This but with electric motors in the wheels is my dream motorcycle. Allows for an even lower seating position, storage space, better aerodynamics and great handling.
The fact that no established manufacturer would consider trying to make one and sell it still baffles me to no end. And here I stand, wanting to own one of these, wanting to ride one of these, and I will most probably never see one in the flesh. Also I'm 1,98m tall and the vast majority of bikes are a torture to ride because of my height. I swear if I win the lottery one day I'll assemble all of the FF enthusiasts and we'll launch our own company !
While I too want to see more aerodynamic motorcycles I think the main objection is safety - current bikes are meant to throw you off if there's a frontal collision whereas this one would likely cause you serious injury in such an accident. I don't think such a design is even allowed under current regs. It might be different if it was fully enclosed.
@@tegrovi You're completely mistaken, and I say that having crashed a variety of FFs and many varieties of conventional bikes. I've also ridden and crashed fully-enclosed Peraves Ecomobiles. It's definitely safer to crash in an FF.
Very cool. My only suggestion would be to put a cover over the head lamp. That bucket catching air is really hurting the aerodynamics, or nowadays utilize smaller lights.
The Suzuki AN650 maxi-scooter was about 20 years after these - also the Burgman seat base is too high and does not have a supportive backrest. Do check out the Suzuki G-strider concept of 2003 as that was much closer and Honda's own DN-01 of 2008 and the NM4 / NC700J Vultus that was produced in 2014 as they were much closer to the FF ideal.
It's an FF, a 'powered two wheeler' (PTW). Back in 1979, Royce Creasey who worked with Malcolm Newell on the Quasar had a series of articles in Bike magazine about developing the motorised bicycle and in it he wrote - "Bodies floating in space invariably run into a lot of atmosphere sooner or later and it's interesting that they generate most drag falling face down spreadeagled - just like you see in the Smirnoff ads. Move the arms and legs forward a bit and you're looking at the frontal area of yet average biker. As the terminal velocity of a hume is only 120-odd mph you can see how easy it is to generate enough drag to support your whole weight. This is taken on the arms and explains why they hurt so much. The machine isn't too keen either; all the drag represents fuel consumption. It's a free vote on which is the more serious but I'd really love to hear any engineer justify sore arms and high fuel consumption in order to adopt a pedalling position on a machine which doesn't fit pedals. The solution is simple: the rider is inclined head first - or feet first. As humans have their eyes fitted at the front, a completely horizontal position either way is somewhat impractical and, at first sight, it may not seem to matter which way is chosen. A closer look at the aerodynamics indicates that this is not the case. A body inclined forward will tend to generate lift, as do the bodies of those maniacs who jump off horrifically high ramps wearing skis. This lift is fairly small - humes don't fly at all well - but when the shape is faired in to reduce skin drag any lift is accentuated." A few months later he wrote "Before I continue this half-serious attempt to design a real motorcycle, it occurs to me that the time has come to define a couple of terms. I find `motorised bicycle' and 'Quasar type' a bit of a mouthful, and difficult to type besides. In future I'll refer to these two quite different ways of laying out a bike as Feet First (FF) and Head First (HF). Old nurses' tales say live patients get pushed around head first while the dead are moved feet first, which correlation may amuse some, but it would be more relevant to ponder on which end of your body you prefer to hit a wall with ... " I think this was the first time that 'feet first' as a description was mentioned in print. The bikes soon became known as FF motorcycles. There is more though. On his own website he posted a couple of definitions of what Feet First bikes are - "FF's are not Motorcycles! Motorcycles are a traditional product developed directly from the Victorian "Safety Bicycle". The riding position and steering systems are identical. FF's are powered two-wheeled vehicles derived from first principles (Isaac Newton) on a clean sheet of paper. Definitions "The FF two-wheeler is defined as a single track vehicle where the rider/s sit in tandem in much the same attitude and at much the same height as car passengers. The seat provided is similar, and sometimes identical, to a car seat." From the 1986 general Information Pack. "A feet first two-wheeler has a low-mounted seat and seat back like a car". From the 1994 review "what ever happened" In 1978, when I worked with Malcolm Newell on his Quasar project we agreed that an FF would have a seat base less than 20" (500mm) from the ground, at normal ride height. " If you want to read the High Tech articles in bike they are on www.voyager03.co.uk And more about the physics of why FF's work see /www.oesten-creasey.eu/hightech/feetfirs.htm#feet%20first Hope that helps.
@@boycottjews Not all hub centre steering systems are the same. I've ridden Difazios, Taits, and Creaseys - all double sided. Then there are the completely different single-sided systems designed by Parker (and on to the GTS Yamaha) and Tony Foale. Then there's the Italjet system. I could go on...
@@boycottjews They aren't any more expensive than top-class forks and they aren't really any more complicated. The key thing is that they separate the steering from the suspension. The Hossack system (which is not HCS) is actually a lot cheaper and simpler to make than telescopic forks (as copied by BMW and renamed 'Duolever').
Predates it by about 25 years. Royce, and I Met Dan at Goodwood in the early 2000's he'd never seen any of the UK based FF bikes going around since the 70's!
This but with electric motors in the wheels is my dream motorcycle. Allows for an even lower seating position, storage space, better aerodynamics and great handling.
You mean the bike that Kaneda stole?
Same here!
Gay e-bike
The fact that no established manufacturer would consider trying to make one and sell it still baffles me to no end.
And here I stand, wanting to own one of these, wanting to ride one of these, and I will most probably never see one in the flesh. Also I'm 1,98m tall and the vast majority of bikes are a torture to ride because of my height. I swear if I win the lottery one day I'll assemble all of the FF enthusiasts and we'll launch our own company !
I’m in.
Me too.
While I too want to see more aerodynamic motorcycles I think the main objection is safety - current bikes are meant to throw you off if there's a frontal collision whereas this one would likely cause you serious injury in such an accident. I don't think such a design is even allowed under current regs. It might be different if it was fully enclosed.
@@tegrovi You're completely mistaken, and I say that having crashed a variety of FFs and many varieties of conventional bikes. I've also ridden and crashed fully-enclosed Peraves Ecomobiles. It's definitely safer to crash in an FF.
design a FF motorcycle that accepts a passenger. Also dont fuck it up like Monotracer did. holy fucking shit only 40 mpg.
no doubt the inspiration for the motorcycle in Akira
Great to see this again, and Field Cottage when it still had a thatched roof, back in the early 1980s.
Very cool. My only suggestion would be to put a cover over the head lamp. That bucket catching air is really hurting the aerodynamics, or nowadays utilize smaller lights.
i would definitely tuck it in a little bit more and put some acrylic that follows the curve of the fairing
I should be able to go buy one of these right now, but I can’t 😢
You can have a Honda Vultus which is.. kind of close.
I can see similarities with the Suzuki Burgman.
The Suzuki AN650 maxi-scooter was about 20 years after these - also the Burgman seat base is too high and does not have a supportive backrest.
Do check out the Suzuki G-strider concept of 2003 as that was much closer and Honda's own DN-01 of 2008 and the NM4 / NC700J Vultus that was produced in 2014 as they were much closer to the FF ideal.
God bless the open mind
Want it. Would be great cuz I can't bend my knees too well
Can anyone tell me the name of this bike?
voyager
What is the bike called. Would not a scooter be similar if it had a recumbent seat?
It's an FF, a 'powered two wheeler' (PTW). Back in 1979, Royce Creasey who worked with Malcolm Newell on the Quasar had a series of articles in Bike magazine about developing the motorised bicycle and in it he wrote -
"Bodies floating in space invariably run into a lot of atmosphere sooner or later and it's interesting that they generate most drag falling face down spreadeagled - just like you see in the Smirnoff ads. Move the arms and legs forward a bit and you're looking at the frontal area of yet average biker. As the terminal velocity of a hume is only 120-odd mph you can see how easy it is to generate enough drag to support your whole weight. This is taken on the arms and explains why they hurt so much. The machine isn't too keen either; all the drag represents fuel consumption. It's a free vote on which is the more serious but I'd really love to hear any engineer justify sore arms and high fuel consumption in order to adopt a pedalling position on a machine which doesn't fit pedals.
The solution is simple: the rider is inclined head first - or feet first. As humans have their eyes fitted at the front, a completely horizontal position either way is somewhat impractical and, at first sight, it may not seem to matter which way is chosen. A closer look at the aerodynamics indicates that this is not the case. A body inclined forward will tend to generate lift, as do the bodies of those maniacs who jump off horrifically high ramps wearing skis. This lift is fairly small - humes don't fly at all well - but when the shape is faired in to reduce skin drag any lift is accentuated."
A few months later he wrote "Before I continue this half-serious attempt to design a real motorcycle, it occurs to me that the time has come to define a couple of terms. I find `motorised bicycle' and 'Quasar type' a bit of a mouthful, and difficult to type besides. In future I'll refer to these two quite different ways of laying out a bike as Feet First (FF) and Head First (HF). Old nurses' tales say live patients get pushed around head first while the dead are moved feet first, which correlation may amuse some, but it would be more relevant to ponder on which end of your body you prefer to hit a wall with ... "
I think this was the first time that 'feet first' as a description was mentioned in print. The bikes soon became known as FF motorcycles.
There is more though. On his own website he posted a couple of definitions of what Feet First bikes are -
"FF's are not Motorcycles!
Motorcycles are a traditional product developed directly from the Victorian "Safety Bicycle". The riding position and steering systems are identical.
FF's are powered two-wheeled vehicles derived from first principles (Isaac Newton) on a clean sheet of paper.
Definitions
"The FF two-wheeler is defined as a single track vehicle where the rider/s sit in tandem in much the same attitude and at much the same height as car passengers. The seat provided is similar, and sometimes identical, to a car seat." From the 1986 general Information Pack.
"A feet first two-wheeler has a low-mounted seat and seat back like a car". From the 1994 review "what ever happened"
In 1978, when I worked with Malcolm Newell on his Quasar project we agreed that an FF would have a seat base less than 20" (500mm) from the ground, at normal ride height. "
If you want to read the High Tech articles in bike they are on www.voyager03.co.uk
And more about the physics of why FF's work see /www.oesten-creasey.eu/hightech/feetfirs.htm#feet%20first
Hope that helps.
@@FFVoyager Thanks
So that means all the cruiser are basically recumbent motorbikes
Not really - only a very crude version, because they mostly use a worse version of telescopic forks, rather than the superior hub centre system.
@@pnblondon1087 hub centers are a weak point. I think they're cool but they're not as reliable.
@@boycottjews Not all hub centre steering systems are the same. I've ridden Difazios, Taits, and Creaseys - all double sided. Then there are the completely different single-sided systems designed by Parker (and on to the GTS Yamaha) and Tony Foale. Then there's the Italjet system. I could go on...
@@pnblondon1087 all are more complicated and expensive than forks
@@boycottjews They aren't any more expensive than top-class forks and they aren't really any more complicated. The key thing is that they separate the steering from the suspension. The Hossack system (which is not HCS) is actually a lot cheaper and simpler to make than telescopic forks (as copied by BMW and renamed 'Duolever').
That is SO cool!
Very much like Dan Gurney's Alligator
Predates it by about 25 years. Royce, and I Met Dan at Goodwood in the early 2000's he'd never seen any of the UK based FF bikes going around since the 70's!
Clever design. What happened to it?
It's currently being rebuilt in South Wales (summer 2022, more than 40 years after Malcolm Newell built it).
Nick Smith