Suspension Kinematics

a quick guide

Tony Foale

WARNING Important safety and legal notice. Building and/or modifying motorcycle suspension or parts is a seriousundertaking and the consequences of mechanical failure can result in serious injury. Some of the practices and designs outlined in this book may be dangerous unles implemented by s skilled and experienced people who have qualifications in engineering, des and ign fabrication. The author has tried to ensure the accuracy of the contents of thisbook, but some text, of necessity, represents the opinion and experience of the author and is not guaranteed to be fact. Therefore, the book should be read whilst mindful of the potential risks of motorcycle modification, both in racing and other use. It is for this reason that the author makes no w arranties, explicit nor implied, that the information contained herein is free of error nor that it w ill meet the purpose of any specific application. The author disclaims any liability for any and all forms of damage that result from any use of the contents in this publication.

First published March 2004 by Tony Foale Designs Copyright 2004 Tony Foale All rights reserved. Publishers Cataloguing in Publication Data Foale, Tony Motorcycle Suspension Systems 1. Motorcycles 2. Suspension 3. Springs 4. Handling I. Title. 629 621 531 796.7

This publication has been prepared as an accompaniment to some suspension analysis software by the same author. The illustrations and graphs herein have all been prepared using that software, which can be purchased as follows.

Ordering information is available by email at info@tonyfoale.com Comments or notifications of any errors are welcome and should be sent to bookrevision@tonyfoale.com

Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................2
What makes a good suspension system?....................................................................4

Basics ......................................................................................................5
Springs ...............................................................................................................................5 Rate ................................................................................................................................... 5 Pre-load ............................................................................................................................ 6 Wheel rate .........................................................................................................................7 Angled shocks.................................................................................................................. 8 Rocker and link systems ................................................................................................ 9 Forces ............................................................................................................................. 15 Spring energy................................................................................................................. 16 Progressive vs. linear ................................................................................................... 17

Typical characteristics ........................................................................20

Direct connection of shock to swing-arm................................................................... 20 Basic rocker and link system ....................................................................................... 22 Shock mounted on swing-arm.....................................................................................24 Rocker and link system (rocker mounted directly to swing-arm) ........................... 26

Design for characteristics...................................................................29

Basic shock on swing-arm ........................................................................................... 29 Rocker systems ............................................................................................................. 33

Design traps..........................................................................................37 Comparison methods..........................................................................39

Analysis parameters ..................................................................................................... 41

Further reading.....................................................................................43

Introduction
Prior to the general adoption of some form of swinging-arm or swinging-fork, the rear suspension of choice for most manufacturers was the so called plunger design. This design had many inherent faults and the evolutionary process has consigned it to the same fate as that of the dodo bird, this system will not be considered here.

Fig. 1. Plunger suspension systems like this where very common for a long time, but historically appear to have been a stop gap between solid rear ends and those with swing-arms.

Fig. 2. Although not the first to use a swing-arm, the successful 1950 featherbed Manx Norton chassis was largely responsible for the initiation of the move away from the plunger to the domination of the swing-arm.

During the past 3 decades there has been a proliferation of different rear swing-arm suspension designs. Prior to this, with a few notable exceptions like the Vincent, most motorcycles used the traditional double shock system, with the shocks mounted approximately vertical towards the wheel end of the swing-arm. This gave almost linear effective wheel rates and the available wheel movement was limited to about 10 or 20% more than the shock stroke. Double springs or progressively wound springs were sometimes employed to give a progressive rate at the wheel.

The Vincent featured a triangulated rear swing-arm with two shocks mounted between the apex of the triangle and the rear of the oil tank cum frame.

The modern era was initiated when the Yamaha cantilever revived the Vincent system, and employed just one suspension unit monoshock, although the original Vincent system used two springs along side each other. Initially the Yamaha version was designed for moto-cross to extend wheel movement, and this led to a wide variety of alternative rear suspension systems by several manufacturers. These

quickly spread into most other forms of motorcycling, including racing and road use. Many of these new designs also incorporated movement geometries that gave varying degrees of progression.

Fig. 3. One of the earliest racing rocker rear -suspension layouts, on Kork Ballingtons 1970s. Kawasaki GP machine. The A-bracket (link) on the left was attached to the swing-arm while the suspension strut was anchored to the frame at the bottom. (Watts)

Whilst these progressive systems offer a much wider range of set-up options, they have also been the source of much confusion. Most people find it more difficult to understand the precise behaviour of the suspension action. It is usually necessary to go through awkward step by step physical measurement and tedious geometric plotting, to get an idea of the characteristics. The manufacturers and the press in general hype up any new suspension layout with a layer of marketing verbiage that hides the true merits and demerits of any particular system. This booklet is designed to strip away the confusion and hype, and equip the reader with the ability to see beyond the nonsense layer and assess any suspension system on its real technical merits. Many systems have been used for marketing rather than technical reasons and yet others have been adopted because of their flexibility in packaging, like the Yamaha OW61, fig. 4. The truth is that there is very little that is new with current rear suspension designs. A modern suspension system is just a collection of rods and levers which make up some form of mechanism. Such mechanisms have been known and used by engineers for centuries in a wide range of applications. Since the general introduction of rocker and link suspension mechanisms, there has been very little innovation, most systems having been tried and tested about 30 years ago, when such designs became popular. Possibly the only exception to this has been the Tul-aris of Dr. Tuluie, which features a flexure link in place of a normal spherical or journal bearing, thereby eliminating one (of several) sources of wear, friction and backlash. No one can deny that suspension p erformance has improved considerably over recent years but that is due mainly to improvements in damper design and manufacture. This is of great importance to the dynamic behaviour of suspension systems but is outside the scope of this publication which is concerned with the kinematics or static aspects only.

What makes a good suspension system?

This is no definitive answer to this question as motorcycles are put to many uses, each with differing requirements. Touring motorcycles need a soft comfortable rde, whereas racing machines are less i concerned with comfort than they are with tyre grip, which needs the minimum variation in tyre to road contact load. Moto-X bikes need maximum grip too, but also have to withstand the impact of landing from several metre high jumps which requires long movements.

Fig. 4. Space saving rear -springing layout on Yamahas OW61 GP four cylinder racer. The shock was squeezed, concertina fashion, by two bell-cranks linked to the swinging-arm. Packaging aspects are an important consideration in suspension design. (MCN)

Forgetting about the required damping and other dynamic aspects, probably the most important single point that we can consider here, is the springing characteristic as seen at the rear wheel axle. The characteristics at the tyre contact with the road are probably more important, but they are influenced by the tyre in addition to the suspension layout. As far as these springing properties are concerned it does not much matter how they are obtained. Coil spring, torsion bar, leaf spring, simple rocker and link or a complex system of rockers and links, the bike does not really care as long as the desired relationship between wheel force and wheel displacement is obtained. However, the actual design features can affect whether the springing objective can be met along with the other objectives. Any designer has a lot of factors to take into account and will have to compromise to achieve the optimum layout in any particular case. The following is a partial list of some of these considerations:

Cost. A low component count helps with this. Service life. The probability of wear in vital components and/or metal fatigue. Friction. Each linkage joint will add some friction which degrades performance, especially on small bumps. Backlash/Wear. This gives rise to dead spots in the suspension action when the wheel movement changes direction. This is mainly due to clearance and wear in the joints and complex designs suffer more. Packaging. cases. Any design must fit in the space available, this can be a severe limitation in some

Performance. Overall weight, position of Centre of Gravity, Moments of Inertia (principally roll and yaw) etc,. This often suffers due to packaging constraints. Internal chassis loading. Some rocker based designs introduce high local loading at the attachment points to the frame, which must have sufficient structural integrity in those regions.

The assessment of any design must take all of these factors into account. Sales hype will often invent mystical advantages for particular systems, but any such claims should be looked at very critically to determine their real value. Physics and marketing men are not close allies.

Basics
Springs
Some form of spring is the heart of any suspension system, and so it is important to understand those spring parameters that influence the suspension action. Of these the most important are the spring rate, pre-load and sag.

Rate
The rate is a measure of spring stiffness and is determined by measuring the extra force needed to compress (or extend in some cases) the spring by a given small amount, fig. 5. This can be expressed in N/mm (kN/m gives the same numerical values) and in the imperial system of measurement is usually expressed in terms of lbf/inch. So a spring with a 10 N/mm. rate will need an additional force of 100 N to compress it by a further 10 mm. In some cases this rate does not vary throughout the useful range of movement of the spring, and is termed linear. On the other hand some types of spring exhibit a different rate in various parts of the range of movement, this is often known as a progressive rate, i.e. the rate increases with added load. It is very important to understand the distinction between rate and load. Load is the total force being supported by the spring, whereas rate is the ADDITIONAL force needed to compress the spring by an extra given amount.

Fig. 5. The meaning of spring rate. The spring shown has a constant rate of 10 N/mm.. Each additional 10 mm. of movement requires an additional 100 N of axial load. This doesnt apply when the spring becomes coil bound, then it effectively becomes solid.

Springs can take many forms and be made from many different materials, but the practical range is more limited. Coil springs in steel are the most common by a long way. They may be evenly wound (constant pitch) to give a linear rate, or they may be wound with a varying pitch to give a progressive rate. In this case as the spring is gradually compressed, the closer wound coils become "coil-bound" (i.e. touch each other and act as a solid piece) and so the rate rises.

Typical dual rate front fork spring. There are two distinct pitches, as load is applied the closer wound coils on the right will become coil bound and act as a solid spacer, hence leaving less coils to the left to deform under load. That is, as the load increases the spring rate also increases

At one time, due to manufacturing costs, it was quite common to have dual or triple rate springs made by stacking two or three springs together, rather than winding a spring with varying pitch along its length.

There are two ways that this can produce the desired result: Use springs with the same rate but wound with different pitches, so that the one with the closest pitch becomes coil bound first. Use springs with different rates, then the softest will become coil bound before the others.

Fig. 6. Dual rate spring by stacking two springs, the right hand side spring is wound with a closer pitch and so it will become coil bound before the other. It is usual to separate the springs with some form of spacer, often made in aluminium or a hard plastic.

The overall rate of multiple (m) springs stacked together can be determined by the following formula:

1/k = 1/k 1 + 1/k 2 + 1/k m

Where k is the overall rate of the stack and k n is the rate of the individual springs. When any spring (n) becomes coil bound then the 1/k n term becomes zero. As an example consider the overall rate of 3 stacked springs of say 100, 150 and 200 rate units. Then:

1/k = 1/100 + 1/150 + 1/200 = 13/600 or k = 600/13 = 46

but if the 100 rate spring becomes coil bound the overall rate (in that part of the compression) becomes:

1/k = 0 + 1/150 + 1/200 = 7/600 or k = 600/7 = 86 Pre-load

When a spring is mounted it is usually subject to some compression, even when the shock is fully extended, thus pre-loading the spring to some extent. This pre-load can be expressed in terms of the linear compression of the spring or in terms of the load or force required to give that compression. In lineal terms the pre-load is the difference between the free length of the spring and the length when installed on the shock. This is the common way of expressing pre-load as the measurement is so easy.

Fig. 7. Demonstrating the significance of spring preload and spring sag. The pre-load is the spring compression when mounted on an extended shock. The spring sag is the extra compression that occurs when the shock is mounted on the bike and loaded with the static weight of bike and rider.

Sag
Sag is the compression that occurs when the static loaded weight of bike and rider is applied. Spring sag is that which occurs in the spring, fig. 7., but we also use the word to describe the sag of the bike itself. I is usual to arbitrarily select a reference measurement point somewhere in the under-seat area t

and approximately vertically above the wheel axle. The exact location of this reference is not important, as long as it is always the same on any particular bike. The height of this point above the ground, when subject to the static load, is known as the ride height. The difference between the height of the reference point with extended suspension and the static ride height is the sag of the bike.

Fig. 8. Typical of modern rear damper units, this Penske shock shows the spring length and ride height adjustments commonly available. Decreasing the installed spring length with the threaded adjuster ring will both increase rear ride height and reduce the static sag (or increase pre-load). On the other hand the ride height adjuster will only change the overall shock mounting length, and so adjusts the ride height independently of any thing else. Various combinations of ride height and sag are possible by appropriate settings of these two adjustments. Damper stroke length is a parameter that usually requires a different damper unit for change.

Wheel rate
The above considered the characteristics of the spring as an isolated component, but the factor with the greatest importance is what happens at the wheel. To understand the effect of the spring on the wheel we must study the relative motions or displacements of both the wheel and spring. In the same way that we can characterize a spring by its rate it is useful to assign a rate or equivalent rate to the movement of the wheel. The wheel rate is defined in a similar manner to that of the spring rate itself. The wheel rate is the change in vertical force on the wheel needed to produce a unit change in its vertical movement. This is related to the springs rate by the parameter velocity ratio. This is also known as motion ratio, leverage and mechanical advantage, but in this publication we will use the term velocity ratio, sometimes abbreviated to VR. Simply put, this is the vertical wheel velocity compared to the velocity of the spring compression. Some references use the inverse of this definition, i.e. the velocity of the spring compression compared to the vertical wheel velocity. Each definition is correct as long as the significance is specified. Fig. 9. shows the meaning of the VR and how the wheel and spring rates relate to each other when the VR = 2:1. The required spring rate is four times the desired wheel rate, or expressed the other way around; the wheel rate is one quarter that of the spring. In fact we can generalize and state that the wheel rate is equal to the spring rate divided by the square of the VR.

Wheel rate = Spring rate / VR2

or

Spring rate = Wheel rate * VR2

The compression of the shock and spring in this case is only half that of the wheel and so for a given shock stroke the wheel will be able to move through a range doubled by moving the shock position forward. This is what was done in the beginning when moto-Xers started on their quest for more wheel movement.

Fig. 9. This sketch illustrates the meaning of velocity ratio and helps us understand the concept of wheel rate. In the case when the shock is mounted directly over the wheel axle, it can be seen that the shock is compressed by an amount equal to the vertical wheel movement. This gives a VR of 1:1. The wheel has no leverage over the shock and so the wheel force is equal to the spring force. As the force vs. motion relationship of the wheel is identical to that of the spring the wheel rate is also equal to the spring rate. When the shock is mounted half way along the swing-arm it will only be compressed by half of the vertical wheel movement. This gives a VR of 2:1. In this case the swingarm acts like a 2:1 lever and the force acting on the spring will be double the vertical force at the wheel. Thus whilst the shock movement is half that of the wheel, the spring force is multiplied by two. The rate is equal to the force divided by the movement and so the rate of the spring will be four times that of the equivalent rate at the wheel. In other words, in order to get the previous rate at the wheel the spring must have a rate of four times that of the wheel.

Angled shocks
The principal that the wheel rate is equal to the spring rate divided by the square of the VR applies to all forms of suspension layouts, but the question is how do we calculate the VR when the shocks are angled. Actually it is quite simple as the following sketch, fig. 10., shows.

Fig. 10. The velocity ratio of angled shocks is the ratio of the distance between the shock axis and the swing-arm pivot (Ls) to the horizontal distance between the wheel axle and the swing-arm (Lw) as shown. The VR = Lw:Ls This ratio varies throughout the range of suspension m ovement, which means that the wheel effective rate depends on the wheel position. This gives the opportunity to design in some progressive or regressive rate characteristics. Lw normally varies little and so it will be the behaviour of Ls that mainly dete rmines any rate variation.

In this age of the widespread use of rocker and linkage type suspensions it is often forgotten that the more traditional systems can produce some progressive or regressive characteristics also. Using a 1970s. RG500 of the type used by Barry Sheene as an example in fig. 11., we can see that geometric changes lead to a progressive rate. When the suspension is compressed, the line of the suspension force acts at a greater distance from the swing-arm pivot (the VR is decreased) and so has a greater effect on the wheel motion. The difference in effective wheel rates will obey the square law, and forgetting about the inaccuracies inherent in measuring from such a picture, is about 11%. If the suspension units are angled too much or too little the variation in rate over the range of suspension movement can actually be made regressive, that is the rate decreases with increasing compression. The range of inclination that gives rise to a progressive action can be easily defined geometrically as shown in fig. 12., which shows three special case positions for mounting a suspension unit of equal length. A-D shows the unit mounted aligned as close as possible to the arc described by the movement of the lower mount over its range of movement D to E. Alignment like this reduces any geometric rate change to the minimum possible. With the strut mounted between B-D any suspension movement will reduce the leverage and hence give a regressive characteristic. When the upper mounting is between B and C the action will be mixed, the initial movement will progressive changing to regressive at full bump.

Fig. 11. The rear end of a Suzuki RG 500 racer showing the angled suspension units. Point A is the swing-arm pivot, B is the uppe r suspension mounting, C is the lower suspension mount when extended and D is the lower suspension mount with the swing-arm in the compressed position. L1 is the extended suspension moment arm and L2 is the moment arm in the compressed state. L2 is greater than L1 and so the effective spring rate will be higher when compressed. Scaling from the photo, L2:L1 = 1.05. The ratio of the two rates is equal to the square of this value or in other words the compressed rate is 11% greater. This is purely the geometric rate to which we must add any additional progressive effect from the suspension units themselves.

Fig.12. Defining the range of suspension unit mounting locations to produce particular characteristics. A, B and C are alternative upper suspension unit mounting points. D and E are the range of movement of the lower mounting. When the unit is mounted at A there is an absolute minimum change of leverage and so the effective spring rate remains constant. If the upper mounting is to the left of A the rate change will be regressive, to the right will be progressive. B and C are defined as the upper mounting points such that a line from these through the swing-arm pivot is normal to the axis of the suspension unit, B is for the extended case with C for the compressed situation. When the upper mount is below B then the action is regressive through all the range, but if between B and C then the initial portion of the movement will be progressive changing to regressive as the suspension compresses more.

This diagram, fig. 12., was drawn assuming a given length of unit, but for a given required wheel movement the locations C and B need relatively smaller suspension unit movements and so it is likely that the units themselves would be shorter, but equivalent C and B locations can easily be found by similar methods. As well as being shorter the spring rates would need to be higher in these positions.

Rocker and link systems

From the early 1970s. a lot of attention started to be applied to improving suspension systems, particularly in the moto-X and enduro fields where there was a rapid trend to vastly increased wheel movements. These increased from a norm of around 100 mm. up to about 305 mm. in a short space of time. Such large movements were hard to accommodate with the traditional placement of the suspension unit, upright near the end of the swing-arm and so it is little wonder that it was in the dirt bike field that attention initially became focussed on designs that applied some kind of leverage to the suspension unit to reduce its longitudinal movement. Yamaha introduced a monoshock system with a triangulated swing-arm and other manufacturers followed with a wide variety of rocker systems. In addition to just being able to use single suspension units with reduced movement these rocker systems allow tremendous geometric control over the spring rate properties. Progressive, regressive and combinations of both are easily achieved. Fig. 13. shows how the leverage ratios can change drastically when a short rocker is rotated through a relatively large angle, giving rise to a strongly progressive rate.

10

Fig 13. Example rocker system. Because the rocker ratio L 1. : L2 varies with wheel movement, this rear sus pension system gives progressive rate springing and damping. The effective wheel spring rate varies as the square of the above ratio. In the extended position, the side connected to the swing-arm has the greatest mechanical advantage and so the rate will be softer than in the compressed case.

We have seen that to calculate the relationship between the wheel rate and spring rate we need to measure or calculate the Velocity Ratio. This often seems less obvious with some rocker and link systems. In reality it can be made simpler to visualize if we consider the system as two separate parts, each with its own VR. The overall VR is then simply the product of the two separate ones. Fig. 14. shows how a simple rocker and link design can be broken down into the rocker-shock-link system and wheel-link system. The VR of the separated rocker assembly is L2:L1 and of the separated wheel assembly is Lw:Ll. The overall Velocity Ratio is then Lw/Ll * L2/L1. This value will normally vary throughout the range of movement giving a non-linear characteristic.

Fig. 14. This sketch shows how a simple rocker and link design, on the left, can be broken down into the rocker-shock-link system, middle, and wheel-link system, on the right. The VR of the separated rocker assembly is L2:L1 and of the separated wheel assembly is Lw:Ll. The overall Velocity Ratio is then Lw/Ll * L2/L1.

There are suspension layouts with more complex linkages and these can be treated in a similar manner by breaking them down into as many separate simple systems as necessary. These systems were a godsend to the manufacturers marketing departments, which must have worked overtime to think up countless new names and acronyms, this was harmless but they also claimed various trivial or invalid performance benefits to try and counter those from their rivals. A large number of these claims have no basis in fact but have been responsible for much confusion and misinformation. None of these systems have characteristics that cant be obtained with other designs, but in many cases though, manufacturers are forced to use a slightly different design feature to avoid legal problems with a patent on some trivial feature owned by a competitor.

11

Often it is the available space that dictates the detail of the design, and in some cases it can be useful to mount the shock across the frame as shown in the two examples. Both the OW61 and the Drysdale have linkages to compress the shock from each end. Another possible advantage of compressing a suspension unit from each end is a reduction in effective unsprung mass. Due to the square law relationship each end of the spring will only contribute one eighth of the unsprung mass, adding the two ends means that the effective unsprung mass of the spring will only b one quarter that of a the same spring compressed equally, but from one end. The effective e unsprung mass of the damper is harder to determine because each end does not have equal mass.

On the Australian built Drysdale V8 of 1999, space was at such a premium that the suspension unit was mounted across the frame under the swinging arm. Viewed from underneath we see how two vertical links drop from the swing arm to operate the two cranks at each end of the spring unit, compressing it in concertina fashion. Compare this with the 1982 Yamaha OW61 illustrated previously. (photo: Greg Parish, ACS.)

Space saving in the under-seat area, to leave room for the fuel tank, was the motivation for this design by the author. A racing machine powered by a Rotax 250 engine. The rocker was fabricated from steel tubing as a small strongly triangulated structure, in conjunction with the links from the swing-arm it served as an important structural feature for increasing the torsional and lateral stiffness of the swing-arm.

12

When comparing one design to another there are only a few relevant features to consider: Weight of the system. Unsprung mass. Structural integrity. Is it strong and rigid enough? Spring and damping rate characteristics. How does the rate vary with suspension compression? Packaging. Space is often of prime importance, especially in these days of large capacity air-boxes and the like. The suspension unit often needs some cooling airflow and it would be foolish to have it mounted close to a hot exhaust system. An often conflicting requirement is mounting it away from road dirt and flying gravel. Many designs are the way they are because of packaging, although we are rarely told this, it doesnt have a hi-tech ring to it. The number of pivots and joints. Each one is a source of friction and slop, both detrimental to good suspension performance. It is thus desirable to minimize the joint count.

The following illustrations show various design interpretations of the rocker system in general.

Once the idea of using rockers and linkage became accepted, it seems that most permutations of the design were tried out within a fairly short period around the beginning of the 1980s. Few of the current designs are significantly different, even on GP racing machinery. A notable exception can be seen on the Tul-aris designed by Dr. Robin Tuluie, fig. 15. This uses a titanium flexure link which eliminates one pivoted joint in the system, reducing possible backlash and friction. The following figure shows how such a link can be used. The rear end of the link only moves vertically by less than 2 mm. throughout the full range of suspension travel, if the link is sufficiently long this movement can be provided by flex along its length. The front end therefore does not need to have a rotating joint and can be bolted directly and rigidly to the chassis. It is only over the past few of years that F1 cars have started to use one dimensional flexure links in their minimal movement suspension systems but the Tul-aris goes one better with the use of a two dimensional version. In other words the link can flex in a horizontal direction as well as a vertical one, this allows for any misalignment caused by swing-arm and/or chassis flex. Flexure can cause failure by metal fatigue and so the design of the link is of extreme importance, as failure could have serious consequences. It is only with the use of modern testing and computer analysis methods that such components can now be designed with confidence. I suspect that well see increasing use of this type of link in bikes from the major manufacturers. For racing use there is the possibility of improved performance, and for road machines, manufacturing costs can be reduced. Constructors without the knowledge a facilities for data collection, testing, simulating and fatigue analysis are strongly advised nd not to attempt the use of designs which rely on the deliberate flexing of suspension components.

Fig. 15. Representation of the Tul-aris patented rear suspens ion system. The flexure link helps reduce the number of pivoted joints in the design. Each joint is a source of undesirable backlash and friction, degrading suspension performance, which is of great importance at the top levels of competition. (Dr. R Tuluie)

13

The compact nature of the Tul-aris rear suspension can be seen in this photograph. Note that in this stage of its development the titanium suspension flexure link is of a different form to that shown above. The flexure link has now (2004) had a couple of seasons of racing without problems. (Dr. R Tuluie)

Even modern GP racing machinery use rocker and link designs which generally have their origins in the early 1980s. This layout mounts the rocker directly to the swing-arm as did the Yamaha RD500LC shown in fig. 18.

Fig. 16. Kawasaki Uni-Trak from 1985 fitted to the GPz750. The rocker is pulled up by the link from the swingarm connected at a very small radius from the rocker pivot. The suspension unit is connected at a greater radius and so moves upwards at a greater rate. Despite the passing of nearly two decades from the original use of such designs, there are many current models that use very similar systems. The 2000 Suzuki GSX-600 for example has an almost identical layout.

14

Fig. 17. Kawasaki were one of the first to use a rocker and link system for road racing. Illustrated here fitted to the KR500 with monocoque chassis. The lower suspension mount is attached to the underside of the swing-arm, whilst the mainly horizontal movement here has some effect over the variable rate properties its main advantage is that it eliminates the need for additional frame structure to support the unit.

15

Fig. 18. This Yamaha RD500LC of 1984 is interesting because the swing-arm connects directly to the rocker without an intermediary link, this means that the rocker must be connected to the main chassis by way of a short link. As the swing-arm moves upward the lower end of the rocker moves forward compressing the unit.

Fig. 19. Although made in the same year as the example to the left this Yamaha design has a more usual vertical mounting for the unit. Used on several different models this layout has no rocker in the normal sense, basically it just uses two links to define the movement path of the suspension unit.

Forces
We have seen that the effective wheel rate and the rate of the spring in any point of the wheel travel are related by the square of the Velocity Ratio at that point in the travel. In many cases, of more importance than the rate is the force acting at the wheel. In a real dynamic situation this is affected by the damping characteristics which in turn depend on the velocity of the shock movement. Here we are only concerned with the kinematic aspects and those are much easier to determine. Repeating the expressions for the rate:

Wheel rate = Spring rate / VR2

or

Spring rate = Wheel rate * VR2

The expressions for force are similar but we remove the square law:

Wheel force = Spring force / VR

or

Spring force = Wheel force * VR

The effects of preload on the spring must be accounted for when we consider the force at the wheel. For example if we have a VR of 2:1 and the shock has a preload of say 50 newtons (about 10 lbf.) then there will be an effective preload at the wheel of 50/2 = 25 newtons (about 5 lbf.) Another consideration for a designer of pivoted rear suspension is the swing-arm and rocker pivotbearing loads. With a simple traditional swing-arm, controlled by a pair of struts mounted near upright at the rear, suspension forces place very little load on the pivot. However, angled shocks and the cantilever layout and all the rocker-arm systems considerably increase these loads. Fig. 20. shows what happens in some selected designs. In most cases, this may not constitute a serious problem, but bearing life may be reduced and the design of the pivot mounting on the main frame must take these increased loads into account. Generally, on a chain driven machine the chain pull creates more load on the swing-arm pivot than the suspension, but both must be added to get the total effect.

16

Fig 20. The simple traditional design on the left balances the rear weight directly by the suspension struts and so there is no weight-induced load on the fork pivot. The centre sketch shows how the pivot load can be increased with a monoshock triangulated fork, in this case the pivot is subject to 2.25 times the wheel load. On the right we see how there must be load on the pivot to balance the forces with a rocker system. Each layout must be considered separately for there are an infinite variety of possible designs. The chain pull on a large machine may create much greater pivot forces.

Spring energy
A spring can be considered as a reservoir of energy. When compressed it absorbs and stores energy, and when relaxed it releases energy. Most metal springs are very efficient at this energy storing and releasing cycle. However, when used in a vehicle suspension system we often do not want the stored energy to be released back into the system, and the job of the dampers is to waste this energy by converting it into heat, which ultimately gets dissipated to the environment at large. Consider a moto-X bike landing after a high jump. We wish the landing to be as smooth as possible and when the wheel hits the ground the suspension spring starts to compress and store the energy of the landing motorcycle. Some of this energy will be absorbed by the bump damping also. If the spring rate has been chosen optimally for that size of jump, then the spring will have used up most of its available movement, and be storing the maximum amount of energy. The spring will now want to rebound and release this energy, but if allowed to do so then it will send the bike flying back into the air, just like a bouncing ball. The stored energy in the spring must be dissipated by the rebound damping if we are to avoid this bouncing. Most of the energy dissipation in this case must be done during rebound, if the bump damping is too high then it will generate high forces during the initial stage of suspension movement, when the shock velocity is at its highest, giving rise to a harsh landing. Calculating the energy stored in a spring is easy when the rate is constant, it can be expressed as:

Energy = * Spring Force * Spring Compression

But Thus

Spring Force = Spring Rate * Spring Compression Energy = * Spring Rate * Spring Compression 2

This can also be expressed in terms of wheel movement and effective wheel rate as:

Energy = * Wheel Effective Rate * Wheel Compression 2

From this we can get an idea of the wheel rate needed to absorb a landing from a given height without bottoming the shock. Any physics book will show that the potential energy (PE) of a raised body is:

PE = Weight * Height PE = Mass * g * Height (g = 9.81m/sec2 )

Imagine a bike and rider with a total mass of 200 kg. (approx. 440 lb.) which needs to land after a 5 metre high jump. Then the potential energy to be cushioned is:

PE = 200 * 9.81 * 5 = 9810 Nm.

17

We can now use this value to estimate a required wheel rate. Say that the available shock movement is 300 mm. or 0.3 m (approx. 12), then:

Energy = * Wheel Effective Rate * Wheel Compression 2

rearrange to Wheel

Effective Rate = 2 * Energy / Wheel Compression 2

Wheel Effective Rate = 2 * 9810 / 0.32 = 218000 N/m = 218 N/mm. = 1245 lbf/in.
This value seems excessively high and there are several reasons for this. We have ignored bump damping which will dissipate energy and allow a softer spring. The calculation implicitly assumes that the landing is onto a horizontal surface, but it will more likely be onto a downward sloping surface. This can make a large difference. Some of the riders energy will be cushioned and damped through body movement, such a s bending knees. We used a constant effective wheel rate whereas it is more usual to have heavily progressive suspension on such bikes.

It is only the last that is within the scope of this booklet.

Progressive vs. linear

When the spring rate or effective wheel rate is not constant then the calculation of stored energy becomes a little more complicated. In mathematical terms we use a process called integration but this can easily be understood in graphical terms if we plot the wheel force against the wheel displacement as follows in fig. 21.

Fig 21. The stored energy at full bump is equal to the area outlined in blue. This area can be estimated by sub-dividing the total area into sub-sections as per the one shown in red. The total area and energy is equal to the sum of these subareas. The area of each part is equal to the average force in that area multiplied by the width of the section. 10 mm in this case.

This example shows a very highly progressive system with a starting effective wheel rate of 15 N/mm (86 lbf/in.) rising to 292 N/mm (1667 lbf/in) at the end of the 130 mm suspension travel. This degree of variation is quite easy to achieve with a rocker and link design.

18

The energy stored at full compression is equal to the area of the graph enclosed by the blue lines. This ignores the energy stored due to the preload, and if this were drawn on the above curve then it would extend to the left of the vertical axis. However, the preload stored energy is input during shock assembly and only released during spring removal and therefore plays no part in normal suspension action. On the other hand the preload force adds to the wheel force throughout the range of travel, which increases the overall stored suspension energy, this is automatically accounted for within the graph area above. The graph area can be estimated by dividing the graph into adjacent areas such as the one shown in red. The area of each such a sub-section equals the average force in that section multiplied by the wheel displacement defining the section in this case 90 to 100 mm or 10 mm. The sum of all such sub-sections will give the total area and hence the suspension energy. Depending on the use to which a bike is being put, it can be quite beneficial to employ such highly progressive systems. It allows the designer to use a soft initial rate to enhance comfort for example, yet within a given amount of travel it can have sufficient energy absorbsion to prevent bottoming on the worst bumps or landings envisaged. A constant wheel rate would require a much higher initial rate to be able to achieve the same extreme energy capacity.

Fig 22. Comparison of a linear and highly progressive effective wheel rate. The preload force is the same in each case and the rate with the linear system is chosen to store an equal amount of energy at the full bump of 130 mm of wheel travel.

The above illustration, fig. 22. compares a linear system with the progressive system from the previous example. The preload force is the same in each case and the rate with the linear system is chosen to store an equal amount of energy at the full bump of 130 mm of wheel travel. The following table compares some important parameters: Initial rate Linear Progressive 49 N/mm 15 N/mm Final rate 49 N/mm 292 N/mm Final force 6,201 N 10,612 N Equal rate at 62 mm 62 mm Equal force at 96 mm 96 mm

We can see that we need a wheel rate for the linear system of over three times the initial rate of the progressive, but at full travel the progressive has a rate of 6 times that of the other. At 62 mm compression the rates will be equal, therefore for the first half of the available movement the progressive system will have a lower rate. Perhaps of greater importance is the compression at which the two systems have equal wheel forces and this occurs at 96 mm or nearly three quarters of the travel. Above that amount of travel the wheel force rises sharply with the progressive system, thus transferring more

19

load into the rest of the bike and rider. The final force is 71% higher than that of the linear system, which has structural as well as performance and comfort implications. We must remember that this is purely a kinematic analysis and ignores the very important dynamic effects of damping, it also ignores the e ffect of the tyre compliance. Despite the lack of these dynamic considerations it gives us a good idea of the differences to be expected in the characteristics of linear and progressive systems. There are many other factors that need to go into the melting pot to arrive at a suspension characteristic suitable for a particular motorcycle. Comfort on small bumps and ultimate energy capacity are only two such factors. We also have to look into the attitude changes due to braking and acceleration, compression due to cornering and suspension performance when leant over at a steep angle. There is no single correct answer for all types of bike, in fact there are cases where a regressive characteristic may be useful.

20

Typical characteristics
There are three principal classes of rear suspension in use today. 1. 2. 3. Direct connection of shock to swing-arm. Basic rocker and link system. The rocker pivots about an axis fixed to the frame of the bike and the rocker is actuated by a link connected to the swing-arm. Alternative rocker and link system. connects to the frame. The rocker fixes directly to the swing-arm and a link

Types 2 & 3 can also have one end of the shock fixed to the swing-arm, usually near the pivot where it has a minimal effect on the characteristics. This is often done to help with packaging problems and also to avoid the necessity of extra frame structure to mount the fixed end of the shock. In addition to these main three types there are some others like the BMW paralever and systems that use a pair of swing-arms. These systems are generally used to provide additional control over the squat characteristics of the bike under power, and will not be considered here. We will now look at the rate and force characteristics of some examples of each type.

Direct connection of shock to swing-arm

This class covers the traditional twin shock design with the shocks placed near the end of the swing-arm, as well as systems with angled shocks and the cantilever mono-shock types. Let us look at each of these three layouts. Each has the shock parameters adjusted to give the same travel, the same final energy capacity and the same amount of static sag.

Fig 23. Three common layouts of suspension with the shock connected directly to the swing-arm. Left. Traditional twin shock design. Centre. Angled shocks also twinned. Right. So called cantilever, can be either mono-shock as on some older Yamahas or with two springs as used by Vincent.

The following graphs show the effective rate and force properties of the three examples above. For many purposes the force vs. displacement characteristics are of more interest to us than the actual rate, and we can see that there is little difference between the three except towards the end of the travel when the maximum difference amounts to around 4%. On the other hand the effective rate vs. displacement emphasizes the differences. The traditional layout showing a nearly linear characteristic with just a slight progressive effect of a 3% increase in rate over the whole range of movement. The angled shocks show a regressive effect of 8.5% from full rebound to full bump and the cantilever system gives the greatest variation with a progressive action of 20%. The exact detail of these characteristics depend on the actual dimensional layout of the system in question. Fig. 12 showed how the mounting location and angle of the shock determines whether the system will exhibit regressive or progressive properties. The example here of the angled shock being regressive is not to be taken as the general rule, in this case a smaller angle would have given a progressive effect.

21

The main point to be taken from these examples of the direct mounted shock is that, within the scope of most practical layouts it is difficult to achieve more than a small variation in rate over the range of travel. To achieve that it is necessary to move a pivoted arm through a larger angle, and that is where the rocker and link designs can be useful as shown in the next section.

Fig 24. Effective rate and force characteristics of the three examples of suspension with the shock connected directly to the swing-arm. Note that, even though the curves of the effective rate show easily identifiable differences, the plots of the more important force characteristics are quite similar.

22

Basic rocker and link system

These can take many forms and often it is simply packaging requirements which determine the exact layout. In general it is possible to achieve similar characteristics with any layout by selecting appropriate dimensions of the principal components. Below, three examples from an infinity of layouts are shown.

Fig 25. Three possible layouts of the basic rocker and link system. These by no means exhaust the possibilities, for example the shocks can be angled or mounted horizontally, either below of above the swing-arm depending on packaging constraints etc.. In some cases the fixed end of the shock can be mounted on the swing-arm, thus saving the need to provide mounting points on the m ain frame structure. If such a shock mounting is close to the swing-arm pivot then there will be little change to the suspension properties.

Let us pick the middle example from the above layouts and see how varying some basic parameters can change the characteristics. The following diagrams show both the extended and compressed suspension positions for three different cases. The first is the base configuration, the second has the rocker position rotated anti-clockwise by shortening the shock and also shortening the link to restore the same ride height. The final layout has the rocker rotated clockwise by lengthening the shock and link.

Fig 26. These show both the extended and compressed suspension positions for three different cases. Left is the base configuration, middle has the rocker position rotated anti-clockwise by shortening the shock and also shortening the link to restore the same ride height. Right has the rocker rotated clockwise by lengthening the shock and link. The lower illustrations show the fully compressed state.

As in the previous comparison, each case has the shock parameters adjusted to give the same travel, the same final energy capacity and the same amount of static sag. The force and rate properties are shown next.

23

Fig 27. The upper two plots show the effective rates against displacement. The vertical scale has been expanded on the second to show greater detail. The lower curves show the wheel force vs. displacement.

24

The rate properties are shown on two plots. The first shows the overall values whilst the second has an expanded vertical scale to show more detail. These show that the case with the shorter shock and link has a very highly progressive nature which really takes effect from about 90 mm. of compression. This is also shown clearly in the force plots. It is interesting to note that even though the rocker alignment was changed more in the clockwise case this produced a much smaller change in characteristics. To see why the characteristics changed s much in the anti-clockwise case we need to look more o closely at the rocker position near the end of the movement.

Fig 28. The diagram on the right shows the base case at full bump and that on the left is the case with the shortened shock and link, w hich rotates the rocker anti-clockwise. It is clear that the velocity ratio is very small (hence high wheel rate) in this case. Additional wheel movement would reduce L2 to zero, theoretically giving an infinite wheel rate. The real significance of this is that the rocker pivot and the two ends of the link will be in line, preventing the wheel from moving farther.

The above diagram clearly shows that at full bump, with the anti-clockwise case, L2 becomes very small thus giving a high and rapidly increasing wheel rate. Additional wheel movement would reduce L2 to zero, theoretically giving an infinite wheel rate. The real significance of this is that the rocker pivot and the two ends of the link will be in line, preventing the wheel from moving farther. This is a locking situation which designers must avoid at all costs. These three cases of the same basic design demonstrate just how a wide range of characteristics can be achieved by making relatively small changes to the detail layout.

Shock mounted on swing-arm

Sometimes it can be useful to mount the fixed end of the shock on the swing-arm when using a rocker and link suspension system. This can have packaging advantages and may avoid additional structure from the main frame. In most cases the shock will be mounted close to the swing-arm pivot and will not have a huge effect on overall characteristics, provided that appropriate adjustment is made to the spring properties. To get an idea of the effect of mounting the shock on the swing-arm, we will consider a simple rocker and link system as shown next. The mounting on the swing-arm is such that the shock is mounted in exactly the same position when the suspension is fully extended. It can be seen that as the wheel moves the shock gets some additional compression due to the bottom end being forced up by the swingarm. Therefore, for a given wheel movement the shock experiences a greater displacement when it is attached to the swing-arm, than when fixed to the frame. In other words the effective wheel rate will be

25

higher and the maximum wheel displacement will be reduced. This is not a general rule, because if the shock was located underneath the swing-arm then wheel movement would reduce the normal shock compression, decrease the wheel rate and increase the full bump displacement.

Fig 29. On the left is a simple rocker and link system with the shock attached to the frame. The other sketch on the right shows a dimensionally similar system but with the shock attached to the swing-arm. The attachment point is such that at full rebound the shock is located exactly the same as in the case of a fixed mounting.

In the following plots, there are two cases shown with the shock on swing-arm. One shows the characteristics without any change to the spring settings, the second illustrates the situation when the spring rate, preload and shock stoke are adjusted to give the same static sag and same full bump displacement and energy storage as with the fixed shock end case.

Fig 30. Effective wheels r ates, comparing the shock fixed to the frame with two cases when attached to the swing-arm. Without changing the spring rate the wheel rate is noticeable greater than that of the fixed end case.

26

Fig 31. The force properties are very similar between the fixed end case and the adjusted case with the shock on the swing-arm. Without changing the spring rate, preload and shock stroke the force curve is considerably higher, and the wheel movement reduced when the shock is mounted on the swing-arm.

Rocker and link system (rocker mounted directly to swing-arm)

Fig 32. Three examples, from an infinity of possibilities, of a rocker and link system with the rocker pivoted directly on the swing-arm. The one on the left is analysed in detail below.

Fig 33. Variations of the same basic layout. The only difference being the length of the link and its forward mounting location to compensate. As shown below, these changes can have a large effect on the wheel rate characteristics.

27

As an example of this class of suspension design we will consider one particular layout, similar to that used on some Hondas. To get an idea of how the characteristics can be adjusted over a wide range, three cases will be considered, the only difference between them being the length of the link and its forward mounting.

Fig 34. Characteristics of the three different length links. Note that the short link gives a highly progressive effect. As in previous examples the static sag and the stored energy at full bump have been equalized in all three cases.

28

Looking at the rate plot, it can be seen that the short link gives a highly progressive characteristic, and the mid sized link gives a slightly progressive effect. The case with the longest link shows a regressive nature, in other words the effective wheel rate decreases with more suspension displacement. Thus it can be seen that almost any desired force vs. displacement properties can be achieved with this basic design by just making small physical changes to the various components. This example only considered changing link length and mounting location, but as we have seen earlier, altering the rocker angle can make large differences to the characteristics. Other parameters can be changed too, e.g. rocker dimensions, shock length, shock orientation etc. In fact there is no limit to the possible combination of changes that can be used to achieve the required result.

29

Design for characteristics

We have seen that small variations in the basic dimensions of various suspensions layouts can give widely different springing characteristics at the wheel. This means that we can achieve almost any wheel rate properties that we require, but how do we go about designing a system to produce the results that we want? Is it trial and error or are there some design rules that we can use? There exists a large body of knowledge relating to the design of mechanisms in general and anyone seriously interested in this subject would be well advised to read any of the available text books. There have been some attempts to apply this knowledge to the design of suspension systems and a couple of references are listed at the end. These are highly theoretical and not to everyones taste. However, there are some basic rules that can easily be applied by anyone and varied with a bit of trial and error to achieve the desired end. This is what well look at in this chapter.

Basic shock on swing-arm

Lets look at the simplest system first. Fig. 10. (repeated below as fig. 35. below) shows how it is principally Ls, the distance from the swing-arm pivot to the line of action of the shock that mainly determines the rate at any point in the wheel movement. Therefore, if we wish to design a system with an essentially constant rate then we need to keep Ls as constant as possible.

Fig 35. (Repeat of Fig 10. ) The velocity ratio of a basic system is the ratio of the distance between the shock axis and the swing-arm pivot (Ls) to the horizontal distance between the wheel axle and the swing-arm (Lw) as shown. The VR = Lw:Ls This ratio varies throughout the range of suspension movement, which means that the wheel effective rate depends on the wheel position. This gives the opportunity to design in some progressive or regressive rate characteristics. Lw normally varies little and so it will be the behaviour of Ls that mainly determines any rate variation.

Fig. 36. shows how we can do this in the case of a cantilever system. In this layout, shown at mid stroke, the path of the movement of the shock mounting on the swing-arm is aligned as closely as possible with the line of action of the shock. This maintains Ls as constant as possible, and so too the effective wheel rate.

Fig. 36. In this layout, shown at mid stroke, the path of the movement of the shock mounting on the swing-arm is aligned as closely as possible with the line of action of the shock. This maintains Ls as constant as possible, and so to the effective wheel rate.

30

Fig. 37. shows two examples implementations of this layout. They differ only in the length of the shock, one at 250mm. and the other double that at 500mm.

Fig 37. Two example designs configured to give the minimum change in wheel rate according to fig. 36. Both examples, which only differ in shock length, are shown in the extended and compressed positions.

Fig 38. The rate characteristics of the two examples illustrated above in fig. 37. Note that the vertical scale is expanded to show only the values between 26 and 27. In the short shock case the total rate variation is just a little over 0.2 or approximately 0.8%. The longer shock shows a greater variation of about 3%, still a low degree of progression.

31

As expected, the characteristics illustrated in fig. 38. show almost constant rate throughout the range of movement. There is a difference between the two cases of different length shocks, which is due to the line of action of the shorter one being subject to greater angular displacement. The significance and importance of which will be emphasized in more detailed and obvious terms in the following examples, showing how to design for progressive properties.

Fig. 39. The basic requirement for a progressive rate is that the path of the shock mounting on the swing-arm is such as to increase the dis tance from the swing-arm pivot to the line of action of the shock. This is also influenced by the length of the shock. Compare this example with that shown in fig. 36. showing the basis for constant rate.

Fig 40. As with the constant rate example, two cases are considered with two different length shocks. We will see that this has a much more important effect with this layout. Note how the shock itself is subject to a greater angle variation in the short case. This is shown in more detail in fig. 42.

The basic requirement for progressive properties is shown in fig. 39. the path of the shock mounting on the swing-arm must be such as to increase the distance from the swing-arm pivot to the line of action of the shock. This is also influenced by the length of the shock as we can see from the characteristics shown in fig. 41. The layout of both cases in both extended and compressed positions is illustrated in fig. 40.

32

Fig 41. The rate characteristics of the two cases shown in fig. 40. It can be seen that in this case the shock length has a great influence, the short one showing a slight regressive rate in opposition to our desire for a progressive action. On the other hand an approximate rate increase of 50% is evident with the long shock.

Despite the superficial similarity in layout the rate characteristics of the two cases are quite different. Contrary to our requirement of a progressive action, the short shock actually gives the opposite a regressive property. It was shown in fig. 12. how different shock to swing-arm angles can reverse the progressive/regressive tendencies. Rather than actually increasing Ls the angle change of the shock in the short shock case leads to smaller values as the wheel moves upward. Fig. 42. shows the two cases superimposed, at full extension the lines of action of the shocks coincide and hence the wheel rates at this point are equal as the curves show. However, it is clear that when compressed the angular movement of the short shock results in a lower value for Ls and hence a reducing wheel rate.

Fig 42. The difference between the action of the short shock and the long one is clearly illustrated. The two shocks are shown superimposed, at full extension the lines of action of the shocks coincide and hence the wheel rates at this point are equal as the curves show. However, it is clear that when compressed the angular movement of the short shock results in a lower value for Ls and hence a reducing wheel rate.

Even with the long shock, in this particular example, the amount of rate progression was only about 50% of the starting rate. Although it is theoretically possible to achieve higher amounts of progression, the

33

practical range with the basic shock on swing-arm system is practically limited to about less than 2 to 1. In those cases where greater control is required over the progressive possibilities it is usual to look to the more complex rocker and link systems.

Rocker systems
The limiting feature with the range of characteristics possible with the simple swing-arm system is the limited angular motion of the swing-arm itself. Except in the case of long movement motoX systems, the wheel movement is usually around 20 to 30% of the swing-arm length, giving movement angles of 11 to 17 degrees. This is where the rocker systems differ. We could design them to have up to 180 degrees of rocker rotation although it is hard to see how that would be useful, but up to 90 degrees is both practically possible and sometimes can help yield the characteristics that we desire. In general it is necessary to move a rocker through a large angle to get highly progressive properties. The basic rocker and link system still obeys the basic rules outlined above, the most significant difference being that we have two systems, as shown in fig. 14 repeated below as fig. 43., which gives us more control over the obtainable properties. There is the swing-arm and link system, and the link, rocker and shock system. The swing-arm and link system behaves in a similar manner to that of the simple shock on swing-arm system described above if we substitute the link for the shock. Accordingly we only have a limited practical range of characteristics to work with. On the other hand, the link, rocker and shock system provide a much wider range of possibilities. Firstly, there is the possible large angular movement of the rocker, but we also have separate control over the angular relationship between the link and rocker, and the rocker and shock. This results in enormous possible variation in the L2 to L1 ratio and how this can be made to change over the range of suspension movement.

Fig. 43. This sketch shows how a simple rocker and link design, on the left, can be broken down into the rocker-shock-link system, middle, and wheel-link system, on the right. The VR of the separated rocker assembly is L2:L1 and of the separated wheel assembly is Lw:Ll. The overall Velocity Ratio is then Lw/Ll * L2/L1.

The greater we make L1 and the smaller we make L2 the greater will be the wheel rate, therefore if we wish to design a progressive system then we need to increase L1 and/or reduce L2 as the suspension compresses. The detail design possibilities are limitless and so we will only consider three detail variations of the same basic design to get an idea of how we can achieve various characteristics. Fig. 44 shows three slight variations on the theme of a basic rocker and link system. To keep things simple, the length of the rocker pivot to the shock mounting is kept constant in all three cases and is also equal to the pivot to link mounting distance. We saw in figs. 36 & 37 that to achieve the most constant rate characteristics we need to arrange the line of action of the shock to be as close as possible to the path of movement (called the locus) of the mounting point of the shock on the swing-arm. Similar considerations can apply to the rocker system, that is we maintain L1 as constant as possible but this also requires that L2 remain close to constant, provided that the ratio L to Ll also remains constant. w However, the principal requirement is that we retain the same relationship between L1 : L2, and Lw :Ll.

34

The first (left) example in fig. 44 shows an attempt to achieve a constant rate, the rocker is just a simple bar, symmetrical either side of the pivot, orientated so that is oscillates equally about a horizontal midorientation, the shock and link are always close to vertical, this minimizes variations in L1, L2, Lw and Ll. Fig. 45 (curve labelled Constant) confirms that this layout does result in a close to constant rate.

Fig. 44. Three variations of a similar layout. Full extension is shown above and full bump below. The example on the left maintains almost constant L1:L2 and Ll:Lw relationships and so the wheel rate is basically constant. The centre case experiences a considerable reduction in L2 whilst L1 remains relatively steady hence leading to a rising rate. The opposite applies to the regressive system on the right.

Fig. 45 The rate characteristics of the examples shown in figs. 44 and 46. The Progressive 2 curve applies to both the centre and left hand side cases of fig. 46. Their properties are identical.

35

Considering only the shock-rocker-link sub-system, we can see that to achieve a progressive rate we must cause L1 to increase with movement and/or L2 to decrease. The second (centre) example above, keeps the same dimensions on the shock side but the link is lengthened and the rocker on the link side rotated such that L2 decreases with movement, as clearly shown in the compressed illustration. The curve Progressive 1 in fig. 45 shows that this relatively small design change has resulted in a progressive curve of about 7:1. The final (right) example maintains the same geometry on the link side of the rocker as in the constant rate case, but the shock side has been changed so that L1 reduces as the wheel compresses the suspension. In fact the rocker is a mirror image of that used in the progressive case. The Regressive curve in fig. 45 demonstrates that this produces a strongly regressive rate reducing down close to zero rate at full bump. These examples have shown that there is no magic in designing a layout to achieve specified characteristics, provided that the basic rules are adhered to. Let us now consider a couple of ways of fine tuning the progressive characteristics of the previous example. The left side illustration in fig. 46 repeats that layout, and the centre and right side cases show two variations which produce identical increased progressive properties, shown as curve Progressive 2 in fig. 45.

Fig. 46 The left hand side case above, is a repeat of the progressive layout in fig. 44. The other two cases shown different ways of achieving the same object of creating a more progressive rate curve. The upper illustrations show the extended position and the lower ones show full bump. The centre case uses modified rocker dimensions to change the angular relationship between the shock and rocker, whereas the right side shows how the same change in the angular relationship can be achieved using the original rocker and re-orientating the shock.

The intent behind these two alternatives is to modify the earlier layout to produce a more progressive system and also to demonstrate that the same or similar results can be achieved in different ways. The centre example maintains the same link to rocker geometry but the shock is raised slightly and the shock side of the rocker is rotated to compensate. Similar results could be obtained by lengthening the shock rather than raising its mounting. These changes reduce L1 at full extension also reducing the starting rate, but L1 increases at full bump, as the illustration shows, increasing the wheel rate. The second way (right side) shown to achieve the

36

same rate properties uses the same rocker dimensions as in the original case but the shock is angled back at the bottom to replicate the same angular relationship between shock and rocker as in the centre case. The Progressive 2 curve in fig. 45 shows the increased rate properties of both of these cases. The examples considered in this section have only had either the relative rocker to shock or the rocker to link geometry changed for each case, not both together. Even more curve fine tuning can be achieved by adjusting both and also the swing-arm to link geometry. It is only the imagination of the designer which limits the range of layouts and characteristics possible. Each particular motorcycle needs a layout to suit the space available, but that is rarely a handicap to designing for any required rate curve, as we have seen the rocker link system offers enormous possibilities to achieve any desired rate curve.

37

Design traps
With the wide range of possible configurations available in the detail design of modern suspension systems, there exists the potential to fall into some traps. We have already seen in fig. 28 that it is possible to create a lock situation, which occurs when the rocker and link become aligned before the shock reaches its limit of compression. In other words the rocker/link/swing-arm configuration limits the available wheel displacement rather than the shock doing it. Normally if we want a highly progressive system then we need to approach this dimensional situation but we have to be aware that we must never reach it. Very high loads and breakages will be the likely result.

Fig. 47 An example of a trap to avoid. At full bump this particular design has the shock and rocker in close alignment which reduces the effective wheel rate. This shows the necessity of analysing fully the layout of any new design or modifications to an existing configuration. Superficially small changes in layout can result in large and sometimes undesirable changes in suspension performance. The rocker and link can also get into an over-centre state as below.

Another similar trap can occur when the rocker and shock become aligned, although the effect is quite the opposite. Instead of approaching a infinite wheel rate we can pass a zero wheel rate and even get n a negative rate. The significance of a negative rate is that as we apply more compression the wheel force decreases, which can lead to a situation where the wheel force is insufficient to support the dynamic load and the suspension will collapse on to the bump stops. If the static load on the rear wheel is greater than the load that can be supported by the suspension system at full bump, then the suspension will be unable to recover unless the rear of the bike is lifted. In other words the bike will remain with fully compressed suspension, even after the disturbance, which caused the suspension to compress in the first place, has passed by.In order to avoid such traps, it is necessary to analyse fully the layout of any new design or modifications to an existing configuration. Superficially small changes in layout can result in large and sometimes undesirable changes in suspension performance. A

38

comparison of the design above with a similar one in figs. 44 & 45 shows how, within a similar basic layout, the detailed dimensions can have a large impact on overall performance. The design above, has a regressive rate from full extension to full compression. Although whilst the rate is still positive the wheel force increases with increasing compression, but at about 110 mm. of compression the rate passes through zero and the wheel force peaks out. Further wheel movement results in a negative rate and the supporting force reduces, resulting in an unstable situation more compression leads to less force and hence even more compression whereby the suspension will collapse onto the bump stops. The following graphs demonstrate the characteristics of the above layout.

Fig. 48 Rate and force characteristics of the example shown above. This demonstrates a regressive rate from full extension to full compression, passing through zero at about 110 mm., and then becoming negative. Although whilst the rate is still positive the wheel force increases with increasing compression, until the rate passes through zero and the wheel force peaks out. Further wheel movement results in a negative rate and the supporting wheel force reduces, resulting in an unstable situation more compression leads to less force and hence even more compression whereby the suspension will collapse onto the bump stops. Compare these characteristics with those shown in figs. 44 & 45, for a similar basic layout.

39

Comparison methods
It is a common requirement to compare different suspension systems. There are many reasons for this, for example we may wish to investigate the significant differences between last years model of a motoX bike and this years. Or we may be trying to decide on the optimum maximum wheel movements and the rate characteristics for a race bike. Just as there are many reasons for needing to compare alternatives there are several criteria that we can use for such comparisons. Damping characteristics are a very important parameter in the dynamic performance of suspension systems, but that is outside of the scope of this publication on the kinematics of suspension. There are two principle parameters that we can consider here, viz: Maximum wheel movement and the wheel rate curve. Is there a method that we can use that is the optimum or definitive comparison benchmark? Unfortunately, the answer is NO. Even the wheel movement question is not as straight forward as it might seem, because the optimum value is dependent on the wheel rate properties. There is no point considering a long movement range as a possible advantage if the spring is so stiff that only half of the movement will ever be used. Motorcycle suspension is not only a device to isolate the bike and rider from road disturbances, there are many other demands placed on it. A road racer experiences an additional suspension load of around 50% when cornering even on a perfectly smooth road. Then there are the effects of load transfer under braking and acceleration. Dirt bikes have to contend with landing from jumps. Such a variety of loading also calls for a variety in the maximum required movement range and rate properties. For example a highly progressive rate may be desirable in a motoX machine but that does not imply that it is the best solution for a road racer or other application. Let us assume that we have a bike with a constant r te rear suspension and we wish to consider a replacing it with a progressive one with a 4:1 progressive ratio, i.e. the end rate is four times the initial rate, fig. 49. How should we decide on the rate of the spring to use? In several of the examples used in this book, the author used a method that equated the stored energy at full bump along with an equal amount of static sag. This is a useful method to try and ensure that full bump is reached, in each case, with the same disturbing input. However, this criterion may not be the most important in all cases. When we balance the stored energy, the wheel rate will initially be higher in the constant rate case, but will become lower than that of the progressive case toward the end of the movement.

Fig. 49 Showing a constant rate system and the rate characteristics of three possible progressive rate substitutes. These all use the same mechanism giving a progressive ratio of 4:1 over the movement range, they differ only in the rate of the spring. One s tarts with the same wheel rate as the constant rate design, another is adjusted to give the same end of stroke stored energy, and the third gives the same end of stroke wheel force. Figs. 50 and 51 show more detail.

40

Fig. 50 The force curves of the constant rate system, this is a straight line, and the three progressive alternatives. The case with the same initial rate always generates a higher wheel force at all points in the movement range. On the other hand the case with the same full bump force produces a force which is lower throughout the range. When the full bump stored energies are equal the force is lower in the initial range but greater as full bump is approached.

Fig. 51 In general we are mainly interested in the spring stored energy at full bump as this gives us an idea of the maximum bump or jump height that can be handled without bottoming. The full curves are shown here for illustration purposes.

41

As an alternative to the stored energy comparison it may, for example, be more appropriate to compare the wheel rates at the extended to mid-position compression. Imagine that the constant rate system has been optimised for most conditions up to around mid-stroke, but the suspension is inclined to bottom out too often. If we kept a constant rate system then we would have to increase the pre-load or spring rate to cure the bottoming. This would then move us away from the previously optimised set-up lower down the range. Probably a better solution would be to use a progressive system with the starting wheel rate equal to that found satisfactory with the constant rate system, and then an increasing rate so that at full bump the stored energy is sufficient to prevent the bottoming. Figs. 49 to 51 show three possible progressive alternatives to a constant rate. The first is aimed to cure the problem of bottoming and uses a spring rate which causes the initial wheel rate to equal that of the base constant rate system. This gives a final stored energy of close to 26% more and a final force of 62% higher, even though the final rate is four times greater. The second equates the final stored energy. This gives less wheel force up to about 75% of the stroke and more force for the remaining movement. This solution would be a good alternative to a constant rate system that didnt bottom out excessively. It would give a more comfortable ride over most conditions, yet maintain the same ultimate impact capacity. The wheel and spring rates are 79% of those used in the first case above. The final case uses a spring rate so that the final compressed wheel force is equal to that of the constant rate case. It is unlikely that such a system would prove useful, the wheel rate is 61% that of the first alternative throughout the range. This case is shown as an example of the lower bound that is likely on the wheel rate.

Analysis parameters
There are several parameters which are used in the kinematic analysis of suspension systems which are generally plotted against the vertical wheel displacement, the main ones being: Shock displacement vs. wheel displacement. Motion or velocity ratio vs. wheel or shock displacement. Also called leverage etc. Effective wheel rate vs. wheel displacement. Wheel and spring forces vs. wheel displacement. Stored energy in the spring.

Probably the most common is the shock displacement as this is the parameter that is usually measured on an existing motorcycle. The shock length being measured at equal small increments of wheel movement. Unfortunately, on its own this parameter is probably the least useful of those listed. The curves are quite insensitive to changes in rate, even highly progressive systems give a curve that can look like a straight line, fig. 53. However, this data can be used as a base from which to calculate the velocity ratio, which as we have seen leads us into the wheel rate, provided that we know the rate of the shock spring. Actually it is the stored energy at full bump and the curves of wheel force which are the most useful parameters, after all it is the wheel force that supports the motorcycle in all parts of the movement range, the rate only indicates how that force changes with movement. However, the rate characteristics are the most sensitive with regard to showing the effects of small geometric changes. The following set of curves show how all of the above parameters reflect changes in the detail configuration of a simple rocker and link suspension system. Fig. 52 shows the rate curves of two configurations of a progressive system, one with a rate ratio of 2.6 and the other 3.8. That is the higher one has a final rate 49% higher. Fig. 53 illustrates the spring displacements of these two configurations. Even though we know that the systems are progressive, to a quick glance the displacement curves look almost linear, and with a difference at full bump of 2%. Thus we can see that the displacement curves by themselves are not a sensitive guide to design variations in a particular layout. The following curves in fig. 54 show the force plots which dilute the appearance of the progressive nature but not to the extent as the displacement curves. The force difference at full bump is 22% and

42

the stored energy at full bump varies by 12%, although not as sensitive to design changes as the rate, these are usually the more important parameters.

Fig. 52 Rate curves of two configurations of a progressive design. The final rate of the highest being 49% greater. This parameter is a sensitive measure of design variations.

Fig. 53 This plot of the spring displacements looks almost linear and hides the degree of progression and differences between the two cases.

43

Fig. 54 Although not as sensitive to changes as the rate curves, the force characteristics are a more important indicator of suspension performance in general. As explained previously, the area under these curves gives the stored energy in the spring.

Further reading
The illustrations and graphs in this booklet were prepared using a software package Suspension Kinematic Analysis by Tony Foale which can be purchased at www.tonyfoale.com or by email to info@tonyfoale.com

The following are books that have valuable content on suspension systems in general and cover damping and other dynamic aspects as well as the kinematic. 1. 2. 3. Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design by Tony Foale ISBN 84-933286-1-8 also available in Spanish ISBN 84-933286-0-X (www.tonyfoale.com) Motorcycle Dynamics by Vittore Cossalter available in Italian) ISBN 0 -9720514-0-6 (The original edition is also

The Shock Absorber Handbook by Dr. John C. Dixon ISBN 0 -7680-0050-5 Published by the SAE.

The following three references are quite theoretical in nature and relate to the synthesis of linkage design to achieve required characteristics. 1. Optimal Synthesis of Suspension Mechanism with Variable Leverage Ratio for Motorcycle by Wen-Miin Hwang and Jau-Min Shih. Journal of the Chinese Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 43-50 (1987)

2. Optimal design and dynamic simulation of a motorcycle with linkage suspension by E. Pennestri and A. Strozzieri. Int. J. of Vehicle design, vol. 9, No. 3, 1988 3. Heuristic Combinatorial Optimization in the Kinematic Design of Mechanisms by T. W. Lee and F. Freudenstein. Transactions of the ASME. Journal of Engineering for Industry. November 1976 pp. 1277.