Posts
4215
Joined
4/11/2010
Location
AQ
Edited Date/Time
10/25/2015 12:23am
Just wondering if anyone here's seen a full floater rear end grafted onto a latter model MXer? Just a random thought on how the best 80's back end would work with a newer chassis and engine package rated against the latest?
Id bet is amazing-ness would be "for its time" . A time when shocks were not very good and you needed to rely on a linkage to do the hard work.
I wish someone would try it, but I dont think d find it to be "better' than anything else right now.
The shock bodys would heat up and deform to the point that youd be looking down track for a shock sticking in the ground sure it fell off the lap prior.
A early 80s 8 ball would be ok i guess.
I've still got the chassis hanging from the wall, alongside the Fox Forks I used on it. One day I'll make the decision on what engine I want back in it, and get it back in use. But, I distinctly remember my Ohlins equipped 89 CR chassis rear end being a better thing than the Floater. That chassis is still in my possession also, and will eventually be reunited with one of my engines.
Anything can be done - I've an AF project on my welding table right now, and I just did some (very) basic measurements - the 83 rocker arm pivot point is approx. 295mm from the SA pivot, set back approximately 200mm from the center line projected up from the SA pivot (mind you, this is very rough, as the chassis is hanging from a wall, with the steering head tied to said wall, and the rear wheel in the complete , extended rear end, so I'm guessing the vertical projection - it would take a few hours to actually get to the chassis for correct orientation, and that's Not going to happen until the bike is reassembled).
So, you'd have to do another 'subframe' for the rocker pivot, that could handle the forces, and then do an airbox and all of the related fender / gap solving. The 84 onwards Floater dimensions would be the best bet, as they are a lower rocker arm set up, very much closer to the original inventors bikes. The bulk of AF frames make the overall lengths of the Suspension Subframe / Triangulations much more compact, but you'd want to do things properly. Of course, a KTM steel chassis could be used, with something along the lines of a (very) much larger version of the current shock tower for the rocker pivot.
cz2crf2wc- I'd love to see pictures of what your friend has done - though I might read as being a bit negative about such a thing as a Re-Boot of the Floater rear end, I admire people who actually make things, and who are not just Blingers / accessory buyers.
The Shop
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-03-28/news/mn-699_1_patent-suit
He had an ongoing battle with Suzuki for many years, with many verdicts / compensation awards going his way, and then Suzuki continually appealing / dragging him back into court.
Many years after the Full Floater disappeared off of the RMs, I finally saw pictures of one of his development frames, ironically, in a British road bike mag. It was truly trick - a rocker arm made with triangulated tubes, that had the rocker very low in the frame - lower than the 84 model RMs.. a mid / late seventies rear end that would look exotic even nowadays. And, you could see just how much Suzuki had ripped him off.
I can't recall the name White Bros bike went by - something along the lines of 'F4' - I've been trying various combinations of White Brothers and F1 / F4, and am getting nowhere on finding pictures of it. To my dim memories, it was a variation of the Floater concept, though with either a singular vertical rod from the swingarm to the rocker, or a much narrower twin rod set up like the single shock Horsepower Factory Thumpers used. It may well have been a further development of the HPF frames....? You can find pictures of the HPF bikes on Thumperpilot.com. Their White Brothers pictures have only the twin shock bikes shown.
But for the chassis, I'm continuously working to find settings I like and I'm rarely happy with anything. I'd be willing to see what could be done in this arena to make riding a better experience even if it meant spending a little more.
My pipe dream; build a bike using modern suspension technology with modern weight saving materials like carbon fiber. And the basis for the design would be the full floater rear, with the Ribi Quadrilateral front end. It's been a long time since we've seen anything truly different. This would have a good chance of being both different and significantly better.
a bike? or tell themselves they need a re-valve? with the exception of Yamaha the OEMs don't set
up a bike for the U.S. base....plain and simple.
Ask your self why Honda built that 97-99 Honda CR? because someone at the Top wanted it and
marketing told them to build it.
The issue is shaft speed, and the fluid dynamics of dampening. Coil and spring technology has
be unchanged for quite some time...bottom line.. Technology has surpassed the rider...the window
has been closed.
Long live the Full Floater.
What are the disadvantages of the Full Floater?
It just doesn't pass the "eye" test, ya know?
You don't actually run with the idea that "new is always better" do you?
Pit Row
What are the disadvantages of the Full Floater?
The linkage creates a curve of shock shaft travel vs wheel travel.
The 1st inch of wheel travel will use say a quarter inch of shock the last inch of wheel travel will use a half inch of shock.
It is a rising rate that can be tuned or changed.
The location of the shock and its weight centralization is the only thing i see.
And it may affect air boot straightness.
Clicky
The patents have expired by now and no one seems to have re-visited its use on a motocross bike that I've heard of for what that's worth.
https://youtu.be/MvjwuynHwGI
Post a reply to: Any Full Floater's been put on a later model?