Isolastic motion measure and front photo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,978
Country flag
Was asked to post again under a search-able subject line, >>>

I've measured the motion at all 3 points and find that
its example of quantum in-determinacy entanglement
in the macro world existing in more than one mode at once.
This helped me configure Peel's tri- linkage iso stabilization
with some on purpose compliance at front and top links
but solid robust Patton style down low far away from rear isolastic.

Basic motor motion - w/o road loads > 66% up/dn - 33% fro/aft at front.
Rear iso is a pure pivot with front iso bouncing up/dn ~1/16"
either side of its rest position at static & steady engine speed.

On blip ups, front motion is mostly a jump up and slightly back
by another ~1/16" for ~3/16" total off rest position u/d, and
~1/16" fro/aft total.
Rear iso also slightly moves on blip ups ~1/32" fro/aft from rest

With road loads and tire thrust over lain on pure
engine oscillation, I see additional fro/aft front and rear iso
motion by another ~1/16". Seen by smeared oil grit/grime.

The witness marks left by entangling all the loads shows
an over all egg shape at front with the slightest bit of
bend into an arch > convex forward.
The top steady shows about half the size motion ~1/8"
total with most to the trace as fro/aft arc.
[Late Gerry Bristow gave me his flat plate steady with marks]

The rear iso trace shows mostly circular 1/16" OD orbit slightly
smeared more in fro/aft direction than up/dn.

The front iso traces out what looks like the classic
planetary atom symbol or planet Saturn/egg with two sets
of rings,
- a vertical egg ~3/16" with two rims standing proud of the
egg shell, vertical rim more prominent than equator rim.
Here's photo trace that's hard to do with marker
and bike vibrating and only two hands to work
throttle holding clamped pencil still. Someone do it better please.

http://thumb19.webshots.net/t/50/50/1/2 ... pYV_th.jpg

Isolastic motion measure and front photo


Going by above I've ordered new crank with 77% balance factor for
a 920cc. My reasoning is since most motion is at front up/dn
and solid mount racers move BF way up, I'd want ~1/3 more
fro/aft oscillation to round out orbital better for the
round isolastics and allow rear iso to share more loads.
I'll adjust head spring going by feel and tracing view.

Tricky to predict because designers kept cutting rubber
area by half and by half again and again till iso's isolated
@ ~2300 rpm. If more rubber area is contacted or more
od added with a 3rd or 4th isolastic, guess what you'l always
feel no matter the finely done install.

My current opinion is Norton made good compromise
by spending on least crank mass that iso's could just tolerate.

hobot
 
Hey ho 'ole leave in the dust racer' Kenny,
Cork won't fit back in since some rubber coated rod ends
got in the way.

Do want you to point me to a source for the rear sets
you run, reviewed my photo's of your tiny potent Cdo
for clues as Peel progress proceeds. But will ask
in new post to leave this one for isolastic motion.

hobot
http://www.mekanizmalar.com/watts.html
 
This is of great interest to me as i have a NONE rubber Iso mount on the cards.based on the time prove podmore design. No doubt you are well aware of it?
hobot said:
Was asked to post again under a search-able subject line, >>>

I've measured the motion at all 3 points and find that
its example of quantum in-determinacy entanglement
in the macro world existing in more than one mode at once.
This helped me configure Peel's tri- linkage iso stabilization
with some on purpose compliance at front and top links
but solid robust Patton style down low far away from rear isolastic.

Basic motor motion - w/o road loads > 66% up/dn - 33% fro/aft at front.
Rear iso is a pure pivot with front iso bouncing up/dn ~1/16"
either side of its rest position at static & steady engine speed.

On blip ups, front motion is mostly a jump up and slightly back
by another ~1/16" for ~3/16" total off rest position u/d, and
~1/16" fro/aft total.
Rear iso also slightly moves on blip ups ~1/32" fro/aft from rest

With road loads and tire thrust over lain on pure
engine oscillation, I see additional fro/aft front and rear iso
motion by another ~1/16". Seen by smeared oil grit/grime.

The witness marks left by entangling all the loads shows
an over all egg shape at front with the slightest bit of
bend into an arch > convex forward.
The top steady shows about half the size motion ~1/8"
total with most to the trace as fro/aft arc.
[Late Gerry Bristow gave me his flat plate steady with marks]

The rear iso trace shows mostly circular 1/16" OD orbit slightly
smeared more in fro/aft direction than up/dn.

The front iso traces out what looks like the classic
planetary atom symbol or planet Saturn/egg with two sets
of rings,
- a vertical egg ~3/16" with two rims standing proud of the
egg shell, vertical rim more prominent than equator rim.
Here's photo trace that's hard to do with marker
and bike vibrating and only two hands to work
throttle holding clamped pencil still. Someone do it better please.

http://thumb19.webshots.net/t/50/50/1/2 ... pYV_th.jpg

Isolastic motion measure and front photo


Going by above I've ordered new crank with 77% balance factor for
a 920cc. My reasoning is since most motion is at front up/dn
and solid mount racers move BF way up, I'd want ~1/3 more
fro/aft oscillation to round out orbital better for the
round isolastics and allow rear iso to share more loads.
I'll adjust head spring going by feel and tracing view.

Tricky to predict because designers kept cutting rubber
area by half and by half again and again till iso's isolated
@ ~2300 rpm. If more rubber area is contacted or more
od added with a 3rd or 4th isolastic, guess what you'l always
feel no matter the finely done install.

My current opinion is Norton made good compromise
by spending on least crank mass that iso's could just tolerate.

hobot
 
"and find that
its example of quantum in-determinacy entanglement
in the macro world existing in more than one mode at once."

Uh, yeah...that's exactly what I was thinking! :shock:
 
Rider Bould, I've no idea what a 'podmore' is or if yat just jerking
my leash but do agree there is a way to remove rubber interface
and still isolate the range of our 360' twin orbitals and control
handling better than most advanced new age inline 2 wheeler
straight line dragster buzzing corner cripples.
It would not be as cheap, as light, low acquaintance or elegant as
factory design, but it'd fly fine.

If you still have concept of that front tire turns a motorcycle
or for braking instead of torquing out of traction before leaning
for turns, you just don't know what you are missing out on.

I've taken half again more rubber off all the large rubber rings
by grinding rims to a peak, so Ms Peel's undetectable to chassis
and pilot power unit motion exceeds what I've reviewed
above that applies to ordinary Commando you experience.

Watt's like links allow 5 modes of 'steering', 2 modes or phases beyond
what ya see in Supermotard and flat trackers, and one
mode beyond ice spiked straight steering wonders.
Only reason for Peels extra excessive power is to
be able to explore further, mode - phase 5 which
any other bike can only stand when going below 12 mph.

1. Upright straight steering without rear or front tire slip.
2. Leaned counter steering without rear or front tire slip
3. Sliding and drifting and skipping rear &/or front tires,
[though Peel does not have to cross up like everyone else
but can take advantage of conflicting tire and chassis twist loads
holding same lean and same fork angles drifting wider as desired
for hazards or new path entry before letting off power or fork
load right at apex to transition back to ordinary mode 2 turning]
4. Power trip out into low sides for fling up hi sides saves faster
than human motion and power can provide.
5. Mostly upright rear tire smoking straight steering that
avoids the instants of lost max acceleration the above
modes disappoint me with. Only see burn out stunters
use this mode, while going slower than a jogger.

Not only does Ms Peel disappear to pilot senses she don't
require any pilot input to hold any lean, just mild
fork aiming to keep front out of the picture when
traction exceeded, throttle spring is the most effort
I expends on Peel, if you don't count the forced
lung pressure to keep G's force from diming vision
and tunnel focus too much.

Oh yes Peel is a flexy flyer, twists up articulated to take out
tire conflicts and can store this as long a you like,
then release like a rubber sling shot w/o rebound right
where traction is instantly gone, for the best G events in
Peel's envelope.

http://www.brockeng.com/mechanism/Watt.htm

hobot - ever try to slide a unicycle or mono wheel?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top