what makes scooters so heavy?

[Drago]

In the days of the Spacy weights were quoted dry, so every fluid was not counted in the weight.
Manufacturers could tell porkies and exaggerate about the weight because no-one ever drained all the fluids out.
This accounts for most if not all of the increase.

I believe your wrong there GN2... even when qouted dry by the time you've added the fuids the 'older' scoots would not
be as heavy as todays.

The early Burgman 400's were quoted 180kg dry, by the time you've added petrol, oil(s), fluid, coolant etc. that'll probably bring it up to 195-200kg tops.

The modern burgman 400 ABS is quoted as 225kg wet... so still an 25-30kg increase in wet weight.

An old yamaha majesty 250 is quoted as 156kg dry. Again by the time it's full of fluids it would weigh no more than
175kg tops.

My SYM GTS250i is quoted as 178kg dry in the manual. Yet by the time it's full of fluids it's nearly 190kg.
The prior carb model was 5kg lighter...

But then when you think newer Maxi's have better storage, bigger wheels, better brakes, injected engines and more which also will also increase the weight.

Also almost all R & D is going into reducing the weight of weekend warrior bikes by 0.5kg's while also gaining 0.5hp. Imagine what would happen if say Suzuki turned around and said this years Hayabusa weighs 10kg more and has no hp increase... they'd be a bloody uproar in the bike mags!

[mottza]

The fat bastard sitting on it? (well in my case!)

[halfabusa]

what we need friends, is more of these people in the world:

http://www.bikepoint.com.au/news/2012/s ... oter-30649

[gn2]

Not really, it's only a bog standard Tmax with a few accessories bolted on.

[rtfm]

And it doesn't say how much weight he trimmed off it, my guess would be the only weight saving was the changed exhaust.

[irev]

The fundamental issue is that they design scooters like the poor relations of motorcycles, not as a purpose-designed class of vehicle with weight as a major consideration. They simply do not think about these things, they design around the pre-existing limitation of adaptation which adds weight, complexity and cost. What is needed is a different approach, from the ground up...

That kind of innovative thinking is precisely what got us pressed-steel monocoque chassis and lighweight engines as part of the suspension and drivetrain. Trouble is, that was 1946 and it was Vespa (which in itself was based on a pre-WWII design from the USA by Cushman - in 1936 they had models weighing 220-230lbs and doing an easy 75mpg).

Since then there may have been variations on a theme (tilting three-wheelers, roll cage roadgoing scooters) but basically no fresh thinking in the scooter market in getting on for 80 years.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The scooter revolution came about because an aviation company looked at how it could adapt tried-and-tested processes from the aircraft industry into a roadgoing 2-wheeler

If we use 1936 as a yardstick and look at frontline fighter aircraft in British service then and now

1936 Hawker Fury II


2012 Typhoon II


200 mph versus Mach 2.
2,500ft/min versus 60,000 ft/min,
lots of wires versus fly-by-wire

Now lets look at the scooters
1936 Cushman


2012 Yamaha Zuma


Where's the advance? We've applied ergonomic design to everything from cup holders to computer keyboards, football boots to fighter pilot cockpits, yet motorcycle and scooter design has stood completely still - man perched on bicycle in a position to pedal - in a direct reflection of the earliest design of motorcycle which actually was a bicycle-with-an-engine. It doesn't work for motorcycles, and it doesn't work for scooters. So why are we riding around like cyclists?

While every other form of transportation has doubled, trebled or even exponentially improved its performance, in 1924 the Brough Superior SS100 went on sale, guaranteeing a 100mph+ top end.


In 2012 the BMW S1000RR does about 185... and I can't even be bothered with a picture of the crotch rocket.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

[Bluebottle]

The defining shape of a scooter makes it heavier.

If we are opening it up beyond scooters:

Too right - you can make something that isn't a scooter that is lighter and more efficient and I'm right with you in wanting a small engine in a light-weight, slippery body.

Exactly what I was trying to condense down when I said:
"If people would accept other, more radical shapes things would really get interesting but that also means losing the advantage of a high viewpoint."

But
Designing and making lighter stuff it isn't the problem, its selling it.
People don't want a recumbent or a Sinclair C5 or beneficially shaped PTW, they just don't sell.
If the freelancers and smaller niche producers can come up with something sexy to change public opinion I am all for it.

Why the bicycle seating position?
Partly because, as you say it is the norm and there is resistence to change but also because it has several advantages. It gives you a height advantage, you can see more and you can be seen. It also allows you to shift in the saddle - or out of it - and gives you 3 extra joints and levers (your legs) instead of the fixed blob of your ass on vinyl. It also gives you good leverage when you put your foot on the floor. These are all sound ergenomic considerations.

I totally agree that there are more efficient designs to be had, I'm a designer and apreciate fresh radical design more than most; but we are not going it until there are enough customers demanding it. Designers work to market demands is that lazy or is it business acumen?

[Funkycowie]

Reading your post reminds me of The Tesseract, the four tilting wheeled concept from Yamaha, make a recumbent seated version of that sexy beast and I'd buy it.

[Bluebottle]

There have been a lot of recumbents going way back in time but I can't think of one that gained acceptance.
Every recumbent prototype/one off I've been involved with got panned , usually long before the public ever saw it.


Aprillia Magnet - © Heikki Naulapaa (now with Provoke, in Finland)


There was a 50cc Kreidler that did 140mph in the sixties but that was prone not recumbent