I nominate Henry to be a Member of the Newly founded committee on Electric
scooters...
I further recommend Henry put this committee together to present a Paper on
the subject .... with problems as well as solutions for consideration in the
2001 rules committee meeting
Do I hear a Second?
Keith ( no I ain't got no stinking authority but I didn't understand a thing
he said.... so that makes him smarter then me about it....)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Deaton" <hdeaton@verio.com>
To: "John Beckett" <landspeedracer@email.msn.com>; "Dan Warner"
<dwarner@electrorent.com>
Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Motorcycle front-end Geometry
> Hey, (moment of stunned silence), you mean I could set the E1 electric car
> record on a motorcycle? I'd personally have no problems with that, because
> basically I just want to get out there and feel the world spinning
> backwards under my wheels, flat out, for miles (at least three miles,
maybe
> five if things work out). But then would I be running a 2-wheeled car?
> Which rules would I have to follow? What line would I get in for
inspections :)
>
> I have been talking to Dale Martin about electric motorcycle classes, as
> well as Henry Louie at WOS, and just about everybody else at the 2000 WOS
> or at El Mirage last November that I stumbled into. What I found was some
> general support for electric motorcycle classes in the club, but also a
> desire by Dale to create rules in conformance with FIM standards, just
like
> the electric car classes are the same as the FIA's. The first hurdle
though
> is just getting some safety rules together for electric motorcycles. It
> seems like they could be based on electric car requirements, but they
> aren't in the rule book and I haven't been able to find them.
>
> Here's the current SCTA electric car classes, borrowed from the FIA:
>
> E1: vehicle weights under 500 kg (1099 lbs)
> E2, 500 to 1000 kg (1100 to 2200 lbs)
> E3, over 1000 kg (2201 lbs and over).
>
> Here are the FIM's classes for electric motorcycles, currently
unrecognized
> by the SCTA:
>
> Category III, Group J, Class A1: electric motorcycles under 150 kg vehicle
> weight (330 lbs)
> Category III, Group J, Class A2: electric motorcycles 150 to 300 kg
vehicle
> weight (331 to 660 lbs)
>
> At first I didn't like the FIM's class structure, especially since there
is
> not way to check it at the track. And, there's no way to verify that the
> vehicle weight hasn't been changed or modified since it was last weighed
> (rules do require a weight certificate). I know, I know, I'm generally a
> trusting guy, but, it'd still be nice to be able to verify a bike is in
the
> right class while it's sitting in the impound. In most cases it'll
probably
> be pretty obvious, but still.
>
> An alternative? The National Electric Drag Racing Association has classes
> based on voltage: 24v, 48v, 72v, 96v, 120v, 144v, 168v, 192v, 216, 240v
and
> over 240 volts. http://www.nedra.com/ While voltage isn't power, it's
> actually a pretty predictor of performance in the vehicles folks are
racing
> now. For the most part machines with a higher voltage tend to go faster.
> It's also very easy to check. But I also don't think the SCTA needs or
> wants lots of new electric motorcycle classes. And I think NEDRA went way
> overboard and created too many voltage classes.
>
> Another type of racing, Electrathon, uses battery weight. They only have
> one class, for 64 lbs of batteries, and they run a one-hour endurance race
> in which the vehicle that goes the longest distance wins. I think
something
> based on battery weight makes even more sense than the FIA/FIM method of
> using total vehicle weight without driver (TVWWD?). NEDRA also has a class
> for light-weight vehicles also based on a 64 lb battery weight.
>
> And I'm sure there are other equally valid schemes for classifying
electric
> vehicle power. But at the moment I think what makes the most sense is to
> adopt the FIM's class structure. I still have a problem with the FIM's
> classes since it limits the maximum weight of an electric motorcycle to
660
> lbs. So, if the SCTA adopt's the FIM classes I'd like to see an open class
> added, just like the electric cars have. So we'd have a third class for
> motorcycles weighing over 300 kg. Seems only fair, especially since some
> ICE-powered motorcycle streamliners weigh over 1000 lbs.
>
>
> Okay, now that I've got started, here's some more ramblings on electric
> vehicle classes:
>
> The other thing is it'd be great if the SCTA could eventually include
> electric power in the special construction, sidecar, and streamliner
> classes. So, it'd be like having three "displacement" classes for electric
> power in A, APS, SC, SCS, and S. In my reading of the rules it's already
> there:
>
> 2000 SCTA rule book: page 86, 4B, Engine Class W: steam, turbine, or
> electric; page 87, 4D, Permitted Engine Classes, Mod: All, A: All, MPS:
> All, APS: All, S: All, SC: All, SCS: All
>
> But, then on page 99 there is 5F, Engine Classes, 12, Class Omega (how do
> you make that symbol in email?) Engines using a themodynamic cycle other
> than Otto. Includes electric, steam, and turbine engines.
>
> So, electric is listed as a motorcycle engine class, both as W and as
> Omega, and the rules seem to imply that you can run any class engine in an
> A, APS, S, SC, and SCS bike. But, there aren't any existing records and it
> seems like something the SCTA needs to clarify at some point in the
future.
> As it stands, it looks like there'd be at least one spot in the record
book
> for an electrically powered motorcycle in every class besides production.
>
> BTW - You know it's very interesting to read the discussions in the
> archives from last year about FIA certification. I just have to wonder why
> the FIA and FIM just don't outright recognize SCTA records without having
> to have their own people present to verify things. Seems like it would be
> the friendly and civilized thing to do, sort of respecting each other's
> authority and all. It's kinda like they don't trust the SCTA or something.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> At 04:10 PM 1/12/2001 -0500, John Beckett wrote:
> >Well that sure takes the murkiness of an electric bike out of the
picture.
> >And a viable record as a target. Go for it Henry.
> >
> >John
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Dan Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> >To: "Henry Deaton" <hdeaton@verio.com>
> >Cc: <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> >Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 1:50 PM
> >Subject: Re: Motorcycle front-end Geometry
> >
> >
> > > Henry & list,
> > >
> > > I see no restrictions in the rulebook against an electric motorcycle.
When
> > > the electric classes were formed the body was left open. Now granted,
a
> > > streamliner would seem to be the best tool for the job but there is
> > > currently no restriction as to what can be run. There is no rule
stating
> >how
> > > many wheels must be used, so two would be as good as four or more. An
> > > electric Taurus at one tiime held one of the class records.
> > >
> > > The electric classes are set by weight, no other qualifier. Your bike
> > > weighing under 1000# would fall into the class one, E I, break. The
record
> > > stands at 132 mph now. I see your bike as a viable contender.
> > >
> > > Dan Warner
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Henry Deaton <hdeaton@verio.com>
> > > To: List Land Speed <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:39 AM
> > > Subject: RE: Motorcycle front-end Geometry
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Dale,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not planning on using a fairing mainly because just building the
> >bike
> > > > is about all I can handle this year. Maybe next year or the year
after
> > > I'll
> > > > look at adding some streamlined bodywork. Also, even though there
aren't
> > > > *any* classes for electric motorcycles yet (except maybe for
> >streamliners,
> > > > sort of a murky area in the rules, and an area where what the rules
say
> > > > doesn't seem to be the same as how they get interpreted), the SCTA
does
> > > > have classes for streamlined and unstreamlined motorcycles. What I'm
> > > > building is intended to be a special construction unstreamlined
> > > motorcycle.
> > > >
> > > > So, in spite of the complicated forks I'm basically trying to keep
> >things
> > > > simple and focus mostly on the powertrain this year.
> > > >
> > > > Henry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 07:58 AM 1/12/2001 -0700, Clay, Dale wrote:
> > > > >Why aren't you going to use a fairing? Even if the fork is
relatively
> > > more
> > > > >streamlined than a tele (not so sure), remember, you're sitting
behind
> > > it.
> > > > >This could have better compliance than a tele at 450 and it could
be
> > > > >somewhat lower, but again you'll be sitting behind it.
> > > > >
> > > > >With the limited travel and long wheelbase you will have I doubt
the
> > > > >geometry issue and anti-drive will have much effect.
> > > > >
> > > > >Not trying to talk you out of building it, just making some
> >observations.
> > > > >I'd also seriously consider some streamlining.
> > > > >
> > > > >Dale
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Henry Deaton [mailto:hdeaton@verio.com]
> > > > >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 3:44 PM
> > > > >To: List Land Speed
> > > > >Subject: Re: Motorcycle front-end Geometry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >The bike shown uses a draglink between the front forks and the
> > > handlebars.
> > > > >The main advantage I'm looking for is improved aerodynamics. Since
the
> > > > >forks are solid, I can use streamlined tubing. I'm also hoping to
keep
> > > the
> > > > >front of the bike lower than I could with standard forks. Ideally
I'd
> >use
> > > > >some kind of hub-center steering, so the Hossack is a compromise
that
> > > > >should be more aerodynamic than telescopic forks and also simpler,
> > > easier,
> > > > >and less expensive to build than a hub-center front end.
> > > > >
> > > > >The design has some other advantages too, like maintaining the same
> >rake
> > > > >and trail throughout the full range of travel and no dive when you
> >brake,
> > > > >things that are more important to bikes that need to turn or brake
for
> > > > >corners.
> > > > >
> > > > >BTW, I had to ask about the steering too when I first saw this
front
> >end.
> > > > >
> > > > >Henry Deaton
> > > > >SF, CA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >At 04:18 PM 1/11/2001 -0600, Keith Turk wrote:
> > > > > >Henry... I am throwing this opinion out there based on nothing
but my
> > > > > >concept of how to go fast and try and be semi reliable....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I went to the Website and checked out the front end.... try as I
> >might
> > > I
> > > > > >couldn't see how the steering was applied to the front end....
nor
> > > could I
> > > > > >see the real benefits from it over a simple triple clamp/
> >conventional
> > > Folk
> > > > > >arrangement....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I guess what I am trying to say is could you enlighten me as to
the
> > > > > >advantages of a system this complicated....
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Keith ( big fan of the KISS principal )
> > > > > >
> > > > > >----------
> > > > > > > From: Clay, Dale <Dale.Clay@mdhelicopters.com>
> > > > > > > To: 'Henry Deaton' <hdeaton@verio.com>; List Land Speed
> > > > > ><land-speed@autox.team.net>
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Motorcycle Front-End Geometry
> > > > > > > Date: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:01 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Henry,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't have much experience with "lay down" bikes but those
> >numbers
> > > are
> > > > > > > pretty close to what fuel bikes run and they're up around 230
for
> > > blown
> > > > > > > fours and 200 for twins.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With the limited amount of travel required, I doubt you need
as
> > > > > >complicated
> > > > > > > a suspension as that, but if you want to play with it ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dale
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Dick J. is that your 300K mile bemmer in the photo?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Henry Deaton [mailto:hdeaton@verio.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 2:44 PM
> > > > > > > To: List Land Speed
> > > > > > > Subject: Motorcycle Front-End Geometry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm finally ready to start building my electric LSR bike.
Here's
> > > what
> > > > > >I've
> > > > > > > got planned so far:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hossack-style front end, 1.5" travel:
> > > > > > > http://www.eurospares.com/tfoale/mmjpg/tfbmw.jpg
> > > > > > > solid rear end
> > > > > > > 3.5x17 front wheel, with a 120/60ZR17 tire
> > > > > > > 4.5x18 rear wheel, with a 160/60ZR18 tire
> > > > > > > wheelbase around 70" (bike needs to fit on my 4x8 trailer)
> > > > > > > weight without rider about 600 lbs, with rider around 760 lbs.
> > > > > > > Forklift motor
> > > > > > > CVT snowmobile transmission
> > > > > > > 270 lbs AGM batteries, 120 volts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speed should be in the 150 to 175 mph range? (well, ya gotta
have
> >a
> > > > >goal,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > right?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering if anyone on the list has any thoughts about
> > > front-end
> > > > > > > geometry. I'm thinking of using a front rake around 40 to 45
> > > degrees,
> > > > >and
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > about 8 to 10 inches of trail. That's what a guy that builds
> > > dragbike
> > > > > > > frames recommended to me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any comments or questions would be appreciated. I've done some
> >drag
> > > > > >racing
> > > > > > > with electric bikes in the past, but this LSR stuff is pretty
new
> >to
> > > me.
> > > > > > > Mainly looking for tips on how to build a bike for
straight-line
> > > > > >stability
> > > > > > > at El Mirage and Bonneville.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW, only 115 days until El Mirage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Henry Deaton
> > > > > > > SF, CA
|
