Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
The topology optimization results in a very non-intuitive design. These ended up coming out with essentially the same stiffness, but 25% stronger and 0.8 lb lighter than the stock clamps.
Two above those are the bottom clamp, bottom on the right and top on the left?
Insanely trick looking for triple clamps.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
Renishaw did this bike a while back , was quite heavy though .
twin
V-four
https://www.vitalmx.com/forums/Moto-Related,20/Husagren,1323726
http://racerxonline.com/2017/07/31/where-are-they-now-anders-ljunggren
Consider what is know as the "infill". In most prints, it's not necessary or beneficial to print the part as a 100% solid. It's generally just a waste of material, and printing from about 75% infill to 100% infill yields an increase in part strength that is all but negligible. Now, to explain a little bit further, since we don't want prints to be completely hollow, the inside of a 3d printed part is filled with what is aptly named "infill". Now, there are multiple patterns widely used, but essentially it boils down to some sort of grid like pattern printed within the part to provide support between the outer faces, or "shells". The implications of this are just mind blowing, as it's possible to create parts that are significantly lighter than machined pieces, but still hold a significant amount of strength. This also reduces material used in the part, and eliminates the wasted material inherent in subtractive manufacturing.
This image gives a great example of different infill percentages, and you can probably figure out intuitively why it doesn't make much sense to go over 50% infill in most applications.
Other possibilities are that supports can be changed anywhere within the part, such as more support in a higher stressed area, and less support in a low stress area. This allows for the most optimized part as far as weight and function are concerned.
Before parts are printed, the solid model is taken from the CAD program and run through a slicing software. This does exactly like it sounds, cuts the model into many small slices, the thickness of which is set by the user. We usually print at .2mm layer heights, but they can go down to much higher resolutions, it really comes down to a balance between print quality and speed. The slicing software is where you can edit all of the infill settings and shell thicknesses, as well as tons of other settings I'm not experienced enough to know what to do with yet.
It's a really cool technology, I've already used our work printer to make prototype moto parts to test fit and it works awesome! These will absolutely be a necessity in any engineering office or department within the next ten years, now that we have one I don't know how we lived without it!
This model is highly complex in order to capture the physics as accurately as possible. Full non-linear contacts, press-fit of the steering stem, pre-tension of the bolts, non-linear loadcase continuation, etc. all with multiple loadcases to capture every event the clamps can be subjected to. Additionally we model everything from the axle to the handlebars in order to avoid over-constraining the model. The first shot is the topology optimization result, which shows the optimum material layout in the part. From there we create a CAD model (we use SolidWorks) that is manufacturable, then re-analyze, and make minor adjustments based on the results of that analysis (second image).
I know you have way more knowledge on this but this issue also has to be considered because nobody wants to lay down $300 for a nice set of clamps to lose 50g only to have them bent up in their first crash. Word spreads quick these days and being stuck with couple hundred grand of brightly colored butter is no way to retire like a fat cat.
This is the skill level I was referring to with regard to 3D modeling and design combined with metrology and manufacturing to back it up. It's one thing to draw up a part that looks good. It's an entirely different level to develop each component to match or exceed what's available from the factory. Ask Luxon how many hours he has in each of his clamps from concept to first article.
Just for starters, a basic seat of SolidWorks is priced in the same ballpark as a new motocross bike. The FEA stuff comes at an additional price and has its own learning curve.
Luxon, thanks for posting the screen grabs from your work.
How do you pronounce your company name? Is it Luck-Sawn or Loo-zawn ?
Pit Row
It's "printed" Titanium, but the machining afterwards was pretty difficult.
https://www.facebook.com/brcracingcanada/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects
In my profession, we build an maintain open source software because it is the BEST way to get the best eyes on the project. It isn't a DIY thing. Ever heard of Android? Linux? Firefox? Apache?
I am not surprised at all at the amount of work required to build things like this, because I do it. I am impressed with the quality of his work on a personal level.
It would take me years to figure out how to cast an engine case, but I could do the ecu portion of the project with a snap of my fingers. (not literally, but nearly that easy.)
It was a huge undertaking to get to this point. I've owned an engineering consulting firm for 11 years now, and back in 2013 I started playing with the idea of applying our engineering expertise to motocross. It's been a part time effort since then, but really ramping up in the last year or so. I did not keep an official time log, but there are 1000's of engineering hours into these parts now. Much of that overlaps into future parts, but all was necessary to make the first set of clamps (well, to this level at least).
And if I didn't own an engineering firm already, it would be impossible to start up all this just for motocross parts without already being independently wealthy or winning the lottery! It was mentioned that a seat of SolidWorks costs about as much as a new bike, which is true, but if you add up all the software and computer expenses for everything - CAD, CAM, analysis, computer upgrades, etc., I could be buying five or six new 450s annually! And that's before we start talking about manufacturing...
Regarding the open source idea, it was mentioned that there are lots of large scale open source projects. But when was the last time you saw someone driving around in an open source car that they made? I'm sure it happens, but it's certainly not mainstream. Linux, Firefox, Apache, etc. are all open source success stories, but the barrier to entry is just so much lower than that of a tangible product. You don't need crazy expensive software to develop new software and you don't need anything to "manufacture" the software either (aside from a lot of talented people working together). And most importantly, the end user doesn't need to do anything but install it and use it! And I don't mean to downplay the effort involved in open source software at all, as it's a huge undertaking on its own with 1000's of people working on it to make it happen.
But let's say I made my triple clamp CAD models publicly available along with all the supporting analysis, assumptions, design constraints, etc. Someone still has to make them! And at low quantities, sending these to a job shop would run you $2k or more per set of clamps. You could get a group together to buy higher quantities, but unless you bought A LOT of them, they'd be less expensive to buy from an aftermarket company from the start. Of course you could try and make them yourself, but realistically you would either need to be a very accomplished machinist with a machine available to you and a lot of free time, or the design would have to be dramatically simplified to the point where they're no better than stock parts. Now apply this to every part of the motorcycle and it becomes a near impossible task.
As software gets more and more available and as 3D printing becomes more mainstream with associated cost reduction, the idea of an open source bike becomes more of a reality, but in my opinion it's still many years away. I bet we might start seeing it trickle in though. An open source suspension link to fit KTMs (or something similar) isn't a drastic undertaking, though still a lot of work for the average Joe!
Our models represent all the "normal" loads you'd expect to see. The handlebars are constrained and loads are fed into the wheel in all directions, which represent "normal" riding loads. Similarly we do this same process but constraining the steering stop to represent a crash.
The loading in our analysis is based on a few different things:
We reverse engineered the stock parts as well as a few aftermarket parts to see what loading they could handle before failure in each direction of applied load, we equipped the bike with accelerometers and a few other sensors to datalog the actual loading seen while riding, and we did various hand calculations to sanity check the results of the above. All in all we have a very good idea of the actual loads seen on the parts for the vast majority of scenarios the bike will experience (unfortunately I can't share those as it was A LOT of work to get them).
And we certainly don't want something breaking in a crash, but you have to make a compromise somewhere. If we designed these parts to never break, then they'd be absurdly heavy and they would just make something else break instead - It's a motocross bike, and it's going to crash. The goal of the compromise is to develop the best (lightweight, low flex, strong) parts that handle the vast majority of crashes without damage.
Stock KTM/Husky clamps are really light, but as you mention they are pretty flimsy and have issues bending, particularly the bar mounts. We designed our KTM/Husky clamps to be dramatically stronger than the stock clamps, much stiffer, and maintain the same weight. On the other hand, stock Yamaha (and everyone else really) clamps are the opposite - they're really strong, plenty stiff, but really heavy. Our Yamaha clamp design goals were very different from our KTM clamp design goals in that we aimed to maintain stiffness and strength, but reduce weight as much as possible.
Now the reality is that no matter what you make, someone is going to break it! All you can do is design the parts to handle the vast majority of crashes. But if someone crashes just right, then it is what it is. In that case, you preferably have a "mechanical fuse", which in our case is the bar mounts. This is tricky as you need to design the bar mounts to fail before the other, more expensive, parts, but not so weak that they fail/twist on tip-overs and minor crashes. We've gone through a few iterations of the lower bar mount on both sides - too weak and they fail from minor crashes, and too strong that in a major crash something else ends up breaking. This is all part of the long development process. With our current design we feel that we have a very good compromise on that.
Post a reply to: Open Source Engines/Frames