It will be interesting to see what the plastic is going to look like especially now that the in mold process is available. You could do all sorts of things with it. I also like how gas gas etches their swing arms in the anodizing process. Kelly, you forgot to add the CZ snake pipe on it. typpyt
My first post went missing, but here's another. Another thing I'd like to see being taken from the MZ book, in addition to the crank mounted clutch, is a fully enclosed chain. This could be made to look quite neat / not dog ugly, and would be a great re-innovation with regards to chain life. With the concentric SA/ CS (although I wonder just how concentric it is on the new Husky- a question for Husky Relic later..) the chain gets an easier time, other than one big problem. Last year at the few rounds of our state series and national off road series here in OZ, I thing nearly every time, I saw at least one of the BMs with broken chains. Here's the reason : with the concentric SA, you don't have to run the chain loose. But, with this, getting something caught between the chain and sprocket(s), has a bigger chance of breaking the chain ( at least the broken chains showed the cases were strong). With a conventional set up. you've a chance that your swing arm will either get pulled up, or down, into the "chain loose" position, with whatever has jammed between chain and sprockets - with the concentric set up, there is no chance of this, so bang goes the chain.With the chain enclosed, no chance of something getting between the chain and sprockets. This is not my slagging the CS set up - I like it, as I used AMP torque eliminators for many years and now make my own set up for my bikes as I like having less / more consistent chain torque influence on my suspension. I suggested to a few BM guys that this was what was happening, and I just got blank looks - thick as 2 short planks...... A fully enclosed chain would make the chain and sprockets last a looooong time, could be made to look good (personally , I don't find chains or sprockets very attractive to look at), and be easily "opened" for gearing changes. Couple that with a rear sprocket that remained on the swing arm in taking the wheel out, and it would be a win / win. But I guess it might be too practical in this day and age. That question for Husky Relic: Scot, just how concentric is the SA / CS now? The side views show it's either a very small front sprocket, or the two centre lines are not concentric. I know that BM changed the frames from perfectly centred, to very slightly offset, to give back a bit of a conventional feel, and the side view shows it may be a very slightly offset / eccentric pivot point. Here's the pics from last years Six Days, for those that didn't see it: First is the non concentric frame, 2nd is the original concentric frame, both styles used at the Six Day: It is impressive seeing Scot Harden on the site, answering questions and actually being involved. Great stuff. I like the various photo shops that people have done - plain black stealth testing bikes look cool in pre season Moto GP tests, but prospective dirt bike owners don't seem to like it. I have to say, I've never liked the late model Husky "duck tail" rear fender, and I wish the no side panels look wasn't taking over, but I guess I'm getting old. I do really dislike the cheesy red cam covers, it looks cheap and nasty, but.......... I've ridden the BMs several times, and, once they were set up away from their street legal dual sport mode ( just like EXCs, if you ride one of those in their ADR mode you'd hate the thing) I really liked them. By far my favourite 450 4t engine. I think a lot of the problems were riders not being used to the concentric pivots different feel, and a frame that, whilst OK for the average bloke, was a flexy flyer to some, just look at the various bracing attempts they made last season, and now the larger diameter, presumably non stainless frame with different bracing Juha and Tarkalla have been using so far this year.
I can see that the Concentric CS/swingarm should offer some benefits but, And This Is A Very Big BUT: You cannot get away with running little or no chain slack - (as some here have intoned) except on pavement or hard pack dirt roads. If you are riding in any kind of loose soil, wet or muddy conditions that chain will pack up and break something - as bearorso mentioned. I normally run what many consider to be excessive chain slack(often about 2" or more.) and I managed to have my chain pack up a few weeks ago in a mud hole. Almost had to pee on it to free it up.
Here is a good article that gives a good explanation of why the countersprocket is run offset from the swingarm pivot and tuning the offset, swingarm length and angle, etc. Existing frame layouts are the way they are for a reason -> It's all about tuning the chassis for maximum traction; It looks to me like the prototype bmw ISDE frame shown in the picture above is modifying the equation in order to achieve better traction... http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_0404_motorcycle_traction_geometry/index.html If you ask me, there is more advantage to be gained by making the chassis more tune-able. e.g. Adjustable steering head angle & wheelbase ( the latter might be as easy as making large chain slack adjustment range so that one can easily pull a link from the chain, etc.). I haven't seen a bike with an adjustable steering head angle since can-am had it decades ago - so the patent must be long expired. I am sure one could come up with a cam type adjuster to pick one of two angles or optional cones, etc. This would make the dez guys and the tight woods guys happy with a single frame (or make me happy riding belfair and china hat back to back). It would have a side benefit on the dual sport to modify steering geometry from street to tight trail use. Thoughts? I have one other question/comment - I sure do hope that that the larger displacement version of this bike is stroked versus bored. The stroke adds so much more usable torque and is how the existing Husky 510 and KTM gains additional displacement in their motors.. jeff
FYI - here is the 1975 patent from bombardier (Can-Am) for "Motorcycle Steering Head Angle Adjustment" : http://www.google.com/patents?id=tt...urce=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false jeff
Good article. The "squat" or lack thereof, was always my concern with the CS location on the BMW. I didn't like that the bike had conventional suspension to handle such an unconventional power distribution. The geometry is totally different and thinking that regular old suspension would cut it wasn't very bright in my opinion. I am really happy to see Husky using a very unconventional suspension set up. I hope it works phenomenally.
OR, show me a high compression 540KTM making over 58 hp, the 480cc version of the G450X will with full race exhaust and tune. The stroke makes the power slower to deliver and while that can have it's advantages, Ill take a 480cc G450 big bore any day over a 540 orange or 510 red bike, the power is everywhere on the G450 powerplant.
A small question How many have seen the new bike in real life? And how many have tested the new bike. And how many now if this is a version that is redy for the market. Of course it looks ver redy. Best regards Klas
Interesting article and I'd guess bmw has been studying this angle for traction a while with its street machines and is it on any of their street bikes? The part of different sprockets was interesting also ... maybe now we know why sometimes changing gearings just feels better I liked the pretty pictures but did not see an example of a CS on the swingarm axis .... What is the benefit of the this design at? Is this the case of a greater chain angle helping with the anti-squat? Yep I like the rank changing idea... as long as it is easy to perform .. What about an adjustable swingarm pivot as mentioned in the article? PS -- thanks for the clue on chain breaks ... Better it happens here than out in the middle of no where ... I like the enclosed chain idea but it has to be a light weight enclosure ... And it has to be their idea and not yours or the egos will not be interested pursuing it
BMW offers an enclosed chain gaurd for the G450X, not a very popular option. While it's made of very light plastic that snaps together around the chain, it's just not appealing to me.
Thanks Jeff for posting this. There is no question that all of us have grown up riding machines that due to the sprocket location vis-a vis the swingarm pivot and rear axle location that produce a certain effect when applied. Every bike we've ever ridden has this designed into the equation and there's no denying that this new system "feels" different. In fact the first time out it may even feel "weird" but that quickly goes away way once you learn the new dynamic that is being expressed. This will be a real issue going forward and it will take time for it to all settle out. It is one of the most radical departures in terms of how the m/c feels that I have experienced going back to when we finally started getting larger diameter forks and long travel suspension. Thanks again for posting the link that explains the old configuration.
It's possible that riding this new bike might be somewhat akin to what it was like when Ski-doo came out with their 'Rev' chassis a few years ago. It put the rider in a stance similar to riding a dirtbike, which had never been done on a snowmobile before. Many snowmobilers didn't think too highly of it when they first got on it and rode it. It felt different, rode and handled different and actually felt slower to many guys. Then when they got back on their 'old style' conventional sled, they quickly became converts. They didn't realize what POS's the old style designs were until they spent an hour on something better. Now all the sled manufacturers use a variant of the 'REV' design. We shall see.......
There was no science nor engineering study with regards to swing arm pivots as bikes evolved from hard tails to rear suspension - just positional convenience. Those of you who are old enough , will remember how far away from the CS SA pivots were on older bikes, and the subsequent problems that really reared their heads once the LTR revolution hit. From that point, SA pivots migrated closer and closer to the CS centres. The closer both centre points are to each other, the less chain length variation and the variation of the relative SA pivot height to the CS and rear axle point - those various graphs are great for showing these points. Those that think a concentric pivot point will result in the be -all and end - all of suspension are wrong, just as those who think a certain CS, SA and rear axle relationship is perfect are wrong. At least when compared to others idea of perfection. There is no perfect. There is chain torque going into a concentric set up , just as there is with "conventional" CS / SA pivots . It just gives an engineer a more consistent (and much less) chain torque base line . Jon Ekerold won the 350 RR world championships on a concentric swing armed Bimota TZ, and Bimota had several frame kits / bikes with the same set up, but they were very wide at the SA pivot because of it. Concentric set ups biggest problem is this: the vast majority of riders have been riding all their lives with the variables of the conventional set ups, and they have learnt to ride with the effects it has on suspension, eg: using the the throttle and its effect on the suspension to preload for jumps etc. Even the most average rider uses this unconsciously in their normal riding - and many of us, totally consciously - Highly skilled riders, constantly. I'm reminded of how so many engineers blamed the less than enthusiastic reception by riders of various "funny front ends" by riders, one or two coming out with quotes along the lines that they needed the riders who had grown up / learnt to ride with telescopic forks to "die out" before their much superior (in engineering terms) would be accepted. Telescopic forks are an abomination to engineering purists, just as non concentric CS / SA pivots are, but, damn, don't those "horrible" teles' and conventional SA pivots work well................ Hey , my version of the perfect chassis / motor position / rear end would be a more extreme version of the BM layout- the pivot point roughly where the current rear engine mount is ( giving a long swing arm that has less variation in its angle - the benefits of which are discussed in that article and shown on the graphs), the crank further back, gearbox on top, a concentric / eccentrically adjustable pivot point, and , if it's a 2t, the pipe exiting on top of the laid down cylinder, and as much as is possible, kept within the frame - but that's just my loony idea of a bike. Please understand, I'm not pushing one or the other. BMW have at least broken from the straight jacket of conventional rear pivot points. Some will like it, others won't. There's nothing wrong with a non link rear end , or a link rear end - both can be just as S***house as each other. I've ridden a well set up Ohlin on the BM and it was wonderful - it has good geometry in the scalene triangle that it forms, just needs good valving and spring set up. The plate mount on the swing arm also gives a lot of scope for adjustment, if you chose to experiment. Much like KTMs, and any non link set ups, they tend to be more sensitive to set up than many linkages are. The modification to make the BM not totally concentric was, I assume, to re-introduce some conventional feel to the back end for several riders - not obtain better traction. Many of BMs riders have not felt the need to go away from the concentric back end, and they have had a lot of success with the BM in many events and series - something that people seem to ignore in favour of just concentrating on one very fast rider being unable to come to terms with the bike. Knighter is an astoundingly talented rider, but, it appears, not an astoundingly talented development rider - no crime in that, as being fast does not mean you're good with development, and the sport has had many examples of that ( so I'm not knocking Knight if you are about to have a hissy fit). Along the lines of Klas' coments, I bet most of the blokes criticizing the BMs have never ridden the bikes, or, if they have, just ridden them in their high geared,"Dual Sport" ex showroom state. And, just like any road legal from the factory bike, they are dreadful compared to what they can be when set up well. I think a lot of the problems with the BM come down to non dirt oriented BMW dealers, and their disinterest in , or lack of experience in, dirt bikes in general. I would think that BMW Atlanta might well agree with me - from all I've seem of his posts here and elswhere, he's the sort of bloke I'd want to have as my local BM dealer. I think the reception of the BMw450 would have been much better if it was released from the start as a Husky. Swingarm pivot point adjustability is a much used thing in road racing, as are a myriad of adjustments, such as in frame head angle adjustment, engine position etc etc. With dirt bikes, many teams out there that we see have modified bearing retainers within the std frame for real head angle changes, and it might well re-appear ( as others above mentioned, it was a Can Am feature many years ago) as might adjustable SA pivots and other things - it's just a question if it's demanded by consumers / sales increase to cover the extra cost of the development and manufacture. Perhaps the new Husky may already have an adjustable SA pivot - very easy to do with an eccentric pivot point/rod within the confines of the countershaft, or it may be fixed, but not fully concentric (as it "sort of" looks to me from the side pics). The back end of the Husky is not innovative in it's linkage in terms of it's potential performance compared to the now near std lower linkage ( and nothing about the BM / Husky precludes that set up being used if either factory wanted to). The slight (and useful)innovation I see is less chance of linkage damage / hang ups - in fact with the frame going back to the "dog bone" pivot, it makes the frame / swingarm even better than a no link rear end for gliding over / not hanging up on logs , ledges etc. And it gives Husky another "unique selling point" if they so choose to highlight it in their marketing. This bike may be my next one, as I think I'll be waiting too long for the DFI, oil injected 2t that I really want. I'd love to see Husky (or perhaps it might end up being Yamaha, as they are the company that, over the years, have brought out the most bombshells) gazump KTM in bringing out modern 2ts. Sorry about the rambling post, I tend to go overboard at times.
So maybe U gotta break a chain to see the real beauty of this new piece I'd prefer a guard made out of some other material other than plastic
I care about power quality and quantity at all rpms (not just peak). If I cared about only peak power I would be riding a CR500 ported for high rpm operation with a rev pipe. By the way, a stock husky txc510 put out a very respectable 53 hp on the JD jetting kit dyno - but where it shines is in torque and hp delivery below 7k rpm. Pick an rpm range where you actually operate frequently all day long on the trail, like 3k-7k rpm, and compare the power delivery in this region. The longer stroke motor will generate 15-20% more torque and more hp across this RPM range. Lengthening the stroke provides a flatter torque curve generating significantly greater torque at lower rpms. Conversely, adding bore to an already "very oversquare" motor and you shift the curve up slightly for higher rpms - but you don't shift the power around to this "sweet spot". And it seems to me that a bmw/husky dealer should be careful slamming on "red bikes" and pumping up the g450x - those "red bikes" are currently fairly successful in the marketplace and, quite frankly, the g450x is not. Mr Harden has more than a few of those "red bikes" to sell before the new generation bike arrives. jeff
Well Jeff, it is what it is. The current gen 4T HSQ's are over built without a doubt and the most robust OEM thing out there short of a DJH rebuilt KTM 540 being in the running(but not OEM). But I can attest that the G450X engine uncorked and mapped appropriately has better/more power everywhere for me over my previous TXC510 with or without JD jetting kit or Rekluse and riding the new 450 is like riding on an overly well balanced inline 4 in regards to engine vibes. If I could get a soft copy of the dyno runs with my 510TXC vs G450X I would, but there wasn't any place the 510 had a clear advantage, but plenty of places where the G450 did. Think 525 grunt power with the rev-ability (is that a word) of a 450TC or SX and more peak horsepower, not such a bad combination. I've owned a KTM 540 high compression (DJH special), 450MXC, still own a 525SX, TXC510 and ridden every 09/08 HSQ out there, I was unsure about the G450X initially as a "dirt/single tracker" for me after the initial 500 miles. But once I got used to the bike, figured out suspension set-up and added some fine tuning in the power department, I finally have a bike that can kick serious butt in dual sport riding conditions and be very very competitive at the enduro's and hare scrambles here in the SE. I'm riding the G450X everywhere now and feel better on it then any of the others. The G450X engine has been the strong point of the G450X all along, however it's press launch last year was mis-handled and it was definitely rushed to market and had some first year issues in the fine tuning dept. I'm really looking forward to HSQ's spin on it and exploring the refinement I've not yet dabbled with (hydraulic clutch, different frame configuration, rear linkage, etc)
Sorry - but the laws of physics don't give up so easily. The mechanical advantage of a longer stroke does provide greater torque and hp at lower rpms - period and end of discussion. I found two dyno curves on-line for each bike and confirmed what I know to be true. The longer stroke txc510 produces more torque and hp than a mapped and tuned g450x below 7k rpm or so. I can plot them side by side to illuminate this - but I think we can just agree to disagree. You are not going to change my mind and you aren't going to change the laws of physics. For your reference ; http://www.hexcode.co.za/products/gs-911/images-1/g450xdyno/450maxpower.jpg http://www.hexcode.co.za/products/gs-911/images-1/g450xdyno/450maxtorque.jpg http://www.pbase.com/jdjetting1/image/53264382 Note that the TC/TXC has a more aggressive cam and piston so probably pulls a bit better than the te510 dyno curve above. By the way, the TXC produces more power and acceleration by simply jetting it with a 35 leak jet and delaying the accelerator pump. And when you tip it into the accelerator pump it delivers with all the power that god intended it should have. I would like to see a longer stroke big bore variant of the 2011 husky motor - I am the customer and the customer is always right... jeff
