|
Lol that just means there's even less excuse for anyone not doing it when it's so clearly doable. I know "maintenance free" is a lie but when that's half the draw of an electric engine why wouldn't you pair it with a shaft?
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
The Livewire and all Zeros use a belt final drive that needs even less maintenance than a shaft drive and is several pounds lighter. Why go backwards?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Lol that just means there's even less excuse for anyone not doing it when it's so clearly doable. I know "maintenance free" is a lie but when that's half the draw of an electric engine why wouldn't you pair it with a shaft? Wouldn't torque steer be a pretty big problem with a shaft beefy enough to put up with the output of one of these motors?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
How could torque steering possibly be a thing in any single track vehicle
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
LodeRunner posted:The pouch cells are sort of like pop tart size and shape. What do you think is a better layout in terms of maximizing density? I don't care about maximized density, i care about minimised ugliness  Renaissance Robot posted:How could torque steering possibly be a thing in any single track vehicle Not really the same thing as in a car as I understand it, the whole bike tries to corkscrew around the shaft axis in the direction opposite to drive torque. This does funny things to the wheel tracks, but it doesn't matter anyway because BMW solved the problem some time ago with simple linkages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
How do you feel about the concept Curtiss bikes? They offer neither style nor function
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I don't care about maximized density, i care about minimised ugliness Just after I posted it I realised I meant torque reaction, not steering, although of course because it leans the bike it can affect the steering. The BMW thing stops the suspension from climbing under power (and dropping in engine braking), which isn't what I'm talking about - torque reaction is where accelerating the drive shaft causes the bike to lean in the opposite direction (and vice versa on decel). The only real way of stopping torque reaction is to have an equivalent mass rotating in the opposite direction - with bikes with an inline crankshaft you can do this (although it won't be perfectly balanced because of the offset), but I doubt an electric motor has enough rotating mass to make this viable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
You can demonstrate said effect when you turn an angle grinder on/off while turning your 80's GL1100 into a sweet café racer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Just after I posted it I realised I meant torque reaction, not steering, although of course because it leans the bike it can affect the steering. An electric motor doesn't have enough mass to make it a problem to begin with. Try a Zero and you'll know what I mean. Magic carpet power from nowhere, no side effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Ola posted:An electric motor doesn't have enough mass to make it a problem to begin with. Try a Zero and you'll know what I mean. Magic carpet power from nowhere, no side effects. We're talking about the drive shaft here, which definitely does have enough mass to make it a problem, and like you point out the electric motor doesn't have enough mass to counteract it, which is presumably why all the electric bikes have gone with chain or belt drive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 10:00
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:The only real way of stopping torque reaction is to have an equivalent mass rotating in the opposite direction - with bikes with an inline crankshaft you can do this (although it won't be perfectly balanced because of the offset), but I doubt an electric motor has enough rotating mass to make this viable. What about transverse crankshaft bikes with a shaft drive? Second question, do you actually need to stop this happening or is it one of those things like shaft jacking and brake dive where it's not actually a problem at all but bikers will pitch a fit if even the slightest thing about the riding experience changes compared to what they're used to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 10:29
|
|
|
The torque reaction is not strong enough to yield any negative driving behavior. With a bmw boxer you only notice it when you Rev the engine in idle and its more of a "Kardan-quirk" than a nuisance. To some it adds to the chamre. The rising and lowering of the chassis with an unsupported shaft drive actually is a safety issue because you can run a risk of grounding the chassis mid corner if you suddenly close the throttle, but that hasn't been a thing in 20 years or so since BMW went the ingenious way of... A soulless rod that braces the shaft drive against that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 11:18
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:What about transverse crankshaft bikes with a shaft drive? I don't think anyone but BMW have actually made a transverse bike with a shaft since the 80s (Kawasaki GT is the latest one that comes immediately to mind), and given BMW's love for doing things nobody else does for no good reason I think we can safely ignore them (anybody mentioning desmo valves is going to feel the back of my official Ducati flipflops). As has been pointed out, belts are as reliable as shafts, cheaper, lighter, and don't require any extra loving about, so I'm not sure why you're so insistent on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 11:24
|
|
|
No particular reason I guess. It's more of a "why not?" than anything. And a particular thing being heavier, more complicated, and more expensive has never stopped anyone putting it on a bike before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 11:54
|
|
|
Friend of mine went to BMW Motorrad for his bachelor and we talked extensively about the Kardan (shaft) drive. It basically came down to the belt drive being a kinda foul compromise between the rather extreme chain drive (which they use on the S1000RR and derivatives) and the Kardan on the other end. The engineering samples with belt drives would live about twice as long as chain drives but had slightly lower overall efficiency. More importantly the rear package becomes disastrously big when going for a belt drive because of the big rear pulley and increased width compared to a chain. The shaft housing for BMW also forms the rear swingarm which would have to be replaced by a conventional double sided swingarm which further increases the rear package difficulties with a wide belt. Also just like chains belts have a 33/33/33 chance of loving up your engine, your health or just your ride depending on if they roll up around the front or rear pulley or lay flat on the road in case of a failure. That's in essence why as he said they stick with the Kardan shaft drive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 12:05
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:We're talking about the drive shaft here, which definitely does have enough mass to make it a problem, and like you point out the electric motor doesn't have enough mass to counteract it, which is presumably why all the electric bikes have gone with chain or belt drive. But part of the drive shaft config is the motor orientation.. Even though you're pouring on the torque by the spadeful, there is no adverse twist or settle. Try it, you will agree with me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Ola posted:But part of the drive shaft config is the motor orientation.. Even though you're pouring on the torque by the spadeful, there is no adverse twist or settle. Try it, you will agree with me. ...electric bikes don't have a drive shaft. That's what this whole conversation is about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:...electric bikes don't have a drive shaft. That's what this whole conversation is about. But you asserted that goddamnedtwisto posted:
A crankshaft is obviously not part of the drive shaft. So perhaps each of your posts are bullshit individually, instead of simply being bullshit collectively?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Torque reaction is not a drive shaft thing, it's a motor inertia and orientation thing. Guzzis and BMWs and CX500s all do it while stopped in neutral. Shaft jacking (rear end rising under acceleration) is actually a thing with chains/belts too, so I was told at MMI. Something to do with the axis of the countershaft and axle in relation to the swingarm pivot. The modern Guzzis/BMWs use a linkage to change the effective "pivot point" of the swingarm to be like 5 feet forward of the actual pivot point, which lessens the effect. I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Ola posted:But you asserted that Am I having a stroke here or something? The conversation went "Why don't electric bikes have shaft drive instead of belts or chains?" and I pointed out that the torque reaction of the drive shaft might be an issue, and that some bikes get round that by having a reverser gear so the engine rotates in the opposite direction to the driveshaft, meaning that the two forces more-or-less cancel out. You then pile in to tell me that electric engines don't have enough mass to have a torque reaction WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I loving SAID. Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Torque reaction is not a drive shaft thing, it's a motor inertia and orientation thing. Guzzis and BMWs and CX500s all do it while stopped in neutral. Shaft jacking (rear end rising under acceleration) is actually a thing with chains/belts too, so I was told at MMI. Something to do with the axis of the countershaft and axle in relation to the swingarm pivot. The modern Guzzis/BMWs use a linkage to change the effective "pivot point" of the swingarm to be like 5 feet forward of the actual pivot point, which lessens the effect. I think. Maybe this is where we're getting confused, because torque reaction isn't something intrinsic to the engine or the driveshaft, it's what happens whenever a rotating mass is accelerated or decelerated - it's just Newton's Third Law in action, a force is generated in the opposite direction. For most forces on most bikes it's not really noticeable because it's either in a direction the bike is stable in (fore-and-aft for transverse cranks and gearboxes, for example) or swamped by other forces, which maybe why people think it's something that only happens with inline crank engines. A driveshaft is a fairly chunky bit of metal which is rotating perpendicular to the bike and being accelerated and decelerated so *will* have a torque reaction - maybe not a massively noticeable one but it will definitely be there, which is why Guzzi and BMW go to the effort of trying to counteract it. (While we're at it, it's loving stupid that bikes have their terminology exactly wrong when it comes to inline and transverse engines, but it's way too late to do anything about it)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:The conversation went "Why don't electric bikes have shaft drive instead of belts or chains?" I mean the actual answer to this is definitely that chains have a ton of third party support and you can pretty much assemble a complete final drive system out of a parts bin, whereas driveshafts afaik have always been designed and built in-house. BMW's electric may well be a shafty because they've already got a bunch of them, nobody else can be arsed to put in the engineering man hours on a relatively unpopular drive system just for the sake of taking a few items off the periodic maintenance list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
The jacking motion makes obvious sense to anyone who rides a full suspension bicycle, they can feel their torque being spent on compressing the rear suspension as they pedal. It's unavoidable, but as you say you can reduce it with geometry. On a motorcycle it doesn't matter much because you're being tipped backwards by acceleration at the same as the jacking motions wants to tip you forwards. The less you accelerate, the less effect there is. It has zero, zilch, nada to do with your engine, only how the rear wheel is being spun. All other forces are obviously balanced by Newton, otherwise the engine would obviously leave the frame. It's pretty obvious on any bike by holding down the rear brake while you feather the clutch. And since it's an effect on all bikes, all cars too even, it's not a problem on any bike. Shaft jacking is the same effect, but a more pronounced one, typically on 80s bikes before the complaints ended up in geometry changes. The Beamer twist is wanting to rotate sideways, typically you sense it while revving a boxer at a red light but otherwise it doesn't really matter. That is caused by the sideways rotation of the crankshaft (and the sum of everything downstream of it I guess). It too will want to scissor the rear suspension if you do the brake/clutch thing, because no matter how many twists and turns it does, the surplus torque ends up at the rear wheel doing rear wheel motions. goddamnedtwisto posted:Am I having a stroke here or something? I'm not saying you've had a stroke, but consulting medical attention is probably advisable. Your posting is like a fail fractal, it has different shapes of fail depending on how far you zoom in. Example: goddamnedtwisto posted:We're talking about the drive shaft here, which definitely does have enough mass to make it a problem, and like you point out the electric motor doesn't have enough mass to counteract it, which is presumably why all the electric bikes have gone with chain or belt drive. This is just random confused babble. It has no basis in reality. Most bikes have their crankshafts 90 degrees to the drive train, so which final drive you select hasn't got any effect on any hypothetical reaction anyway. Torque reaction from the rear wheel being driven is not a particularly electric thing, the reason why electrics haven't got them is "nobody has given them it yet". It requires more engineering so perhaps they've spent the investor money on battery tech instead of needless shafts. The reason Zero went with a belt is obvious once you try an electric with a chain, chains are crazy loud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Ola posted:The jacking motion makes obvious sense to anyone who rides a full suspension bicycle, they can feel their torque being spent on compressing the rear suspension as they pedal. It's unavoidable, but as you say you can reduce it with geometry. On a motorcycle it doesn't matter much because you're being tipped backwards by acceleration at the same as the jacking motions wants to tip you forwards. The less you accelerate, the less effect there is. It has zero, zilch, nada to do with your engine, only how the rear wheel is being spun. All other forces are obviously balanced by Newton, otherwise the engine would obviously leave the frame. It's pretty obvious on any bike by holding down the rear brake while you feather the clutch. And since it's an effect on all bikes, all cars too even, it's not a problem on any bike. And you accuse me of babble? loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:And you accuse me of babble? loving hell. For what it's worth, I found your posts cohesive individually and as an aggregate. Don't mind the one naysayer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Steakandchips posted:For what it's worth, I found your posts cohesive individually and as an aggregate. Don't mind the one naysayer. and a secondary bystander i found this entire argument pointless and full of drivel zero SR-Fs look cool but they cost way too much right now
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
So is there a reason for the LiveWire’s motor orientation (like to fit a longer motor?). One of the best parts of the Zero is the minimalism of not having any oil / coolant / transmission fluid on the bike, and adding a 90deg mitre gear or whatever means you’ve added gear oil and a few % energy loss for what? Is it just to add gear noise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
No one knows for sure but the popular theory is that H-D traditionally likes to show off the motor as much as they can, so when Mission designed the bike for them this is what they requested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Rev. Dr. Moses P. Lester posted:Torque reaction is not a drive shaft thing, it's a motor inertia and orientation thing. Guzzis and BMWs and CX500s all do it while stopped in neutral. Shaft jacking (rear end rising under acceleration) is actually a thing with chains/belts too, so I was told at MMI. Something to do with the axis of the countershaft and axle in relation to the swingarm pivot. The modern Guzzis/BMWs use a linkage to change the effective "pivot point" of the swingarm to be like 5 feet forward of the actual pivot point, which lessens the effect. I think. The rear rising under acceleration is desirable and good in the right amounts because it acts as anti-squat and anti-wheelie. Some bikes let you tune the effect by making the swingarm pivot point height adjustable in relation to the chain sprocket, being able to do this is one of the big advantages to chain/belt drives over a shaft's fixed geometry. I mean that effect technically happens with every bike but some designs make it easier to harness in the rider's favor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
anti wheelie sounds not-desireable
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Razzled posted:anti wheelie sounds not-desireable Not at all, it lets us control even bigger and huger wheelies on bikes with bigger and huger engines than would otherwise be possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Ulf posted:So is there a reason for the LiveWire’s motor orientation (like to fit a longer motor?). One of the best parts of the Zero is the minimalism of not having any oil / coolant / transmission fluid on the bike, and adding a 90deg mitre gear or whatever means you’ve added gear oil and a few % energy loss for what? Could it be to also add a reduction gear? I know the Zero has a trick motor design that doesn't need one but it wouldn't surprise me if Harley were still using older tech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
I ride a shaft drive bike and aside from feeling the torque reaction want to lean the bike when revving at a stop, I notice it when riding hands off with cruise control. It will slowly lean the bike to the right. When I have hands on handlebars it is not noticeable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
This is hearsay but I feel like I remember hearing that Harley specifically engineered it to be louder on purpose, something about straight cut gears or something
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah they definitely play that up. It sounds like a Kirby vacuum to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:This is hearsay but I feel like I remember hearing that Harley specifically engineered it to be louder on purpose, something about straight cut gears or something They definitely did, and they also rigged it so it pulsates when it's on and at a stop. Which I think is brilliant because 'is it on?' will be a frequently asked question in the electric future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
That is so loving smart, and appealing to their base it hurts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/motorcycles/future-vehicles.html Did you guys see the other future models by HD? The adventure harley looks like a chonky boi. Never would have imagined harley making an adventure bike or a street fighter
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
The adventure one looks like it uses the same headlight as the LiveWire and it doesn't fit at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
Patrocclesiastes posted:https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/motorcycles/future-vehicles.html they announced the HD streetfighter and then indian immediately cock punched them with the FTR1200. made it to market way faster too
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Enfield update: nothing yet, but I decided if they tell me it's stable and all fixed, I think I'm going to ride all the way from the VT border to Rochester on route 5 to finish the break-in. Conveniently that route goes by the dealership, so when I break down 1/4 of the way there it's a simple tow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2019 19:07
|
|
