Triple Tree, Stem, Frame

From looking at the Ron Ayers site I noticed that the Silverwing does not have a typical double triple tree set up like most bikes. The forks go up to the first(normally lower) tree and end their. Does anyone think this is an inherently weaker design as opposed to a standard, double, triple tree design? I looked at my Swing and thought that it does look like it would be weaker than the normal design. Any thoughts from those that are more engineering proficient?

Yeah, I absolutely agree. It sure does appear to be weaker. But I'm putting my trust in Honda Engineering on this one.

Seems like no matter, if you have a "bicycle fork" or a standard triple tree, when you run into a brick wall somethin' gonna bend.

FWIW Burgman 650's have a triple tree.

Tim

CJ, I agree. I'm sure that Honda engineering considered the stresses. The one tree that clamps the fork tubes is truly industrial strength, massive. Also, the forks are shorter than a normal bike so that helps as well. The bikes been around since '02 so if it was a problem it would have showed up by now. Still, seems like they could have put in a second tree. It looks like there's room. Yes, I was aware that the Burgie has a standard bike type setup. That is primarily what prompted the question.

I wouldn't worry about it since the bike has been out for quite some time. I wonder why they just didn't put in another one though when they built the bike. But I have never heard of a problem so I just never gave it anymore thought. I think the B650 and the Tmax have 2 of them and longer forks.

Jeff, I guess I just kind of wonder why Honda would engineer the Swing that way and stray from what is really a standard of bike building. Seems like it just opens them up to criticism, like I saw on the Burg forum that prompted me to take a closer look at the forks.

I prefer to think of it from the perspective that it (conventional triple tree) may not be necessary. Perhaps even the addition of it is one of the reasons the Burgman is so dang heavy. Remember live rear axle differentials on automobiles? Would anyone argue that this was a better design than independent rear suspension?

With a bit more than 20,000 miles on each SilverWing I must say I haven't missed the conventional triple tree. I ride mine hard and I ride it for distances and I am quite satisfied with both the ride and the performance.

I once was on a ride where someone (on a Burgman) asked me if the engine was mounted or part of the swing arm. Dang if I know! And, that's what I told him. Would knowing affect my desire to ride the bike - not one iota! Later that day may wife and I were trailing him so hard on a twisty road that he pulled over to let us pass. I still wonder if the engine mount system/design is an issue or if his poor riding style (or lack of riding skill) is a bigger issue.

Don't let the red herrings and canards cause you consternation - just ride a very nice bike and be satified.

"just ride a very nice bike and be satified."

I'm not sure I'm going to get past this design. The difference in the leverage of the one versus two tree design has to be almost infinite. I'm really surprised at Honda.

Wanna sell that unsafe piece of crap? I'll give you $2,000 for it.

Obviously I'm very much tongue in cheek. I think we often get wrapped around the axle over things that do not amount to anything at all, but we just let them fester and it is all we can do to let them go.

In all good conscience you cannot sell that unsafe thing without disclosing the inherent poor design... Still tongue in cheek!

I think I'll keep my POC. It's about perception. Why would you design something that will be perceived as inferior regardless of whether or not it really is inferior?

They've been around long enough that if it was a problem somebody would have noticed.

I've used mine as an "adventure bike" several times. It rattles like a box of gravel, but everything is tight and secure when I get back on the pavement. It seems pretty tough to me.

Jay600 wrote:

I think I'll keep my POC. It's about perception. Why would you design something that will be perceived as inferior regardless of whether or not it really is inferior?

No. But how many people have perceived this particular inferiority?

In a million years it would never have occurred to me if I hadn't just read it here. In fact, I still don't know exactly what you're talking about. But if there were any "My Swing broke in half" comments on the internet I would have found them. THAT would get my attention. I've never seen a single complaint about the basic structure of the bike. I'm willing to assume it's a good design.

"In fact, I still don't know exactly what you're talking about".

Mickey, the comment of an inferior design came from a post on the Maxi-Scoot forum in a post comparing the Swing and the Burgman. I never looked at the fork/tree design before I bought the bike. Most people wouldn't think twice about it even if someone pointed it out to them. As I stated in one of my posts above since the bikes been around since '02 and with all this field experience if there was a problem with the robustness of the design it would have showed up by now. As far as what I'm talking about, a single tree design would have to be less robust than a double tree design relative to the stresses placed upon it, everything else being equal, that's all. With all the bikes I've ever looked at over the years, I've never seen this design. Were there any offsets I wasn't seeing/understanding? I like everything about my Swing. My original question/comment was just from a technical/engineering standpoint for those so interested.

There are any number of light aircraft that have nose wheel designs much the same as the SW forks. I've owned two Mooneys and operated them off a lot of rough ground and never had one fail. It's foolish to call one design inferior to another unless the 'inferior' one is too weak to function as designed. In fact over designing a part is a sign of poor engineering in motor vehicles. There's no reason to carry many pounds of steel that isn't needed, that just degrades performance. Since there have been no known reports of SW forks collapsing it would seem that the design is sufficient for it's purpose. Likewise the single front brake, the Silverwing will stop as well as my Goldwing with a lot less pressure on the brake lever. You could put two brakes on both wheels but it's unlikely it would provide any improvement in braking. The existing brakes can easily lock up the wheels with reasonable pressure on the brake levers. That's about all you can ask of a brake system. The Burgman is designed differently, not necessarily better. There are always more than one way to skin a cat.

I am not smart enough to know the difference.

Exavid, if you'll notice I did say that the one clamp in the Silver wing design is "industrial strength". If you look at it compared to others it is much heavier built. So, the weight of two, spaced apart, clamps are probably near the same as the weight of the one clamp on the Swing. I presume they had to overbuild the one to take the place of the second one not used. It's a matter of spreading the load/stress over a greater area, which I think applies in engineering in many fields. Again, it's more the perception, than the reality, probably.

We are in total agreement, I just didn't like the idea of calling one design inferior. It all depends on the design and application to the loads the part is designed to carry.