Project 100 (custom enclosed Honda C90 targets 100 mph vmax and 100 km/L FE)

[MetroMPG]

Hi Pete - Been popping by this discussion to follow updates occasionally - I'm impressed. (And happy you're sharing it with us.)

Hope you don't mind I took the liberty to flesh out your thread title (my addition in parentheses) to make it more self-explanatory to members/visitors scanning through our forum and more search engine-friendly. If you're not happy with what I've added, let me know!

Enjoying the project! - Darin

[visionary]

Update of project description
Thanks Darin, for your focus on the project and the descriptive title. When I first started the project, I never imagined the scale of this opportunity, and consequently overlooked the chance to post a smart title.
My passion is the concept of a single person vehicle (SPV), which I believe should become the basis of a new class of vehicles. When vehicle manufacturers, and motorcycle makers in particular, start thinking about how they compromise vehicle efficiency by making provision for passengers, which is rarely used, then important steps forward are possible.

A word about the specific goals.

100mph vmax – this target speed is the equivalent of Craig Vetter’s “70mph into a 30mph headwind” and even though its rarely necessary (or even legal) to drive at this speed, it is a simple proof of the usability of the vehicle. This is not a one-off or single purpose vehicle, it should be used on a daily basis and become a development platform for further SPV designs.

100km/l FE – In my original goals I omitted any reference to FE, a serious omission given this forum’s central theme. By analysing the benefits on general medium speed efficiency from a low-drag, low-capacity machine, I saw that I would come very close to this milestone. I decided to invest some time, and ideas, into reaching this goal, which has become the preserve of speciality machines.

100cc – Although omitted from the headline title, my self-imposed limit of 100cc is a cornerstone of the project's goals. By demonstrating what can be achieved with a low-capacity motor I hope to oppose the lazy mindset of vehicle engineers who simply add capacity rather than explore efficient solutions.

Anyway, that’s enough preaching for now – lets get back to cutting and welding!
Regards
Pete

[visionary]

Anticipation is building

As I get closer to getting the project on the road, I’ve been thinking about my targets and how they will be achieved. I don’t expect to reach my targets at the first attempt, mainly as I will start to use the vehicle as soon as possible, without waiting to get everything perfect. My plans are to complete the development in a four-step process.

Step 1 – Stock engine, no bodywork. First tests will be “in the raw” without bodywork and so the principle gains will come from the smaller frontal area and taller gearing. That will cap the performance improvements as the higher mass and rolling resistance detract from the benefits. But as long as the bike can maintain a reasonable speed, which allows the use of dual-carriageways, then some FE gains will come from improved route selection. The original C90 could only manage 55mph (in a tuck) but I’m hoping to hit 70mph. My FE target for this stage is 60km/l which is up from the current 47km/l, which was achieved on single lane “local” roads requiring stop/start driving with lots of WOT to keep up with traffic.

Step 2 – Stock engine, full bodywork but no canopy. The bodywork will be added in a piecemeal fashion, and I will monitor improvements bit-by-bit, but my hope is that: by the time all the bodywork, less the canopy, is fitted the top speed will be 80mph and FE up to 70km/l.

Step 3 – Stock engine, full body with canopy. This will make the driver completely enclosed and the drag should be close to my ultimate target. My hopes for this stage are 85 for both mph and km/l.

Step 4 – As above but fully modified engine. The motor plans include raising capacity from 85cc to 100cc, higher compression ratio, re-profiled camshaft, ported cylinder head and fully programmable ECU for fuel injection and ignition. Most of the gains will be giving more horsepower, thus enabling the 100mph target. The FE gains will come from an ability to improve efficiency and accurately control mixture strength at cruising speed, which I hope will get me to 95km/l.

Special measures – to hit 100km/l I expect some special measures will be needed, but I’ll decide what’s best nearer to the time. I plan to keep an “ideas bank” of potential improvements, and apply the most promising ones when I see how far short of the target I am.

[BenjaminT]

You should scrap the tele-fork front suspension and research a man named Norman Hossack . You're going to need all the stability you can get on two wheels.

[Grant-53]

The double wish bone suspension would go well with a centerless hub front. It sounds like a lot of work but it maybe easier for your application in the long run. Next best is the fork from an old BMW 250cc.

[ElectricRider66]

You don't need to ditch your telescopic forks for your prototype. The Hossack suspension is a superior design but many people (i.e. EcoTracer, Royce Creasy's CMAX 2010) have shown that telescopics work fine, especially for a prototype.

[ElectricRider66]

Visionary. Awesome work! We have very simular projects on-going. Please check out DeltaBike.us and SchultzEngineering.us/projects.htm. My goals are very simular to yours and I intend to give away as much of my learning as possible.

Thanks for sharing this project. And keep up the great work!

Kraig Schultz

[ElectricRider66]

On the topic of front telescopic suspensions:

Please install a steering dampner if you haven't already. The small cost is worth it. The worst way to crash is going down with a "tank slapper". Those horrifying seconds seem like an eternity, and while it's good to be alive to remember them, I never want to repeat them myself and I believe that that installing a dampner is a low cost way to reduce the frequency of this happening.

w ww.schultzengineering.us/remote3.jpg for example of steering dampner on remote steering bike.

[BenjaminT]

You have some awesome projects, Kraig. I can't wait to share the concepts I'm developing. If they prove fruitful, I see universal benefits for 2, 3, and 4 wheel designs some people are working on. (I admit to flights of fancy on influencing industry... Fat chance, but you've gotta have dreams.)

While a prototype is just that, I still think it's worth developing the Hossack front sooner rather than later. It doesn't need to be done immediately, but. The "design rule of 10" dictates that if it is going to be done, it should be done before any finalities are set. It's going to hurt a lot more later. Revising body work is easy, revising the frame changes everything.

While telies might work, the Hossack can bring 2 wheelers to a wider market with their superior geometry. It's just something I would strongly consider.

[visionary]

Some replies

ElectricRider66 (Kraig Schultz) - thanks for posting on the thread Kraig. Yes we have many similarities in our thinking, but more than you know because my first prototype was also electric!
Your “deltabike” project looks very interesting, once again we have many similarities in our thinking, specifically about standardization and open-sourcing. However I feel that the two illustrations on your website bring visual excitement at the cost of practicality, and I have some observations about the procedure that you may wish to discuss, please feel free to PM me if you want to open a discussion. Likewise I would value your thoughts about the aims of this project and my design solutions. Steering damper next on my list!

Benjamin T – I’ve been aware of the Hossak system for some time – it seems to be a favourite of the English FF brigade, personally I remain to be convinced of its importance! My opinion is that telescopic forks, while far from perfect, function adequately. Just take a look at MotoGP bikes, with incredible loads and massive grip from slick tyres, ridden to absolute precision using this lightweight and simple technology – what’s not to like? My requirements for handling precision are likely to be far lower, and hence below the critical limit for performance.
Additionally, as is true of any prototype, I don’t fully understand my handling requirements yet. Until I do, I want to use a “known constant” or control, which will allow me the chance to evaluate the vehicle handling – hence use something familiar. If, a year from now, I’m struggling with a handling anomaly, please feel free to remind me.
I am very grateful to you for “the rule of ten” and other manufacturing theories that I found at your suggestion. The principle of “standardization” would lend support to my idea of using “off the shelf” parts to reduce cost and complexity.

Big shafe – just to clarify, I have two things to consider. Firstly, temporary support when stationary during a journey (stop lights) and secondly, permanent support when entering/exiting the vehicle (parking). Each solution must be independent of the other.
Stop lights. In the short term I will use access panels in the lower side area to allow the driver to place his/her feet on the roadway, just like a regular motorcycle. These panels will move independently of the top canopy, and will require a degree of automation. I like pneumatics for this task, but have not finalised a design yet.
Parking. The parking stand will comprise a pair of “legs” which need a fairly wide base, and so will deploy at about 45degrees (viewed from front). They must lock into an “overcenter” position to remain deployed for long periods, and must allow for suspension travel when the driver gets out. Therefore a degree of lifting is essential, which will require power assistance. I like pneumatics for this role too, specially as some synergy with the stop-light solution is possible. Here is an image of how I think it will all work