Re: [CR]Re: BB height

(Example: History)

Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 14:49:10 -0800
From: "Kurt Sperry" <haxixe@gmail.com>
To: "Philcycles@aol.com" <Philcycles@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: BB height
In-Reply-To: <c26.d614621.32cad755@aol.com>
References:
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

I think the lesson of the Elf (hard to isolate one factor as so many novel concepts were combined there) and CoG was that putting the heavy fuel that far from the roll axis (actual, not the contact patches) made roll initiation cumbersome. At least that's my recollection from then.

Kurt Sperry

On 1/1/07, Philcycles@aol.com <Philcycles@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/1/07 1:16:04 PM, bobhoveyga@aol.com writes:
>
> >"Clear as mud is right." The broomstick example may be unassailable from
> >a physics standpoint but it is counter to the design principles of race
> >cars and motorcycles where low center of gravity is one of the the holy
> >grails of sure-footed handling (and resistance to roll in turns in the
> >case of autos).
>
> Sorry, Bob, but the low center of gravity thing doesn't work with single
> track vehicles. ELF tried that in the 80s with underslung fuel tanks and
> the
> motors didn't handle well. Mass centralization is the key with single
> track
> vehicles, not low centers of gravity. And we have that in bicycles where
> the rider
> represents the greatest portion of the weight.
> Phil Brown
> San Rafael, Calif.