derf
|
| posted on 26/10/04 at 03:45 AM |
|
|
my trike design
Here is the idea that has been bouncing around in my head so far for a 3 wheeler.
Some key goals
1. main body tilts
2. maintain handle/foot controls
3. use readily available parts
4. designed around hyabusa engine
5. shaft drive (shaft will go past drivers right leg
 
Description
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 26/10/04 at 04:39 AM |
|
|
That's quite an ambitious design. Just a couple of initial observations and queries:
What happens with the exhaust?
Is the idea to use the engine as a stressed member to support the suspension and steering?
Have you actually sat in a mock-up to establish if there's sufficient room for you and the prop shaft?
What's your proposed wheelbase. If necessary, you should be able to tuck the coilover underneath, thereby freeing up more space and also aiding
a low COG.
The prop shaft could be run underneath too for that matter.
What amount of castor have you allowed for?
It looks from your drawings as if the swing arm rises up to the pivot. You'd need to think carefully about the height of the pivot, especially
with all that weight directly above and in front of the front axle. You could end up with some horrific acceleration and deceleration porpoising. (it
looks like there's at least 50% of the weight of the engine in front of the axle.)
Will you be fabricating the swingarm, or using a proprietry one?
Which rear hub and bevel will you use?
I like the idea, so I'll be watching closely.
Nice start.
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
derf
|
| posted on 26/10/04 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
Ok, it's very far from done, yes the idea is to use the engine a stress member, but there will also be anoter connecting tube in front of it
that sneaks across just under the engine side cover. I also want to move it back a few inches, maybe 3 or 4.
The idea for the exaust is to sneak it into a quick 4-1 system, then run it along the inside of the side rails, with the muffler running just above
the center line of the rear axle.
Prop shaft will sneak through a tunnel made in the rear support beam (not modeled yet), then the shaft side will act as the other side of the swing
arm (again not modeled yet).
The coilover will most likely be repositioned to an up down (like modern sport bikes) rather than a front-back position. I was actually looking at
using the space where the shock body is to put the drivers seat (slightly inside the chassis) all the other engine systems will be in the area between
the rasils aft of the engine.
Mock up??? I rode around on a hyabusa last night, I saw a trike once, I also rode around on a ninja 500r last night. other than that, no in my world
everything is perfect!
Everything else you said, I have no clue, I just started to screw around with the idea of another build over the weekend. This is a very (very, very)
rough draft. There are many other ideas I am looking at as far as the frame, seating position, engine position, front suspension etc... Plus I have a
locost to finish first, I just have a bunch of free time because the car is outside and I am going away for november so I didn't really want to
start on ant big projects that would require mor ethan a few hours. especialy since the next 3 things I am going to do are the brake lines, fuel
system, and the engine wire harness, all decent size projects(although the wire harness is by far the biggest and most complicated).
oh yeh dont hold your breath, I am tentativly planning this idea for 2006.
|
|
|
malakiblunt
|
| posted on 26/10/04 at 11:21 PM |
|
|
Hi derf
youve got the makeings of a sound vehicle there.
front engined is a good idea with tadpole trikes (why oh why is my engine in the back then???)
be very warey of a shaft drive rear cos of the shaft wind up problems, the malone skunk and of corse the Morgan both use shaft drive to the back then
chain drive to the wheel.Also with a busa you may not find one strong enough certainly the bmw unit wouldnt take the torque.goldwing maybee?
this was the reason i chose mid engined for simplicty and power effeincy , though it makes for a ultimately less stable design,but i figure hay whats
the point of a realy stable trike if i never finish it and get to go round a corner!
|
|
|
derf
|
| posted on 27/10/04 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
The aprilia magnet is the basic design/look I was looking to use. the magnet is a bit far fetched as far as the magnets in the wheels and such, but an
overall solid vehicle. I did some more modeling last night while I was waiting for a fiberglass fixture for my 7 was drying, I built the front
spindles and the the ball joints.
Malakiblunt, you also have a u2u
|
|
|
Ratman
|
| posted on 27/10/04 at 10:51 PM |
|
|
I haven't been here long enough to know about all the previous discussions, so I apologise if this is old ground.. but a trike with two front
steering/driving wheels does seem to meet all objectives of weight distribution and good traction. basically the front end of a mini grafted to a
wheelbarrow-in-reverse. Although my choice would be subaru or honda vtec I think. I did build one morgan layout vehicle once. brakes for the rear
wheel have to be very carefully managed due to the light weight. very easy to find yourself facing the way you just came if there is too much rear
brake. It might be possible to put a bike engine in front of the front axle and drive the dif with a chain.. but you might need a full time pillion to
keep the rear wheel on the ground. - Brian
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 27/10/04 at 11:28 PM |
|
|
The Morgan three-wheeler is a classic design, but I can't help thinking of the potential for huge stoppies and loss of controll with a heavy
engine up front.
I snaffed this link from another thread to illustrate what can happen in a very light weight, stripped-out Mini with a heavy application of the boot:
Mini stoppie. 
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
malakiblunt
|
| posted on 27/10/04 at 11:54 PM |
|
|
yeah thers been a few mini based trikes, front wheel drive has the added advantage of if a wheel lifts it cuts the drive!.
seen some front engined FWD bike engined hillclimb trikes very very fast can beat the bikes up the hill.
everythings a compromise, the advantage of front engine is the maximum roll over stability but as you say comes at the expense of rear wheel traction
and potential of stopies aperently morgans did do it especialy down hill.
im going for mid engined for improved traction and drive train effeciency but it come at the cost of roll over stability im adressing this with very
low CG and wide front track,and what i lose on the corners ill gain on the straights!
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 28/10/04 at 12:19 AM |
|
|
The hillclimb trikes are a different kettle of fish, as they're designed for all-out performance with little regard for human comforts.
Admittedly though, they're amazing performers.
 
Rescued attachment hillclimber.jpg
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 28/10/04 at 12:20 AM |
|
|
This set-up would be a fantastic bassis for a trike:
 
Rescued attachment trike_transaxle.jpg
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
malakiblunt
|
| posted on 28/10/04 at 11:26 AM |
|
|
thats a lovely piece of kit Hugh!
whats it for? i imagine the back end of a hillclimber?and yes it would make a good front end for a fwd trike, but you couldnt cover that up with
bodywork !
Agreed the hillclimb trikes are bonkers but again a compromise as to how much performance/comfort you want. my trike will only be more
'comfortable' by virtue of its body work to keep the breez of! but then since im also a biker dont know why i wory about a bit of fresh
air!
The trike in the photo would be very dangerous with out a passenger coz of the already discused rear brakeing. my pickups bad enough with out a load
in the back!.
|
|
|
Hugh Jarce
|
| posted on 28/10/04 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
That R1 and billet set-up is one of Lee Stohr's creations destined for a DSR.
I'm pretty sure it uses a Golf derived diff or possibly a Torsen diff.
The pay isn't very good , but the work's hard.
|
|
|
Ratman
|
| posted on 28/10/04 at 07:11 PM |
|
|
Please, Mr Jarce, do you have any links to or more photos of that amaising hill-climber? Thats my next build! (in road-going form) - Brian
|
|
|
malakiblunt
|
| posted on 28/10/04 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
www.kirel.fsnet.co.uk/
then go to the trikes page in the gallery.
thers a couple of photos ther of the trike hugh posted and another similar machine.
|
|
|
Micke Fredriksson
|
| posted on 26/11/04 at 12:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by malakiblunt
im going for mid engined for improved traction and drive train effeciency but it come at the cost of roll over stability im adressing this with very
low CG and wide front track,and what i lose on the corners ill gain on the straights!
Yea!! Exaktly the same theory I building on!! Mine trike is frontheavy (with driver!!!) even if the engine is in the rear..
The Suzuki engine only weigh 62kg (no water). The driver is (often) heavier then the engine.. So put the driver so far in front you can to gain
stability.. My design can do 1,55G in lateral acc.  not bad!
/ Micke Fredriksson
|
|
|
Rorty
|
| posted on 26/11/04 at 12:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Micke Fredriksson
My design can do 1,55G in lateral acc. not bad!
I'm not surprised with a track that wide. A forklift would struggle to tip it over!
Cheers, Rorty.
"Faster than a speeding Pullet".
PLEASE DON'T U2U ME IF YOU WANT A QUICK RESPONSE. TRY EMAILING ME INSTEAD!
|
|
|
Micke Fredriksson
|
| posted on 26/11/04 at 06:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rorty
quote:
Originally posted by Micke Fredriksson
My design can do 1,55G in lateral acc. not bad!
I'm not surprised with a track that wide. A forklift would struggle to tip it over!
hehe!!! That would be a site 
/ Micke Fredriksson
|
|
|
