BMW Bringing Carbon Fiber Tech To Motorcycle Frames | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

BMW Bringing Carbon Fiber Tech To Motorcycle Frames

Forum Sponsor
Brian P said:
No but that's not the point. Small fibers of many materials cause health problems.
Click to expand...

I agree, but lets word it that way then instead of posting bad information online stating that carbon fibre contains asbestos that some will take as fact, when it's not.

Yes, the carbon particles themselves are potentially harmful when cut in a confined space without proper breathing apparatus, sure...but again, playing devils advocate, suggesting that you're somehow going to immediately succumb to cancer if you crash a CF motorcycle and the frame cracks is also more than a little bit of fear mongering. ;)
 
I also read it as carbon fibre is made with asbestos. Thanks for the clarification.

Sent from my custom Purple Joe Bass mobile on Tapatalk
 
crankcall said:
Mere mortals will garner no benefit from this beyond increased cost, zero chance of repair in the event of a misstep in driving and the unsettling comfort that cracks lead to catastrophic failures.
But the cool factor cannot be dismissed.
Click to expand...

None of those traits seem cool to me, though BMW is the right brand to try it--their target demographic will believe anything if it's prefaced by "German Engineering".

Dr. Lux, you're going soft on us. HD should be the biggest bar on that graph and also shaped like a wang. Please revise.
 
"Son , your waking up from an induced coma" , "you crashed your BMW out at 160 in turn three at Calabogie" ....
"Doc , I can see both legs in a cast, but did I get CANCER??"
" Probably not lung cancer Son, but you'll still be making BMW finance payments for 3 yrs, so rectal cancer could be to follow."
 
crankcall said:
Mere mortals will garner no benefit from this beyond increased cost, zero chance of repair in the event of a misstep in driving and the unsettling comfort that cracks lead to catastrophic failures.
But the cool factor cannot be dismissed.
Click to expand...

And the higher cost of insurance to all should not be dismissed either. Cool.
 
PrivatePilot said:
I agree, but lets word it that way then instead of posting bad information online stating that carbon fibre contains asbestos that some will take as fact, when it's not.

Yes, the carbon particles themselves are potentially harmful when cut in a confined space without proper breathing apparatus, sure...but again, playing devils advocate, suggesting that you're somehow going to immediately succumb to cancer if you crash a CF motorcycle and the frame cracks is also more than a little bit of fear mongering. ;)
Click to expand...
He was comparing the 2 as cancer causing. Not as them having nano fibres.

But yeah I don't get the appeal of CF. Not sure but with time & UV light I am sure they degrade. Aluminum not so much
 
I think this is one of those just because we can do it does not mean it is a good thing to do.

How does carbon fiber crash? Great way to ensure more/new sales.
When it shatters does it impale you?
Crash a bike at 50 kmh and you can fix a few things and keep going...not sure CF does the same.

Also with the stress these bikes undergo...would you trust it.
Seems like a nice marketing ploy with serious consequences.
 
-D- said:
I think this is one of those just because we can do it does not mean it is a good thing to do.

How does carbon fiber crash? Great way to ensure more/new sales.
When it shatters does it impale you?
Crash a bike at 50 kmh and you can fix a few things and keep going...not sure CF does the same.

Also with the stress these bikes undergo...would you trust it.
Seems like a nice marketing ploy with serious consequences.
Click to expand...

CF is a 'use once' material - it generally is not repairable.
It likely won't impale you, or they wouldn't make helmets out of it - more likely just delaminate.
CF frames and swingarms were tried years ago in MotoGP, then they went back to alloy.
 
crankcall said:
Mere mortals will garner no benefit from this beyond increased cost, zero chance of repair in the event of a misstep in driving and the unsettling comfort that cracks lead to catastrophic failures.
But the cool factor cannot be dismissed.
Click to expand...

They already write off bikes for mere scratches in the frame; at least with cf the practice will make sense.

The benefits in performance would be quite noticeable across the board if the weight savings is indeed 40%+. Any other large aluminium passenger jet capable of this?

[video=youtube;O4mAEgQVzUE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mAEgQVzUE[/video]
 
Neil_V said:
They already write off bikes for mere scratches in the frame; at least with cf the practice will make sense.

The benefits in performance would be quite noticeable across the board if the weight savings is indeed 40%+. Any other large aluminium passenger jet capable of this?

[video=youtube;O4mAEgQVzUE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mAEgQVzUE[/video]
Click to expand...


Who's buying ?
 
TK4 said:
CF is a 'use once' material - it generally is not repairable.
It likely won't impale you, or they wouldn't make helmets out of it - more likely just delaminate.
CF frames and swingarms were tried years ago in MotoGP, then they went back to alloy.
Click to expand...

your a bit right, and a bit wrong.
I use carbon fiber and work with it a fair amount right now in race boats. Masts and booms and spin poles are all carbon in performance race yachts. Its completely repairable. The problem becomes its never the same, you went to carbon to use a really thin laminate, any repair leaves bulk in the repair area, even vaccuum bagging doesnt make it the same. Carbon doesnt delaminate, you need an epoxy to use carbon , polyesters and vinyl esters dont adhere. It will UV degrade if not protected and does fracture. One of the big problems are the razor sharp edges left when it does break.

carbon also eats stainless and aluminum and needs to be isolated from contact so any fastener in a long term application needs a shield. Yet another challenge.
 
crankcall said:
your a bit right, and a bit wrong.
I use carbon fiber and work with it a fair amount right now in race boats. Masts and booms and spin poles are all carbon in performance race yachts. Its completely repairable. The problem becomes its never the same, you went to carbon to use a really thin laminate, any repair leaves bulk in the repair area, even vaccuum bagging doesnt make it the same. Carbon doesnt delaminate, you need an epoxy to use carbon , polyesters and vinyl esters dont adhere. It will UV degrade if not protected and does fracture. One of the big problems are the razor sharp edges left when it does break.

carbon also eats stainless and aluminum and needs to be isolated from contact so any fastener in a long term application needs a shield. Yet another challenge.
Click to expand...

The key word was 'generally'.
Bicycle frames can be repaired too, but the cost (extremely labour intensive) and insuring the repair is safe often precludes that.
There are only a couple of manufacturers that will even try.
Mast, booms and poles aren't frames, swing arms or helmets - product liability is a much higher concern, hence the likelihood of a part being simply written off.
 
crankcall said:
your a bit right, and a bit wrong.
I use carbon fiber and work with it a fair amount right now in race boats. Masts and booms and spin poles are all carbon in performance race yachts. Its completely repairable. The problem becomes its never the same, you went to carbon to use a really thin laminate, any repair leaves bulk in the repair area, even vaccuum bagging doesnt make it the same. Carbon doesnt delaminate, you need an epoxy to use carbon , polyesters and vinyl esters dont adhere. It will UV degrade if not protected and does fracture. One of the big problems are the razor sharp edges left when it does break.

carbon also eats stainless and aluminum and needs to be isolated from contact so any fastener in a long term application needs a shield. Yet another challenge.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought.

Also, why did MotoGp return to alloy? What did they learn about it?
 
Neil_V said:
They already write off bikes for mere scratches in the frame; at least with cf the practice will make sense.

The benefits in performance would be quite noticeable across the board if the weight savings is indeed 40%+. Any other large aluminium passenger jet capable of this?
Click to expand...

People don't give passenger jet airframes enough credit. Look at what Tex Johnston did with the 707 prototype years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE

Carbon fibre is being pursued in aviation for the purposes of better mileage, range and lower emissions. Fuel costs are a constant concern. Jets rarely tip over, crashes tend to be catastrophic and maintenance is seriously regulated. Plus, ungodly amounts of money are spent designing and building the parts/frames. None of this will apply to how CF gets used in motorcycles. It's a neat material, but using it to manufacture consumer goods intended for public consumption seems a bit cynical. Then again, as long as it remains a choice, I'm not that worried about it's limitations.

EDIT: Crankall, how does CF eat stainless and aluminum? I didn't know if this property.
 
Last edited:
Flywheel said:
People don't give passenger jet airframes enough credit. Look at what Tex Johnston did with the 707 prototype years ago:
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with that video, my instructor showed it to us in ground school when teaching about airframe loading and G limits.

However, That's not a good example - The aircraft was maintained at 1G through that whole maneuvre. For all intents and purposes the airframe was subject to the exact same forces while inverted as flying straight end level. The maintenance of 1G while inverted is also the reason the fuel pickups didn't run dry as that sort of aircraft isn't built with inverted flight in mind, so bottom feed tanks only.

In a a modern day jumbo that sort of thing would still be theoretically possible if all the electronics were overridden...otherwise they'd be loosing their minds, but back in the days of Tex it was all old school and the aircraft would do whatever the pilot commanded without any complaint.

As for the video of the Dreamliner (the 787) doing the near vertical takeoff, it's entirely possible because of several things. Without doubt it was to show off its nimbleness (and certainly it's CF component structure helps with that), but once again, many aircraft when not loaded (that one on the video was completely empty except for a few crew) could do very similar maneuvers - their power to weight ratio when empty are usually off the charts. Hell, - Cessna 172 could do a similar vertical maneuver if you ran it to vNE in ground effect and pulled up hard. You wouldn't be able to maintain it very long as there's not the same power to weight ratio, but it would do it.
 
Last edited:
Flywheel said:
People don't give passenger jet airframes enough credit. Look at what Tex Johnston did with the 707 prototype years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE

Carbon fibre is being pursued in aviation for the purposes of better mileage, range and lower emissions. Fuel costs are a constant concern. Jets rarely tip over, crashes tend to be catastrophic and maintenance is seriously regulated. Plus, ungodly amounts of money are spent designing and building the parts/frames. None of this will apply to how CF gets used in motorcycles. It's a neat material, but using it to manufacture consumer goods intended for public consumption seems a bit cynical. Then again, as long as it remains a choice, I'm not that worried about it's limitations.

EDIT: Crankall, how does CF eat stainless and aluminum? I didn't know if this property.
Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion given the first highlighted statement? Could BMW not be looking at this as a way to keep present performance/economy balance while adhering to the new euro regulations? Could they not be using this tech in a big touring line as well, with the express intent of improving range? I doubt they'd go through all to trouble for the 'bling' factor.

As for that 707 vid, a roll is not even close to the same performance category as a near vertical takeoff. As impressive as that roll is, you try the vertical takeoff in a 707, it WILL stall and it WILL crash.
 
PrivatePilot said:
As for the video of the Dreamliner (the 787) doing the near vertical takeoff, it's entirely possible because of several things. Without doubt it was to show off its nimbleness (and certainly it's CF component structure helps with that), but once again, many aircraft when not loaded (that one on the video was completely empty except for a few crew) could do very similar maneuvers - their power to weight ratio when empty are usually off the charts. Hell, - Cessna 172 could do a similar vertical maneuver if you ran it to vNE in ground effect and pulled up hard. You wouldn't be able to maintain it very long as there's not the same power to weight ratio, but it would do it.
Click to expand...

But it was fully outfitted and ready for service. It's not as though it's an empty shell. The key to performing that maneuver is power/weight ratio, to which the CF frame elements are key.

Edit: cesna's and passenger liners are very different beast.. thats like saying 'well a cigar boat could do x so a yacht could too'
 
Last edited:
Neil_V said:
How do you come to that conclusion given the first highlighted statement? Could BMW not be looking at this as a way to keep present performance/economy balance while adhering to the new euro regulations? Could they not be using this tech in a big touring line as well, with the express intent of improving range? I doubt they'd go through all to trouble for the 'bling' factor.

As for that 707 vid, a roll is not even close to the same performance category as a near vertical takeoff. As impressive as that roll is, you try the vertical takeoff in a 707, it WILL stall and it WILL crash.
Click to expand...

I might be more convinced of the emissions/range argument if BMW started with their current bestseller, the R1200GS. Less weight to pick up and extra range would be huge marketing points. Applying CF to a niche market super bike would suggest a different purpose--a machine specifically designed to out-bling and out-perform the Japanese and Italian competition, gasoline be damned. Why come to the conclusion that BMW wouldn't? Germans don't have egos?

The 707 roll was more of a reminder that even older jetliners are incredible triumphs of engineering, no CF required. Most of the time, they're just lumbering around though. Those 787s have some pretty amazing engines too, something like 5 times the thrust of those 707 engines. Considering the 787 is about twice as heavy as a 707, that's no mean feat to sling it around like that.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom