No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

Has this been re-soldered yet?

Well, I thought it was great. I immediately repeated it to my girlfriend who also loved it. I then posted it as my facebook status. It has revieved 4 likes so far. I will keep you updated.

I always knew some good would come of my 5 years here. :]

I'm a tester; the concept of fun doesn't belong in the field of cycling

Oh. Deary. Me.

There's a saying - if you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong ...

Oh. Deary. Me.

There's a saying - if you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong ...

... or you're cracking a little joke at Skully's expense. :)

Only just come across this thread, my immediate reaction is, have you never heard of Mike Burrows? If you're applying for patents around this you might want to check he hasn't got them covered already. Mike's been producing a variety of bicycles with mono-forks and canti-levered rear wheels since before he did the initial design work behind the Lotus bike Chris Boardman rode in the 1992 Olympics.

Sorry but most of what you appear to be proposing just isn't original, don't think Mike's ever produced a "frame build in a single plane", but that was because he established long ago that you don't need to have one wheel directly in front of the other to produce a bike that's aero and/or rides like a normal bike. Despite having the front wheel not directly in line with the back, not only did Boardman have no trouble riding/balancing on the Lotus bike, he won Gold and, I think, broke the previous Olympic Record. That smacks of game, set and match.

It does seem counter intuitive that having one wheel offset relative to the other would work, but having ridden a number of bikes set up that way I can assure you once on the bike you rapidly discover it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. You're barking up the wrong tree!

[quote=mdcc_tester]I'm sure any reasonably competent cyclist could ride around any of these problems, since they will all be of small enough magnitude to be lost in the noise, but they are also the kinds of small issue which make the difference between a bike which feels good and one which is annoying.
You know nothing about my bike and I will say it for the last time: that is not the idea of my bike. Try get your head around it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure I'll have no trouble getting my head around it just as soon as you tell us what your bike is for. If I know nothing, it's because that's the extent of what you have told us. I don't understand what relevance your petulant little outburst has to that particular part of my post.

Your thanks for my pointing out why Mike Burrows went with offset track on the Lotus is misplaced; he wasn't doing the same thing as you, and he had valid reasons for doing it while you have offered no such justification for your deviation.

Real Testers have questions and search for explanations, have fun doing that.

As you seem to be speaking English as a second language, you probably need to have 'tester' explained to you in the context of English cycling; it's slang for a time triallist. Testers, by definition, are not having fun when they are testing.

[QUOTE=harold;2665527]So why have you gone for the overbuilt heavy wheel option over one of those? Does it give a more realistic ride, or are you just flexing your mad scientist muscle? (I'd probably do the same1) :)

^This
[/QUOTE]

Is there not an element of mad scientist fun going on here? I mean, why not?

Personally I'm with the majority in that I think it looks like awesome fun and it's cool to see NF trying something crazy and good on him. I'm not sure I can see the practical application now, but if someone spots potential and develops it further then who knows! For now, the explanation that he did it because he could would suffice for me.

For now, the explanation that he did it because he could would suffice for me.

I've always been on board with this, which is the interesting part. That it's obviously worse than a proper bike is why it is also stupid. There's nothing wrong with stupid per se, otherwise there would be no tall bikes, reproduction Ordinaries or lo-pros with risers, but it's rare for any of these clowns to take themselves quite so seriously:

Yesterday the second patent application was filed.

The design-constraint of having two wheels in the same plane is out of the way now! And id like to invite bike-designers, framebuilders, anyone really to imagine how this new technology can be applied in .... flat folding bikes... cargo bikes with better cargo space... wooden bikes....

Going so far as to file patents, build many iterations for testing and indicate that he thinks it has any practical use is where it goes past wilfully comic into laughably misguided

I've always been on board with this, which is the interesting part. That it's obviously worse than a proper bike is why it is also stupid. There's nothing wrong with stupid per se, otherwise there would be no tall bikes, reproduction Ordinaries or lo-pros with risers, but it's rare for any of these clowns to take themselves quite so seriously:

FFS have you never been to East London?!? Have you ever seen images of these cats looking jovial??

Good point well made, but if you're likening No-Fork to some Hoxton Hipster, you're probably insulting him more than he thinks I am.

Here's a free hint for No-Fork if he's looking for a market; side saddle bike for ladies who don't want to show any leg. Obviously, the frame would need modification to fit both cranks on one side, but that's a surmountable issue.

FFS have you never been to East London?

More like, have you ever been to LFGSS!

This place is hoaching with silly bikes. It's part of the fun.

Otherwise I guess we should visit every LoPro, Arrospok, etc. thread and tell these commuters that they are stupid and wasting their time.

Read my post properly; I approve of silliness, but I worry when people seem not to realise they are being silly.

but I worry when people seem not to realise they are being silly.

Why?

Now you're just being silly. :)

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik, for example.

Ding Ding... I just got

Dragons Den...

That's what all this about,

Hilary Devay in Lycra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik, for example.

So, you're comparing this project to genocidal massacre?

Does <80 dead amount to genocide? If it did, I suggest the population under attack would already be well on the way to extinction.

What I'm saying, and you either already know or won't understand even after having it explained, is that the only material moral difference between "A Modest Proposal" and "A European Declaration of Independence" is that Swift had his tongue firmly in his cheek. Equally, a self-consciously silly bike builder like Olli Erkkila is a jester whereas No-Fork's commitment to this project smacks of lunacy.

Does <80 dead amount to genocide? If it did, I suggest the population under attack would already be well on the way to extinction

In the most recent definitions it may actually qualify, as intention defines the act. But that is neither here nor there, he's still genocidal.

Anyway you see my point. You started by raising some concerns that were perfectly acceptable, and then descended into comparing the whole thing to a bloodbath. If anyone is taking themselves too seriously, I'd suggest it was you.

The guy doesn't agree with you, he likes his bike, which he made. Just move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik, for example.

fuckin hell, a new low

^This. I may have to start rolling out my Joseph Fritzel and Madeline McCann jokes just to raise the level of conversation.

#sarcasm by the way