|
I am also an old git, single sided swinging arms to me seem to be a solution looking for a problem. At the engine end the SSSA fits either side of the crankcase for good reason to provide rigidity at the pivot point, why abandon that rigidity at the wheel spindle end? I believe Honda first started using them on the RC30 to enable rapid wheel/tyre changes during endurance racing. Not something the ordinary road rider needs to worry about too much.
The 916 series bikes made SSSA “fashionable”, for the 999 series Ducati saw sense reverting to double sided SA and made their most successful WSB bike ever, unfortunately it was not the hoped for rampant sales success.
For what is effectively a stub axle to be as rigid as a shaft supported at either end the axle has to go up in size from 25mm to something approaching 60mm with a) much more metal required to ensure the wheel is retained pointing fore and aft and perpendicular to the crankcase pivot, b) much larger heavier bearings, c) almost compulsory large eccentric chain adjuster, d) concomitant bigger wheel boss all of which is for the most part un-sprung mass so the damper has to work harder to keep the tyre in contact with the road.
Unfortunately I have never ridden a 916 series bike, my only experience of SSSA is from a Honda Bros 650 which I commuted on for about 3 years, probably 15000 miles. The rear suspension unit/ damper was standard and probably past its best when I got the bike but you could feel the weight of the SSSA assembly particularly on London’s potholed streets where you could feel the rear wheel struggling to follow the uneven surface. The Bros was a really nice package let down by unreliable electrics (brittle thin insulation cabling in the wiring loom around the headstock) and the rear wheel’s inability to deliver traction or braking inputs over corrugated surfaces.
|