Bike geometry question - Page 4
Close

Bike geometry question

This is a discussion on Bike geometry question within the Technical forums, part of the Caferacer.net Forums category; Originally Posted by TrialsRider Now, would you like to know how to go over a vertical rock face that is taller then your motorcycle ?:I ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Bike geometry question

  1. #31
    Member JasonMi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by TrialsRider View Post

    Now, would you like to know how to go over a vertical rock face that is taller then your motorcycle ?:I
    This NASA stuff for me

  2. #32
    Banned Witworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    West
    Posts
    4,894
    [QUOTE=monkey;332679]
    Quote Originally Posted by Witworth View Post
    Tanomatic's comments are the motorcycle forum version of this:

    The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

    Then his hand slipped off.




    WHat you talking about willis..............
    I meant tan-shano-matic. Abreviation error.

    Danger, is my business."

  3. #33
    Senior Member TrialsRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,425

    Riding over undercut bumps and rock faces.

    step 1 accellerate hard in second or third gear towards rock face in wheelie position:




    step 2 impact top of rock with the lower forward part of the front wheel, launch with legs.




    step 3 catch traction on the rock face with your rear tire:





    step 4 extend legs, shift body weight forward and shut down the throttle to bring the front wheel down:




    step 5 get ready to hit the next obstacle


  4. Remove Advertisements
    CafeRacer.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Senior Member CurbTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Portland, Oregon, .
    Posts
    586
    Consider the Pirelli Sport Demon for a 16" front tire. Many miles on the old FZ600 & no complaints.
    You can dig around the performance scooter world for other 16" options.

    A napkin & leaky Bic pen are best suited for explaining the whole trail/rake/hoe/wheel barrow thing.
    Show us your best napkin edition of the trail/rake phenomenon. More farty. Less arty.

    NE
    Subscribe to SIX HOT ISSUES!! of WarmPipe for only $29.99!!! Interweb NOW!!!!!

  6. #35
    Senior Member Tonnystark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    , florida, USA.
    Posts
    405
    step 6..see the tea kettle your ass is flying over...
    trialsrider: that's one crazy sequence kudos to you!!
    78' SR500
    64' YG1S
    15' XT250

  7. #36
    Senior Member Tanshanomi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    1,787
    Somebody once tried to teach me how to clear a 4x4 beam on a BMX bike. All I did was hit a 4x4 beam about 20 times while furiously jumping up and down on the pedals.

    Gave up any aspirations of trials riding after that.

  8. #37
    Banned Witworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    West
    Posts
    4,894
    The Japs fitted 16 inch front wheels to road bikes for marketing reasons. Because Grand Prix racers had them, period. The only good handling bikes, that I've ridden with 16 inchers, were the FZ750, VF400F and the EX500 Ninja. Good, but not great.

    Honda fitted them to their eighties GP racers for many reasons.

    Smaller wheels can use smaller discs, with comparable braking power, compared to bigger wheel and bigger disc combinations. So the 16 inch combination is a little lighter, with all the benefits that ensue from that lighter weight.

    Smaller front wheels allow motors to be moved further forward for better forward weight distribution. Honda held a patent for a few years for how close a spark plug could be mounted towards the front wheel, believe it or not. That is how serious Honda took front wheel weight chassis bias.

    A lower front wheel means the bike's fairing and wheel/fender can be lower for a smaller frontal area, aerodynamically speaking. It can also allow more cooling air to reach the radiator for better cooling.

    At extremely high speeds the 16ers turned in quicker due to having less gyroscopic force to contend with. Under those speeds they often turned in slower due to having considerably more trail that 18ers fork setups, to provide some stability to counteract the less gyroscopic force inherent the smaller diameter wheel.

    Danger, is my business."

  9. #38
    Senior Member Geeto67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    23,274
    Quote Originally Posted by TrialsRider View Post
    To lighten the handling and make the bike more responsive in turns.
    They said the change made the bike "turn in faster" …. away from understeer and towards oversteer.
    There is something else you have to remember about what was going on at the time the 16" front 18" rear wheel setup was happening that influenced that. Tire technology was evolving. In the 1960's and 70's bias ply tires were pretty much the only game in town. the most advanced you got was something called a goodyear tri-angluar which had a center flat tread and then two angled flat treads instead of a rounded crown (think of a profile like a pyramid with the point removed and flattened out). But in the 1980's tire mfgs began to leverage car technology to make motorcycle tires esp since 16" car tries had just started to invade racing. My point is that in addition to what Trials said above about turn in, etc...the reason they went with 16" instead of say 17" was because the high performance tire tech was evolving most in that size.
    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
    - Samuel Beckett
    A tool is just an opportunity with a handle
    - Kevin Kelly

  10. #39
    Senior Member TrialsRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,425
    It's all about timing, throttle control and learning that a motorcycle has a front to back balance point, as well as a slide to side balance point.
    oh, and big balls, you gotta have big balls too :|



    Caution: Trials riding renders all other form of motorsports boring.

  11. #40
    Banned Witworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    West
    Posts
    4,894
    "Caution: Trials riding renders all other form of motorsports boring."

    Disregard this nonsense. The two Nitro Harley dragracers and a Pro Stock and Top Fuel champ, I know, would disagree with TrainerWheels. I think hitting well over 210MPH in a 1/4 mile, would beat winding around and rock hopping.

    Hardy boring getting hit in the ass so hard, that you have to go see a chiropractor Monday, after a good launch.

    Danger, is my business."

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. looking for a good link on frame geometry
    By blueandy in forum General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 05:43 PM
  2. Motorcycle Geometry Questions.
    By 1sicfuc in forum General
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-01-2011, 07:19 PM
  3. Bike Geometry
    By 1sicfuc in forum Technical
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-28-2011, 07:04 PM
  4. Lil' Bike Question
    By john2007 in forum General
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 09:17 AM
  5. Bike Geometry/ Handling
    By mut in forum General
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-03-2008, 01:13 AM