| Author | Message | ||
     Rocketman |
I didn't realise you were talking British history and world politics. If you were willing to learn, something which might help your seemingly blinkered vision about British Islamists, you might also be surprised to find that manufacturing within the UK automotive industry is far more alive than you're qualified to comment on. Take my advice and do your homework before you dig yourself into a big hole where you'll be chomping humble pie. Rocket | ||
| Buellshyter |
How in the hell did this thread about Buell's ZTL brake system turn into a "my country is better than your country thread"?! Wow! It drifted off topic many posts ago. Truth be told, I'm just stirring Rocket's pot. In all factualness, the U.S. isn't much better off then England. | ||
| Buellshyter |
you might also be surprised to find that manufacturing within the UK automotive industry is far more alive than you're qualified to comment on. " Since you took the bait, what automotive industry? Jaguar, Aston Martin and Land Rover are owned by Ford, Opel by Gm, Lotus by Proton and last but not least by any measure, Rolls Royce by BMW and Bentley by VW. Like I said, the Empire fizzled long ago. | ||
| Paintballtommy |
how in the hell can a frame be too rigid????? that makes no freakin sense to me. the stiffer and more rigid the frame the more solid everything is. it also lets the suspension react quicker and more precisely to inconsistencies int he road. thats just what ive learned from hangin out with racers building track cars etc. | ||
| Ridrx |
Like I said, the Empire fizzled long ago. Only with the help of Luke and 'The Force' was the Empire defeated!  I want to hear more about the physics of the ZTL. I like it when the construction workers and engineers gang up on physics, I learn stuff. | ||
| Paintballtommy |
im no physicist but it seems the ztl might have an advantage with the perimeter brake in that there is more available braking surface? | ||
| Rocketman |
Since you took the bait, what automotive industry? Didn't we just do this in another thread recently, yawn. We were talking about manufacturing. Not assembling family saloons, the cash cows of the worlds largest corporations. The UK manufactures the top racing cars in the world. That includes engine manufacture too. In fact, they won today. Better still for us Brit's, those manufacturers who won today represent but a small portion of the automotive manufacturing industry in Britain. And just to wind you up. Last time I looked, the major US single seat race car series, the cars are all manufactured in the UK. Like I said, do your homework. The list is far too long for me to be bothered on your behalf, given your ignorance and arrogance. But here is one, because I'm a kind soul. Ricardo is the largest transmission engineering and design consultancy in the UK. The combination of key technologies from both motorsport and mainstream automotive applications has enabled development of cutting edge capability. This philosophy and “right first time” approach has resulted in an enviable track record in all forms of competition at the highest levels. Ricardo transmissions have been used by winning teams in virtually all forms of Motorsport. This encompasses bespoke design and supply of transmissions for 4WD World Rally Cars, Formula 1 and single source supply transmissions to race series such as the Dallara Nissan World Series and Indy Pro Series. Capitalising on the effectiveness of Ricardo’s ultra reliable sportscar transmission supplied to Audi during their famous four Le Mans 24 hr race wins, Ricardo is forging ahead with a new transverse sportscar transmission, currently being used successfully by teams. Ricardo’s design strength and reliability is further highlighted by Mitsubishi’s domination of arguably the hardest race in the world – the Paris Dakar Rally, where Ricardo have designed and manufactured the complete transmission system for the Pajero Evolution cars. Rocket Edit: How's the humble pie  (Message edited by rocketman on June 10, 2007) | ||
| Ridrx |
Didn't we just do this in another thread recently, yawn. YES...so let it go, besides, none of the examples given use ZTL . BTW...Looks like Mr Hamilton is on his way to being the next M. Schumacher... that kid can drive his a$$ off! | ||
| M1combat |
"M1,I sure do know why frames need flex and the Buell ZTL does not solve that problem,unless of course Buell has found a way to make the forks bend sideways when leaned over" See puppy... you didn't think before you said that  . Can you tell me WHY the forks need to flex sideways? If you were to THINK about it... you might indeed figure out why the XB forks DON'T need to flex AS MUCH as a setup with conventional brakes. They still need to flex of course, but not as much. That means that the frame can be stiffer... It's a fact my friend. Please think... then post. Open your mind to what the possible benefits of reduced unsprung mass might be. Until you do you just make it obvious that you don't understand the subject. Paintball... The frame needs to flex because while leaned over the bumps you run over are larger than when straight up. In the mid-eighties the race engineers found that if the frame was too stiff then the front tire would chatter. That's bad . They backed off the stiffness. After that, they started designing suspension that worked better (the upside down stuff) and then they were able to stiffen the frames again. Of course they have run into another wall because they all do the same thing but trying to make the unsprung mass lighter. Buell came along with the ZTL and took a relatively HUGE chunk of the unsprung mass out of the system (not to mention complexity and parts count) so Buell is able to run a stiffer frame without having the tire chatter at high lean angles. This also has the side benefit of making the bike feel more stable mid-turn and makes it feel more responsive. Just because YOU can't see all of the merits of a system doesn't mean that there aren't any puppyboy. Try to achieve a decent understanding of the subject and then take an objective look at the system. Michael C. found one solution that I hope works, Erik B. found another. One is in production and has some top race analysts that have checked it out and not complained (quite the contrary). The other is still in a shop. I do hope that Michael gets a bike sold though. He has a decent idea if you ask me. As an aside... Who was the first manufacturer to use upside down forks on a production street bike??? | ||
| M1combat |
"Looks like Mr Hamilton is on his way to being the next M. Schumacher... that kid can drive his a$$ off!" So were Raikonen and Trulli... My money is on Massa. | ||
| Skully |
Simply that Buell in producing a ZTL brake is no more a feat than Ural producing a paint that won't scratch easy. Neither company were responsible for making the product. Somebody had to write the specifications and somebody had to design it. The manufacturing is the easy part. And just to wind you up. Last time I looked, the major US single seat race car series, the cars are all manufactured in the UK. With 3.5 liter V-8 engines from Honda. | ||
| Thepup |
"As an aside... Who was the first manufacturer to use upside down forks on a production street bike???" As usual I bet you think it was Buell,you would be wrong. | ||
| Ridrx |
I think Kimi is too hot headed, lots of talent, not enough patience. Massa has a good chance if Ferrari gets the new car debugged(more mechanical failures this year than the previous 5-6). Hamilton just reminds me of Mike in his younger years, oozes skill, cool head, and confidently modest. | ||
| M1combat |
Then who is it Pup? | ||
| Thepup |
Suzuki was using them in 1990,yamaha 1991,Buell 1991.Looks like it was Suzuki. | ||
| Buellshyter |
Last time I looked, the major US single seat race car series, the cars are all manufactured in the UK. Yea, and it's about as popular as motorcycle racing, which is to say it's not. | ||
| Court |
>>>Who was the first manufacturer to use upside down forks on a production street bike??? It was the same company that got the first stainless steel brake line approved for use on a commercially sold bike wasn't it? | ||
| Rocketman |
Like fuel in the frame, the USD fork was invented and first used by the British long before many modern motorcycle designers / engineers were born. It is not surprising in the slightest the amount of discontent shown toward British engineering and invention by many on the BadWeB. Your ignorance of who built what when is shocking considering you call yourselves motorcycle enthusiasts. Rocket | ||
| Treadmarks |
  | ||
| Court |
By the way . . . if you really want to amaze yourself. . . spend some time searching for OLD (like before he was out of college) Erik Buell patents. There are some absolutely amazing things hiding there under a variety of names that we've yet to see . . . see how many suspension systems you can count that have yet to be produced. | ||
| Snakedriver |
Just to chime in, I have a 1964 Triumph TR 4, a GT-6 and 3 MGBs before the Triumphs. I love them, esp. the hand crank on the TR 4. Rocketman is right about British engineering. Just look at the Crew Chief for the Enterprise...LOL | ||
| Thepup |
"It was the same company that got the first stainless steel brake line approved for use on a commercially sold bike wasn't it?" I didn't know Suzuki was also the first to use stainless steel brake lines,although they were the first to use USD on a production bike. | ||
| Court |
>>>I didn't know Hey . . . don't feel bad. Us spoiled rich kids have to do something in our spare time while the rest of you are working. | ||
| Dbird29 |
Court's got a stalker! How cute.  | ||
| Spike |
WRT inverted forks on production motorcycles . . . From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Buell "In 1991, Buell incorporated a five-speed transmission mated to the 1203cc engine. Buell responded to Harley's revised engine mounting points by further improving an already staggeringly innovative design that was the RS chassis. Past the chassis, these were the first production motorcycles to use 'inverted' front forks, stainless steel braided brake lines and a six-piston front brake caliper."  From Suzukicycles.org on the 1990 GSX-R750L: http://www.suzukicycles.org/GSX-R-series/GSX-R750_ b.shtml "Both 41mm inverted tube front fork and remote reservoir rear shock became fully adjustable."  | ||
| Court |
Spike: You may be right and I MAY BE WRONG. It looks like in the process of being wrong I may, by accident,have proven something else. You take a look at see. Suzuki applied for a patent in 1989. It was granted in 1992. Oddly enough there is no fanfare and not much mention in the Suzuki literature. I've ordered reprints of all the 1990 Suzuki reviews to see what they have to say. We'll see. . . egads. . . I may be eating crow AGAIN! Court P.S. - Learned a lot doing the research. . . see if you can figure out why the Buell literature (as well as all the magazines) claimed Buell was the first to market. I have an idea. . . but it's just an idea. We'll compare notes. Abstract A front fork assembly of a motorcycle comprises a pair of inverted type front forks each comprising an upper outer tube and a lower inner tube, upper and under brackets mounted to the front fork which are operatively connected to a body of the motorcycle, an axle bracket secured to the lower end of each of the front forks, a caliper bracket secured to the axle bracket, a caliper mounted to the caliper bracket, a disc plate supported by the axle bracket, a protector disposed in front of the front fork for protecting the front fork and a brake hose extending therealong, and a guide member secured to the front fork to vertically slidably support the front fork protector. The lower end portion of the brake hose is protected by a protector of specific structure so as not to contact to the road surface during the running of the motorcycle. The outer tube is prevented from slipping off upwardly by an engaging member specifically formed on the top end of the outer tube and the front... Patent number: 5092421 Filing date: Nov 13, 1989 Issue date: Mar 3, 1992 Inventors: Hideo Tsurumaki, Tsuneyoshi Sonoda Assignee: Suzuki Jidosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha | ||
| Spike |
That may be the case, but I really wouldn't know. I've heard the claim that Buell was first to market with USD forks on a production bike, and I've heard that Suzuki beat them to it. I didn't know which was the case, so I googled around until I came up with the data in the previous post. For all I know the '91 RS1200 could have actually been on the market prior to the '90 GSX-R750. I really have no idea. Say . . . If I'm on record proving Court wrong, do I get a prize or anything? Maybe a free copy of his yet-to-be-released book (both volumes) or a set of Firebolt headlights? | ||
| Court |
>>>Say . . . If I'm on record proving Court wrong, do I get a prize or anything? Nice try . . . but in 20 years of Buellin' and 14+ of internet debates I have an illustrious history of being wrong on a host of occasions. I've received 9 requests, while at work today, for some sort of Buell help or information or one sort or another. I try to answer as best, as honestly as as accurately as possible. . . but, I've an aging memory. | ||
| Trojan |
What Buell did was MAKE IT WORK. I have just read this comment, and it may have been answered already (I can't be bothered to trawl through the wholethread to be honest). You are wrong Court. Braking manufactured a perimeter disc system more than 7 years ago, which is still available in both single and dual disc versions. Reg Kitrelle tested one on his S1 in Battle2win many moons ago if you remember. The Braking version not only works, but has been used in WSB and WSS by Ten Kate Honda and Chris Vermuelen, and in 250GP by various teams over the years, which is more than Buell can claim. The brake is also fitted as standard to some Ghezzi & Brian models and TM Supermotos back in 2004-2005. Why don't the teams that tried it still use this system? Because it showed NO APPRECIABLE ADVANTAGE in practical terms over the 'traditional' twin disc setup. | ||
| Blake |
Matt, Of course the old Braking perimeter disk showed no appreciable advantage. It was extremely crude and failed to realize the significant mass reduction of the front wheel made possible by a perimeter-mounted rotor. It probably required a crude floating caliper, a band-aid to a front braking system which we all know is inferior compared to a fixed caliper with floating rotor, especially for sporting machines, let alone racing machines. The brake rotor also protruded out into harm's way outboard of the rim. Not a desirable trait at all, in fact quite undesirable. Are you saying that the crude, risk-laden exposed mounting of the Braking perimeter disk works as well as Buell's ZTL brake/wheel system? That's difficult to reconcile with the facts. How much mass was Braking able to remove from the wheel by virtue of their perimeter disk? I believe the answer is none, on account of they didn't recognize that very valuable benefit of the perimeter-mounted brake rotor. How did it perform in extreme racing conditions, on par with current MotoGP front brake systems like Buell's ZTL-II system? Is that what you are saying? (Message edited by blake on June 11, 2007) |
