you get on well with the folks at ducati don't ya? Maybe you could pitch the concept to em.. I don't mind if you claim its your idea
Ducati’s patent reveals identical sets of petals, operated via electric motors, inside the exhaust... Based on Ducati's previous, they can't even put a valve in an exhaust without it seizing up all the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting idea though. If you think about it converting the engine's power into wheel rotation, especially rear wheel rotation, is about the worst method of propulsion that could be devised for a motorcycle. Even modest inputs squats the rear and cause destabilising front end lift and constantly fights the limited traction that is available from such a small tyre foot print, especially when lent over in bends. And its inefficient because so much power is dissipated by the drive train. Jet propulsion, even partial jet propulsion, that rotates the bike forwards around its centre of gravity creates down-force and increases stability. It won't cause excessive weight transfer altering the geometry or stress the rear tyre, leaving it free to do it primary job of gripping the road. Maybe if the jet could be automatically adjusted by tilt electronics for direction, extra down force, grip, steering and cornering speed could be found in bends. Yes it probably will seize up and add a nought to servicing costs but innovation has to start somewhere. While they're perfecting it I'll settle for a supercharger in the meantime..
Have they not thought about making a two wheeled drive bike? Power could go up... interesting thought, perhaps fluid drive?
Hydraulic drive. Its been done. http://machinedesign.com/news/hydraulically-powered-bike Don't know what happened to it though. Bikers are a conservative lot and we seem to view new ideas with suspicion, especially if they look different. It amazing we're still using telescopic forks because they're rubbish really. Loads of unsprung weight, loads of weight transfer and geometry changes with every movement. Girder forks and telelever are both more efficient but they don't "look" right so there is limited appeal.
Many designers have indeed thought about it, and there have been many designs of 2-wheel drive bikes (2x2) down the years, done in many different ways. The inescapable problem with the concept is that under hard acceleration the front wheel is barely touching the ground and is unable to transmit any torque; while at other times 2x2 would contribute nothing. Only in dirt bikes (trials, motoX) would there be a significant gain, and there 2x2 is banned by the rules. Ohlins could easily supply a perfectly practicable 2x2 hydraulic drive system if anybody wanted to buy it - which they don't.
I think there's merit in the design. Let me tell you the story about my pedal bike, a pair of short and the previous nights Lamb Madras.... got up to nearly 40mph...
Although I agree about the drag comments, i.e. a lot of drag is caused by what you leave behind , I cannot believe that there is enough thrust to be gained at high speeds for example as that means a massive pressure movement of gases from the exhaust over the overall speed and there must be something in the rules that say that power must be driven from the wheel. Could it be a way of controlling back pressure from the engine ??
Even modest inputs squats the rear and cause destabilising front end lift and constantly fights the limited traction that is available from such a small tyre foot print, especially when lent over in bends. This is surely because the gearbox sprocket is not concentric with the swinging arm pivot. I have always thought this was an engineering abortion, the chain is effectively always having to pull against the rear suspension and to lift the weight of the bike around a pivot point of the contact patch of the rear tyre. Chains are consequently much heavier than strictly necessary for forward motion and have reduced life because of this. The frame will also have to be heavier /stronger at the swinging arm pivot because of the twisting force exerted by the fact of a non concentric gearbox sprocket. It has been explained to me that rear wheel "squat" is necessary to improve steering and rider feel when accelerating out of a corner, also there is I believe something about the squat improving rear wheel grip through rearward weight transfer. Without that weight transfer the wheel would be more likely to spin and slide laterally. I am not entirely convinced by this argument, however there is at present no motorcycle manufacturer making a motorcycle with concentric gearbox sprocket/swinging arm pivots although I believe Bimota tried it in the 1980s. Completely off topic. Sorry
As much as I'd love one, I can see it causing a few crashes. Not because of the extra speed or thrust, but because if you're a bloke surely you'd have to see it working? Just imagine it now: Start finish straight at Donington, hammer down until you feel that thruster working at which point you've got to twist to look behind you to see the petals moving, but in your head you're absolutely ecstatic 'I've got a thruster, IVE GOT A BLOODY THRUSTER!! it's brilliant ' Until.....you're face down in Redgates gravel trap... 'Fucking thing '
