Quarter Mile ETs, forum members

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carbonfibre said:
If indeed a bike where the rear wheel is able to move independently of the front, due to a crude rubber mounting anti vibration system, with chassis rigidity being further compromised by a 1940s style pre-unit engine/transmission, is something that works far better than more modern machines, then one wonders why exactly no one has reproduced and refined this set up for use on current MotoGP machinery today?

Could the reason for this perhaps have something to do with the fact that such designs were dated even in the 1970s, and today the only people claiming such machines superior are likely to be idiot web warriors, who are quite unable to support any of their ridiculous claims with anything even vaguely related to fact?

I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the potential of a Commando with a modern touch (also remember Ms Peel is a linked Commando), on a wide open track it wont cut it but anything tight and twisty it will surprise a few. If you look more deeply at its design a person such as yourself who has been playing with bikes for many years will see some of the redeeming features rather quickly....

Here is another oddity, a dirt bike with slicks beating up on an R6, how can that possibly happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-M95nTZB0M
 
Well , once we know what a ' R6 ' is , Er .
N.Z. street circuits , where top speed was around the ton , the MX bikes did pretty good .
Air cooled two stroke yamaha 450 ? s with RD front end and road race tyres . Good visibility
sfa weight , and good into and out of the corners . Haybales , kerbs & lamposts everywhere.
Also as the camber change through intersections loads and unloads the suspension , the
wide bars were left on for wrestling them.Typical wfo throttle and brakes .

Any bike half the weight is gong to outmanouvre one twice the size , unless the chassis is atrocious .

Quarter times ,72 750 ran dead even with a XS1100 with 4-1 , at least to 80 mph tough dunno itd loose any further up to the ton .
XS had been thrashed compeditively @ baypark with GSes , but blew alternators useing 1100 rpm to hold them .So was presumably
quicker than std. 11.5. 32 Mk 2s on Com. were purported to be worth a few mm compared to Conc.s , by Amal when releasd .
had the 2-1 and rev. cone mega .
Std cam back in was far easyer to get moveing and would rev out .The Combat cam was harder 3.500 to 7000 ,but didnt realy
work under around 2000 , you were just feeding it in . Id be sure the American clutch plates were better for that sort of thing .
 
Matt Spencer said:
Well , once we know what a ' R6 ' is , Er ..

R6 is a Yamaha 600 sportbike (typical DOHC transverse 4 water cooled tupperware with it's butt in the air).
 
hobot said:
Hehe, I do think Ms Peel is a one in a row wonder now that could change the way fast bikes are designed that can handle huge power and harsh hook up. Its not me me me its t Ms Peel Peel Peel. She's serious business to me, Trixie is just a cheap date compared. I could and have gone down long list of faults I've found in moderns and also pay close attention to the racer on new steeds in magazine reports and they agree with my own findings. Only real advancement that concerns me is the traction control programmed for each track turn, but that's only good for maxing out in phase two 'counter steering' handling and you can only go so fast and sharp around when the front is pointing and pulling the wrong way, duh. One outstanding feature of tri-linked Peel is how the effort to control her goes down not up the harsher I pressed her. Absolutely flabbergastingly fabulous! If anyone thinks I'm making it up oh well but I can't get the sensations out of my bone 24/7 and its been over half a decade since last on her.

Peel is a real Commando retaining the isolastics in an over lapping fork like chassis, but those lose ends are tied together for over lapping combined strength yet still allows deforming enough to take out the tire conflicts in far over hi powered leans each end traction and vector are in conflict. To ride Peel like she can take requires drag racer locked on crouch, all the pull is straight back and all side loads are in line with normal suspension action. I feel her twist up but never rebound but to central rest state on release , un-like the over rigid moderns which even with all their advancements build up random splashes that skip out front or rear not just on tip overs but harsh flip back ups. Shoot they will even lift both tires up at once suddenly when all seems fine, swoosh. Pilot and bike mass is almost all above the tire tops for goodness sakes. CoG is important as all get out when leaned to max and still want some force applied down into tires instead of off the surface. So as rocket ship as the elites have gotten, rockets w/o vectored thrust are straight liners only compared to what a triple linked C'do can do w/o breaking a pilot sweat.

Tire profile on rim makes a whole lot of difference too I've found out. I had to watch out if going too fast/far over on fat ass tires up to 170 size but had to watch out I wasn't going fast enough to break Peel loose in time. Scary to have too much traction for the power, so Peel gets more power to break out at will at higher speeds. One of her funnest ways mixed up phase 3 and 4 handling. Going in under enough accellerating power than any extra lean trips her down further to sling rear out a bit which re-grips with a extra zing in acceleration while also aiming sharper, so whole sweeper done in a series of tip overs to break traction and flip up to accelerate harder. No steering involved just tip and trip, tip and trip while on increasing power all the way. Moderns aren't near neutral enough to take that w/o over whelming pilot strength and speed.

Barber's track top speeds are only 150 mph and about 100 mph average of best bike and almost 120 for best car to date. Peel just needs not to loose much time in the straights to have a shot at besting that. Cars tend to beat bikes in turns both by braking better and by holding higher speeds, bikes tend to gain it back in the opens. So its the turns that matter most and are funnest too. Code preached fastest turns are the funnest ones.

The extra rub is if Peel can pull off under 10 sec and out power handle elites in turns is doing it with push rods and vintage power adders of WWII era. Peel will have Hot Shot device so can change posture from low to sprint and lifted to twist. Not the most powerful engine by far but may be most effective for Peels purposes. Time and time slips will tell not my bantering about it.

Not sure what "Ms Peel" actually is, would you be able to post some pics, and times the bike has run on the drag strip, rather than the endless gibberish about this bike being able to outperform "elite" sports bikes?
 
Cheesy said:
Carbonfibre said:
If indeed a bike where the rear wheel is able to move independently of the front, due to a crude rubber mounting anti vibration system, with chassis rigidity being further compromised by a 1940s style pre-unit engine/transmission, is something that works far better than more modern machines, then one wonders why exactly no one has reproduced and refined this set up for use on current MotoGP machinery today?

Could the reason for this perhaps have something to do with the fact that such designs were dated even in the 1970s, and today the only people claiming such machines superior are likely to be idiot web warriors, who are quite unable to support any of their ridiculous claims with anything even vaguely related to fact?

I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the potential of a Commando with a modern touch (also remember Ms Peel is a linked Commando), on a wide open track it wont cut it but anything tight and twisty it will surprise a few. If you look more deeply at its design a person such as yourself who has been playing with bikes for many years will see some of the redeeming features rather quickly....

Here is another oddity, a dirt bike with slicks beating up on an R6, how can that possibly happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-M95nTZB0M


In actual fact there is no good engineering reason to rubber mount the engine and transmission remote to the front wheel of a bike, other than to be able to give a 1947 designed motor a few more years of life, in the face of competition from Jap bikes which were faster, more reliable, and didnt leak oil or fall to pieces. From the gibberish posted on here about handling, I am not entirely sure any of those posting this stuff are actually able to ride a motorcycle, let alone ride one quickly.........................
 
well I have to say that in my youth after a couple of trips to Castlereagh drags west of Sydney I finally posted an 11.99 with a terminal speed of 107mph. My bike is an 810 Dunstall Norton that had the cylinder skimmed about .020 (because the cylinder liners were below the top of the cylinder) so the compression was at 10.5 to 1 and the inlet port was recontoured to direct the incoming charge away from the exhaust port. Cam is the dunstall s cam which is an improved norton s cam but not as hot as a ss. I made the runs with a 22 tooth engine sprocket. At that I didn't quite achieve the Dunstall claims of 11.98 but at least I got under 12s. I remember seeing a combat engine commando do a run at 12.3 on the same day and my mate put in a 13.3 on a 750 Sport Ducati

ando
 
Carbonfibre said:
Cheesy said:
Carbonfibre said:
If indeed a bike where the rear wheel is able to move independently of the front, due to a crude rubber mounting anti vibration system, with chassis rigidity being further compromised by a 1940s style pre-unit engine/transmission, is something that works far better than more modern machines, then one wonders why exactly no one has reproduced and refined this set up for use on current MotoGP machinery today?

Could the reason for this perhaps have something to do with the fact that such designs were dated even in the 1970s, and today the only people claiming such machines superior are likely to be idiot web warriors, who are quite unable to support any of their ridiculous claims with anything even vaguely related to fact?

I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the potential of a Commando with a modern touch (also remember Ms Peel is a linked Commando), on a wide open track it wont cut it but anything tight and twisty it will surprise a few. If you look more deeply at its design a person such as yourself who has been playing with bikes for many years will see some of the redeeming features rather quickly....

Here is another oddity, a dirt bike with slicks beating up on an R6, how can that possibly happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-M95nTZB0M


In actual fact there is no good engineering reason to rubber mount the engine and transmission remote to the front wheel of a bike, other than to be able to give a 1947 designed motor a few more years of life, in the face of competition from Jap bikes which were faster, more reliable, and didnt leak oil or fall to pieces. From the gibberish posted on here about handling, I am not entirely sure any of those posting this stuff are actually able to ride a motorcycle, let alone ride one quickly.........................

Sure they dragged out the engine life but using the ISOs cant have been all that bad an idea, the race bikes still used them, if they had of been that big a handicap they would have ditched them Im sure. As much as I hate to admit one of the most fun bikes I have ridden also has a rubber mounted engine and transmission, although they come with rod links.

Maybe your Commando has ISOs that are worn out or in need of adjustment?
 
Would agree entirely...............ET is something thats pretty meaningless in the real world, and in some situations a Brit twin with a good rider aboard is likely to work very well indeed. However suggestions that a Norton is far superior to modern Jap or Italian sports bikes, are clearly ridiculous and are perhaps the result of something other than real world experience.
 
And Vias Versa . :p :wink:

Id venture to say a sorted interstate would be a vastly more civilised continental tourer , for a cowboy rather than a lunatic .
And for dirt roads a meddled with Bonneville would have it for breakfast , in fact it would be a ' No Competition ' , as the
whizz bang would be rolling all over the marbles at 40 k . Assumeing it didnt , a worked Daytona 500 ( Bonnie pistons = 560)
would be vastly more manadgeable , tossable , and throttleable .

And 20 yr olds mite like the pillions knees around there ears , but the eventually tire of it .

The Grand Prix bikes are starting to look as much like scooters , theyre so overtyred .

Bill whites Velo would probly snot it on the club circuit at Pukekohe , and a bit of dope would do it if it was having an off day.

Power to Weight , and Balance . Holding it crossed up and getting the power down .
Right , see its aranged , I'll take the Velo MT500 - 5001 .
 
It's funny how people think that unit construction is such a good thing. I know the theory but in practical terms give me a non unit construction every time. Pull your gearbox without having to strip the motor, change your primary drive without removing the crank. Not sharing oils in the gearbox/engine so they both have suitable oils, pull your motor without disturbing the gearbox etc, etc. All the theory says how crap it is but in the real world non-unit rules.
I love pulling the back wheel when I'm getting new tyres with young mechanics who've never worked on anything but modern bikes and seeing the expression on their face when they see the sprocket/drum/chain remain in situ. Makes me smile.
If my basically standard 850 with 22 toth sprocket ran low 13s I'd be quite happy.
 
Fullauto said:
It's funny how people think that unit construction is such a good thing. I know the theory but in practical terms give me a non unit construction every time. Pull your gearbox without having to strip the motor, change your primary drive without removing the crank. Not sharing oils in the gearbox/engine so they both have suitable oils, pull your motor without disturbing the gearbox etc, etc. All the theory says how crap it is but in the real world non-unit rules.
I love pulling the back wheel when I'm getting new tyres with young mechanics who've never worked on anything but modern bikes and seeing the expression on their face when they see the sprocket/drum/chain remain in situ. Makes me smile.
If my basically standard 850 with 22 toth sprocket ran low 13s I'd be quite happy.


Funnily enough you can do all the things you mention on a unit Triumph motor with no problems at all. The very obvious disadvantages of p/unit construction motors is that they contribute little or nothing to the rigidity of the chassis, as well as increasing weight and costing more to produce.
 
Pull a unit Triumph motor without disturbing the gearbox?

Like I said, I know the theory but show me in PRACTICAL terms how a unit motor is better. More weight? Less chassis rigidity? Obvious disadvantages?

Don't think so.
 
Back in the 1970s I thought it was pretty cool that the Norton was pretty much the only non-unit bike left. Well, Harleys too I guess, but I have no experience with them.

Non-unit still seems kind of cool, and it does offer some benefits as noted. Also I can pull a Commando engine (with top end removed) out of the the frame by myself. Wouldn't be able to do that with a unit motor, too heavy.

I suppose in theory unit construction offers lower weight and fewer places for oil leaks. And you can use the motor as a stressed frame member, as Ducati does.
 
Fullauto said:
It's funny how people think that unit construction is such a good thing. I know the theory but in practical terms give me a non unit construction every time. Pull your gearbox without having to strip the motor, change your primary drive without removing the crank. Not sharing oils in the gearbox/engine so they both have suitable oils, pull your motor without disturbing the gearbox etc, etc. All the theory says how crap it is but in the real world non-unit rules.

You can pull all but the case on a Triumph tranny without removing the engine. You can't pull a Norton gearbox (in it's case) without removing the clutch center nut (may as well be removing the whole clutch) and loosening off the engine.

You can pull a Triumph primary apart without removing the crank.

Not sharing crank & primary oils is my cup 'o tea; only the late models have this malady. NO Triumph shares gearbox & crank oil.

Let me see who gets thier power unit out first, a Triumph or a Norton mechanic? Triumph unit wins every time.

Unit engines are easier to work on, period.
 
Fullauto said:
Pull a unit Triumph motor without disturbing the gearbox?

Like I said, I know the theory but show me in PRACTICAL terms how a unit motor is better. More weight? Less chassis rigidity? Obvious disadvantages?

Don't think so.[/quote

Not sure whether or not you have ever worked on a Triumph, but its pretty easy to dismantle the complete gearbox without stripping the motor at all.

In practical terms unit motors are superior due to being lighter and more compact, easier to work on, and cheaper to produce, as well as being able to help with increasing chassis rigidity, rather than reducing it.
 
There was a guy who worked for Norton Villiers whose name I have forgotten, during the 1970s who ran a ‘ stock’ 750 Commando at mainly Santa Pod UK.
From an article, I can remember reading about him, he had access to any part off the shelf at the factory, and he said that he had to try 10 camshafts until he got an accurate one. My memory is hazy now, as it was a long time ago but I think his best time was the mid 11s
 
Sure are a lot of wishful numbers in this thread...

My stock 850 wouldn't go into the 11's if it was tied to an Atlas rocket.
 
Taylor Blair said:
Sure are a lot of wishful numbers in this thread...

My stock 850 wouldn't go into the 11's if it was tied to an Atlas rocket.

Precisely why I don't quote my E.T. from 1973 without any proof. By the way a lot of you got way off the subject with the handling dribble and merits of unit versus non-unit. The question was best 1/4 mile E.T. Any one got a recent run with proof?
 
Taylor Blair said:
Sure are a lot of wishful numbers in this thread...

My stock 850 wouldn't go into the 11's if it was tied to an Atlas rocket.


That's my thinking, too. Back in 1972 I ran a flat 14:00 with a 1969 Commando , stock except for a Norris 'R' cam. I had no prior experience on a drag strip. Made one practice pass, then ran the !4:00 on my second pass. I thought that was pretty respectful. Got a trophy for the day. Compared to some of the numbers here I must of had the brake on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top