnam
>
I have all the pieces disassembled from a gts, now all I need is an accurate
scale and to make sure I don't leave out the lug nuts :^). IMHO the GTS is
WAY over built and could go on a serious diet. The live stub axle is massive
and solid, the disk/hat look like I took it from a large car and the caliper
is also much bulker than the 6 pots that PM and others sell aftermarket.
I'll try to get some real numbers soon.
Jerry Wills
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:37:48 -0800
From: mike.dean@poseidon.dictaphone.com (Mike Dean)
Subject: MC-Chassis Scales..
On the subject of scales, I thought I would toss in a useful tip from a
friend..
Many of the larger post offices around here anyway have a large UNISYS scale
securely bolted to the counter in the area that is open 24 hours.
I stopped by to pick up my mail from a po box tonight, and weighed my
keyring. 2.6 oz.
I don't know the top copacity, but my buddy has weighed all sorts of things,
including wheels and crankshafts. Big scale, gotta have a pretty high
capacity. I vaguely remember him sitting on it, but can't remember if it
read a weight for him. I didn't try that. Probably has a metric setting as
well.
And the best part? Your tax dollars at work.
Mike Dean
(resident cheap bastard. Sorry.)
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #839
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, December 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 840
1. Julian Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
2. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis Cheap bastard
3. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Q & As
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
5. "Stephen Watson" Subj: MC-Chassis seamed tubing for morgan chassis
6. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis seamed tubing for morgan chassis
7. briankk@aimnet.com (Brian Knowles) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis seamed tubing for morgan chassis
8. Alan Lapp Subj: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
9. Julian Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
10. Jerry Wills Subj: MC-Chassis Part weights
11. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: MC-Chassis Part weights
12. Dick Brewster Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
13. "Kelvin Blair" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst P to B clearance
14. Bob Subj: MC-Chassis engine design
15. Julian Subj: Re: MC-Chassis - bike weight worksheet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:10:41 +0000
From: Julian
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
> I have all the pieces disassembled from a gts, now all I need is an accurate
> scale and to make sure I don't leave out the lug nuts :^). IMHO the GTS is
> WAY over built and could go on a serious diet. The live stub axle is massive
> and solid, the disk/hat look like I took it from a large car and the caliper
> is also much bulker than the 6 pots that PM and others sell aftermarket.
>
> I'll try to get some real numbers soon.
>
> Jerry Wills
This is great. If I can get the weight of the frontend components of
several bikes (forkless and conventional), I'll compile the data into a
spreadsheat for easy comparison. This might be a good resource for
everyone.
I think Michael M. mentioned collecting some data as well to post on his
web page. Since some people are talking about engine comparisons as
well, perhaps Michael and I could each focus on compiling data for
specific areas. Hey Michael, what do you think about that?
I am intrested in comparing suspension components (un-sprung by
individual part, rotating mass - estimated Imo, ratio of un-sprung
mass/sprung mass).
Perhaps Michael or someone else could compile the engine, frame, body
panels, etc.?
I think this will work if the info. that is collected is comprehensive,
and not just a few parts here and there.
Julian Farnam
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 17:35:49 +1100
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis Cheap bastard
> Many of the larger post offices around here anyway have a large UNISYS
> scale
> securely bolted to the counter in the area that is open 24 hours.
> Mike Dean
> (resident cheap bastard. Sorry.)
That's good - you aren't Australian by chance are you ?
The only ones I've seen to out do Ozzies for cheapness
are Kiwis - you wouldn't believe some of the things I've
seen NZ'ers do.
Still - that is good - I'll have to keep that in mind - no
need to go after hours - just weigh the required object and
say you've changed your mind about posting it. They might
get a bit suspicious after the 10 th object but what are they
going to do ?
BTW - I bought a cheap set of digital scales ( 2 kg only )
and took it into a lab with a set of NATA certified scales
and compared the 2 over the full range - they were spot on -
quite amazing for $50.
I left them with a friend and I think one of his brats stepped
on them ( or jumped up and down on them ) and they are
now stuffed. It costs more to get them repaired than they
are worth but I will buy another set - unless I come across
a good industrial set at an auction.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:00:33 +0100
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Q & As
Marty said:
>>One of the best answers I've ever heard
Above all else I'm a realist.
Tony Foale.
Espaņa / Spain
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 04:47:41 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
> I think Michael M. mentioned collecting some data as well to post on his
> web page. Since some people are talking about engine comparisons as
> well, perhaps Michael and I could each focus on compiling data for
> specific areas. Hey Michael, what do you think about that?
Hello Julian,
Someone else has to do the compiling, but I'm willing to provide
space on the website.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 01:41:04 +1300
From: "Stephen Watson"
Subject: MC-Chassis seamed tubing for morgan chassis
I wonder if any one can help me on this one. I have always had a fetish for those English 3 wheeler (Morgans) with the
2 wheels at the front and the 3rd at the rear. Now Ive started to make a chassis for my big blokes billycart and need
some help.
When building a bike frame I would tend to go for unseamed thin walled 1020 or what ever . Now the billy cart chassis
is loaded differently and uses a space frame not unsimilar to those used on the nascars now can I get away with
unseamed tubing I have not sat down to a free body diagram yet so have no idea of the direction /type of loadings
So directions to my thoughts would be welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 05:06:29 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis seamed tubing for morgan chassis
Stephen,
What is a billy cart?
CREW tubing should be fine if it is all triangulated.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 06:41:37 -0800
From: briankk@aimnet.com (Brian Knowles)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis seamed tubing for morgan chassis
>I wonder if any one can help me on this one. I have always had a fetish
>for those English 3 wheeler (Morgans) with the
>2 wheels at the front and the 3rd at the rear. Now Ive started to make a
>chassis for my big blokes billycart and need
>some help.
>
>When building a bike frame I would tend to go for unseamed thin walled
>1020 or what ever . Now the billy cart chassis
>is loaded differently and uses a space frame not unsimilar to those used
>on the nascars now can I get away with
>unseamed tubing I have not sat down to a free body diagram yet so have no
>idea of the direction /type of loadings
>
>So directions to my thoughts would be welcome.
Begin at "A". Sit down and do the free body diagram.
Emm.. or maybe "A" would be to weigh everything that likely to wind up in
the beast. Then sketch out the bracketry and go thru the thing joint by
joint.
IMHO,
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 10:46:31 -0500
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis introducing myself
>The new Suzuki 650 V-twin (coming in 1999 to a Suzuki dealer near you) is
>another one to add to your list. It already has about every improvement you
>could make to the Honda Hawk GT650. Price is expected to be about $5500.
>
>Mark
Indeed - and I'm predicting that it's introduction will have the added
benefit of driving down the somewhat cult-bike oriented Hawk prices. Plus,
it's a 90 degree V-twin, as opposed to the 52 degree Honda motor. That'll
make it much easier on cranks!
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 11:29:02 +0000
From: Julian
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
> > I think Michael M. mentioned collecting some data as well to post on his
> > web page. Since some people are talking about engine comparisons as
> > well, perhaps Michael and I could each focus on compiling data for
> > specific areas. Hey Michael, what do you think about that?
>
> Hello Julian,
>
> Someone else has to do the compiling, but I'm willing to provide
> space on the website.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
Well, I don't mind being that lucky guy... All intrested persons with
bikes or parts that have been weighed can contact me at:
andbike@pacbell.net
I will also put together a data outline sheet that I can send out by fax
to anyone who anticipates having a bike apart or components that can be
weighed.
Julian
------------------------------
Date: 01 Dec 1998 12:57:40 -0800
From: Jerry Wills
Subject: MC-Chassis Part weights
I have a small file of motor weights, tho very dated. I found that Honda
in the recent past supplied engine only weights in the service manuals.
All parts weighed will need some sort of +- factor with them or some of
you will find that not all factory parts are the same weight and or that
you paided extra for a part that was lighter than X and now find that
isn't really true.
Jerry Wills
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:13:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: MC-Chassis Part weights
- -> I have a small file of motor weights, tho very dated. I found that
- -> Honda in the recent past supplied engine only weights in the service
- -> manuals.
Would you post them to the list?
I have a few motorcycle engine weights listed on my web site, but
maybe nothing useful.
==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: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 15:50:45 -0800
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - forkless bike questions.
Julian,
Could you make the form available electronically as a bitmap?
Dick
Julian wrote:
>
> > > I think Michael M. mentioned collecting some data as well to post on his
> > > web page. Since some people are talking about engine comparisons as
> > > well, perhaps Michael and I could each focus on compiling data for
> > > specific areas. Hey Michael, what do you think about that?
> >
> > Hello Julian,
> >
> > Someone else has to do the compiling, but I'm willing to provide
> > space on the website.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
>
> Well, I don't mind being that lucky guy... All intrested persons with
> bikes or parts that have been weighed can contact me at:
> andbike@pacbell.net
>
> I will also put together a data outline sheet that I can send out by fax
> to anyone who anticipates having a bike apart or components that can be
> weighed.
>
> Julian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:06:02 +0800
From: "Kelvin Blair"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst P to B clearance
Joe mentioned:
> *if the cylinders are done could I tighten up on the piston to cyl
> clearance? Any other mechanical benifits?
I have a friend who does thermal and friction coatings. He has coated the
tops of pistons for me with a ceramic and this has allowed the piston to
bore clearance to be reduced dramatically. The ceramic reduces the heat
input into the piston ie it limits its expansion. He also does dry film
moly coatings, all parts, gears, cams pistons etc. I was always a little
skeptical of these but one engine Ray Eason did for drag racing picked up
7HP by coating the cams, and gears(transmission) only!
Coating the combustion chamber also proves benificial.
Cheers
Kelvin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:30:56 -0800
From: Bob
Subject: MC-Chassis engine design
I understand this has become the "de facto" engine design group so here
goes. If one were to go out in the shop and pick thier favorite
single[is there any other than a single one could call a favorite?] and
start making a V twin out of it, what needs enlarging? Mains bearings,
rod pin, oil pump? Any thoughts on the subject? Cheers Bob
PS Yep, in my case, the favotie is a big fat single.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 18:23:38 +0000
From: Julian
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis - bike weight worksheet.
Hi Dick,
I could if need be... but, by fax you would have had the form in your
hand now. It is just easier to send faxes, due to my limited computer
skills. When I get a little more time, I will post a list of the items
that I have put on the form for feedback.
Julian
Dick Brewster wrote:
>
> Julian,
>
> Could you make the form available electronically as a bitmap?
>
> Dick
>
> > Well, I don't mind being that lucky guy... All intrested persons with
> > bikes or parts that have been weighed can contact me at:
> > andbike@pacbell.net
> >
> > I will also put together a data outline sheet that I can send out by fax
> > to anyone who anticipates having a bike apart or components that can be
> > weighed.
> >
> > Julian
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #840
******************************
Back to the home page
© 1997 Michael Moore, all rights reserved
Most recent update: 30 January 1998
For more information contact webmeister@eurospares.com