Custom Eye Candy: Bandit9 Reveals ‘Supermarine’ Motorcycle Made from Missile-Grade Aluminum

[DaveM]

When we covered what Bandit9 Motorcycles was up to back in August, founder Daryl Villanueva had just given us a hint of what his company was planning in the following interview quote:

“Imagine a motorcycle designed and built with the same precision you’d find in a spaceship…I’m sure our customers are going to feel the same way when they see our new ‘Supermarine’ project.”



Well folks, it’s officially here – and Bandit9 has delivered in spades when it comes to a masterpiece of a machine with a unique twist on the motorcycle’s materials.

The Bandit9 Supermarine (A naval nod both to the name as well as species of manta ray, the inspiration for the chassis) is both an homage to an aquatic sci-fi age as much as it is an artistic smack in the face.



With 400 bespoke components (all made in-house), custom-cast aluminum wheels featuring Nitron suspension, and four-piston Brembo calipers, it’s more than obvious that the brand didn’t cut corners.

…At least, not until they hit the fairings. Then they shaved off every possible corner they could find for a beautiful bubble of bodywork designed to aid engine airflow and add downforce.



The company’s website states that the beastie runs on a liquid-cooled, 8 valve, SOHC, 270° crank angle parallel twin (the same as what you’d find in Triumph’s Bonneville T100), capable of 900cc (or 1200cc, if you’re looking at the upgrade available from the shop).



The sci-fi component is represented by Villanueva’s clever usage of 7075 aluminum – a material used in missiles, spacecraft, and other defense applications, and stated as having an ultimate tensile strength of 74,000 – 78,000 psi (510 – 538 MPa) and yield strength of at least 63,000 – 69,000 psi (434-476 MPa).

Those strength figures border rather closely to the Bonneville T100’s tubular steel frame, minus the fact that the Supermarine’s aluminum frame has the Bandit9 beastie sitting 13kg lighter at 215kg (38kg lighter, with an upgrade option to carbon).







As for the beastie’s power range, the Supermarine clips the ‘brap’ budget at 74.1 bhp @ 7500 rpm (102.6 bhp @ 7250 rpm when upgraded), with torque (smooth hills of it) sitting at 59 ft-lb @ 3800 rpm (83 ft-lb @ 4250 rpm when upgraded).

The Bonneville, by comparison, sits at 64.1 bhp @ 7400 rpm, with 59 ft-lb of torque @ 3750 rpm – just to give you an idea of what you’ll be sitting on, should you ever decide to visit Bandit9 and try the bike out.



“I brought on three engineers with aerospace, chemical, and robotics & mechatronics backgrounds [to the Bandit9 team],” states Villanueva.

“This move alone has changed the course of Bandit9 – from the way we think to the way we produce things.”



The core of the Supermarine can be found, we think, in Villanueva’s admittance that he has a fear of being stuck in the past when it comes to ideas for his creations.

“Leave the past where it belongs. Enough with the retro, vintage, or heritage look, or we’ll be stuck in an infinite loop…It’s like we’re actively trying to devolve. That or we’re really out of ideas.”



A good hint and lead-in to what’s next on the Vietnamese shop’s roster – and we’re hardcore backers of whatever they roll next out of the garage.



For more information on Banit9’s projects, make sure to visit their website – and as always, stay safe on the twisties.

The post Custom Eye Candy: Bandit9 Reveals ‘Supermarine’ Motorcycle Made from Missile-Grade Aluminum appeared first on webBikeWorld.

Source...

 

[sikatri]

My tastes run the gamut, from classic to modern. I do love the look.

 

[Greyfell]

I don't know if I could ride that, it is just too much a piece of art, so beautiful.

 

[sikatri]

I don't know if I could ride that, it is just too much a piece of art, so beautiful.

I doubt I could even pretend to afford one, even for a test ride. LoL

 

[NWGABikerGuy]

I guess I will have to be a lone dissenter, but that has to be one of the most ridiculous looking contraptions I have ever seen. I admit that the astronaut in the photos could ride pillion with me any day, but other than that I see nothing appealing. To me, it looks like a hybrid of a Leatherman multi-tool and a Swiss Army Knife. The semi-circle of serrations are what, exactly? I am all for artistic creativity, and one can certainly look at this thing as form that somehow functions, but it looks like something a 3rd grade school boy would doodle while bored silly sitting in a classroom and staring into space. To call this a motorcycle is a real stretch. It belongs in a Star Wars movie with an Ewok toting a spear on board.

 

[NWGABikerGuy]

Never mind about the serrations. I see upon closer inspection that they are actually the coils of a shock spring. I guess I was distracted by the anatomy above it...

 

[sikatri]

Design is a subject where criticism is based on perspective and preference. I’ve found that form follows function is slightly misleading and since it was coined during the early modernist movement a bit out of date. Anything that tries to instill design or art into a single catchy phrase usually misses other factors equally important than function. It ignores efficiency, and current technology to name two. It also ignores artistic expression and how it’s expressed in form. Agree, beauty is not the same for all and there is always an alternative perspective.

 

[NWGABikerGuy]

I would observe that efficiency and technology are subsets of functionality. If you read my critique closely, you will see that I allude to function following form and not vice-versa. Since the modernist movement was defined as a break from the past and a search for new artistic expressions, by the same criteria phrases then coined can hardly be out of date. Besides, the term was originally applied to architecture and basically meant that purpose should drive design. As a work of art, the Submarine is actually quite attractive. As a motorcycle it is an accident waiting to happen. One look at something as mundane as the seat would discourage any rider from a trip exceeding 5 minutes in length. If the exhausts don't melt the spandex and torch the legs by the time the rider leaves the driveway, then the laws of physics have been suspended in favor of form. A stiff cross wind hurls the bike in the nearest ditch, or at best radically alters the trajectory of the front wheel vs. the nearly naked and much lighter rear wheel. The foot pegs require hooking of the boot heel rather than fitting the balls of the feet. The ground clearance and "beautiful bubble of bodywork" limit lean angles to a fraction of what any modest curve would require at speed. The bare chain is a glaring safety hazard, and will no doubt anoint the rider with lubricant, road debris and water. Again - this thing makes a nice statue. As a motorcycle it is delusional and dangerous. It is beautiful. I would be interested to hear reports from professional test riders before we declare it anything but art.

 

[sikatri]

I do know the quotes origin and have had 40 years to ponder it’s validity professionally since my masters in architectural theory and design. I didn’t pull my thoughts out of thin air. I wouldn’t have minded hearing from the designers what they discussed during the design process. I get their inspiration. The design of early modernists was never purely following function no matter how they thought it was. It was always influenced by previous notions and developing new esthetics. The clearest thing about their design was elimination of unnecessary ornament. That didn’t mean the parts were all distilled down to form follows function. It was as much a result of the current industrial techniques which were for the most part still developing and heavily rooted in the past. My point and I’ll stand by it, it was never form following function in any pure form. It was always influenced by other factors including parallel developments in art, cubism and so on. It was a search. This piece is most definitely a motorcycle. The question always is how practical it is, which is another question all together. You may be right that this is impractical as a motorcycle and more relevant as art.

Sorry for the detour.

 

[Greyfell]

A friend's daughter is studying Architectural Engineering at California Polytechnic University. In her first year, one of their projects was to design and build a "park bench". The class was broken down into groups of 4-5 students, a mix of architects and the aforementioned engineers. Obviously, to me anyway, both form and function must be considered. As it was described to me, by the friend's daughter, most of the architects focused on form while most of the engineers focused on function. What most students ended up with was either a bench that worked (comfortable to sit on) but didn't look so good, or a bench that looked good but wouldn't be sat on for more than 5 minutes. Those groups that were able meld both form and function received the best results and grades.

 

[NWGABikerGuy]

I do know the quotes origin and have had 40 years to ponder it’s validity professionally since my masters in architectural theory and design. I didn’t pull my thoughts out of thin air. I wouldn’t have minded hearing from the designers what they discussed during the design process. I get their inspiration. The design of early modernists was never purely following function no matter how they thought it was. It was always influenced by previous notions and developing new esthetics. The clearest thing about their design was elimination of unnecessary ornament. That didn’t mean the parts were all distilled down to form follows function. It was as much a result of the current industrial techniques which were for the most part still developing and heavily rooted in the past. My point and I’ll stand by it, it was never form following function in any pure form. It was always influenced by other factors including parallel developments in art, cubism and so on. It was a search. This piece is most definitely a motorcycle. The question always is how practical it is, which is another question all together. You may be right that this is impractical as a motorcycle and more relevant as art.

Sorry for the detour.

No apology necessary. I am enjoying our repartee, as I suspect you are as well. As a student of architecture (which I am not) I guess you must find it ironic that Louis Sullivan, who actually coined the "form follows function" phrase, and often advocated for elimination of unnecessary ornament as you noted early modernists did, was a major contributor to "The White City" of the 1893 Chicago World's Fair. Which, it has often been observed, was one of the gaudiest, most overstated architectural achievements ever built. The Fair also highlighted then current industrial techniques, providing a monument to both human contradiction and confluence in art and technology. So, I am willing to concede that the "piece" may be a motorcycle, since you have agreed that it may be impractical as one.

I enjoyed your observations, and learned a lot. Thanks!

 

[sikatri]

No apology necessary. I am enjoying our repartee, as I suspect you are as well. As a student of architecture (which I am not) I guess you must find it ironic that Louis Sullivan, who actually coined the "form follows function" phrase, and often advocated for elimination of unnecessary ornament as you noted early modernists did, was a major contributor to "The White City" of the 1893 Chicago World's Fair. Which, it has often been observed, was one of the gaudiest, most overstated architectural achievements ever built. The Fair also highlighted then current industrial techniques, providing a monument to both human contradiction and confluence in art and technology. So, I am willing to concede that the "piece" may be a motorcycle, since you have agreed that it may be impractical as one.

I enjoyed your observations, and learned a lot. Thanks!

One of Sullivan’s students was Frank L Wright, he expanded on Sullivan’s idea. Yes, interesting topic, it’s also a topic that has been debated since by students, architects and scholars.

 

[NWGABikerGuy]

One of Sullivan’s students was Frank L Wright, he expanded on Sullivan’s idea. Yes, interesting topic, it’s also a topic that has been debated since by students, architects and scholars.

Didn't he fire Wright early in his (Wright's) career?

 

[Greyfell]

Didn't he fire Wright early in his (Wright's) career?

Yes, because Wright did work outside of his work with Sullivan, against his contract.

 

[sikatri]

Wright wasn’t the most scrupulous person from what I’ve gathered.

 

[Greyfell]

Wright wasn’t the most scrupulous person from what I’ve gathered.

True, he was a flawed genius. On the other hand, who of us can say we're perfect?

 

[NWGABikerGuy]

Wright wasn’t the most scrupulous person from what I’ve gathered.

Isn't it ironic though that in firing him Sullivan launched him on a career trajectory that eclipsed that of Sullivan himself? At least that is my impression based on my limited knowledge of the notoriety of the two of them.

 

[Greyfell]

Isn't it ironic though that in firing him Sullivan launched him on a career trajectory that eclipsed that of Sullivan himself? At least that is my impression based on my limited knowledge of the notoriety of the two of them.

It was Wright's style that drew Sullivan's attention to Wright's outside work. But, yes, it was being let go that allowed Wright the freedom to "blossom."