The BMW anti-dive suspension - worth the cost?

[ive_been_hijacked]

It's interesting to think about what could come in the future.  We've had how many decades of sliding fork development?  The fact of the matter is that both systems work and they both have their compromises and advantages.  When a manufacturer chooses technology, they can sink money into new developments.  BMW did with both Telelever and Paralever suspensions.  Which is cool.  But it took a crapload of money.  They are pricey because reasearch was done toward the models being sold.  They do pay their engineers.  If you think that they make a lot of money on their bikes, you would be sorely mistaken.  That goes for any motorcycle manufacturer.  The jap-4 might make a miniscule profit (on the scale of automobiles) with the volume of 600s sold, but that's the exception for American bikes.

Back to the topic.  BMW took a chance in a belief.  It works well.  It's not necessarily better in all respects, but it works and is arguably better for many applications.  R11GS owners discuss vagueness, R11RS and R11S owners don't.  It works for some, not for others.  Some like it, some don't.  

[Sport-Touring]

[throttlemeister]

Back to the topic.  BMW took a chance in a belief.  It works well.  It's not necessarily better in all respects, but it works and is arguably better for many applications.  R11GS owners discuss vagueness, R11RS and R11S owners don't.  It works for some, not for others.  Some like it, some don't.  

A Honda Varadero is vague too. Long fork legs with long or longish travel and soft springs to deal with various terrain are not the recipe for good feedback on the street, regardless of what kind of suspension is chosen. An MX bike doesn't have good feedback either when compared to a roadbike. They don't dramatically stiffen up the forks for supermotards for no reason. It all depends on the requirements and intended use.

[hass]

The system over all is heavier.  He wasn't talkinga bout just sprung vs unsprung weight.

But it's the sprung vs unsprung weight that decides the handling of a bike. That the overall weight is 5 kgs or whatever heavier is relatively insignificant off road or on the street..

[st ryder]

Maybe you should start with a good system to begin with.

Telelever increases rake when braking and decreases under acceleration, completely opposite of conventional forks. This means you can set the bike up with very aggressive rake and trail to make for a very light and quick handling bike, while at the same time it slows down a bit when braking to make it more stable at turn in. At the same time, due to more aggressive rake and trail, it can be flicked from left to right in a chicane and on the gas very quickly and effortlessly. A bike with conventional forks can be a real handful when when powering through a chicane at speed. Not so with telelever. Try a R11S with taller BCR shocks for once and you will know exactly what I mean. The R12S endurance bike as used at Le Mans this year also had telelever. It was down on power and on the straights it was blown away by the I4 superbikes, but it compensated because it was able to carry far higher corner speeds.

And if the advantage is offset by a negative, that doesn't mean the advantages go away. Since when do you care about laptimes when riding the street? I sure don't. In the real world a pound more or less doesn't really matter, but handling does. No conventional forked bike can be pushed so stupidly fast into a turn while braking than a telelever equipped bike. You should try it some time, and for more than 5 minutes.

As for the feedback, it is there. It is different than conventional forks and that requires retuning your mind to listen to the correct signals, but it is very much there. Once you are in tune with the system, you know exactly what the wheel does and when.

Mind you, BMW was the one that introduced the conventional fork as we now know it decades and decades ago. They felt they now had the materials and technology to make a system better than that. After doing 20k on my R11S I bought last November, I can only say they are right.

But your resistance to even consider a different opinion is proof of mr. Cameron's conclusions: people have a born resistance to change and acceptance of new technology.

Yes well that's all very interesting how you firstly illustrate a race track scenario to highlight supposedly better handling of telelever, and then state street riding is not about lap times, so I don't get what you're saying. How does increasing the rake when braking help with turn-in? I'd think it be the opposite, ie shortened rake under dive equals sharper handling, and then when back on the gas, returns to a more stable geometry for higher speeds. If telelever is better than the current state of telescopic forks due to all that you say, the proof would be on the race track, and as we all know, at the highest levels, no telelever. I don't have a resistance to new technology, just techno-nonsense.  And it seems so do the world's best race bike engineers. BTW, the myth that BMW invented the first telescopic fork is yet an another delusion owners hang on to to feel special. I suggest you look further into telescopic forks and you'll see they were employed long before BMW started making two wheelers.

Have fun in the chicanes,  and keep it between the lines.

[throttlemeister]

Maybe you should learn to read as I exactly explained why, and by not reading you only confirm my statement. I will explain again, but please pay attention this time cause I am not gonna repeat myself a 3rd time.

- Telelever allows for a much more aggressive rake and trail, which gives very good and quick handling. More aggressive than is possible for conventional forks, as when the front compresses under braking for a conventional fork, rake and trail reduce even more and if you go too far the bike becomes unstable. Telelever however increases rake and trail as it compresses under braking (yes it does dive, but less) and therefor allows you to set the bike up with very aggressive rake and trail, one that would make a conventional fork dangerously unstable when compressed. Even with this increased rake and trail under braking it is still less than a conventional fork, so it has very quick turn in. Now when you have a chicane, the exact opposite happens. The fork extends as you start flicking from left to right, increasing rake and trail on conventional forks and making the bike harder to turn and flick from side to side. Telelever now decreases rake and trail, making it easier the flick it from left to right.

Get it?

And all that is without getting into little things like conventional forks having increased friction in turns, making suspension less effective, whereas Telelever separates steering input and fork flexing under lean from suspension travel, allowing the suspension to work without hindrance so the wheels stay in better contact with the road surface.

- Telelever with current usable materials is heavier than a conventional fork. Not a whole lot, and most of it is sprung weight, but still heavier. In a game where every ounce counts that is too much. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT BETTER.

Jeez, how hard can it be.

I used to say BMW creates solutions for problems that aren't really there. They are an engineering company. And I still say that. But to my big suprise (this is my first BMW), it really does work.

And oh, I never even suggested BMW _invented_ conventional oil damped forks. Please don't put words in my mouth. And no, since BMW makes bikes since 1917, oil damped telescopic forks weren't around way before BMW started making bikes. Maybe you should check up on your motorcycle history.

[bizarro]

Okay. BMW telelever and paralever front suspension.

Ja, iz clearly a superior motor-bike and moto-suspension. Iz German, so iz to be expected, ja?

I vill ride my lowly Italian joke of a motor-bike vis my head hung in shame.

[throttlemeister]

Paralever is on the back and is used to avoid jacking and squatting reactions from the shaft drive. Which is one thing I don't understand, as my FJR never reacted so aggressive in its shaft it would warrant a solution like that whereas airheads with a fraction of the power the FJR has react vicious to the point it scared the sh!t out of me.

[Lawn Dart]

Paralever is on the back and is used to avoid jacking and squatting reactions from the shaft drive. Which is one thing I don't understand, as my FJR never reacted so aggressive in its shaft it would warrant a solution like that whereas airheads with a fraction of the power the FJR has react vicious to the point it scared the sh!t out of me.

Personally I think that once again the Moto-journalists made "much ado about nothing".  Rear end jacking on any shaftie was never that much of a big deal - but it was DIFFERENT.  I am absolutely convinced that these MJ's hate any kind of change, except "Make it ligher and more powerful".  Anything that was done in the name of invention or progression is generally met with derision and negativity.

I had a K100RS - reportedly a nasty "shaft jacker" by the MJ's.  Guess what?  I never noticed it.  Not once.  And I desparately tried to feel for it.  

Was it there?  Yep, I'm sure of it.  It had to be if the MJ's reported on it.  Does 1/4" make any difference?  Not to me.

[WBill]

Interesting discussion, so far.

Focusing on the front end, for now, it looks as though the Telelever is too heavy for off-road use, except for the more recent GS's, and only worth the additional expense on street bikes, except for the F-bikes.

Right?

Oh, and, yes, the Earles-forked slash-two's actually did dive a little under acceleration.  It wasn't at all difficult to get used to, though, as the old 600 or 500 c.c. engines generated very little acceleration to upset things.  The effect of engine torque rolling the motorcycle was more noticeable.  Hauling the bike down from speed was another matter, and you really could feel the front end climb.

If you want another take on front end design, how 'bout them Bimota's?

[Mr Sunshine]

But it's the sprung vs unsprung weight that decides the handling of a bike. That the overall weight is 5 kgs or whatever heavier is relatively insignificant off road or on the street..

That statement is false in so many ways.

[Mr Sunshine]

I had a K100RS - reportedly a nasty "shaft jacker" by the MJ's.  Guess what?  I never noticed it.  Not once.  And I desparately tried to feel for it.  

I noticed it on my R1150RT...but I thought it was kinda cool.  Felt like a drag racer!

[st ryder]

Maybe you should learn to read as I exactly explained why, and by not reading you only confirm my statement. I will explain again, but please pay attention this time cause I am not gonna repeat myself a 3rd time.

blah blah blah, same BMW doo-doo, different pile...

Bottom line, Telelever is not on the world's top race bikes, nor is it on the world's most exotic bikes. It's just an alternative approach AND NOTHING MORE, AND CERTAINLY NOTHING "SPECIAL."  

IIRC, the R1200 S, BMW's "superbike" has the same rake and approx the same trail and a longer wheel base as my Ducati ST3. Not exactly "extreme."

Perhaps you can now enter a dissertation on Paralever, and how simply extending the swing arm ala Moto Guzzi is not "elegant" enough a solution to shaft jacking.

Oh, and please, don't bother explaining any more, you clearly don't "get it."

[BobW]

 

[bizarro]

Well, I'll come it from the cost angle. Because of the price, and the bike you get with tele and paralever systems, it's not worth it. If you like BMW's then it doesn't matter, I suspect, even if they had conventional suspensions, folks would buy them anyway. But if you don't really l care for BMW's all that much, it doesn't matter, you still won't buy one. I certainly don't think that any advantages the tele/paralever system have are great enough to outweigh the fact they're attached to some of more expensive bikes on the market.

Ed/ Christ, my brain/hand coordination sucks in the morning. I'm turning into Shah.....  

[dr dralion]

This is a much more interesting conversation than I had expected - thank you.  Hearing different opinions opens me up to more thought and I'm glad those that are participating are having a strong, but courteous discussion.

Perhaps I've not put enough miles on a traditional fork, but I do get concerned when the front compresses b/c I'm losing suspension travel for those mid-corner bumps.  Even on my mountain bike, going down a hill and jumping fallen trees, I don't want my suspension excessively compressed b/c once it bottoms out, I'm SOL.  Now I don't think motorcycles have the same problem, but I don't want to loose suspension travel when I don't have to.  

Just a thought.

Kevin

[hawkeyejohn14]

I've ridden quite a few different bikes, but I always feel a bit more comfortable on BMWs (ones with the duolever and telelever) because they don't dive when I employ hard braking.  Recently, while testing a multistrada, I felt well planted (Ohlins) but still didn't enjoy the dive during braking.

What are some people's experiences / opinions about the benefits and drawbacks of the anti-dive setup?  Is it really that big of a sell / difference?  If so, why haven't many other manufacturers adopted similar geometries?

Kevin

First I am lazy so maybe someone already wrote this but, the telever is not an anti-dive set-up it only happens that is one of the properties to the set-up.

N8 Kern and Brian Parriot have shown that the set-up allows them to brake later than there counterparts on Italian and japanese equipment. I personally like the feel as I am leaned over on the clover leaf and start hitting the rippled pavement and pavement transitions are more stable over the regular fork set-up imo or just watch this... http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...51231473&hl=en

[hass]

Your link doesn't work.  

[Mr Sunshine]

Here is a link of Brain Parriott racing at Road AMerica on a R1200S.  Strange to not see fork dive on the video.

Brian Parriott at Road Atlanta

[cbsnbiker]

My summary: if you like the bike to which the Telelever or Duolever is attached, go for it. If not, don't.

[tomek]

Couple quick points,lots of confused people here,,,

-Just becouse someone brakes late(r) means didly squat,perhaps their speed right before braking is lower,,,,,,typically with lesser hp bike you want to carry higher midcorner speed becouse you are not gonna make a time on the throttle vs. more powerfull bikes so you brake later,guys on more powerfull bikes who shaved more speed will be able get a the throttle sooner,that`s where they make time,,,,,,,,,different bike- different solution for the corner,

Mid corner-type of suspension has nothing to do with how far it compresses as all the loads come from cornering forces as you want the bike to be neutral ,you are not really acceleration or slowing down here,anti-squad of BMW suspension does not come into play here.

Weight transfer to the front during braking is higher in case on standard fork becouse wheelbase gets shaved from front,it is not a bad thing since modern radials can take amazing amount of braking and turning( trail brake),C of F of tires increase when load goes up,to the certain point of course.It looks like hp curve.On opposite end the longer the wheelbase during pure straight line braking the better,you can brake harder without lifting rear wheel.Just think drag racing,long swingarms,of course they accelerate but same principle.

When the BMW thing came up forks were shitty with stone age dumping and lots of friction,back then telever,etc made some sense,now with really good cartridge low friction forks and gas charged hardware around the corner why bother,,,,honestly,join bandwagon BMW, just like you did with the placement of inline 4