You're probably right here. Especially because it won't be a super fast bike in a straight line. I could lower the trail without too much trouble.Your using a honda front end aren't you? How are the triples going to play into your KTM geometry? 100mm trail seems excessive, I believe that generally it should run in the 55 to 75mm range. What you do with the rear suspension will affect the front end geometry.
Gotcha. The stress analysis is going to be important to the project too so I can show potential employers I can do that type of FEA.Good start because that thing that looks like a fuel tank on a modern GP sportbike is not a fuel tank, it's the air box.It'll be fuel injected.
Not needing a saddle fuel tank is a brilliant point. I could have some fun with that, I'm sure ...
Almost nothing related to frame members is overkill and unnecessary mass, the frame is what holds the bike together and stops it from feeling like it has hinge in the middle. But just thinking something is the right shape or size is not going to cut it, manufactures pay huge bucks to do stress analysis and destructive testing on those things during the design phase, they don't just do it by eye. At least not in this century.
I'm going to see what I can do about taking a 3D scan of the engine. There are some good programs out there free to students. I'll start the second draft from there.I do agree with the above that you model a dummy engine and build the frame around it, rather than design a frame from scratch and fit the engine in it.
Since you obviously have skills in modeling, I would mock up a very simple engine "dummy block" and wrap the frame around that.
A close tight frame looks better anyway, than a frame with huge unnecessary gaps and spaces.
I know you're kidding but I still wanted to mention that I say fluid dynamics because one of my end design goals is less than a certain drag coefficient. So I'll see how that works in the (fairly distant) future.Fluid dynamics? On a frame? I doubt it. ;-)
I did get a copy of that book and I'm waiting for it currently. I think I'm going to go with a trellis style frame and go from there.The Book on design that was mentioned. Absolutely fidn it and buy it. I got a copy back when I wanted to build a track bike and spent countless hours going over it. Very useful. I posted info on it here years ago, if I can find it I'll edit the post with a link.
Matrerials - someone mentioned sticking with typical steel and staying away from Chromoly or whatever. +1000. Do enough research and decide for yourself, but the benefits of using something fancy, especialy on your first frame, are highly overstated IMHO. Somewhere on here I made the argument that using chromoly only resulted in frame that was harder to dent.
Wind tunnel testing might actually be a possibility with my connections from Formula SAE if I'm willing to beg, borrow, and steal enough to make it happen. Probably a bit of a pipe dream, but who knows.Not sure how to interpret that "less than a certain drag coefficient", is your goal to make it wind slippery to the point of having less than a 1.0 wind drag coefficient? If yes, pretty sure you are going to need access to a wind tunnel test facility, that is how BMW and Moto Guzzi did it.
I plan toYou could design your intake manifold based on fluid dynamic designs...
I /can/ ride a motorcycle. I have an '86 K100 that I ride occasionally. Terrible starter bike. Other than that I've done some test rides on other bikes.Oh by the way UniHalf, can you even ride a motorcycle and are you any good at it?
If you set out to design a better mouse trap it is a good idea to start by having some mouse killing experience
I can work with 35%. That means there's a lot of room for improvement.TrialsRider; said:So if this thread is all about a design exercise to pass a test or graduate from somewhere, I give it 35% grade at most and that is only if it runs and rides like a motorcycle.