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