Whooshka
Fairly faST old guy
Looks like a different take on BMW's Telelever suspension.
Honda's new front suspension idea. No more conventional fork?
- Thread starter Obo
- Start date
Kevin_56
Site Supporter
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 2,532
- Age
- 68
- Location
- Montfort, Wisconsin
- Bike
- 20 R1250RT
- 2024 Miles
- 012875
Having chased a few K1600's in the twisties, it seems they lack no handling problems with the wishbone front suspension. I also had major trouble shaking a new GL1800 out west in some pretty good set of twisties. I am no track racer, but have a lot of respect for those bikes handling.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,416
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2024 Miles
- 024665
BMWs Doulever which is based on the earlier Hossack fork design. The Paralever has one wishbone and the Duolever has two. The Honda uses two as well.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 8,416
- Location
- Jacksonville
- Bike
- GL1800 R1200RT NC700
- 2024 Miles
- 024665
These forks separate steering forces from braking forces and allow engineers to precisely tune the fork to feed an allocated amount of braking forces directly into the frame instead of all onto the front wheel. This keeps the fork from being under 100% of the braking forces. A certain amount of dive is desirable because it shortens trail and allows the bike to turn easier under braking but 100% is considered too much by users of them because it can cause a bike that is braked while leaned to stand up and open the turn.
The major disadvantage of multi-link forks is that the braking forces fed into the frame reduce the amount of feedback from the contact patch to the rider. I found it was something to get used to and not a deal breaker though my ST1300’s front contact patch spoke cleanly and clearly.
Last edited:
Whooshka
Fairly faST old guy
You nailed it right there. I've had some sport bikes and just tapping the brakes or even trying to trail brake mid corner would stand it up and make it run straight. Believe it or not that was the first thing I noticed on the ST. That using a bit of rear brake mid corner just scrubbed off speed and the bike held it's line. I'm sure the linked brakes have something to do with that too. The tire has less forces transferred to braking leaving a bit more for lateral leaning.
OP
OP
If you have a normal telescopic front fork, the wheel moves diagonally backwards. On a double-wishbone, the wheel strokes upwards. Cornering and leaning is basically the same. I believe the way it's setup is the "front fork holder" is effectively the part of the frame on a normal bike that would hold the steering stem. There is no triple tree on this design (as there are no forks.) This whole holder moves up and down unlike a normal MC that doesn't move because the forks do.
ST1100Y
Site Supporter
MHO:
- not a really new technology
- increased unsprung weight
- lots of moving parts requiring NASA-grade maintenance procedures
- lots of highly expensive parts in need of replacement in case of an incident
...already "minor damages" will quickly result in a financial write-off/totaled bike...
I mean kudos to the ingenuity, concept, tooling and performance...
But replacing seals, bushings, head bearings or even a bend fork tube on a conventional setup will not force one taking a second mortgage, nor require a laser guided alignment rig for adjustments...
Conventional forks might not be the most ideal setup, but their the best compromise, their simple, and cost effective...
- not a really new technology
- increased unsprung weight
- lots of moving parts requiring NASA-grade maintenance procedures
- lots of highly expensive parts in need of replacement in case of an incident
...already "minor damages" will quickly result in a financial write-off/totaled bike...
I mean kudos to the ingenuity, concept, tooling and performance...
But replacing seals, bushings, head bearings or even a bend fork tube on a conventional setup will not force one taking a second mortgage, nor require a laser guided alignment rig for adjustments...
Conventional forks might not be the most ideal setup, but their the best compromise, their simple, and cost effective...
The same thing was said about power steering on cars when it wss introduced, it's unnecessary. I have the issue of Popular Mechanics where the general population complained about it.
So does a drive shaft introduce more maintenance then a belt? Many more pivot points.
130k on my drive shaft, only maintenance is changing oil every 14k miles. I van live with that.
If I could ride on a nice smooth track, no potholes or pavement undulations I might agree that their suspension is what I want. Let me know when race bikes start using courses maintained by the Illinois department of transportation and the riders have to deal with drivers distracted by cellphones.
I'm sure they use roller bearings in the pivot points.
ST1100Y
Site Supporter
Right, and for the sole purpose of "cost cutting" and "adding fancy features that look good on glossy folders" we now have electric power steering with absolutely zero feedback, astronomically expensive to replace and buried so deep inside the vehicle, that you've to remove engine, tranny and the entire front suspension for access...
Same for the replacing crappy stop'n'go starters which are nowadays installed inside the gearbox casing...
Not everything that's new and fancy is actually good too in the end...
More complicated, more moving parts, heavy, fantastically more expensive, less reliable than forks.
Great marketing.
Sorry....just the old R&M engineering residue I can't seem to forget.
Great marketing.
Sorry....just the old R&M engineering residue I can't seem to forget.
Shawn K
Professional Cat Confuser
I'm with you - a solution to a question that no one was asking.
Last edited:
OP
OP
MHO:
- not a really new technology
- increased unsprung weight
- lots of moving parts requiring NASA-grade maintenance procedures
- lots of highly expensive parts in need of replacement in case of an incident
...already "minor damages" will quickly result in a financial write-off/totaled bike...
I mean kudos to the ingenuity, concept, tooling and performance...
But replacing seals, bushings, head bearings or even a bend fork tube on a conventional setup will not force one taking a second mortgage, nor require a laser guided alignment rig for adjustments...
Conventional forks might not be the most ideal setup, but their the best compromise, their simple, and cost effective...
The other advantage to this setup is as the wheel moves up and down, and not backwards, everything else can be pushed forward changing the center of gravity forward or even downward. (as you move engine and bits forward you could lower the seating position)
OP
OP
More complicated, yup. More parts, that depends on how granular you want to be counting fork internals, seals, etc. (and I'm too lazy to count.)
Heavier, yes. Fantastically more expensive, no. Less reliable, I don't know as this hasn't been around as long to gauge that.
Does it provide advantages over a regular fork, certainly.
Great marketing, no. Marketing is snake oil
I always ponder about certain common type tech that's patented by one company as it prevents others from using the same without paying fees. Then those other have to rethink some type of clone that's just enough different so they can patent it. Yes I get the whole patent thing, and why it's a good thing. Sometimes having everyone work together on a similar product (even by trying different methods) means everyone is striving to make it better and ultimately gets us all ahead quicker.
Look at how much engineering has gone into and still goes into regular forks to make them better than they are. In this case throwing more solutions into something to try and make it better than it's limitations isn't always the best engineering practice when it will never do what something new & different could.
If we never looked at other things to see if they'd get better with radical changes we'd still have forks that had no suspension (think regular old bicycle with no moving parts) as well as double sided rear swingarms, drum brakes & carburetors. Sometimes you need to rethink an idea, alter it quite a bit, and you'll get a better product in the end. Will all ideas be better, no not at all, but some will. Will some of these new better ideas be practical or cost effective, no again. But for those new ideas that are better, practical, and worth the costs, there will always be those who disagree or oppose them, regardless if they are right about it or not. It's this skeptism that balances wild creativity and between the two hopefully makes thinks better over time. And better is the overall goal.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,003
- Age
- 71
- Location
- Ada ( Grand Rapids ) Michigan
- Bike
- '07 ST 1300 & '91 GW
Does it handle like the old Earles Fork ? : This is a pic of a R 69 - I had a '63 R 60/2 , I restored in the mid '80s
Last edited:
Damn. I was going to mention electric starter power windows power door locks automatic transmission... "Progress" is always a compromise between vision and "the good ol' days".
Only when it's not true. A little spin / hyperbole / hype... That's to be expected. That's not the same as Mr. Haney's spiel though abused it could be.
...be rolling stone wheels down dirt paths with a stick. There'd be no progress if we listened to the "If I don't like it - it can't be good" crowd.Obo said:
Last edited:
Electronic ignition, power brakes, electric fuel pumps, ABS brakes, fuel injection, LED lighting, 3 point seat belts with auto retractor, serpentine belts on engines
Sure they had some initial issues, even I passed by on a few of the technologies sayng it's just one more thing to go wrong and I'd have to fix.
Not missing pumping the gas pedal to start the car. Plus the fun weekend maintenance of setting points, replacing bugs in distributors, replacing water pumps every 40k miles or timing chain every 100k, mechanical fuel pumps? Please, no!!
The cars and the maintenance of the 60's and 70s can just stay there. Pretty to look at, that is all. IMO!
Last edited:
Reinventing the wheel?