ThePhantomRider
09-07-2007, 11:07 AM
As I have read some comments on getting used to the DS handling as it has a different feel than the other 450's a thought came to my head as I discussed steering geometry and design with my father in law who is an engineer for Indycar and suspension and handling expert.
I realized that the reason some testers feel that it works different than the other 450's is that as riders, we have had to work with designs that were not optimal. Think about it, look at the spindle in any race car and you will see what Can-Am was going for in trying to get the pivot axis of the ball joints as close to the centerline of the tire as possible. This gives you more accurate steering imput at all suspension angles. The tire does what is intended, thats pivot, not swing around an axis like every other quad does.
Try this one on for size, look at every thread pertaining to wheel spacers, most everyone who has suspension knowledge says front spacers are a bad idea beacuse not only does it put a load on the spindle, but the further out you push the tire, the less precise the steering becomes. It's the difference between traditional design and correct design. We simply have grown accustom to "acceptable design" as opposed to "correct design" So when riders who have clouded their minds into thinking what is good handling get on the DS and think, wait a minute, the front end is light, but it turns sharp, that doesn't compute, they assume it's wrong. But even the most high dollar setup out there still uses improper geometry.
Add to that the reduced kickback because of the compact spindle, which is made possible by the tire pivoting as opposed to moving around the axis, it takes less steering effort, which takes us back to the reduced size of the spindle. This allows the rider to actually add throttle to get the bike to bite even more and drive out of corners under power as opposed to (Articles in said Dirt Wheels have been on this) racers who have to back off throttle to get the steering to bite more therefore you lose momentum in the corner. You have to change the mentality of what works before you can appreciate proper geometry.
While some get all this, there are those who still think that wrong is right and correct feels wierd, in time they will come around, but for now we have to deal with a magazine like Dirt Wheels not really having a real test for the DS vs. KFX vs. YFZ and them saying the YFZ is still the best (It's a very good quad BTW).....yes they pay the most, but also I go back to being used to somthing....they have had the YFZ for years now, they are used to it which makes for a biased opinion.
Though I'd like their testers and editors to ride in a race car with both types of steering designs represented and, being an alien vehicle, then have them tell me which theory works best, you'd be surprised in how bad they would think the old way works compared to the new.....
TPR
I realized that the reason some testers feel that it works different than the other 450's is that as riders, we have had to work with designs that were not optimal. Think about it, look at the spindle in any race car and you will see what Can-Am was going for in trying to get the pivot axis of the ball joints as close to the centerline of the tire as possible. This gives you more accurate steering imput at all suspension angles. The tire does what is intended, thats pivot, not swing around an axis like every other quad does.
Try this one on for size, look at every thread pertaining to wheel spacers, most everyone who has suspension knowledge says front spacers are a bad idea beacuse not only does it put a load on the spindle, but the further out you push the tire, the less precise the steering becomes. It's the difference between traditional design and correct design. We simply have grown accustom to "acceptable design" as opposed to "correct design" So when riders who have clouded their minds into thinking what is good handling get on the DS and think, wait a minute, the front end is light, but it turns sharp, that doesn't compute, they assume it's wrong. But even the most high dollar setup out there still uses improper geometry.
Add to that the reduced kickback because of the compact spindle, which is made possible by the tire pivoting as opposed to moving around the axis, it takes less steering effort, which takes us back to the reduced size of the spindle. This allows the rider to actually add throttle to get the bike to bite even more and drive out of corners under power as opposed to (Articles in said Dirt Wheels have been on this) racers who have to back off throttle to get the steering to bite more therefore you lose momentum in the corner. You have to change the mentality of what works before you can appreciate proper geometry.
While some get all this, there are those who still think that wrong is right and correct feels wierd, in time they will come around, but for now we have to deal with a magazine like Dirt Wheels not really having a real test for the DS vs. KFX vs. YFZ and them saying the YFZ is still the best (It's a very good quad BTW).....yes they pay the most, but also I go back to being used to somthing....they have had the YFZ for years now, they are used to it which makes for a biased opinion.
Though I'd like their testers and editors to ride in a race car with both types of steering designs represented and, being an alien vehicle, then have them tell me which theory works best, you'd be surprised in how bad they would think the old way works compared to the new.....
TPR