Motor Vehicle Front Fork with Eccentric Sliding Linings

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing front fork solutions for motor vehicles fail to balance stability, handling, smoothness, constancy of trail, economical production, and assembly, particularly in three-wheeled vehicles with two front wheels, due to conflicting requirements of robustness and reduced unsprung masses, leading to variations in steering sensitivity and unsatisfactory driving precision.

Innovation Solution

A motor vehicle fork design featuring a first and second lining with a sliding axis and an integral second lining that slides axially relative to the first, providing elastic suspension and maintaining trail constancy through a cantilevered suspension mechanism with integrated elastic means, ensuring precise steering and reduced unsprung masses.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the fork is made robust to ensure smoothness and directionality, then steering precision is improved, but unsprung masses increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesteering precisionVSAvoidunsprung masses
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The fork is divided into multiple linings (first lining, second lining) that can slide relative to each other, allowing the structure to be both robust and lightweight. The segmentation enables distributed load bearing while reducing overall mass compared to a monolithic fork design.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The fork incorporates sliding mechanisms between linings that allow dynamic adjustment during suspension movement. This dynamic design maintains steering precision through controlled motion while reducing unsprung masses by eliminating the need for overly rigid static structures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If mobile parts slide freely to absorb roughness, then suspension smoothness is improved, but fork deformation under load increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesuspension smoothnessVSAvoidfork deformation control
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The fork design changes the sliding parameters between linings to optimize the balance between free movement for roughness absorption and controlled deformation under load. The sliding mechanism allows sufficient movement for suspension smoothness while maintaining structural integrity through controlled friction and geometry.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Ease of operation

If the trail varies during shaking motion, then steering sensitivity changes, but handling precision deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesteering sensitivityVSAvoidhandling precision
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The fork's dynamic sliding mechanism maintains constant trail during shaking motion by compensating for suspension compression and extension. This dynamic adjustment ensures consistent steering sensitivity and handling precision across the full range of motion.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The design changes the geometric parameters of the fork during suspension movement to maintain constant trail. By adjusting the relative positions and angles of the linings during shaking, the system preserves optimal steering characteristics throughout the motion cycle.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Ease of manufacture

If conventional fork designs are used, then manufacturing is simpler, but assembly and maintenance costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveproduction costVSAvoidmaintenance cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSEase of repair

Solution Approach 1:

The fork is segmented into modular linings that can be independently manufactured and assembled. This segmentation simplifies production through standardized components while enabling easier maintenance and repair by allowing individual parts to be replaced without replacing the entire fork assembly.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

The design enhances vehicle dynamics by maintaining trail constancy and steering precision, reducing unsprung masses, and facilitating easier maintenance, while providing robustness and stability, improving handling and bending resistance.

Implementation Method 1

elastic suspension means (96) interposed between the hub (32) and the steering column (40) to form the suspension of the associable wheel (10) supported by the hub (32) and to control the axial sliding movement of the first stem (28) inside the first lining (24)

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectElasticity: Elasticity

Data Source

PatentUS11046363B2Front fork of a motor vehicle
Publication Date: 2021.06.29 PIAGGIO & C SPA
  • US11046363B2 patent drawing
  • US11046363B2 patent drawing
  • US11046363B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A front fork (4) of a motor vehicle, comprising a first lining (24), a first stem (28) and a second lining (48), wherein the first stem (28) slides axially inside the first lining (24) along a first sliding axis, the first stem (28) and the first lining (24) are associated one to one hub (32) for rotatably housing the rotation pin of an axle journal of a wheel and the other to a steering column (40) by means of a bracket (44), or vice versa, the second lining (48) is integral in rotation with the first lining (24), is arranged so that, with respect to a projection plane perpendicular to the first sliding axis, the projection area of the first lining (24) is eccentrically contained in the projection area of the second lining (48), and is integrally attached to said hub (32) or to said steering column (40).