This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]

On: 09 March 2015, At: 02:11

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Vehicle System Dynamics: International Journal of

Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvsd20

Handling Analysis of a Motorcycle with Added

Cambering of the Front Frame
a a
Edge C. YEH Associate Professor & Ying-Liang CHEN Graduate Student
a
Department of Power Mechanical Engineering , National Tsing Hua University , Hsinchu,
30043, Taiwan R.O.C.
Published online: 27 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Edge C. YEH Associate Professor & Ying-Liang CHEN Graduate Student (1990) Handling Analysis of a
Motorcycle with Added Cambering of the Front Frame, Vehicle System Dynamics: International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics
and Mobility, 19:2, 49-70, DOI: 10.1080/00423119008968933

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00423119008968933

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Vehicle System Dynamics, 19 (1990), pp. 49-70 0042-3 1 14/90/1902-0049 $3.00
@ Swets & Zeitlinger

Handling Analysis of a Motorcycle with Added Cambering of t h e Front

Frame

Edge C. YEH* and Ying-Liang CHEN**

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

SUMMARY

Through linear analysis, the handling characteristics of the motorcycle with fixed control of added
cambering of front frame are investigated under the variation of lixed and free controls of steering
axis. The cornering responses and stability characteristics of the motorcycle are presented with the
aid of the handling diagram. From numerical results for a typical motorcycle, it is found that the
influence of the cambering of front frame on the cornering response of fixed steering control is
opposite to that of free steering control. Moreover, the design philosophy of a so-called semi-direct
steering mechanism, which cambers the front frame for cornering, is studied.

1. INTRODUCTION

The front frame of the motorcycle is usually designed not t o camber with respect
to the rear frame. However, there may exist some cambering of the front frame
in several ways. One is due to the structural flexibility of front fork [l-31.
Another is caused by some defects such as the skewness of front fork introduced
during the manufacturing process. In other cases, the cambering of the front
frame is deliberately introduced for steering. In fact, a radio controlled model
motorcycle made by Kyosho corporation in Japan [4] is successfully controlled
by a so called semi-direct steering mechanism t o make the front frame camber
relative to the rear one and by means of this active operation, the angular
rotation of the handlebar is passively achieved to execute cornering motion.
A literature survey reveals that few analytical endeavors tried t o study the
influence of the cambering of front frame o n the handling characteristics of
motorcycles. Sharp and Alstead [ I ] and Spierings [2] studied the effects of front
fork compliance through the cambering of the front frame relative t o the rear
frame. Koenen and Pacejka [3] added this cambering to their model in addition
to other frame elasticities but in their studies, the objective of investigations has
been only devoted to the influence of structural flexibilites on the straight-
running stability of motorcycles. The cornering response of steady turning is
not presented in their studies.
The aim of this study is t o investigate the handling characteristics of
motorcycles with added cambering of front frame under two different ways of
steering. One is steered under fixed control by the constant steering angle
together with the constant cambering angle of the front frame. The other is
* Associate Professor, ** Graduate Student, Department of Power Mechanical Engineering,
National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu. 30043, Taiwan R.O.C.
 50 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN

steered under free control by the steering torque and also the constant
cambering angle of the front frame. Since only fixed control of the camber is
considered, and for convenience, the terms of fixed and free controls will only be
concerned with the steering axis subsequently in this paper. The linearized
equations of motion of each will then be derived at first. And the steady-state
cornering responses and the stability characteristics of each for a typical
motorcycle are presented and discussed. Finally, the design philosophy of the
model motorcycle steered by the semi-direct steering mechanism is studied.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

2. DEVELOPMENT O F DYNAMICAL EQUATIONS

2.1 Description of the Model

As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the vehicle is assumed t o be made u p of two rigid

frames jointed a t the steering axis. The front frame, consisting of the front
wheel, forks, and handlebar assembly, has freedom t o rotate by a steer angle 6
about the steering axis which is restrained by a linear steering damper. T h e axis
through the mass center of the front frame parallel t o the front fork axis is
assumed t o be a principal one. The rear frame consists of the rear wheel, the
engine-gearbox assembly, the rear forks, and the rear main structure with a
rigidly attached rider. And, a right-handed orthogonal axis set OXYZ is fixed in
the rear frame with Xforward, Y to starboard, and Zvertically downwards. The
origin 0 is at the ground level, directly below the rear frame mass center. Each
frame is assumed to have a longitudinal plane of symmetry. And, the front
frame can camber relative t o the rear frame by a twist angle 6 trough a
horizontal axis which lies in the longitudinal plane of symmetry. It is assumed to

Axis of twist

+I+

Fig. 1. Geometrical representation of the model.

 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

Rear

Fig. 2. Cambering of front frame relative to rear frame.

be massless for the part between the steering axis and the twisting axis of
camber.
The tyre characteristics are assumed to be linear, and the relaxation
properties of tyres are neglected. The wheels are assumed to roll without
longitudinal slip on a flat road surface. The dynamic properties of the
suspension flexibilities and the aerodynamic effect are assumed negligible
compared with the tyre forces. The gyroscopic torques from the wheels and
engine flywheel are considered. And, the axis of rotation of the engine flywheel
is assumed transverse.
The forward speed U of the motorcycle is assumed constant. Hence, the
equation of forward motion is ignored. Moreover, pitch and bounce motions of
the motorcycle are neglected. And, the lean of rider's upper body is not
considered.
In this study, the parameter values of a 125 cc lightweight street motorcycle
adopted from Weir [5] is used for illustration as shown in Table 1. And, two
different steering cases below are considered.
 52 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN

Fixed control: The directional control is accomplished both through the

constant steering angle and the constant cambering angle of front frame. In this
case, the motorcycle consists of three degrees of freedom, including lateral
velocity (v), roll angle (+), and yaw velocity (r).
Free conrrol: The directional control is accomplished both through the
steering torque and the constant cambering angle of front frame. The front fork
steer angle 6 may change under the influence of the steering torque. Therefore,
in this case, the motorcycle consists of four degrees of freedom, including lateral
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

velocity ( v ) ,roll angle (+), yaw velocity [r),and front fork steer angle (6).

Table 1. Motorcycle parameter values [5].

Symbol Value Symbol Value
a 0.908 m !rx I 2.22 kgm2
B 0.0 Nm/(rad/s) IzzI 0.4067 kgm2
b 0.311 m 'YY 1 0.3 1 kgm2
CffI 11031 N/rad lJJ2 0.38 kgm2
Ca2 12410 N/rad 'YJ~ 0.0054 kgm2
CYI 636 N/rad J 0.181 m
Cr2 1036 N/rad k 0.732 m
cI 0.0213 m I 21.9 kg
H 0.68 m m2 160.5 kg
hb 0.748 m Rf 0.3078 m
hI 0.567 m R, 0.3018 m
h2 0.695 m t 0.0793 m
I, 19.8 kgm2 ZI - 582.7 N
Irz - 6.92 kgm2 5 9.9
4: 15.36 kgm A 0.4745 rad

2.2 Equations of Motion

The equations of motion are derived first by the application of Newton's laws
[6] and then checked using Lagrange's formulation [7]. The motion is
considered to be comprised of small perturbations from a reference state of
cornering motion with a large cornering radius. Hence, the following simplifi-
cations are adopted, that is, cos #I -- I , sin C#J 2: 6, cos 6 -- I, sin 6 -- 6, cos 8 = 1,
and sin 8 -- 8. And, all products of variables are ignored.
Since the equations of motion of fixed control are part of those of free
control, the linearized equations of motion of fixed control are first derived and
presented as the following:
for rhe lateral motion
 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME

-(CY, + Cy214- cy,e=o,

for the rolling motion
+ I,,, cos2 A + I,,, sin A + m2h:+ mlh:) 6 + M H i
(I,, 2

cos A
+ (I,;, sin A + ml clh , ) 8 + . Rf
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

lyyl~b

+ (I,, - IxxIsin A cos A + I,,, sin A cos A + m, hl k ) i

for the yawing motion

(I,,+ Iy,, sin 2 A + I,,, cos 2 A + m l k 2 ) i + ( I z z lc o s A + m l k c I ) 8
+(I,, - IyXlsin A cos A +I,,, sin Acos A + ml k h , ) 4+ m , kS

For free control then the following equation of motion about the steering axis
must be added.

+ (I,,, sin A + mlh, cl ) ;b- i,,,cos A ud

Rf
y
+ [( sin A v

+ ( r C a , cos A + t Z , sin A + t C y , sin A - rnlgclsin A) 6

+(tCy,+rZ,-mlgcl)~+(tCyl+rZ,-m,gc,)8-5=0. (4)
 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN

3. HANDLING ANALYSIS O F FIXED CONTROL

3.1 Steady-State Motion

The steady-state motion of the motorcycle under fixed control is the final
condition of motion which occurs at some finite time after the start of a sudden
change of steer angle 6. The equations describing the steady-state cornering
behaviour of fixed control are obtained by eliminating the time varying terms of
equations ( I ) , (2), and (3). In the three steady-state equations, there are five
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

steady-state variables (l/R, 4, P, 6 and 8) and one parameter U, when relations

1/R = r/U and P = v/U are used. To characterize a particular turn, one may
select 6 and 8 arbitrarily and then solve the steady-state cornering equations
simultaneously for 1/R, 4, and P. And, they are presented as the following

where

and the other expressions for rl, r2,etc. are given in the Appendix.
Equation (5) represents the effects of the cambering of front frame on the
curvature response of vehicle. It is noted that the additional curvature response
is caused by the cambering of front frame through gain r2 on the numerator of
equation (5), and this gain is independent of forward speed. Similarly, the effects
of the cambering of front frame on the roll and lateral responses can be seen in
equations (6) and (7) respectively. And, it is noted from the Appendix that both
4, and & may change with the forward speed U.
Furthermore, the handling characteristics of the vehicle are related t o the
speed due to the denominator in equations (5-7). From equation ( 9 , it is noted
that the expression is similar to that of a car and, by comparison, it can be
suggested that concepts of neutral steer, understeer, and oversteer can also be
used for the motorcycle.
Compared with the curvature response for a car, the motorcycle with neutral
steer should have a curvature response which is independent of forward speed.
 MOTORCYCLE W I T H C A M B E R E D F R O N T F R A M E 55

An understeer motorcycle has a curvature which decreases with increasing

speed and the motorcycle with oversteer should have a curvature response
which increases with increasing speed. Hence, from equation (5), the handling
characteristics of the vehicle can be distinguished as the following
I; > 0 : the motorcycle is understeer, (94
I; = 0 : the motorcycle is neutral steer, (9b)
I; < 0': the motorcycle is oversteer.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

(9~)
For an oversteer vehicle, when the speed reaches a critical value s o that the
denominator becomes zero, the curvature response may increase to infinity.
That is, the critical speed is equal to

The critical speed of a vehicle is a very important factor for steering. Therefore,
further analyses are performed here to investigate the relationship of critical
speed to design variables. Seen from equation (8), the critical speed is
determined by two terms. The first term is related to the geometric position of
the mass center of the system as well as the cornering stiffnesses of the front and
rear tyres. The second term is due to the cambering stiffnesses of the tyres.
Equation (8) generalizes the work of Krauter [8] to include the mass of the front
frame.
For simplicity, if similar properties of the front and rear tyres are assumed,
that is, C y 2 / C a 2- C y I/ C a I = 0,then 4 can be reduced to

Through the simplification presented above, the condition of oversteer ( 4 < 0)

is reduced to

Moreover, if the mass of the front frame is also neglected, then (12) becomes

which is identical to that for the car.

3.2 Numerical Results

The numerical results of equations (5). (6),and (7) are shown in Figs. 3-5 for a
typical motorcycle given in Table 1. It can be seen from these figures that the
cambering of the front frame has a similar effect as that of the steer angle input
but with less sensitivity. It can be known from equation (5) that the ratio of
 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 3. Curvature response of fixed control

2000
z
0 iooo
a
V)
w 0
u

-4000
10 20 30 40 50
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 4. Roll response of fixed control.

 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

SPEED (m/sJ

Fig. 5. Lateral response o f fixed control.

magnitude for curvature response is constant with a value about 0.07. This
number is found to be close to the average value of C y / C a of front and rear
tyres, since yaw motion is determined by the tyre side force which is related to
the magnitude of tyre stiffness. Fig. 6 shows that the ratio of magnitude for roll
response depends on the forward speed. And, when the speed is at about
7.5 m/s, the ratio value is zero, in other words, the cambering of front frame
results in no effect on roll response in this case. Similarly, it is noted from Fig. 7
that the ratio of magnitude for lateral response depends on the forward speed,
too. And, when the speed is about at 16 m/s, the effect of the cambering of front
frame on lateral response is maximum.
Apparently, the motorcycle behaves with oversteer characteristics, and has a
critical speed U,which is about 26 m/s. When the forward speed approaches the
critical speed U,,these cornering responses go to infinity. Fig. 8 shows the real
parts of the eigenvalues as a function of forward speed. It indicates that the
vehicle is stable above the critical speed U,,and is divergently unstable under the
critical speed Uc.Furthermore, since r, and r2of equation (5) are positive in sign,
Fig. 3 tells that the positive (i.e. clockwise) steering or cambering inputs make
the motorcycle turn right below the critical speed U,,and make the motorcycle
turn left above the critical speed U,. It can also be seen from Fig. 3 and Fig. 4
that the motorcycle always rolls toward the center of the turn. Whereas the
steady sideslip angle may change sign depending on whether it is above or below
the critical speed U,.
 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

-1
10 20 30
SPEED (m/sl

Fig. 6. Ratio of magnitude for roll response of fixed control.

10 20 30 40 50
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 7. Ratio of magnitude for lateral response of fixed control.

 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 8. Real parts of eigenvalues of fixed control as a function of forward speed

However, due to the high critical speed LI, (26 m/s) and the divergent
instability below U,,good steering behaviour will be very dificult to achieve for
fixed control a t low speeds. Therefore, the fixed control of motorcycle is not
usually adopted for the actual steering.

3.3 Handling Diagram

The handling characteristics presented above can be illustrated by the concepts
of the handling diagram which was first proposed by Pacejka [9]. First,
equation (5) is rewritten into

Hence, asshown in Fig. 9, thequantity (l/R - r, 6 - r2B)can be plotted against

the lateral acceleration ( P / R ) to produce the handling diagram which defines
three different handling characteristics of the motorcycle. Also, a family of lines
of constant velocity can be superimposed on the diagram, among them the line
of critical speed defining the stability region in the diagram. The quantity
+
r, 6 r2B, contributed by both the steering angle (6) and the cambering ( 8 ) of
front frame needed to execute a turn of given radius at some speed, can be read
directly from the handling diagram. It changes sign if the speed passes the
cirtical speed U,.
 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN

I stable /
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

Fig. 9. Handling diagram of fixed control.

4. HANDLING ANALYSIS OF FREE CONTROL

4.1 Steady-State Motion

The steady-state motion of free control can be obtained by eliminating the time
varying terms of equations ( I ) , (2), (3), and (4). From them, there are six steady-
state variables (l/R,4, P, 6, & and 8) and one parameter U. Here, the steering
torque Tg and the cambering 8 of the front frame are regarded as inputs and then
used to solve the four steady-state equations simultaneously for I / R , 4, P, and
6. They are presented as the following
 MOTORCYCLE W I T H C A M B E R E D FRONT FRAME 61

where

+ cos A + sin1' ACy, / C a I + MgHsin +A +l tZ,)/R/ 1

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

(i),.2 iyy3
t Z I-m,gc, -m,gcl

+ Cy2/Ca2e- Cy, / C a , [MH + (

' ~ 1 2+ i ~ ~I -
3 14- m1gc1
MgH R/ MgHsin A + tZl - mlgcl
and the other expressions for r,, r,, etc. are given in the Appendix.
Similar to the case of fixed control, it is found that the effects of the cambering
of the front frame are presented only on the numerators of the cornering
responses and it can be seen from the Appendix that 4,, P,, and 62 may change
with the forward speed U , with exception of r,.
As for the denominator, it can be seen from equation (19) that P2consists of
three terms. The first term is related to the geometric position of the mass center
of the system and the cornering stiffnesses of the tyres. The second term is
concerned with the gyroscopic effects of the spinning wheels and the third term
is due to the cambering stiffnesses of the tyres. Compared with 4 in equation (8)
for fixed control, it is noted that only the first term remains the same. Hence, the
critical speed of free control is quite different from that of fixed control. When P,
is negative, the denominator of the expression will become zero as the speed
reaches the critical speed, and at this speed the motorcycle will be unstable.
Hence, the critical speed is

which is different from that of fixed control.

4.2 Numerical Results

Fig. 10 shows the real parts of the eigenvalues for the typical motorcycle under
free control as forward speed Uvaries. It can be seen that the vehicle has a small
stable speed range (6-8 m/s) between two critical speed L/,'and U;', below U;'it
is oscillatorily unstable and above (I:it is divergent. The critical speed U: which
is difficult to find analytically is caused by a pair of conjugate complex
eigenvalues crossing the imaginary axis, whereas the critical speed (I,' is the one
expressed in (20), and is caused by one eigenvalue passing through the origin.
The numerical results of equations (15), (16), (17) and (18) are shown in Figs.
11-14 and it is seen that the effects of the cambering of the front frame is similar
to that of steering torque. Moreover, sind 4 is negative from the numerical
 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN

4
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

-6
0 10 20 30 40
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 10. Real parts of eigenvalues of free control.

10 20 30 40 50
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. I I . Curvature response of free control.

 M O T O R C Y C LE W IT H C A MBERED FRO NT FR A ME 63
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

10 20 30
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 12. Roll response of free control.

10 20 30
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 13. Lateral response of free control.

 EDGE C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

-
10 20 30 40 50
SPEED (m/s)

Fig. 14. S ~ e e response

r of free control.

calculation, the motorcycle has a critical speed u.'.

When the forward speed
approaches the critical speed (8 m/s) these cornering responses go to infinity.
Compared with the cornering responses of fixed control, it is found that the
influence of the cambering of front frame under free control is similar but
opposite to that under fixed control, since the signs of cornering responses are
different below or above the critical speed. For this vehicle, the sensitive speed
range of free control is lower than that of fixed control since u.'
is less than U,..
Among them it is remarkable that the roll gain caused by the cambering of the
front frame is large in the stable speed range.
Furthermore, since r3and r4of equation (15) have negative values, Fig. 1 1 tells
that the positive (clockwise) steering torque or the cambering of front frame
make the motorcycle turn left below the critical speed u.'.
This is different from
that of fixed control.

4.3 The Role of Steer Angle in Free Control

The expressions derived for the case of fixed control in section 3 are still useful
for the case of free control, if it is seen from a different point of view. That is, if
the steer angle 6 is taken as the steady-state value at a steady turn instead of the
role of the input as in the fixed control, then the formulae (5-7) are still valid for
free control. In other words, if equations (15-17) are rearranged by substituting
 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME 65

to cancel T,, then equations (5-7) will result. Then some conclusions made for
fixed control can still be applied to free control if the steer angle 6 is taken as the
output. This says that equations (5-7) can still be used in the analysis for free
control in the next section.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

Fig. 15. Handling diagram of free control

4.4 Handling Diagram

From the above analysis, the handling characteristics of the motorcycle under
free control can also be illustrated by the handling diagram. If the steering
torque & and the cambering 6 of the front frame are taken as inputs, the
handling diagram can be constructed as shown in Fig. 15 based on the equation

which is obtained similarly as equation (14) for fixed control. Also, if pZ < 0,
then the line of critical speed Q' can be superimposed on this diagram, and the
stable region is different from that of fixed control. It is shown to be between the
critical speeds (/,' and U: as mentioned in section 4.2. The input quantity
 66 EDGE C. YEH A N D YING-LIANG CHEN

+
r, & r-0 needed for a turn can be known between the characteristic line of LI,'
and the curvature line 1/R.
This diagram can also be drawn based on equation (14) if the steer angle 6 is
taken as output rather than input as stated above. Therefore, the line of critical
speed I/,of fixed control can also be shown in Fig. 15 to determine the quantity
+
r, 6 r20 for a constant radius turn, except now that steer angle 6 is no longer
considered as the input for free control.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

4.5 Steering Strategy

Combining the handling diagrams for fixed control and free control, it is
possible to discuss the steering strategy based on the stability characteristics of
each.
(A): If 6 < P, < 0, then the critical speed of free control is below that of fixed
control. In this case, although there is a stable region for high speeds in fixed
control, only free control at low speeds is appropriate for the actual steering,
since there is the danger of falling into the "gap" for instability at mid-range
speeds.
(B): If 6 = P , < 0, then the critical speed of free control is equal to that of
fixed control. In this case, the stable region of fixedcontrol is combined together
with that of free control. This indicates that the motorcycle can be steered stably
by free control below the critical speed, and then steered stably by fixed control
above the critical speed.
(C): If P, < 6< 0, then the critical speed of free control is above that of fixed
control. In this case, the stable region of fixed control is overlapped by some
part of that of free control. It can be concluded that the motorcycle may be
steered first by free control below the critical speed of fixed control, and then
steered by either of the fixed an$ free controls between the two critical speeds.
Finally, it can be steered stably by fixed control above the critical speed of free
control.

5. SEMI-DIRECT STEERING MECHANISM

A special radio controlled model motorcycle made by Kyosho corporation in

Japan [4] is equipped with a so-called semi-direct steering mechanism. The
steering of this model motorcycle is achieved by a servomechanism which can
make the front frame camber relative to the rear frame by a twist angle around a
horizontal axis. The front frame is free to rotate about the front fork steering
axis. It is interesting that through this mechanism, this motorcycle can run with
a large roll angle of more than 45 degree, like a racing motorcycle.
This particular way of steering corresponds exactly to the case of free control
discussed in section 4. Therefore, the steady-state equations of motion for semi-
direct steering mechanism can be obtained directly through equations (15)-(18)
with &=O. Without using the particular parameter values for the model
 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME 67

motorcycle, it may still be possible to discuss its design philosophy based on the
results for a typical motorcycle obtained in section 4.
It is found from Fig. 12 that the roll gain caused by the cambering of the front
frame is large so that a large roll angle is possible below the critical speed.
Furthermore, the free control has a stable speed range (6-8 m/s) at low speeds,
while the fixed control is only stable at high speeds. Hence, it is seen that the free
control is appropriate for the steering of the model motorcycle, since the model
motorcycle is usually steered a t low speeds.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

The two reasons above explain the design philosophy of using this particular
steering mechanism with free rotation of the steering axis for the model
motorcycle. One thing should be noted however. To make a right turn, the twist
angle must be turned counterclockwise since the steady gain of r, in equation
(15) is negative.
Incidently, the handling diagram of the motorcycle by the semi-direct
steering mechanism can be obtained directly through Fig. 15 with & = 0.

6. CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the handling characteristics of motorcycles with fixed control of

added cambering of the front frame are studied under the variation of fixed and
free controls of the steering axis. Closed form expressions are obtained for the
cornering responses at steady-state turning. It is found that the effects of. the
cambering of the front frame on the cornering responses under free steering
control are opposite to those under fixed steering control.
Furthermore, the concepts of the handling diagram are used to illustrate the
handling characteristics of motorcycles. It is found that the variation of the
stable regions of fixed and free steering control may demand different steering
strategies.
Finally, as an application of the analysis, the design philosophy of a model
motorcycle with the semi-direct steering mechanism is studied and it is
concluded that for the radio controlled model motorcycle, this particular design
can effectively provide a large roll angle to simulate the condition of a racing
motorcycle, and that free rotation of the steering axis should be used for the
reason of stability.

REFERENCES

1. Sharp, R. S. and Alstead, C. J., "The Influence of Structural Flexibilities o n the Straight-
Running Stability of Motorcycles", Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 6 , 1980, pp.
327-358.
2. Spierings, P. T. J., "The Effects of Lateral Front Fork Flexibility o n the Vibrational Mode of
Straight-Running Single-Track Vehicles", Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 10, No. 1,198 1,
pp. 21-35.
3. Koenen, C. and Pacejka, H. B., "The Influence of Frame Elasticity, Simple Rider Body
 68 E D G E C. YEH AND YING-LIANG CHEN

Dynamics and Tyre Moments on Free Vibrations of Motorcycles in Curves", Proc. 7th
IAVSD Symp., Cambridge, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, 1981.
4. Kyosho corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
5. Weir, D. H. and Zellner, J. W., "Moped Directional Dynamics and Handling Qualities", SAE
Paper, No. 790260, 1979.
6. Weir, D. H. and Zellner, J. W., "Lateral-Directional Motorcycle Dynamics and Rider Control",
SAE Paper, No. 780304, 1978.
7. Sharp, R. S., "The Stability and Control of Motorcycles", J. Mech. Engng. Sci., Vol. 13, No. 5,
1971, pp. 3 16-329.
8. Krauter, A. E., "Steady-State Cornering of Two-Wheeled Vehicles", Trans. of the ASME, J . of
Appl. Mech., Vol. 40, Series E, No. 3, September 1973, pp. 819-820.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

9. Pacejka, H. B., "Simplified Analysis of Steady-State Turning Behaviour of Motor Vehicles",

Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1973, pp. 161-204.

APPENDIX

The following are the expressions that are generated in the process of
developing the comering responses under fixed and free controls.

'[
r, = - cos A
e
+ sin A C y l / C a I- ( C y 2 / C a 2- C y I / C a I )lz mlgclI
-g H
M

where
 MOTORCYCLE WITH CAMBERED FRONT FRAME 69

. - .- . ,-
+ 5 iyy3 )/R/
+ +M <i,,2
~ sin
H A + r Z , - m,gcl I
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

MgH+ hbZ1+ m , g j
C y ,/Gal - (cos A + sin A Cyl/Ca, ) MgHsin A 4- t Z l- mlgcl 1

Aq =
+
MgH+hbZl m , g j
+
MgH sin A t Z I- m,gcl
 70 EDGE C. YEH AND Y I N G - L N G CHEN

LIST O F SYMBOLS
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 02:11 09 March 2015

H' hb' hl'

h2, j, k, C,
1 Dimensions of the vehicle (see Fig. I )

Damping coefficient of the steering

Front and rear tyre cornering stiffnesses
Front and rear tyre camber stiffnesses
Gravitation constant
Principal moments of inertia of rear frame
Product of inertia of rear frame
Principal moments of inertia of front frame
Polar moments of inertia of front and rear wheels respectively
Polar moment of inertia of engine flywheel
Mass of entire system
Mass of front frame
Mass of rear frame
Radius of curvature
Yaw rate of rear frame
Forward and lateral speeds of vehicle
Normal force applied at front tyre to road contact point
Sideslip angle
Steer angle of handlebar
Gear ratio between rear wheel and engine flywheel
Cambering angle of front frame relative to rear frame
Rake angle of steering head
Roll angle of rear frame