Motorcycle weight distribution

[M.C]

What's the ideal weight distribution on a bike? With cars people go on about a 50/50 distribution, is this the same with bikes, or is it less of an issue as you have the riders weight thrown into the mix.

It's the MT-03 that made me start thinking about this, as it has a 52/48% (front/rear) which makes it incredibly nimble, but I don't think it leads to great handling overall. Some of that might be down to the weight and it has a fairly short wheelbase.

[chickenstrip]

On a bike, it's not just front/rear bias though, is it? How high or low on the bike the mass is affects the handling quite considerably too (e.g., fuel tank positioned high or low on the bike). It also requires the addition of the rider to have any meaning, not just the bike on it's own, as riding positions on various bikes affect the weight distribution significantly.
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!

[M.C]

Well I'd say weight mainly comes into play at low speed, not that the weight vanishes at higher speeds, but a top heavy bike's nowhere near as bad at say 30mph+.

Is rider position not part of the equation? On my bike you're sat quite far forward, on something like an XJR1300 you're sat so far back you need to be Stretch Armstrong to reach the bars.

[trevor saxe-coburg-gotha]

Yeah but unless you're Shirley Crabtree, sitting on a XJR is like placing a neutron on Saturn.
____________________
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent."

Mobylette Type 50 ---> Raleigh Grifter ---> Neval Minsk 125

[Hong Kong Phooey]

Stick a seasoned racer on any bike and you'll soon see how important the weight of the rider is. It's more about inside / outside weight distribution ratio on a bike for bends. Weight forward under hard acceleration to keep the front down.

In a car the weight is mainly inside the wheelbase, and is not dynamically changing much in comparison to a bike, hence best to spread the available grip equally.
____________________
'81 CG125, '97 FZS600 : '99 CBR600F4, '09 KTM RC8

[c-m]

Rider weight doesn't matter to much as it can be moved and leveraged to help improve performance.

I imagine overall you want a slightly forward weight balance, unless riding on sand.

[Banana_B1]

Helps to have more weight on front tires and suspension while accelerating + cornering.
____________________
The entire Butthurt BCF wrote: Spam Flame Abusive Redundant Off Topic Boring Disagree Confusing

[Teflon-Mike]

Thirty years ago, the question of weight distribution in sports cars was widely debated in the US motoring press, when Chevrolet launched a 'New' 'vette, and widely claimed that its theoretically 'perfect' 50/50 weight distribution made it 'better' than European sportscars. I seem to recall, it was about co-incident with the launch of the mid-motored Toyota MR2, so about '85-'86 ish?

So this is far from 'News'; but I recall a lot of stats and data being bandied about, and lap times at different circuits compared... As well as some pretty eclectic comparison of cars, like the Porshe 924 and the Alfa's, that had 'dumbbell' weight distribution from front mounted engine's and a rear-ward mounted 'transaxle', in the mix with Front engine'd Supra's or Nissan Z's, rear-engine'd Porshe 911's & mid engine'd Fararri, Lotus or Fiat X19!

Most meaningful comment, I recall from it all back then, was made by one of the 'pro' drivers doing test work for I think Road & Track; his quote was that you don't drive a car by numbers, and the road don't respect the engineering anyway! It all made little odds in the bigger scheme of things, where the 'dynamic' is far more complicated than any idealized engineers 'Math-Model'. 'Facts'; he (humorously) proposed were that Front engine'd cars drift; mid-engined cars spin..... and Porshes just go wherever the FUCK they want! Only difference between them is 'when'.....

So as has been suggested; if the idealized math-model for a car, with a stable four-point road contact, and everything constrained within those four support points, is far too simplistic to make significant comparison of meaningful inferences from... let alone a single statistic.... For a bike, supported on two wheels, the rider not a fixed load within it, but mobile around it, and a far greater proportion of the vehicle's 'all up' weight; the model, IF you could even create one, is far more intricate, and likely to be even less meaningful... and weight distribution, a single statistic? Exactly that, on it's own no more than meaningless data. almost an irrelevance,
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?'