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

[visionary]

2015 Update

During the Xmas holidays I finally get time to work on my own project, and this year I was able to get quite a lot done. The left side bodywork is now complete, and to a reasonable standard (close enough for prototype work). There are some minor pieces at the rear that I have left off but these images should help everyone understand what I have been trying to achieve.




The lower side door slides on three rails (two are visible) to allow access for the driver/rider, including putting feet down at stops, and the top section (which does not yet have the full canopy) moves up and down by hydraulic control. All switches are manual at present but I'm planning to use an arduino for more accurate control in future. I plan to do a youtube video to demonstrate this working soon.






Most of my work on the project now, is directed at getting the vehicle registered in time for the spring riding season - there's still loads to do but I feel that I've "broken the back" of it now.

[iveyjh]

Awesome!! Good work.

[Grant-53]

Very nice! The problem of putting the foot down is a key issue and you seem to have mastered it. Some kind of latch or resistance is used to keep the panel from sliding under acceleration or braking I assume.

[Ironside]

Well done Visionary, your high standards and resilience are showing through, I'm looking forward to more updates.

[PeterS]

Resilience is the word ! I'll continue to read and watch !

[visionary]

Update 019
Two steps forward and one step backward

As I move nearer to getting the bike ready for the road I have been looking at the procedure for registration here in the UK. Before being able to use the bike “on the road” I will have to have an MSVA inspection (Motorcycle Single Vehicle Approval), which will be carried out at a regional testing centre run by central government. By comparison with some of the alarming and confusing regulations that seem to come up in forum posts about the US system, our system is quite straightforward and clearly documented. But it’s not easy! Hence the “one step backward” nature of this update.

When I started the build, there were many parts that I made as experiments. Sometimes this was to try out an idea, sometimes it was to save time, but the outcome was often that the standard of engineering was just “OK”. Now though, I find myself revising my design in some areas as I consider how a vehicle examiner (probably lacking enthusiasm for untried designs) might react to this project. So I’ve built a new (more compliant) front section of the bike. The image below shows the new (grey) front end fitted in place of the first attempt.



Its painful to take things apart! However, it’s a necessary evil. Thankfully I anticipated problems like this at the outset, and I designed the bike in three sections, so it could be taken apart and each section could be replaced individually. Now the new improved, and hopefully legal section is in place I can quickly catch up to where I was.

Next I have to think about the exact specification to present the bike for testing. Many parts of the design are not required by law, but if I fit them they must comply! So the ideal solution is to only do the bare minimum requirement, but do it well. But its gonna look weird!

[Ironside]

The details involved in the SVA seem to be very complicated at first glance, but it's no worse than a strict MOT. I'd be inclined to take it along as is, and resign youself to a retest fee (not expensive), they are almost certain to find some nit picking problem that you won't be allowed to fix on the spot. If your lights and ancillaries are 'E' marked you're half way there. Good luck !.

[aerostealth]

Have you considered a split front faring with a separate boat tail behind so you can ride the bike normally and without having to arrange for a door to get on (or rather in) the bike? The air does not really know the difference and you could save weight. Essentially you body would be filling the potential wake area in the gap. I am not a bike guy but for a regular rider this might be more user friendly. I understand that your goal is 100 MPG at 70 MPH so this might not be less than ideal for that, but it is an option that could be looked into. The boat tail would have to be shaped so the it did not create a parachute, but other then that it could be useful for storage.

[COcyclist]

Looking good. Following with interest.

[visionary]

UPDATE 20 A long time waiting

My apologies to anyone waiting for updates, progress has been slow over the past few months and I’ve had little significant information to impart. The re-working of many parts to make them suitable for the MSVA test has been more time consuming than I had expected, and I’ve had a busy summer with customer projects.

This latest image shows the redesigned front end taking shape, alongside the original version.


I chose to use the Honda CBR600 headlamp assembly, left over from the donor bike, because it has all the correct markings to pass the MSVA inspection, and an integral beam adjustment facility, which is a specific item on the test list. The earlier twin headlamp that I made, has a better “look” but could be failed by a strict tester.

It requires fresh bodywork, but in comparision to the mechanical engineering, its quite straightforward. I’ve made a new front support structure from tubular steel, which it a bit “heavy-duty” but it looks the part. As part of my work for customers, I recently had to make a tube bender, and it’s a great addition to my workshop equipment. On my next prototype I will have a fully tubular frame. The bender is great to work with and makes the finished product look great.

I’ve done a job list for the MSVA test and it stands at about 14 items (depending upon how specific you are with the definitions), which at a rate of one-job-per-week will still take ages! Some jobs are simple and others are complex, in fact one has me baffled and I will post details in the hope that forum members can point me in the right direction – more on that later.

Presently I am grappling with the front telescopic forks. On the new front end I have committed to keeping the forks under the “bonnet” (or should that be “hood”). The earlier version had a cutout through which the std CBR forks protruded. This would fail the test and require a bulbous cover, which is a look I could not live with, so I’m going with a shortened upper tube. However, getting enough suspension travel still requires a heavily modified lower fork clamp, and that’s before I shorten the fork internals.



Anyway, that’s how things stand at present. My guilt is purged! I will post about my fuel tank dilemma next week.