| Author | Message | ||
     Jaimec |
Some real interesting design concepts here but I think I've seen that perimeter brake someplace else: http://tinyurl.com/2bqceh | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Brakes look familiar. As does the exhaust.  | ||
| Barker |
Interesting. Look expensive and fragile. GXSR has a frame and it is known to break in half. That one doesn't frame. Anybody got a website for these cats? Tried google and got nothing. | ||
| Jaimec |
If it doesn't have a frame, where do you put the fuel??  | ||
| Ryker77 |
You'd need eyes on top of your skull. Pure racing position. | ||
| Blake |
What great innovation! A single disk rim mounted perimeter brake with a six-pot caliper! Wow! That is a HUGE innovation! The potential for a reduction in unsprung mass will be HUGE not to mention the commensurate benefits for front suspension performance! Who would have ever guessed! These folks are definitely on to something.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I think the overall technology is very cool, but I suspect that the end price tag would be in the $25,000 price range. Too rich for my blood. Did I hear them right that they mount everything directly to the engine? | ||
| Blake |
I wonder how they get the front rotor to float and perform well in operation? They claim 50 Kg lighter with half the aerodynamic drag compared to a current supersports bike, as well as being faster, lighter, and better handling than a MotoGP bike. Those are some very brash and brave if not unsupportably absurd claims. Have these folks ever produced an actual for real ridable motorcycle? Let me guess... they are looking for investors to help them get this amazing new creation into production?  Their designer seems to imagine that it is somehow a revolutionary new idea to "mount the handlebars to the forks rather than the frame"? I guess he is speaking wrt motorcycles that utilize an unconventional or swingarm type front suspension. Their aerodynamic air flow plot does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It indicates zero separation of flow going from front fairing to the tail of the bike. That is a fantasy at best if not outright technical fraud or total incompetence at worst.  Aerodynamics Analysis Fantasy, Fraud, or Incompetence? Apparently part of their "half the aerodynamic drag" results from removing the mirrors.  Aerodynamic Drag Improves with Removal of Mirrors! Who knew! Would you invest in this venture? I might if I could first take their prototype for a ride or get a report from Jeremy McWilliams after he had taken it for a ride. Somehow I don't imagine either will be possible. I hope I'm wrong. More screen shots...     | ||
| Blake |
Jaime, The thing about Erik Buell was that he actually first built a bike and took it racing. Those fellows are no Erik Buell. It's difficult to understand how some folks imagine they can leap from nowhere into the uppermost echelon of designing and manufacturing excellent sporting let alone racing motorcycles. Michael Czyz is learning that expensive lesson, as is Ilmor, Fischer, Roehr and as did the Foggy-Petronas folks. Not sure who said it ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) but I agree that in the world of motorcycle production, true genius ships. FtB, If that concept ever makes it to production, it will run a LOT higher than $25K. That highly stressed (due to final drive configuration) carbon fiber swingarm will run $25K retail, or more. | ||
| Glitch |
You doubt them Blake? They have a model and everything, what more could you want?  | ||
| Buellshyter |
A Buell is a mass-produced motorcycle designed to make a profit. MotoCzysz and Roehr are exotic bikes designed and built to fulfill someone's ego. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
So with two chains, do I get twice the driveline slop? | ||
| M1combat |
Looks like they'll have to wait for the patent to run out on that rotor mounting system... Where are they putting the fuel anyway? What about air intake? I hope they can do something so lofty. | ||
| Jaimec |
I'm sure even Erik started with models somewhere. Unlike Buell (who keeps everything close to the chest so we never see ANYTHING until it's released), these guys are giving us a peek. Is it to raise investor interest? I'm sure of it. I'm not sure HOW that drivetrain works (or if it's even practical) but that front end is very interesting. Looks like they're avoiding the mistake Yamaha made with the GTS1000 by basically HIDING the fact it's NOT a telescopic fork. BMW did the same thing with the Tele-lever and duo-lever front ends. Yes, they ARE different, but they don't LOOK different unless you look closely. People just know what a motorcycle is SUPPOSED to look like, and they don't want anything that looks too far from the norm. My observation, anyway. | ||
| Glitch |
So with two chains, do I get twice the driveline slop? Twice the slop for twice the price! While an interesting design, one can tell they are a l o n g way from even having a proto-type, other than the desktop model. Fuel tank? Final drive? What engine is built strong enough to be the frame? That's a lot of stress to have to handle. I don't think anything today is built to handle taking all the stress a conventional frame takes. If they are serious, they're gonna have to build up the engine in such a way that they may lose a lot of their proposed weight loss. Erik started off with a 2 stroke square four racing motorcycle. | ||
| Jaimec |
Now where have I seen a "frameless motorcycle" before? http://www.confederate.com/confederate2/c2-links/m achines-renovatio.html Actually, I should point out that technically, the BMW "R" series motorcycles are frameless as well. There is a support structure for the top of the steering head, and one for the seat, but the main, load bearing element of the whole design is the boxer engine itself. (Message edited by jaimec on June 06, 2007) | ||
| Rocketman |
For the record Blake, your put down of this innovative British design is no less a put down than you accuse me of doing wrt Buell. You and I are no different when it comes to shooting our mouths off. Remember that the next time you accuse me of the negativity and the miserableness, won't you. That said, I'm sorry you see this project as some kind of threat to Erik Buell being the worlds only innovative motorcycle designer. What's wrong with you? Can't you take off your Buell hat for a moment and credit such efforts as worthy to any type of two wheeled design? Those are some very brash and brave if not unsupportably absurd claims. These fellows are no Erik Buell. Their aerodynamic air flow plot does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It indicates zero separation of flow going from front fairing to the tail of the bike. That is a fantasy at best if not outright technical fraud or total incompetence at worst. THE MAN'S DESIGNED THREE SEASONS OF COMPETITIVE FORMULA 1 CAR AND YOU CLAIM HIS AERODYNAMICS ARE FANTASY OR INCOMPETENCE AT WORST? The people behind the Spirit are Dick Glover and Andy le Fleming. Glover is McLaren's head of development for McLaren's road cars. le Fleming has had a hand in designing F1 cars for Benetton and Ferrari, and is credited as the designer of Ferrari's first all carbon fiber transmission unit. He is also the Chief Designer for the 1997/98/99 Stewart SF1, SF2 and SF3 Formula 1 cars. Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
The thing about Erik Buell was that he actually first built a bike and took it racing. Correction: Barry Hart and Graham Dyson built a race bike that Erik Buell took racing. Of course, Erik Buell has claimed it was a POS that he tore down and redesigned, but that's not the story Graham Dyson told to me. Rocket | ||
| Buellshyter |
Did you catch the specs on the Confederate Renovatio.....350 pounds and 190 hp...that bike might need a harness to go with that tiny seat...yikes  | ||
| Court |
>>>>Not sure who said it but I agree that in the world of motorcycle production, true genius ships. Credit that to my loose interpretation of Steve Jobs after his famed encounter with the Xerox PARC folks. Erik Buell is not alone in the world of gifted motorcycle geniuses. However the crowd thins significantly when you narrow it to folks who are BOTH engineering designed "gurus" (quiting Paramount Bicycles 1992) and Business geniuses. Motorcycles are such a small part of what Erik Buell does and has done it's a shame sometimes he messes with them and detracts from his other talents. I'd like to have a $1 for everyone who's ever dreamed of, talked or or thought of "partnering" with HD. I always enjoy seeing new and various designs. In fact, I think the industry will see a huge paradigm shift in the next 10 years. No places reflects consumers changing wants/need/preferences like the streets of New York City. | ||
| Court |
>>>>MotoCzysz and Roehr are exotic bikes designed Rocket has produced more copies of his Bonnebomb. | ||
| Davefl |
As far as frameless motorcycles go my father had a mid 90's BMW R1100RS that used a front and rear sub frame that were mounted to the engine. The Britten used a similar system. | ||
| Jaimec |
Davefl: That's exactly what I said here: http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/406 2/283051.html?1181219049#POST902352 | ||
| Davefl |
Sorry I missed that.  I like dreamers as much as the next guy but this one has not really dreamed up anything new. That being said I would love to see a running, working prototype. | ||
| Rocketman |
Actually, placing the riders feet much closer together is pretty revolutionary, and I think this idea would prove well on the Salt. Rocket | ||
| Blake |
Sean, "For the record Blake, your put down of this innovative British design is no less a put down than you accuse me of doing wrt Buell." Baloney, on account of I've stated technical facts to support my criticisms and I have the formal education and professional expertise to back them up. Additionally, you no read good. You apparently missed my more positive comments... "What great innovation! A single disk rim mounted perimeter brake with a six-pot caliper! Wow! That is a HUGE innovation! The potential for a reduction in unsprung mass will be HUGE not to mention the commensurate benefits for front suspension performance! Who would have ever guessed! These folks are definitely on to something. " Excluding my coy "who would have guessed" comment as the front brake system of course has already been fielded and well-proven, at least for a conventional steel rotor, those comments stand as genuine and true and quite laudatory. The Spirit ES1 designers/engineers who specified the ZTL type of front brake configuration are indeed very technically astute and competent in that choice. Do you agree? Ditto for the underslung muffler. Do you agree? Additionally I stated my doubts, I hoped that the bike would end up in production. "You and I are no different when it comes to shooting our mouths off. Remember that the next time you accuse me of the negativity and the miserableness, won't you." Baloney! You will never ever see me over on the Spirit ES1 Enthusiasts' discussion board spewing belittling and insulting statements about the concept bike, its improbable over-hyped engineering, or its unrealistic fantasy performance specifications. If I do visit such a forum, I will offer only thoughtful and constructive commentary, nothing confrontational or personal against the folks there. Additionally, the thing isn't even an actual motorcycle at this point. My statements are aimed at distinguishing the fantasy marketing hype from the real world. You on the other hand do troll around on a Buell enthusiasts' board, this one, basically accusing folks at Buell of lying (failing to deliver what they promised) and being hucksters selling an inferior product. You sir read about Buell motorcycle racers winning four out of four races against Ducati and Aprilia literbikes and see the comments of people congratulating that achievement, and your first reaction is to try to belittle and deride that success! You sir need taught a serious lesson. I've tried. I don't have any more patience for it. "That said, I'm sorry you see this project as some kind of threat to Erik Buell being the worlds only innovative motorcycle designer. What's wrong with you? Can't you take off your Buell hat for a moment and credit such efforts as worthy to any type of two wheeled design?" See above positive comments. But most of all take careful note of the title of this thread, which was the target of my clarification concerning the significant difference between Erik Buell and this project's leaders. Only when and if the Spirit ES1 project leaders manage to get an actual mass producable road-worthy motorcycle built and running and selling for a reasonable price, then and only then is it reasonable to consider equating or comparing them to Mr. Buell. Lots of folks are skilled enough to crank out a neato radical conceptual motorcycle design and then make all kinds of amazing claims about its performance. Not many--there may be a dozen on Earth--are skilled and determined enough to see it through and actually build the bike and put it on the race track or especially in the store and on the road. The fact that the designers are Brits never entered my mind in forming my views of the venture. The front brake concept is beautiful! One of the most technically advanced I've ever seen, the benefits are immediately apparent to me. THE MAN'S DESIGNED THREE SEASONS OF COMPETITIVE FORMULA 1 CAR AND YOU CLAIM HIS AERODYNAMICS (plots) ARE FANTASY (, FRAUD) OR INCOMPETENCE AT WORST? Yes! "The people behind the Spirit are Dick Glover and Andy le Fleming. Glover is McLaren's head of development for McLaren's road cars. Le Fleming has had a hand in designing F1 cars for Benetton and Ferrari, and is credited as the designer of Ferrari's first all carbon fiber transmission unit. He is (sic) also the Chief Designer for the 1997/98/99 Stewart SF1, SF2 and SF3 Formula 1 cars. Impressive, but not convincing as to the glaring technical disparities evident in the performance claims and aerodynamic characterizations of their newest project. I've worked on lots of advanced stuff and led engineering projects too Sean. That doesn't qualify me to design entire aircraft or aerospace vehicles. The CFD airflow plot cannot be accurately representing real world flow at speed. Note that it depicts the airflow between the front wheel and the fairing/engine as undisturbed laminar flow (indicated by the color red). Given the geometry involved, that is impossible for any Reynolds number that relates to a real world scenario. There is no way that the real world air-flow over so many discontinuous and significantly incongruous surfaces will remain laminar and fully attached as depicted in the CFD results plot. It is a pipe dream to imagine that you can simultaneously significantly (>10%) reduce frontal area AND significantly improve flow (keep it attached and laminar) over a sit-on sporting motorcycle. That's my technically astute view. If the Spirit ES1 folks can actually achieve the performance specs that they advertise, I'll eat my socks. It ain't going to happen on account of it is physically unrealizable. It's like saying that you are going to take 50 lbs off a star athlete and at the same time make him 50% stronger as well. 50 Kg (110 LB) lighter than a supersport machine? That means a liter-bike that weighs in at around 290 LBs. A frame weighs in at around 30 LBs maybe? The goofy transfer shaft/sprocket assembly atop the swingarm torque box will likely put the majority of that back onto the bike. It and the swingarm will need to be stout enough to endure the ~1,000+ FT*LB of yaw axis torsion induced by the strange two-chain final-drive configuration (Message edited by blake on June 07, 2007) | ||
| Ryker77 |
yaw axis torsion induced by the strange two-chain final-drive configuration I noticed that too. Coming from mountain bike riding I was curious what effect that system would have when the power was applied in a quick manner. | ||
| Blake |
"Correction: Barry Hart and Graham Dyson built a race bike that Erik Buell took racing. Of course, Erik Buell has claimed it was a POS that he tore down and redesigned, but that's not the story Graham Dyson told to me." Where did Erik Buell ever claim the Barton was a "POS"? You sure are fast and loose with facts and putting words into other people's mouths. I believe Erik stated that the engine would not last, a factual statement in his experience. No matter, the RR1000 was also a racing machine. It's chassis and bodywork was entirely designed by Erik Buell and company. | ||
| Court |
>>>story Graham Dyson told to me Next time you speak to that bloke tell him I need a copy of the timing data for a Barton. . . . | ||
| Blake |
"I noticed that too. Coming from mountain bike riding I was curious what effect that system would have when the power was applied in a quick manner." It would tend to yank the swingarm and rear wheel to the left. The swingarm will need to be rigid enough to resist. There is a very good reason why virtually all the swingarms on powerful motorcycles utilize a fairly significant width between their set of pivoting bearings such that one bearing on the side of the final drive chain/belt is not far if at all off line from the drive chain's/belt's line of action/force. Anyone care to do a top view free body diagram of the swingarm and rear wheel/tire assembly?  Fun stuff! |
