I can understand that cutting edge technology can actually put a manufacturers' sales at risk by being perceived as too exotic... too different... or a question/doubt of reliability. Maybe 2011 would be too much,too quickly. That said, I'd like the Husky's of 2012 to embrace some major changes. I think it's time for fuel injected dirtbikes to start their inevitable transition of relocation of some major components. Gas tanks, air filter boxes, and radiators need to swap positions. I'd like dirtbikes of 2012 to: - Focus on lowering fuel weight. How low can it go ? ,.... well how about a bullet proof combination fuel cell/engine skidplate? The front frame tube could double as a long filler neck.Too far out? Ok, then for now just stick the tank behind the engine, acts as the lower rear fender too. - Feed the engine with cleaner/dryer air sourced up high.... put the air filter where the present gas tanks reside. We could be riding in water 3' deep.... for real! - Oh, and my personal pet peeve. Tuck those damn expensive radiators away from harmful impact with the ground. Since the day dirtbike motors shed they're metal cooling fins for radiators, nobody's thought of a better place to put 'em then on each side, up front? Cooling fans are light weight and reliable IMO, and everybodies embraced electric start so your gonna be stuck with a battery anyway. Stick 'em somewhere...anywhere but right up front with one on each side, so it does'nt matter which side you fall on, your gonna nail one of them. He-he. I also wondered, where as a running engines a constant "air pump", could that draft of air leading to the air filter be pulled thru some "hybrid radiator" to suppliment the primary radiator(s) ? Some companies, Yamaha comes to mind, at times seem to decide significant change will be embraced by consumers. They take a calculated chance. I'd like to see Husky be that company. I personally don't think any of these ideas are risky... just inevitable transition. Before FI, fuel pumps were just for overcoming gravity. Now they offer the opportunity to rethink things. dave
I agree. Husaberg is marching in that very direction. I jhave for a long tim thought it would be cool if one large rad was under the seat and cooled by a scoops and a fan. mass centralization is the next big thing and you can see it is working on a lot of bikes. I'd go so far as like to see none telescopic forks, there are many inherent design flaws in this system. Good stuff.
How about a diaphragm in the tank. No fuel pump, just an air pump keeping the diaphragm pressurized. Air pumps are cheap. Ok, I can dream...
Ya know I run my trials TXT 280 at 80/1 fuel oil. Sometimes when I want something a little different I run with the enduro guys all day. I pack lots of fuel on my back but it's still lots of fun. The point I'm getting at is my GG TXT has only one small rad. that is totally covered by a fan. the fan is on all the time when riding but it never seems to boil. That's gotta count for something. Weight, design, possible that same as what Kelly is talking about. Smaller rad... big fan maybe all together a weight savings too.
I agree here -- there is lots of room for innovation. I think that advances in materials and lubricants could result in smaller radiators and/or different mounting locations. Also, I'd like to see suspension re-thought a bit. I bet there is a ton of room for some innovation there too.
I would like to see the shock mounted lower or beside the engine freeing up a bunch of space for other stuff like a centrally mounted tank and removing weight from the frame. There was a prototype Yamaha with a leaf spring under the engine. There is a lot of things that can happen. Part of all this is the publics perception though, radical changes scare a lot of people.
Not exactly what you talking about. But I feel BMW is on the right track with their new G450 x. I know KTM has tried this but BMW is just a bit different. And I do like the fuel being centered under the seat. Although a good bash plate is needed the clearance is huge. Took these last Friday nite at the Arenacross.
Yeah. Now there's some "thinking outside the (air) box". Keep going. Oh and I think , <--- this guy ought to be this threads official mascot. Only question is, is he someone who just had a brain storm or is he holding a beer and $hitfaced, he-he. dave
Still to conservative, lets go all the way. Look at this shock placement and forkless design. If you never studied the Britten Motorcycle you should, that dude was a genius. No frame, no telescopic fork, Shock in front, rad under the seat,
Yup. Progression's often stifled by consumer perception ... well, more accurately, ..... stifled by the manufacturer's perception of the consumers perception. We gotta let Husky know, the type of consumer that's drawn to they're product are also the folks who are drawn to innovators like Husaberg. Truly good ideas will eventually win out.( I'm an optimist). I don't want to ride the "cookie cutter" type of bike. They have there place I guess, .... with there aluminum frames and rising rate link-arms. But often the reality is these "innovations" are an engineering experiment that got shoved into production by a marketing dept. desire to make money. dave
Anyone remember the Yamaha GTS1000, supposed to have been a great bike but no one would buy it because it did not have a conventional fork... BWM styled the terelever after a fork and hid it so it would be accepted. they have gained popularity with it and are now staring to flaunt the forkless design more... Decoster was once quoted saying that his leading link front end was one of the best ever... but there is something to be said for perception yes, I am obsessed with fork less front ends, have been for about 20 years.
In the early mountain bike days all kinds of unconventional fork designs were popular. They are all conventional now though. I am not sure if it was the execution or if the unconventional designs just have problems. In theory they have lots of advantages. I think with fuel pumps the best change will be putting the fuel where the airbox is and putting the airbox where the fuel is. It just makes sense. Realistically Husky needs to address basics like decent tanks before they get all exotic.
I'm all for progress and innovation but really, I can't ride my '09 to it's potential. Even if the bikes could send me down the trail or around the track faster I still know that the ground is very hard, the rocks are even harder and those damn trees still jump out of nowwhere.
Ya don't say! This is at least the third thread posts I've seen you do with these pictures....and I love 'em Invention and ingenuity are the American way. I say you take your passion and work with the guys at Christini since they've brought a product to market that works better but won't sell worth a darn.
It boils down to cost. On a lot of fronts. Rule #1: Speed (innovation) is a question of money, how fast ya wanna go? I like the direction Husky is going now. Sensible upgrades, competetive bikes. Dirt cheap too. And different. Nothing like the others. You could throw a blanket over the Asian bikes. My '09 has an offset shock, straight airtract, 50 mm fork with bleeders, etc. Butt easy to service too. Moving the airtract up front and very high complicates design, increases chance for issues, costs more to make. Moving the rads out of the airstream means boilovers. Etc. Adding stuff to compensate for that = complications, weight and cost. I'm all for improvements, innovations and such but sometimes I think some folk are trying to reinvent the wheel. But please dont get me wrong... I aint downing anything anyone does, esp when it's their passion. (Birth of a Racer was a great flick and lumped me up pretty good) For 2012? If anything? Husky needs to get the weight down, lower the seat height and get the fuel capacity up. And, do all this while keeping the cost the same. They've already nailed reliability and engineering/cost effectiveness. They need to fine tune their design's. No re-engineer them I like stuff that's simple, easy to work on in the field, that last's and is affordable. That's why I ride a Husky. They work, they last, they are not expensive. The different factor is cool too....but, off point. Spending 9 or 10k$ for a dirtbike? Are you kidding me? No innovation is worth that. Esp when my old RMX woods-mosher will do the exact same thing, for longer. I don't want 3' tall intake tracts, EFI, trellis front end's etc... Just my limited funds humble opinion from the field. Like Gary Fisher said: "light, strong, cheap, pick any two". Want all 3, see Rule #1. Love ya Husky- don't ever change.
We are just having fun thinking outside the box bro. BTW there are big advantages to alternative front ends and i bet one day (we are already seeing it wit BMW) they will get developed and main stream. The main advantage of a fork is that is has been under development for 100 years, EZ to build with older manufacturing processes and accepted as normal. Other designs can be lighter, including the frame to support it, much less turning mass, less unsprung weight, anti dive, pro dive, neutral (all with geometry) isolate brake and shock forces from the stroke, eliminate binding, is not fixed in travel direction meaning it can be designed to increase, decrease or keep constant the wheel base. etc. I think the advantages are huge and we will see much better working and better handling lighter bikes one day because of it. In 30 years when this all happens and I'm to old to ride I'm going to come back here and say see, told you so.
