Abstract:
Lack of torsional rigidity is a problem all suspension forks have to one degree or another. This leads to problems with control and tracking. This invention solves the problem by using a new process with modifications to the design of existing components. Torsional load problems are solved at their origin by transmitting torsional loads between the fork legs. This reduces independent leg motion, resulting in precise steering performance.

Description:
[0001]    I hereby claim the benefit of the earlier filing date of my pending U.S. Provisional Application for Patent Serial No. 60/256869 filed Dec. 19, 2000.  
         [0002]    I hereby note the existence of the document disclosure program document serial no. 370974 filed Jul. 2, 1995 also pertaining to this invention. 
     
    
     
       BACKGROUND  
         [0003]    1. Field of Invention  
           [0004]    The invention relates to the interface between the axle and the lower end of the fork of either the front or rear of a two wheeled or three wheeled vehicle, such as a bicycle or motorcycle.  
           [0005]    2. Description of Prior Art  
           [0006]    The forks that connect the front and rear wheels on motorcycles and bicycles are subjected to distinct loading situations. The front fork is subjected to the following four load cases: The first is a frontal impact, which is transmitted through the wheel to the axle, forcing the fork back and up into the frame. The second is a compression load, forcing the wheels upward toward the crown of the fork. The third is a side load, forcing the wheel to move sideways within the fork. The fourth is a twisting load, causing the wheel to twist relative to the crown or handlebar position.  
           [0007]    Current designs for suspension forks on motorcycles and bicycles handle the first three load cases well. The first load case is resolved by making fork legs strong enough to not deflect. The second load case is usually absorbed by the spring-damper internals of a suspension fork or transmitted easily by compression loading in the fork legs. Generally a structure strong enough to take the loads of the first load case can easily resist the forces of the second load case. The third load case is resolved by either making a fork brace or a strong axle to transmit the bending loads evenly to both fork legs.  
           [0008]    The fourth load case is not as easy to resolve, compounded by the fact that on telescoping suspension forks, the lower legs can twist relative to the upper legs. Therefore, the individual legs cannot offer any torsional input to the torsional performance of the fork. The obvious solutions of making stiffer fork legs, adding braces, or making stiffer axles have all shown only marginal improvements in performance because they have not addressed the true nature of the problem. The importance of the fourth load case becomes most apparent when operating in demanding conditions or at high speed. In these situations, it is very important that the vehicle respond instantly and accurately to rider input. If there is too much flexibility in the fork connecting to the wheel, the fork will deflect rather than turn the wheel.  
           [0009]    Current art is a smooth cylindrical axle, usually 20 mm, that is clamped on either end by the fork legs. This system is a large improvement over the older system of pinching the fork blades between two nuts on a threaded axle. However, this system is not adequate because the clamps still rely on friction to transmit torsional loads to and from the axle. These torsional loads can easily exceed the torque transmitting capabilities of a purely frictional interface. There are two major results of this situation: 1) There is no reason to build a stronger stiffer axle because the loads can not be transmitted anyway. 2) When an axle slips in the clamp, the fork is forced into a twisted configuration that causes binding and severe geometry changes to the vehicle. It is not uncommon to see a downhill mountain bike racer attempting to straighten a twisted fork by holding the wheel in their knees and twisting the handlebars in the opposite direction.  
         OBJECTS AND ADVANTAGES  
         [0010]    It is the object of the present invention to fully describe and quantify the problem of torsional deflection in the forks that connect the wheel to the vehicle.  
           [0011]    It is the object of the present invention to provide a solution to the problem of torsional flex in the forks that connect the wheel to the vehicle by providing a method of connecting the lower legs of the fork together such that their relative movement is minimized.  
       
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0012]    [0012]FIG. 1 is a motorcycle showing the forks.  
         [0013]    [0013]FIG. 2 is a bicycle showing the forks.  
         [0014]    [0014]FIG. 3 is a wheel with an axle.  
         [0015]    [0015]FIG. 4 is a suspension fork.  
         [0016]    [0016]FIG. 5 is a suspension fork showing exaggerated deflection due to torsion loading.  
         [0017]    [0017]FIG. 6 is a side view of a suspension fork.  
         [0018]    [0018]FIG. 7 is a side view of a deflected suspension fork.  
         [0019]    [0019]FIG. 8 is a top view of a deflected suspension fork.  
         [0020]    [0020]FIG. 9 is a view of an improved dropout using a tapered square axle.  
         [0021]    [0021]FIG. 10 is a view of a dropout using a tapered square axle rotated 45 degrees.  
         [0022]    [0022]FIG. 11 is a view of an axle with a tapered square interface.  
         [0023]    [0023]FIG. 12 is a view of a dropout with a rectangular interface and provisions for a quick-release.  
         [0024]    [0024]FIG. 13 is a view of a dropout with a rectangular interface and provisions for a drop-away pressure plate.  
         [0025]    [0025]FIG. 14 is a view of an axle with a rectangular interface and bulged center section.  
         [0026]    [0026]FIG. 15 is a view of a dropout using a double bolt connection.  
         [0027]    [0027]FIG. 16 is a view of an axle with a double bolt interface.  
         [0028]    [0028]FIG. 16 is a view of a dropout using a splined through-axle.  
         [0029]    [0029]FIG. 17 is a view of a splined through-axle. 
     
    
     REFERENCE NUMERALS IN DRAWINGS  
       [0030]    [0030] 20  front suspension fork  28  endpiece with tapered flats  
         [0031]    [0031] 21  rear suspension fork  29  endpiece with parallel flats  
         [0032]    [0032] 22  motor  30  endpiece with tension screws  
         [0033]    [0033] 23  axle  31  endpiece with spline  
         [0034]    [0034] 24  upper crown  32  dropout with splined socket  
         [0035]    [0035] 25  lower crown  33  clamp  
         [0036]    [0036] 26  dropout  34  clamp screws  
         [0037]    [0037] 27  axle center section  
       DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0038]    A torsionally stiff axle would be required of the system. An axle can be considered “torsionally stiff” if it falls in the criteria described in paragraph four of “theory of operation.” Essentially, if an axle is torsionally rigid enough to bend the lower leg of the fork, it is considered “torsionally rigid” for purposes of this discussion.  
         [0039]    A torsionally rigid axle, with end details such as but not limited to those shown in FIGS. 9 through 17, is part of a wheel. The axle inserts into a dropout, as shown in FIG. 9, having a socket that corresponds to the ends of the axle. The axle/dropout interface is built such that the two parts cannot axially rotate relative to each other. For this invention to be effective, even a small amount of rotational movement (as little as ½ degree), or rocking of the axle in the socket, can not be tolerated as this allows a large amount of fork torsion.  
         [0040]    This interface that allows no rotation can be accomplished by a variety of methods. One of these would be to weld or bond the parts together; however, this is impractical because the parts will need to be separated to perform routine maintenance. Most practically, the two parts should have a method of transmitting torque to each other that does not rely on a frictional interface. A frictional interface is considered a “nonpositive” securing method because it will allow both rocking and spinning of the axle if the torque transmitted through the axle exceeds the frictional clamping capability of the dropout.  
         [0041]    This system requires a “positive” securing method. For purposes of the discussion, any combination of axle end detail and fork dropout socket that would require displacement of material for rotation or rocking to occur would be considered “keyed” or “positive”. Any such axle that has a non-constant radius would be considered keyed, if matched to a socket of the same design. Thus an axle with a elliptical shape could be considered keyed as an axle with a slot for a keyway is considered keyed.  
         [0042]    A keying structure, such as those defined above, will allow no rotational movement or rocking, yet allow for dissassembly. For best results, there should be a means to preload the interface between the two parts to reduce the possibility of the two parts moving slightly or rocking due to tolerance variations. This can be done by a means of press fitting the parts together by providing tapered keys or providing a pinch clamp arrangement.  
         [0043]    Theory of Operation  
         [0044]    When a fork is not subject to any loads, the wheel forms a plane perpendicular to the handlebars which will be called the “neutral plane.” When the wheel is forced out of the neutral plane, it forms an angle q1 with the neutral plane. This also twists the axle out its plane by the same angle. The end of the axle is moved a distance d away from its neutral position, described by equation 1. Because the ends, or dropouts, are connected to the ends of the axle, one leg of the fork is forced to move forward and rotate the angle q1 around the centerline of the fork leg. The other leg is moved backward and rotates the angle q1 in the opposite direction. Because the lower legs of telescoping suspension forks are designed to move freely, there will also be no resistance to rotating.  
         [0045]    When a fork leg with the current art axle/fork interface is bent a distance d, it bends the leg into an arc. This is described by equations 2 through 3, 5, and 6. The angle of the fork end with respect to the axis of the fork leg is q2. Because one end moves backward while the opposite moves forward, one end is rotating −q2 and the opposite side is rotating +q2. Relative to each other, the fork ends are moving twice that, or 2×q2.  
         [0046]    If the dropouts of the fork are keyed to the axle, the rotation of the fork ends will load the axle torsionally. If the axle is torsionally rigid, it can transmit a significant amount of torque from one dropout to another, forcing the dropouts to stay rotationally fixed. The torsional rigidity of an axle is described by equation 7 and 8. If this is accomplished, the fork is bent into an “S” shaped bend, rather than a simple arc, as described by equation 4.  
         [0047]    The main restrictions on this theory are that a torsionally rigid axle is used and that the axle/dropout interface have no chance of twisting or rocking.  
         [0048]    Current design forks use a smooth cylindrical shaft, called a through axle, design whereby the axle is clamped by the dropouts. The problem with this design is that a clamp to a smooth shaft cannot transmit the necessary amount of torque without slipping. This is described by equations 9 through 11. Clamps are limited by the amount of material that can be used to wrap around the axle. Because of weight constraints, these clamps are usually aluminum and are often thin wall, less than 0.200″. Because of hoop stress limitations of the tensile strength of aluminum, this type of clamp can only exert 400 lbs of normal force on the axle. Under ideal conditions, this type of clamp could only transmit  218  foot-pounds of torque due to the frictional force exerted by aluminum on aluminum. This can easily be exceeded by twisting a fork as little as three degrees.  
         [0049]    Theory of Operation—Equations and Nomenclature  
         [0050]    Variables used in the following equations:  
         [0051]    q1: Angle between neutral plane and plane wheel is twisted into  
         [0052]    Lfork: length of fork, measured from bottom crown to axle  
         [0053]    Dleg: Outer diameter of fork leg  
         [0054]    dleg: Inner diameter of fork leg  
         [0055]    Ifork: moment of inertia of fork legs  
         [0056]    Efork: modulus of elasticity of fork leg  
         [0057]    Ffork: force required to deflect fork leg d  
         [0058]    Tfork: torque exerted on fork end by axle  
         [0059]    d: Distance fork ends are deflected due to torsional deflection  
         [0060]    q2: angle of bottom of fork leg when twisted relative to relaxed state in order to deflect d  
         [0061]    Laxle: length of axle, measured from insides of fork contacts  
         [0062]    Daxle: outer diameter of axle  
         [0063]    daxle: inner diameter of axle  
         [0064]    Jaxle: polar moment of inertia of axle  
         [0065]    Gaxle: modulus of rigidity of axle  
         [0066]    Taxle: torque exerted through axle  
         [0067]    sclamp: allowable stress in clamp  
         [0068]    tclamp: thickness of clamp  
         [0069]    Lclamp: length of clamp  
         [0070]    Fclamp: force exerted into clamp material for clamping pressure  
         [0071]    pclamp: pressure exerted on axle by clamp  
         [0072]    uclamp: coefficient of friction between clamp and axle  
         [0073]    Fork Torsion Equations, Source: Machinery&#39;s Handbook  
                                                                                                   1)             tan        (   q1   )       =     d     Laxle   /   2                                 Calculate the deflection of the fork leg               2)           Ifork   =       p   *     (       Dleg   ^   4     -     dleg   ^   4       )       64                               Calculate the moment of inertia of a fork leg               3)           d   =         -   Ffork     *     Lfork   ^   3         3   *   Efork   *   Ifork                                 Calculate the force exerted to bend the fork leg assuming a simple arc               4)           d   =         -   Ffork     *     Lfork   ^   3         12   *   Efork   *   Ifork                                 Calculate the force exerted to bend the fork assuming a “guided” bottom leg               5)             tan        (   q2   )       =         -   Ffork     *     Lfork   ^   2         2   *   Efork   *   Ifork                                 Calculate the angle of the fork leg at the bottom               6)             tan        (   q2   )       =       Tfork   *   Lfork       Efork   *   Ifork                                 Calculate the torque required to bend the fork leg            axle deflection calculations                                    7)           q2   =       Taxle   *     Laxle   /   2         Gaxle   *   Jaxle                                 Calculate the angular deflection of the axle (Must convert to degrees)               8)           Jaxle   =       p   *     (       Daxle   ^   4     -     daxle   ^   4       )       32                               Calculate the axle&#39;s polar moment of inertia                    clamp strength calculations, assuming the material of the clamp       is the weakest link                                    9)   Fclamp = sclamp *   Calculate the force           LClamp * tclamp   the clamp can exert       10)   2* Fclamp = pclamp *   Calculate the           Daxle * Lclamp   pressure exerted               on the axle       11)             Taxle     Daxle   /   2       =     uclamp   *   pclamp                               Calculate the torque that can be Transmitted through the clamp                  
 
         [0074]    Operation of the Invention.  
         [0075]    An axle with keyed end details matching its corresponding dropout is inserted into the dropouts on the end of the fork. The dropout is then clamped tightly by means of a bolt or quick release lever to eliminate the possibility of the axle rocking slightly in the dropout. The rider will experience greatly improved tracking characteristics at high speed or adverse conditions.  
       Summary, Ramifications, and Scope  
       [0076]    Suspension fork designs have evolved to an optimised state of weight versus torsional rigidity. All other loading situations have been successfully addressed. However, its been found that only marginal gains in torsional rigidity can be realized by adding more material and thus, weight.  
         [0077]    This invention significantly changes the problem. By using this system, loads are resolved at their origin, rather than the crown-leg interface. Rather than increasing he stiffness of an already stiff member, it is now practical to increase the strength of a relatively weak connection and make significant improvements to the system.  
         [0078]    Although the description above contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention but as merely providing illustrations of some presently preferred embodiments of this invention. For example, the keyed structure can have many shapes, such as equilateral polygons.  
         [0079]    Thus the scope of the invention should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given.