Skip to content

Discuss This Vyrus 986 M2: The future of Moto2? First rides & tests

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > First rides & tests > Vyrus 986 M2: The future of Moto2?

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply

Anonymous

Joined:

Posts:

MCN  says:

Vyrus 986 M2: The future of Moto2?

This is the 986 M2, a Honda CBR600RR-powered Moto2 racer, built by tiny Italian manufacturer Vyrus - or, in other words, one man called Ascanio Rodrigo. Ascanio helped develop the original Bimota Tesi and, being based in the Rimini area, the home of Italian motorcycle racing, he knows everyone from Rossi to Simoncelli, to all the engineers at Ducati. You could...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 3 years ago (03 August 2011 12:53)

Post a message in First rides & tests

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required

   

Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)

  1.  
  2.  
  3.  

Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 

Cancel
vmax4steve

Joined:

Mar 08

Posts: 312

vmax4steve says:

Way to go Ducati

If the carbon airbox frame doesn't suit conventional forks then why not go for something like this. It's not that there is no feel, it's like Neeves said the feel is different and just needs getting used to. The idea has been around for years and it's about time someone took it seriously.

Reply to this Topic
Kescheng

Joined:

May 06

Posts: 89

Kescheng says:

Won't Win

Not a cat in hell's chance of working at top level. I like the idea of new technology but sometimes change for change's sake is pointless. If the vaunted Rossi can't get to grips with the Ducati because it lacks feel and the only real difference is a super stiff carbon frame what will racers think when isolated by a multitude of joints and levers from the front wheel? No-one for instance has managed to put into production any other engine apart from a piston and crank combo that has mass usage and longevity. Many have tried - Norton and Toyota with the Wankel engine, but both have failed to get them working as well as the engine used by Mr. Benz all those years ago. Same here. BMW have been the foremost users of weird front ends in production and with much success in terms of sales. However as soon as they push the performance envelope they immediately choose front forks. That applies to both the superbike and their hardcore off road bikes. Within engineering there is an elegance associated with simplicity and forks are probably the only way to make a good front end on a bike. In fact the reality is that only three things will improve bikes from now on. Electronics, frame and engine materials and tyres. All else is doomed to fail as the solution presented will not be as good as what already exists.

Reply to this Topic
princeofrepsol

Joined:

Mar 11

Posts: 470

Ducati MotoGP

Some pretty desperate individuals here, I mean if Rossi can't get the Desmo to work with a conventional front end he obviously lacks the development skills to get this to work, saying that casey could probably win on it.

Reply to this Topic
yzrm1

Joined:

Jan 11

Posts: 292

yzrm1 says:

realy nice bike. hard to rev after 13.000rpm??? a 600cc that cant rev??? was this a standard engine??

Reply to this Topic
X2Glider

Joined:

May 10

Posts: 427

X2Glider says:

MYDOGBEN

Look at BMW for years they have and still do use a telelever setup (duolever) but when they wanted to build a genuine sportsbike to take on the rest they reverted to conventional forks because they're best for the job.

You're definitely misinformed.  Just because you took a simple observation (that BMW used a telescoping fork over a duolever ) and tried to apply deductive reasoning to it, doesn't mean you deduced right.

The reason BMW used a traditional telescoping fork on the S1000RR is NOT because it is a better design.  They used it because of space (and race rules).  A telelever or duolever front end requires a control arm or a 4 bar linkage which can consume 5 -8 inches of space up front.  This is ok on a BMW because their R engines sit down low and this mechanical stuff can be placed above it.  On their liquid cooled K bikes, the bike is simply longer overall.  On an inline 4 race bike, the head and valve cover are located up front where all this linkage needs to be.  In order to fit it, you would have to place it further out front, increasing the wheelbase by 5 - 8 inches or even more since the pipes come out the front also.

Telescoping forks have a lot of negatives about their performance.  Because you have 2 forks, you have double the seal and bearing stiction to overcome, you have to tune them both the same or they will fight each other or operate at diferent rates which is bad for seals, they have less rigidity in the direction you need it and you have two to rebuild.  A big plus in favor of the BMW forks is no need for a steering damper.  Because the suspension is separated from the steering and the forks aren't flexxy, you get no headshake at triple digit speeds...at least up to 155 mph.  I can't go any faster than that.

The duolever is actually a fantastic system, better than the telelever, and it does have feel, it's just a different feel you have to learn.  Most racers traditionally like the way a telescoping fork dives.  This tells them that the suspension is working and that inspires confidence.  The problem is that the front suspension is doing 80 percent of the work in a turn.  The BMW systems also dives but the way it is hooked up the the chassis effects the whole bike less in the front.  It allows the rear suspension to play more of a part in the turns as well.  The 2 BMWs I've had have done fantastically on the track for a bike that has a 58" wheelbase.

Reply to this Topic
bbstrikesagain

Joined:

Nov 08

Posts: 878

a lot of complexity

and misunderstanding...

It isn't forks that couple braking and suspension, but unavoidable weight transfer under braking.  Yes, the rearward forces of the braked wheel do create additonal friction in the forks, hence upside down forks to reduce leverage on the sliding parts, but that effect is pretty negligible these days.  What really reduces the compliance under braking is risin rate springs and compression of trapped air.  Forks don't really couple steering and suspension either, they're rigid enough and leave a very uncomplicated steering setup - a single fully ball/roller raced axis.  What's more, they're compact, strong, relatively inexpensive, and only require two external oil seals to keep all those diamond like carbon or titanium nitride coatings sliding slickly even under huge forces...

Okay, I know some of you will be bursting to challenge my above statements, but I'll go on.  The main benefit that vyrus, duolever, tesi front ends bring is quite simple - they dial in some mechanical anti-dive.  The linkage lengths and mounting points are chosen such that the forces on the brake caliper work to try and extend the suspension, thereby oppsing the compressive forces of the increased loading at the front.  If a substantial part of the braking-dive movement is cancelled out then the overall suspension rate can besignificantly softened, so you can have much more compliance generally, and especially under braking.  In essence this is similar to the way anti-squat is programmed into the rear geometry (albeit based on chain pull rather than caliper rotation) to allow greater compliance at the rear.  So, the Vyrus has anti-dive front and "normal" anti-squat rear.  But this isn't clumsy 80s style (lock up the forks) anti-dive, or progressive rate springs or air assist to reduce reduce the compliance under loading, no, it's pure almost linear mechanical anti-dive - the very same principle used to stop softly sprung american limos burying their bumpers in the tarmac.

Why not BMW, why not the S1000RR?  They wanted to own the race track.  That meant hiring skilled racers, and they all cut their teeth with forks, dive and all - it's the feeling they know.  So, the final solution was to make a an updated GSX-R for them to ride...

Vyrus is different.  I may be wrong, but I don't think they want to own the race track to sell a million ugly uber bikes ASAP.  They want to make a radical things work.  Yes, for now it's over-complicated, heavy, relies on too many ball joints and exposed linkages, and won't feature on any sub £10 supersports road bike any time soon, but it would be really interesting to see it competing n the hands of an adaptable top flight racer. It could be an eventual game changer.

Reply to this Topic
mydogben

Joined:

Aug 02

Posts: 356

mydogben says:

X2glider

I was under the impression that the "duolever front end"was simply marketed as "telelever". I bow to your superior knowledge. Snave mentioned earlier "some idiot racer" in his post!!!! Forgive me but who develops the bikes that we ride? so called "idiot racers" if im not mistaken. Princeofrepsol also mentioned "rossi lacking development skills" LMFAO Or were you being sarcastic

Reply to this Topic
timryalen

Joined:

Aug 11

Posts: 1

timryalen says:

proof hub steering works!

I find it interesting reading some of the negative comments on this bike but how many of these people have first hand experience of this type of system or are they just regurgitating something that they have read somewhere else? Some years ago I was at the isle of man watching a hub steered motorcycle called the Tryphonos finish in 11th position in the senoir race in the hands of Shaun Harris, I was lucky enough to speak with him after the race and asked the question I sure everybody asks 'how does it feel' from what he said he had no problems with lack of feedback. The Tryphonos had a similar system to the vyrus although it looked less complex. its achievement at the isle of man was impressive since it was its first ever race and it had in my opinion an inferior engine (oil cooled gsxr verses watercooled RVF from castrol Honda)

I'm not sure what Tryphonos is doing now but I found their website which has magazine reviews one of which by german mag Motorrad that tested it against a telelever racer and Ducati 996 which was pretty good back then, and the Tryphonos bike although underpowered was lapping quicker than the Ducati !

I think it is ignorant to prejudice against all alternatives to the telescopic fork like with statements like  'IT WON'T WIN' and ' DOESN'T HAVE FEEDBACK'  besides not all hub steered bikes are the same!

Reply to this Topic
hoskar

Joined:

Apr 07

Posts: 13

hoskar says:

Hub-centered

Anyone else remember that hub-center-steered , roofed, reliant-engined bike from the 70's ? Now that was quick for its time .

Reply to this Topic
tockie

Joined:

Aug 10

Posts: 310

tockie says:

hoskar

Yeah I remember that, a bloke from Bristol made it Malcolm Newell I think his name was. I think it was called a Quasar. I seem to remember Phil Read golng to Buckingham Palace to collect an MBE or some other award on it. 

Reply to this Topic

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale

 

It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices