still2nu2no
New Member
- Local time
- 4:23 AM
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 6
new to the forum, so please be a little patient (particularly if this is posted in the wrong section).
One think that continues to bother me is the styling and location of many of the tanks included or used in doing a conversion. They look horrendous. I understand they may be similar to the old Whizzer style tanks, and that's OK if you're building a Whizzer look-a-like, but many of the powered bikes seen here (and elsewhere on the Internet) have been custom constructed. Doesn't it make sense for some of the kit makers to offer a tank option or the kits without a tank?
I'd riden a Sachs rear motor/hub/rim conversion years ago and it used a 1 litre MSR backpacking fuel container for fuel, which was mounted in a bottle cage. I have to believe that something can be accomplished that looks better than the Whizzer tanks. Why not mount a tank below the top tube? It would look cleaner.
I feel the same way about motorcycle tanks: on choppers there is always a huge amount of space under the top tube.
Obviously those bikes designed and built to emulate board trackers often use tanks hung from the top tube. This just makes more sense to me.
Regarding motor locations, I see several types of mounting: rack mount, "high mount" where the engine is well above the crankset, and "low" mount, where the downtube is modified to allow the motor to be mounted slightly above or inline to the crankset. (as referenced to the centre-line of the output sprocket). I guess my question is that if a dedicated design is used rather than a retro-fit, why wouldn't the downtube/motor mount location be made to lower the centre of gravity. I understand that in the case of mountain/offroad bikes the need for ground clearance affects motor location, but what about street/cruiser bikes?
Again, these questions and comments are not meant to inflame anybody, but rather to help educate myself. No offence is intended towards anyone or any particular bike style.
thanks for your patience with a noob
One think that continues to bother me is the styling and location of many of the tanks included or used in doing a conversion. They look horrendous. I understand they may be similar to the old Whizzer style tanks, and that's OK if you're building a Whizzer look-a-like, but many of the powered bikes seen here (and elsewhere on the Internet) have been custom constructed. Doesn't it make sense for some of the kit makers to offer a tank option or the kits without a tank?
I'd riden a Sachs rear motor/hub/rim conversion years ago and it used a 1 litre MSR backpacking fuel container for fuel, which was mounted in a bottle cage. I have to believe that something can be accomplished that looks better than the Whizzer tanks. Why not mount a tank below the top tube? It would look cleaner.
I feel the same way about motorcycle tanks: on choppers there is always a huge amount of space under the top tube.
Obviously those bikes designed and built to emulate board trackers often use tanks hung from the top tube. This just makes more sense to me.
Regarding motor locations, I see several types of mounting: rack mount, "high mount" where the engine is well above the crankset, and "low" mount, where the downtube is modified to allow the motor to be mounted slightly above or inline to the crankset. (as referenced to the centre-line of the output sprocket). I guess my question is that if a dedicated design is used rather than a retro-fit, why wouldn't the downtube/motor mount location be made to lower the centre of gravity. I understand that in the case of mountain/offroad bikes the need for ground clearance affects motor location, but what about street/cruiser bikes?
Again, these questions and comments are not meant to inflame anybody, but rather to help educate myself. No offence is intended towards anyone or any particular bike style.
thanks for your patience with a noob