twowheelnut
R.I.P. Our Motorcycling Friend
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, Read Up and Comment
- Thread starter twowheelnut
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
madmike2
Shtirrenuppenmeister
It's a clever idea. The mounting and gear drive mechanisms will be interesting to see. Counter-rotating discs should help eliminate the gyro effect, much like the counter-rotating shafts and weights help balance an engine. Since they're gear driven, they are mechanically attached to the hubs so braking should suffer very little. I wonder how much energy (horsepower) it takes to drive the gears? It will take a vast amount of testing to explore the limits....I want to see stoppies on a sports bike and have the drive mechanisms x-rayed or magna fluxed to check for weakness.
This could be the next step for braking. I wonder how it would affect ABS? Does the ABS sensor read both directions, or are they sensitive to rotational direction?
This could be the next step for braking. I wonder how it would affect ABS? Does the ABS sensor read both directions, or are they sensitive to rotational direction?
panthercity
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 0
I've one word for you... Unsprungweight...
Well, actually, I've got a couple of words. And a question. What is the force that keeps us up on two wheels?
Well, actually, I've got a couple of words. And a question. What is the force that keeps us up on two wheels?
Last edited by a moderator:
slapnpop
Rest in Peace our Forum Founder
anti-gravity!
meosborn
Well-known member
I doubt that the counter-rotating mass is equal to the mass of the wheel. I would expect that the effect that they are looking for is a lessening of the gyroscopic effect not get rid of it entirely. Besides, they haven't touched the rear wheel.
But, lessening the gyroscopic effect like that might raise the speed that you would need to go to be stable. Basically, make a bike handle @ 30 mph like a normal bike handles @ 5 mph. It seems that if this technology works it will be most useful on racebikes that spend all their time at high speed.
I think that madmike has a good point as well. Imagine what would happen if those gears broke up at speed. Anyone seen "Indian Jones and The Last Crusade"?
But, lessening the gyroscopic effect like that might raise the speed that you would need to go to be stable. Basically, make a bike handle @ 30 mph like a normal bike handles @ 5 mph. It seems that if this technology works it will be most useful on racebikes that spend all their time at high speed.
I think that madmike has a good point as well. Imagine what would happen if those gears broke up at speed. Anyone seen "Indian Jones and The Last Crusade"?
Last edited by a moderator:
![fjackets Real Lambskin Leather Biker Jacket — Quilted Cafe Racer Zip Up Moto Leather Jackets For Men | [1100085] Johnson Brown, XL](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41I7Pm1f+vL._SL500_.jpg)
norcal
Well-known member
If the gyroscopic effect of the front wheel is decreased, it might take a little more counterstearing input to get the bike leaned over.
C&C
Well-known member
I'm thinking that the gyro effect would still remain the same; it would be torque that would be neutralized to a degree. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.
I don't think I would want all the gear stuff spinning around in my front wheel, thinking all the time it might implode. (I still remember the time I stuck my foot in the spokes of my bicycle when I was young and stupid.)
I don't think I would want all the gear
stuff spinning around in my front wheel, thinking all the time it might implode. (I still remember the time I stuck my foot in the spokes of my bicycle when I was young and stupid.)
Last edited by a moderator:
TWN,
This is an interesting discussion -
Viscerally, it's one of those 'Hey, why didn't I think of that ?!?!" , but as you think about it, it really does raise a lot of questions -
Lots of parts to move around and break - scary? Try not to think about it? What happens when it breaks? Gyroscopic forces keep the bike upright - are they negated? Do they act on a different mass?
The bike in the video only had the system installed on the front wheel - so it still had the rear wheel gyro effect - perhaps the intent is to increase/improve the 'flickability' of the bike during transitions?
Would no doubt be different to ride - but it's hard to imagine the effect - but I'd certainly try out a bike equipped like this. This is one of those 'seat of the pants' testings. B)
This is an interesting discussion -
Viscerally, it's one of those 'Hey, why didn't I think of that ?!?!" , but as you think about it, it really does raise a lot of questions -
Lots of parts to move around and break - scary? Try not to think about it? What happens when it breaks? Gyroscopic forces keep the bike upright - are they negated? Do they act on a different mass?
The bike in the video only had the system installed on the front wheel - so it still had the rear wheel gyro effect - perhaps the intent is to increase/improve the 'flickability' of the bike during transitions?
Would no doubt be different to ride - but it's hard to imagine the effect - but I'd certainly try out a bike equipped like this. This is one of those 'seat of the pants' testings. B)
twowheelnut
R.I.P. Our Motorcycling Friend
Hey, don't ask me any kinda physics questions regarding this ****. I just thought it was an interesting idea and thought the techies here might enjoy the read and following dicussion...
Then again, I could start with the snide ****, too.
Then again, I could start with the snide ****, too.
Personally, I think it is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist and that the writer of that website is manufacturing a bunch of crap to try and find an "investor" to fund his wet dream....
Reading his nonsense is amusing. Statements like "Motorcycles counter steer because they fall over when you apply steering input.' are pretty funny because it really doesn't explain anything. Just words strung together. And I feel like slapping the guy because of how he starts off his nonsensical explainations with "It is basically very simple..." as if the reader is infinitely stupid and hasn't grasped something so easy in an earlier life. Now this guy is going to roll away the stone for us. LOL.
He maintains that motorcycles "countersteer" at all speeds. He must not have pushed his bike around the garage and "discovered" that the bike doesn't countersteer at crawling speeds. There IS a demarcation in steering and countersteering with motorcycles at a very low speed.
"You can tell how many g's the bike is pulling by the lean angle".....LOL. I'll go to a parking lot and turn figure 8's dragging my pegs at 5 MPH and see if he can "calculate my g loads". Idiot.
Even if there was merit to his nonsense the mass and inertia of the brake rotors is so small when compared to the mass and inertia (and more importantly the polar moment of inertia) of the wheel rim and tire that reversing the rotors would take instrumentation to measure the offset in forces. Not a seat of the pants thing and certainly not something earthshaking.
He says a motorcycle with reverse rotating rotors cannot get into a tank slapper...??? LOL LOL Makes me wonder if he has every experienced such. Fork Deflection, swing arm deflection, tire slip angles, etc. etc. all play into tank slappers so I doubt seriously that the reverse rotating inertia of the brake rotors is going to counteract ALL the things that play into tank slappers.
Like I said....a solution looking for a problem. I'm surprised he left out the obligatory paragraphs explaining how his invention will solve world hunger and the energy crisis and stop global warming...
Reading his nonsense is amusing. Statements like "Motorcycles counter steer because they fall over when you apply steering input.' are pretty funny because it really doesn't explain anything. Just words strung together. And I feel like slapping the guy because of how he starts off his nonsensical explainations with "It is basically very simple..." as if the reader is infinitely stupid and hasn't grasped something so easy in an earlier life. Now this guy is going to roll away the stone for us. LOL.
He maintains that motorcycles "countersteer" at all speeds. He must not have pushed his bike around the garage and "discovered" that the bike doesn't countersteer at crawling speeds. There IS a demarcation in steering and countersteering with motorcycles at a very low speed.
"You can tell how many g's the bike is pulling by the lean angle".....LOL. I'll go to a parking lot and turn figure 8's dragging my pegs at 5 MPH and see if he can "calculate my g loads". Idiot.
Even if there was merit to his nonsense the mass and inertia of the brake rotors is so small when compared to the mass and inertia (and more importantly the polar moment of inertia) of the wheel rim and tire that reversing the rotors would take instrumentation to measure the offset in forces. Not a seat of the pants thing and certainly not something earthshaking.
He says a motorcycle with reverse rotating rotors cannot get into a tank slapper...??? LOL LOL Makes me wonder if he has every experienced such. Fork Deflection, swing arm deflection, tire slip angles, etc. etc. all play into tank slappers so I doubt seriously that the reverse rotating inertia of the brake rotors is going to counteract ALL the things that play into tank slappers.
Like I said....a solution looking for a problem. I'm surprised he left out the obligatory paragraphs explaining how his invention will solve world hunger and the energy crisis and stop global warming...
Last edited by a moderator:
Woodstock
Well-known member
Yea, but it sure looks cool... B)
Kinda like "spinners" for a motorcycle. :lol: :lol:
IMO...
The rotors will not reduce the gyroscopic effect, but will only increase it and make it harder to turn. Airplanes use counter rotating props to offset the torque that makes them roll about longitudinal axis opposite the props spin direction. This enables them to apply massive power to the props and not flip over. It also balances the P-factor. That is as the angle of attack increases the bite the prop takes is increased on the down swing side of center and reduced on the up swing side. This P-factor pulls the nose toward the downswing side. Counter rotating helicopter blades eliminate the need for tail rotors - but do not reduce stability.
The counter rotating brakes will help offset the angular precession that makes it turning in one direction easier than the other - though, as stated elswahere, the unsprung weight increase will be a bigger problem.
I think it would be more interesting to have spinners installed to see if you could sit at stops without having to put your feet down. Perhaps when you apply the breaks the kinetic energy could channel into the spinners, and then apply that energy back into the wheels to start rolling. Like a flywheel car.
Anybody got a million for R&D?
Bruce
The rotors will not reduce the gyroscopic effect, but will only increase it and make it harder to turn. Airplanes use counter rotating props to offset the torque that makes them roll about longitudinal axis opposite the props spin direction. This enables them to apply massive power to the props and not flip over. It also balances the P-factor. That is as the angle of attack increases the bite the prop takes is increased on the down swing side of center and reduced on the up swing side. This P-factor pulls the nose toward the downswing side. Counter rotating helicopter blades eliminate the need for tail rotors - but do not reduce stability.
The counter rotating brakes will help offset the angular precession that makes it turning in one direction easier than the other - though, as stated elswahere, the unsprung weight increase will be a bigger problem.
I think it would be more interesting to have spinners installed to see if you could sit at stops without having to put your feet down. Perhaps when you apply the breaks the kinetic energy could channel into the spinners, and then apply that energy back into the wheels to start rolling. Like a flywheel car.
Anybody got a million for R&D?
Bruce
Last edited by a moderator:
04 FJR Pilot
Well-known member
It gives him an excuse to ride his motorcycle more than the wife would like!
Bustanut joker
Well-known member
Looks like jestal beat ya to itThen again, I could start with the snide ****, too.
I though it was kinda dumb what with the extra weight and crap $$ that is going to fall apart down the road. Jestal said it best, a solution for a nonexistant problem <_< :jester:
GunMD
Well-known member
Under the pretense that he's "working". "Don't bother me honey, I'm WORKING!"
Actually, there is one neat feature to the setup that I overlooked....
There is a significant step-up ratio in the gearing for the rotor. In other words, the rotor is turning backwards much faster than the wheel is turning. This has the effect of increasing the inertia of the rotor much more than it would be compared to the rotors turning at normal wheel speed. This also adds significantly to the braking effort created by the pads on the rotors. That in itself, is a neat way to multiply the braking force without larger diameter rotors. Counting teeth on his background art the "overdrive" ratio of the rotor looks to be about 2.7:1 so the rotors are spinning substantially faster than the wheel is turning thus the inertia of the rotors could get much closer to the inertia of the tire/wheel combination.
As far as the strength and durability of the parts that would be of little concern if the parts were properly manufactured and heat treated. Similar sized components carry lots more load in automatic transmission gear sets so they shouldn't have much trouble making them work in that situation. However, at the speeds the parts are operating at it will take a clever set of seals and an oil bath to keep things alive for very long I would suspect. The gears can turn on sealed bearings with little problem but the gear mesh is going to take some lube developement for long term life.
I still think it is a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist but it is more believable than I first thought I have to admit.
There is a significant step-up ratio in the gearing for the rotor. In other words, the rotor is turning backwards much faster than the wheel is turning. This has the effect of increasing the inertia of the rotor much more than it would be compared to the rotors turning at normal wheel speed. This also adds significantly to the braking effort created by the pads on the rotors. That in itself, is a neat way to multiply the braking force without larger diameter rotors. Counting teeth on his background art the "overdrive" ratio of the rotor looks to be about 2.7:1 so the rotors are spinning substantially faster than the wheel is turning thus the inertia of the rotors could get much closer to the inertia of the tire/wheel combination.
As far as the strength and durability of the parts that would be of little concern if the parts were properly manufactured and heat treated. Similar sized components carry lots more load in automatic transmission gear sets so they shouldn't have much trouble making them work in that situation. However, at the speeds the parts are operating at it will take a clever set of seals and an oil bath to keep things alive for very long I would suspect. The gears can turn on sealed bearings with little problem but the gear mesh is going to take some lube developement for long term life.
I still think it is a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist but it is more believable than I first thought I have to admit.
Last edited by a moderator:
twowheelnut
R.I.P. Our Motorcycling Friend
Always look forward to your thoughts. Thanks, j.
FlyingLow
Well-known member
I'd like to see a feature about this product on 2 Wheel Tuesday or one of those other shows on Speed Channel.. Very informative technical analyses sometimes.
A problem that really doesn't exist, perhaps, but there is always a market segment that has to stay ahead of the curve.
A problem that really doesn't exist, perhaps, but there is always a market segment that has to stay ahead of the curve.
yamaholic
Well-known member
Neat concept. I don't like the unsprung weight, but less rotating mass is a very real concept that will assist with more "flickable" handling. I'm using Galfer wave rotors on an 03--they are 1.6lbs lighter than stock. Yep, I feel the difference in high speed flickability, but not enough to justify on a non-racing machine.
Now if Yamaha would bring out the 2WD hydraulic concept used on some non-US WR450's...my checkbook is ready.
Now if Yamaha would bring out the 2WD hydraulic concept used on some non-US WR450's...my checkbook is ready.
Similar threads
