Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Misc News

Thread Tools
Old 06-25-2005, 05:17 AM   #21
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 325
Default Re: More Suzuki K5 Trouble?

Here's my take on what might happen; if the frames do seem to be as brittle as they look, even a minor accident could result in cracks not visible to the eye throughout the frame. Insurance adjusters may be forced to total every bike even if it only looks cosmetic. Insuring these bikes could be a problem.

Good luck finder a buyer for a lightly crashed 05, cosmetic damage only. Yeah, right.
iamz is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Old 06-25-2005, 07:35 AM   #22
Registered Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 29
Default Re: More Suzuki K5 Trouble?

There is definitely a fundimental problem. Perhaps it doesn't implicate riding, but it certainly implicates crash survivability.

At Summit Point a k5 imacted the tire wall in T4 and broke in half. Lots of bikes hit this wall, probably a hundred over the last couple yrs -- I've never seen another one sever a frame. Suzuki better address, racers are going to be skeptical about buying the new k5 600s and 750s that we're expecting for next year.
xseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 08:20 AM   #23
Founding Member
crevans's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 114
Default Re: More Suzuki K5 Trouble?

Only after it has run in to 5 Road Stars.
crevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2005, 10:57 AM   #24
Founding Member
Buzglyd's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,904
Default Re: More Suzuki K5 Trouble?

I wish I'd written that myself.
Buzglyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 08:27 AM   #25
Founding Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 273
Default Re: More Suzuki K5 Trouble?

I wonder why this genius didn't have collision insurance. If you read down at the bottom it tells how he only has liability. I can only imagine what insurance companies wanted to charge him for full coverage on this bike. Certainly they (insurance companies) are some of the biggest scam artists around, but knuckleheads like this guy are the reason why premiums are sky-high on sportbikes.

Also telling of why he crashed is the wear line on his rear tire. As anyone familiar with newer sportbikes can attest, the edges of a 180 or 190mm rear tire are very easy to rub the "shame" off of. It doesn't take any extraordinary speed or skill. As you can see in the photos, the sides of the bikes rear tire are quite virgin, meaning he has no clue how to corner harder when needed. Basically he is an idiot to have purchased one of the fastest bikes out there.

On a scientific note, it appears in the blurry photos that the surface of the aluminum in the cracked region is rough, indicating a ductile failure as opposed to brittle. A true brittle fracture will not have any roughness to the surface at all since the metal cracked all along the same plane. I believe whatever methods Suzuki is using on this frame are creating a jumbled mess of the metal's crytalline structure. They are sacrificing any and all ability to flex in exchange for an unnaturally high ultimate tensile strength for an aluminum-based alloy. In my opinion, stay clear of these things.

Anyone know what sort of frame the KTM SuperDuke has? I like to fantasize about buying one if I win the lottery (of course in addition to doing "two chicks at the same time").
RonXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2005, 05:30 PM   #26
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 356
Default Re: More Suzuki K5 Trouble?

Ron, a rough fracture surface can also indicate grain boundary fracture, which may be brittle in nature -- but as you say, there is no way to tell anything from those photos. I've cracked a motorcycle brake caliper in half (while mechanicin'), and it was certainly a brittle fracture, but not a mirror surface. This is common in powder-cast Al.

Outside of that, I'm not sure what you're saying, fracture-wise. I'm not flaming here, but I really am not sure of what you are saying. Are you saying that it has an unnaturally high yield strength, which normally coincides with brittleness? But it's you claim it's not brittle. Normally, that's good from a damage tolerance standpoint. Maybe it's a difference in the words we're using.

It's also good to know what you'd do if you had a million dollars. Two chicks at one time.
dylanmo is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off