USD forks? Been there done that - try USD engine.

[Sid Squid]

It's clearly an oddity, a flight of engineering fancy even - but that doesn't mean it isn't good, whatever good is judged to be of course, who are the arbiters of such things?

That said I can see no reason to slag it off, it may be a developmental dead end and prove to be of limited value in the Darwinian progress of our playthings, whatever.

The people who put the mind and their shoulder to such things are the Columbuses of the new world of motorcycles, the Hilarys leading us to the next, higher, summit of technology, the Bleriots that see the far shore and want to bring it closer, they are Alcock and Brown daring to think they can reach beyond the horizon.

And they drag us all along in their wake.

This

Is

Good

'Cos they make us all better by doing it.

It's obviously a track bike. The test of its design is to fit it in a performance indexed race class and see how it does, or at least take it out for some timed laps. Unless all the on track shots of a race bike are just hype?
If they intend to fit it out to make it street legal, then they should do that and give it over to some moto journalists for a good shakedown on the road. Unless it's really just a piece of machinists art.
What will the inertia (and momentum) of the high CG do in a fast chicane on track?
Will the bike have to be leaned over additional amounts to negotiate corners at speed?
Really, (other than it looks like they've re-invented the rear shock) there's nothing new or innovative about the bike other than turning the motor upside down. For better cooling? Bull. To keep from cooking the rider? OK, a serious problem, several of my racing buddies were cooked by their right side up engines. Horrible!
Because it's better to add additional strength to the crankcase rather than cylinders and head? Why?
And about that intake system... well, it matches up well with an air cooled motor. I'm surprised they didn't use pushrods!

Am I mistaken, or is it considered more advantageous to have the weight sitting lower in the frame as opposed to having it higher?

What are the benefits of having the crankcase higher?

[jambo]

Centre of gravity for a motorbike is something that makes a big difference, but lower isn't always better. Too low and when you lean the bike over the weight of the bike isn't acting that far from the contact patch for the tyres, leading to a bike that seems not to turn well. Honda gave this a go on a GP bike in the 80's, it wasn't a success. Too high and the bike seems like a lot of effort to move from one angle to another.

They're on to something with the stressed member point. Several bikes use the motor as a stressed member but the point is that if you attach to the cylinder head for one end of the bike, and the rear of the crank case for the other, the whole engine including the heads, cylinders and cases need to be strong enough to take that force, where as if it's all bolted to the cases, the heads and cylinders don't need that additional material.

This is clearly a very small scale production offering. It's competitors are more likely to be people like Confederate than Ducati. The sales will be to people with deep pockets who want something that stands out, but want something more technically interesting than a chopper adorned in chrome by OCC and weighing as much as the moon.

The asking prices reflect the fact that this is not for the masses. Could it be beaten on track by a fireblade? Almost certainly, but that's not the competition, in the same way the people that buy an Eagle weren't comparing it directly with a Mitsubishi Evo at the time.

Jambo

I think the weight savings from not having to strengthen the cylinder/head assy. is more than lost by the addition of the oil scavenge system, including the high mounted oil tank.
The more I look at the engine, the more I think it doesn't have a chance of shedding the heat produced by making 200 hp. Not for long anyway! The center cylinder looks like it should overheat in short order.
I guess if you're tooling around some Rivera resort city, looking cool, you won't be using much power anyway. Then again, you won't have much airflow either...
A springless air shock with no linkage. Wouldn't that be very progressive? And with a very long swingarm providing lots of leverage, and gobs of torque when you open the throttle. I'm sure it will be exciting to ride.

[garynortheast]

I'd rather have a go on this - http://www.odd-bike.com/2013/03/the-...hronistic.html

Originally Posted by wideguy

I think the weight savings from not having to strengthen the cylinder/head assy. is more than lost by the addition of the oil scavenge system, including the high mounted oil tank.

How do you know this? The article mentioned the weight in the region of 350. It looks like that may be possible as it doesn't need a mainframe or fairings, has lightweight parts and lightened subframes. If you don't believe the claimed weight then go weigh it, not accuse them of lying without knowing for sure yourself.

Originally Posted by wideguy

The more I look at the engine, the more I think it doesn't have a chance of shedding the heat produced by making 200 hp. Not for long anyway! The center cylinder looks like it should overheat in short order.

Again, how do you know this? Are you a designer? Ducati didn't realise (or chose to ignore) the Panigale would kick out such heat but this was never something picked up by any journalist before the bike was tested. Its difficult to tell the reality just from pictures or a PR, we agree on that point.

But, equally, the designer's claim the cylinder heads being at the bottom would mean heat lower down, not nearer the rider. This seems logical to me. Whether it is or not will tell once (if) the bike is independently tested. But its clearly a claimed feature of the design.

Also they claim mass centralisation was the aim. Again this seems obvious in the design with the big engine being the stressed member. The distribution of that central weight (high to low) is really in the design specs and subject to independent testing, like every other bike.

As for the benefits of upside down, whether you think its BS or not is not really very interesting unless you can put in some convincing detail to that argument. The article claims increased power to weight ratio is a deliberate aim of the design - albeit not for fuel efficiency. Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with their design (and I have not seen any schematics) or they are simply lying, its another case of wait and see.

But I agree with Sid that really the point of such an experiment is to get the imagination going and possibly inspire new ideas trailblasing concepts which enthusiasts would like to see in future.

Runako, I don't know as a fact that they saved more weight by strengthening only the crankcase than they added with the oil scavenge pump, oil tank and oil lines, that's why I just said "I think". In any case the weight difference won't be much either way, and adding a lot of weight up high, including the weight of a tank of oil, isn't likely to be good for handling.
I'm an aircraft engineer, or was until I retired, but again, as I said, I just "think" there isn't good airflow to the center cylinder. The intake looks like a big airdam. The oil capacity, guessing from the apparent size of the oil tank, doesn't look large enough. It doesn't look like there is enough cooling fin area. Making 200 hp generates a lot of heat.
Yes the cylinder head is the hottest part of the engine. No, heat from the cylinder head has never been a serious problem for the rider. My RC-51 makes my balls hot, having the rear cylinder head just in front of and up close to the seat, but its not a serious problem meriting a total redesign.
Supercharged radial aircraft engines made lots of hp with a very good hp to weight ratio. They solved the heat problem by ducting cold air at high velocity around the cylinders, and by making sure nothing was in front of the cylinders to disturb the airflow.
Yes, the bike is probably very light. So is any bike stripped for racing, especially if you spend tons of money on titanium and magnesium. For a lot less money, you can get a better power to weight ratio from any modern liter bike.
The bottom line is, can you make a significantly better frame by using the crankcase as a stressed member? Enough better that it will justify a high CG? I say no.
It's much easier to control the stiffness of a perimeter frame, or to change the frame stiffness to get the amount of flex you need to make it work best. Monocoque frames and frames using the engine as a stressed member have been kicked around for a long time. They keep getting abandoned. I doubt very much that the reason they haven't been a leap forward is because nobody thought of using the crankcase as part of the frame instead of the entire engine.
Then there is the question, if it's just a streetbike, why do you need a significantly better frame? Moto2 is a good place to take chassis development ideas, although the rules might not allow the modifications to the engine necessary to turn it upside down.
I just think it's a bad idea, and I predict it will go nowhere. And it just doesn't have any trailblazing new ideas.

Originally Posted by garynortheast

I'd rather have a go on this - http://www.odd-bike.com/2013/03/the-...hronistic.html

Me too!

Originally Posted by wideguy

I just think it's a bad idea, and I predict it will go nowhere. And it just doesn't have any trailblazing new ideas.

Thinking is not the same as knowing and making guesses based on limited facts is not insightful. The specs they are claiming directly contradict your "thoughts". It is not to say your idea might not be right. But its all guesswork as far as I can tell. For example, the design of the engine and crankcase has not been revealed in the article so your idea that the case is not strong enough to be used as a stressed member or that the weight is high up is not based on any facts of the actual design.

The power to ratio numbers are what they are, and the concept is what it is. Until its proven or disproven its all just conjecture. As for the cooling etc, I can't argue against your view because I don't have any facts to base an argument on. But for this very same reason I can't agree with your view either.

As for the merit of the idea, what site are you a member of? Part of the beauty of the SV forum is that members are interested/ing enough to post stuff on bikes that I might never have seen. I've seen guys install turbo's and superchargers to SV when I never even conceived of it and others said it couldn't be done reliably and "what is the point". Yet some crazy individual has done it and proves it works.

I've seen guys chop up bits of other bikes and experiment both cosmetically and structurally. From simple stuff like making lighter or modified subframes to modding single sided swingarms. Why... Why not? So something like this is certainly of interest to me regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, because it has already captured my imagination and made me ask the question "I wonder what else can be done?"

And if we waited for manufacturers to tell us how our bikes should look or work, we would have lost one of the essential parts of loving bikes. The individuality of a bike, and moreso the ability to put our own identity into bikes, is a huge reason to own and experiment on it.

These guys have an idea and have seemingly done a ton of work to try to prove the concept. The fact that it seems ridiculously expensive or to you unecessary when compared to what the factories churn out is just incidental to the reason for doing it in the first place.

If I had the money I would come up with some crazy sh!t too, just because I could. If it turned out to be an improvement on what I had before and people want to buy it then friggin bonus man.

I suppose if this concept does make it to independent testing, you might change your mind about it "going nowhere". But if it doesn't then I for one will think its a shame, because it is interesting and different (to my non-engineering knowledge anyway).