 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / General / Motorcycles / September 2008New Duc Monster?
I stopped by the Ducati dealer last night to have a look-see at the new Monster 696. Cool looking scoot, and a lot different from what I'm used to (VTX1800C & FXDL). The salesman said Duc was bringing a new 1000cc version of the Monster early next year - anybody know anything about this new bike? On Sep 26, 12:31 pm, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I stopped by the Ducati dealer last night to have a look-see at the > new Monster 696. Cool looking scoot, and a lot different from what I'm > used to (VTX1800C & FXDL). The salesman said Duc was bringing a new > 1000cc version of the Monster early next year - anybody know anything > about this new bike? Disregard. I see Ducati added a section on their site about the new Monster 1100S > I stopped by the Ducati dealer last night to have a look-see at the > new Monster 696. Cool looking scoot, and a lot different from what I'm > used to (VTX1800C & FXDL). The salesman said Duc was bringing a new > 1000cc version of the Monster early next year - anybody know anything > about this new bike? It seems rather obvious that they'll refresh the different sized monsters, now that the 'small one' is new. Judging by their current lineup, I'd expect to see something around 900cc and something a bit above 1000. I've got to admit, the monster has quite some attraction to me. The aircooled twin, that characteristic sound, the desmo valve train... I am perfectly aware it won't be any 'better' than a standard japanese twin of the same size, but there's just something attractive. As long as they don't offer ABS, I won't have to consider them, luckily. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-26 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >> I stopped by the Ducati dealer last night to have a look-see at the >> new Monster 696. Cool looking scoot, and a lot different from what I'm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of the same size, but there's just something attractive. As long as they > don't offer ABS, I won't have to consider them, luckily. ABS almost killed a guy I knew. Especially with those stupid telelevers by BMW it is licensed to kill you, and even if it won't succeed, it will try hard enough. The story goes like that - Telelevers have *huge* unsprung mass, so they tend to lose contact with the road over bumps. Now imagine you try to stop in such conditions, and your stupid ABS cuts the brakes off! You just go freaking forward, with not ways of even slowing down. You are lucky if you can find a comfy ditch to crash land in, otherwise you are not going to complain about BMW and ABS. Dead meat does not complain.  SignatureAndrzej Rosa >> I've got to admit, the monster has quite some attraction to me. The >> aircooled twin, that characteristic sound, the desmo valve train... I am [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > in, otherwise you are not going to complain about BMW and ABS. Dead > meat does not complain. Yes, I've heard similar stories on BMW's ABS systems. Although the motorcycle in question is a Ducati Monster with a conventional USD fork - I don't really see a comparison to be made here. Telelever looks like an interesting concept. I don't really see how the unsprung weight would be so considerably bigger than with a traditional fork, and the concept of removing the brake dive of a traditional fork seems like progress. But then I've got no experience with it, and I don't really have any interest in BMW's, so that will probably not change. I'm quite happy with the ABS system on my current motorbike, it gives a beginner braking distances in the same league or better than what experienced riders can realize on non ABS bikes. But I'm perfectly capable of not having a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of ABS brakes :) cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-26 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >> ABS almost killed a guy I knew. Especially with those stupid telelevers >> by BMW it is licensed to kill you, and even if it won't succeed, it will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > motorcycle in question is a Ducati Monster with a conventional USD fork > - I don't really see a comparison to be made here. Well, the mechanism is the same, it would just take a rougher road to make it happen. > Telelever looks like an interesting concept. I don't really see how the > unsprung weight would be so considerably bigger than with a traditional > fork, http://micapeak.com/bmw/gs/images/telelevr.gif Just look at it. They use fairly beefy (and damn long) fork sliders to have enough lateral stiffness under braking, but they add to that totally unnecessary pivot mounted on an reinforced fork brace. By the looks of it, I'd venture saying that this system just about doubles the unsprung mass of a conventional USD. While it won't be such a big increase with everything included (a wheel, brakes, axle, all that), they switched to conventional system when they send their GSes into the dessert. In practice they admitted that their system sucks by doing so. > and the concept of removing the brake dive of a traditional fork > seems like progress. If it worked... The bike dives the same, it just looks from the rider perspective that it does something different. > But then I've got no experience with it, and I > don't really have any interest in BMW's, so that will probably not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But I'm perfectly capable of not having a discussion on the advantages > and disadvantages of ABS brakes :) Me too. I'm just bored to death with politics. SignatureAndrzej Rosa >> Yes, I've heard similar stories on BMW's ABS systems. Although the >> motorcycle in question is a Ducati Monster with a conventional USD fork >> - I don't really see a comparison to be made here. > > Well, the mechanism is the same, it would just take a rougher road to > make it happen. Hmpf. It very obviously is not the same at all. The way it distributes the braking force into the motorbike is not really comparable. >> Telelever looks like an interesting concept. I don't really see how the >> unsprung weight would be so considerably bigger than with a traditional [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > looks of it, I'd venture saying that this system just about doubles the > unsprung mass of a conventional USD. You do realize that bits mounted on the frame only count half as unsprung? I wouldn't guess that the setup was any lighter - or just as light - as a conventional fork, just that the difference in weight may not be that big a deal. OTOH, the telelever probably has a smaller breakaway torque. > While it won't be such a big > increase with everything included (a wheel, brakes, axle, all that), > they switched to conventional system when they send their GSes into the > dessert. In practice they admitted that their system sucks by doing so. In practice most people couldn't care less about the relative merits of different suspensions are in various food groups. We've got roads, over here. >> and the concept of removing the brake dive of a traditional fork >> seems like progress. > > If it worked... The bike dives the same, it just looks from the rider > perspective that it does something different. I'm not quite convinced of that. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >>> Yes, I've heard similar stories on BMW's ABS systems. Although the >>> motorcycle in question is a Ducati Monster with a conventional USD fork [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hmpf. It very obviously is not the same at all. The way it distributes > the braking force into the motorbike is not really comparable. I don't understand you. In both cases a wheel moves up and down, in both cases it has some unsprung mass, so in both cases it may lose contact with the surface. Sure, good forks will work better, but mechanism in which ABS fails is in both cases the same, not? >> http://micapeak.com/bmw/gs/images/telelevr.gif >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > OTOH, the telelever probably has a smaller breakaway torque. Heavier and bendier? It sucks and that's it. >> While it won't be such a big >> increase with everything included (a wheel, brakes, axle, all that), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > different suspensions are in various food groups. We've got roads, over > here. I know. I lived for about five years in Berlin. But still argument like "we don't need suspension, so it is fine" is no argument at all. >>> and the concept of removing the brake dive of a traditional fork >>> seems like progress. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not quite convinced of that. Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. Yes it does and that's the whole point. The geometry of telelever is such that the mass transfer is used to react against the natural dive. BMW may not have got it perfect but the thinking behind it is sound and there are many motorcycle engineers that have explored the possibilities over the last century. The GP teams use hydraulic systems to counter the dive for exactly the same reason. If you can counteract dive you end up with a more stable machine that doesn't have radical changes in geometry during breaking. And, by the way, in the original criticism of ABS the situation described was caused by the lack of traction not the ABS. He couldn't brake harder because there wasn't enough traction. Without the ABS the traction still wouldn't have been there but he would have been able to apply more brake force which would simply have locked the front wheel. In fact the ABS was doing exactly what is was intended to do. SignatureAndrew998 Dnia 2008-09-27 Andrew998 napisał(a): >> Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many motorcycle engineers that have explored the possibilities over the last > century. None of them successful. It seems that everybody was trying to fight the fork dive at one time, but for example Japs were men enough to admit that their ideas were all stupid and they got rid of them long time ago. > The GP teams use hydraulic systems to counter the dive for exactly > the same reason. If you can counteract dive you end up with a more stable > machine that doesn't have radical changes in geometry during breaking. That was a different thinking, and it didn't work either. > And, by the way, in the original criticism of ABS the situation described > was caused by the lack of traction not the ABS. Nonsense. Get out of perfect roads and try it yourself. You can still slow down fairly effectively even if your front is working heavily, chattering over bumps. Sure, you lose contact with the road at times, but most of the time you have some traction, so you can slow down if you are gentle with the brake. > He couldn't brake harder > because there wasn't enough traction. Without the ABS the traction still > wouldn't have been there but he would have been able to apply more brake > force which would simply have locked the front wheel. In fact the ABS was > doing exactly what is was intended to do. Sure enough. It was trying to kill him. ;-P SignatureAndrzej Rosa > None of them successful. It seems that everybody was trying to fight > the fork dive at one time, but for example Japs were men enough to admit > that their ideas were all stupid and they got rid of them long time ago. I think you ought to google for "Difazio" and "Hossack". I agree the Japanese anti-dive systems were mostly a waste of time, but there's more to front end behaviour than those. > > The GP teams use hydraulic systems to counter the dive for exactly > > the same reason. If you can counteract dive you end up with a more stable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > but most of the time you have some traction, so you can slow down if you > are gentle with the brake. I managed to confuse the ABS on a Pan-European 1100 to the extent that it switched off, braking hard on the yellow count-down stripes approaching a roundabout. The road paint is less grippy than tarmac so the ABS was having to grip, relax, grip, relax, very fast, and in the end it switched off :-) SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools Dnia 2008-09-27 The Older Gentleman napisał(a): >> None of them successful. It seems that everybody was trying to fight >> the fork dive at one time, but for example Japs were men enough to admit >> that their ideas were all stupid and they got rid of them long time ago. > > I think you ought to google for "Difazio" and "Hossack". I read this http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm long time ago. It seems that BMW is rediscovering Hossack with their duolever system recently. > I agree the > Japanese anti-dive systems were mostly a waste of time, but there's more > to front end behaviour than those. What Japs tried to achieve at least made sense to me. They recognized that in order to battle fork dive "something" must actively react to braking. It didn't work, but I count it as a good effort. >> Nonsense. Get out of perfect roads and try it yourself. You can still >> slow down fairly effectively even if your front is working heavily, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The road paint is less grippy than tarmac so the ABS was having to grip, > relax, grip, relax, very fast, and in the end it switched off :-) Nice one. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > I read this http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm long time > ago. It seems that BMW is rediscovering Hossack with their duolever > system recently. Yes: it's on some of the big K fours. I forget which ones. > > I agree the > > Japanese anti-dive systems were mostly a waste of time, but there's more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that in order to battle fork dive "something" must actively react to > braking. It didn't work, but I count it as a good effort. That's a fair comment. I think Kawasaki got closest to it with the electric ESCS system fitted to the GPX750. That worked surprisingly well, but like all the hydraulic systems, the fork oil degraded fast. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools > Nonsense. Get out of perfect roads and try it yourself. You can still > slow down fairly effectively even if your front is working heavily, > chattering over bumps. Sure, you lose contact with the road at times, > but most of the time you have some traction, so you can slow down if you > are gentle with the brake. If your plan is to be gentle with the brake, there's no need for the ABS. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >> Nonsense. Get out of perfect roads and try it yourself. You can still >> slow down fairly effectively even if your front is working heavily, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If your plan is to be gentle with the brake, there's no need for the > ABS. You slow down as fast as you can, but still much faster than ABS is able, because this thing will shut down your brakes completely. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisa?(a): >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You slow down as fast as you can, but still much faster than ABS is > able, because this thing will shut down your brakes completely. No, it won't. As soon as the wheel's back to having grip, it'll bite. I'll give to you that the speed, the distance of the grip-losing circumstances and the ABS pulse frequency may overlap, situation in which it might be smarter to brake a tad softer. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >> Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisa?(a): >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, it won't. Are you maybe a Windows admin? Those guys sing to the same tune. It's always a user fault if their piece of junk falls on its face again. > As soon as the wheel's back to having grip, it'll bite. > I'll give to you that the speed, the distance of the grip-losing > circumstances and the ABS pulse frequency may overlap, situation in > which it might be smarter to brake a tad softer. I'll give you one thing. Sooner or later the electronics will be smart enough to handle bikes as well as it does cars. It's just not there yet. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > Dnia 2008-09-27 Andrew998 napisał(a): >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the fork dive at one time, but for example Japs were men enough to admit > that their ideas were all stupid and they got rid of them long time ago. I don't think you'll find any evidence that they thought their ideas were stupid. They simply weren't right for the circumstances or couldn't be executed cheaply enough. The Jap manufacturers generally didn't pursue it because the benefits weren't worth the increased cost and complexity. >> The GP teams use hydraulic systems to counter the dive for exactly >> the same reason. If you can counteract dive you end up with a more stable >> machine that doesn't have radical changes in geometry during breaking. > > That was a different thinking, and it didn't work either. Actually it was the same thinking and they still use it. >> And, by the way, in the original criticism of ABS the situation described >> was caused by the lack of traction not the ABS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but most of the time you have some traction, so you can slow down if you > are gentle with the brake. And if the situation is as you describe there is no reason for the ABS to cut in. If the ABS is working properly it is only trying to keep the wheel rotating. I accept it might not be perfect but it cannot add or subtract traction. >> He couldn't brake harder >> because there wasn't enough traction. Without the ABS the traction still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sure enough. It was trying to kill him. ;-P No, putting himself in a situation where he had inadequate traction to slow down in time is what tried to kill him! SignatureAndrew998 Dnia 2008-09-27 Andrew998 napisał(a): >>> Yes it does and that's the whole point. The geometry of telelever is such >>> that the mass transfer is used to react against the natural dive. BMW may [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > executed cheaply enough. The Jap manufacturers generally didn't pursue it > because the benefits weren't worth the increased cost and complexity. The real problem is that you actually need tough springs and overdamped suspension, which eliminates excessive dive all on its own. You need tough springs able to cope with full weight of the bike, because you may don't want your suspension to bottom down under hard braking. You need overdamped forks due to cornering. In corners overdamped suspension works better. So while I agree that the "stupid" comment is maybe not fair, the anti dive solutions were not successful mainly because you don't really want any of them if you plan on riding your bike hard at times. >>> The GP teams use hydraulic systems to counter the dive for exactly >>> the same reason. If you can counteract dive you end up with a more stable [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Actually it was the same thinking and they still use it. Do you mean various variable damping systems? I though you were talking about those, but maybe I miss something interesting. >>> And, by the way, in the original criticism of ABS the situation described >>> was caused by the lack of traction not the ABS. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And if the situation is as you describe there is no reason for the ABS to > cut in. Front wheel loses contact with the road, so ABS "thinks" you are sliding with no traction. > If the ABS is working properly it is only trying to keep the wheel > rotating. I accept it might not be perfect but it cannot add or subtract > traction. What is the reaction time of this thing? Because you write is like it is near zero, while it can't be. >>> He couldn't brake harder >>> because there wasn't enough traction. Without the ABS the traction still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, putting himself in a situation where he had inadequate traction to slow > down in time is what tried to kill him! Nonsense. Sorry man, but that's just that. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. Er, yes it does. You get the mass transfer, of course, but you don't get the fork dive that (crucially) alters the steering geometry. Have you ever ridden a Telelever bike? It's bit odd putting on the front brake and trying to pump the forks down, because they don't. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools Dnia 2008-09-27 The Older Gentleman napisał(a): >> Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. > > Er, yes it does. You get the mass transfer, of course, but you don't get > the fork dive that (crucially) alters the steering geometry. You get the geometry change, just the other way around. And, funny enough, BMW solution induces bigger changes into the steering angle than traditional forks. On traditional fork motorcycle pivots around the rear axle, on tlelelever it at least partially pivots around front swingarm axle. http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?lp=it_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bmwgsclub .com%2Fmoto%2Fmeccanica%2Fr-4%2Ftelelever%2Findex.html Translation of some Italian page dealing with the problem. Not perfect, but it is readable. What is maybe less understood, is that during acceleration castor angle will get steeper, not milder. So when you really would prefer to have a mild castor angle you get the exact opposite. Well done BMW engineers! ;-) > Have you ever ridden a Telelever bike? It's bit odd putting on the front > brake and trying to pump the forks down, because they don't. I didn't ride it, though I had a friend organizing promotional rides on BMWs. They stopped when most of the guys were disillusioned and voiced it on the web. Somehow BMW didn't believe that "there is no such a thing as bad publicity". ;-) SignatureAndrzej Rosa > > Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. > > > > Er, yes it does. You get the mass transfer, of course, but you don't get > > the fork dive that (crucially) alters the steering geometry. > > You get the geometry change, just the other way around. Well, that means the bloody forks don't dive, doesn't it? <snip> > > Have you ever ridden a Telelever bike? It's bit odd putting on the front > > brake and trying to pump the forks down, because they don't. > > I didn't ride it, Perhaps you should. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools Dnia 2008-09-27 The Older Gentleman napisał(a): >> > Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, that means the bloody forks don't dive, doesn't it? Sure it does not. Forks dive all right, just the biker is fooled. >> > Have you ever ridden a Telelever bike? It's bit odd putting on the front >> > brake and trying to pump the forks down, because they don't. >> >> I didn't ride it, > > Perhaps you should. Perhaps. I wasn't dying to try it before and I'm still not counting days till it happens. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > >> > Er, yes it does. You get the mass transfer, of course, but you don't get > >> > the fork dive that (crucially) alters the steering geometry. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sure it does not. Forks dive all right, just the biker is fooled. Make your mind up. First you say they dive, then you say the geometry change is the other way around. Actually, you're right in that the trail and rake increases rather than decreases. I agree you get some fork dive with Telelever, but nowhere near as much as with conventional telescopic forks. Really. as you've never ridden a BMW so equipped, you aren't really in a position to comment. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools Dnia 2008-09-27 The Older Gentleman napisał(a): >> >> > Er, yes it does. You get the mass transfer, of course, but you don't get >> >> > the fork dive that (crucially) alters the steering geometry. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > First you say they dive, then you say the geometry change is the other > way around. Is there some contradiction I'm not able to detect? > Actually, you're right in that the trail and rake increases rather than > decreases. > > I agree you get some fork dive with Telelever, but nowhere near as much > as with conventional telescopic forks. What do you mean by fork dive? It looks like we can't agree on definitions. > Really. as you've never ridden a > BMW so equipped, you aren't really in a position to comment. I do not comment "the feel" of this system, just physics. I judge myself qualified to comment on physics. ;-P SignatureAndrzej Rosa > > I agree you get some fork dive with Telelever, but nowhere near as much > > as with conventional telescopic forks. > > What do you mean by fork dive? It looks like we can't agree on > definitions. Ah, well that wouldn't be the first time. I mean the front end of the bike does not dip as noticeably. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools Dnia 2008-09-27 The Older Gentleman napisał(a): >> > I agree you get some fork dive with Telelever, but nowhere near as much >> > as with conventional telescopic forks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I mean the front end of the bike does not dip as noticeably. Where "noticeable" is the crucial part? SignatureAndrzej Rosa If Paralever and Telelever improve handling as much as BMW and BMW owners claim they do then why did BMW build what is essentially UJM with regular (upside down) forks and a transverse 4 to go racing with??? >>> While it won't be such a big >>> increase with everything included (a wheel, brakes, axle, all that), [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I know. I lived for about five years in Berlin. But still argument > like "we don't need suspension, so it is fine" is no argument at all. The argument was that a road bike is probably different than a desert bike. I wouldn't compare my cars suspension with the one on a Humvee, either. >>> If it worked... The bike dives the same, it just looks from the rider >>> perspective that it does something different. >> >> I'm not quite convinced of that. > > Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. The trick is that it counteracts - the weight transfer pushes the bike up instead of down. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >>> In practice most people couldn't care less about the relative merits of >>> different suspensions are in various food groups. We've got roads, over [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > bike. I wouldn't compare my cars suspension with the one on a Humvee, > either. IMO you would be wrong. Dirt racing was the main reason we have good suspension nowadays. Strangely enough, both dirt and road racers have the same type of suspension units, and your car and Humvee also shares the technology. What works on dirt will work everywhere. >>> I'm not quite convinced of that. >> >> Forks dive due to a mass transfer. Telelever doesn't counteract it. > > The trick is that it counteracts - the weight transfer pushes the bike > up instead of down. You mean the handlebar, not the bike. The CoG of the bike goes down, the forks shorten, the spring compresses just like on the real bike, it is only the rider who is fooled to believe that his bike actually stands up (while in reality the bike is just folded in half). Anyway, what goes up must come down. You will have all of that reversed under acceleration. SignatureAndrzej Rosa >> The argument was that a road bike is probably different than a desert >> bike. I wouldn't compare my cars suspension with the one on a Humvee, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the same type of suspension units, and your car and Humvee also shares > the technology. What works on dirt will work everywhere. Apart from the fact that dirt racing would be something different again from riding in the desert, I'll let you know as soon as I find portal gears on my cars. >>>> I'm not quite convinced of that. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You mean the handlebar, not the bike. I do mean the bike alright. > The CoG of the bike goes down, > the forks shorten, the spring compresses just like on the real bike, it > is only the rider who is fooled to believe that his bike actually stands > up (while in reality the bike is just folded in half). No. The braking moment on the front wheel counters the force from weight transfer, thereby holding the bike up. Research anti dive suspension. You can have them on cars, too. It's plain physics. > Anyway, what goes up must come down. You will have all of that reversed > under acceleration. There's no force on the front of a bike that would reverse in acceleration what the braking force does in deceleration. That comes from the fact that the bike is rear wheel drive. BMW, though, has found a way to make the rear not squat under acceleration, though :) cu .\\arc braking force does Dnia 2008-09-27 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >> IMO you would be wrong. Dirt racing was the main reason we have good >> suspension nowadays. Strangely enough, both dirt and road racers have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from riding in the desert, I'll let you know as soon as I find portal > gears on my cars. You could at some time. Sure, clearance is not _crucial_ for road cars, but it helps too. >>> The trick is that it counteracts - the weight transfer pushes the bike >>> up instead of down. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It's plain physics. Go ahead, enlighten me. >> Anyway, what goes up must come down. You will have all of that reversed >> under acceleration. > > There's no force on the front of a bike that would reverse in > acceleration what the braking force does in deceleration. That, like, really makes no sense at all, though I had some beers in me so I may be slow. > That comes > from the fact that the bike is rear wheel drive. > > BMW, though, has found a way to make the rear not squat under > acceleration, though :) Sure. They found it out in, what, late twenties? When they used shaft drive for the first time on a bike with rear suspension. (They built really good bikes then. I rode some Russian and Ukrainian copies and they are surprisingly competent machines, even now. Mighty good job, that.) SignatureAndrzej Rosa >> No. The braking moment on the front wheel counters the force from weight >> transfer, thereby holding the bike up. Research anti dive suspension. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Go ahead, enlighten me. In english it's tough, I'm missing vocabulary. Let me try an example, see if we get there: Look at this (rear) suspension: http://www.ics-sporting.de/image2/CBF-88/o_3_2.jpg Let's picture for a second this were the geometry of a front suspension, the so-equipped bike travelling from right to left. Don't get lost in any details regarding turning etc. If you'd decelerate the front wheel by braking, it'll try to get slower while the rest of the construction wants to travel on - weight transfer. Assuming the CG of the bike will be above the swingarm, you'll have a force from the wheel pushing right and a force from the bike pushing left - presto, there's a moment. The swingarm can turn around this, pushing the bike up. >>> Anyway, what goes up must come down. You will have all of that reversed >>> under acceleration. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That, like, really makes no sense at all, though I had some beers in me > so I may be slow. That's ok, try again: the braking force on the wheel allows the suspension to push up. There's no corresponding accelerating force on it because it's a rear wheel drive bike. So there's nothing that could pull it down. cu .\\arc Dnia 2008-09-28 Marc Gerges napisał(a): >>> It's plain physics. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > left - presto, there's a moment. The swingarm can turn around this, > pushing the bike up. You are right, I see it now. >>> There's no force on the front of a bike that would reverse in >>> acceleration what the braking force does in deceleration. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because it's a rear wheel drive bike. So there's nothing that could pull > it down. You are right here too. Thanks. SignatureAndrzej Rosa > >> I've got to admit, the monster has quite some attraction to me. The > >> aircooled twin, that characteristic sound, the desmo valve train... I am [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > don't really have any interest in BMW's, so that will probably not > change. I had no particular interest in them until I rented one on vacation last week. I rode my FJR for the first time since I returned home yesterday and was severly disappointed. The 1200RT is an awesome (if uninspiring) motorcycle. If they'd only ditch that assinine switchgear... >> But then I've got no experience with it, and I don't really have any >> interest in BMW's, so that will probably not change. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > uninspiring) motorcycle. If they'd only ditch that assinine > switchgear... Thanks for the warning - my dealer has BMW as well as Kawasaki, so if while waiting for maintenance, they'll offer a test ride on a BMW, I'll be aware to not accept it ;-) cu .\\arc > >> But then I've got no experience with it, and I don't really have any > >> interest in BMW's, so that will probably not change. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > while waiting for maintenance, they'll offer a test ride on a BMW, I'll > be aware to not accept it ;-) I've test ridden BMWs and didn't think much of them. They don't pull any heartstrings. They aren't especially smooth, pretty, or fast, but take one out all day on good roads and I think you'll discover why others like them so much. I know I did. FWIW, I replaced the dual compound front tire on my FJR this morning. Those things wear oddly and completely screw up the handling but good. A new Continental Road Attack later and I'm happy to report that my FJR is once again handling like a dream. > I've got to admit, the monster has quite some attraction to me. The > aircooled twin, that characteristic sound, the desmo valve train. The bigger Monsters are water-cooled now. It's a shame because all the plumbing detracts from the essential simplicity that made the original Monsters look so attractive. I'm sure the new ones go better and faster for longer, but they just don't look as good IMHO. SignatureBMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F & SH50 GHPOTHUF#1 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom Nothing is more dangerous than an ignoramus with a workshop manual, a 'can-do' attitude and a cheap set of tools >> I've got to admit, the monster has quite some attraction to me. The >> aircooled twin, that characteristic sound, the desmo valve train. > > The bigger Monsters are water-cooled now. It's a shame because all the > plumbing detracts from the essential simplicity that made the original > Monsters look so attractive. If I ever were to fall for one, I couldn't care less about the engine size. There seems to be nothing wrong at all with the performance of the 696. cu .\\arc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.