No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

^ agree

Well, I already had a kind of rough day yesterday, and i wasnt quite pleased to see the breivik thing in here. Id hate to think I had anything to do with that, and if I did in any way Id like to apologize for that. If that kind of stuff needs to be brought into a discussion to prove a point something is definitely wrong. Better just take a moment and think of the family and parents who have lost their loved ones.

Let me try and bring the discussion back to a mature level again.

I'm not certain either that I've actually asked any questions, just speculated on some matter which you should be able to clarify if you're as good as you think you are. So, here are some questions:

Does your geometric compensation for camber steer work for all practical tire sections?
Does your design have more brake-steer than a normal bicycle, and is the brake-steer asymmetric?
Have you designed a drive system which overcomes the obvious problems with the lash-up on your proof-of-concept prototype?
What practical or commercial advantage does your design have over a conventional bicycle?

Srry if I took the speculation for more then they were, but let me try and answer your questions here. And some other questions as well...

Q1 answer is Yes. Ive tested with anything from 23 up to Big Apple, No significant change with identical geometry. Tire pressure does make a difference in that it improves the bikes responsiveness. But i think that goes for every bike.
Q2 answer is No. Ive had a rim brake on one of the proto's and the discc on the blue bike. Havnt noticed a thing. Not surprisingly, cause in theory the brake-steer is asymmetrical but in a very marginal way.
Q3, there have not been any problems with the drive-train the way it is. I dont want to get into what exactly can be regarded as obvious, but the deviations in chainline are marginal, surely compared to a geared set-up. Also the part of the chain under tension is straight as hell. No problem there.

Now for the cliffhanger, the oh so important advantages. I think it was happytramp to revamp what Ive said on that subject before. It has not been my objective to claim or prove anything in this respect. Nor do I have any ambitions in that direction. But Im happy with any pro's and con's discussed here (with respect that is). If I was to name a purpose or advantage of the bike it would need to be that it achieves its objectives in the most feasible simple way. Usually all sort of advantages come along with concepts that fulfill that (the less is more..) criterion. If that is the case for the No-Fork we will have to see, won't we. I personally dont have any ambition to have any pretensions on that subject.

And while were at it a small comment on the silly and stupid issue: With the No-Fork project i believe i have shown that it is possible to have a bike with angled wheels to ride like a normal bike. It has been my objective to present the project as a valid project in the sense that it is feasible. And that the theory I have thought up to describe it matches in practice. Thats all. The best way to prove my point in this was to have had a number of people ride the bike and discuss my theory with a select amount of people. That has been sufficient for me and Im open to discuss that with people who doubt it. I dont like it when the No-Fork project is made out as silly or stupid in this respect. On any other plane (or angle of attack) Im fine with the project being made out for silly, stupid, awkward or anything.