FXR vs Dyna?
#11
01-24-2009, 09:42 AM
This should help explain it.
http://www.jpcycles.com/tech/article...rm_Upgrade.pdf
http://www.chopperguys.com/id30.htm
http://www.jpcycles.com/tech/article...rm_Upgrade.pdf
http://www.chopperguys.com/id30.htm
#13
01-24-2009, 09:51 AM
Road Warrior
#15
01-24-2009, 09:58 AM
Boy, this is pretty interesting, although I'm not sure I understand all the rear frame stuff. Would be nice to see a detail comparision of the FXR and a new Dyna.
I thought one of the big differences affecting the handling was the longer rear shocks? My FXD basically has 3" or so of suspension travel, sort of impossible to ever get really good results. When i talked with the guys at Works suspension, they suggested longer shcoks to help with this (based on my expressed desire to get better handling in the twisties).
However, I'm not real optimistic that it will ever come anywhere close to my BMW R1200GS on Angeles Crest.
Looks cooler though
I thought one of the big differences affecting the handling was the longer rear shocks? My FXD basically has 3" or so of suspension travel, sort of impossible to ever get really good results. When i talked with the guys at Works suspension, they suggested longer shcoks to help with this (based on my expressed desire to get better handling in the twisties).
However, I'm not real optimistic that it will ever come anywhere close to my BMW R1200GS on Angeles Crest.
Looks cooler though
#17
01-24-2009, 10:11 AM
the fxr is an evolution of the successful results of the flt- primarily the 3-point rubber mounting chassis system.
from the history of the fxr-
Once the FLT's production was under way the Motor Company decided they needed to turn their attention to another "segment" of the market place....how could they get even more people riding what was considered a very good touring model....thus a group of HD employees came together, they were:
Mark Tuttle chief engineer of motorcycles
Steve Pertsch
Bill Brown design engineer
Erik Buell, engineer
Rit Booth, engineer
Vaughn Beals
What they all wanted was a “no apologies” Harley, one that would work as well as it “looked”, one that would “handle” like no Harley ever had. One that didn’t try to shake itself and its rider apart. One that would offer the rider as much comfort regardless of size. One that would be lighter and yet nimble enough in maneuvering such distances as from Milwaukee to Los Angeles as it would be from stoplight to stoplight. One that feared no curve.
F = Big Twin
X = XL (Sportster Front End) Front End
R= Rubber Engine Mounts.
Thus the emergence of the FXR “Superglide” in 1981.
Vaughn Beals states that the attention of the motor company was on the newly designed FLT model, but then he is quoted as saying that the motor company realized “we needed a “vibration-isolated” “Sport’s Bike”, as well to “draw new riders into the Harley camp”. What Beals meant in his reference of a “Sport’s Bike” was to be taken in context of the Harley Big Twin, which essentially goes back to the FX model of bikes at the time. What he was attempting to more directly relate to was Harley Davidson's need for a lighter cruiser. So what they began to go after was a bike that was not necessarily a “peg-scratcher” but a “lighter” rubber mounted touring bike which could “cruise”. Beals, continues, “We were looking for something with better handling than an FLH and something that wasn’t as large and intimidating as the FLT and something aerodynamically desirable. So the new team was turned loose to create a new machine. The “FX” was to be the “sport model” of the “FL”. So essentially the FXR became the “sport model” of the FLT.
What happened according to Mark Tuttle, is that HD did not have the time nor the resources to design anything better as a result the FXR, “really became a chassis program to utilize the FLT powertrain in an FX-type motorcycle” which means they would decide upon using the FLT’s rigid engine-transmission unit with the swingarm bolted to the back of the tranny and design for it’s new frame.
The need for a “prettier” frame turned into a blessing for those engineers and, ultimately for lovers of performance Harley’s. Since the members of the design team had to create a new chassis anyway, they decided to create it in basically their own idea of a “performance” image. Obviously stiffer than before. What they ended up discovering was that the FXR frame was FIVE TIMES stiffer in torsion, which is where it counts, than the old FX/FL frame had been. Which made for better cornering and ultimately a much better ride than can be offered even within the Dyna family that is produced today.....hmmmm very interesting..... They also went after higher “lean angles” ie: lots of “ground clearance”.
Rit Booth is quoted as saying that they were a group of riders who were really “performance oriented” he at the time was riding a Moto Guzzi 850 Le Mans and even had the “guts” to ride it to work. So as he stated, “we wanted the new bike to be even “stiffer” and to have even more of that “on-rails” feel than the current FLT. Basically, as he goes on, “we started with a “clean sheet” of paper and then decided we’d keep the FLT mounts and build into the new frame all that we’d learned about making a bike go through corners” It’s Chief Engineer of Motorcycles, Mark Tuttle that continues on by stating that “at a personal level, that he particularly didn’t care for Sportsters because of their lack of ground clearance, you simply couldn’t ride them as aggressively as I wanted to ride, with the “FXR” we solved that particular problem.”
The FXR was never meant to be a “crotch rocket”, always maintaining the goal of working within the frame work structure of Harley Davidson. At each design level the engineering design team pushed the envelope of “modern performance” whenever possible and where practical, to make it “stiffer and give it more precise steering” affirmed Rit Booth. The frame was designed using the latest in computer-assisted technology. In the process known as "finite element analysis", the frame configuration, specifications, and dimensions were fed into a computer. A “drawing” of the frame could then be brought up on a computer display “terminal”. The computer then assisted the engineering team in changing the frame characteristics until they were able to come up with the optimum design. Among other things, the computer assisted them in locating stress points and indicated where the frame needed stiffening. Using this stress analysis and computer modeling, “Team FXR” designed the new frame for maximum stiffness. Like the FLT frame, the new frame’s backbone was comprised of two-inch boxed tubular steel with massive stampings to add strength creating a large box-section that linked the steering head to a triangulated rear section and used round tubing at all points where the frame showed. To make the new frame even stiffer than the FLT’s the engineers added more gusseting between the steering head and both the backbone and down tubes. In the end, it was claimed to be 5 times stiffer than the old FX frame, yet added nothing in weight. Like the FLT, the FXR Super Glide II mates the smooth and quick 5 speed gear box with a vibration-isolating Tri-mount chassis. With the vibration eliminated and the wider choice of the shorter gearing of the 5 speed, the FXR would cruise effortlessly. In fact the gearing and lack of vibration tend to make the motorcycle reach engine speeds that were significantly above those to which riders were accustomed on the traditional HD 4 speed. Even today as one rides the 1999 FXR2 with 2.925 final gearing the cycle is extremely comfortable at 3,600 RPM and still accelerates strongly beyond.
The Tri-mount chassis adapted from the new FLT also utilized the maintenance-free, automotive type elastomer mounts, one in front and two in the rear at the swing arm junctions with the transmission, This was a departure from the traditional rigid mounting of the engine to the frame in which case the engine was generally a stressed member of the chassis. The elastomer mounts basically allows the engine to do its thing (shake) without transmitting that vibration through the frame and on to the rider. Thus the term, “isolated vibration”. The FXR Super Glide II featured 6.12 inch of ground clearance and a long wheel base of 65.7 inches. Rake was 30 degrees, while the trail came in at 4.7 inches all of which led the FXR into any corner without fear. It would be right here where HD would spend their greatest time modifying the FXR riding experience to capture the greatest amount of riders. While never modifying the chassis/frame, one year marketing side would cut the fork tubes down and make the rear shocks shorter and as quickly as that was decdied upon the engineers would step back in the next year with the tension to take it the other direction, in the end it would be viewed as a sea of compromise one year the engineers would be victorious while yet in another the marketing side would see to it that the bike went to a lower stance. At no time did this "sea of compromise" affect the uniquely wonderful riding experience in terms of the FXR comfort factor, what was constantly being debated however, was just how aggressive HD riders were willing to become as they entered into the curves with a frame/chassis that knew no fear. Time and substance out distanced fast and furious and so it is that HD continues to allow us to dream while we cruise.
As one can only imagine at the “alter” of marriage between the “styling” wing and the "engineering" wing what was being debated within the “Styling” part of Harley Davidson, was the engineers’ insistence on using rear-mounted shocks on the FXR, as they had on the FLT, which made the rear suspension work better and allowed for longer shock travel. Lou Netz and Willie G. Davidson had always wanted the FXR shocks laid down and forward mounted, but as Rit Booth explains, “they were told absolutely no by the engineers, myself included”, thus the union was created at least for a little while.
As has been mentioned above, part of making the new chassis as stiff as possible, involved making the new frame “triangulated” and given the odd-shaped covers to hide the battery and the oil tank, it was this “triangulated” side view look which was ultimately the FXR’s least popular feature design.
To this end, Mark Tuttle exclaims, we all loved the bike, “You could run it into a corner and tip it over to oblivion and it just all worked”.
from the history of the fxr-
Once the FLT's production was under way the Motor Company decided they needed to turn their attention to another "segment" of the market place....how could they get even more people riding what was considered a very good touring model....thus a group of HD employees came together, they were:
Mark Tuttle chief engineer of motorcycles
Steve Pertsch
Bill Brown design engineer
Erik Buell, engineer
Rit Booth, engineer
Vaughn Beals
What they all wanted was a “no apologies” Harley, one that would work as well as it “looked”, one that would “handle” like no Harley ever had. One that didn’t try to shake itself and its rider apart. One that would offer the rider as much comfort regardless of size. One that would be lighter and yet nimble enough in maneuvering such distances as from Milwaukee to Los Angeles as it would be from stoplight to stoplight. One that feared no curve.
F = Big Twin
X = XL (Sportster Front End) Front End
R= Rubber Engine Mounts.
Thus the emergence of the FXR “Superglide” in 1981.
Vaughn Beals states that the attention of the motor company was on the newly designed FLT model, but then he is quoted as saying that the motor company realized “we needed a “vibration-isolated” “Sport’s Bike”, as well to “draw new riders into the Harley camp”. What Beals meant in his reference of a “Sport’s Bike” was to be taken in context of the Harley Big Twin, which essentially goes back to the FX model of bikes at the time. What he was attempting to more directly relate to was Harley Davidson's need for a lighter cruiser. So what they began to go after was a bike that was not necessarily a “peg-scratcher” but a “lighter” rubber mounted touring bike which could “cruise”. Beals, continues, “We were looking for something with better handling than an FLH and something that wasn’t as large and intimidating as the FLT and something aerodynamically desirable. So the new team was turned loose to create a new machine. The “FX” was to be the “sport model” of the “FL”. So essentially the FXR became the “sport model” of the FLT.
What happened according to Mark Tuttle, is that HD did not have the time nor the resources to design anything better as a result the FXR, “really became a chassis program to utilize the FLT powertrain in an FX-type motorcycle” which means they would decide upon using the FLT’s rigid engine-transmission unit with the swingarm bolted to the back of the tranny and design for it’s new frame.
The need for a “prettier” frame turned into a blessing for those engineers and, ultimately for lovers of performance Harley’s. Since the members of the design team had to create a new chassis anyway, they decided to create it in basically their own idea of a “performance” image. Obviously stiffer than before. What they ended up discovering was that the FXR frame was FIVE TIMES stiffer in torsion, which is where it counts, than the old FX/FL frame had been. Which made for better cornering and ultimately a much better ride than can be offered even within the Dyna family that is produced today.....hmmmm very interesting..... They also went after higher “lean angles” ie: lots of “ground clearance”.
Rit Booth is quoted as saying that they were a group of riders who were really “performance oriented” he at the time was riding a Moto Guzzi 850 Le Mans and even had the “guts” to ride it to work. So as he stated, “we wanted the new bike to be even “stiffer” and to have even more of that “on-rails” feel than the current FLT. Basically, as he goes on, “we started with a “clean sheet” of paper and then decided we’d keep the FLT mounts and build into the new frame all that we’d learned about making a bike go through corners” It’s Chief Engineer of Motorcycles, Mark Tuttle that continues on by stating that “at a personal level, that he particularly didn’t care for Sportsters because of their lack of ground clearance, you simply couldn’t ride them as aggressively as I wanted to ride, with the “FXR” we solved that particular problem.”
The FXR was never meant to be a “crotch rocket”, always maintaining the goal of working within the frame work structure of Harley Davidson. At each design level the engineering design team pushed the envelope of “modern performance” whenever possible and where practical, to make it “stiffer and give it more precise steering” affirmed Rit Booth. The frame was designed using the latest in computer-assisted technology. In the process known as "finite element analysis", the frame configuration, specifications, and dimensions were fed into a computer. A “drawing” of the frame could then be brought up on a computer display “terminal”. The computer then assisted the engineering team in changing the frame characteristics until they were able to come up with the optimum design. Among other things, the computer assisted them in locating stress points and indicated where the frame needed stiffening. Using this stress analysis and computer modeling, “Team FXR” designed the new frame for maximum stiffness. Like the FLT frame, the new frame’s backbone was comprised of two-inch boxed tubular steel with massive stampings to add strength creating a large box-section that linked the steering head to a triangulated rear section and used round tubing at all points where the frame showed. To make the new frame even stiffer than the FLT’s the engineers added more gusseting between the steering head and both the backbone and down tubes. In the end, it was claimed to be 5 times stiffer than the old FX frame, yet added nothing in weight. Like the FLT, the FXR Super Glide II mates the smooth and quick 5 speed gear box with a vibration-isolating Tri-mount chassis. With the vibration eliminated and the wider choice of the shorter gearing of the 5 speed, the FXR would cruise effortlessly. In fact the gearing and lack of vibration tend to make the motorcycle reach engine speeds that were significantly above those to which riders were accustomed on the traditional HD 4 speed. Even today as one rides the 1999 FXR2 with 2.925 final gearing the cycle is extremely comfortable at 3,600 RPM and still accelerates strongly beyond.
The Tri-mount chassis adapted from the new FLT also utilized the maintenance-free, automotive type elastomer mounts, one in front and two in the rear at the swing arm junctions with the transmission, This was a departure from the traditional rigid mounting of the engine to the frame in which case the engine was generally a stressed member of the chassis. The elastomer mounts basically allows the engine to do its thing (shake) without transmitting that vibration through the frame and on to the rider. Thus the term, “isolated vibration”. The FXR Super Glide II featured 6.12 inch of ground clearance and a long wheel base of 65.7 inches. Rake was 30 degrees, while the trail came in at 4.7 inches all of which led the FXR into any corner without fear. It would be right here where HD would spend their greatest time modifying the FXR riding experience to capture the greatest amount of riders. While never modifying the chassis/frame, one year marketing side would cut the fork tubes down and make the rear shocks shorter and as quickly as that was decdied upon the engineers would step back in the next year with the tension to take it the other direction, in the end it would be viewed as a sea of compromise one year the engineers would be victorious while yet in another the marketing side would see to it that the bike went to a lower stance. At no time did this "sea of compromise" affect the uniquely wonderful riding experience in terms of the FXR comfort factor, what was constantly being debated however, was just how aggressive HD riders were willing to become as they entered into the curves with a frame/chassis that knew no fear. Time and substance out distanced fast and furious and so it is that HD continues to allow us to dream while we cruise.
As one can only imagine at the “alter” of marriage between the “styling” wing and the "engineering" wing what was being debated within the “Styling” part of Harley Davidson, was the engineers’ insistence on using rear-mounted shocks on the FXR, as they had on the FLT, which made the rear suspension work better and allowed for longer shock travel. Lou Netz and Willie G. Davidson had always wanted the FXR shocks laid down and forward mounted, but as Rit Booth explains, “they were told absolutely no by the engineers, myself included”, thus the union was created at least for a little while.
As has been mentioned above, part of making the new chassis as stiff as possible, involved making the new frame “triangulated” and given the odd-shaped covers to hide the battery and the oil tank, it was this “triangulated” side view look which was ultimately the FXR’s least popular feature design.
To this end, Mark Tuttle exclaims, we all loved the bike, “You could run it into a corner and tip it over to oblivion and it just all worked”.
The following users liked this post:
smiller605 (10-08-2016)
#18
01-24-2009, 10:12 AM
cont....
The first year sales for the FXR "model" were quite good, totalling 6,255. The 1982 FXRS Super Glide II and the 1982 FXR Super Glide II were the Number 1 and Number 2 best-selling "Big Twins" for 1982. However, as history would point to.....at the end of the day…..sales at best were mixed year in and year out and continued to drop for the FXR, ultimately being defined as too “Japanese” in appearance for the “staunch” traditional “FX” crowd….the conflict of purchasing a cheaper version of the FXR coming from abroad for some combined with the “failed” look of the “triangular” frame resulted in effort by the motor company to go to it’s roots, that of building a bike that could only come from Milwaukee like the “softail”. As remembered by Mark Tuttle, “we got a lot of “negative” response to the triangular area under the seat, even though we had created what we were indeed after, a very stiff chassis, very neutral handling, and a really good lean angle, which resulted in a fair amount of ground clearance and a higher seat height, and while it was probably the best-handling Harley ever built, Unfortunately, it just wasn’t selling as well as the rigid mounts were”.
“Best handling” it was and still is, but the original FXR was a whole lot more, first, it was the best motorcycle Harley’s engineers knew how to or were allowed to build.
Mark Tuttle, states that, “we found that other than a “handful” of riders, nobody was using that “capability” the market would, “rather have had lower seats and more of a low cruiser look than all that “handling capability”.
“IF” the original FXRS bike had started out as an “engineer’s bike”, in 1982, then in 1984 it could have just as easily been stated that the FXR was indeed “recast” into a “marketeer’s bike” with shorter shocks that took away some of that “ground clearance” and “lean angle” that had originally been engineered into it, in favor of a lower seat height that Harley’s marketers thought would revive it’s flagging sales.
Because the shorter shocks still had to control the same load, fork and shock springs were made stiffer. The result was a great loss in cornering clearance (now less than that of the Wide Glide or Softail, but noticeable only by the few who actually tried to ride the FXRS the way the original was meant to be ridden and a stiffer ride balanced by a lower, more Harley Davidson like feel. To emphasize the “charge” in “stature”, the marketeers gave the shorter FXRS a new name, ie: Low Glide. The “irony” was, once the FXRS was given a “motor” as good as its chassis (evo engine replacing the shovel) the chassis was taken back a half-generation in function. A few noticed and complained, but the majority were pleased their feet were now flat on the ground, and sales went up as well.
The first year sales for the FXR "model" were quite good, totalling 6,255. The 1982 FXRS Super Glide II and the 1982 FXR Super Glide II were the Number 1 and Number 2 best-selling "Big Twins" for 1982. However, as history would point to.....at the end of the day…..sales at best were mixed year in and year out and continued to drop for the FXR, ultimately being defined as too “Japanese” in appearance for the “staunch” traditional “FX” crowd….the conflict of purchasing a cheaper version of the FXR coming from abroad for some combined with the “failed” look of the “triangular” frame resulted in effort by the motor company to go to it’s roots, that of building a bike that could only come from Milwaukee like the “softail”. As remembered by Mark Tuttle, “we got a lot of “negative” response to the triangular area under the seat, even though we had created what we were indeed after, a very stiff chassis, very neutral handling, and a really good lean angle, which resulted in a fair amount of ground clearance and a higher seat height, and while it was probably the best-handling Harley ever built, Unfortunately, it just wasn’t selling as well as the rigid mounts were”.
“Best handling” it was and still is, but the original FXR was a whole lot more, first, it was the best motorcycle Harley’s engineers knew how to or were allowed to build.
Mark Tuttle, states that, “we found that other than a “handful” of riders, nobody was using that “capability” the market would, “rather have had lower seats and more of a low cruiser look than all that “handling capability”.
“IF” the original FXRS bike had started out as an “engineer’s bike”, in 1982, then in 1984 it could have just as easily been stated that the FXR was indeed “recast” into a “marketeer’s bike” with shorter shocks that took away some of that “ground clearance” and “lean angle” that had originally been engineered into it, in favor of a lower seat height that Harley’s marketers thought would revive it’s flagging sales.
Because the shorter shocks still had to control the same load, fork and shock springs were made stiffer. The result was a great loss in cornering clearance (now less than that of the Wide Glide or Softail, but noticeable only by the few who actually tried to ride the FXRS the way the original was meant to be ridden and a stiffer ride balanced by a lower, more Harley Davidson like feel. To emphasize the “charge” in “stature”, the marketeers gave the shorter FXRS a new name, ie: Low Glide. The “irony” was, once the FXRS was given a “motor” as good as its chassis (evo engine replacing the shovel) the chassis was taken back a half-generation in function. A few noticed and complained, but the majority were pleased their feet were now flat on the ground, and sales went up as well.
The following users liked this post:
smiller605 (10-08-2016)
#19
01-24-2009, 10:22 AM
Cruiser
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rode the wheels of my '89 FXRS. It was a great handling big twin. Much better than my '93 lowrider or '02 lowriders were. The '06-up dyna chasis is lightyears ahead of the previous dynas. The stouter frame and fork makes a huge difference. I'm amazed how well my '07 WG handles, despite the increased rake and 21" front wheel. I had a 29 degree rake and 19" front wheel on my FXRS. Dual discs with PM 4 piston calipers. Very sporting for a crusier, but the 39 mm forks flexed a lot more than the 49's on my WG.
The FXRs will always be larger than life. I'll build another one some day. Nice to see people still interested in them. Nice history dyna mo. Good read.
The FXRs will always be larger than life. I'll build another one some day. Nice to see people still interested in them. Nice history dyna mo. Good read.