Posted by Polarhound on April 25, 2011, 7:42 pm
http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible_bikes.html
Posted by Datesfat Chicks on April 25, 2011, 8:35 pm
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:26 -0400, Polarhound
>http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible_bikes.html
I didn't get very far into it.
I believe the discussion of anti-dive forks is wrong. Even if the
front forks were vertical (rake = 0 degrees, I guess), there would
still be dive because the CG of the bike/rider combo is located above
the ground.
The correct equations do involve rake angle, but only as it affects
the relationship between the CG and the forks.
DFC
Posted by tomorrow@erols.com on April 25, 2011, 9:16 pm
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:26 -0400, Polarhound
> >http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible_bikes.html
> I didn't get very far into it.
> I believe the discussion of anti-dive forks is wrong. Even if the
> front forks were vertical (rake = 0 degrees, I guess), there would
> still be dive because the CG of the bike/rider combo is located above
> the ground.
> The correct equations do involve rake angle, but only as it affects
> the relationship between the CG and the forks.
> DFC
Anti-dive in the article is actually describing dive reduction or dive
rate lessening systems, not dive elimination systems.
Posted by The Older Gentleman on April 26, 2011, 2:27 am
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:26 -0400, Polarhound
> >
> > >http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible_bikes.html
> >
> > I didn't get very far into it.
> >
> > I believe the discussion of anti-dive forks is wrong. Even if the
> > front forks were vertical (rake = 0 degrees, I guess), there would
> > still be dive because the CG of the bike/rider combo is located above
> > the ground.
> >
> > The correct equations do involve rake angle, but only as it affects
> > the relationship between the CG and the forks.
> >
> > DFC
>
> Anti-dive in the article is actually describing dive reduction or dive
> rate lessening systems, not dive elimination systems.
What he said.
A classic example, DFC, of you over-analysing something from a position
of ignorance - anti-dive systems on bikes had a short sales life and
were just abut extinct by the late 1980s.
Kawasaki's electrically operated ESCS system was interersting: it was
very strange to hold on the brake and bounce the forks up and down, and
then have someone else turn on the ignition while you were doing it.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Kawasaki GPz750 Honda CB400F
Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ERx2 GN250.
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
Posted by Datesfat Chicks on April 26, 2011, 9:57 am
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:27:20 +0100, totallydeadmailbox@yahoo.co.uk
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:42:26 -0400, Polarhound
>> >
>> > >http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible_bikes.html
>> >
>> > I didn't get very far into it.
>> >
>> > I believe the discussion of anti-dive forks is wrong. Even if the
>> > front forks were vertical (rake = 0 degrees, I guess), there would
>> > still be dive because the CG of the bike/rider combo is located above
>> > the ground.
>> >
>> > The correct equations do involve rake angle, but only as it affects
>> > the relationship between the CG and the forks.
>> >
>> > DFC
>>
>> Anti-dive in the article is actually describing dive reduction or dive
>> rate lessening systems, not dive elimination systems.
>What he said.
>A classic example, DFC, of you over-analysing something from a position
>of ignorance - anti-dive systems on bikes had a short sales life and
>were just abut extinct by the late 1980s.
>Kawasaki's electrically operated ESCS system was interersting: it was
>very strange to hold on the brake and bounce the forks up and down, and
>then have someone else turn on the ignition while you were doing it.
Over-analyzing something from a position of ignorance?
I'm just saying that the basic trigonometry is wrong. The suspension
dive is not tied linearly to the sine of the rake angle (as he
suggests).
It seems odd to write a an article on vehicle dynamics when you're
that mathematically weak.
DFC
XML Sitemap