slipper clutches...

[smoke]

acceleration VS "drag"

antisquat VS prosquat


Anti-squat is generated by raising the inner pivot  VS  Pro-squat is generated by raising the outer pivot

Jeff, I thing some people are confused. ;)

Confused ???  Yes a lilttle I have the general concept but if pics were also used to go with the discriptions that would be great.   ;D

[BRG]

I guess this gets filed along with how to achieve the correct swing arm angle.


aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh  what the hell I don't know squat..........

[Gixxerblade]

I'm a little confused too. I thought when you accelerate that your swingarm actually moves down and when you decelerate that your swingarm moves up. Sorta like when you see those biker dudes at rally's putting their Harleys against a wall and do burnouts. What happens to their suspension?

[BRG]

Anti-squat is a design concept that extends the rear suspension during acceleration, therefore pushing the tire into the ground for maximum traxxion (Dynamics). It also keeps the chassis geometry more constant, as it fights back against the acceleration forces that normally compress the rear suspension and extend the front, causing a bike accelerating out of a corner to run wide. In order to setup the bike to have the desired amount of anti-squat, the swingarm pivot axis and the angle between the swingarm and the ground is varied.

In other words Anti-squat can be increased or decreased, right. But it is still under acceleration NOT Braking, right.

aaaaaahhhh what the hell do I know, I don't even race bikes.

[DanO966]

ok hell with all this anti squat..........pro squat stuff...

We need to bring back the ANTI-DIVE forks like on a 1987 Ninja 1000 (ZX1000), 600R, and the ZX750.
Now that's the sh-it!!

 ;D ;D ;D

[HAWK]

As stated by BRG the anti-squat is developed by the angle of the swing arm and the acceleration force trying to drive the rear axle under the bike and thereby jack the frame up. However that same angle will cause squat ('pro-squat' if you will, never actually heard that term before) under deceleration by the deceleration forces trying to pull the rear axle away from the frame and trying to level the swingarm thereby pulling the frame down.

Now if someone has figured out a way to get anti-squat under acceleration and deceleration it's news to me and I would be really interested in learning how that system works.

All that said though I would think that the squat generated by the engine braking would actually be desired to counter-act the back rising due to braking thereby settling the chassis.

Paul

[J Farrell / Speed Tech Motorsp]

As I was saying.....
I think we all agree. It was originally worded incorrectly.
Nuff Said :P

[HAWK]

Agreed that the confusion stems from the wording.

That last part of my post was more of a question though, wouldn't you want the squat generated by engine braking? To pull the back down as the brakes pull the front down? Seems to me if you eliminate the engine braking force then to get the back down you will need to use the rear brake (more).

[Jeff]

That last part of my post was more of a question though, wouldn't you want the squat generated by engine braking? To pull the back down as the brakes pull the front down? Seems to me if you eliminate the engine braking force then to get the back down you will need to use the rear brake (more).

Yes, you do want it.  However, the incredible force of braking almost completely negates the (pro) squat you're going to get from downshifting unless you have the rear tire firmly planted on the ground.

People saying they use the rear brake to "settle the chassis" while cornering are correct.  Rear brake use CAN settle the chassis by generating that squat to counter the goofy geometry induced by the fork compression and rear end rise from hard braking.  However, that "goofy geometry" is really key to being able to actually turn the bike.

[Super Dave]

Mel, Jeff...

E-mail me and I'll continue.  Student thing.

And, Mel...

Belated Happy Thanksgiving!  Was driving and doing family stuff.

[BRG]

Jef4y,
Well said, I would have to agree.

[Thingy]

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh  what the hell I don't know squat..........

I don't want to turn this into the whole circle jerk thing, because I do enjoy reading technical discussions.  But, I liked your pun Baker.  SQUAT, that was funny.  Was I the only one to catch his sense of humor or the only one dumb enough to comment on it and detract from the quality of the discussion?  Never mind, don't answer that.