Got a note from Brian Case about progress on the MST-01. It seems no matter how hard a team works to build a new motorcycle and new motorcycle company, there will be those who doubt unless they occasionally see some build photos. These shots give us a glimpse of the layout of the bike and how things are coming together.
Amid all of the disappointing news from the big 4 and Harley, here we see an American motorcycle company starting out and building an all new bike with an all new engine. I am definitely pulling for these guys and hope to see more progress on this bad boy in the coming months. Be sure to scroll down for the photos.
Link: Motus Motorcycles
Link: Motus on Facebook
Many more photos below:
Just thought I ‘d add this video again for those who aren’t familiar with the KMV4.
JP says
this really looks like a Scat V4. I bet it’d be easy to stick a Scat onto a Guzzi tranny and have a killer muscle bike. Bit big for sporting use though.
I like the looks of this motor more than when I first saw it here. I think cam in block is working here to keep CG lower. There are some low CG ohc designs (the old single cam Mitsubishi with chain drive cams had a very short head and valve cover height) but I think they’ve gotten even lower on this. I love my ST1100 (even though I tossed her down the road earlier this month) but I think this would make a grand Sport Tourer setup as well.
Speaking of Guzzis, I wonder how one of these would fit in one of those frames…
Also, they should do a midget version
Doug says
I’m usually very skeptical about new motorcycle companies. There always seems to be more hype than actual, functional motorcycles. From reading about the Motus, their plans, and seeing their clean mechanical designs, I get the sense that they might actually succeed and I wish them well. I just hope they don’t wrap the bike in some godawful plastic bodywork that kills the willingness of potential buyers to see the good stuff underneath.
Mule says
Looks awesome. And the sound is permanently imprinted in my brain!!! Good luck to these guys.
Richard Gozinya says
Will be great if they eventually come out with a naked version, but even the fully faired concept stuff looks pretty good.
Bjorn says
Love the hot-rod motor and trellis frame.
The design promises to be one that will suit riders who love to build a long term relationship with their motorcycle. Steel frames and simple motors are perfect for the “never to be sold bike” many of us have tucked into our sheds. I can imagine owning and riding a bike like this into my dotage.
Bring on the R spec. model with lower bars and rear-set pegs.
Will13 says
Looks great and it’s always good to see a new American company trying to punch its way onto the scene.
Love the engine, would be killer in a small sports racing car like a Radical or Stohr. Awesome engine note, and simple technology.
Hope these lads make it all the way to mass production.
Paul Y says
These guys are definitely onto something here. That motor is awesome – 122 ft/lbs of torque, wow. And the sound at full throttle, oooh.
They could follow BMW’s pattern of the old airhead R100s where one chassis and engine became several models (S,RS,RT) and get a lot of customers who don’t want the ridiculous level of complexity and non user friendly nature of the newer bikes.
Mark L says
Man. What a fantastic sound!
That engine sounds for all the world like a sprint car on alcohol at full load!
Wow! I thought a new R1 sounded great.
Good luck to Motus. I can’t wait.
Mark L.
Scheffers says
hell f*ckin’ jeah!!!
seventhson says
Frame and swing arm look complicated and heavy. Today,s technology demands light rigid aluminum structure. Low center of gravity and low unsprung weight are so important to handling.
Mark L says
Seventhson,
I think you should let Ducati know that they need aluminum frames asap! That is the magic cure to front end problems that Stoner et al are having on the MotoGP bikes!
Damn that carbon fiber stuff. Stupid Chromoly. Silly metal matrix composites. Who needs that nickel alumide and titanium stuff in their engine anyhow?
Everyone knows that aluminum is the only proper material to use for motorcyles.
Stupid engineers. They should quit using that easy to fabricate, rigid, lightweight steel alloy tubing and immediately redesign everything based on pressure die cast or stamped aluminum sheet RIGHT NOW! Today’s technology DEMANDS IT!
Seriously, have you ever compared the weight of the chromoly steel swingarm on an Egli frame to the cast, stamped, and formed aluminum one from a GSXR1000?
I have, and the GSXR swingarm is about 5 lbs. heavier. Or perhaps the aluminum swingarm from a Honda VFR800? That is a real boat anchor.
With todays technology, the design criteria is established and then the materials are selected to fit the spec, not normally the other way around.
The Motus frame and swingarm appear to be well designed and triangulated, and I would suspect that it will receive rave reviews for it’s rigidity and handling whenever the bike is actually tested.
Also nice application of carbon fiber in the airbox and valve covers. I will be supprised if those parts make it to production due to cost….
Again, proper application of material to need vs cost.
Also, from the photos shown above, you could calculate rake, trail, offset, probable swingarm angle, chain pull based on what appears to be the countershaft hole in the transmisssion case if you wanted to guess at gearing based on 17″ wheel size, etc.
The construction methods, and overall quality are very Bimota-esque, and I think it is going to be a great ride!
As an engineer who worked on the Roehr 1250SC chassis and engine on the side, and in my current position as engineering manager of the largest artificial heart valve and stent testing company in the world, I tend to disagree with the whole “todays technology demands aluminum” garbage.
If I were you, I would go back and re-read my engineering fundimentals 101 course books.
Good luck to Motus! We need more from the heart that is backed up by proper engineering and materials application principles.
Mark L.
PS- Seventhson- Lighten up a little!
todd says
Nice. I look forward to seeing (and hearing) these things on the road.
-todd
coho says
Sweet.
Go, Case, go!
seventhson says
To Mark L :
Didn’t mean to ruin your day, Mark! All that steamed commentary on your part isn’t really necessary, as we are all here to enjoy the amazing array of motorcycles, and to express our humble opinions. To experience a prime example of engineering that is well ahead of it’s time, just take the time to watch the dvd about John Britten’s fantastic motorcycle.
rohorn says
Mark L,
That was far more polite, detailed, and humorous than what I wanted to write.
Thanks!
Mark L says
Seventhson,
That was intended as satirical humor, not anger!
By the way, I had the pleasure to briefly play with Mannson’s Britten at Daytona in 1997 when we were racing the HD VR1000 in FUSA.
As a former team owner on the AMA, NASB and FUSA circuits from 84-1998, and working with Walter Roehrich for the last 6 years, I have had the chance to see some pretty special bikes.
It is my sincere hope that the Motus will join the ranks, rather than go the way of the Excelsior-Henderson, US Norton, etc.
Mark L.
Bjorn says
Mark L,
You may be the man to ask about this.
Eccentric chain adjusters, good or evil? I read a piece (can’t recall where) by a chassis engineer who was decidedly cranky about eccentrics as a method of adjusting chain length. His take on it was; as you tension the chain you are altering the head angle (minutely) and changing the relationship between the sprocket centres and swingarm pivot which will alter the squat characteristics. This guy was a builder of race chassis rather than road equipment, so it may not be an issue on the road. Given the clean slate that Motus have started with, is this a good way to go about tensioning the chain?
I only bring this up as an interesting discussion point because your potted C.V. implies you could offer an informed opinion on the subject.
Ciao, Bjorn.
p.s. Beaut, informative response to seventhson’s initial post. You said it far better than I could have and with far more good grace.
Bob Nedoma says
[Eccentric chain adjusters, good or evil?]
These may actually allow for some handling improvements, as with the exception of the shortest and the longest possible setting, you will always have two options for every other chain-length. The top OR the bottom, same length! I wouldn’t think there be that much diff. except perhaps if you take yours racing. How much difference?
I would ask any one of the leading race riders, not an engineer or a promoter.
jon says
Push Rods, My god, are you kidding. Why not some Holley carbs then and a couple of shocker on the back.
Tom says
jon, you’re jumping the gun here. Motus has not done any marketing of their bikes nor have they priced them. They haven’t even made them yet. You’re just wanting to bash something just to bash it because its not Playstation3 high-tech cool.
kneeslider says
jon, you must have come in late to the Motus discussions. We’ve covered this engine in some detail here and here. I’ve also added the video above. Those pokey old Pratt and Miller Corvettes with the pushrod V8s built by Katech, who are building this engine, seem to get around pretty well.
Woodco100 says
Jon, a production style pushrod V8 topfuel dragster can go from 0-300 mile per hour in 4 seconds. That is almost inconcieveable it is so fast. An overhead cam Formula 1 car tops out at about 225-250mph.
Pushrods have lasted so long because they work so well.
They should dump the cahian drive for a shaft however.
Rich says
The push rods are fine for this application – makes perfect sense. As is the steel chassis. I would – in fact – use mild carbon steel as opposed to 4130 or whatever alloy they’re using. All steel has the same modulus and this is what you’re going for – stiffness over ultimate strength.
Also, as has been reported elsewhere, Motus is working on an R version with upgraded suspension (Öhlins). I am hoping they opt to sell a naked version as a muscle bike. With that engine it only seems appropriate. If I can afford one (big if), I’m a buyer for sure.
kneeslider says
@Rich: “Also, as has been reported elsewhere, Motus is working on an R version”
We’ve mentioned the R model many times on The Kneeslider, for instance here, here and in a comment by Brian Case here. It will be a nice addition to the MST-01.
Seventhson says
I know that some people here consider push rods archaic, but with the right materials the disadvantages are minimized in relatively low revving engines(under 8000 rpm). One Advantage is to keep vertical dimensions and upper cylinder weight to a minimum. Frankly I am surprised that no one has explored a push rod type of variable valve timing. V-Twin cruiser engines would be a perfect example, as top end Hp could be added to the already huge bottom end torque.
Mark L says
Jon,
Pushrods have one advantage that makes it far better than any kind of overhead cam valvetrain. Overall engine height.
In a motorcycle application where the center of gravity is so important, (roll center of intertia being most important) cam-in-block with pushrods allow you to shorten the height of the motor (heads) and get the heavy parts like the steel cam and drive mechanism down into the block by the crank. You can lower center of inertia of the motor by many inches with a pushrod valvetrain.
Also, if you have competitive power, weight and size, and you have met all your design specifications, why does the valvetrain matter? Especially if it allows you to lower the engine mass many inches vs. an overhead cam design.
When you look at that motor, you will find that it is VERY compact compared to a DOHC I4 or V4 motor.
On the subject of eccentric adjusters-Yes, they can affect handling on a race bike very noticeably as the ride height in the rear can go +/- 1/2″ or more, for a total rear ride height change of an inch or more.
I think it is more important to keep the wheel straight than the change in chain pull angle or ride height change that you will see with an eccentric adjuster on a streetbike.
I am really excited to see this bike hit the street!
Mark L.
PS- to really learn some cool stuff about pushrods- go to this link: We were using these in our Buell racebikes as far back as 1996.
http://solutions.3m.com/3MContentRetrievalAPI/BlobServlet?assetType=MMM_Image&locale=en_US&blobAttribute=ImageFile&fallback=true&univid=1114293769330&placeId=62603&version=current
Thom says
Just for the record- GM does have variable valve timing in some of their pushrod engines, such as the 3.9 “high feature” V6 and some of the truck v-8’s with “variable displacement”. So, SOMEONE has done it.
Aerion says
I’m not sure why they chose that particular engine mounting arrangement. Would it not have been preferable to cast mounting points in the cylinder heads, fore and aft, and thus avoid the added weight of dropping those tubing triangles down to the engine block? The bending and twisting moments being fed into the main frame tubes would also tend to lessen, because those long drop down tubes would no longer be twisted and bent on their base welds by engine and inertia loads.
Are they anticipating that people will want to remove and replace entire cylinder heads without removing the engine? If so, it seems like a heavier compromise.
I do wish them luck.
Aerion says
This consideration may explain why they chose high strength steel alloy like 4130 rather than mild steel. Some of the localized frame stresses are probably fairly high.
todd says
Moto GP bikes are doing similar things with their frames. Having a longer connection to the fairly rigid motor allows more frame flex as suspension in corners. You don’t want your frame rigid in every direction.
Push rods? Well, like everyone said, if you’re not limited to displacement and are not trying to get the MAX power and RPM out of a motor, then they work fine. Besides, you can run hydraulic lifters with push rods.
-todd
Aerion says
That might make sense for an R model, but an ST? Also, many successful race bikes didn’t and don’t adopt the long engine hanger frame design approach.
Maybe Motus just wants to use common jigs and frames for R and ST models? Maybe some details will change once the cylinder heads are finalized?
Seventhson says
I still stand by my first comment about the frame. There is a lot of metal above the engine and in the seat support. I just think that if you are going to build an engine from scratch anyway, why not add support structure into the design to accommodate integrated rigid support for the frame and swing arm. A few ounces of added weight to the engine case and cylinders would remove pounds from the frame and swing arm. I ride a Star Stratoliner that uses the engine as a stressed member of the frame. The frame and swing arm weigh a total of 48 pounds. Not bad for such a big bike!
PS………An earlier comment about using a shaft instead of the chain. Why add complication, unsprung weight and handling input from torque effect from a shaft. The twisting effect of a shaft affects handling with throttle input. If you have ridden both to their limits you will know why GP bikes use chain drives.
gildasd says
Dear Mark L.
About the application of carbon fiber in the airbox and valve covers:
I’m not as qualified as you, but for limited production runs on non weight bearing parts (covers are a prime exemple) carbon does make financial sense: At a certain scale, the tooling, manufacture of tooling and production method is more affordable/doable than other techniques. As you ramp up production, it does make less and less sense.
I agree with you on the frame (as an 10 year + industrial designer, currently attending welding classes and going back to Uni to become an engineer, that thing is PORN). It just ticks soooo many right boxes and makes me want to pick up a TIG or MIG and weld something. The rear swing arm is wonderfull too. But, it might get replaced in pruduction by a cheaper, heavier, extruded, curved and welded aluminium alloy jobby – saddly.
Tinman says
There is nothing wrong with pushrod valve accuation, Not everyone wants to ride a High Reving sewing machine. And yes there have been hydraulic adjusters used on OHC engines in the past, the 2.3 litre Pinto engine comes to mind. Before bashing the 2.3, try to remember the Millions produced, and Hundreds of Million miles traveled with this engine. There is really nothing new in the world of engines, the 1911 Peaugot racer from France had 4 valves per cylinder with dual OHCs. Only the quality of the materials has improved, the designs are 100 years old.
Woodco100 says
I would argue that every true Sport Touring bike sold in the last 30+ years has been a shaftdrive. Exception being Triumph. Which is not really a contendor, and why I did not chose to buy one. FJR, Goldwing, St series, Concours, All BMW.
If we are arguing that pushrods are fine since this is not a true sportbike, than we should also argue that a shaft would be prefered.
Tom says
At 1600cc, there is simply no way that this will be a serious sportbike. Its going to be too big for this especially when the Hayabusa is “only” 1300cc and is too big. A driveshaft may have to be implemented. We’ll have to wait and see how the prototypes work out.
Scotduke says
Mark L – found your comments amusing and on the ball. The frame on this bike looks interesting and the use of push rods may seem archaic but as you say this layout keeps the engine height low and it’s worth remembering the high performance GM push rod engines seem to do ok. This bike looks like it’ll be big, but ptobably no heavier than say a Guzzi Griso.
jon says
Tom, Kneeslider,woodco100 and Mark L. I am not knock the bike, but it did create some great comments.
I thought it stranger, the bike appears to be a sports bike and it uses some hi tech bits eg, direct fuel injection, a great frame and suspension. Look its only my though and I do appreciate great engineering and design.
Jon.
dwolvin says
Mark L- great link on the pushrods!
Don’t like the depth of the sump area, but that’s just my view of a naked engine~ I know it’s got a decent amount of ignorance in it. 😉
It sure does sound purty!
Paulinator says
Mark L, I had a memerable conversation with a mtn-bike frame builder about 2 decades ago (when CF and aluminum were new and sexy). He said that if Chro-Mo was new then it would be all the rage because of it’s mechanical properties coupled with it’s versatility and shop-friendliness.
Rich, the Chro-mo has more elongation and way higher ultimate strength. The extra 100 bucks is cheap insurance.
p.s. Shape is everything when dealing with strength and rigidity…and it’s free.
hoyt says
Discussing engine attributes, frame material, etc. makes for good dialogue, but don’t forget to include one of Motus’ design initiatives…
tap into the history of a uniquely American design (which is beloved around the globe by many old & new gearheads): the muscle car sound, look *, & feel while adding good handling.
Motus is set to not only deliver on that initiative, but by doing so, they will offer a truly new & unique motorcycle. This bike will provide grins on a straight road or in the curves.
* With this engine orientation, I hope the rocking to the side is evident while blipping the throttle in neutral. Just one of many reasons to cherish bits of character in a sea of bikes that function the same way.
SlipKid says
I…. will not be in any kind of hurry to buy one.
However, I do wish them luck in all of their endevors. 🙂
ps. I do enjoy accentric adjusters on a streetbike, as it allows for at least 2 positions of rear ride height when street shocks are not generally adjustable in this way. It’s a nice option to add to the changing of front fork position in the yokes. Granted, this isn’t race tuning, but it’s a help! Isn’t it pretty much only Kawasaki doing this in mass production?
JR says
I don’t remember where, it might have been here on Kneeslider, but there is an article somewhere about these engines being considered for club race cars of some sort. I think the potential in these engines is enormous if we are talking about adding power through higher compression, hot cams, blowers, turbos, etc, a la small block V8 power philosophy. Much like the V8’s this is based on this is a building block engine. That’s how MANY American tinkerers like it: a bullet-proof engine with LOTS of potential.
This engine could break into a market that we may not know exists. Get some Motus! You and Erik are our only hopes!
Dawg says
Thanks for the update on this project. It looks like a great bike. personally I think they would do well with a muscle bike look similar to the VMAX, it would certainly match the brute sound of that engine!
I see they have USD fork in already and the wheelbase looks like its going to be short so it should be quick handling.
Cant wait for more news. Hope it progresses well.
Mark L says
Did anyone notice the 001 serial # on the back of the steering stem, and on the middle cross tube?
Also being introduced as a sport-touring bike first gets LOTS of miles racked up in a hurry. A lot more than it would if you introduced it as a sportbike first.
The more I look at this, the better it looks.
Little things like adjustable inserts at the swingarm pivot to adjust swingarm pivot height. An alternator that looks like you could replace it at the local Oreilly auto parts for $ 49, or upgrade it to something really big for about the same money.
An oil filter that looks like you won’t have to remove anything to do an oil change, other than pull a drain plug.
If you look at the photos for a while, you start seeing the attention to detail that comes from decades of experience.
I really think this is going to be something special……….
Mark L.
Sportster Mike says
After reading all the comments for and against I think it looks like it deserves to succeed
as its looks like its being designed FIRST properly then maybe tweaking it for different styles of bikes
It may not be my style of bike but I can appreciate the engineering thats in it
Look forward to seeing it on its own 2 wheels… and to hear that engine howl..
Reminds me of that old CX500 my neighbour had.. (only kidding)
B50 Jim says
I hope it succeeds, if only for that fabulous engine. How they made it wail like a small, high-revving V8 is beyond me, but there aren’t many bikes out there with such a hot-rod voice. Looks like the engineering and construction are first-rate and reasonably economical — an affordable, American-desgined, American-made, pushrod V-4 motorcycle would stand a good chance in the marketplace and not compete with the V-twin cruisers. I like the company vibe that owners and others in the business are encouraged to hot-rod the engine; it seems to have lots of potential above its already-strong performance.
That being said, I fear it has little chance of becoming a force in the industry — the landscape is littered with the wreckage of start-up motorcycle manufacturers that had a good product and the best intentions. The factors aligned against them are large. They’ll need huge amounts of capital, more than they ever imagined. There are myriad regulatory hurdles to jump, plus volume-manufacturing issues and hundreds of nit-picking problems like supplier glitches and design errors that seem to crop up with neither rhyme nor reason. What about distribution?
I hope I’m wrong. The market needs a shot in the arm, and Motus could be the ones to deliver it. I imagine a dozen of them speeding down the highway, their V-4s at full song. That would be something to see and hear.
Richard says
I always wonder where the funding for these things comes from. It must take a ton of cash to get a project like this off the ground.
The motor vid was worth the price of admission 🙂 awesome sound – especially coming from a motorcycle.
The guys in the video are pretty young – where are the old souls with all the experience?
Let’s hope this isn’t the next Motocycz…
Richard
hoyt says
B50 Jim – true, but those challenges should never stop anyone that has a product worth it. There are a lot of smart people willing to step up and solve problems on both sides of manufacturing. (esp. after 2008)
Applying American muscle car heritage to a new American-made motorcycle built for spirited riding & long trips fills a gap perfectly. The attraction their motor has received from other motor sports will definitely help in the marketplace (btw..the sport touring segment should grow as the large pool of sport bike riders get older). Check out the Road Racing article on Motus’ website.
Woodco says
I would argue that thier biggest obstacle to sucess will be the government trying to regulate every single aspect of thier exsistence. Likely right into nonexsistence.
FREEMAN says
The whole thing looks great, but I only wish they’d make a smaller motor. 100 ci is just too much for a motorcycle I’d ride. I like light, small, and simple motorcycles. I like what I see in this engine design, but if only it was half or even a quarter the size. I love to see this engine in a small car. Probably make a sweet muscle-commuter car.
tim says
I like it. I’d ride it. I probably can’t afford it.
Tom says
Richard, depending upon how its done, its not as expensive or hard to prototype a new bike. Granted, it’ll take a few hundred thousand dollars, but raising capital for a $500,000 investment really isn’t that much in the scheme of things. Further, depending on their jobs, the initial creators can self-fund the early stages of their startup. The guy behind Confederate is an attorney and Michael Czysz is an architect. This allows time and income to start.
Woodco, if you really think its “Big Gub’mint” holding back companies then you obviously don’t know anything about starting a small business. Government regulations are a small fraction of concerns for people looking for financing from banks (who aren’t lending to startups no matter how awesome the credit) and distribution channels to ensure a steady cash flow. What’s next, attack working people for joining unions against capricious exploiters who refuse to be partners?
rohorn says
Why just the other day, I opened up a fresh pack of Instant Motorcyle Prototype ™ (New! Improved! With More Carbon Fiber Than The Other Leading Brands!!) and noticed that I could send in the boxtop for a $500,000.00 Capital Investment (please wait 4-6 weeks for delivery). But why bother…
Dawg says
Just a small note, and I don’t want to sound negative because I would love the look of this machine. Motorcycles do fall over! If this bike fell over the exhausts are likely to be crushed – maybe some protection bar around these would be useful.
JR says
@ FREEMAN
I agree that a 500-750 cc V4 would be amazing
woodco100 says
OK Tom, if you say so. Try to open a factory is todays enviroment. heck, try painting your parking lot and following all the local, city,county, state, and federal rgs.
And do not forget, starting 1/1/11 everytime you do $600 worth of business with anyone, you have to stop working and send a 1099 to the IRS.
Tom says
Wow, we are all using English and yet some of you simply do not grasp this language. I was quite clear in saying that making a prototype is not as expensive or difficult as some think. Some guy did this with a new Packard, some guy a new Pierce-Arrow, and Michael Czysz did this with the C1. All three got to the prototype stage but no farther.
Prototyping is the cheap and easy stage of any startup as you’re dealing with only one or two products and the goal is not manufacture or distribution but rather refining these one or two products only. A few hundred thousand can easily get one to this stage and has with several examples across a plethora of industries, not just in the automotive field, as anyone who has watched the television shows Dragon’s Den or Shark Tank can attest.
At no time did I say or suggest getting a bike built in a factory and then shipped to market was cheap and easy. Any interpretation nearing this is solely on your part as is the fantasy that its the gub’mint standing in the way of small business rather than banks who won’t even consider a business loan or the extreme difficulty of establishing distribution channels. So woodco100, since you’re going to use the English language, please use the requisite thought processes needed to function at even a moderate level of understanding the obvious.
Mark L says
Hello Tom,
Well put.
Glad to meet the other intelligent person here.
Mark L.
I am SOOO funny……
jp says
Never mind the sport tourer…. give me that motor, frame, swingarm and a tolerably good-looking fuel tank and I’m set on the rest. Anyone else want to see a UJM-ish standard come out of this, or am I the only one?
garrett says
dawg – look in the next to last picture, seems to be a bar (maybe passenger footrest???) right above muffler. It might be for just that reason, to help protect
Dawg says
garrett – I was more worried about the header pipes than the silencer/muffler. On most machines the headers are routed out of harms way and bikes usually land on the crankcases or in the BMW boxers case, the cam covers, these are easily protected using covers or bobbins.