What happens when two Formula 1 designers take a look at racing motorcycles to see what could be done differently? You get something that looks like the Ecosse Spirit ES1, a very fresh set of ideas all put together for the purpose of going faster but with some concepts that could be transfered to many other types of motorcycles.
They began by examining rider position as a limiting factor in aerodynamics and thought if they could enable the rider to sit lower with his feet closer together, they might have something. Of course, moving the rider’s feet closer together is a problem in conventional bikes due to the width of the front of the swingarm so they designed a gearbox with a drivechain exiting in the center. The center chain drives a shaft in the swingarm which drives a second gear driving a chain going to the wheel. The end result is a swingarm far narrower in the front.
Moving to the front of the bike, they used a single sided swingarm mounted to the engine with a redesigned control mounting arrangement. The rear swingarm also mounts to the engine, in fact, there’s very little of anything that could be called a conventional frame on this bike.
One of the patent drawings has a prone riding position diagram that’s especially interesting. The rider is in a right offset position with his left hand and arm inside the fairing. Is this designed for the high speed straights with an alternate grip and control? After examining the patent more closely, there is a control grip expressly for that purpose. They also use a perimeter ceramic brake on the front wheel.
Extensive use of carbon fiber results in total weight of the machine around 120kg (265 pounds!), the bike will be twice as aerodynamic as conventional motorcycles and the proposed 1000cc 4 cylinder engine, should produce about 200bhp. The computer says 170bhp will yield 220mph and 210bhp could get you 240mph.
The new bike was designed by Spirit Motorcycle Technology and ECOSSE-SPIRIT is the company that will do the building.
Without looking at the drawings, it’s hard to see everything that is happening here. Motorcycle News has an article and video interview with the designers. Drawings from the patent application give you a better idea of the technical work involved. Take your time looking at the drawings, there’s quite a bit going on. Very, very interesting! How will it all work when the prototype is built? That remains to be seen but I like the ideas so far.
Big thanks to Andy for the tip!
Many more drawings and links below:
Link: Motorcycle News
Link: Patent application
aaron says
I see quite a few things wrong here. the old “dual grip” thing from the dirt track days doesn’t make much sense here. upshifts are achieved without the clutch these days anyways, and with the amount of wind tunnel time they give to individual riders, you’d think one of them would have found better results by jamming one hand deep into the fairing. and would you want to be banging knees in a heated battle down the back straight while twisted into this position? this front end (or one quite similar) has been around for a while – the RADD tz250 and ELF gp bikes come to mind – but both are gone from the gp’s. as far as I know honda owns the rights to the elf designs but has discarded them.
how much manuverability and leverage is lost to the narrower footpeg position? what’s the squat characteristics with that line of chain pull? how many horsepower are lost with that drive setup? is the rear aero package legal?
do people patent race concepts? it’s all top secret anyways, so how can one team tell if another is using their technology? every f1 innovation that can be seen by the naked eye was quickly adopted by the entire paddock unless everyone just decided to protest and have it banned (tyrell 6 wheel anyone?)
while F1 is the dream job for every engineer, it seems like they don’t “get it” when it comes to bikes – see Illmor. and if the motogp rules say 145 Kg, they mean 145 Kg! what class are these going to be raced in?
my final thought – what will the top speed at the end of the straights be? if the drive off the last corner is compromised, top end doesn’t matter because you’ll run out of track first. no modern race bike has hit it’s true top speed on any circuit they race at, due to space and gearing issues. (well, the 800’s may come close…) somehow, I get the feeling this is some kind of oval track concept – maybe the AMA wants a part of nascar’s action?
aaron says
oh – and what is 27a? a centerstand?
aaron says
ok, i’ve just watched the video. “unique frameless design”? are they forgetting the vincent?
my favorite part was when he’s holding a model of a bike that doesn’t exist full scale when he says “the front brake is ceramic, which was specially made for us.” my first thought was by who – tamiya?
all this from a person who’s enthusiastic about the czysz project! I wonder what the folks that hated that will say on this topic?
kneeslider says
I added the link to the patent application to better answer Aaron’s questions plus a closeup of 27a.
From the application description:
“the damper 27 is of a through-rod type with bump stops 27a mounted below the damper body. “
Pete P. says
I don’t think the Tyrrell was ever banned.
Hugo says
The idea about this lying position isn’t new; have a look at the Derbi 125 from 1988:
And what happens when you brake hard? There is no fueltank holding you and I wonder if you can hold your weight with your knees. Also the fuel tank is a very important part for a racer to hang on to when hanging off in the corner and he doesn’t have much to hold onto here. Also the fairing connects to the legs so tightly that there isn’t room to move around which is another part which is important for the rider. For a straight topspeed the concept is very good but for a racer there are some negative points (like Aaron has described before…) And the last point is that the rider is lying very much to the front and too much weight on the front can lead to loosing traction at the rear and traction is everything nowadays…
Hugo says
Derbi 125
http://www.europark.com/machines/ny-rmpho/ny-der125a1988.jpg
todd says
sweet. This could get me to work every day even faster…
As everyone points out, top speed is not the concern, especially if tracks limit them. If there was some way to increase traction through and out of turns that would be an even better idea. BTW, swing-arm jacking and squat looks like it would be very minimal if not eliminated all together since the countershaft sprocket is concentric with the pivot, the effective angle is nearly zero, and the sprockets are tiny.
I think it’s cool that people are still trying to reinvent the wheel. Of course, look at what happened to the GTS when it came to market.
-todd
tirapop says
The classic example of smooshing the rider for aerodynamics is the ’50s Norton Kneeler.
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=3176&Page=1
Add the early Yamaha Viragos to the stressed engine (“frameless”) bike list.
For a street bike, it looks extraordinarily expensive, uncomfortable, and not that good looking. You can get much of the aero advantage, in a more comfortable package, with the Gurney Alligator http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html Just a 70hp single, not a 200hp four, though.
For competition, minimum weights are regulated, so there isn’t an advantage there. Reduced drag would help on tracks that have long straights. A bigger question would be how well riders adapt to the riding position and how well they move around on the bike. Weight transfer has a lot to do with stability under braking and acceleration out of the corner. Riders can use their body positions to help. If this design compromises the rider’s ability to compensate for limitations in either, both of those can erase the advantage of reduced drag.
F1 technology expertise has had a spotty record in bike GP racing. Heron tried using F1 style composite frames on a Suzuki 500, back in the ’80s. Aluminum frames are still the norm. When Kenny Roberts Sr. struck out on his own, to develop the KR3, he located in “F1 Valley” in the UK. He linked up with Tom Walkinshaw Racing. They thought that access to the expertise and fabrication capability of F1 would allow them to rapidly develop and then out innovate the factories. That hasn’t gone so well. Nor has the initial efforts by Illmor.
None of the funny front end bikes have succeeded in GP racing. They’ve done alright in BOTT and BEARS racing that limits factory involvement.
GenWaylaid says
I’m a little concerned that side forces might twist or flex that narrow swingarm.
By the way, Vincents do have a sort of frame, it’s just hidden under the fuel tank.
I would much rather ride the Gurney Alligator than one of these “lie-down” bikes. Every time I see that riding position I think of extreme neck pain.
todd says
Maybe the rider is supposed to look through a periscope…
From what I’ve come to understand, the depression that is caused by the rider’s back being lower will hinder aerodynamics. It’s fairly common for a rider to arch his back up into the air stream to smooth out the airflow coming off the top edge of the windshield.
The renderings show a Rollie Free manner of rider apparel. Maybe that also contributes to the cleaner aerodynamics.
-todd
Alex says
How long is the front wheel gonna withstand the exhaust manifold’s temperature?
I’d consider it a really nice design study, but no serious attempt for buidling a bike that can be used.
Aerodynamically however, their attempt is right. Slim tail means reduced vortex.
chris says
lots of good ideas. doesn’t mean they’d all work together. or at all. definitely something here though.
hoyt says
alright, where’s Gordy, the car guy that doesn’t like the C1
Gordy – here’s some F1 car guys havin’ a go….what say ye?
Col says
It seems to me to be a product of what can only be charitably described as technically illiterate people; a lash-up of pointless self-inflicted technical compromises.
What an excruciating driving posture completely lacking any ergonomic merit whatsoever.
This vehicle is an instrument of torture that belongs in a museum along with other instruments of torture of its kind.
hoyt says
This is a racebike project, right? Those are instruments of torture to some degree by definition (loud, insanely powerful, and light). The project team states the ergos while leaned over through corners is virtually the same.
The prone position in sketch 4c above looks better than the current racebike tuck position going down the straights since the feet are lower. But, then again, the rider’s ass (hence less weight on the shoulders and wrists) in the sketch looks lower than the rendered image.
4d looks frightening considering a 200+ mph blast down a straight.
So – we have images. All of this “armchair engineering” critiques could be off the mark once a prototype is built and some racers can actually sit on the bike.
I like the approach at designing a motorcycle from the start with the rider on it – I don’t know how much of that is factored in with existing manufactured bikes. For example, when a bike is said to have a 51 % weight front-bias, is that with or without a rider? If it is without the rider, what is the difference with riders across a range of heights and weight?
Back to the ergos….Feet closer together? I don’t know – anything that would draw the knees inward too much, regardless if your feet are lower, seems like it would be more fatiguing in the hip flexors and small of the back (i.e. impact racer performance). Try the different foot positions as you read this….notice how your hips and lower back get engaged as you move your feet closer together?
Lowering your feet might not be enough to offset that unnatural feeling in the hips and lower back. Plus, the leverage from the rider’s core (abdominals & upper legs) could be diminished.
Anyway – the front-end and different use of springs should be encouraged.
How are alternative front-ends, that seem to be better on paper, ever going to prove themselves one way or another if they do not get a sustained group of engineers and riders fine-tuning it ? (look how long the tele forks have been developed). Also note the difference between the early forks compared to Ohlins top of the line today.
The increase knowledge of material science just might be the key to alternative front-end success. Will it surpass the tele at that point? Let’s find out….
Rick A says
This makes the Moto-Cyz appear practical and reasonable.
Gordy says
hoyt said:
“alright, where’s Gordy, the car guy that doesn’t like the C1
Gordy – here’s some F1 car guys havin’ a go….what say ye?”
Hello hoyt, I’m still around. Just to clarify: I’m a long-term bike guy who happens to work designing systems for cars.
On to the subject: it always entertains and frustrates me in equal measure when people expert in one discipline apply their “skills” blindly to an alternative task. Sure it’s good to see things from a different angle, but it makes no sense to apply concepts blindly before understanding the essential basics. Cars and motorcycles are dynamically very different. They work in different ways and have different requirements. Here are some initial thoughts:
Front end: the non-telescopic front end is technically superior, and good luck to them in pursuing it’s application. In the real world (i.e. road bikes) the barriers are cost, aesthetics and customer conservatism. Well done BMW. In racing the barrier is the risk of failure when departing from known solutions.
Centre of gravity: unlike a racing car where a low centre of gravity is almost always a good thing, the centre of gravity of a motorcycle needs to be “where it needs to be”. The C-o-G is determined jointly by the bike and the rider and hence can be dynamically altered and optimised by the rider according to dynamic circumstance (accel, decel, straight-ahead, left corner, right corner). The riding position here demonstrated seems to restrict the rider movement excessively, and hence will restrict the dynamic adjustment of the motorcycle.
Aerodynamics and rider position: as has been previously noted, top speed is not an issue. Most top road bikes can crack 170mph and racing bikes can touch 200 mph. Who needs / wants more? The crouch forced by this design is ergonomically difficult and something of a one-trick pony. Vision, manoeuvrability, hand and foot control will all be difficult.
Rider retention / reaction: when engaged in steering (…I guess everyone is familiar with the term counter-steer…) the force imparted to the steering is derived from and reacts against the mass of the rider’s torso. The rider’s torso is anchored to the bike by mass, gravity and lower-body grip. The lower body grip is mainly derived from friction against the seat and thigh / knee grip against the “petrol tank”. Hence the petrol tank area design is very important in consideration of rider retention and steering reaction. The design here demonstrated seems to completely ignore this fundamental requirement.
Radiator and exhaust position: seem to be an after-thought?
Swing-arm: to retain the required level of stiffness in the narrow “waist” section (between the riders feet) will be very, very costly. I agree with the previous comment about excessive frictional losses in the four-sprocket drive-train.
Stressed engine (i.e. suspension fitted directly to the engine): nice in theory but consider… a) heat transfer to suspension, fuel, and rider, b) engineering required to over-come thermal expansion at system joints, d) difficulty of changing the vehicle geometry once the engine castings are finalised, e) sub-assemblies still required to mount rider and fuel tank which probably means expensive carbon-fibre components, f) standard frame assemblies allow for relatively easy changes to geometry and re-package of mass for modification of dynamic characteristics, g) standard frame assemblies allow for relatively easy accident repair.
Overall: nice ideas from race car design blindly and inappropriately applied to motorcycle design.
hoyt says
Gordy – I appreciate your time…excellent points and your explanation was written very well.
I especially like the thought about c of g on a motorcycle “needs to be ‘where it needs to be'”, not necessarily low as possible.
“Centralizing mass” should not be confused with lowering the mass too far.
michel says
How it steer?
Yogi says
I like the front end. It seems to combine a hossack front end with a telelever/earls fork. All of them proven front ends. What i don’t get though is why they strayed from the hossack standard front. Their one looks like over kill. I read about a Hossack front end racer in the suppermono series. Made almost all out of steel was really light and the rider was still able to grind out the fairing. Now i’m not an expert but that thing looks like it would weigh a fair bit even if you made it outta prepreg carb fibre. Regardless what the other guys say is completely true. This bike while live or die based on how it performs in the corners.
For another topic it would be really interesting if they dropped the wight limits in motogp and made everyone carry ballast so both bike and rider weighed the same as the heaviest pair on track. Is there enough room for development in both steel trellis and aluminium dual spar frames so they could bring the weight down by 20 kilo’s in a season?