Talk:Motorcycle frame

Engine mounting

Would discussion of engine mounting belong in this article? Is the engine a structural member of the frame? Is the engine rigidly mounted? Etc. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

PHOTOS PLEASE

Someone add some photos. whos the mod here?--Ericg33 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Overview, please?

This article is in dire need of a general statement about motorcycle frames and some definitions of frame components. For example, what is a cradle? A spine? A downtube? People come to encyclopaedias to be informed, not to be further confused! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling

This article is featured on the Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling - please help to improve it. Thruxton (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

• Motorcycle frame → Frame (motorcycle) – per Frame (aircraft), Frame (nautical), Frame (vehicle), etc – 92.40.27.226 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Object to speedy renaming. The frame (aircraft) isn't even located at "frame", and motorcycle frames are frequently called "motorcycle frame"s, while ship frames are frequently called "frame"s. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This proposal was originally made by the above IP editor at WP:RM/TR. Bringing it here because there is at least one objection to the move. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, there's no point to this supposed consistency. Second, Frame (aircraft) is a redirect, and so there's nothing to be consistent with. Particularly since Bicycle frame is conspicuously missing. If anything, those other articles should be moved to be more consistent with Step-through frame, Open frame, Frame of reference, Quantum reference frame, Digital photo frame, and last but not least, Picture frame. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nominator makes a good argument to fix the other listed articles, not to change this one. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• Don't be silly. Sources don't call it a "Frame (motorcycle)" and nor will any reader be looking for "Frame (motorcycle)". If other articles are similarly afflicted then those articles should be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Diamond Frame?

There is no description of a "diamond" frame. I thought a diamond frame was essentially the standard pedal cycle (push-bike) frame that was the examplar for the very earliest motorcycles. Does the "diamond frame" have any meaning for modern motorcycles? If so, it should be added, and if not, perhaps the section should be excised. Arrivisto (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the diamond type was more common in the past[23] but the term is still used [24][25].

Part of the problem with this article now is we have two orthogonal sections: material and type. We should have three aspects: material, construction, and shape. So you can have a frame with pressed steel construction, but the shape could be a single spine or underbone (Super Cub, Ducati Piuma), or pressed steel monocoque (Vespa). The Super Cub and the Sport Cub both had a single spine frame, but the U-shaped Super Cub had a step-through feature, while the other was T-shaped and had to be straddled; the difference in shape here is significant. You can have welded tube construction, like the Ducati trellis frames, or you can have the cheaper method of tubes joined with pressed steel gussets.

Ofen when you read sources desribing a motorcycle's frame, they will only mention the aspect that the author thinks is most significant, like material (aluminum, carbon fiber), construction method (pressed, extruded box sections) or shape (full cradle, spine), but they won't mention all three dimensions. We should acknowledge this ambiguity in our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Honda Super Cub pressed frame

Since this is disputed, here are some sources stating the Honda Super Cub was the pressed frame type. Are there any sources that state it is some other type?

• Frank, Aaron (2003). Honda Motorcycles. MotorBooks International. ISBN 978-0-7603-1077-9.
  • "Since its introduction in 1958, the Super Cub has become an icon of sorts, the styling of its pressed-steel frame, deep-valanced fenders, and faired-in headlamp and handlebars proving as timeless as another classic scooter, the Vespa." p. 30
  • "Honda's first generation Dreams, Benlys, and Cubs, with pressed-steel frames, leading-link front suspensions, and droning, high-rev engines, seemed absolutely alien to the Eisenhower-era riders." p. 32
• Wilson, Hugo (1993). The Ultimate Motorcycle Book. London, UK: Dorling Kindersley. p. 112. ISBN 1-56458-303-1.
  • "Specifications; 1958 Honda C100 Super Cub; Frame: pressed steel"
• Bacon, Roy (1996), Honda: The Early Classic Motorcycles : All the Singles, Twins and Fours, Including Production Racers and Gold Wing-1947 to 1977, Niton Publishing, pp. 33–34, ISBN 1-85579-028-9
  • The engine unit was held to the frame by two bolts, one at the top of the crankcase and the other at the the rear. The frame was elegantly simple and built up from tube and pressings together. At the front the headstock was braced to a tube that ran back to a point above the crankcase. This was welded to an assembly of pressings and these went up and back to form the main spine, and then the rear mudguard. The centre area was also taken down behind the engine to support it as well as the rear fork pivot and the centre stand." Honda the Early Classics Motorcycles. Roy Bacon."
• Brown, Roland (1991), Honda: the complete story, Crowood, p. 22, ISBN 1-85223-544-6
  • "Honda did not spoil it by trying to make the Super Cub too cheap. From the word go the bike had decent electrics hidden away in its pressed-steel frame, big mudguards, a reasonably well padded seat"
• Honda;Classic Motorcycles. Hugo Wilson. DK. 1998. ISBN 0789435098.
  • "The classic Super Cub remains an essential means of transportation in some countries of the world. Pressed-steel frame construction"
• 100 Motorcycles 100 Years: The First Century of the Motorcycle. Fred Winkowski, Richard E. Mancini. Book Sales, 2003. ISBN 0785816704. p. 114
  • "Early Hondas, including the first parallel-twins, employed pressed-steel frames and leading-link front forks.
• Falloon, Ian (2005), The Honda Story: Road and Racing Motorcycles from 1948 to the Present Day, Sparkford: Haynes, p. 16, ISBN 1-85960-966-X
  • "The C100 Super Cub…The Frame was pressed steel, the wheels 17 inch, the brakes were drum…"
• Walker, Mick (2006). Honda Production Motorcycles: 1946-1980. The Crowood Press Ltd. ISBN 1-86126-820-3.
  • "The frame, swinging arm and front fork were all manufactured of inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, pressed steel". P. 21
  • "1985 C100 Super Cub Specifications; Frame: U-type from tube and pressings". p. 23
  • "Being full unit construction design meant that the frame could be kept simple." p. 24

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The long list of references (above) cannot conceal the fact that the Honda Super Cub's does not have a true pressed frame. The seat unit is indeed a pressed monocoque, but it is linked to the steering head with a conventional steel tube. The photo on the Super Cub Wikipage shows this clearly. The comment: "rare and obscure example is not as useful as most common bike on Earth" is curious; it doesn't matter how many Super Cubs there are, if it is not a true example of the type, while the Ariel bikes (while admittedly rare) are well-known and classic examples of the type. I shall put the Ariels back as the true exemplar, with an advisory on the Cub. Ariel refs to follow asap! Arrivisto (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect to happen is some other guy comes along with his own bag of opinions, different from yours, who cites no more sources than you do? Are you both going to have a shouting match, devoid of citations? How is that every going to get resolved?

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. You've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that this behavior is disruptive. Is it your intention to start a fight every time you you have an opinion that conflicts with the consensus of every known source? Do you seriously expect other editors to sit here and listen to your opinions and ignore what sources tell us? It's a waste of time because we all know that in the end we have no choice but to follow the sources.

Can you cite even one source that says the Super Cub is not a pressed frame? Can you cite even one source that says the "true" definition of a pressed frame excludes tubing? Both Roy Bacon and Mick Walker, specifically mention that the pressings incorporate a tube.

Nobody wants to waste time having conversations about your opinions vs reliable sources. Wikipedia publishes information found in reliable sources. If you want to dispute the sources with your own opinions, you have to publish those opinions elsewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The above comments and the recent edit summary: "..... obviously somebody wants very much to promote an old bike. enjoy" (sic) are perhaps rather patronising and ill-tempered, and out of place within Wikipedia. I fully accept that you are a bona-fide Wikipedia editor, but equally, so am I. There is no desire on my part "to promote an old bike"; rather, I simply used a seemingly ideal example (the Ariel Arrow) to illustrate a point. I do applaud your industriousness in citing references, and there is no question of "starting a fight". Like you, I am merely concerned to improve articles and to derive some enjoyment whilst doing so. Let's continue to do so. Salut! Arrivisto (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Perimeter & Beam Frames

The definitions of these two types seem to suggest that Perimeter & Beam frames are basically the same. If they are indeed different, perhaps the definitions should be amended to make this clear. Arrivisto (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have made an edit to make beam & perimeter frames adjacent in the list. Arrivisto (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Single cradle

I'm not convinced the CG125 is a good example of the type. The photo (File:Honda CG125 orange.jpg) seems to show the front downtube terminate at the forward engine mount, without any under-engine "cradle". Arrivisto (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is lacking...

As per above comments, there should be more pictures (and schematic drawings I'd say) and more frame types covered, like the mentioned diamond frame (and other older types shared with bicycles). The nicely written Bicycle frame article could be taken as a good example... --Arny (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Trellis frame

Features of trellis frame 2409:4073:2082:BA28:0:0:1DC0:28AD (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)