Handling of oil in tank vs oil in frame?

I had a double take listening to a fella describe how he only wanted the oil tank Bonneville
not the OIF's because he said those threw off mass enough to spoil handling to him, hmm??

I've converted Peel to OIF - smirking at open scenery beyond w/o tank and covers needed
and also on spreading mass out - more forward/upward expecting an extra deadening
dampening of nuisance frame ringing resonance. Then spikes of fear I screwed up
Peel's Unfathomable Neutral Handling the rump rod + helpers provided standard Cdo.

What the group mind consensus to expect how Peel will feel?

hobot

Seems unlikely there's a handling issue with OIF.
Mass of oil is going to be less than the difference between full and empty fuel tanks or even the variation in capacity between interstates and Roadster tanks.
I haven't heard of any vast changes in handling associated with any of these.

I don't think it changes anything other than looks. I like the oil in frame idea on Cdo. Problems come from where oil pickup will be, slosh- oil starvation from extreme braking, reduced volume- more frequent changes, definitely need oil cooler.
Do it. Baffles in the back bone would help with the slosh, some extra plumbing for breathing, and oil cooler add extra volume and cooling that will be needed. Just make sure to have the drain in a handy place for the oil changes or empty it at the return to the engine.

Better solution:

Stock oil tank, transverse mounted with no significant mods necessary. Provides the "see-through" result, lowers the CG by a miniscule amount.

Ok thanks for soothing my concerns. I finally got Triumph experts
opinion. They say Triumph OIF was a special job by aerospace engineers
so its apples and oranges to compare OIFrames to oil tank frames and its
a myth about any OIF handling issues by oiling mass effects.
I'm relieved.

Peel has this tri-rod link arrangement that has removed her handling
out of the ordinary zone of two tire planted leaned counter steering.
When leaving that ho hum turning style, CoG pivoting-skewing rate and
inertia with fluid slosh comes to dominate the physics then going
even faster - farther leaned, dang aerodynamics begins to
equal the inertia physics with lift and drops by eddies at random.
If not leaning too far over, a knee out helps to spoil the lift
and add drag to help turn in/lean, when not much traction left to
assist as expected. Never noticed any of this scraping Ninja fairing
no room for knee out, or on my SV650 finding its corner limits
and peg/toe fouling limits to scare me off any more their foolishness.

When I begin to see these issues discussed in modern elites then I'd perk
up to include them as worthy corner competition, but so far they
are no longer on Peel's target list any more. Just their dead ahead
sprints to worry about and even then road bikes are wheelie prone.
Only aerodynamics they test for in elites is stability to draft
close and bee line air resistance, all good - just not for cornering.

hobot
Ya'all don't know what ya missing out on.
One event to give idea, had test comparison ride discussion with buff vacationing racer on paired down R1 with no chicken stripes and ground
down knee pucks, traveling with surfer built girl friend in sprayed on
Yamaha factory leathers
on her paired down R6 with same lack of unused tire and knee puck surfaces.
One request was speedometer comparison near Peel's top out
in the safer opens. Not only did I have to wait up for them
entering the few straights, after a few curves left em way behind I had to
wait up for them near end of straights or pull over at wide
spot to get a report as they either would not or could not
keep up with Peel's pull over 130 mph indicated.
Fella got rather pissed at me on Peel just before we split up as the
hot riding made his gal do a leathery butt wiggle pole dances in my
face to signal her excitement level.
Got me high and tires hot so I could let Peel's hair out on
solo ride back home to get my adrenalin fix before shut off.
i still had to slip slide in/out creek bed to get me topped off as
pavement work no matter how harsh just ain't much trouble to Peel.



hobot
I never ever press a rider ahead of me to make any mistakes
I've influenced, besides as long as a few turns ahead can always just
leave em behind any time its safe to pass.

hobot said:

Ok thanks for soothing my concerns. I finally got Triumph experts
opinion. They say Triumph OIF was a special job by aerospace engineers
so its apples and oranges to compare OIFrames to oil tank frames and its
a myth about any OIF handling issues by oiling mass effects.
I'm relieved.

Click to expand...

The original Triumph OIF was designed by Brian Jones at Triumph as Project P39 based on experience with Rickman Metisse. The men in white coats at Umberslade Hall turned into a production nightmare and stuffed the seat height. Special job by aerospace engineers? Nope.

And by the way, for your Commando project, put the oil into a tank and mount it under the front of the motor as per many race bikes.

Mick

Nope can't get away long with any nose tank,
just skid plate armored battery.

I've always heard that the much-despised OIF frames are stronger/stiffer and so handle better - not because of weight of oil but because the frame itself is stiffer. No personal experience, and if I were buying a Triumph I'd still prefer a 69 or 70 (assuming nobody's giving away 59 Bonnies).

Performance isn't everything....!

Here's the rest of the low down on pre & post OIF Triumphs
ever Brit Iron fan should know. >>> hobot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.......................................................

My few cents. [from Brit Iron list 7-10-10]

My experience is from quick road riding on 1970 Bonnie and occasional fast riding on OIF bikes up to 1980, haven't tried later ones. Have built one OIF project.

The pre-OIF is much more rideable and smooth, and out-of-the box a better looking bike in my view. The downside is that it is nowhere as stiff as the OIF, and will flex when ridden hard, much more than OIF.

From the builder's point of view, many interesting things can be done with the OIF, and today it is easy to get them to look good (again, my personal view), by adding oil-tank look-a-like plastic on the side instead of the not so elegant air filter construction.

Both frames are good in my view, with different advantages and flaws. HOWEVER:::: 1971 and perhaps 1972 model have a taller OIF than 1973 and up. These frames are a few inches taller, and the subframe where the seat is located, is welded to the OIF downtube closer (higher) to the oil-cap. This does not look good, and these bikes tend to have seats that look a bit odd. Combined with a terrible and (again in my personal view) deadly frontbrake, I recommend friends to avoid these models, because it can be more expensive to get good results with these, rather than finding later models with "good" frames and disc brakes.

Again, just personal opinions.

Rgds,
Dennis Harris