Talk:Motorcycle suspension

What's The Point

If you look at the fork tube article, it's pretty wretched. I thought it might be better to try to put together a comprehesive article on motorcycle suspensions, and then just nuke all those little stubs of the various parts.Pi3832 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Swingarms: BMW, Moto Guzzi, etc.

This article is intended to be a basic introduction to motorcycle suspensions in general. It's not the place to hail the wonders of any given technology or maker. BMW is not being slighted by trimming the discussion of Paralever. BMW already received as much or more mention in the Swingarm section than any other maker.

If you want to discuss the wonders of Paralever, do it in the BMW Motorcycle article, or create a Paralever article. The beauty of a Wiki is that people can follow links to whatever interests them in particular.

Paralever and CA.R.C., and whatever other copyrighted doo-dad, deserve mention, but not a discussion. --Pi3832 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bimota and single-sided front suspension

This article is an overview of the motorcycle suspensions that a reader might encounter. It is very gnifty that Bimota is building the Tesi 2D, but as they are, AFAICT, only building 30 of them, and as they cost well on $50,000(US) each, the bike is really outside of this article's scope. -- Pi3832 04:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

M-72 charms

"Undid revision 109250978 WRONG!!! Do some basic research before exposing your stupidity!!"

There M-72 goes again! Waratah-9 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I can find M-72's additude as hard to take as the next guy, I do appreciate the factual contributions he makes. When I asked him not to bring controversy to the Motorcycle fork article, he obliged. -AndrewDressel 16:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather limited, isn't it?

Shouldn't there be some mention of why swingarms superseded plunger rear suspensions, or why the Triumph sprung hub was such a failure? Also, it's interesting that Motorcycle fork says more about the historical predecessors to the telescopic fork than Suspension (motorcycle) does. Respectfully, SamBlob 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Swinging fork and cantilevered triangulated swinging fork arrangements both preceded plunger suspension. Indian used a leaf spring controlled swinging fork on it's 1914 "Electric Special" and Matchless used a cantilevered triangulated swinging fork controlled by coil springs on it's 1931 Silver Hawk V4. The reasons why rear suspension wasn't universal until recently are many. Some early systems were poorly designed. Most required excessive maintenance to perform correctly and earned bad reputations when poorly maintained. Some precluded easy sidecar attachment (an important consideration in the U.K. and Australia where cars were very costly). All added cost which was very important in the period between the Great Depression and the commencement of WWII. Plungers were a cheap and nasty alternative that overcame most problems and allowed manufacturers to continue to use existing frame jigs. M-72 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the plunger suspension was widespread enough to be notable. It was in common use by Indian, BMW, several other German marques, Norton, and the 1913 Pope, making it at least as old as Indian's 1913 Single with the optionial leaf-sprung swingarm. The reasons for its rise and fall are of historic and technical interest. The Triumph sprung hub is not as notable and it is probably in everyone's best interest (especially Triumph fans) that it not be mentioned. On the other hand, it might be notable as an example of just how badly they could get it wrong... Respectfully, SamBlob 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guzzidrive.jpg

Image:Guzzidrive.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I replaced this image with my own. Motorrad-67 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposed (Twinshock)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: Merge. I will merge it in here; it can be shortened at any time. --B. Wolterding 14:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge the content of Twinshock into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Actually it is not quite clear to me why that detail topic is notable enough for an own article, also because no sources are given. I think it would be best to upmerge the information to the main article here.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to just delete it as it's mostly incorrect. But lump it in here and let rip. M-72 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems rather non-notable. Maybe a short section the the main article if it ever can command that. Go for it. Cheers ww2censor 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fair use rationale for Image:Penske shock.jpg

Image:Penske shock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Adjustment sections

Something needs to be done. There are for instance three sections on damping adjustment. I'd suggest keeping only a separate section on adjustments and remove the existing sections on the front/rear suspension sections. --uKER (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am currently reading Tony Foale's "Motorcycle handling and Suspension Design" and I think the basic principles of springing and damping should go first, then each subsection could have a discussion of how designers implement those principles in the particular application.Lg king (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Desired sources

• Jordan, Michael. "Uni-trak, not monoshock." Cycle Guide July 1979: 86. General OneFile. Web. 10 June 2015.
• Jennings, Gordon. "Uni-Trak: it may just turn out to be future-shock." Cycle June 1980: 37+. General OneFile. Web. 10 June 2015.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)