" . . to see if it worked on a bike.. worth a try."
Er, no! - not worth a try, because it can't possibly "work" - just as it didn't work on the 2CV, which was infamous for its instability.
You may be confusing the 2CV with the swing axles on the original VW beetle? The 2CV was only unstable when going backwards.http://www.veoh.com/watch/v9148400QMrmcMzM
I'm reminded of an in-depth technical article in 'Autosport' - a candid critique of the anti-roll function on F1 cars. It simply stated the scientific fact - "This is the opposite of what is required." - yet all the 'experts' still follow the same design convention!! Smart design doesn't need ANY anti-roll, because the car can't roll in the first place!!
So, every car on the planet (lacking 'active' suspension) suffers from an entirely unnecessary ride/handling compromise, which can be eliminated by simple passive designs that actually DO work.
Yes any car with a centre of gravity that is dissected by a plane that also passes through the centre of the wheel axis would not roll. However that means either very low slung car bodies as in F1, or very big wheels.
Being charitable, I'd say that the Toptrail project is barking up the wrong tree. Being brutally honest, it's just 'barking'.
The Toptrail designer Adrian Griffiths, is a top automotive suspension designer. As such I think he deserves a more detailled critique than simply describing his design as "Just barking".
Two springs on a bike is plain wrong, just as four springs on a car is an unworkable design premise...
I am not getting this. Surely most motorbike designs use two springs. And most car designs use four springs?
9/16" Suntour BMX MP-1000 pedals / 56 tooth TA 6-bolt chainring.(I'm not bothered if the teeth are worn or damaged)