The ultimate in bike design?

[craigs288]

I would like something like a Buell with the fuel in the frame, oil in the swingarm. But I want the tank (airbox cover) and seat and tail section as a one piece molded item. You could sit on a mold on the basic frame to get the ergonomics just right then have it made to perfectly fit your size/shape in the most useful/comfy position.
Everything carbon fibre for weight reduction and rigidity.
I have always enjoyed having vehicles with more power/torque than you can put to use most of the time. There's nothing disappoints me more than the feeling of 'I wish there was more'.
With that in mind, I think something like a injected 750-900cc four cylinder to keep the weight down, but with a centrifugal supercharger cranking out some serious boost.

[Ocean1]

Well being so light, suspension, any stability control electronics, frame geometry etc would have to be fantastic to make sure its not skittery, or get blown around in the wind too much and stuff like that. You wouldn't want one movement of the throttle flipping it on its back either, so it would have to have some anti wheelie device - maybe gyro like.

Traction control. The one thing that would make such a bike "safe" and able to get that power down to best effect would be that ability to sense a loss of traction faster than you can and control the throttle to modulate it.

It's actually quite do-able as long as the front wheel stays down, need that to compare road speed to back wheel speed. Sensor in the forks to read weight on the front wheel could work. Same system in reverse could be used for ABS although it'd be possible to confuse it by semi-locking both wheels.

Personally I don't see the point in more power than they've already got, where the hell can you use it, even safely let alone legally? Weight however is a useful target, and we're nowhere near what's possible there.

Production bikes are actually pretty conservative in terms of design, there's a lot of design constraints applied by the need to automate production to keep costs down. New and better materials are rarely used until ways are found to automate production. There's been low-volume specials available for ages that typically out-perform the latest showroom offerings, they just cost more because of the high labour content.

Occasionally a John Britten or an Eric Buell come along with a bunch of ideas which re-write the rules but by and large production bikes are a marketing excercise driven by a slow evolutionary process. We like to think the shiny new offerings are "cutting edge" but really they're nowhere near it.

[skelstar]

Personally I don't see the point in more power than they've already got, where the hell can you use it, even safely let alone legally? Weight however is a useful target, and we're nowhere near what's possible there.

Well, sure as shit the big bike manufacturers are spending lots of money finding ways to make them more powerful (with reliability/cost efficiency blah blah)... there must be a lot of people asking of more power.

Now, why is weight a more useful target?

[Mr. Peanut]

I always thought a variable wheelbase would be interesting, or more wheels inline.

[Mr. Peanut]

Buell... oil in the swingarm....

Unsprung weight?

[skelstar]

I always thought a variable wheelbase would be interesting, or more wheels inline.

Cool...why? ...grip? (wheels inline)

[Mr. Peanut]

Yeah more stability and grip, it'd be less prone to wheelies too. But I don't know much about motorcycle dynamics, so for all I know it could be an impossibility!

I was thinking a small center wheel for putting power down and stability with the front and rear tires devoted to grip.

[Paul in NZ]

This has got to be as dumb as any other thread... There are no limits - just engineering and marketing problems - thats all there has ever been...

What defines a motorcycle? Say if I came up with a thing that looks like a bike and yet uses some kind of antigravity device to keep it off the ground is it still a motorcycle?

Technology changes and grows and with it grows the horizon of whats prossible / practical.

IMHO, Modern sportsbikes handle bloody awfully compared to (say) my old triumph. Its a 'natural' handler in that the bike is utterly instinctive to ride due to a low centre of gravity etc whereas a GSXR etc has to start making engineering compromises to keep it on the road under full power (engine mass is lifted higher etc) and then more engineering has to be thrown at it to make it go around corners and a slightly more technical and un natural riding style adopted.

Eventually - technology will have to make MORE compromises and the riding style will get more technical so some functions will get delegated to computers to make it useable (much like in a modern jet fighter) because the average human can't react in time.

There are no limits - except can I make it at a price that I can convince people to pay?

[skelstar]

This has got to be as dumb as any other thread...

Really?... I thought it was quite reasonable if you understand the intention of the thread.

I'm just curious to know what the limits are of the design of bikes. Super-light bike? Super powerful bike?

Its a damn shame KBers would rather wax on about their last day, saving the world, each others arse, relationships and how bad a day they're having. I'm attempting to provide an alternative.

[imdying]

Its a damn shame KBers would rather wax on about their last day, saving the world, each others arse, relationships and how bad a day they're having. I'm attempting to provide an alternative.

Damn right... bunch of cock suckers.... wahhh wahhh I'm so depressed... wahhh wahh, I don't like the government... waahh wahhh lets all hug, what side of the bed do you sleep on, etc etc etc...

IMHO, Modern sportsbikes handle bloody awfully compared to (say) my old triumph. Its a 'natural' handler in that the bike is utterly instinctive to ride due to a low centre of gravity etc whereas a GSXR etc has to start making engineering compromises to keep it on the road under full power (engine mass is lifted higher etc) and then more engineering has to be thrown at it to make it go around corners and a slightly more technical and un natural riding style adopted.

Dunno wtf you're smoking.... your Triumph's chassis doesn't get beat up by the power of the motor cause it's a gutless sack of shite....

[merv]

Hey be nice fellahs its Friday and we can all relax because the weekend is going to be good for riding and dreaming about the ultimate bike.

[limbimtimwim]

IMHO, Modern sportsbikes handle bloody awfully compared to (say) my old triumph. Its a 'natural' handler in that the bike is utterly instinctive to ride due to a low centre of gravity etc whereas a GSXR etc has to start making engineering compromises to keep it on the road under full power (engine mass is lifted higher etc) and then more engineering has to be thrown at it to make it go around corners and a slightly more technical and un natural riding style adopted.

It's just what you are used to. Getting on completely different style of bike always feels stupid and 'wrong'. My DR felt ridiculous for awhile, now I can chuck it around with heterosexual abandon. A month on a modern GSXR and then back on to your 'umph, you'll be noticing how bumps upset it, that the brakes require effort, the fueling lacks precision, etc etc. At the race getting on my 400 feels totally stupid for awhile, all those revs, the hard suspension, totally incorrect.... For about 10 minutes. Then the riding postion is correct also.

[Ocean1]

Well, sure as shit the big bike manufacturers are spending lots of money finding ways to make them more powerful (with reliability/cost efficiency blah blah)... there must be a lot of people asking of more power.

Now, why is weight a more useful target?

They're making bikes with more horsepower because that's what sells. It sells partly because the marketing machine encourages people to consider that to be the most important quantifiable quality. So yeah, there is a lot of people asking for more power. I just question whether NZ roads are an appropriate place to use 200hp plus, no matter how good you are.

Weight is a more attractive target for me because the advantages of less weight flow into far more quality considerations than simple acceleration. Given similar geometry a light bike will not only accelerate faster it'll corner at higher apex speeds because there's less load on the tyres. Reduced weight design elements also have a sort of self-perpetuating outcome, the bike will use less fuel to do the same job, so it needs to carry less, which means it needs less mass to remain rigid, which means...

Also, I consider torque to be a more useful performance variable to target. Not only is it a more accurate descriptor of useable energy for the application but, (and again personally), I find bikes with high torque more fun to ride and more forgiving of mistakes.

[T.W.R]

Actually getting to try one of these puppies out would be enough without advancing anything on the design apart from the engine (the original powerplant is a 88' GSX-R750). Two wheel drive, two wheel steer, gyroscope controlled pivoting seat. It was way ahead of it's time in 1988 and even today there haven't been many bold enough to get close to it

[Conquiztador]

The main limiting factor has to be the small spot front and back that connects you to terra firma. If you are on gravel, grass or wet tar seal no matter how light, fast, well balanced, good suspension. You just lost the use of 90% of that plastic fantastic you have between your legs.