Ok, I'll come straight out with it: Hello everyone, my name is Nasher, and I really don't like single sided swingarms. There, I've said it, I've admitted it, I feel better for it, and don't expect there is a help group for it. I just don't like the look of them, never have, and don't expect I'll ever need to change a rear wheel in a pit-stop type situation. It's not because I'm an engineer and don't like the mechanics of it, they work, very well. It's also not because I like symmetry, exactly the opposite really, I love the look of the instrument cluster on my M900 and appreciate Asymmetry normally. I just don't like them aesthetically. Am I the only one that needs help in this respect? Nasher.
I think they look good, or more that they really show off a nice wheel. I am also not an engineer (well, not an engineer of anything you can kick) but I do find it amazing that the axle can handle the forces involved - not as extreme as a helicopter rotor mast thingy, but still amazing.
There are merits for them, but overall I will always prefer conventional, "double-sided" swingarms on a motorcycle. There, that's 2 of us - only need one more.
I always liked the Dresda box section swingarms back in the 70s, and the Metmachex Streetfighter type braced swingarms in the 90s. But to be really different, the suspension on Mead & Tomkinson’s Nessie takes some beating!
I agree, can't imagine a 749/999 with a SSA, and I like the 899 with a two-sider too... but on a 916/748/996/998 they look right as they do on an RC-30/45 and an R1200GS... I've a foot in either camp. Didn't let the lack of one put me off the 899.
've had (and destroyed) two S4r Monsters. I really liked the single-sided swinging arm. Makes removing the rear wheel (one nut) and chain adjustment a breeze.
I never used to like the single sided swingarm ever since the release of the 916 i just didn't get it apart from endurance racing which if i believe was Ducati's intention(read it somewhere i'm sure i will be put right) but now owning the 996 i do like it but i am a fan of the traditional double sided one's and some are really a beautiful piece of work(Aprilia done some beauts) but i am going to stay neutral on this one(not really, i like double sided but single for easy wheel access). The same question could be asked about girdraulic forks or Hub-centre steering?(could be another thread @Nasher)
Nessie was a Kawasaki - don't think the Laverda was ever known as Nessie back in the day - only much later when being sold a bit like a Nero debate for the 70's
As a thing to look at it is quite alien but in time if it was adopted by manufacturers you obviously would get used to it, there was a team running it on a prototype bike at 24 hour le mans back in August, i can't remember were they came in the race but it looked pretty cool. Apparently racers that have used it say it is more stable than conventional forks. https://newatlas.com/motoinno-ts3-motorcycle-suspension-steering-moto2/42378/ Interesting piece, well worth a read.
Wiki think it was, but the reference they give is to the Bonhams sale? ‘Mead & Tomkinson then came to fame in the mid-1970s with their specially designed endurance racer, nicknamed 'Nessie',[11] (after the Loch Ness Monster because the bike was not a thing of beauty). The engines were conventional roadster engines, tuned for racing power. First they used a 1,000 cc Laverda Jota triple, and later a 1,000 cc Kawasaki four. Feeling that racing bike design was too conservative, the Tomkinsons gave Nessie a number of innovations: Whereas motorcycles conventionally have the (light) exhaust pipes below the engine and the (heavy) fuel tank above, Nessie reversed this order to lower the centre of gravity. An inverted triangle in cross-section, the fuel tank was underslung beneath the engine. Whilst most bikes have telescopic forks, Nessie used an adapted version of Difazio hub-center steering,[12] whereby braking forces were directed to the frame via a pivoted fork (rather than through the steering head). This allowed neutral steering and an absence of brake dive. The rear suspension was a parallelogram arrangement, to provide stiffness without weight. This device was not entirely successful, possibly because of having so many rose-joint linkages, and the team reverted to a conventional swingarm. The rear suspension pivot (like the Hesketh V1000) was co-axial with the drive sprocket to maintain constant chain tension. This feature meant that (i) a smaller drive chain could be used and (ii) the chain was less stressed and therefore less likely to break. Nessie had its ignition circuitry in a removable, quickly-detachable 'cassette', so that if it proved faulty, it could be unplugged and replaced with ease. Thirty-five years later, some of these special features have been adopted by mainstream road and racing bikes, such as the ELF,[13][14] but Nessie remains unique in having them all on a single machine.‘ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead_&_Tomkinson_racing
Indeed, that's the first mention of the Laverda being called Nessie that I have seen - I remember the Kawasaki as Nessie with the underslung fuel tank and not the Laverda but it was a long time ago
I have a Fischer Water Heater. Like a single-sided swinging arm and hub centre steering. it is all the work of the devil. Physics, Engineering, and science are all irrelevant!!! Oh and conventional telescopic forks and and any sort of swinging arm for that matter... and don't get me started on the devil's juice - petrol... The bicycle is ok - as long as it doesn't have gears.
