USD's have better dampening, which is what forks are supposed to do, and they dont toast seals as often as 'traditional' damper rods
No, they don't provide better damping. They are used to reduce unsprung weight and to relocate the heavier and more rigid portion of the fork assembly to the steering head (rather than the axle) which helps steering feel in fast, hard corners. While the reduced unsprung weight provides a (very) slight advantage, this is not inherent to inverted forks and for a given unsprung mass there is no damping advantage.
radial brakes provide MUCH better feel and braking control
No, they don't. The
entire purpose of radial
calipers is to reduce brake-induced fork vibration which is a particular problem with inverted forks as inverted forks cannot be braced as closely to the wheel as regular forks which results in greater amounts of fork flex during braking. By reducing the amount of torsional caliper flex, radial calipers reduce or eliminate brake-induced fork vibration. They do not stop the bike faster or improve feel over a standard design.
I get the impression that your knowledge comes entirely from marketing materials rather than even a rudimentary understanding of engineering principles. Here are a
couple of
links to educate yourself.
and none of them are exotic F1 tech like you are claiming, well maybe to harley they are.....and comparing car tech to bike tech is also a silly argument. Disk brakes are the norm, most cars have them. a newer bike not having radials is like a car having DRUM brakes. not F1 tech to regular like you are claiming.
Once again, you prove that you have zero understanding of what radial calipers actually do. Here are a couple of quotes from the links I provided (which I'm sure that you'll never bother to actually click):
In reality, whether calipers are mounted radially or perpendicularly is of little consequence, having only to do with the fact that the new generation calipers can be made a bit lighter via the radial mount set-up (no other significant performance difference here).
This is a very good thing indeed. But again, something you the average weekend warrior will not likely feel at the lever.
The magazines and testers will all tell you that radial brakes make the bike stop quicker. Not true - they have nothing to do with stopping power and everything to do with the design of the front forks of the bike.
Your drum/disc analogy is beyond misinformed.
a majority of the japanese bikes all have them. a friends star cruiser has USD's and radials just like the R6 I have. maybe ride and godo braking arent a staple of their riderships wants..?
As I have already abundantly shown, radial calipers have no affect on real-world braking performance. This isn't a disc vs drum comparison, a proper analogy would be the difference between the single-piston floating caliper design used on the vast majority of cars vs the 6 or 8 piston monobloc calipers used on high-end sportscars. The differences just plain aren't important in real world situations.
As I said, on the racetrack, inverted forks and radial calipers provide a slight edge. On the street any differences exist only in your head. You just plain have to be riding the living piss out of a bike to get any tangible benefit from inverted forks or radial-mount calipers and that sort of riding simply isn't possible on public roads.
I'm not bitching that the evo doesnt have magnesium in the engine like my R6 does or rev over 15K
Oooo, magnesium! Just like the 1940's Volkswagen! The fact that you understand why revving to 15,000 RPM doesn't matter in a cruiser is great, but it's still absolutely ridiculous that you can't likewise see the pointlessness of radial calipers or inverted forks on a cruiser. The abilities of traditional calipers and forks far surpass a cruiser's performance envelope; there's no need to surpass the envelope even more.
I read that the revo as 2002, a whole one year off, friggin sue me
It's just further evidence of your complete and utter inability to perform basic research. The VROD came out in early 2001 as a 2002 model.
obiously you love your harley and thats fine, but they have their issues, just like some of the jap bikes, the least you can do is admit their obvious faults if you want credibility when talking down another manufacturer
I'm happy to admit "obvious faults". The 2007 Sportsters have a poorly designed fuse panel which allows water to collect inside it and cause short circuits. The 103 and 110 cubic inch CVO engines had massive teething problems in their first couple of years. The big twin Evo engines suffered from problems with their cam chain tensioner pad wearing out early for several model years. Those are all "obvious faults".
A lack of radial calipers and inverted forks, neither of which will offer any improvement given a cruiser's operational envelope, is not a fault anymore than the single-piston floating caliper brakes and generic MacPherson Struts on my daily driver are "faults". Yes, in the case of my sedan 4, 6, or even 8 piston fixed caliper brakes and double wishbone suspension would be "better", but the simple fact is that, since the car's a Volvo sedan and not a dedicated sportscar, the "betterness" of these more expensive and higher-tech parts just wouldn't ever come into play. They flat don't make sense in that car, just as radial calipers and inverted forks flat don't make sense on a cruiser for anything other than marketing department bragging rights.
As far as "talking down" another manufacturer since when is expressing minor quibbles about overall finish a huge deal? Yes Honda's have plastichrome and I prefer metal, but I never suggested that Hondas were bad bikes. For god's sake, I own one and love it. I've said many times that, of my two bikes, it's my Honda that will never be sold.
In short, stop relying on marketing departments for your technical information and do some actual research instead of spouting bullshit. I'm done with you, child. Any intelligent person can see which of us knows what he's talking about and which of us is FOS.
ZV
Facebook
Twitter