AN S&S CYCLE CAFÉ RACER THAT’S SO NICE, THEY BUILT IT TWICE

[weeksy]

https://www.bikeexif.com/ss-cycle-cafe-racer

[Mr Moofo]

I quite like that - other than the seat

[Dickyboy]

I think I'd put the white ones seat on the first one & keep the first one myself.

[porter_jamie]

The ss swingarm looks gash. Seat is awkward and the pipes look shit. Quite like the rest of it

[mangocrazy]

The ss swingarm looks gash. Seat is awkward and the pipes look shit.

I never can understand why builders tack a SSSA onto a bike that's trying to evoke cafe racers of the 50s and 60s. It's crass. It also adds unnecessary weight and complexity.

I have an Aprilia Falco that will go, steer, stop and handle at least as well as that (probably better) and it's probably lighter, as well.

Ho hum.

[DefTrap]

Doesn't know what it wants to be really does it.? It's like someone had a go at tarting up a Hesketh.

The one with the wheelbarrow-handle exhausts made me laugh.

[KungFooBob]

Is it me, or does the gear change shaft go through the frame?

[MrLongbeard]

The ss swingarm looks gash. Seat is awkward and the pipes look shit.

I never can understand why builders tack a SSSA onto a bike that's trying to evoke cafe racers of the 50s and 60s. It's crass. It also adds unnecessary weight and complexity.

I have an Aprilia Falco that will go, steer, stop and handle at least as well as that (probably better) and it's probably lighter, as well.

Ho hum.

They look cool, they are cool, they open up the back end, make pissing about (adjusting / aligning) with the chain 300% easier , for the sake of a handful of kg's I;d sooner a SSSA than the standard 2 pieces of angle iron of a regular swing arm

[mangocrazy]

The ss swingarm looks gash. Seat is awkward and the pipes look shit.

I never can understand why builders tack a SSSA onto a bike that's trying to evoke cafe racers of the 50s and 60s. It's crass. It also adds unnecessary weight and complexity.

I have an Aprilia Falco that will go, steer, stop and handle at least as well as that (probably better) and it's probably lighter, as well.

Ho hum.

They look cool, they are cool,

30 years ago maybe, when they were (comparatively) new and in vogue. Now they're as common as muck. But if you like them, that's cool.

they open up the back end, make pissing about (adjusting / aligning) with the chain 300% easier ,

I think you're confusing that with a centre stand. Now that does make chain adjustment easier. And ask RC36/46 VFR owners about the chain adjustment mechanism seizing up.

for the sake of a handful of kg's I;d sooner a SSSA than the standard 2 pieces of angle iron of a regular swing arm

Except it's not a handful of kgs, is it? Besides the extra weight of a SSSA there is also the extra frame bracing that's required due to the twisting forces involved.

[porter_jamie]

Ssa looks silly on this particular style of bike. A normal steel or even an ally pressed up section arm would look much better.

[MrLongbeard]

Except it's not a handful of kgs,

Pretty much.
Speed triple SSSA 190kgs
KTM 1290 SUPER DUKE SSSA 190kgs
KTM 890 DUKE standard swinger 196kgs
Z1000 standard swinger 221kgs
GSXR S1000 standard swinger 202kgs
Yamaha MT-10 standard swinger 212kgs
indian ftr sport standard swinger 230kgs

All litre-ish, all nakeds, all within a couple of kg's of each other, having a SSSA does not have to mean heaver, hell even BMW say;

Compared to conventional suspension with two swing arms, a single-sided swing-arm enables a saving on weight with higher torsional stiffness at the same time and remarkably simple installation and removal of the rear wheel.

https://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/en/engin ... -in-detail

For me they look better, so even if they added 25Kgs+ as an option I'd pick a SSSA, s'all personal taste

[mangocrazy]

Some of those figures are way out. From the same website (https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za) the KTM 1290 Super Duke R has a quoted dry weight of 189 kgs, the 890 Duke R has a quoted dry weight of 166kgs, so 23kgs difference in favour of a conventional swingarm. The Z1000, GSXS 1000 and MT10 quoted weights are all 'wet', so subtract at least 15-20kgs for a dry weight.

I fully understand it's down to personal preference - you like a SSSA, I'm not keen. I did actually own a bike with a SSSA - an RC36 VFR750, and the extra weight at the rear of the bike was noticeable when compared to the conventinal swingarm RC24 VFR750 it replaced. And there was a difference of 15kg as I recall between the two. Guess which was heaviest?

[MrLongbeard]

Some of those figures are way out. From the same website (https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za) the KTM 1290 Super Duke R has a quoted dry weight of 189 kgs, the 890 Duke R has a quoted dry weight of 166kgs, so 23kgs difference in favour of a conventional swingarm. The Z1000, GSXS 1000 and MT10 quoted weights are all 'wet', so subtract at least 15-20kgs for a dry weight.

You're quite right, I lazily pulled whatever Google threw at me.

From the same website (https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za) the KTM 1290 Super Duke R has a quoted dry weight of 189 kgs, the 890 Duke R has a quoted dry weight of 166kgs, so 23kgs difference in favour of a conventional swingarm. The Z1000, GSXS 1000 and MT10 quoted weights are all 'wet', so subtract at least 15-20kgs for a dry weight.

So dig a little deeper, and, accepting your check of the Z1000, GXS & MT10 are wet weights;

Speed triple SSSA wet 198 (source Triumph)
KTM 1290 SUPER DUKE SSSA wet 200 (source Bennets)
KTM 890 DUKE standard swinger wet 183 (source KTM)
Z1000 standard swinger 221kgs
GSXR S1000 standard swinger 202kgs
Yamaha MT-10 standard swinger 212kgs
indian ftr sport standard swinger 230kgs

Both SSSA bikes weigh less than 3 of the 5 standard swingers, but must bear in mind the 890 duke is 400cc smaller and the GSXR is 200cc smaller than the 2 SSSA's, so much of a muchness.

Still, it could be worse, they could have been hubless..

[mangocrazy]

It's probably true to say that the weight difference between SSSA and conventional swingers has reduced, as manufacturers gain more experience and fine tune their FEA (Finite Element Analysis) models. Back in the early days (1990s) there was a large weight penalty, that does seem to have reduced. And comparing the KTMs, a parallel twin will always weigh less than an equivalent V-twin, so that will account for some of the difference. I reckon there is still a weight penalty for having a SSSA, but it's a lot less than it used to be.