Steel vs. Aluminum Engine Hangers on 2022 HRC Machines: Luxon, 3DP, ML512 Insight?

mxtech1 wrote:

There are certain applications where assuming the sheet steel is purely isotropic isn’t good enough. In the past, ive processed many parts where we need to...

There are certain applications where assuming the sheet steel is purely isotropic isn’t good enough.

In the past, ive processed many parts where we need to eliminate steel grain variability from the equation. We typically do this in the CNC nesting software so that parts can only be nested such that they are always going the same grain direction, which could be against or with the grain, but never randomly. With the grain being in the direction of steel mill rolling, against the grain perpendicular to the rolling direction.

The biggest benefit to doing this is that we gain accuracy in the bending/ forming operation. When the incoming flat parts are all homogeneous in grain direction from the sheet steel, the forming accuracy and repeatability becomes much more controllable and bend angle tolerances can be tightened up.

The downside of locking in the grain pattern at the laser or punch cut operation is that the parts typically cannot be nested together as well which usually equals less parts per sheet.

Luxon MX wrote:

Stiffness is stiffness, it doesn't matter whether a mount is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon, steel, or cheese. All that matters is how stiff the mount...

Stiffness is stiffness, it doesn't matter whether a mount is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon, steel, or cheese. All that matters is how stiff the mount is. Stiffness comes from the material properties AND the geometry of the part.

Keeping is simple, let's just look at bending stiffness of a plate due to material stiffness and thickness. And let's use steel as a baseline in comparisons.

Titanium is roughly 1/2 the stiffness of steel (and also about 1/2 the weight). Aluminum is about 1/3 the stiffness of steel (and also about 1/3 the weight).

So for the same weight of all three, you could have a steel plate, a titanium plate that's twice the thickness, and an aluminum plate that's three times the thickness. They would all be about the same stiffness in tension/compression too.

But in bending, the stiffness would be VERY different. That's because the thickness comes into play in bending (the moment of inertia is related to the cube of the thickness). The titanium plate would be about 6 times stiffer than the steel plate and the aluminum plate would be about 9 times stiffer than the steel plate!

So you can make a part that's subject to bending much stiffer and stronger by increasing its thickness than you can by changing the material. If your part is subject to bending and tension/compression (and torsion), like most parts, you can achieve the desired stiffness properties by altering the thickness, material layout, and material itself.

Regarding engine mounts, it's unlikely anyone is actually doing that as I've yet to see any evidence of it. They're just designing (not engineering) a part that looks cool, making it, and trying it. Do that enough times and they'll eventually stumble on a design that's better than stock, which is arguable to many.

As for fasteners, it doesn't matter if the bolt is steel or titanium. As long as it's torqued correctly (tensioned, really), no one will be able to tell the difference. That won't apply so much to large parts like axles, but it certainly does for things like engine mount bolts, axle pinch bolts, triple clamp bolts, etc. Riders change those because they think they can feel the difference, and sometimes that's more important than actually telling the difference as the mental side of moto is huge. But any engineers seeing that will just laugh!

mxtech1 wrote:

Great explanation. Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating...

Great explanation.

Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating vs. landing from a jump vs. under hard braking etc.

Have you ever put micro-strain gages on a set of hangers to collect field data to use for FEA?

Luxon MX wrote:

Stiffness is stiffness, it doesn't matter whether a mount is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon, steel, or cheese. All that matters is how stiff the mount...

Stiffness is stiffness, it doesn't matter whether a mount is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon, steel, or cheese. All that matters is how stiff the mount is. Stiffness comes from the material properties AND the geometry of the part.

Keeping is simple, let's just look at bending stiffness of a plate due to material stiffness and thickness. And let's use steel as a baseline in comparisons.

Titanium is roughly 1/2 the stiffness of steel (and also about 1/2 the weight). Aluminum is about 1/3 the stiffness of steel (and also about 1/3 the weight).

So for the same weight of all three, you could have a steel plate, a titanium plate that's twice the thickness, and an aluminum plate that's three times the thickness. They would all be about the same stiffness in tension/compression too.

But in bending, the stiffness would be VERY different. That's because the thickness comes into play in bending (the moment of inertia is related to the cube of the thickness). The titanium plate would be about 6 times stiffer than the steel plate and the aluminum plate would be about 9 times stiffer than the steel plate!

So you can make a part that's subject to bending much stiffer and stronger by increasing its thickness than you can by changing the material. If your part is subject to bending and tension/compression (and torsion), like most parts, you can achieve the desired stiffness properties by altering the thickness, material layout, and material itself.

Regarding engine mounts, it's unlikely anyone is actually doing that as I've yet to see any evidence of it. They're just designing (not engineering) a part that looks cool, making it, and trying it. Do that enough times and they'll eventually stumble on a design that's better than stock, which is arguable to many.

As for fasteners, it doesn't matter if the bolt is steel or titanium. As long as it's torqued correctly (tensioned, really), no one will be able to tell the difference. That won't apply so much to large parts like axles, but it certainly does for things like engine mount bolts, axle pinch bolts, triple clamp bolts, etc. Riders change those because they think they can feel the difference, and sometimes that's more important than actually telling the difference as the mental side of moto is huge. But any engineers seeing that will just laugh!

mxtech1 wrote:

Great explanation. Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating...

Great explanation.

Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating vs. landing from a jump vs. under hard braking etc.

Have you ever put micro-strain gages on a set of hangers to collect field data to use for FEA?

Luxon MX wrote:

Stiffness is stiffness, it doesn't matter whether a mount is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon, steel, or cheese. All that matters is how stiff the mount...

Stiffness is stiffness, it doesn't matter whether a mount is made from aluminum, titanium, carbon, steel, or cheese. All that matters is how stiff the mount is. Stiffness comes from the material properties AND the geometry of the part.

Keeping is simple, let's just look at bending stiffness of a plate due to material stiffness and thickness. And let's use steel as a baseline in comparisons.

Titanium is roughly 1/2 the stiffness of steel (and also about 1/2 the weight). Aluminum is about 1/3 the stiffness of steel (and also about 1/3 the weight).

So for the same weight of all three, you could have a steel plate, a titanium plate that's twice the thickness, and an aluminum plate that's three times the thickness. They would all be about the same stiffness in tension/compression too.

But in bending, the stiffness would be VERY different. That's because the thickness comes into play in bending (the moment of inertia is related to the cube of the thickness). The titanium plate would be about 6 times stiffer than the steel plate and the aluminum plate would be about 9 times stiffer than the steel plate!

So you can make a part that's subject to bending much stiffer and stronger by increasing its thickness than you can by changing the material. If your part is subject to bending and tension/compression (and torsion), like most parts, you can achieve the desired stiffness properties by altering the thickness, material layout, and material itself.

Regarding engine mounts, it's unlikely anyone is actually doing that as I've yet to see any evidence of it. They're just designing (not engineering) a part that looks cool, making it, and trying it. Do that enough times and they'll eventually stumble on a design that's better than stock, which is arguable to many.

As for fasteners, it doesn't matter if the bolt is steel or titanium. As long as it's torqued correctly (tensioned, really), no one will be able to tell the difference. That won't apply so much to large parts like axles, but it certainly does for things like engine mount bolts, axle pinch bolts, triple clamp bolts, etc. Riders change those because they think they can feel the difference, and sometimes that's more important than actually telling the difference as the mental side of moto is huge. But any engineers seeing that will just laugh!

mxtech1 wrote:

Great explanation. Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating...

Great explanation.

Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating vs. landing from a jump vs. under hard braking etc.

Have you ever put micro-strain gages on a set of hangers to collect field data to use for FEA?

SilverSpurs wrote:

Seriously brother?

Not even military aerospace or F1 is doing that.

mxtech1 wrote:

Great explanation. Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating...

Great explanation.

Do you have a sketch of a free body diagram for the top hangers and how does that change when the bike is accelerating vs. landing from a jump vs. under hard braking etc.

Have you ever put micro-strain gages on a set of hangers to collect field data to use for FEA?

SilverSpurs wrote:

Seriously brother?

Not even military aerospace or F1 is doing that.

freeh wrote:

My company does not manufacture engine hangars, but we absolutely perform said tasks for aerospace applications.

SilverSpurs wrote:

We've done it on suspension linkage parts, pushrods, wishbones, clevises, drive shafts including steering etc. Can you give an example of a simple, solid engine mount...

We've done it on suspension linkage parts, pushrods, wishbones, clevises, drive shafts including steering etc.

Can you give an example of a simple, solid engine mount you've strain guaged?

JM485 wrote:

At some point you’re going to cross over the threshold of feasibility and necessity in this kind of analysis. At the end of the day, yes...

At some point you’re going to cross over the threshold of feasibility and necessity in this kind of analysis. At the end of the day, yes you could hook up some strain gauges and run FEA on various engine hangers, but in reality can a rider honestly feel a 5% difference in stiffness after feedback has already traveled through the tires, suspension, triple clamps, swingarm, etc? I would venture to say no, and unless you’re just doing it for fun in your spare time I can’t imagine that the increase in performance (which would be relative for every rider) would be worth the time and expense.

JM485 wrote:

At some point you’re going to cross over the threshold of feasibility and necessity in this kind of analysis. At the end of the day, yes...

At some point you’re going to cross over the threshold of feasibility and necessity in this kind of analysis. At the end of the day, yes you could hook up some strain gauges and run FEA on various engine hangers, but in reality can a rider honestly feel a 5% difference in stiffness after feedback has already traveled through the tires, suspension, triple clamps, swingarm, etc? I would venture to say no, and unless you’re just doing it for fun in your spare time I can’t imagine that the increase in performance (which would be relative for every rider) would be worth the time and expense.

Luxon MX wrote:

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the...

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the engine mounts, and you do have a new design. What's wrong with the stock mounts, e.g., what did the OEM miss that you can do better? More specifically, what stiffness are you going to change and in which direction (most people miss that stiffness is directional) so that the bike handles better? How do you know?

That's not to say that the mounts can't be better than OEM, it's just saying that to make them better, you need to know A LOT about the parts, what loads they experience, the stiffness, how changing the stiffness makes things better/different, etc. And that they're such a small part of the overall compliance of the bike means you're going to have to make big changes to make it noticeable. The process of making a better part is a lot more complex than machining a hanger with a big hole in it and anodizing it bronze...

I love innovation in our industry, but there are a few companies out there making questionable claims and a couple in particular making flat out objectively wrong claims and marketing that to their customers. I hate that. Lying to your customer knowingly or out of sheer ignorance is inexcusable when you put forth the image you're an expert in the subject. This isn't directed solely at engine mount companies, in fact I think there are some good companies making engine mounts, it's just a general statement about our industry.

JM485 wrote:

At some point you’re going to cross over the threshold of feasibility and necessity in this kind of analysis. At the end of the day, yes...

At some point you’re going to cross over the threshold of feasibility and necessity in this kind of analysis. At the end of the day, yes you could hook up some strain gauges and run FEA on various engine hangers, but in reality can a rider honestly feel a 5% difference in stiffness after feedback has already traveled through the tires, suspension, triple clamps, swingarm, etc? I would venture to say no, and unless you’re just doing it for fun in your spare time I can’t imagine that the increase in performance (which would be relative for every rider) would be worth the time and expense.

Luxon MX wrote:

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the...

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the engine mounts, and you do have a new design. What's wrong with the stock mounts, e.g., what did the OEM miss that you can do better? More specifically, what stiffness are you going to change and in which direction (most people miss that stiffness is directional) so that the bike handles better? How do you know?

That's not to say that the mounts can't be better than OEM, it's just saying that to make them better, you need to know A LOT about the parts, what loads they experience, the stiffness, how changing the stiffness makes things better/different, etc. And that they're such a small part of the overall compliance of the bike means you're going to have to make big changes to make it noticeable. The process of making a better part is a lot more complex than machining a hanger with a big hole in it and anodizing it bronze...

I love innovation in our industry, but there are a few companies out there making questionable claims and a couple in particular making flat out objectively wrong claims and marketing that to their customers. I hate that. Lying to your customer knowingly or out of sheer ignorance is inexcusable when you put forth the image you're an expert in the subject. This isn't directed solely at engine mount companies, in fact I think there are some good companies making engine mounts, it's just a general statement about our industry.

TeamGreen wrote:

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional...

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional Stiffness") and we came up with what we were looking for: stiffer on steel frames..and...we even looked for and made "softer" mounts for those that were looking to put a little more EXC in there SXF; and, we did that, too.

Calculating the necessary properties and using FEA software is a good start; but, it still came down to testing. It was Baggett that gave us the most useful "input" among the fast guys. All the while, even fat-slow-little-old...me...certainly felt the difference when going from stock Al. to our stiffer CF mounts (Current 450SX-F).

When we make a part, we can use several layers or "plies" of different materials to build directional stiffness or resistance to forces coming from a specific direction or location.

Recently, I'm getting inquiries about them; so, I guess it's time to make some more.

Again...yes...even a 58 year-old fat guy can feel the difference.

Luxon MX wrote:

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the...

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the engine mounts, and you do have a new design. What's wrong with the stock mounts, e.g., what did the OEM miss that you can do better? More specifically, what stiffness are you going to change and in which direction (most people miss that stiffness is directional) so that the bike handles better? How do you know?

That's not to say that the mounts can't be better than OEM, it's just saying that to make them better, you need to know A LOT about the parts, what loads they experience, the stiffness, how changing the stiffness makes things better/different, etc. And that they're such a small part of the overall compliance of the bike means you're going to have to make big changes to make it noticeable. The process of making a better part is a lot more complex than machining a hanger with a big hole in it and anodizing it bronze...

I love innovation in our industry, but there are a few companies out there making questionable claims and a couple in particular making flat out objectively wrong claims and marketing that to their customers. I hate that. Lying to your customer knowingly or out of sheer ignorance is inexcusable when you put forth the image you're an expert in the subject. This isn't directed solely at engine mount companies, in fact I think there are some good companies making engine mounts, it's just a general statement about our industry.

TeamGreen wrote:

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional...

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional Stiffness") and we came up with what we were looking for: stiffer on steel frames..and...we even looked for and made "softer" mounts for those that were looking to put a little more EXC in there SXF; and, we did that, too.

Calculating the necessary properties and using FEA software is a good start; but, it still came down to testing. It was Baggett that gave us the most useful "input" among the fast guys. All the while, even fat-slow-little-old...me...certainly felt the difference when going from stock Al. to our stiffer CF mounts (Current 450SX-F).

When we make a part, we can use several layers or "plies" of different materials to build directional stiffness or resistance to forces coming from a specific direction or location.

Recently, I'm getting inquiries about them; so, I guess it's time to make some more.

Again...yes...even a 58 year-old fat guy can feel the difference.

Bruce372 wrote:

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see? I chatted to a...

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see?

I chatted to a guy in 60+ begginer that could feel the difference in sub frame bolt torque. Ironically, my kid runs in the same group as jm485, so he's no slouch, but he can't even tell his tire is flat until it's off the rim! 😄

TeamGreen wrote:

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional...

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional Stiffness") and we came up with what we were looking for: stiffer on steel frames..and...we even looked for and made "softer" mounts for those that were looking to put a little more EXC in there SXF; and, we did that, too.

Calculating the necessary properties and using FEA software is a good start; but, it still came down to testing. It was Baggett that gave us the most useful "input" among the fast guys. All the while, even fat-slow-little-old...me...certainly felt the difference when going from stock Al. to our stiffer CF mounts (Current 450SX-F).

When we make a part, we can use several layers or "plies" of different materials to build directional stiffness or resistance to forces coming from a specific direction or location.

Recently, I'm getting inquiries about them; so, I guess it's time to make some more.

Again...yes...even a 58 year-old fat guy can feel the difference.

Bruce372 wrote:

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see? I chatted to a...

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see?

I chatted to a guy in 60+ begginer that could feel the difference in sub frame bolt torque. Ironically, my kid runs in the same group as jm485, so he's no slouch, but he can't even tell his tire is flat until it's off the rim! 😄

TeamGreen wrote:

Blake had 4 different mounts to choose from and he tested them all. Interestingly, we ended up in an ENTIRELY different direction than what everyone had...

Blake had 4 different mounts to choose from and he tested them all. Interestingly, we ended up in an ENTIRELY different direction than what everyone had been thinking...previously. Some of the stuff they had been given was too soft. Sometimes vibration was attributed to "stiff" when it was actually coming from "too soft".

Bruce372 wrote:

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see? I chatted to a...

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see?

I chatted to a guy in 60+ begginer that could feel the difference in sub frame bolt torque. Ironically, my kid runs in the same group as jm485, so he's no slouch, but he can't even tell his tire is flat until it's off the rim! 😄

Luxon MX wrote:

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the...

Exactly. And to expand a bit further, let's say you do have strain gauge data (why, really?), you do have a detailed FEA model of the engine mounts, and you do have a new design. What's wrong with the stock mounts, e.g., what did the OEM miss that you can do better? More specifically, what stiffness are you going to change and in which direction (most people miss that stiffness is directional) so that the bike handles better? How do you know?

That's not to say that the mounts can't be better than OEM, it's just saying that to make them better, you need to know A LOT about the parts, what loads they experience, the stiffness, how changing the stiffness makes things better/different, etc. And that they're such a small part of the overall compliance of the bike means you're going to have to make big changes to make it noticeable. The process of making a better part is a lot more complex than machining a hanger with a big hole in it and anodizing it bronze...

I love innovation in our industry, but there are a few companies out there making questionable claims and a couple in particular making flat out objectively wrong claims and marketing that to their customers. I hate that. Lying to your customer knowingly or out of sheer ignorance is inexcusable when you put forth the image you're an expert in the subject. This isn't directed solely at engine mount companies, in fact I think there are some good companies making engine mounts, it's just a general statement about our industry.

TeamGreen wrote:

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional...

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional Stiffness") and we came up with what we were looking for: stiffer on steel frames..and...we even looked for and made "softer" mounts for those that were looking to put a little more EXC in there SXF; and, we did that, too.

Calculating the necessary properties and using FEA software is a good start; but, it still came down to testing. It was Baggett that gave us the most useful "input" among the fast guys. All the while, even fat-slow-little-old...me...certainly felt the difference when going from stock Al. to our stiffer CF mounts (Current 450SX-F).

When we make a part, we can use several layers or "plies" of different materials to build directional stiffness or resistance to forces coming from a specific direction or location.

Recently, I'm getting inquiries about them; so, I guess it's time to make some more.

Again...yes...even a 58 year-old fat guy can feel the difference.

Bruce372 wrote:

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see? I chatted to a...

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see?

I chatted to a guy in 60+ begginer that could feel the difference in sub frame bolt torque. Ironically, my kid runs in the same group as jm485, so he's no slouch, but he can't even tell his tire is flat until it's off the rim! 😄

TeamGreen wrote:

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional...

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional Stiffness") and we came up with what we were looking for: stiffer on steel frames..and...we even looked for and made "softer" mounts for those that were looking to put a little more EXC in there SXF; and, we did that, too.

Calculating the necessary properties and using FEA software is a good start; but, it still came down to testing. It was Baggett that gave us the most useful "input" among the fast guys. All the while, even fat-slow-little-old...me...certainly felt the difference when going from stock Al. to our stiffer CF mounts (Current 450SX-F).

When we make a part, we can use several layers or "plies" of different materials to build directional stiffness or resistance to forces coming from a specific direction or location.

Recently, I'm getting inquiries about them; so, I guess it's time to make some more.

Again...yes...even a 58 year-old fat guy can feel the difference.

Bruce372 wrote:

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see? I chatted to a...

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see?

I chatted to a guy in 60+ begginer that could feel the difference in sub frame bolt torque. Ironically, my kid runs in the same group as jm485, so he's no slouch, but he can't even tell his tire is flat until it's off the rim! 😄

TeamGreen wrote:

Blake had 4 different mounts to choose from and he tested them all. Interestingly, we ended up in an ENTIRELY different direction than what everyone had...

Blake had 4 different mounts to choose from and he tested them all. Interestingly, we ended up in an ENTIRELY different direction than what everyone had been thinking...previously. Some of the stuff they had been given was too soft. Sometimes vibration was attributed to "stiff" when it was actually coming from "too soft".

TeamGreen wrote:

We should start off with... Our materials draw on over 50 years of composite engineering that began waaaaay back in the 60's with my dad at...

We should start off with...

Our materials draw on over 50 years of composite engineering that began waaaaay back in the 60's with my dad at Lockheed. I joined those ranks in '84. I/We've had ur own companies doing this stuff since 1992. So, our materials started at a pretty high level & yes, in many cases, you could argue some of those materials are "a waste" when it comes to making "just motorcycle parts"; but, we've never felt that way.

Our basic everyday materials have Tg higher than 450F/230C and their mechanical properties are pretty damn solid up thru/beyond 400F/200C. We have materials with higher Tg for those applications that require them. Yup, even some of those end-caps and canisters we make, especially for road-racing/Dakar...etc., have higher a Tg. But, that's not where the answers are found to your more important questions...

1. Between the different mounts, how much stiffer is “stiffer”. Are we talking 5%, 20%, 50%?

Our mounts where we were looking to give that "softer-flex" of an EXC, we shot for about 25-30% -less- stiffness. Take a look at an EXC-Fs motor mounts versus and SX-Fs and you'll see what we're going after.

On the SX-F "Supercross" mounts we went as far as 40% stiffer than stock (Calculated by that software we spoke of, previously).

On the mounts where we were trying to deliver a specific improvement in "front end feel"...namely for the fast crowd that wanted to "feel" more directly connected to the front wheel of their steel framed SX bike...we went for lateral stiffness. We used a combination of materials: UD & wovens in multiple-intentional orientations and fiber mod's. Some of the stiffer mounts have over 30 total plies. No "thick" materials used for any sort of build-up purposes. T300 & T700 fibers used in the wovens & IM2 & 7 used in the UD. IM7 used for the really stiff mts that seemed to be preferred for SX. Minimal IM fiber was used in the mounts intended to give that EXC feel. We used shape and materials to get what we wanted. It was a fun project. I doubt -anyone- has spent as much as we have on materials. Oh, and, we did it just for shits and giggles...because, we could!


Note: using & explaining the term "lateral" went a helluva lot smoother than trying to use or explain "bending". When we explain the lateral aspect as trying to make the full length of the bike firmer and less flexy in a bridge-like manner...? Well, everyone understood that and we ran with it.

2. During testing, did the riders know which mounts they were running? For example, would the rider know that they’re running the “softer” or “stiffer” mounts while riding and giving feedback?

I had the luxury of working with riders that knew what they wanted and REALLY knew their bike/set-up. They'd already tried & used mounts form other companies and had mounts they liked; yet, they were still looking for something different. They provided answers based strictly on their own observations and previous to us telling them what to expect. Only one of the teams technical managers knew "what parts were what" & he knows how to NOT spoil a test session.

Testing even included me. I'd had PLENTY of hours on the SXF chassis, and the FC...for that matter...too, and could feel differences immediately. You oughta see how sensitive you get about fork settings once you...well, maybe I mean "me"...once I got the chassis feel dialed...after that? I REALLY moved in on finite fork settings.

3. Is there any concern about heat? If we’re talking very incremental differences in stiffness, I would imagine that heat conducted from the motor might change the properties of the composite (depending on layer orientation, I know there are patterns that counteract dimensional changes due to heat). I’m not sure exactly which resins you’re using, but from room temperature to operating temperature is there any change in material property that could result in a measurable effect on stiffness?

I kinda already addressed this; but, to truly get to the details that you are probably familiar with...

Autoclave cured Cyanate Ester based system on Toray and Hexcel Aero-grade and Intermediate modulus fibers. We cure at 250-275(f) and go into post-cures for higher temp performing parts.

Things like end-caps are made in dedicated out of autoclave tooling systems. Some brackets, like these mounts we're talking about, would evolve into that type of tooling, too, if we were to get serious about them from a production stand point.

About little fun projects like 2017.5 thru 2022 KTM/HSQ/GG Motor Mounts...and other fun projects...they ALL got put on the back-burner during this COVID/Zombie Apocalypse Episode of supply and labor madness. I "went long"/longer on materials than you'd believe...&...at the VERY beginning of this period of total stupidity. Why? Well, the writing was on the wall as soon as I heard terms like "shut down"...or..."stay at home order"...if you recall...?

I -immediately- dbl'd...tripled...then simply went after a years "lead" on carbon. Yup. Bought soooooo much material; and, I' am SO STOKED that I did!

Right now, my competition is being told that they're getting ANOTHER 12+% (or worse) price hike on their carbon AND their pre-pregs or resins. Me? Uh, no. I'm -SET- on the really harshly impacted 3K and 12K materials & I'm even pretty solid on prepregs...which are limited by available freezer space!

So, I am stoked! Now, I need to get back to these fun little pet projects!

Great Q's, btw. Hope you are riding your ass off!

Manny

TeamGreen wrote:

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional...

We made some mounts and used the FEA module in our software to calculate the stiffness/modulus of the mount/laminates (or as we called it with testers,"Directional Stiffness") and we came up with what we were looking for: stiffer on steel frames..and...we even looked for and made "softer" mounts for those that were looking to put a little more EXC in there SXF; and, we did that, too.

Calculating the necessary properties and using FEA software is a good start; but, it still came down to testing. It was Baggett that gave us the most useful "input" among the fast guys. All the while, even fat-slow-little-old...me...certainly felt the difference when going from stock Al. to our stiffer CF mounts (Current 450SX-F).

When we make a part, we can use several layers or "plies" of different materials to build directional stiffness or resistance to forces coming from a specific direction or location.

Recently, I'm getting inquiries about them; so, I guess it's time to make some more.

Again...yes...even a 58 year-old fat guy can feel the difference.

Bruce372 wrote:

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see? I chatted to a...

So when you didbthe testing, did someone else randomly change the parts, cover them in duct tape so you couldn't couldn't see?

I chatted to a guy in 60+ begginer that could feel the difference in sub frame bolt torque. Ironically, my kid runs in the same group as jm485, so he's no slouch, but he can't even tell his tire is flat until it's off the rim! 😄

TeamGreen wrote:

We should start off with... Our materials draw on over 50 years of composite engineering that began waaaaay back in the 60's with my dad at...

We should start off with...

Our materials draw on over 50 years of composite engineering that began waaaaay back in the 60's with my dad at Lockheed. I joined those ranks in '84. I/We've had ur own companies doing this stuff since 1992. So, our materials started at a pretty high level & yes, in many cases, you could argue some of those materials are "a waste" when it comes to making "just motorcycle parts"; but, we've never felt that way.

Our basic everyday materials have Tg higher than 450F/230C and their mechanical properties are pretty damn solid up thru/beyond 400F/200C. We have materials with higher Tg for those applications that require them. Yup, even some of those end-caps and canisters we make, especially for road-racing/Dakar...etc., have higher a Tg. But, that's not where the answers are found to your more important questions...

1. Between the different mounts, how much stiffer is “stiffer”. Are we talking 5%, 20%, 50%?

Our mounts where we were looking to give that "softer-flex" of an EXC, we shot for about 25-30% -less- stiffness. Take a look at an EXC-Fs motor mounts versus and SX-Fs and you'll see what we're going after.

On the SX-F "Supercross" mounts we went as far as 40% stiffer than stock (Calculated by that software we spoke of, previously).

On the mounts where we were trying to deliver a specific improvement in "front end feel"...namely for the fast crowd that wanted to "feel" more directly connected to the front wheel of their steel framed SX bike...we went for lateral stiffness. We used a combination of materials: UD & wovens in multiple-intentional orientations and fiber mod's. Some of the stiffer mounts have over 30 total plies. No "thick" materials used for any sort of build-up purposes. T300 & T700 fibers used in the wovens & IM2 & 7 used in the UD. IM7 used for the really stiff mts that seemed to be preferred for SX. Minimal IM fiber was used in the mounts intended to give that EXC feel. We used shape and materials to get what we wanted. It was a fun project. I doubt -anyone- has spent as much as we have on materials. Oh, and, we did it just for shits and giggles...because, we could!


Note: using & explaining the term "lateral" went a helluva lot smoother than trying to use or explain "bending". When we explain the lateral aspect as trying to make the full length of the bike firmer and less flexy in a bridge-like manner...? Well, everyone understood that and we ran with it.

2. During testing, did the riders know which mounts they were running? For example, would the rider know that they’re running the “softer” or “stiffer” mounts while riding and giving feedback?

I had the luxury of working with riders that knew what they wanted and REALLY knew their bike/set-up. They'd already tried & used mounts form other companies and had mounts they liked; yet, they were still looking for something different. They provided answers based strictly on their own observations and previous to us telling them what to expect. Only one of the teams technical managers knew "what parts were what" & he knows how to NOT spoil a test session.

Testing even included me. I'd had PLENTY of hours on the SXF chassis, and the FC...for that matter...too, and could feel differences immediately. You oughta see how sensitive you get about fork settings once you...well, maybe I mean "me"...once I got the chassis feel dialed...after that? I REALLY moved in on finite fork settings.

3. Is there any concern about heat? If we’re talking very incremental differences in stiffness, I would imagine that heat conducted from the motor might change the properties of the composite (depending on layer orientation, I know there are patterns that counteract dimensional changes due to heat). I’m not sure exactly which resins you’re using, but from room temperature to operating temperature is there any change in material property that could result in a measurable effect on stiffness?

I kinda already addressed this; but, to truly get to the details that you are probably familiar with...

Autoclave cured Cyanate Ester based system on Toray and Hexcel Aero-grade and Intermediate modulus fibers. We cure at 250-275(f) and go into post-cures for higher temp performing parts.

Things like end-caps are made in dedicated out of autoclave tooling systems. Some brackets, like these mounts we're talking about, would evolve into that type of tooling, too, if we were to get serious about them from a production stand point.

About little fun projects like 2017.5 thru 2022 KTM/HSQ/GG Motor Mounts...and other fun projects...they ALL got put on the back-burner during this COVID/Zombie Apocalypse Episode of supply and labor madness. I "went long"/longer on materials than you'd believe...&...at the VERY beginning of this period of total stupidity. Why? Well, the writing was on the wall as soon as I heard terms like "shut down"...or..."stay at home order"...if you recall...?

I -immediately- dbl'd...tripled...then simply went after a years "lead" on carbon. Yup. Bought soooooo much material; and, I' am SO STOKED that I did!

Right now, my competition is being told that they're getting ANOTHER 12+% (or worse) price hike on their carbon AND their pre-pregs or resins. Me? Uh, no. I'm -SET- on the really harshly impacted 3K and 12K materials & I'm even pretty solid on prepregs...which are limited by available freezer space!

So, I am stoked! Now, I need to get back to these fun little pet projects!

Great Q's, btw. Hope you are riding your ass off!

Manny