Ex-500.com - The home of the Kawasaki EX500 / Ninja 500R banner

Why has no one done this...?

3.4K views 28 replies 11 participants last post by  tokomiko  
#1 ·
I'm sure there's a reason, I'm just not sure what it is.

You could make the rear rotor and the rear sprocket one entity. Basically a thick rotor with teeth. Obviously, the caliper would need to be "deeper" to clear said teeth and still reach the braking surface, but I see no other reason it wouldn't work, really. Slowing the sprocket vs. slowing the rear wheel would have the same effect, plus you'd have the added benefit of lessened weight and a thicker brake disk(which would probably be requisite for the intense force on it as a sprocket). Seems like something Buell would have tried. Again, I'm a lowly english major so I assume some of you people with careers in mechanical fields can school me on why this wouldn't work, but it just seems like a plausible idea.
 
#5 ·
As the OP noted, it sounds like something Buell would try.

Buell used belt drives on most (all?) of their bikes, didn't they?

I could swear the 1125R had to convert to a chain for AMA racing, and I KNOW the Blast was belt driven.
 
#6 ·
Good call, I don't know how I missed that. Still seems like and obstacle that could be overcome for what would be a pretty dramatic benefit. I was just thinking that maybe the materials might be different as well. High end rotors are made of all sorts of exotic **** so maybe that wouldn't work well as a sprocket material.
 
G
#8 ·
^
His concept would have a caliper still, it would just go over the chain.

I can envision exactly how this works in theory, but in actual practice, it has some flaws that make it unpractical, like the chain lube and the differences in materials between a rotor and sprocket.

Plus sprockets don't last near as long as rotors.
 
#10 ·
Chopper guys do that sometimes. I tend to agree with the idea and have thought of it EXCEPT, if I was a manufacturer putting a product out that I KNOW some will not maintain. I'd be deathly afraid of having to defend myself when a snapped chain clogged up a rotor/ caliper and locked the wheel..... or broke the caliper rendering the rear brake unusable.... or.....

And then a guy like Fro**** shows up as the prosecution's expert witness. ;) (Sorry, you had to be there...) ;D
 
#12 ·
I guess i've never looked closely enough at a bike with a single-sided swing-arm to see how they do it now...
 
#14 ·
Knightslugger said:
what's wrong with a drum brake instead of disk like?
Weight and heat. A drum brake on a 100MPH plus bike is a false sense of security. There was a guy from this board (Gstrom maybe?) who had a drum brake 500 and at his first track day (VIR South) was still using the rear brake. :eek: TOTALLY fried that thing. MAJOR stink, smoke, and all! :D It was ugly. :D
 
#18 ·
dragknee said:
Royson said:
^
His concept would have a caliper still, it would just go over the chain.
why would it need to go over the chain? put it on the 9:00 part of the sprocket. chain goes above and below it.
WE know that... but the chain doesn't. ;) ;D

Chains can do some strange and surprising things when they fail. And it's not always a break. Sometimes derailed from being loose and etc, etc. Then there's the brake line to the caliper, the cold outside ring necessary for the sprocket, restraining expansion of a hot rotor and resulting in warping, etc, etc. It's not really as practical as it appears at first glance. Of course, that's JMO. :)
 
#20 ·
jonh said:
Knightslugger mentioned drum brakes, what about inboard brakes?

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/images/Beringer_inboard_2.jpg

jonh.
Well, once you actually had something that would slow something down, there are two big issues that you'd like to address when it comes to wheels and brakes. Those would be the rotating mass for flywheel effect and the weight of all related parts, rotating or not, for unsprung weight. Looking at that picture I don't see anything it does for either of those issues. :)
 
#21 ·
dad said:
jonh said:
Knightslugger mentioned drum brakes, what about inboard brakes?

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/images/Beringer_inboard_2.jpg

jonh.
Well, once you actually had something that would slow something down, there are two big issues that you'd like to address when it comes to wheels and brakes. Those would be the rotating mass for flywheel effect and the weight of all related parts, rotating or not, for unsprung weight. Looking at that picture I don't see anything it does for either of those issues. :)
I've never come across them on a bike they seem to be something new? check out Beringer's site, here is the link.

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2008/12/beringer-inboard-brakes-plane.html

jonh.
 
#24 ·
redkow97 said:
I guess i've never looked closely enough at a bike with a single-sided swing-arm to see how they do it now...
Like this:
Image

If you look closely at the rear wheel, the brake is inboard of the sprocket which is outboard of the swingarm itself.
dad said:
dragknee said:
Royson said:
^
His concept would have a caliper still, it would just go over the chain.
why would it need to go over the chain? put it on the 9:00 part of the sprocket. chain goes above and below it.
WE know that... but the chain doesn't. ;) ;D

Chains can do some strange and surprising things when they fail. And it's not always a break. Sometimes derailed from being loose and etc, etc. Then there's the brake line to the caliper, the cold outside ring necessary for the sprocket, restraining expansion of a hot rotor and resulting in warping, etc, etc. It's not really as practical as it appears at first glance. Of course, that's JMO. :)
They don't necessarily need to fail to cause damage either. When a chain gets loose and is not adjusted it can "snake" on it's slack side when on the throttle and do the same on the opposite side when off throttle. This "snaking" action can actually saw through a swing arm surface or in the case of a brake caliper located at the "9 o'clock" position; the caliper could be damaged or destroyed.....sean