Featherbed frame design went against all engineering princip

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Isolastic gap is almost an oxymornon even in WSC d/t the tipping motion through the cushions, so more often an acute angle with uneven wear surfaces that can be fudged loose or tight for compromising comfort vs handling mood if not getting police pay or racer ego to about eliminate the gap. Educational to fudge both ends differently.

For racing, it is possible to tighten the Isolastics so there is effectively no measurable clearance. Do this by adjusting back from a tight setting until the thrust washers can be rotated by pushing them with the end of a screwdriver
http://www.norton.norvil.net/tech02.htm
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

looks like at this point norton went against reality

wakeup said:
Since we are now talking about Commandos and 750/4s.
Norton Villiers had the first 750/4 in the UK, possibly in Europe. They got one of the agents in the US to buy it and ship it to the UK. Obviously the idea was to do a comparison, based on the question "what are we up against?"
The end result was that in the opinion of the (very experienced Development Dept riders, and the Design team) the Commando was faster, handled and steered better, was more economical, accelerated better and was smoother once on the move. Almost the ONLY area that the Honda was considered to be better was braking in the dry, not in the wet, the Honda had a disc brake the Norton a TLS drum.
As a result the design of a front disc for the Norton was given a high priority.
The other area was reliability and the need for routine maintenance, which were not considered as important as the "wassit like mister" questions.
cheers
wakeup
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

hobot said:
Isolastic gap is almost an oxymornon even in WSC d/t the tipping motion through the cushions, so more often an acute angle with uneven wear surfaces that can be fudged loose or tight for compromising comfort vs handling mood if not getting police pay or racer ego to about eliminate the gap. Educational to fudge both ends differently.

For racing, it is possible to tighten the Isolastics so there is effectively no measurable clearance. Do this by adjusting back from a tight setting until the thrust washers can be rotated by pushing them with the end of a screwdriver
http://www.norton.norvil.net/tech02.htm

Hobot,

You should be able to have zero gap on road bikes too - but the iso thrust faces would have to be absolutely parallel to prevent transmission of vibration. That Les Emery suggests an iso gap of up to 0.020" may be required says alot about Norvil quality,

Jose.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Jose Refit said:
You're also in the terrible position of not knowing what you're talking about,

Jose.

Thanks- I'm here to learn.

Tell me what I said wrong and put me right, please.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

84ok said:
looks like at this point norton went against reality

wakeup said:
Since we are now talking about Commandos and 750/4s.
Norton Villiers had the first 750/4 in the UK, possibly in Europe. They got one of the agents in the US to buy it and ship it to the UK. Obviously the idea was to do a comparison, based on the question "what are we up against?"
The end result was that in the opinion of the (very experienced Development Dept riders, and the Design team) the Commando was faster, handled and steered better, was more economical, accelerated better and was smoother once on the move. Almost the ONLY area that the Honda was considered to be better was braking in the dry, not in the wet, the Honda had a disc brake the Norton a TLS drum.
As a result the design of a front disc for the Norton was given a high priority.
The other area was reliability and the need for routine maintenance, which were not considered as important as the "wassit like mister" questions.
cheers
wakeup

Having owned the Honda back then and the Commando now, I would agree with most of Norton's evaluation of the 750 /4. Though I thought my 750/4was quick back then, I knew that Commandos were faster and had this proven to me on a couple of occasions. The superior Norton handling, torque output and absence of vibration were items I wasn't aware of until later when I actually owned a Commando.

Glen
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

84ok said:
Jose Refit said:
Whilst I'm chipping in, the comment allegedly made by Dr Bauer and posted on Wikipedia has no point of reference. I'm not saying he didn't make the comment just don't assume everything on the net or in a book is factually correct.
it is however often repeated
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Featherb ... principles

Lots of things are often repeated e.g NOC Commando Service notes state; "...don't use just any roller bearing these ones (NJ306E) are barreled..." That's been repeated for approx. 40 years. They're not barreled, if they were it would be impossible to assemble the bottom end.
e.g Isolastics cause handling problems, they didn't on the monocoque and they don't on my bike.
I was just pointing out I've never seen any actual quotes in print made by Dr Bauer,

Jose.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

http://www.google.com/patents/US3508765

April 28, 1970 s. G. BAUER Erm.

MOTORCYCLE FRAME 3 Sheets-Sheet 1 Filed June 4, 1968 S e n u e V M S-recpm Geoae 15eme@ @eizmb Howe@ April 28, 1970 s, G, BAQER EI'AL 3,508,765

MOTORCYCLE FRAME Filed June 4. 1968 5 Sheets-Sheet 2 luueM-FOQSI ST6@ m Geo @se @Mea 56mm A0099@ @o BenQ-V Ul cm (e T@G Q Eq uw? www April 28, 1970 5, G, BAUER E'TAL 3,508,765

MOTORCYCLE FRAME Filed June 4. 1968 3 Sheets-Shee'l'. 3

United States Patent O 3,508,765 MOTORCYCLE FRAME Stefan George Bauer` Hilton, Bernard Hooper, Stourbridge, and Robert Victor Trigg, Birmingham, England, assignors to Norton Villiers Limited, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire County, England, a British company Filed June 4, 1968, Ser. No. 734,312 Claims priority, application Great Britain, June 7, 1967, 26,254/ 67 Int. Cl. B62k 1]/02 U.S. 'Cl. 280-281 10 Claims ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE The disclosure describes motorcycle frames each of which has a straight tubular backbone which is triangulated with two pairs of straight tubes, one tube of each pair being on each side of the backbone and the tubes being connected to attachment means at the rear end, and intermediate the ends, of the backbone.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the invention The invention relates to motorcycle frames. By motorcycle are included all mechanically powered, twowheeled vehicles which are steerable and thus we include in the term motorcycles proper, scooters and mopeds.

Description of the prior art A great number of constructions have been proposed for motorcycle frames and a great many of these proposed constructions use bent tubes which are required to take considerable bending moments when the machine is in use. In some frames, for example, there are two com plete loops which are arranged side by side and are interconnected.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide a simple frame in which bending moments which are generated in a main member or backbone due to the dynamic loading on the frame when it is in use are transferred into tensions or compressions in two further pairs of tubes which are triangulated with the main member. These further tubes therefore actsubstantially as pure ties or struts.

According to the invention we -provide a motorcycle frame comprising a straight tubular backbone, a support for the front forks of the motorcycle secured to the front end of the backbone, rst and second transversely-extending rigid attachment means secured to the backbone adjacent its rear end and intermediate its ends respectively said means projecting on both sides of the backbone, a first pair of spaced-apart, substantially parallel tubes -extending generally downwardly from, and secured to, said rst means and a second pair of spaced-apart substantially parallel tubes inclined relative to the backbone and extending rearwardly from, and secured to, said second means the tubes of each pair being arranged one on either side of the backbone, the tubes lying to one side of the backbone being joined and the tubes lying to the other side of the backbone being joined, all said tubes being straight between their junctions and the attachment means.

By this construction, the backbone is triangulated with the two pairs of tubes and since these tubes are straight within the triangulation at least, they act purely aS struts or ties and do not have to take any appreciable bending moment. Preferably, the moment of inertia of 3,508,765 Patented Apr. 28, 1970 ice the section of the backbone is considerably greater than the moments of inertia of the sections of the other tubes.

Preferably, there is provided third, transversely-extending, rigid attachment means secured to the backbone to project on both sides thereof and located between the rst and second attachment means and a third pair of tubes, which is extended between the first and third attachment means, the backbone being interposed between the tubes of the third pair.

The first attachment means may comprise a plate secured to the backbone and lying in a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis thereof. In this construction, the upper ends of the tubes of the rst pair are secured to the edges of the plate which lie in generally vertical planes.

The tubes of the rst and second pairs preferably either support other tubes, or the tubes of at least one of said pairs are continued, to form a generally U-shaped cradle between said support and said junctions. The limbs of the cradle will be of unequal length, the longer limbs extending so said support. This cradle will carry the power unit of the motorcycle which maycomprise an engine and gear box in unit or connected together.

The second attachment means may comprise curved continuations of the tubes of the second pair, said continuations having their ends connected directly to the backbone and being reinforced by gussets to'form a rigid assembly. In this construction, although each tube of the second pair will have a curved portion, this curver portion will not be able to ex and is considered to be part of the rigid attachment means because it is braced to the backtion between the first attachment and the tubes of the first pair.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

How many commando frames were made in Italy ?
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Triton Thrasher said:
Jose Refit said:
You're also in the terrible position of not knowing what you're talking about,

Jose.

Thanks- I'm here to learn.

Tell me what I said wrong and put me right, please.

Let me know what you don't understand, thrasher, and I'll see if I can explain - with pictures. In the mean time why not have yourself a good thrash,

Jose.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

acotrel said:
How many commando frames were made in Italy ?

Quite a few.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

acotrel said:
How many commando frames were made in Italy ?
L.A.B. said:
Quite a few.

By a company named Verlicchi, we understand.
Apparently they could do them for a few quid less than Reynolds quoted.

Frank Damp also mentioned the other day that Campagnolo, was it ?, did some of the alloy castings for Nortons.
Something we had suspected for a while, judging by the beautiful quality of the castings, but had never seen in writing.

Wonder what else was done there ?
Was there mention of pressing out the stainless guards ?
Where were the sidecovers and tanks done, by whom, perchance ??
But yes, we diverge...
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

L.A.B. said:
https://www.google.com/patents/US3542146

L.A.B. said:
http://www.google.com/patents/US3508765

April 28, 1970 s. G. BAUER Erm.

MOTORCYCLE FRAME 3 Sheets-Sheet 1 Filed June 4, 1968 S e n u e V M S-recpm Geoae 15eme@ @eizmb Howe@ April 28, 1970 s, G, BAQER EI'AL 3,508,765

MOTORCYCLE FRAME Filed June 4. 1968 5 Sheets-Sheet 2 luueM-FOQSI ST6@ m Geo @se @Mea 56mm A0099@ @o BenQ-V Ul cm (e T@G Q Eq uw? www April 28, 1970 5, G, BAUER E'TAL 3,508,765

MOTORCYCLE FRAME Filed June 4. 1968 3 Sheets-Shee'l'. 3

United States Patent O 3,508,765 MOTORCYCLE FRAME Stefan George Bauer` Hilton, Bernard Hooper, Stourbridge, and Robert Victor Trigg, Birmingham, England, assignors to Norton Villiers Limited, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire County, England, a British company Filed June 4, 1968, Ser. No. 734,312 Claims priority, application Great Britain, June 7, 1967, 26,254/ 67 Int. Cl. B62k 1]/02 U.S. 'Cl. 280-281 10 Claims ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE The disclosure describes motorcycle frames each of which has a straight tubular backbone which is triangulated with two pairs of straight tubes, one tube of each pair being on each side of the backbone and the tubes being connected to attachment means at the rear end, and intermediate the ends, of the backbone.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the invention The invention relates to motorcycle frames. By motorcycle are included all mechanically powered, twowheeled vehicles which are steerable and thus we include in the term motorcycles proper, scooters and mopeds.

Description of the prior art A great number of constructions have been proposed for motorcycle frames and a great many of these proposed constructions use bent tubes which are required to take considerable bending moments when the machine is in use. In some frames, for example, there are two com plete loops which are arranged side by side and are interconnected.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide a simple frame in which bending moments which are generated in a main member or backbone due to the dynamic loading on the frame when it is in use are transferred into tensions or compressions in two further pairs of tubes which are triangulated with the main member. These further tubes therefore actsubstantially as pure ties or struts.

According to the invention we -provide a motorcycle frame comprising a straight tubular backbone, a support for the front forks of the motorcycle secured to the front end of the backbone, rst and second transversely-extending rigid attachment means secured to the backbone adjacent its rear end and intermediate its ends respectively said means projecting on both sides of the backbone, a first pair of spaced-apart, substantially parallel tubes -extending generally downwardly from, and secured to, said rst means and a second pair of spaced-apart substantially parallel tubes inclined relative to the backbone and extending rearwardly from, and secured to, said second means the tubes of each pair being arranged one on either side of the backbone, the tubes lying to one side of the backbone being joined and the tubes lying to the other side of the backbone being joined, all said tubes being straight between their junctions and the attachment means.

By this construction, the backbone is triangulated with the two pairs of tubes and since these tubes are straight within the triangulation at least, they act purely aS struts or ties and do not have to take any appreciable bending moment. Preferably, the moment of inertia of 3,508,765 Patented Apr. 28, 1970 ice the section of the backbone is considerably greater than the moments of inertia of the sections of the other tubes.

Preferably, there is provided third, transversely-extending, rigid attachment means secured to the backbone to project on both sides thereof and located between the rst and second attachment means and a third pair of tubes, which is extended between the first and third attachment means, the backbone being interposed between the tubes of the third pair.

The first attachment means may comprise a plate secured to the backbone and lying in a plane substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis thereof. In this construction, the upper ends of the tubes of the rst pair are secured to the edges of the plate which lie in generally vertical planes.

The tubes of the rst and second pairs preferably either support other tubes, or the tubes of at least one of said pairs are continued, to form a generally U-shaped cradle between said support and said junctions. The limbs of the cradle will be of unequal length, the longer limbs extending so said support. This cradle will carry the power unit of the motorcycle which maycomprise an engine and gear box in unit or connected together.

The second attachment means may comprise curved continuations of the tubes of the second pair, said continuations having their ends connected directly to the backbone and being reinforced by gussets to'form a rigid assembly. In this construction, although each tube of the second pair will have a curved portion, this curver portion will not be able to ex and is considered to be part of the rigid attachment means because it is braced to the backtion between the first attachment and the tubes of the first pair.

As I implied, I've never seen any quotes from Dr Bauer regarding derogatory comments pertaining to the featherbed frame,

Jose.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Jose Refit said:
Triton Thrasher said:
Jose Refit said:
You're also in the terrible position of not knowing what you're talking about,

Jose.

Thanks- I'm here to learn.

Tell me what I said wrong and put me right, please.

Let me know what you don't understand, thrasher, and I'll see if I can explain - with pictures. In the mean time why not have yourself a good thrash,

Jose.

Ok, I asked you, but you're unable to tell me what makes you think I "don't know what I'm talking about."
It may just be that you are shy. Should it come to you, I'll be all ears.

In fact, feel free to demonstrate, convincingly, that you have any idea at all what you're talking about.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Jose Refit said:
As I implied, I've never seen any quotes from Dr Bauer regarding derogatory comments pertaining to the featherbed frame,

Bob Trigg, the designer who worked under Dr. Stefan Bauer on the Commando frame (and whose name also appears on the patent) says the following on the Duke Norton video: http://www.dukevideo.com/prd1121/Best-o ... Norton-DVD

.....and Dr. Bauer, said OK, we need a completely new frame-because he didn't like featherbed frame, he looked at it not from the point of view of a motorcyclist but from the point of view of an engineer, and he always said: "Any frame with a bent tube is either unnecessarily weak or it's too heavy."

Therefore I'm inclined to believe what he says is true.
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Jose knows everything.

Just by looking at a lo rez image of my Norton, he could determine that I should lean in corners. (He made the effort to PM me to inform me about this crucial bit of data).
I am sooooo happy. Tomorrow I will lean, promised! Riding since 1972, and thanks to Jose, I will see the light tomorrow for the forst time!!

:mrgreen:
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

Its not very smart to ride motorycles but even stupider to seek out their limits yet so addictively thrilling, ugh. Has anyone but acetrel Alan or me over ridden various cycles to point we wish we hadn't? If so what was learned about the cause of the letdowns, ie: tank slap, whole bike oscillation back to front, one end or the other lossing control unexpected or just too easy or pilot inputs causing opposite expected- reversed control action. This is similar to the steering transition of parking lot creeping straight steer as ya pass 12-13 mph suddenly have to coutner steer or bike will jerk you off to the outside of turn. If mostly going straight to speed up its unnoticed but swing around a steel down hill off slope turn it can catch me out on any cycle. Cycles go in and out of straight / counter steering fork jerking when pressing limits of frame holding tires in full traction control so silly little mm's of slipage begining, which forks instantsly react too. Also forks are always slightly oscillating to stay balanced even in far over turns, though not usually noticed when both balance and steering force add/substract near frame reasonance > hot doggie doo doo. Anywho does any feel their Cdo or Featherbed arn't up to eager sport bike games up its hp limits? Going slower don't test a frames real worth or weaknesses. Can ya tell if yours will over react by a low side, or high side with or w/o tank slap?
 
Re: Featherbed frame design went against all engineering pri

84ok said:
looks like at this point norton went against reality

"what are we up against?"[/size][/b]
Almost the ONLY area that the Honda was considered to be better was braking in the dry[/size][/b],

Which particular bit of reality did the accumulated experts go against??

The Honda was better at braking in the dry, it was not better at braking in the wet. The first generation of Japanese disc brakes were next to lethal in the wet. The Commando WAS faster, handled and steered better, the first 750/4 handled like a sockfull of diarrhoea, the Commando accelerated better and was more economical. Full stop.
The point was, that whilst the Commando was considered to be less reliable than the Commando, at the time there was little that could practically be done.
cheers
wakeup
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top