| Author | Message | ||
     Joojoo |
Im sure that most of you know this, but Yamaha/Ohlins has come out with a great new AWD system that they have found works VERY well in their offroad bikes, and have track tested the race bikes with great results in wet weather too. I cant help but wonder if Buell has been looking at this new technology for the upcoming models. It seems like a Buell thing to do IMHO, since its really quite revolutionary for bikes. I think I like the idea, of a bike that can sense slip on the front rear and transfer pull when needed for wet weather handling. I've been reading more and more about the AWD bikes, and I thought Id mention it here, since we all seem to love dreaming about the company's future offerings..... Jack | ||
| M1combat |
You know, I would think that it may cross their minds for the next tourer, but the added unsprung weight would be a detriment to the road-holding and handling of a bike. I would imagine they'll stay away from it on the performance type models. | ||
| Coolice |
I think Yamaha has a AWD in the Dakar Rally now. And I read on the web somewhere that a road version is being tested on a R1. They said it pulls you thru the corners. Moto-station.com a French site has a story on it. Under Yamaha 2 Trac. Check it out! | ||
| Boulderbiker |
here's another good article on it. http://www.gizmo.com.au/public/News/news.asp?articleid=2351 Honestly, seems like a no brainer to move in this direction. Of course the wonderful ZTL would have to go since torque would be getting transmitted through the front wheel spokes again, but nonetheless I'd take it over just rear and being a hydraulic system its definitely still simple and low weight and fuss. I've often brainstormed about building a rally car with hydraulic drive, kinda funny to see someone take that same line. | ||
| Henrik |
That Yamaha is doing pretty well in the Dakar Rally. It won two stages with particularly soft/gnarly tracks, where the front wheel drive really helped pulling the bike through. Henrik | ||
| Peter |
Finished 7th overall (bikes) and with a rider that hasn't done the Dakar before. I'm betting the KTM chiefs are beginning to sweat...... | ||
| Noface |
Burnouts would be kinda of challenging eh?  | ||
| S320002 |
"Of course the wonderful ZTL would have to go since torque would be getting transmitted through the front wheel spokes again..." Not true, the ZTL brake could remain. You are right however about the need to beef up the spokes. | ||
| Stot |
It says 15% of power is transfered to the front so the current wheels could probably handle that OK. Its not going to be near the power of hard braking I wouldnt have thought. Cya Stot | ||
| Evaddave |
Why not use the rotor as the drive gear, too? Put teeth on the inside of it, and then there's no need to beef up the spokes. | ||
| M1combat |
That's what I was thinkin' Evaddave... Wouldn't add too much rotating mass. It would add unsprung weight though. Granted, an XB could gain some and still be lighter than the competition. | ||
| Fed |
wouldn't it be called B.W.D. | ||
| Boulderbiker |
ZTL stands for zero torsional load, so yes that would go, it would just be a rim brake | ||
| Kaudette |
That is one amazing set-up. My thought on the XB however is that you would have to change the geometry of the chassis to make it a bit less aggressive as powering the front wheel with such a steep head angle would probably add to instability and dramatically change the fork dampening / control. In any case, a wonderful development (btw Ohlins is owned by Yamaha so I imagine a patent on the design and a lot of catch up work to do by the other manufacturers.) Maybe this is why Rossi signed with Yamaha??? | ||
| Coolice |
Does anyone know if the rules will allow awd in Moto-GP? | ||
| Peter |
I think that thought has crossed a few minds since Rossi went to Yamaha. | ||
| S320002 |
ZTL stands for zero torsional load, so yes that would go, it would just be a rim brake ZTL refers to the fact that the XB brake directs no torsional load to the wheel hub and spokes, unlike conventional brake setups. Unless the front wheel were to continue to be driven when the front brake is applied the brake would still add Zero Torsional Load. That being said, adding the weight of a hub drive system would increase the inertial momentum of the wheel /hub system which translates to some torsional load, even on the current system. So maybe it should be called a Near Zero Torsional Load setup. | ||
| Boulderbiker |
I must not be too good at expressing what runs through my mind prior to typing as I'm having to explain my train of thought again... Yeah so most of what was beneficial about going to the ZTL setup is that you can lighten the spoke structure a ton since as the acronym says, no torque is being transfered through the spokes, BUT if the bike was AWD then force would transfer through those spokes once more and the wheel would have to be beefed up once again. Although there is one benefit that stands out still at this point. As mentioned in some of the articles on this 2-TRAC system, it would be much easier to adapt to a wheel that doesnt' have rotors on both sides of the wheel and also I'd imagine it would be easier to ingrate also since most wheels have so much going on near the center to accomdate the rotor mounts for both sides of the wheel whereas in the case of an XB front wheel its already painfully simple in that region. We all know how much Erik loves clean simple engineering. | ||
| S320002 |
"BUT if the bike was AWD then force would transfer through those spokes once more and the wheel would have to be beefed up once again." Unless of course a rim drive was used. | ||
| M1combat |
That would be cool... ZTLDrive on one side, ZTLBrake on the other. Maybe both on both sides but that would be more spendy and I don't think you need much torque at the front. | ||
| Stot |
The problem with rim drive is you would have to put 10x plus more mechanical movement into turning the rim than the hub. At the hub 1 turn can be as little as 3-5" at the rim its more like 45-50" Cya Stot | ||
| Hootowl |
I was wondering when that little tidbit would come up. | ||
| S320002 |
The problem with rim drive is you would have to put 10x plus more mechanical movement into turning the rim than the hub..." True, but it would take 10x less driving power. CU2 |
