| Author |
Message |
    
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 09:40 pm: | 
|
Here's an engineering tip: Anti dive front ends make stopping diistances longer because they keep the CG high. |
Jon
| | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Jim, why is it important in your eyes to state "Buells aren't the only company that is innovating"?
Should there be no recognition of what Buell is doing? Is it bad or unfair to point out Buell's accomplishments?
This isn't a United Nations website, it's a Buell Enthusiast site, silly. You're not supposed to get concerned when people here talk about Buells or even get excited about them.  |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 03:54 am: |
|
Thank you Jon! Geez Jim.
BadWeB = Buell Enthusiasts' Site = True
Frankly I've always liked the Beemer telelever front suspension. I dig stuff like that even if it is heavier and more complex. I like different and I like that it does provide a real and significant benefit for a street bike. It definitely has merit. So where is your "it ain't on a MotoGP bike" argument now? 
If you think that a conventional rear suspension on a motorcycle cannot be anti-squat, you are sorely mistaken. It is a fairly simple relation between the angle of the top of the belt/chain versus axle and swingarm geometry. If the tensioned top run of the chain/belt tends to pull the wheel down, you have anti-squat, if it does the opposite you have squat, then there are all points in between. Smaller rear sprockets reduce the effect.
You might find it interesting to consider the effect of the Buell tensioner pulley on the normal tendency of a sport bike to go tail up under engine braking. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 03:13 am: |
|
Wow...
I gotta get to bed. I just found this thread (I really need to start looking around more) and read the first four archives.
One - How can people have the SAME freakin' thing explained to them multiple times each in multiple different ways and STILL not see it? I can only think of one reason.
Two - (so it can be said AGAIN!) A motorcycle's braking performance when measured in a straight line on a controlled piece of non bumpy pavement is a function of it's overall mass, it's CG, the length of the moment arm that the CG will be using to act and IF the other three work together in such a fashion as to require it... the grip level of the front tire comes into play. Why can't you see that either? I can only think of one reason.
Three - Stop thinking of suspension as holding the vehicle up. It holds the tire down.
Four - How tall is a two inch bump at a 45 degree lean angle? How does it's profile change? I suppose you'll need to understand the principles behind point number one and how it relates to braking before we should even BEGIN to bring you into the room where we discuss how it helps in a turn... Sheesh... In case you're still baffled, point number one is the benefit of reduced un-sprung weight. It helps stability mid-turn over the bumps too. Chew on that until I get back to reading this tomorrow morning.
Good night  .
Blake... You went to MIT? I should have guessed . |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
No. They didn't want me.  I suspect the MIT admissions folk decided on some guy named "Steve Anderson" instead. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
What a colossal mistake THAT turned out to be .
Just kidding Steve... |
Grndskpr
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 09:03 am: |
|
Here's an engineering tip: Anti dive front ends make stopping diistances longer because they keep the CG high.
Then why did the early Buells come with them(anti dive front ends)????? Was it a mistake????Was it something that was learned after the RR/RS line, or was it poor engineering???Just curious
R |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Roger (Grndskpr),
Not sure why this thread went dormant. Just happened across it again. Your's is a good question. The answer I think is that anti-squat front suspensions help prevent the front end from bottoming under hard braking and so allow full suspension motion should one encounter a bump while braking aggressively. More applicable to street than track I suppose. When on the brakes hard, it might be valid to think of an anti-dive front suspension like an instantaneously stiffer front suspension.
I could be wrong though. I don't know much about the workings of anti-dive telescopic front suspensions. |
Jima4media
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:58 am: |
|
This thread went dormant because it had been talked to death with no one wanting to change their mind.
A year ago we didn't have any data about how well the ZTL brakes performed. Now we have a couple of races with the 8 piston ZTL-2 brakes on a much better Buell race-only XBRR, and it doesn't perform as well as Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki 600cc race bikes, to date.
(Message edited by jima4media on July 14, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 01:25 am: |
|
That seems awfully disrespectful to Roger. If I'd seen his post, I'd have responded, on account of I respect the man.
Jeremy qualified 8th at Daytona. Pretty sure he was ahead of plenty of Japan Inc entries.
What you can say is that it, the XBRR hasn't yet performed well in an AMA FX race. What you cannot say for certain is that th XBRRe doesn't perform as well as Japan Inc's $300,000+ 600cc FX racing machines replete with their multi-million dollar budgets, teams, full time dedicated professional racers, etc. Only time will tell. What is cool is that one may obtain an XBRR for a mere $30K or so while the current class leading Japan Inc machines are unobtainable at any price.
I think that is relevant. In fact I KNOW that is relevant. It's too bad others fail to see that relevance.
But what is pertinent in this discussion is that the ZTL concept works fine, works well on a competitive racebike, stock wheel configuration, stock rotor. Amazing.
Please name another FX bike that is using the stock front disk(s)? |
Steve_a
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:18 am: |
|
Jim, you seem a nice enough guy most of the time, but this comment is just rude (and foolish):
A year ago we didn't have any data about how well the ZTL brakes performed. Now we have a couple of races with the 8 piston ZTL-2 brakes on a much better Buell race-only XBRR, and it doesn't perform as well as Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki 600cc race bikes, to date.
For one thing, the XBRR performances to date are the combination of many system performances, and if your "it" above refers to the ZTL2 system specifically, you're wrong. The only reason we didn't finish somewhere between 7th and 5th at Daytona with McWilliams were our well-discussed and since remedied driveline issues. Similarly, an ignition problem kept us from a 7th at Infineon.
As for why we're not further up the list within the top ten, after every race, I've debriefed XBRR riders and asked them what would help them go faster. Never once has better brake performance been requested. McWilliams has specifically said that nothing needs to be done to the ZTL2 brake to improve stopping performance. The issues he has requested we are dealing with, including his number one (and two, and three, and four) request, a slipper clutch. His others are related to details of engine and engine map performance, to getting the machine weight down toward the weight limit, and to getting a full selection of wheel sizes so we can at least test 16.5-inch tires -- which has taken a bit of effort because of the unique front wheel required for the ZTL2. (These new wheels are really beautiful, BTW)
The ZTL2 brake's chief benefit is that it is light. No other brake system comes close to it in weight, until you get to GP systems that achieve their weight through exotic materials useages like carbon-carbon discs. But if you built a ZTL2 system with the same materials, it would be lighter yet.
Chris Ulrich liked the ZTL2 brake, and told me that it worked well when he rode the bike. Alan Cathcart liked it (a lot) at the same test. A whole flock of journalists commented favorably about the brake when they rode an XBRR at our recent 2007 press intro. McWilliams has actually compared it to GP systems, not totally a shock as GP calipers were our stiffness benchmark when designing the 8-piston ZTL2 caliper. On this issue, you don't know what you are talking about.
(Message edited by steve_a on July 14, 2006) |
Jima4media
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
Steve,
I should have been clearer in my post. The XBRR as a whole is slower than the competition. By 2-3 seconds a lap.
As I have said in other threads, I think the ZTL2 brakes are good and the handling of the bike is good.
The reliability of the bike should be easy enough to fix.
Some people have questioned the tire choice, but I don't think it is that either.
Which leaves the motor, the only thing the makes the difference in the lap times compared to the competition.
A week from today we should have some lap times from Laguna Seca to compare and see if any progress has been made.
Best of luck there, by the way! I think everyone would like to see a win at some point.
(Message edited by jima4media on July 14, 2006) |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 04:33 pm: |
|
"Which leaves the motor, the only thing the makes the difference in the lap times compared to the competition."
Geez Jim! You really no read good... There are also the slipper clutch, further weight reduction, additional wheel sizes, more track/test/practice/setup time. Good grief. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2018 - 04:17 pm: |
|
Twelve years later, still amazing. |
|
