The Spares Company
Club Shop/Regalia
Parent Website
Contact Officials
Machine Registrar
Club Secretary
Membership Secretaries
MPH Editor and Forum Administrator.
Section Newsletters
Technical Databases
Photos
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Information
Bike Modifications
Machine Data Services
Manufacturers Manuals
Spare Parts Listings
Technical Diagrams
Whitakerpedia (Vincent Wiki)
The Club
MPH Material Archive
Flogger's Corner
Obituaries
VOC Sections
Local Sections
Local Section Newsletters
Miscellaneous
Club Assets
Club History
Club Rules
Machine Data Services
Meeting Documents
Miscellaneous
Essential Reading
Magazine/Newspaper Articles/Letters
Adverts and Sales Brochures
The Mighty Garage Videos
Bikes For Sale (Spares Company)
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
General Chat (Vincent Related)
The Passenger rides on a rigid frame
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Monkeypants" data-source="post: 42426" data-attributes="member: 2708"><p>Interesting thoughts hadronuk, and I didn't get at all sleepy. If I have some time for it today, I will measure just exactly how much suspension movement there is with 150 lbs passenger weight added to the rear of the seat. </p><p></p><p>In the meantime, I have had a chance to do some comparisons between the two Rapides here and the drawing above. The first difference noted is the mudguard to seat clearance requirement for fully suspended and as built situations. The drawing shows the seat at a much higher elevation for full suspension.</p><p>In fact both my fully suspended bike and the stock bike have the identical seat to mudguard clearance, 3 1/4" with the suspension fully elongated, on centre stand with rear wheel hanging. </p><p>It was mentioned to me some time ago that the main drawback of the strut conversion is the high seat requirement. In fact the seat height of the two machines is identical.</p><p></p><p>One other thought on the drawing is that the method of full suspension shown might not work all that well. With the seat still connected to the moving rfm top member as shown in the drawing, the effect would be quite different from that which occurs with a one piece strut connecting the rear of the seat directly to the rfm pivot bolt.</p><p>If a "full suspension " system like the one in the drawing was used, it could be very difficult to get adequate seat to mudguard clearance. It appears with the stays angle forward to that degree and connected to the rfm, the rear of the seat would dip down on bumps rather than bouncing up as it does with the stock setup. The ratio of movement for the rear of the seat to the anchor point would be quite great and in the wrong direction to maintain clearance.</p><p> I wonder if this type of seat stay was ever utilized? </p><p>With the long struts to the fixed pivot bolt, the seat stays more or less level on bumps.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Glen</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Monkeypants, post: 42426, member: 2708"] Interesting thoughts hadronuk, and I didn't get at all sleepy. If I have some time for it today, I will measure just exactly how much suspension movement there is with 150 lbs passenger weight added to the rear of the seat. In the meantime, I have had a chance to do some comparisons between the two Rapides here and the drawing above. The first difference noted is the mudguard to seat clearance requirement for fully suspended and as built situations. The drawing shows the seat at a much higher elevation for full suspension. In fact both my fully suspended bike and the stock bike have the identical seat to mudguard clearance, 3 1/4" with the suspension fully elongated, on centre stand with rear wheel hanging. It was mentioned to me some time ago that the main drawback of the strut conversion is the high seat requirement. In fact the seat height of the two machines is identical. One other thought on the drawing is that the method of full suspension shown might not work all that well. With the seat still connected to the moving rfm top member as shown in the drawing, the effect would be quite different from that which occurs with a one piece strut connecting the rear of the seat directly to the rfm pivot bolt. If a "full suspension " system like the one in the drawing was used, it could be very difficult to get adequate seat to mudguard clearance. It appears with the stays angle forward to that degree and connected to the rfm, the rear of the seat would dip down on bumps rather than bouncing up as it does with the stock setup. The ratio of movement for the rear of the seat to the anchor point would be quite great and in the wrong direction to maintain clearance. I wonder if this type of seat stay was ever utilized? With the long struts to the fixed pivot bolt, the seat stays more or less level on bumps. Glen [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What was Mr Vincent's Christian Name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Forums: Public Access
General Chat (Vincent Related)
The Passenger rides on a rigid frame
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top