Commando aluminum frame.
- Thread starter bwolfie
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
Be very interested to see the dyno figures for your 140-160 Norton motor..............Is this the one with that very trick looking lightened crank fitted?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
If you want a really strong steel try maraging steels.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maraging_steel
amongst other things the problems with these type of steels is that to build a light stiff frame you end up with bigger diameter (2nd moment of area) section and thinner and thinner wall sections, you then end up with localised buckling limitations as well as a distinct lack of weldability.
The biggest problem with carbon is the general lack of understanding of it. Being non-isotropic is one of its distinct advantages yet it is hard for a lot of people to visulise load paths and how they are transmitted through a structure, especially when you get into non symmetrical laminates.[/quote]
Motorcycle frames are for the most part low tech, and many are still being made out of steel tube, primarily due to this being a very cheap way of producing something that works relatively well.
In terms of more serious race applications with much better materials and more appropriate production methods, there are no problems with lack of understanding of composites, as carbon hybrids have been in common usage for many years.
amongst other things the problems with these type of steels is that to build a light stiff frame you end up with bigger diameter (2nd moment of area) section and thinner and thinner wall sections, you then end up with localised buckling limitations as well as a distinct lack of weldability.
The biggest problem with carbon is the general lack of understanding of it. Being non-isotropic is one of its distinct advantages yet it is hard for a lot of people to visulise load paths and how they are transmitted through a structure, especially when you get into non symmetrical laminates.[/quote]
Motorcycle frames are for the most part low tech, and many are still being made out of steel tube, primarily due to this being a very cheap way of producing something that works relatively well.
In terms of more serious race applications with much better materials and more appropriate production methods, there are no problems with lack of understanding of composites, as carbon hybrids have been in common usage for many years.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
I don't yet know who can dyno Ms Peels engine, maybe that Texas land speeder shop? I'm way more impressed by Ms Peel handling than by pure power and top speed. I'm way more fascinated by her obsolete handling advantage over my lost respect for modern elite chassis on grippy-est tires, so much so I call them corner cripples or parking lot cones to slalom by so easy and quickly around in about any line that's clear and shortest way out of there. Peel does not require risky limits or pilot comensation or hardly any effort to do so but throttle working and staying low enough not flung right off saddle while using breath control to keep vision going from G's sucking blood into my sacrum.
Somehow linked flexy iso frame distorts just right but does not rebound like other bikes I've twisted frames up loading them to max in corners. Loads and vibrations that shake, jitter and ring the rigids just past through Peel transparently. Its weird unncanny unbelievable to work up past what moderns handle to find nothing upsetting but inviting press on even harsher till run out of power to do more. Center of Gravity also enters equation whether bike fights to stay down or fight to fling up or just lifts both tires at once off surface and fly out from under. I think linked Cdo has it over all the rest.
As too power questimates, Do ya think a 920 10.5 CR, hi flow small chamber head, wide squish bands with drag only cam on 115 octane with triple spark ignition could make 85-90 hp? Maney's makes 100 hp. Then add 40-60 % more mixture by boost which could reach 12 PSI, if I can even load engine that much d/t traction. LIkely can't use WOT till a $4000 TT gearbox saved up for. Yet Peel and me may be light enough can't load tranny to break if throttle care used?
Somehow linked flexy iso frame distorts just right but does not rebound like other bikes I've twisted frames up loading them to max in corners. Loads and vibrations that shake, jitter and ring the rigids just past through Peel transparently. Its weird unncanny unbelievable to work up past what moderns handle to find nothing upsetting but inviting press on even harsher till run out of power to do more. Center of Gravity also enters equation whether bike fights to stay down or fight to fling up or just lifts both tires at once off surface and fly out from under. I think linked Cdo has it over all the rest.
As too power questimates, Do ya think a 920 10.5 CR, hi flow small chamber head, wide squish bands with drag only cam on 115 octane with triple spark ignition could make 85-90 hp? Maney's makes 100 hp. Then add 40-60 % more mixture by boost which could reach 12 PSI, if I can even load engine that much d/t traction. LIkely can't use WOT till a $4000 TT gearbox saved up for. Yet Peel and me may be light enough can't load tranny to break if throttle care used?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
Found reference to the Norton monocoup, first in plain steel then in double wall SS.
Lookie here plus other ancient to vintage wonders.
http://www.jamiewaters.com/Frame-5-moto ... 4571796207
Lookie here plus other ancient to vintage wonders.
http://www.jamiewaters.com/Frame-5-moto ... 4571796207
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
hobot said:
As to the handling of motorcycle frames where the rear wheel is free to articulate itself up to 25mm out of alignment with the front wheel, due to it being rubber mounted, I will have to take your word on these being able to handle better than more rigid designs.
Without proper development time on a dyno by someone who knows exactly what they are doing, the usual result of bolting together a mismatched array of often unsuitable parts is very often either less power than stock, or something thats pretty nasty to ride. As to 100bhp from a 1000cc push rod twin, thats a claim which appears to be along the same lines as a Commando with 170 mph top speed!
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
Carbon, struck me the same way till I lived it in spade spanking sports bike corner cripples - never being out run unless I backed off d/t known past encounters over blind crests and blind turns. I'd get out accelerated by 900's and above but not out run in straights. But sports bikes are not fair game to Ms Peel when any leaning involved, no sir not even in my sights as worthy completion any more, 1000 hp 4wd rally cars are what makes me pensive to play with now on Pikes Peak type conditions. On close tracks like Barber's where even F1 down force cars can't hit 150, I wonder if Peel could match or beat them too. Will be fun trying regardless of final pecking order.
I'm trying to figure out a ways to measure-monitor the chassis distortions which Peel sure does by time she's exceeding what's seen in race video of sports and supermotards, but there is no oscillation or rebounding upsets at all. When Peel begins to lose rear grip d/t countersteering leans, she flips front tire the other way which puts huge twist in frame which puts instant bigger down force into rear patch that then accepts huge spikes in throttle-torque w/o slip. I think its acting like an anti-sway bar taking tire vector conflicts out, not the sideways deflection moderns are mislead into trying. In fastest turns Ms Peel does not give side force to pilot or suspension much, just more down force trhu my sacrum into seat in a line directly to rear patch. I have to hold on not to be left behind not slung off saddle sideways. Steering dampers hinder Peel not help.
As too Peel's power plant, its against all normal engine set ups to make power but for a very few example that prove the principle for lugging creeping trials play to who knows how fast and furious on tarmac. Stayed tuned eh.
I'm trying to figure out a ways to measure-monitor the chassis distortions which Peel sure does by time she's exceeding what's seen in race video of sports and supermotards, but there is no oscillation or rebounding upsets at all. When Peel begins to lose rear grip d/t countersteering leans, she flips front tire the other way which puts huge twist in frame which puts instant bigger down force into rear patch that then accepts huge spikes in throttle-torque w/o slip. I think its acting like an anti-sway bar taking tire vector conflicts out, not the sideways deflection moderns are mislead into trying. In fastest turns Ms Peel does not give side force to pilot or suspension much, just more down force trhu my sacrum into seat in a line directly to rear patch. I have to hold on not to be left behind not slung off saddle sideways. Steering dampers hinder Peel not help.
As too Peel's power plant, its against all normal engine set ups to make power but for a very few example that prove the principle for lugging creeping trials play to who knows how fast and furious on tarmac. Stayed tuned eh.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
Best I could find on Jammie lead was Kenny Cummings site with photo's of what I saw up close this year.
Narrow tire British bikes are a mystery to me yet but take some relief in what Kenny has told me and what I saw at Barbers from Wall of Death 3 stories over 3 swoop chicane. Indian caugth up with balls to wall 125 skinny tyre rigid which tried to cut Indian off by sharper further lean but the Indian out sharp leaned and hooiking up more power to get two bikes lengths ahead in that last snap into opens but both were prefectly matched in power-drag as they could not change any relation between them till a long ways towards next turn. Indian with leaf spring fork flexy frame was bouncing and twisting at both ends and middle but it did not hinder his fine line as much as it did that 125. I hooped-hallored so much crowd looked askance at me but I took its as evidence something to this articulated chassis if not over board. No wonder Burt Monroe was so nutzo on Indians they just needed Mo Pow to leave rest behind.
Narrow tire British bikes are a mystery to me yet but take some relief in what Kenny has told me and what I saw at Barbers from Wall of Death 3 stories over 3 swoop chicane. Indian caugth up with balls to wall 125 skinny tyre rigid which tried to cut Indian off by sharper further lean but the Indian out sharp leaned and hooiking up more power to get two bikes lengths ahead in that last snap into opens but both were prefectly matched in power-drag as they could not change any relation between them till a long ways towards next turn. Indian with leaf spring fork flexy frame was bouncing and twisting at both ends and middle but it did not hinder his fine line as much as it did that 125. I hooped-hallored so much crowd looked askance at me but I took its as evidence something to this articulated chassis if not over board. No wonder Burt Monroe was so nutzo on Indians they just needed Mo Pow to leave rest behind.
lcrken
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,982
Carbonfibre said:
See chart below for a well-developed 920 Commando engine from some years back. That's rear wheel horsepower, but if you convert it to horsepower at the crank, it's over 100. By now, the really good 920 engines are making over 90 at the rear wheel.
Ken
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
lcrken said:Carbonfibre said:
See chart below for a well-developed 920 Commando engine from some years back. That's rear wheel horsepower, but if you convert it to horsepower at the crank, it's over 100. By now, the really good 920 engines are making over 90 at the rear wheel.
Ken
With over 100bhp per litre, then why do the bikes these motors are fitted to not perform an awful lot better?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
rvich said:
The primary reason for using aluminum over steel to build frames is to reduce flex, and not for weight saving.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
hobot said:
I wonder how long you have been racing, and what classes you are running in? You gotta be a great rider to be able to overcome the problems of riding a bike with over 100bhp at the crank, and a frame which means more often that not the front and rear wheels are not in proper alignment.
Wonder if you can post some pics of your Norton running at Pikes Peak, and what times you were making in comparison to the 1000bhp rally cars you mention?
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
Got me good Carbon, I don't race nor have done PIkes Peak which is getting paved over this year : (
Will just have to hold a low opinion of me and wait and see why I've such a low opinion of hi tech and material cycles to study for handling but do study the 4 wd drive rally cars lines and moves. Don't know if ground effects helps F1 cars enough in the tights I like to do on ole obsolete tamed isolastic Commando. Studying show downs of elite bikes vs elite cars, bikes all lose because they can't brake as well nor enter turns as fast. Now why is that? I think I know and it don't apply to Peel.
Will just have to hold a low opinion of me and wait and see why I've such a low opinion of hi tech and material cycles to study for handling but do study the 4 wd drive rally cars lines and moves. Don't know if ground effects helps F1 cars enough in the tights I like to do on ole obsolete tamed isolastic Commando. Studying show downs of elite bikes vs elite cars, bikes all lose because they can't brake as well nor enter turns as fast. Now why is that? I think I know and it don't apply to Peel.
lcrken
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,982
Carbonfibre said:
The ones built to this level do perform quite well. Check out Gary Thwait's or Richard Ford's records of wins, championships, and track records in Great Britain with their large displacement twins. Over here Kenny Cummings and Doug Mcrae have races and championships on American circuits with their 750s. There are some pretty serious performers down under too, but I'm not as familiar with them. Honorable mention to all the old racers on this forum who were pretty fast in their day, including Jim Comstock and Jim Schmidt, and probably others I've forgotten. It's just that there aren't that many of the really fast ones. It's not cheap to build one, and it takes a lot of development time to get one right, so unless you're a quite serious racer, you probably aren't going to spend the money and time to get this level of performance. Don't confuse the performance of a hot street Norton with that of a serious racer.
Ken
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,978
I'm having to contemplate Ms Peel behavior with only my ole P!! and THE Gravel to base expectations on. I've found I like it best to get the rear into max load before the initial lean, to point about any lean skips it out. This lets me sample the traction threshold before committing. Then I dive into lean cranking on throttle to keep in the skip chirp state till getting more upright to hook up full throttle out of there. In this about to skip out all the time state lies some safety reserves - if some hazard requires a sharper turn or its a fast decreasing radius it don't take much more throttle to get rear on around to relieve front tire load and aim thrust where you need it to go. If a turn requires slowing up to enter then it don't matter the hp on tap until almost straight up again. How entertaining is that to waste most the turn not in hard acceleration? I've tried it on regular Cdo's and on couple of sports bikes but they don't put up with it by tripping out too easy or tank slapping forks. One chassis feels too flexy unstable the other too rigid ringing to me. Is there a happy compromise? THE Gravel has taught me its way better for me to cause losse-ness, then avoid or use it, than letting the conditions randomly induce it to me. I figure if you're not seeking fun this way what's the need of power enough to spin the rear?
Oh yeah, everyone seems so focused on the G ability - after apexes, ho hum.
Oh yeah, everyone seems so focused on the G ability - after apexes, ho hum.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,253
I had a Norton 750 + .040 motor that made it to 100 crank horse at 7800 on a Superflow dyno. Unfortunately it was un-ridable as it would not run below 6000 well enough to get up to speed. By the time I got it tuned to the point of being usable I was back down to around 80 horse. Jim
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,253
lcrken said:
The bike sounded great on the dyno but when riding it you had to slip the clutch in 3rd and 4th to keep the motor over 6000. From 5 to 6000 it ran so poorly it would loose speed at wide open throttle until you slipped the clutch. Then it was wheelie city. I spent a lot of time trying to get around the severe "plug fouling megaphonitis" but never got it done without hurting the power. I also had trouble with overheating and 400+ F oil temps when trying to keep it "on the pipe". It reminded me a lot of my old Gast H1.
I have thought about trying it again with electronic engine management. Might be able to make it ride-able. Jim
- Status