| Author |
Message |
    
Bomber
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 01:39 pm: | 
|
clearly, your guys call ;-} |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 03:06 pm: |
|
REMOVED MY POST.
WILL COME BACK TO THIS. NOT HAPPY WITH MY ENGINEERING ANAYLASIS.
Rocket
(Message edited by rocketman on March 20, 2007)
(Message edited by rocketman on March 20, 2007) |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 08:13 pm: |
|
I'm with Bomber. If it is absolute stiffness we are looking for when bracing this particular part of the frame, in an effort to improve handling I presume, then it surely must be clamped metal to metal. Any form of rubber gasket will surely inhibit the total available strengthening properties of a brace.
But here's a thing. What does stiffening this part of the frame actually do? If stiffening was necessary after all, how come Buell left out one tube of steel less than a foot long? Could it be to save a few bucks per frame? Well as cynical as I am I actually doubt that very much. So why is there a need for a horizontal frame brace on the left side? Perhaps the better question would be, is there a need for a horizontal frame brace on the left side?
I reckon Buell have this right from the off. Fashion predicted there was a space on the frame available to trick up the looks of our tubers by adding a fancy looking piece of billet engineering. Some of us went the way of having a tube welded into the frame, just as if it had been done by Buell from the day of manufacture. But come on, what does bracing this part of the frame actually bring to the party? Nothing but good looks if anything is my conclusion.
The front downward triangle acts as a support for the engines front tie bar. A rose jointed rubber mounted swivelling rod. Stiffening this triangle does nothing except hold the triangle more steady. But the triangle held more steady makes no difference to why the triangle is there, and what purpose it serves. Because the triangle is holding the front tie bar, which is not a solid mount item, everything gained by stiffening the front triangle by adding any sort of brace makes no difference to the rigidity of the engines stiffness in the frame, nor frame stiffness itself. The front triangle doesn't attach to anywhere where making it more stiff by adding a brace would make any difference.
My conclusion? Frame bracing is a fashion statement at best.
Just a thought.
Enjoy.
Rocket |
Tattoodnscrewd
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 09:30 pm: |
|
Rocket ...
Your point about the way the motor is mounted is a good one ...
But I ask this - why in 99 did Buell add that 1 foot of steel, has to have a purpose ... you said that Buell isn't going to leave it out just to save a few bucks per frame, well - Buell wouldn't spend a few bucks to have it added in 99+ models if it weren't needed. I do however think that some of the pieces out there are a bit on the overkill side (The Banke brace - a bit chunky, and I don't particularly like the way it mounts to the triangle, needs a true frame clamp, the Westek brace was a nice one - frame clamp on each end, and I believe just simple round stock was used, but you can't get those anymore.)
Just to add more to the 'Do you need one or not ?' discussion ... me personally - while you may not notice a change with it, I don't think it's a waste to have one - I have one on my 97 S1. I also think that regular commuting or riding around wouldn't see the benefit - but aggressive riders I think would. |
Loki
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 01:06 am: |
|
Ride one really aggressive with and without one. You will notice a difference between the two. Aggressive and heavy front braking will make you wonder about that engine dancing around.
Now for the more sedate riders on the street it probably isn't very necessary.
just my point of view though. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 08:20 am: |
|
Well Loki, if you're right then that suggests there's a lot of movement on the front tie bar, but more movement than the tie bar can handle - to keep the motor from dancing around, so that implies the front down triangle also flexes more than enough it can't also stop the motor dancing around. So a frame brace is needed.
Well I've another head scratcher. If there's so much movement the tie bar and down triangle can't handle under aggressive riding, wouldn't we see dents in the oil filter because of the motor dancing?
I'm not convinced the brace actually does anything so's we'd ever notice. That is unless there is a lot of flex in that front down triangle? Well you know what, I had never realised Buell had put that extra tube on the 99 models. Was it a marketing ploy? Perhaps Buell realised it was much needed after seeing the frame braces or tube mods that were going on previously from Buell owners? That would have me asking, how come Buell missed it themselves? Especially so given all the geodesic supreme stiffness handling rider feedback whatever crap it is we bought into from the brochures and online videos. Nah, Buell couldn't have missed iIt's a folly which we Buell owners created, that's all, and Buell later and kindly gave us our own folly.
Rocket |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 08:57 am: |
|
"If there's so much movement the tie bar and down triangle can't handle under aggressive riding, wouldn't we see dents in the oil filter because of the motor dancing?"
From what I can glean on the subject (what I've read here through the years), it was dented oil filters on racing Buells that led to the brace being added. |
Spiderman
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 09:16 am: |
|
Well I've another head scratcher. If there's so much movement the tie bar and down triangle can't handle under aggressive riding, wouldn't we see dents in the oil filter because of the motor dancing?
I've had a couple with the updated "cross braced" frame |
Loki
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:44 am: |
|
I had some of those dents in the filter appear. Prior to my adding the Banke piece.
From riding the '00 M2 then getting the '97 S1. With my riding habits. It was the first thing I really noticed and was quite the head scratcher for me. It took a couple seasons of riding the S1 without one. With it on the bike now, I won't take it off.
It is one of those items one would not really notice. Except for during those times one gets overly aggressive. |
Cereal
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:03 pm: |
|
I mentioned above that I had a dent. Granted, it was after a stoppy instead of aggressive riding. Also, the frame has to flex quite a bit before it impacts the filter.
I could be wrong, but still don't buy the argument that a thin piece of rubber will affect the brace. Not only would less than a MM of flex go completely unnoticed, I think it would grip better than metal to metal. |
Tattoodnscrewd
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 01:05 pm: |
|
I dunno ..I think if they were designed/intended to be mounted metal to metal, I'd probably leave it that way ... even with me being very anal in regards to the aesthetics of my toys ..
IMO - the rubber would not hold as well, anything with a rubber sleeve, or whatever you call it, will always allow movement - granted it may be a small amount of movement, it's still movement - and as rubber deteriorates, it won't have any grip ...
Once in place, the brace mounted metal to metal is very rigid .. the grip is as good as it can get.
But as Bomber said , it's your bike. do what you're comfortable with.
(Message edited by tattoodnscrewd on March 21, 2007) |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 05:38 pm: |
|
Watch this unsupported front "V" on a dyno and it will become evident on why Buell updated their tube frames to include the stiffener tube. I don't believe that it was a "fashion statement"...that isn't Erik's style.
jimidan |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 06:08 pm: |
|
Well the answer is staring is all in the face then. Bracing stops the oil filter getting dented.
Other than that I fail to see how bracing the frame brings better handling to the party when one looks at where the down triangle goes, and how the front tie bar supports the motor. Stiffening the down triangle can at best hold the motor a little more taught perhaps, but given the motor is rubber mounted, that tautness isn't going to add to frame strength or rigidity.
So here's a thing. When the likes of Sean Higbee et al were beta testing these S1's around Talladega back in the late 90's, how come they didn't dent any oil filters? Or did they?
In any case, if my thoughts are on the money, a rubber gasket used with a frame brace will work fine. Given rubber gaskets, I'd be mindful of the possibility the brace needs to be located so as not to be able to creep along the frame tubes over a period of time.
Rocket |
Rick_a
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Track testing/racing is what added the 4th tie-bar and frame brace. In all models after the S2 the right side of that V-brace became a bent tube that was partially gusseted. It allowed for some oscillation especially under heavy braking loads. Altogether I don't think it's that much of an issue, but I do think it makes for confusing feedback from the motorcycle. |
|
