Is this the future of motorcycle racing?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Could hub-center steering motorcycles be the future of racing? In this video we look at the biggest benefits of this revolutionary technology, why it hasn't seen any great success yet, and what's standing in the way of hub-center steering becoming a mainstay at the top of motorcycle sport.
============================
Make sure not to miss a single video from Life at Lean! Click here to Subscribe: @lifeatlean
============================
More from Life at Lean here:
🎓 Keep Learning: lifeatlean.com
👕 Custom Merch: shop.lifeatlean.com
📸 Instagram:
/ lifeatlean
============================
In the early 90's, I designed, machined, welded and built every part of my own hub centre bike, using a vfr750 engine.... I wish I still had the photos but alas they have been lost to time...
Very sad that I can't show it off...
Do you still do any kind of engineering today?
What happened to the bike? Sounds like it didn't have a happy ending
what happened to the bike? (1)
Ah the early 90s. The last time it was conceivable to not have a picture of something
Would love to know more about this bike, even if you can't find any pictures.
While racing focused, I was still surprised there was no mention of the telelever and duolever fronts on BMW R-series and K-series bikes.
Well its racing focussed
Im a racer who also rides a R1250gs. The gs has no front fork feeling at all, my r6 race bike you can feel the front tire push or slip under hard trailbraking. On the gs its comfy plush smooth, although the front end does have plenty of front grip. I think not having front fork feeling would not be good for racing.
The BMW design was bought from Hossack, which was used in racing machines. If you care to know.
Norman Hugh Hossack is a Scottish inventor and engineer, who invented the Hossack motorcycle front suspension system, used on some BMW Motorrad K series motorcycles
@@ibidu1 I had a K1300S and have rented several GSs for long tours. The K was better, but both feel vague. I prefer the S1000XR for tours when I can get it.
@@paultruesdale7680 Didn't Hossack make a bike with BMW back in the day but they shelved using his design until just after the patent ran out?
That ELF is my favorite motorcycle of all time. I hope someone in MotoGP gives it a chance. The Japanese have nothing to lose at this point.
I’m with you, unfortunately the majority are fully sold on telescopic forks.
You should have a look at the Nissan Deltawing concept racer.
When you see the steering and compare it to the four wheeled racers you will be amazed just how little reinforcement is required to steer a racing vehicle.
It would undermine their road bikes.
I saw the Elf race at Laguna Seca in 88 and from what I remember they had clearance problems on the off camber turns. Ron was scraping the front arm in the corners. After that year we never saw it in Grand Prix again.
Don’t forget Ron rode in quite an old fashioned high corner speed style ..not “always” a bad thing and suited to this type of design . Was grounding out part of what the bike enabled and or enhanced by him and the bike …the last elfs had very advanced designs tight in and scolloped they were costly using lots of mag alloy to get the weight down & single disc brakes caused some issues.. he said it handled well but wasn’t quite as fast as conventional in the wet ( he was fast in the wet ..probably due to feel and lower w transfer.. He did win the Macau gp on it and thought it would be perfect for the tt if i remember correctly..but most of all he was 4th in gp racing on it 87 hardly slow..
My dad used to have a gts1000 and his only complaint was that the swingarm could scrape on the ground
@@actualsize123 did your dad hang off?
@@motorcyclemadness6006 he said he didn’t really need to
I designed built and raced my own version which had several patentable innovations. I can tell you that except for static friction, everything that forks do that people think is bad is good. I had already designed fork like behavior into the geometry and that worked very well but I was wrong in thinking a great deal of torsional rigidity was good. If I would have done a second iteration I would have been bending over backwards to get it to flex like a conventional frame. This was right around the time Cagiva discovered that their carbon frame had too much torsional rigidity. Using a fairly conventional folding scissors for steering gave great feedback. I had the dive set so the rear wheel was coming off the ground when the front was locking and it felt like you could bury the front wheel in the tarmac on the brakes. The problem is that modern coatings and lubricants do an adequate job with friction. Look at the guys with their shoulders on the ground and ask what it is about forks that needs to be better.
I always find it weird how people obsess over the drawbacks of a conventional fork setup rather than considering it's benefits. Every other technology people seem to focus on the benefits first. Even the video claims "the front end dive is bad", when in reality the dive is the biggest benefit of a fork setup. It reduces the rake and trail whilst also slightly reducing the wheelbase. Thus you get a bike far better on turn in which then allows a more stable platform on exit and on the straight. That's critical for race bikes particularly MotoGP bikes which have an especially unstable platform. Without a fork suspension dive the bikes would be borderline unridable. Instead a hub center bike needs to reduce turn in and agility to increase stability across all regimes so the bike is actually usable. Or in other words fork suspension is actually more stable for the same level of agility (both can trade agility for stability).
The "inconsistent" handling is exactly what is desired here. It's more stable when you need it, it's more agile when you want it. There's a reason so many millions are spent on racing bikes each year yet all of the repeated attempts at using another technology have died off. If race teams could gain a fraction of a second dropping the forks they would do it in an instant.
Very good argument.
The benefits you described I would argue the opposite.
The machine has to be setup one way or the other.
Lots of dive to quicken the steering and reduce the wheelbase, like this it becomes a shopping cart very twitchy and more prone to tucking the front.
Or the machine has to be slowed down and made truckish until you are on the brakes.
With the steering and suspension separated this becomes less of a compromise.
Of course this is very simplistic for the sake of this discussion.
@@paultruesdale7680 A lot of that will depend on your setup. Fork bikes require an especially individualised setup based on rider, riding style, even track style (one of the drawbacks). Commonly superbikes will come with spring rates for more novice riders. Intermediate or expert riders will brake harder and so increasing spring rate is one of the most common changes made to supersports bikes as it accounts for that harder braking. When springs are too soft you get everything you have described, harder springs remedies that. Of course for non-racing and non-superbikes that's just part of it - they're happy to lose ultimate race performance for a better ride quality.
But broadly for any track racing you essentially always want a more agile turn in with more stability on exit compared to a neutral bike. Instability on exit has historically been one of the main problems in race bikes with riders being thrown semi-regularly. Indeed rear suspension design is also largely driven by this desire. For the front a fork setup allows pretty much anything from almost no difference to the excessively extreme difference you report. Geometry changes, spring rates, oil gaps, damper adjustments can all moderate how and when you get that stability change. By decoupling that effect entirely you're intentionally taking away one of the tools you have to set the bike up as you want it. The upside obviously is to remove the effect you report - riders will rarely have that adverse riding characteristic. But race teams are going to have the ability to set up the bikes as they wish and they're the ones driving superbike design and geometry. More tools means a better fit for the rider. But even for us mere mortals the front forks are one of the easiest tweaks to set up if you track the bike semi-regularly.
The real benefit of decoupling braking and suspension is in allowing softer spring rates. As mentioned hard spring rates are part of the toolbox to getting the bike to ride properly. Removing the effect means softer spring rates can be used which allows for a far better bump compliance as well as better plushness. That is far less important for a race track where the track is ultra smooth and bump compliance is barely a factor but it's a good argument for touring bikes and less sporty road bikes to use a hub center design. For some reason people seem to take a backwards approach demanding it for race bikes and ignoring the non race bikes which could actually benefit from decoupling braking and bump compliance.
Thank you for taking the time.
Some of what you have said I agree with, but a lot of your explanation is based on compromise, due to the nature of the design.
Fundamentally the idea of the telescopic is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.
But it has been adopted and a lot money and solid engineering has been spent making it work as good as it does today.
The entire assembly of the triple tree , bearing tube and huge diameter male slider forks has to be massive to contend with all the forces trying to bend and flex them.
Most of the alternative suspension designs came about when forks and frames were flexing all over the place, and they were trying to come up with a more rigid system that separated the key components of steering, braking and suspension.
Some of the ideas come from cars, planes and ideas that were born at the same time as the telescopic fork.
The biggest restriction to better designs in car and bike racing comes from to many rules and regulations.
The Formula in the top championships has left the bikes pretty much the same as the machines thirty years or more ago.
So the designers have maximized what they can and what we have now is the result
You can tune the amount of dive, he didn't quite show how the suspension action is tuned.
@@paultruesdale7680 Every engineering decision is always a compromise. If it wasn't it would become universal as there's literally no reason not to take that route. Indeed the fact that forks have become near universal highlights how strong the advantages are compared to the disadvantages and how little of a compromise it is.
Absolutely engineering the forks is a huge challenge. There's not only huge forces from all directions (braking, sideways, rotational), but the forks need to have very tight tolerances to keep the oil contained within the forks and allow a smooth movement. But the fact that motorbike designers have opted to use a difficult and expensive design over frankly a cheaper (and thus more profitable) front swingarm design should say a lot. There has to be a reason, and that reason is the improved performance. Of course today prices are lower and tolerances are easier for cheap forks, but you've still got a decent cost from the extended frame and precision headstock.
I disagree that rules and regulations are a restriction here. The fact that such a variety of front suspension has raced would suggest that isn't an issue. The focus of this discussion, the hub centered front suspension has indeed been a repeated design seen so it clearly isn't restricted by the ruleset. There has also been an absolutely huge improvement in motorbike designs over the years (with a very rapid change over the past 30 years) so I would disagree on that point too. They may look vaguely similar, but there's been an absolute ton of experimentation in radical front fork concepts, massive internal changes (dampers are now massively different and there's a very scientific approach now), huge geometry changes, just about everything I can think of has changed.
The flexing issue used to be true, but over the past 20 years the mindset has inverted. With the advent of super stiff carbon fiber materials it's simple to make very low flex components. That lead to the discovery that flex (in particular side flex) was actually a very important part towards compliance and grip - Honda and Suzuki leading the way on that. When going straight the suspension may move up and down to stay in contact with the track. At high lean angles the bumps push the wheel partially sideways, and so a side flex becomes part of the suspension compliance whilst cornering. So as things have become stiffer there's been a big move to add sideways flex whilst remaining stiff in other directions. That's actually an area where front swingarm designs like the hub centered suspension has an advantage - it's very easy to engineer sideways flex in a swingarm. However despite that advantage (ultimately resulting in lower tire usage and better race performance) the benefits I outlined initially are still substantially better and produces a far faster bike so that all the many experiments and tests of non-conventional suspension have been tried and dropped for competitive racing.
Guy Martin said " it's the best period but the riders need to learn it at an early age, it's not something you can simply adapt to and be fast"
Or something pretty close to that.
He's pretty Stupid! If it was any good it be on ever GP Bike!!
So, knowing Guy's speech pattern, it was more like 'It'sthebest, period; buttheridersneedtolearnitatanearlyage, it'snotsomethingyoucansimplyadapttoandbefast'
@@barrypuccini6142 More like:
'It'sthebest, period; buttheridersneedtolearnitatanearlyage,
'It'sthebest, period; buttheridersneedtolearnitatanearlyage,
it'snotsomethingyoucansimplyadapttoandbefast'
it'snotsomethingyoucansimplyadapttoandbefast'
He always says everything twice
I suspect he might have said something involving a bird, a semi truck and perhaps a small clock, but realistically without an interpreter no one really knows.
It's not in use because the problems with conventional forks that you mentioned are benefits, the geometry change when braking is what makes it better.
You can have a bike that's stable in the straights but can still lean in fast for the corners.
I've never seen this before. Awesome video. One crash and all those steering linkages would go boom
Not all of the designs used linkages, some used hydraulics.
Try not to crash if you can.
Same fate awaits any machine that goes down.
I had 1 crash and my forks went boom… so .????
Replacing clamped forks with a swing arm actually sounds more resilient to me, maybe less issues with alignment as well?
Also getting rid of exposed fork seals sounds great to me.
It also would get easier to exchange the front wheel without centre stand (silently cursing exhaust pipes below the engine).
I have a Tesi 3D Edition Finalé and, as well as riding it on back roads, i took it on a trackday at Donington. I have no complaints with lack of feel or dive and was riding round the likes of GSXR's in the bends. A little high speed instability which I havent had time to sort yet, but can/will. Definitely deserves development.
The instability in the hands of a skilled rider can become a handling edge. Im reminded of the "snap oversteer" conversations in automobiles... Now if im writing software to control a vehicle I want flat cornering and a perfect front-rear balance. I think thats why its a focus in automobiles. Dunno about self riding bikes. But still, I believe what is responsive and agile in the hands of a skilled rider could be considered unstable to a rookie or on paper.
I ride an italjet dragster 2023, it's front swing arm certainly gets attention from other road users.
At first it felt very different especially when breaking at 70mph. At low speed it felt like I had a flat tyre.
Once I got used to how it works it's very fun to ride and cornering at speed is amazing.
As its a light bike you can really flick it into corners. Perception is hard to change especially if it's different.
As forks compress the trail shortens which reduces steering force. Lateral tyre loads are taken by bearings near the stanchions, whereas with centre hub the loads are in the middle of the axle further away from the support arms (unless a single sided arm is used which results in wheel twist under load). A lot of steering linkages to wear. Limited steering lock. Other ways to separate steering and suspension besides forks and centre hub..
Many years ago I read that the problem was that they feel quite different to telescopic forks and when you engineer "feel" into them the advantages they do have reduce and you finish up with a compromise that doesn't have any overall advantage over telescopic forks. The article did suggest that they build hub center systems and simply let riders adjust to the feel. I guess feel on the edge is a big deal though as a crash awaits when that hard to feel limit is exceeded. Perhaps electronics would help but that's a new field that wasn't available when people last played with the concept.
This and risk. What top tier rider or team is going to risk their championship hopes over waiting to understand feel. I rode a hub centre steered bike many years ago and I agree. It was brilliant on the road as there was no dive on the brakes or even the slightest hint of a head shake or anything potentially unsettling. I have no doubt it could be ridden much faster than I have the skills to do but there was basically no feel from the front tyre. Couldn't tell where it was or what it was doing. I would imagine that makes finding the limit a very difficult task, never mind keeping it just the right side of that limit for a race distance.
@@stoicthedog My experience with a hub centre mountain bike matched that. Great suspension but the linkages hide those tiny vibrations that are 'feedback'. You had to 'trust' it. Though F1 apparently get enough feel bikes are on a very fine edge.
@@firstnamelastname2669 Yes, that's it, exactly. It's numb. Would be good on touring bikes where comfort is king but not a MotoGP bike, imo.
How about John Britten’s bikes???
Agree, it's the first bike I thought of when I saw this.
that is what I was waiting fr
Another advantage is tgat they look awesome.
Bimota Tesi H2 is my dream bike, it has my favourite engine but with linkage front suspension and lever action steering.
i've been waiting for exactly this video! thx bro!
Hello 👋
Learning about this suspension makes me one step closer to building my Akira bike!
I met a guy from Australia last Nov in a ARRC race (Asia Championship) whom i cannot recall which team he was working for. Anyways he showed me the photos of a Hub center bike racing in some Moto2 racing which he was also working on. So they are still developing this technology as of now.
This explains so much. Sci-fi and cyberpunk iften feature these bikes, and I always thought they were drawn by people that just disnt understand how forks worked!
while talking about the history, not one mention about the legendary John Britten that made his own 1000cc bike in a SHED, and went on racing? He developed motor, chassis, aero, all by himself and raced the motorcycles, darting over the competition? He entered some major races won some, but never won a championship because of reliability issues.
Either way, when talking about front ends that differ from telescopic forks, John Britten is a legend and must be talked about.
Also, there were some mountain bike designs that were good, but eventually went out of business because it is a hard place to design and produce something different. Trust forks and Motion E18 are the ones that come on top of my head.
Not by himself.
He was the project leader of his own design.
He was helping by many like minded enthusiastic individual's who brought their own ideas and special skill sets and they were able to build a wonderful race bike.
I was mainly focusing on HCS applications (or ones close to it) but I agree the V1000 probably should have got an honourable mention.
Bimota was making hub center forkless bikes in 1984. It never caught on for racing for one main reason, no fork dive under heaving braking. That made weight transfer far more difficult.
I've built several off road motorcycles with AWD and a funny front end. (Hossack double A-arm) So I've got some experiance. Hub center and other linkage front suspension really shine when paired with all wheel drive. It's just a pain in the rear to run drive parallel to telescoping forks. The other factor holding it back is that the extra design freedom of a linkage front end gives as many new ways to screw up handling as it gives ways to help. For instance a forward sloping wheel track is quite bad vs big bumps.
Anti-dive in particular has it's biggest benefit when applying and releasing the brakes. I.e. you can snap them on and off without waiting for the forks to extend or compress. So it shines the best in uncertain conditions or with newer riders.
Good coverage, well done.
There is a race bike call3d the "Metiss" using this center hub steering tech in the EWC for a long while now, it’s been about a decade qince the bike debuted and is still running in the championship to this day. Easy to miss but still. It’s an endurance world championship.
I will check that out.
Thanks
Put 40,000 miles on a Yamaha GTS 1000 over a few years of commuting to the Isle of Man that bike was staggering with its stability. Only 100 BHP but even with a small lawn mower, 20L of emulsion and small step ladders on the back went over the mountain course quicker than a group of UK sports bikes, not a good look on your GO Pro!
Ron Haslam was a top racer on the ELF, but the bike was using the V3 not the higher powered V4. So it’s hard to say how the bike might have faired had it had the more powerful engine.
Also in his book Ron said the carbon fibre front swinging arm was even heavier than the alloy one. Composites have come a long way since then.
Trying to build a better mouse trap.
Never heard of this type of design before so thanks for the information. As you mentioned, there probably isn't a huge advantage to switching to a new system and the industry is so ingrained in the current setup. Like that saying ' you can't teach an old dog new tricks'
Or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The advantage of forks is the design simplicity and everyone is familiar with how they work.
Also, I'd like to know how those exposed hub center steering linkages fare when a bike goes down.
Leading link suspentions give a different feedback also and the front end rises instead of diving and decreases fork angle, its very controllable ,sidecars are more common test beds for alternative steering
There were a motorcycle that had very clever setup, when you did break the part of the breaking fluids would go into the front struts and did stiffens the front suspension so it wouldn't dive...
Old goldwings do that
Kawasakis in the early to mid 80's tried this system (Yamaha too I think). It increased the compression damping so that the front would not dive so much. The trouble was, if you hit a bump whilst braking, the extra damping would make the wheel bounce over the bump instead of absorbing it. Especially nasty if you were leaned over whilst braking. Combine this with a 16 inch front wheel and the shit could go bad quite quickly. Universally despised and now forgotten.
Katanas too . . Suzuki
The problem with all those linkages is elasticity. You have to tension the entire mechanism before it lets you change the steering angle. it's the same problem with the steering system on the VW bus.
In the auto/moto racing world the phrase "Evolution rather than revolution" comes to mind. Sad, because tiny evolutionary steps sometimes hold back great advances. The Norton Manx stayed competitive way longer than it really should have. Norton stuck with what worked and incrementally improved on it just enough to keep it relevant. Eventually the reliability, weight and power of the "Multis" were put in a strong package and we haven't looked back. Radial tyres would have to be the next far and few between revolutions in M/C racing. John Britten (may they have spanners in heaven) had a working suspension I think would had been further developed had this maverick been able to stay with us.
Great clip Mr Lean, I appreciated it a lot.
Sprung weight is less, yes, but unsprung weight goes up not an insignificant amount. It’s like the chain I suppose. There’s a reason some things have stuck around for so long.
Been thinking the same thing.
The elf type machines and similar designs like the GTS 1000 are not hub center steering. They have some sort of kingpin and the wheels/rims are asymmetrical. They have an upright which is connected to steering bearing. The hub center ones like bimota/vyrus usually have several push rods an bearings to achieve steering.
I want one, if for no other reason than it just looking really cool! Especially on a naked style bike, it's incredibly futuristic and actually provides some functionality.
Back in the old days when I know nothing about motorbikes and didn't even had or want a license I saw a picture of a bimota tesi 2d and was completely blown away by its design.
I said "If I will ever own a motorcycle I want this one".
Then I realized it is freaking expensive and would need appropriate mechanics who know how to maintain the complex steering linkages.
But it's a shame that bimota never really get the big chance to show and prove their design and technology to the world of racing 🙈
What about telelever/duolever of BMW and Britten V1000? How they differ with hub-steering and why aren't these designs widely used?
The duolever is related in concept to the elf type machines or the Yamaha. Apart from not being a fork it has little in common with hub center steering like bimota etc.
@@io3204 thanks for the info...would be nice if LaL can make a video regarding this as well...
Oh , you mean Norman Hossack's design , that he offered to BMW , which they feigned no interest in until his patent had expired and that was later copied by Britten
I read up about John/Jack Difazio from Frome in Somerset, what a fascinating tale ! I thought his first hub steering bike was made in 1956 though. Because 'feel' is vital for racers, it's the blurring of that which limits unconventional front ends......great for the road and near track speeds. The added complexity, added cost and weight over the latest forks are the negatives ....not to mention a redesigned frame in many cases. Still, I would like to try one !
Great video; nice job.
Hello 👋
Wow really good video you got yourself a new sub. I never new about those types of motorcycle are there anything else ? Like another type of "forks" ?
Hello 😌😌😌
I. Don’t mind trying this out on the roads we got, it will be interesting to feel how it performs and document it I love bikes and live in the Caribbean
The last I read about hub center steering was in an American magazine about 20 years ago and it was installed on a GSX-R 1000. Read a few more things about the tech before that, too. I wish manufacturers would cotton on more to this even just for the road bikes. Unfortunately, this all boils down to the suspension brands (think Ohlins, KYB, Showa etc) who oppose the unconventional designs that would make their R&D investments obsolete or pretty useless if the hub center steering was made mainstream. The designers of Bimota and Vyrus are very well aware of what they're up against and there had been mentions of the same sentiments in the articles I read. It's all about making money for them, pretty much like how oil companies are controlling a lot of how we live our lives. Sad that we won't get to see this particular technology get the development it deserves. Thanks for shining some light on this again for the newer bikers to learn about it.
It's a stupid over engineered gimmick that would drive up prices
@@garnet4846exactly. Nothing to do with ohlins or anything else.
How much engineering has gone into making telescopic forks work.
I am sure that has cost a pretty penny.
All kinds of fancy anti dive, stiff spring and valving to support the motorcycle not to mention the increased tire wear from inherent limitations of the design.
Radial tires where late to the motorcycle, lots of nervous bias ply riders of the time, now it’s common place.
You might be wrong.
@@paultruesdale7680 or maybe I’m just into being different.
Which is dumb, things go obsolete. Hub center steering could just use the same coilover as the rear.
Yeah, the geometry of modern race bikes has mitigated most of the dive issues. You’ll notice that the wheelbase lengthen slightly under breaking due to the shock geometry.
The big name in the elf project was the frenchman Eric "Pépé" Offenstadt. He did try again the design with the GECO project, test riden by Freddie Spencer and WSSP world champion Lucas Mahias. But again lack of founding...
Nice bike
Excellent video! Thank you for the well thought out history and explanation.
On mountain bikes this is the future IMO! My next mountain bike will have this, and I wouldn't be against buying a motorbike like this too! Much smoother front suspension action.
Awesome to hear the history of this. Channel feels like it could be called "Rider61" lol ;)
For the sake of completeness the Aerial Ace is also available with (or with teles).
Sorry but, if it was faster they'd use it, nothing to do with budgets, everything to do with results. 'Conventional' forks transfer the weight of the bike and rider onto the front tyre giving massive front end grip, hub centre bikes don't behave that way, and are heavier. Game over, move on
I think you missed that point about being lighter in the video. Oh, and that in racing at that level, fractions of a second are the differences between faster and slower. If a team as a whole has to get used to the new tech and whilst getting used to it, achieves slower results, they won't risk it. It *could* be faster, but isn't... until they invest time into the product.
VHS vs BETAMAX! Often the inferior technology wins the race! It then becomes easier to go with the flow than try to invests more R&D with the risk of not becoming profitable fast enough! Money talks!!
I'm with Deric. If it was better it would be a thing already
@@257796not really... the one that is giving you engine, frame, forks (and selling well thousands of that type of bike on the market) is not your ideal partner in testing something new.
I also question the strength of the linkages that steer the bike
I’d love to know what this kind of setup would feel like as a rider
I'm surprised no one ever tried these on a dirt bike. the horizontal christie style set up could give you excellent rough terrain characteristics. it would obviously involve entirely different engineering problems
Good video. Thanks.
I have photos of the Yamaha GTS at the Gooseneck at the '95 TT Races... ideally suited for racing on those sort of roads!
The GTS was designed by James Parker RADD
@@geoffbridge6695 actually Yamaha licensed his design but then messed up the geometry, so it never worked as well as it could have. According to Parker.
Aero changes for Moto GP is another reason that series wouldn't run the risk.
Hi handsome
Look into Robert Horn's virtual hub center steering. Is basically a double lower ball joint front suspension from a car turned sideways. Pretty slick and MUCH less mechanically complicated to design and implement than actual hub center steering. You can't do a fancy single sided swingarm with it, but TBH, who needs to when making a new evolution of motorcycle front suspension has to be about function first?
are these more complicated and maintenance intensive compared to forks? It also looks more fragile and prone to damage. I've seen this set up on a custom build sport bike but it cost 500k. I would be curious to try riding this sort of steering setup but I don't have connections.
Is it really that much better? More linkages and moment arm makes it sound like more risk for part failure. Rather than just having a set of shock absorbers directly mounted on the chasis and the front wheel with the ability to angle the travel of the forks.
Dont the forks help stabilize the bike by having the contact patch behind the wheel axis? Allows the front wheel to act almost like a caster, letting you steer the bike by leaning as well as by turning the bars.
The BMW Telelever front suspension was regularly praised but never made much impact in racing either. I think MotoCzyz had some new front fork designs that resolved stiction issues, but again, running out of money is an issue.
As far as racing trying new things ... in motocross it took years before they went from steel to aluminum frames saying things like "they can't be tuned" and "they feel numb" ... which sounds REALLY familiar ... but now they are much faster and ubiquitous. Carbon fiber frames, wheels, and suspension parts had the same issues with being accepted.
This technology seems like it would not benefit performance the most, but comfort. Would probably be great for a sports touring or cruiser. Though it probably requires a lot more maintenence than forks
The telelever system by bmw does similar and is why gs models have been so praised
I have this persistant feeling in my gut that the future could be WAY bigger tires with WAY more contact patch along with POWER STEERING No one to my knowledge has worked with this idea but it makes so much sense especially as we have high tech ECUs and 6 axis IMUs to fully maximize traction potentials making motorcycles crazy stable in turns essetially making all the old "skinny tire" predecessors instantly obsolete as far as anyone with the desire to ride or race FASTER and/or more safely. I can see THIS finally becoming the need for hub center steering
Didn't a company called Buelle run hub centre steering in the 1990's. This was the work of a New Zealand enginner who sadly died of cancer quite young. I seem to recall that he achieved reasonable success in world superbikes?
Ask Rand Mamola, he was a test rider for the Bimota and reported that the feedback was seriously lacking.
Hi LatL, great video but I think you are missing a major point. Development in the 1970s started with different bike front ends to allow them to run WIDER tyres. One of the key benefits to the original endurance elf bikes was that test riders reported no limit to front end grip.
Motorcycle front tyre width has stagnated for atleast 30 years because it remains at 120mm. Wider fronts with telescopic forks make them hard to turn. In the 1980s, Gallina Suzuki even tried different mechanical gearing in the headstem to improve turning leverage .
The biggest potential improvments with hub-centre are:
1. Wider front with better grip
2. Faster turning as rake and trail can be very aggressive
3. 2WD
Remember the speed out of a turn is far more important than the speed into a turn because of the time on the straights.
The first manufacturer to achieve these benefits would probably destroy motogp as the bikes would be too fast for track saftey. Having ridden a hub centre bike on the road they certainly have benefits for heavier bikes.
Rather then using what is essentially trailing arms front and rear, Why dont we use forks front and rear?
I dont know the answer to this...but its interesting to think about.
I believe it's mainly due to weight.. I also seen to remember hearing that the "feel" can be vague and racers didn't like it...
A guy I worked with started the company Motoeno to develop his hub centred steering bike. Look it up.
Motoinno have been testing their version of the concept down here in Australia at Phillip Island and Sydney Motorsport Park (SMSP). I’ve had a look up close and it certainly seems like a very interesting concept. I understand they have been gradually whittling down the lap times thru on track tweaks with various test riders.
Good to see on FB they are still refining it. Would add much needed technical interest to Moto2 if they could get there.
I imagined a hub centre steering race bike with the conventional headstock area removed and the handlebars placed just either side of the top of the front tyre , allowing a very low centre of gravity and the ability of the rider to tuck his helmet fully into the front fairing . The aero should be worth 30hp at 200mph , also i would shape the dummy tank like a chest rest to mould the rider to the bikes profile.
Thank you brother. Never even knew this existed
Hello 👋
Would like to see a comparison of hub/centered steering to BMW’s telelever/duolever.
How does it affect wheel wobble?
rode a DKW in 1970s that had Leading Link suspension - worked better than forks did at that time
But did you race that bike.
@@juicy9592 yes I did
I wonder if there's a way to lock the front forks on motorcycles the same way that MTB locks their front forks out while riding around town. What if there was a an on/off switch for riders or even a sensor that recognized high braking situations that locked the front forks while activating ABS. This would give the riders stiffness while braking and full suspension for the rest of the track.
I ride a Yamaha GTS which I have shortened 90mm , in order to get out of the tourist bus behaviour , but it is ABSOLUTELY rock steady however much provoked , but lack a bit in the feedback department ,not as my RC30 but far more secure feeling close to the limit,moreover it is far easier on front tires ....
thank you for your analysis
can you do a case study, concerning the late Mr Michael Czysz on his 6X-FLEX latch design; from the E1pc from the Isle of Man with the suspensions in the tank...
with us in France, JBB fourche, lazareth, BOXTER. are also interesting in terms of brain wringing
elbow grease
You missed the NUDA. Suzuki's approach that also included a drive shaft to the front wheel (2wd). It had EFI, which was rare in '87 and still one of the best-looking prototypes ever built.
Footnote, racing itself can be measured in milliseconds. In the event of a crash, replacing a single has a heim joints and linkage that needs to be adjusted vs. forks & trees can be pre setup and swapped in minutes, this is the reason you don't see them on the track.
I don't understand, why the front will not dive. Can anyone explaine?
Beacuse you can also use stronger Springs to have the same effect.
The first 19 seconds told me all I need to know. Hell, I don't ride anymore but I know better anything that goes beyond keep it simple will invariably fail.
Okay bye then lol
The vyrus m2 was great and competitive on race day and was incredibly special in road trim. It was 100lbs lighter wet compared to the standard 600s which is absolutely nuts
modern forks are far from simple though
You get some serious miles on steering links and they're sure to loosen over time. Sure, maintenance and preventive repair will eliminate just about all risks... aside from possible material defects. Or smacking a curb or pothole the wrong way and causing a link end pop off - far easier to lose all steering that way than just about anything you can do to a fork.
If they can get sweet lateral flex and front feedback I believe they’ll implement it in the next decade or so. Cause the aero demand in Motogp is ever increasing. Just like how they heavily invested on ground-effect when the bike lean (Aprilia tech video) I think this type of front suspension will open more possibilities for a cleaner aero while maintaining a somewhat acceptable both aero performance and mechanical grip of the bike.
At the beginning you talked of british engineer Difazio, but "Di Fazio" is a truly Italian surname. Then Bimota, Then Ascanio Rogorido for Vyrus. I think if a new crazy people can still invest money (now German money) on this project it will be an Italian again. Go, Gigi go... 😊😊😊😊
Great engineering worldwide.
The Italians are a very passionate people and it comes through in their creations and art.
His father was indeed Italian, and Jack was born shortly after he arrived in England 😊
Toprakkk 🔥just to be able to see toprakkk stoppies we need the fork!
Just at glance it seemingly looks like you’ll get alot less road feel on the handlebars as you would a bike with an actual fork attached to handlebars that steer it.
Hello 👋
Active standard forks works perfect and have less weight, even non acitve forks are pretty good to handle. They are more simple and have less rotation points and are easy to setup. Standard forks are more practicable for a decent bike design and have I mentioned (?) way lighter.
It's like the rear end, a regular double armed swing ist better in every tecnical aspect vs. mono swing arm. It's just for the looks and maybe a faster wheel change, but is way heavier in comparison.
Add it up and you get around 10 kg weight savings for the bike with swing arm / fork and neccessary overall design alone, not to mention ease of repair maintanence.
Excellent video 5 Stars 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
it's not just how the motorcycle industry that is the problem, it is the riders' brains that would need to be "reprogrammed". But by the time a rider gets onto an HCS bike it's already too late because they have learnt how to take the greatest performance from conventional forks.
I think that the other major problem with HCS is that the "disadvantages" of conventional forks ca, and have been made into an actual advantage. The compression of the forks means that the wheelbase in a turn is significantly shorter in the turn, resulting in a machine which turns much faster with compressed forks than when they are in the straight ahead position.The only way to het a HCS bike to behave in a similar manner would be to shorten the wheelbase while it's in a turn, and extending it when in the straight ahead position. That more than "kinda" defeats the purpose of having HCS in the first place.
BTW, I remmember the frustration at Yamaha for making the GTS with an engine that was limited to 100BHP. It was almost certainly that decision, not the steering, which vaused the GTS to fail so miserably.
It was very expensive as well.
I was disappointed that they applied the technology to a sport tourer and not a super sport machine like the Radd YZF/FZ750 that Parker used as his prototype.
@@paultruesdale7680 I get what you're saying, but I see the biggest problem with HCS being that the benefits of the system really don't work for sports bikes. As we've seen with BMW's front end, ports tourers and tourers don't need the ultimate levels of grip that sports bikes do, so the advantages of HCS are more pronounced.
The sad thing was that it WAS so expensive. There are plenty of reasons why such tech should be cheaper, not more expensive. It was almost as if Yamaha positively WANTED it to fail.
What was the front end on the 1994 Britten race bike ???
I just wonder, how hard or not is it to change a tyre with center hub steering?
2:43 It also modifies the levels of shock absorbing
Hello 👋
This would make a nice D-wheel platform.
Does it Help With High Speed Wheel Wobble?
Cool idea and shows potential, we will have to put it in the box with free-valve technology. Great potential but because the average person doesn't understand or care it won't get used. The free-valve would boost peak HP but give peak performance throughout the entire Rev range.... average person doesn't ask about that though and just wants to know how much HP it has. Adding tech and cost to a motorcycle with no real change to the top end doesn't make financial sense for a company.
Imagine death wobbles on a hub centre. I cant imagine any situation where the steering mech doesnt spontaneously combust.
Why not both?
Fork steering with basic moveable pistons and center based dampening
Guys look for the suspensión of "Dualtron X3" scooter and u have C type suspensión, not the same but would use it on motorcycle
I think until the manufacturer can find a hub set up without being overly over complex, heavy, and cheap enough to produce in volume, forks are here to stay, I'm not saying a manufacturer won't crack the puzzle, they just haven't found the right key to unlock the puzzle just yet, watch this space maybe they will in the future, who knows anything is possible.
How about forks for steering and a hub mount for suspension.
Everyone always talks about racing applications and no one ever talks about the majority of average riders and new riders who could greatly benefit from no dive!
The only things stopping this design from being the norm is 1. Lack of marketing, 2. Lack of cost benefits of economy of scale for smaller manufacturers.
It seems like every few years someone introduces a bike like this as the "future" of motorcycling or racing. Tech like this has been around since at least the 1980's (judging by when I started seeing bikes with similar setups), and probably earlier. If it was as beneficial as some tend to say it is, it would have long ago become the standard across the industry. At least that's how this old man sees it.