If only I was ballsy enough to learn how to actually ride a motorcycle, this would be in my corral. Looks artistic even - a rotating platform anyone? Anyone?

The monoshock, as a physical model, defines the outer border of my intelligence. Cannondale uses the same thing on some of their mountain bikes, and my brain cannot comprehend how or why it works.

Must be magic.

Monoshock? Wonder how that handles, then?

Reminds me of the jet pack I built that out of a hair dryer. Some ideas are just way ahead of their time, and are destined to be lampooned and ridiculed. That's fine. We'll see who has the last laugh.

@Bumblebee: I think the better question on the mono-shock issues is "why?"

What benefit does it really serve? Reducing weight by an inconsequential amount? Sure looks cool though...

Monoshocks really aren't too crazy. If you think about it, McPherson struts in cars are similar in that they are loaded on one side. The main thing is to prevent side to side motion, but the moment is fairly small because of the narrow front tire. The deflection is directly up into the shock, which makes things a lot simpler (and stronger) since there's no linkage to worry about.

The other concern is fork flex, which you want to be symmetric since a bike leaning into a turn uses frame fork and swingarm flex as suspension.

@teargas: A few pounds on a bike means a whole lot compared to a few pounds on a car.

A main upside is that it increases mass centralization by having less weight away from the axle line. Faster turn in and such.

Plus, yeah it looks cool.

Bet it looks like sh*t from the other side though...
:-)

Radical? Vespa scooters have had single-sided monoshock front ends since the '40s.

Yamaha's GTS1000 had a front monoshock back in in '93. Supposed to have worked great, but was met with thundering indifference (in retrospect, a big sport-tourer may not have been the best platform to introduce bleeding-edge technology)

And then there's BMW's Telelever front end. Which they managed to make look kinda like conventional forks to avoid freaking out the traditionalists.

biker mice from mars!

@ChasG: but my favorite front end (can't call it forks) is the Bimota Tesi 2D. Supposed to handle really well too what with the front swingarm and all.

This looks rather smart as well. However, see my comments on the Honda bike.

The Hollywood liberal elite has made a lot of noise about kitten dreams as a fuel source, but has anyone stopped to consider the greatly increased maintenance costs of running an engine entirely on wistful dreams of sunshine, yarn, and sleeping birds? There's also the cost of replacing the kitten ever six months or so after it becomes a regular cat, at which point its dreams lose their potency.

I give it five years before we start seeing mass recalls of Kitten Synergy Drives.

@athodyd: COTD. Signed. Sealed. Delivered. You Win!!

Oh yeah, the monoshocks... why don't they balance the bike out by having the front on the left, and the rear on the right?

@athodyd: 2nd that COTD nomination.

Having ridden a buddy's Cannondale with a Lefty shock...it's more than a little freaky to look down and only see half a fork. It worked gorgeously though.

@teargas:

There's a problem with conventional telescopic forks. As you apply the brakes, they compress quite a bit which results in too much weight transfer to the front wheel.

Another problem is that of friction resulting from the lateral loads on the internal parts of the shock. Designs such as BMW's Telelever address both of these problems.

@athodyd:
Nonsense, I say; you greatly underestimte the potential potency of kitten dreams. After a few generations of selective breeding, we will no longer have to tolerate low-yield yarn dreams to fuel our machines, but will rather harness the more powerful kitten thoughts outlined here: [www.theonion.com]

There was another Honda concept motorcycle that used a single-sided front fork too. I really can't see why it would work any better than a traditional fork, but who knows. Though I would have to imagine if there was some serious advantage, all the big-bucks MotoGP teams would be using it, unless there is some rule specifically banning single-sided forks.

@elwood: ah yeah the NAS. what a gorgeous bike.

@athodyd: If you knew what my wife's kitty dreams of, you wouldn't think of replacing it when it grows up ;)

I think this motorcycle might just be powered by libido, it's that sexy.

Just making a fork single-sided doesn't really buy you much. It's changing the design so that the spring and shock aren't carrying the turning and braking loads directly that has benefits. However, almost all alternative front ends suffer from a lack of steering feel. Additionally, they are more complicated to produce and some have packaging limitations (such as with BMW's Telelever which works nicely with the boxer engine but is more difficult to package with more conventional engine layouts).

@ChasG:

The GTS1000 was exceptionally expensive costing about $12K when it was introduced 15 years ago. This, more than anything, was why it wasn't successful.

In the end, very few people want to pay a premium for limited benefits. Case in point: In 1985, you could buy a Mustang GT for about $11K or an SVO Mustang for about $14K. Most people did as I did and bought the V8-powered GT instead of the SVO. There just wasn't $3K worth of benefit.

Metal Rorschach Test.

@teargas: What benefit does it really serve? Reducing weight by an inconsequential amount? Sure looks cool though...

A small weight reduction goes further on a bike that a car for one. For two, that weight reduction is largely unsprung weight when you're talking about a suspension component, which can dramatically improve handling and responsiveness.