Mathematics

I suggest it might be interesting to look at road racing motorcycles from a mathematical perspective. In racing success depends on rationalising and optimising all of the variables. Most data is bivariate i.e. cause and effect. However when you have a lot of variables the whole thing becomes an exercise in pattern recognition. There is a Duke video getting around of Alan Cathcart riding the 1993 Suzuki 500cc MotoGP bike. That bike was probably closer than many to achieving a happy medium. It was the championship winner in 1993. It had less power than others, however tended to tighten it's line more in corners. I suggest that the pattern with road race bikes is bimodal, there is rarely the happy medium. You have a choice, you can take the wide line in corners or you can take the tight one. The bike must be set up to suit one or the other, it can probably never be both. MotoGP bikes these days can often be hi-sided without even moving the throttle. A bike such as the 1993 Suzuki with modern power would provide a certain outcome.
With our commandos we are in a much better situation. If the motor is not too radical, they are almost impossible to hi-side. My choice is the torquey motor with the bike that tightens it's line however others might be much braver and more wealthy.

Steve Baker was one of the first American to race successfully in Europe. When riding the TZ750 Yamaha he used to aim for the apex of the corner, knock off a lot of speed to turn the bike, then blast straight out of the corner from the apex.

Vittore Cossalter explores this in his book Motorcycle Dynamics. Covers pretty much everything related to the physics of a motorbike through the use of mathematics.

acotrel said:

I suggest it might be interesting to look at road racing motorcycles from a mathematical perspective. In racing success depends on rationalising and optimising all of the variables.

Click to expand...

C. R. Axtell oncd said something to the effect that at the end of a race, the winning machine should have it's frame break, it's wheels come unlaced, it's tires blow. it's engine grenade itself and it's rider fall over dead of a heart attack from sheer effort; that way, you know everything was maxed out and no more could have been done.

Modern racebikes would be all but unrideable without the electronics; wheelspin control, wheelie control, throttle control. It's made the great riders even better and the not-so-great pretty damn good. The onboard computers record every second of every lap and the CUs must be set up to know where the bike is on the particular track so as to optimize everything. It gives me a headache just thinking about it. Just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

Traction Control - Muy Bueno!

Basic mathematics - If you only had a dial micrometer with which to set your ignition timing, what distance does the piston have to be before TDC in a normal Commando motor, to get 28 degrees advance ?

28 degrees on a Commando is 5/16”.

That’s not due to my basic maths skills though... basic google skills...

Do you believe everything you read on the web ?

Of course.

Especially everything by you Al..!

Silly man ! I am probably suffering from Alzheimer's .

The older I get the more I like math. I love bikes, a mathematical model of the technology and ideas of a period in time. Commando's are cool because its so close to perfection for when and where it came from. Theres plenty of other near perfect bikes but none do what a Norton does and how it does it. When I go to modifying my Commando I like to think consistant with existing structure. They've been around long enough the weak links are known so less area on the caliper piston, more force on ends of swigngarm pin and link rods motor to frame for less angular variation and its ready to go fast till you find the next weak link or math problem with incorrect answer.

10 years ago I was looking on utube for Donald Duck in Mathmagicland to watch with my grandson. I see its on there now