Moto2 prototype

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:55 am

Check out the taylormade moto2 prototype.

Just been reading the MCN article about it.

eyore · Post by **eyore** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:25 pm

Feckin hilarious talking about the innovative front end which it turns out is a BMW telelever style rip off . Oddly the letters BMW don't seem to get any credits or mention anywhere

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:39 pm

eyore wrote:Feckin hilarious talking about the innovative front end which it turns out is a BMW telelever style rip off . Oddly the letters BMW don't seem to get any credits or mention anywhere

Hee Hee. That's what I thought, then I remembered where bmw got their ideas from. Interestingly MCN report that the designer has built in a pro dive geometry.

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:35 pm

eyore wrote:Feckin hilarious talking about the innovative front end which it turns out is a BMW telelever style rip off . Oddly the letters BMW don't seem to get any credits or mention anywhere

shhhhh

http://www.hossack-design.co.uk/resources/BMW.pdf

eyore · Post by **eyore** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 7:46 pm

My point still stands ...........................without BMW grasping the nettle it would still be a man in a shed wearing a brown coat idea, not a reality
The article in MCN should give BMW credit for mainstreaming the idea rather than suggesting that Taylormade had reinvented the wheel.
That's all

slparry · Post by **slparry** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:26 pm

they just waited until the patents had run out before grasping the nettle

Hayden · Post by **Hayden** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:47 pm

eyore wrote:My point still stands ...........................without BMW grasping the nettle it would still be a man in a shed wearing a brown coat idea, not a reality
The article in MCN should give BMW credit for mainstreaming the idea rather than suggesting that Taylormade had reinvented the wheel.
That's all

....truely indoctrinated...well done eyore, don`t dig too deep though it can only lead to disappointment, I was busy sticking `made in Germany` labels on units we make for BMW this week.....oh, I work in Birmingham, its our design, we build it and ship it, but you won`t find that in the sales blurb......

eyore · Post by **eyore** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:53 pm

What can I say...........................................

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:58 pm

The Taylormade bike has Telelever type suspension that BMW developed from the Saxon-Motodd concept.

The Hossack type system was developed by BMW into Duolever. Similar, but different types of FFE.

I don't think Taylormade need give BMW much credit. The concept for this type of front end pre dates BMW using it. I am not sure, but I think there is a link between Paul Taylor and Saxon Motodd.

eyore · Post by **eyore** » Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:37 pm

Herb, I was simply suggesting that Neevesy writing that article in MCN rather than insinuating that Taylormade had a unique front end should have at least said it was effectively a telelever as per BMW.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:59 am

[quote="Herb"...............
I don't think Taylormade need give BMW much credit. The concept for this type of front end pre dates BMW using it. I am not sure, but I think there is a link between Paul Taylor and Saxon Motodd.[/quote]

If that's true then it puts a slightly different slant on things. If paul Taylor was somehow "in" on the idea in the first place then any credit owed to bmw from him is much lessened in my view. Lessened to almost nil?

But I can also see eyeore's original view in that without bmw taking the idea up and going with it, the biking world would be just that bit more predictable (I was going to say boring, but that can never be true!). With bmw developing the idea a lot more is known now about what can be got away with with in the design and manufacture. Also if the supposed advantages are really there.

Interestingly though, if the MCN info is true, one of the major advantages of Telelever, that of anti dive, is not being taken "advantage" of. I suppose because, in gp racing, it isn't an advantage. So it would seem. But at the time the idea was conceived, anti dive was the hot topic. If you ride, or have ridden, a road bike from that era you can see why.

But if anti dive isn't wanted, then are the other advantages worth the trade off? Are there any other advantages (today)?

stivesvelo · Post by **stivesvelo** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:03 pm

Have a look at this

http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Steer/STEER.htm

Went to Donnington yesterday, amongst others saw the Britten, girder forks & a million different interesting and innovative bits of design. I don't think much is new in concept with motorbikes, it's seeing them on production bikes that takes some doing because of the conservatism of us buyers. Ralph Allen who was building the Saxon Laverda frames (maybe still does to order) was saying that BMW spent a lot of time asking him questions before they put them on a bike.

Was in the pit lane watching as they started & warmed it up, the Britten (had to get a second starter trolley as the first one wasn't up to it). Paul Smart took it out, didn't recognise him as he's old now, mind you I used to have dark hair a few years ago!

Then the Honda 6 (reps?) came out, & David Kay MV reps, Sammy Millers Gilera, Peter Williams Norton (looked like him on it too) Capirossis Ducati, Rossis Ducati & loads of others. The noise of the Hondas even with ear plugs in was deafening (I was stood right next to them). I can't imagine what it was like to be on the grid at the start.

Wish I'd had a camera, just stood there like a Cheshire cat. Good day out, I'm sure there will be vids on youtube somewhere.

Herb · Post by **Herb** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:50 pm

Corvus wrote:
But if anti dive isn't wanted, then are the other advantages worth the trade off? Are there any other advantages (today)?

Dive under braking is desirable to a degree on a road bike, perhaps more so on a race bike. Our bikes have a degree of dive built into the geometry so you get some feedback on how hard you are braking, and squidge the front tyre into the ground on braking.

Obviously there is not as much dive as on a conventionally sprung bike.

The advantage of funny front ends is that by separating the way braking and suspension forces are handled, you can optimise one, without compromising the other. The anti dive is a by product of this, but you can still have dive if the designer thinks it desirable. On paper there are other advantages as well. Because the geometry needn't significantly change under braking, you can have more aggressive geometry for example.

Despite the advantages that exist on paper, with the odd exception like the Britten, no one has really made FFE work on the track. I hope the Taylormade bucks the trend.

I read the MCN article and I did laugh. The bike has USD forks from a CBR600, upside down. So is that right way up, or upside down upside down forks?

eyore · Post by **eyore** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:10 pm

[quote="
I read the MCN article and I did laugh. The bike has USD forks from a CBR600, upside down. So is that right way up, or upside down upside down forks?[/quote]

I think they are the latter

Another advantage I'd imagine is the lack of flexing, as the distance from the axle to the bottom yoke is way less that conventional forks.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:47 pm

Herb wrote:
Corvus wrote:
But if anti dive isn't wanted, then are the other advantages worth the trade off? Are there any other advantages (today)?
Dive under braking is desirable to a degree on a road bike, perhaps more so on a race bike. Our bikes have a degree of dive built into the geometry so you get some feedback on how hard you are braking, and squidge the front tyre into the ground on braking.

...........

I read the MCN article and I did laugh. The bike has USD forks from a CBR600, upside down. So is that right way up, or upside down upside down forks?

Re the forks. It can't be that straightforward as the radial caliper mounts are at the wrong end! There has been some kalifudgery.

Re tyre squidge. What force causes this? I'm struggling to see how dive, in and of itself is the cause. I can only see it being weight shift and the braking force at the road road surface.

But then I suppose under severe braking on a telescopic fork the tyre is forced into acting as suspension more than, say, a Telelever.

Something I've never seen discussed, but which surely must be relevant, is how the front wheel travel path will affect how the suspension will or won't compress as you near full lean. Because one is a simple angle and the other a compound angle. Which is the shallowest angle I've not got my head around yet. Who's good at trig?