Motorcycle testers for the various motorcycle magazines all over the world ignore one of the main considerations most people have when they are shopping for a new bike. Will it fit me?
That all starts with being able to touch the ground flat-footed while sitting on the bike. Of course, a motorcycle enthusiast will climb on a box, if necessary, to get on a bike just to get another ride so seat height means very little to him. He simply does whatever acrobatics it takes to ride it, but he will never be as good on it as he would be if it fit him.
To eventually get to be an enthusiast you first have to ride bikes that fit your body. Inseam length is the deciding factor in making a bike fit you.
In testing Honda’s Africa Twin, Cycle World magazine said: “Moreover, using a parallel twin gave the bike a narrow waist that makes it easy for the rider to get his feet flat on the ground”. That model Honda has a seat height of 33.5 to 34.3 inches. In this case, the motorcycle tester knows it’s desirable to put your feet flat on the ground when sitting on your bike, but having him assume riders have a minimum of a 34-inch inseam is not that easy to forgive. After all, I am a rider, who has a 27-inch inseam.
I recently read a short article in Cycle News online magazine about the new Beta 125 RR – S, a trail bike targeted at the new rider and the author says as follows: “It has a low 35.5-inch seat height”.
That seat height can only be low to someone with a 36 inch or longer inseam. So the bike must be made for beginners close to 6 foot or taller. It is certainly not made for the bulk of the people, both men and ladies, whose inseam’s range from around 25 to 30 inches.
To most people a 27-inch seat height would be more in the ballpark, then the majority of us could more or less sit on the bike flat-footed.
If the motorcycle testers were serious about really doing their job, they would have people with various inseam lengths sit on the bikes to test and actually see what would be the shortest inseam a rider could have and still touch the ground flat-footed. That way when you go shopping for a bike you would know which models to start looking at first.
Actually racing could do much to improve our bikes if racers and manufacturers were allowed to innovate.
Smokey Yunick
If you have followed racing of all types down through the years you probably recognize the name Smokey Yunick. He was known for making improvements in engine and chassis design that netted him more power better fuel mileage better handling etc. Smokey never did anything that was actually against the rules, he simply did all kinds of things the rulebook didn’t prohibit to give his cars a racing edge. In other words, he was a champion of innovation.
Do you think he was applauded for his design improvements? Actually far from it! Race organizers and sanctioning bodies go out of their way to enforce the status quo and consider improvements cheating.
So yes, racing could improve our bikes if improvements were allowed to happen.
Following are major breakthroughs in motorcycle design in recent years that were squelched by the sanctioning bodies. The first breakthrough happened in the US and was squelched by the AMA, the American Motorcycle Association. The second breakthrough happened in Japan and was squelched by the FIM, the Federation International Motorcyclist. The third one was shelved because the second one was squelched.
1 – In 1971 Lars Larson raced a titanium framed Husqvarna 400cc motocross bike and he won the championship that year. Using titanium for the frame, axles, and a few other components, Lars got the weight down to 189 pounds. That was a savings of 25 pounds from stock. We all know the lighter a bike is the easier it is to handle, and the better fuel mileage it gets.
The AMA outlawed titanium frames for competition the next season. If they had kept out of it, all the other companies would have had to go titanium also to remain competitive and we would be the winners. No matter what your dirt bike weighs now it would be about 25 pounds lighter and somewhat stronger if the AMA had not made that shortsighted move. These actions are always taken to try to do the impossible – – keep down the cost of racing.
If the innovators are not allowed to do something simple like that which would’ve benefited all of us, they’ll just have to do several sneaky things that benefit no one but them and probably raise the cost of racing even more.
2 – In 1980 Honda made an effort to revolutionize motocross by designing a 125 two cylinder two stroke motocross bike that put out 35 hp. at 13,000 RPM however the FIM sanctioning body banned two cylinder bikes from motocross competition in 1981.
Because of that we still only have single cylinder motocross bikes, rather than the much better performing twin cylinder bikes that the industry is capable of providing.
3 – In 1980 Honda was also pioneering a revolutionary leading link fork that got stiffer the further it moved into its travel, leading to vastly improved control on a motocross course or any other unimproved riding area. Since their twin cylinder motocross bike was rejected by the sanctioning body they simply shelved their whole design effort.
The manufacturers don’t like a ban on innovation either, because if designers and engineers lack a challenge the entire line of products suffers.
In affect the FIM effort to protect the status quo has deprived us of motorcycles that are a lot safer and more fun to ride.
So let’s encourage the motorcycle manufacturers to ignore the race sanctioning organizations and build better lighter more fun motorcycles for us to enjoy. We all know from past experience that if someone wants to race anything an organization will start up which encourages that form of racing, so the sanctioning body’s rules are simply a paper tiger.
Cost-cutting rules about racing have never kept the cost down yet, so I don’t suppose we will actually ever see that happen anyway.
In racing, there should always be a manufacturer’s class where innovation is encouraged so they can actually improve our bikes.
There should also be a more or less stock class where individuals can innovate to improve our current crop of machines.
Spec classes should also be run where all the bikes are kept on a par for that so-called affordable racing we keep hearing about.
So which manufacturer is going to do titanium frames, modern front suspension and make the lightweight bikes that have been possible since 1971? They should be even easier to do now with 45 years more accumulated experience using titanium in aerospace production and so forth.
Perhaps manufacturers should make both the plain-vanilla models that satisfy sanctioning bodies, and the up to date models most of us really want to buy.
The telescopic fork is being asked to do a job that physics and common sense won’t allow it to do no matter how many thousands of dollars they continue to throw at its development. It has already had millions wasted on trying to perfect it.
Here’s the problem. – – When you ride it forward against a bump the movable part of the fork, whether it is a male or female slider, is violently shoved straight back towards the motorcycle, and only after that happens does it start to slide upward on or in its tubes that are attached to the handlebars. Therefore you have one set of tubes prying against the other set of tubes as they try to slide in or on each other. No matter what is done to make them more slippery there is no way those basic facts of mechanical action can be changed.
Even though the telescopic fork looks cool and simple and the effect is not noticed much when you’re sitting still and working your beautiful smooth front fork up and down, it does not have the same effect when you’re riding the bike and run into a bump.
That is why it takes 12 or 14 inches of up-and-down travel to get a good ride over unimproved terrain with telescopic forks.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the shock spring units being made to telescope, it is simply that they have to be attached in such a way that impacts do not hit them directly and put them in any kind of a bind.
The answer of course is to use some kind of a hinged unit that separates the impact from the shock spring unit just like on the modern car. There have been many types of hinged front suspensions used on motorcycle forks. In fact one of the first multi-cylinder motorcycles had one used on it in 1895.
In one form or another leading or trailing link suspensions, as they are called, have been used on one model or another by most motorcycle manufacturers. Up until now these link type suspensions have been slightly heavier than a telescopic fork. Now titanium can be used in their manufacture and affect a 20% weight savings, finally making them completely practical, and perhaps slightly lighter than equivalent telescopic forks. So 121 years later technology has finally caught up with the design and they are practical for top-of-the-line motorcycles.
The practical results of changing over to a leading link design are;
1. No suspension binding either on impact or braking.
2. Better and safer braking because the front of the bike doesn’t dive during braking thereby taking weight off the rear wheel.
3. A much smoother ride needing only one-half of the travel because binding doesn’t compromise shock action.
4. Much longer life out of spring shock units.
5. Because of the way the impacts are absorbed there is less stress on the frame of the motorcycle allowing for overall lighter weight and longer service life.
6. A lower seat height with way better comfort and safety. It usually only takes one good ride to make you happy you made the leading link suspension choice.
7. In essence the leading link fork has an action similar to that used on today’s supercars and they are constantly being tested at speeds of over 200 mph.
Is there a downside to using the leading link type front fork? Yes there is, you’ll have to get used to the fork looking a little bit different.
I’ve personally raced several thousands of off-highway miles on leading link front fork equipped motorcycles and I have been able to perform well above my skill level because of their forgiving nature.
As you may know, the crossover segment in the auto industry is the fastest-growing segment of their business. These cars have a little more ground clearance, all-wheel-drive usually and better visibility so they are not limited to driving on highways.
The motorcycle industry also has such a segment and they are called adventure bikes. They can be ridden on the streets, highways and almost anywhere else regardless of roads or terrain. Currently, four of the major companies are building some form of adventure bike and most of the rest are building something similar but they are not there yet.
In riding motorcycles, however, you can’t just slide the seat back and forth to fit different size bodies. The motorcycles actually have to be designed for different general leg length (inseam) so the riders can set both feet on the ground when the motorcycle is not in motion.
Problem: Because suspension technology has not progressed with the rest of the motorcycle technology the only way to currently get a smooth ride over uneven terrain is to have 12 inches to 14 inches of suspension travel on a telescopic type front fork. Thus if you intend to get a smooth ride you must have a seat height from the ground that only more or less fits about 40% of the potential motorcycle riders. Those riders must have an inseam length of 34 inches or more to safely touch the ground with both feet.
Conclusion: It is absurd that an entire industry would only cater to 40% of their available customers. It’s as if the manufacturers had a meeting somewhere and decided that all motorcycle riders have a 34 inch or longer inseam, so that’s all we’re going to build. I guess they decided anyone with less than a 34-inch inseam must be a child so we will make some basic beginner models for them and if any short adults want to ride they can stand on a stool to mount the bike or ride a children’s bike. The problem with using a stool to mount the bike is how do you have the stool at a stop light when it turns red?
There is an exception: The cruiser models. The way they made them sit lower was to take away suspension travel, rather than re-engineer the suspension to give them a good ride. One of them has just over 1 ½ inches of movement on their rear suspension rather than the 12 inches to 14 inches of movement on the best off-road bikes. As you can easily see the cruisers need roads almost as smooth as a tabletop to be able to ride them comfortably. How many roads like that are there? So the result is a 27-inch inseam cruiser rider can’t explore like a 34-inch inseam person can on an adventure bike.
Now modern materials and systems are available to get the same kind of compliance and a smooth ride with only 6 inches or 7 inches of travel.
I simply propose a complete line of smaller adult motorcycles from adventure bikes clear down to the cruisers be designed around this new technology to fit the other approximately 60% of the population. I see no reason why cruisers should have to ride like farm equipment or adventure bikes should require a ladder for the majority of people to climb on board.
Most of the rest of today’s motorcycle technology will need very little modification to satisfy these many new fans.
