Talk:Piaggio MP3

Suspension Mechanism

The suspension system is designed as an aid for riders while they are using and in control of the machine - such as at traffic signals. It is not recommended to leave the machine parked for a long time with the suspension locked (the centre stand should be employed) as it will topple in a strong wind or if it is pushed on the side. Similarly, the system is not designed to utilise parking on a sloping surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.94.119.63 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Owners irrelevant

Listing individual owners of this machine is contrary to practice in any other motorcycle article with rare exceptions such as well-known collectors (Jay Leno for one). Does this add anything to this particular article? Brianhe 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No reply, removed section. Brianhe 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Who developed it?

Italien manufacturer Italjet had conceived a similar three-wheeler with the same suspension called Scooop. The origins of the concept could be explained —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.223.226.192 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I gotta get one. 209.29.95.226 (talk)

Italjet's Scooop used a different tilt/suspension system, probably similar to the layout on Brudeli's off-road three-wheeler, the Vectrix electric scooter and the Yamaha Tesseract leaning quad. Crucially, suspension (by twin single-sided trailing links) and leaning (by 6-joint parallelogram) on the MP3 are fully independent. If one front wheel goes over a bump, the other should be unaffected. The other designs are simpler, and have semi-independent suspension. See also the leaning tricycle (2 rear wheels) built by Carlos Calleja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelowtl (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Luciano Marabese, founder of Marabese Design, is responsible for both the technology that went into the Piaggio MP3 and the design of the Yamaha Tesseract. --Matthew Raymond (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tire contact area

The article says "Having a third wheel and a third disc brake gives the rider 50% more tire on the road for traction [...]". The claim of 50% more tire on the road seems like it can only be interpreted as 50% more tire contact area, which is wrong. Contact area is very nearly weight divided by tire pressure, so if the tire pressure is unchanged, going to three or four or 10 tires does not affect the total contact area. Conversely, staying at two tires but lowering the tire pressure will increase the contact area.

It may still be the three-tire configuration gives better traction and braking, but the specific claim of contact area is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.80.20 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the physics sound dubious. The section has been tagged as unreferenced since we can't tell whether or not this claim has any factual basis. If citations are't forthcoming, then any claims can be rewritten or removed. — Brianhe (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the specific claim of contact area is wrong. You can adjust the tire pressure so as to keep the contact area of each tire constant despite differences in weight. The "traction" claim is dubious; during acceleration only the single rear wheel is driven - increased contact area in front makes no difference. During hard braking, however, the rear wheel becomes very lightly loaded and contributes little to braking, so the effectiveness of the dual front wheels should approach a doubling instead of being 50% greater. Another aspect is the fact that a patch of oil, gravel or ice may affect one front tire and not the other.

The Piaggio MP3 125 User manual ( http://manuals.wotmeworry.org.uk/Piaggio%20MP3/MP3%20125/MP3%20125%20User%20Manual.pdf ) specifies the following tire pressures:

Rear tire pressure (rider): 2 bar, (rider and passenger): 2.4 bar

Front tire pressure (rider): 1.6 bar, (rider and passenger): 1.8 bar

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)