-
Im actually quite curious how it will work out on a tandem..
It won't be going anywhere near my tandem. If you look on my tandem thread, you'll see that I just drew it because people were taking the piss out of you over there too. Well done, you have arrived on LFGSS :-)
-
Its actually hehind the steerer-axis...
The fork-ends are in front of the steerer axis (although the contact patch is behind). Presumably if a leftward force is exterted on the fork-ends by the hub, then doesn't that translate into a leftward turning force?
Is didnt need any introduction, it was already there. Your bike even haz it :) [a lateral force], and you make use of it with every turn you take. It makes your bike take turns in a comfortable way.
...but it's not there when a forked bike is travelling in a straight line, because the wheels are vertical. That's my whole point: you've introduced a lateral force even if the bike is travelling in a straight line, and you only create a genuinely neutral-handling bike if you exactly counteract it with a precisely matched counter-steering force. That additional requirement for the precise matching of forces is a really inelegant.
I dont see what these two have to do with each other.. You saying Ive been kidding myself all this time?
Of course they have something to do with each other, the only reason you can get away with the inherent problem of your design (as laid out above) is that riders are very good at subconsciously correcting for spurious lateral forces; their bike-handling skills (which have been practised so much as to become subconscious, automatic systems) deal with the bike's imperfections without letting your conscious self know about it, so they are fooling you.
There is another effect much more obvious to the rider in the difference in taking left and right turns ... It responds in a different (noticeable) way
Ok, so that's a more substantial problem!
You sport the same kind of phrasing the Pope was using in reference to Galileo, I guess Im just not into your type of church but suit yourself..
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Anyway, I'm guessing there's a healthy degree of daftness/trolling in this whole proposition, so I'm not going to get involved much more. I'm glad to have learned something new from this ridiculous bit of tinkering in any case.
-
what are you gonna do about the braking?
Braking is easy; if the concept were developed into something production-ready, it would be no harder to include disk brakes than it is on a conventional bike. The drive train is more of a problem, as the crankshaft is not parallel with the rear axle.
-
(although the contact patch is behind).
And its this patch the forces are exerted on, translating into a right turning force. Maybe Ed or Tester can explain it better then I do
...but it's not there when a forked bike is travelling in a straight line, because the wheels are vertical.
True, although theoretically there is hardly a second where a bike actually IS going in a straight line, still theoretically true
That additional requirement for the precise matching of forces is a really inelegant.
I totally agree with that.
I guess the whole point of my project has had a different objective. (it may even be called recalcitrant)
From the traditional perspective: The introduction of the off-trail torque matching sure is inelegant. Id go as far as calling it plain ugly!
From a construction perspective: The traditional fork can bee seen as inelegant... (when you compare it to a straight tube)
I appreciate both perspectives
is that riders are very good at subconsciously correcting for spurious lateral forces
Ok, so that's a more substantial problem!
Then following your first argument that problem is solved. I will admit it is a side effect that still annoys me and I havnt found a way around it (there probably isnt anyway)
Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Exactly my point.. It was an (silly)attempt by me to move discussion beyond your Yes/No argument and appreciate different perspectives
have learned something new from this
Thats nice, whatever it is that youve learned.. learning new stuff is nice it is
gbj_tester
deleted
ffm
edscoble
FujiRacer-
Post a reply
About
No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked
Posted by
@No_Fork
Top!
Best kind of compliment 2015
Im actually quite curious how it will work out on a tandem...