The Kneeslider

Doers Builders and Positive People

Hub Center Steering Moto2 Project LaMoto2 – Submit Your Design

By

LaMoto2 hub center Moto2 open design project
LaMoto2 hub center Moto2 open design project

We seldom cover racing on The Kneeslider, but we do like to look at the technology and design of the racing motorcycles. Some of the bikes and engines show a lot of creative thinking and it’s especially interesting when a design goes in a direction not often seen, like hub center steering, for instance.

If you remember the Demonstener project, a BMW based hub center steering design, then you already have the idea behind the LaMoto2 project. Carlos Beltrán Carrión says they are trying to prove the benefits of hub center steering to as many people as possible and mounting it on a racing motorcycle would seem to be a great way to do just that.

After meeting with Pepe Burgaleta of La Moto magazine who track tested the Demonstener, they were asked to lead an Open Design Project, to build an alternative suspension MOTO2 racer. The idea is to run the 3 latest races of the Spanish Moto2 Championship. Being an open design project, what they are looking for is reader input, designs submitted by individuals with ideas of how best to put hub center steering on a Moto2 racing motorcycle. There are a lot of designers out there who would love the opportunity to get their ideas in front of the right people who can bring them into reality. Well, here’s the chance.

The project is focused on two websites, LaMoto2, which is in Spanish, and Beltrance.com, where Carlos Beltrán Carrión will describe in English the progress of the open design project and present the designs as they come in.

It’s not every day you have an opportunity to take part in a project that may see your design on the track with a top level competitive racing team. Aspiring designers often come up with their own designs and put them out there hoping someone will see their work. Here’s a project actually looking for specific designs, and it also combines the opportunity with a real world goal and timeline.

They already have some big name sponsors lined up, so, if you think you have an idea that could be a winner, check out the sites and get to work.

Link: LaMoto2
Link: Beltrance

LaMoto2 hub center Moto2 open design project
LaMoto2 hub center Moto2 open design project

Comments

  1. I think it’s about time that more innovative solutions are tried in racing. Moto2 is the perfect class for this since spec engines and tires limit innovation to the chassis and aerodynamic packages.
    Unfortunately it seem that none of these designs have learned anything from the lessons learned during the many failed ELF 500cc Grand Prix efforts of the 80’s.
    One of the most successful designs, which also happens to be the least radical, but most effective was the Fior/Hossack designs raced in the 250GP class. It’s no coincidence why BMW chose this system for their K bikes as well.

  2. Amen to that- I have a K1200r and can honestly say that the strangest part of really riding it is that you need to learn to trust the suspension, since it functions fully in any cornering situation (no stiction). Some of the long, rough interchanges around here have afforded me the opportunity to look down and be amazed to see how much movement is going on.

  3. As someone who has been wishing BMW would put Duolever on a smaller, lighter, less mechanically complex bike, a DOHC Boxer R1200RS would be nice… This idea is interesting to me.

    My question is… why don’t they take it further?

    It seems to me, that if the suspension arms that are holding the sleeve-upright are carrying the suspension loads, and the steering apparatus inside it wraps up above the tire, why are there telescopic fork tubes above that? Even if they are like telelever tubes, and don’t do much suspension work… Why not ditch them entirely?

    Why not have a collapsing single link like the steering link on a Duolever, and a simplified steering head system that mounts to an upper front subframe? There doesn’t need to be triple tree clamps, there doesn’t need to be anything but a center steering head that connects the collapsing steering link to the (easily made to be adjustable) dual bars or single bar riser attachments. A rotary steering damper, steering stops, and a steering lock could all be integrated into a steering head swivel assembly, that would really only need to be torsionally rigid for steering input and feedback, and capable of bearing the rider’s upper body weight, not the whole front end suspended weight of the rider and bike… which is taken care of by the control arms.

    The same applies whether using a simpler dual-arm Hossack/Duolever suspension, or a lower-mounted control arm and hub steering arrangement. And for all the complexity of the upright inside the wheel, I am not sure that hub-centered steering is more beneficial than Hossack type suspension, to offset the increased complexity over the hossack type design, which requires fewer precision-machined parts, and fewer parts within the wheel’s radius.

  4. All of the above comments pertain to other alternatives to the telescopic but are non hub-center steering.

    Is this design contest restricted to hub steer or are other alternatives also game? “Open Design” seems to suggest hossack-derived designs would be allowed, but “hub center” is specifically mentioned above.

    Martin Wimmer’s design looks great and he has had racing success. His team is also racing in Moto2 but with a tele at the moment…
    http://ridethetorquecurve.blogspot.com/2010/07/alturnative-tuesday_14.html

  5. Didn’t an English and French team already demonstrate HSC to the world? Both did quite well in endurance racing in the 70’s too. Google ‘Mead and Tompkinson Nessie’ and ‘de Cortanze Elf’.

    Old tech though. Who needs a hub-centre steered motorised bicycle?

  6. Thanks for the link hoyt, it looks like it’s just a BMW Telelever design adapted to a bicycle. Although it has better stiffness than a tele, the telelever design’s wheel path geometry is limited and not quite ideal. Because the lower arm scribes an arc when moving through it’s range and the upper pivot is fixed, the wheel path also travels in an arc which changes the rake angle, trail and wheelbase in a non linear fashion. Fork stiction is also not eliminated completely either.
    By adding a second wishbone the Hossack/Fior or BMW duolever allows a more linear wheel path to be designed, one which can almost duplicate that of a tele fork.
    Other benefits of this system are that standard wheels and brakes can be used, a stiffer and lighter upright, shorter load paths to the frame etc. I think the biggest negative is the added steering stiction of the upright’s ball joints which may reduce steering fell and response, although I don’t have any first hand experience, just an educated guess.

    In theory, the hub-center steering designs provide the shortest load path to the frame, which allows the frame to be lighter, however, it’s my opinion that this advantage is overshadowed by the need for a complex steering linkage with all the associated problems that go along with it, the need for special wheels hubs and brakes, limited steering lock and ground clearance issues in some cases.
    All of these designs have one disadvantage that seems small but ends up being a challenge, where does the radiator go now?

    • Wimmer’s design has been adapted to his motorcycle so it is not just on a mountain bike. Read:

      “His 1st prototype was used en route to a 3rd place finish in the 2002 German 250cc Championship. Wimmer scored the podium himself, 8 years AFTER he retired from GP racing.”

      This design also attempts to address the change in rake/trail. His Moto2 bike does not yet have it but I believe they are working on applying the design to that bike.

      I agree about the pros/cons of alternatives to the tele. all the while, the tele just gets better and better.

      Radiator location? the RADD and Vyrus designs have them on their sides as you probably know. Cost of ownership for street bikes go up with that location but it works for them..

      Mechanical Engineering…what trade-offs work best for you?

      • There are two main problems with the Honda engine and the package. First is the raim-air that need to breath properly and the second it’s of course the radiator. In this way our ideas are “classic”. The radiator needs a great ammount of air and the only way to reach this it’s on the front of the bike. If you have come to our web http://www.lamoto2.es you´ll see that Taleo is one of our sponsors. It’s also the company that supply the most of the Moto2 teams.
        The front swingarms will be lower enough to let enough place to a front radiator. Don’t worry about that!
        And the ram-air… well, we’re thinking in a reinforced “V” handlebar that has it’s headstock lower than usually and so the raim-air can pass properly and even the airbox can grow.

        CHS advantages 🙂

    • “All of these designs have one disadvantage that seems small but ends up being a challenge, where does the radiator go now?”

      You need to contact Royce Creasey. Not only designed and built several HCS steered PTW’s, he’s now putting the radiator in the back.

  8. I would have to question the appropriateness of using the term “center steer” when the actual steering is done through a fork with a crown at the center line of the wheel and frame (as in the provided renderings). Its really just a redesigned fork. My research indicated that a true center steer is forkless and uses gimbeled wheel like on the Genesis of all center steers, the Near A Car (or is it Ner). All center steers and single sided from forks have 3 thorny design strictures – the necessity of an abnormally dished wheel, the location of the brake anchor and the difficulty in maintaining a direct 1:1 steering ratio and solid feel when intervening mechanical apparatus is involved. I spent 2 years on my Buell center steer and used an upside down 996 single sided swingarm on the front and converted the center hub to to steer and it worked but was never fully satisfied in the relationship of handlebar to wheel movement as I employed 2 ujoints .

    Center steer (IMHO) is sort of like theupside down motor on motorcycle. An interesting concept but interesting is not necessarilly better. During my fascination with these designs I came very close to buying a Tesi (started as a Doctoral dissertation and ended as likely the most sorted out design) and even rode it and it just didn’t feel as solid or responsive as a conventional fork .

  9. Is the world ready to accept new ideas for motorcycles, and by new, I mean old 1980s ideas that tried to take Motorcycling out of the 1940s-1950s?

  10. As Tom said:
    “Is the world ready to accept new ideas for motorcycles, and by new, I mean old 1980s ideas that tried to take Motorcycling out of the 1940s-1950s?”

    Nothing new there and it has been tried and produced (the Yamaha GTS1000 – rode one and still want one). I remember reading an interview with Ron Haslam discussing the pros and cons of the Elf Honda (w/ CHS). He remarked how he could go in a corner 10′ deeper before having to brake and come out on the gas earlier. The trade-off was a lack of corner clearance from the front swingarm.

    One thing is for sure, the mainstream motorcycle industry is very stagnant and traditional and resistant of change.

  11. I think we are missing some opportunities here…

    A hub sterrer has pro and cons, but it offers the the possibility to do gains in other areas of the overall package. Moto2 is very close so if you have a suspension system that is not quite as good as a fork, but lets you have a clean straight throu airbox, better mass location and slightly better areo, you can still have class winner.

  12. candid question : what is wrong with the forks ? or to rephrase : what can a hub center do better than a conventional fork ?

    I’m not nitpicking here, just really trying to understand.

    it’s not because a technology is “old” that it’s bad, it’s just that it has not been invented recently. And if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it ?

  13. After owning and riding a GTS 1000 for years, and riding a Vyrus, the GTS is not a Hub Center Steering design, and does not suffer the issues a Tesi or Vyrus does with non linear steering motion. The GTS uses a linear bearing connected to the handlebars and directly to the kingpin or carrier of a double A-Arm (albeit the lower one is single sided) mounted transverse (or inline if you will) with the chassis compared to an automobile. The GTS is a huge bulk of a bike, and was WAAAYYY over-engineered by Yamaha, but James Parker’s Ratz was light, and responsive, and allowed hard braking near or at the apex of a turn. It also allowed him to manage the center of mass, roll center and component placement to his liking which was prohibitively difficult with a common Tele design. As mentioned previously, the main advantage of this style of front end is to place all the wheel and suspension load into the chassis at as low a point as possible allowing design flexibility in other areas. Is this system better than tele forks? As a pure suspension, probably not, but opening up design flexibility is almost always good for evolution of a machine.
    I looked at this design years ago to convert my RZ500 using a gimbal style hub with an upright similar to the GTS with a linear bearing, but the engine design didn’t provide adequate space for mounting an elegant and structurally sound abbreviated frame which is possible with this style of front end. Now if I started with an RC51 or 998 or…That would be different…Good luck to Moto2 for thinking outside a box.

  14. Nicolas, there is a lot wrong with conventional forks, but engineers have been fixing them for decades to the point where they work satisfactorily.
    Firstly the issue of flexing under extreme conditions such as braking and hard cornering, this is the reason for the USD forks, however it comes with an increase in weight, or a huge increase in cost to offset the weight. Even still, USD forks are still prone to flex that bind up the fork sliders under braking. All this weight is also steered mass, which reduces steering precision and stability.
    Secondly, forks act like a long lever that multiplies the forces acting on the tire contact patch many times before it reaches the steering head, this necessitates the need for a strong and heavier frame structure that is far away from the center of mass.
    Thirdly, braking forces are transferred directly through the suspension which causes brake dive, more or less depending on the rake angle, which must be compensated for with stiffer springs, causing a loss of suspension compliance. Alternatives are better able to isolate the braking force’s influence on the suspension.
    Lastly, a fork has a fixed linear wheel path depending on rake angle. Alternatives allow much greater design flexibility and control over wheel path, which can be easily adjusted to suit rider preference and vehicle dynamics.
    As many disadvantages as telescopic forks have, it’s a testament to the hard work and continued refinement through decades of engineering, that makes them work so well. Or, perhaps it’s because we don’t know any better. Carburetors and ignition points worked pretty well too we thought, until EFI came along.
    I’m almost certain that if the factories and engineers spent a fraction of their time developing a new front suspension system as they spend refining the old one, we would all be far better off, and fundamental motorcycle design may actually move into the 21st century.

    • good points, Mark. The fact that a Tesi, RADD, or 6x can generate comments like they have from racers (after very short development cycles) is worth a closer look from the riding public.

      Nicolas:

      A vivid example of how some alternative front-ends can compete with the telescopic fork is in the area of chassis weight, specifically James Parker’s latest RADD design. He dropped 22 pounds from the stock GSX-R chassis because he did not need the heavy steering neck and upper frame spars. Not only is that an impressive weight loss but, as Mark pointed out, the weight came off at the highest point in the chassis, effectively centralizing the remaining weight.

      When you consider that weight loss with the other advantages listed by Mark above, it is impossible to ignore these front-ends, especially when electronic trickery is now necessary to manage the power (why not reduce weight to improve performance instead of more power and countering electronics?)

      Comparing the RADD approach to Ducati’s upcoming approach (cf frame-airbox combo. using telescopic forks) makes for interesting decision-making:

      Both have manufacturing considerations never seen before in mass-production (I would think cf frames would be more expensive than Parker’s design).

      Both have similar weight reduction. Incidentally, Ducati’s approach is positioning itself more towards a 6x Flex approach than a Hossack or Parker derivative.

      Perhaps electronic bikes will be the platform for alternatives front-ends to make it mainstream? Electric bikes need to drop weight.

      • Thanks guys for the explanations. I guess at some point fork vs fancier systems is about a trade on cost and customer reaction (BMW can easily get out with a telelever but Yamaha didn’t sell too much of the GTS, did they ?)

        SIde note : I always wondered why a fork needs to be more than a foot tall while the suspension travel is ~ 6 inches …

        • yep, the consumer market (vanity) has probably an equal say in a fork vs. alternatives making it to production than any engineering conclusions. But, that could change. The RADD and 6x Flex have dramatic aesthetic improvements from the early years.

          Now that you mentioned BMW….wouldn’t it be interesting to see the BMW 1000RR with a RADD fron-end now that BMW makes a bike that resembles a GSX-R?

  15. Some of these designs look like if a single part fails, the front end could collapse. I dont think I want that on a bike. Fork or Girder type front ends could be more forgiving in this respect. I’m a fan of the Britten design and even he had some problems with that.

  16. These designs are no different than what you normally see on the car you drive every day.
    Are you afraid to drive your car too?

      • If you ride into curbs a lot in salty slush for hundreds of thousands of miles over dozens of year without doing any maintenance, then you should stick with the more crude/less developed designs available at the dealer near you and/or craigslist.

  18. I think one of the main problems that al-turn-atives have had in racing are due to the fact that tires are optimised for telescopic forks. The front end won’t work any better than the tire allows it to.

  20. I built a 3-wheeled hand-cycle with an alternative front end – not quite hub-steer, but not a conventional fork, either. The results were profound with respect to rigidity, weight-reduction, stability and turning-radius. There were basically no compromises…just improvements. I’ve since re-mapped the steering geometries and converted the prototype into a 2-wheeled hand-cycle that demonstrates excellent stability traits, as well. No small feat considering that the handle-bars perform double-duty as power-cranks.

    Does my experience have any relevance to 300kmh superbikes? I think the basic principals are the same except hand-cycles are so uncommon that there are no presumptions to dictate what looks right. When viewed from technical merit alone there are too many benefits to be cast aside without serious consideration. I think alternative front-ends will finally catch on once Hollywood embraces them…say by Tron 3. Of course winning more races would help, too.

  21. I wonder how these designs compare to traditional forks when it comes time to repair your bike after it’s been damaged? For example, are these designs more prone to bending frames at the mounting points where a traditional telescopic suspension would just bend the fork tubes?

    Anyone have experience fixing one of these after a crash?

    • To replace the ‘king pin’ in mine costs @£5 and takes less than 10 minuets (bit longer if you count taking the wheel off the fork – another 10 mins)

  23. this is an era of bank owned bikes and quick-to-total insurance companies. It gets written off and you get another. It was a year old anyway.

    -todd

  24. I have developed a Hub-Centersteering system that works better den a very expensive racing UPD from Ohlins
    Several drivers like Alan Cathcart, Wilco Zeelenberg, Marcus Barth etc tested it.
    The all love it, and it feels better dan a convential UPD fork
    I would love it to put it in to MOTO 2 project.
    You can reed about it on my side http://www.zeppelin-works.nl

    • Hi Bolleke! Really a very interesting bike. It’s closer to the bike we´re thinking on. The main difference it´s the steering. We want a 1:1 steering system able to drive directly the steer and a little % of the efforts to the handlebar. We think, at least in a race bike that the feeling of the pilot it´s as important as the bike performance. No trust no speed!

  26. Heey Carlos.

    Thank you for your complements and invitation, it’s good to see same want to take the Hub centersteering on the racetrack and maybe on a road bike I would like to on this project, so let me now how to continue. My Email is chiqane@planet .nl

  27. \Different strokes for different folks.\ I am too old for racing (72 yrs). My telescope forks suit me fine. In fact the diving effect, when braking puts more weight on the front wheel which helps keep it from locking up.

    Hub steering does interest me, to the extent that one could unbolt the wheels easily such as on an automobile. I still do my own tire repair. Also I would like to carry a spare \donut\ tire, to deal with a flat tire, on a trip. HAHAhahahahohoheehee!