http://www.reverserotatingrotors.com/
What the hell?
Wow. Why did I not think of this.........
Dude, first one to do this to their GS has to post.
looks expensive. :o
Thats pretty flash but the big question is when are they for sale? :thumb: :cheers:
It's interesting, but to me that's pretty much solving a non-problem. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That much mechanics to get rid of precession?
Honestly, any of you ever had fork wobble or a full-out tank slapper on a GS?
Quote from: MarkusN on August 03, 2006, 02:06:28 AM
Honestly, any of you ever had fork wobble or a full-out tank slapper on a GS?
Yes.
Although it was probably mostly my fault.
yep ive had it a couple of times,
i dare say this would make a huge difference to turning. have you ever spun a bike wheel in your hands and then turned it, you feel all the forces,
i think it would be an expensive up grade, but still cool :thumb:
Quote from: AlphaFire X5 on August 03, 2006, 05:16:17 AM
Quote from: MarkusN on August 03, 2006, 02:06:28 AM
Honestly, any of you ever had fork wobble or a full-out tank slapper on a GS?
Yes.
Although it was probably mostly my fault.
Well, but it proves that it
can be induced and is a threat. So my claim of it being a non-problem was premature.
Quote from: MarkusN on August 03, 2006, 05:24:36 AM
Quote from: AlphaFire X5 on August 03, 2006, 05:16:17 AM
Quote from: MarkusN on August 03, 2006, 02:06:28 AM
Honestly, any of you ever had fork wobble or a full-out tank slapper on a GS?
Yes.
Although it was probably mostly my fault.
Well, but it proves that it can be induced and is a threat. So my claim of it being a non-problem was premature.
Currently, my front end starts to shake on its own when I let go of the handlebars. This should change when I change the front tire, but still happens nonetheless.
Quote from: hmmmnz on August 03, 2006, 05:18:49 AM
yep ive had it a couple of times,
i dare say this would make a huge difference to turning. have you ever spun a bike wheel in your hands and then turned it, you feel all the forces,
i think it would be an expensive up grade, but still cool :thumb:
WTF - That is why you lean ... This bling bling - blink blink :cookoo: :cookoo: ... is vital for them posers around here that have 300 wide tires, on 24 inch extended blingarms on GSXR1000's that have been slammed 6 inches ... and of course they cant ride - like Who in their right mind wants to ride that POS .... Vital I tells ya ...
Cool.
Srinath.
Quote from: seshadri_srinath on August 03, 2006, 06:13:00 AMWTF - That is why you lean ... This bling bling - blink blink :cookoo: :cookoo: ... is vital for them posers around here that have 300 wide tires, on 24 inch extended blingarms on GSXR1000's that have been slammed 6 inches ... and of course they cant ride - like Who in their right mind wants to ride that POS .... Vital I tells ya ...
Sorry, Srinath, have you read into the linked website at all?
This is no bling bling doodad. He really is onto something there. Question is, if the advantages (elimination of front wheel wobble / tank slapper risk)outweigh the drawbacks (weight, mechanics that can fail). At any rate it appears to be rideable, and at quite a good clip, too.
this things are great. and soon 2009-2010 will standard on most high end bikes.
its not a problem with the Gs or other small bikes but the faster you go the harder it is to turn.
and what this does is help make it easer by countering the the giro affect. thus faster turn in and less work having to be done by the rider.
Quote from: MarkusN on August 03, 2006, 06:22:47 AM
Quote from: seshadri_srinath on August 03, 2006, 06:13:00 AMWTF - That is why you lean ... This bling bling - blink blink :cookoo: :cookoo: ... is vital for them posers around here that have 300 wide tires, on 24 inch extended blingarms on GSXR1000's that have been slammed 6 inches ... and of course they cant ride - like Who in their right mind wants to ride that POS .... Vital I tells ya ...
Sorry, Srinath, have you read into the linked website at all?
This is no bling bling doodad. He really is onto something there. Question is, if the advantages (elimination of front wheel wobble / tank slapper risk)outweigh the drawbacks (weight, mechanics that can fail). At any rate it appears to be rideable, and at quite a good clip, too.
OK rotating rotors are going to make the GS safer - OK ...
Cool.
Srinath.
Quote from: rangerbrown on August 03, 2006, 06:26:20 AM
this things are great. and soon 2009-2010 will standard on most high end bikes.
its not a problem with the Gs or other small bikes but the faster you go the harder it is to turn.
and what this does is help make it easer by countering the the giro affect. thus faster turn in and less work having to be done by the rider.
I'm just wondering if it makes leaning the bike easier wouldn't it be harder to stand the bike back up?
Oh wait Nm my brain kicked in now.
I understand the premiss but they aren't nessesary and it adds anouther thing that can break. So does this device eliminate countersteering or just make the bike turn easier by eliminating some of the forces.
It won't eliminate countersteering altogether.
You will still have to make the bike "fall" into a lean to turn, a la:
http://www.superbikeschool.com/machinery/no-bs-machine.php
Especially at higher speeds, since the wind resistance itself will not want to let the bike just lean over, that will upset the equilibrium that you get with the bike vertical (wind resistance (pressure) on left and right sides being equal).
it will just be easier to do with this reverse a doohickey. :laugh:
Like the bicycle tire example, the faster the wheel is rotating, the harder to change the plane.
this thing undoes some of that force that resists the change due to faster rotation.
just my opinion :dunno_white:
(yay enginerds!) :cheers:
Counter steering remains in full effect. Overstabilisation of the front wheel that can lead to fork wobble and tank slappers should be eliminated. I'd also expect that stability of straght running would be affected (more finnicky).
And what about the massive addition of unsprung weight ... and the diagram they showed ... I didn't think discs will spin in reverse ... the hub spins with the wheel, the idlers spin opposite to the wheel, and the disc spins with the wheel - OK its carried by the idlers ... so its also opposite ...
OK by adjusting the gearing and the each individual components moment of inertia they can control the speeds within reason - I definetly see a massive increase in un sprung weight. BTW they could put in a watch type spring which will wind up and you can release it for extra stopping power ... O0
Cool.
Srinath.
reversed rotors are an old story. Harley had some when they were competitive in road racing. That should tell you how old.
Besides some reduced gyro effect, the real magic is the same as the old rear meat slicer disks on the output shaft. It gives you a geared advantage for the brake.
Modern brakes are so strong and consistent that you no longer need the geared advantage.
As far as the gyroscopic advantage, you add a lot of other junk in the wheel, encroaching on unsprung weight.
Yes I see some unsprung weight issues, but I doubt that the 3 machined gears constitute that much weight.
I'm sure it would be easily enough compensated for with some nice light aluminum rims.
As far as the counter rotating effect I ask how hard you guys ride. I mean do you ever drag a peg through a left hander and then flop over on to the right peg for a right hand corner?
Now have you observed how quickly you can do this at 20mph? Now notice the adition effort and time to do it at 80mph?
It doesn't really come in to effect as much for those of us who never drag the pegs, but for those of us who do...
I think on a very tight, technical track this could prove to be a huge advantage, and with the gearing being changed you can customize the effort level to a rider's preferences. Think of a very tight track, the GS's gearing and all of our favorite N/A mods combined.
I don't know, but I know that this is out there. Someone contact him and see if you can get one set up for the GS.
MIssing the point -
Rim rotors make for light hubs, these will be heavy heavy heavy ...
BTW that cogset - 4 of them plus the center one will weigh more than the damn wheel - they are steel, wheels can be aluminum or magnesium. POS I tells ya POS.
Cool.
Srinath.
the total weight in the test mules were only 4 LBS more that the stock rim with tire.
there is a vid some were. the guy witht the bike look like he was playing with 250's on the track, it was amasing.
enter faster, brake latter and then turn in faster. and that all comes down to exiting sooner and faster.
ok two things...I don't get.. I don't race, turning never seemed hard for me. I'll pay more attention on the highway next time.
Maybe I missed something at MSF...taking a turn. Look, lean, press, roll...
This countersteering thing everyone keeps mentioning...people say to go left turn the handle bars to the right...is that the press step? When I make a left I press on the left handlebar and the bike leans deeper, but the wheel is still pointed left (otherwise how else would I make the turn)...how the heck should it be point to the right?...am I missing something
can someone say if I'm doing things correctly or not?
Tussey, not to worry.
If it works, you are doing it right. Don't let forum consensus tell you how to ride. (even though in this case it's the same as what you are describing.)
It's more in the effort required to go from full lean in a left hand corner to full lean in a right hand corner at 85mph+.
Think emergency swerve at 20 mph vs. 80 mph.
This (in theory) would make the 80mph swerve feel like the 20mph swerve.
Quote from: tussey on August 03, 2006, 10:09:29 PM
ok two things...I don't get.. I don't race, turning never seemed hard for me. I'll pay more attention on the highway next time.
It's not so much the hard turning (although that's there as well.)
But the stabilising effect of front wheel precession can lead to oscillations. Violent oscillations. Not something nice to experience, and awfully dangerous.
It's been around for decades and it claims such wonderful performance enhancement, where is it in the racing fleet?
Evolution.
I am with Codger on this one. The idea has been around for decades, the Italians, Bimota, Laverda,and Aermacchi
played with the concept in the 70s and 80s and it never made it to their production bikes. If it was so benificial the race teams and manufactures with their multi-million $ R&D budgets would have long since developed the idea and applied it to their bikes. It overcomplicates a simple system and claims to solve a issue that doesnt exsist. It adds weight, saps power and will increase maintainance needs. It will go the same way as all the other "Revolutionary" developments in motorcycle engineering such as sprung-hubs, girder forks, trailing link suspension and hub-center steering. Has anyone else stopped to consider what would happen if one of those sun and planet gears fails or if a tooth breaks off while the bike is at speed?? When I see one on Rossi`s bike I will sit up and start to pay attention.
OK, so folks have tried this and it wasn't worth the effort.
I wonder why he was granted a patent, then. But I guess it shows that you don't know what a patent is worth before you have pushed it through a lawsuit.
Quote from: rangerbrown on August 03, 2006, 07:33:30 PM
the total weight in the test mules were only 4 LBS more that the stock rim with tire.
there is a vid some were. the guy witht the bike look like he was playing with 250's on the track, it was amasing.
enter faster, brake latter and then turn in faster. and that all comes down to exiting sooner and faster.
Its 4 lbs more than the stock rim, but see they fabbed up a new rim, and fabbed all of this up ... We'd need to compare it to a fabbed up rim made to be the lightest that gives comparable strength and rigidity. Even more so, we'd have to compare it to the best rim rotors that have the required strength and rigidity.
Cool.
Srinath.
He will have gained the Patent by slightly modifiying his design from the ones in the past by just enough to claim its different and unique. It wouldnt be difficult given the advances in material and manufacturing technology over the last 20-30yrs. It happens all the time, tyres spring to mind. They all look the same and do the same thing but the makers all hold patents on their individual designs and production methods, the numbers are moulded into the sidewalls. Lets forget all the BS about "Equallibrim" "Gyroscopic effect" and "Dynamic stability", has anyone seen any statements from a qualified and idependent source that the claims made have any substance? If so please tell me where they are because I would like to read them, unfortunately I cant find any. The fact remains that "The inventor" is attempting to achieve something that was first done 20-30yrs ago. It wasnt taken up then so why should it be taken up now? Answer: The end-users (who are the real experts) dont see any practical gains or advantages to be made with the system and therefore dont see a need for it.
A patent in the US is easy enough to get, if you adequately limit the scope.
It is enforceable only as to the amount of time and money you want to spend on it.
I have 2 patents and have fought infringement suits by others.
None of which were particularly meaningful.
d3
I'm with Sledge, if it was a significant improvement we would have already seen a similiar setup on WSB or MotoGP