| Author |
Message |
    
Henrik
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:01 am: | 
|
Excellently written Reep. Thank You. Please make sure to send it to Cycle World. And thank you to Erik Buell and the Elves for the Buell Experience - both the bikes and the people.
I respect Michael C for giving it t try. As for him as a speaker - I heard him at the unveiling at the NYC MC show, and he should have had someone write it for him ... and he should have practiced. His speech included quite a bit of *race star* hinting and some name dropping, but he did not succeed in projecting a lot of enthusiasm. I wish him the best of luck with the project - time will tell.
Meanwhile I'll be riding my Buells 
Henrik |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
I'd much rather see it on the wall in the lunchroom at the Buell factory then see it printed in Cycle World.
Having ridden about 150 miles through tight, twisty, gnarly, and absolutely beautiful country roads on my XB9SX this weekend (due to a freak warm front in Ohio), a thank you is the LEAST I can do.
I don't want to publicly pee on somebodies dream (even if they are a rich architect going after the function follows form Ducatti set  ). I think that is how people would take it if it were printed in Cycle world.
What I did want to do is let the factory to know that *we* "get it", and that we really appreciate it. |
Court
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
>>>I'd much rather see it on the wall in the lunchroom at the Buell factory then see it printed in Cycle World.
That's done. I did my part, now you do yours.
 |
Rigga
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
from some articles ive read over here in the uk about the moto czysz bike he is in for a bit of a shock,whilst his design looks exotic and forward thinking,its actually a backwards step as he is designing his weight distribution along the center axis of the bike,fore to aft,whilst arguably the best moto gp bike out there at the moment employs mass centralization as its design mantra..... now where have i heard that before?,plus the use of a carbon chassis has been tried before,cagive had a stunningly beutifull carbon framed bike,but it was found the chassis was too stiff,it limited the ammount of front end feeling the rider had in the corners,one second everything was going good,then next your on your ear,the chassis needs a certain ammount of flex built in that a carbon chassis cannot have...basicly from memory from what i read whilst it looks good,its not going to cut it in real world racing conditions,if i can find the article ill post it up..... must be some other past time he could spend his considerable funds on,or at least do his research a bit more first
(Message edited by rigga on February 07, 2005) |
Budo
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 02:19 pm: |
|
" totally new engine would require tens of millions of dollars in production line work; money that could be used to design a really cool bike. "
No need to do that. Porsche did quite well with the V-rod motor, let them do the same for the Buell. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 05:05 pm: |
|
No need to do that. Porsche did quite well with the V-rod motor, let them do the same for the Buell.
Yas pay for up front or in each unit. I don't want a $15000 Buell |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 05:44 pm: |
|
Again the myth of carbon fiber structures being by default stiffer than anything else. Big myth. Carbon fiber is not magic and unless used in non-woven form, is not likely to be stiffer than aluminum of the same form. |
Rigga
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 06:24 pm: |
|
Blake....from the little i know about carbon making,i know the way the cloth is layed can affect its composition and stiffness,but carbon in itself is not flexible,always thought it to be a brittle substance,esp if load is applied in the wrong direction compared to weave pattern? all i was relayiing is that stiffness is not always the best thing in a chassis,and can place too much load on the suspension and tire contact patch,a built in ammount of flex aleviates this problem......honda at one point when still winning nearly every 500cc event reverted to a 4 year old chassis at one point because there were year on year stiffening the frame to the point it was becoming unrideable...i guess its called progress in both material understanding and design |
José_quiñones
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 07:51 pm: |
|
Rigga, read the Road Racing World article that I linked to earlier in this thread, the concerns that you bring up are addressed by Mr Czysz.
Basically, the crank orientation helps the bike to avoid wheelies and stoppies. You don't want a race bike that does wheelies and stoppies all the time, it makes you have to get off the gas/brakes which slow you down. You want the bike to drive forward, not lift up the front wheel.
The frame is really stiff because the flex happens at the forks and the rear swingarm, where he wants it to be and where he can control/tune it.
(Message edited by josé_quiñones on February 07, 2005) |
Geoffg
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |
|
I was gonna make the same points about the flex issue, Jose.
Reading the article, sounds like Czysz has really thought his design through--however, of course the proof's gonna be in the pudding if/when the bike makes it onto the starting grid. So he's trying a few new things--good on 'im. C'mon, guys, we all know how the mainstream motorcycle world bags on Buell because they're a bit different--no reason for us to do the same.
As for the stiffness of CF, hey lots of skis are made of it--and they flex constantly! A good designer can engineer almost any flex characteristics he wants with the correct combination of CF, other fibers, layup orientation, and resin. CF cloth is more limp than fiberglass, feels almost like silk!
Now, I wonder when we're gonna see metal matrix composite frames... |
M1combat
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 01:57 am: |
|
F1 cars use no end links on their control arms. They let the CF flex and control the movement w/ spring/damper units. They say the main reason they went that direction was to reduce stiction. They also shape their control arms to generate down force. As the suspension compresses, the control arm twists to produce less down force, and as it extends, it twists to produce more . Very smart fellers those F1 engineers.
Slightly off topic, but interesting if you ask me . |
Benm2
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Reep, excellent post! Couldn't agree more.
Specialized made MMC frames a while ago, for bicycles. Not sure if they still do.
For the bored, hunt through 3M's website, and look for MMC pushrods. Interesting info (and pictures)
Ben |
Geoffg
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
M1, good point on those F1 control arms--I was not aware of that, but I can believe it. CF does not suffer from fatigue the way aluminium does.
I knew about MMC from mtn biking--I dunno why Specialized dropped it, seems like a great material for frames. Probably too much $$$ |
M1combat
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 01:25 am: |
|
Another interesting tidbit about F1... On the long runs at Monza where they hit >19,500 RPM for extended periods (and the front stretch at indianapolis), there are actually transparent spots on the hand made titanium alloy exhaust headers...
All F1 tyres are hand made.
The cockpit structure is the SAME cockpit (from the same factory even) as used in the F-16. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Those F1 cars are very cool no question about that. BUT to quote a NASCAR crew chief, who's name escapes me and who is a HUGE F1 fan, (imagine the thick South Carolina accent)"But when are you boys gonna start racin'?"
I love the tech but the races are too much parades for me. I'll stick to MotoGP. |
|
