R3 TFC all carbon

Jagster said:

While I understand that the way to save weight is often needed to take weight off a vehicle here and there, wherever possible, as every small saving eventually adds up, but in the case of the Rocket, even if you get it down to 300kg wet by throwing loads of money at it, it's still a significantly heavy motorcycle.
It's got a 2.5 litre engine with a transmission and shaft drive that's engineered to take 221Nm of torque. It's never going to be light.

I do agree that the rear suspension in particular, let's this bike down as far as comfort & dynamics go.
Surely that's down to a combination of short suspension travel and poor spring/damper set up. I for one would throw some money in that direction, if I was assured of better rear end dynamics/comfort.
I admit that the subject of un-sprung weight should not be ignored, but I have already discovered that even if you remove the rear licence plate carrier completely, the ride isn't any different.

Click to expand...

RRocket said:

I understand that it will be a bit difficult to get down to those 300 kg.
The rocket behaves well in the corners, even driving a little on the limit is noble.
My idea is focused on making it more agile but above all, removing that bounce effect towards the front.
I already changed the rear shock for one of the Wilbers brand and it has improved a lot.
At the beginning of buying it I thought it was a failure of the motorcycle, I even put a video here in the forum.
As for the kg removed from the battery, they are also noticeable when moving it from one side to the other.
I really appreciate your opinion because the issue of carbon rims and parts, is not so clear and no one has told me yet how much weight to save.

Click to expand...

Jagster said:

Well, I don't profess to know everything about everything. Some might say I know a lot about nothing, but i've ridden very many bikes in my time. All different shapes and sizes of bikes, and i've modded a fair few of them over the years, so I feel as though I have some perspective on what might be holding back the true potential of a bike that is lacking in some way.
And there isn't any getting away from it. The Rocket 3 is a heavy bike. The amazing thing is that when you're riding it, for the most part, it rides really nice. Handles very well, goes and stops very natural and easy. I think Triumph have done an amazing job......but..... at the end of the day, it's weight is the elephant in the room. No question. When you need to take the bike by the scruff of the neck, it's weight is the thing you're fighting against. The overall weight of any bike matters.
If there are folks out there that have the financial resources to somehow get the weight down then fair enough. and good for them.
I just think that swapping a few plastic body panels from ABS to CF while it might shave off a few grams here and there, it would be just effective as eating your BigMac after the ride rather than during or before. The weight saving will be so small.
The battery swap is a pretty good trick, for sure and the weight is coming out from an area that's quite close to the bike's C of G so that's good also. Same with the exhaust. So fine.

The problem I see is that much of the mass is in the engine and transmission and as a result, Triumph have had to make everything else beefier in order to make the bike handle as sharply as it does (for such a long and heavy bike). They have made everything using aluminium castings in order to keep the bike as compact and light as possible, so I don't think it's going to be within the reach of most folk, to be able to improve what they have done already. To do that, you would need to design and develop new components using lighter materials than aluminium, so it's just not going to happen in reality.
She's just big boned. She is what she is, so you gotta love her the way Triumph made her.

Click to expand...

RRocket said:

I love her more or less like my wife, with her virtues and defects, although she is also stubborn.
At least it has become clear to me that the ABS parts are not going to save a lot of weight.
Here on the forum I read that a side panel weighed 750 grams and carbon only 165.
It seemed like a lot of savings, but yesterday I weighed one of them on the mini scale and it barely reached 200 grams.
I think you're right, you can only lose weight with the tires and the exhaust.
I need to assess the lateral supports that are under the seat towards the swingarm and the license plate holder. They are heavier than the rest of the pieces.
I also think that, with handling in mind, lightening the front wheel could help, if you get a lighter aluminum rim.
Thanks a lot for your help, I'll keep looking.

Click to expand...

Jagster said:

Regarding the tubular licence plate/light frame and associated assembly as a whole........ I have scrapped the whole assembly on my bike.
Not particularly to save weight, but I have saved a fair bit of weight by doing so. My main reason was to improve the rear fender (i.e. stop the water and mud flying everywhere).
I made a thread on this forum about that project.
Designing a new rear fender - winter project
One thing that became clear when I stripped the stock assembly off the bike and looked at each component in turn, is that Triumph had to beef up not just the tubular frame, to beef up other components such as adding metal inside the main light housing/carrier.
As you pointed out earlier, un-sprung mass is a big deal. The shock forces going into that whole assembly as the rear wheel hits a bump is really significant, so they had to engineer something that will take a beating mile after mile without failing. The result is....it's heavy. In order to benefit from weight savings in that area, my advice would be to delete the whole assembly and mount the licence plate and lighting on the sprung part of the bike, because I think trying to shave weight off the existing design will just result in premature component failure.
I don't think you will find lighter tyres but who knows, you might find a company that can produce lighter wheels......be careful though. They will need to be safety approved for the road.....just saying...

Click to expand...

RRocket said:

The development of your fender is very interesting. Sure it can be a much more effective option than the factory one.
At first I wanted to avoid bumps in the road too, but I tried taking it apart without turning off the lights and it seemed heavy.
Somewhere I've seen a fender similar to the one that comes off the shock, but longer than the factory one. I want to see how rigid it is because it's strange that it doesn't have reinforcements.
If I find it, I'll post photos.

Click to expand...

Jagster said:

The one that you are referring to uses the existing tubular frame. It just replaces the little mud guard......so it's a weight increase.

Rear Mudguards : TRIK Custom Motorcycle Parts, Made in Great Britain

Click to expand...