-
Do as you please, it's a free world. But bringing mass murderers in to a thread about bike technology is just fishing for attention in the worst kind of way. It adds absolutely fuck all to the discussion or conversation.
Normally I enjoy reading your posts as they tend to teach me a thing or two. This juvenile shit though - no thanks.
-
^ 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.
-
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.
I looked at it like I do all concept bikes/cars/etc. A proof of concept, that answers a certian curiousity. Nicely worked through.
Wether or not the bike, or aspects from it. Become commercially useful. Is'nt a measure of its ingenuity for me.
-
Have you tried fitting mud guards to it?
should be able to make some one sided fitting for a wooden fender? Would look lovely
Would'nt the spray angle away from the rider anyway?
:)
-
Angle the wheels a little more and you'd have no need for mudguards since all the crud would spay harmlessly by you :)
-
Angle the wheels a little more and you'd have no need for mudguards since all the crud would spay harmlessly by you :)
Would'nt the spray angle away from the rider anyway?
:)
Ahem?
:)
-
That's what I get for opening dozens of tabs at once and then going though them one by one :(
-
I like this bike, thanks for sharing it with us.
In response to those commentators who have been less than receptive to this bike;
In Science there phrase 'blue skies research' is used by funding bodies quite a lot. They are talking about research which has no predefined intended benefit to society. Scientists do it because it's interesting in it's own right and because occasionally you find something unexpected that brings about new useful possibilities. For me this is a blue skies bike - one day silly innovations like these might change everything.
If you don't try things, no matter how silly they seem you'll never know where they might lead.
-
saw this on the wtf thread
-
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. 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.
I don't think I've ever attacked the validity of your execution or theoretical basis of your project, just questioned the sanity of investing so much time and, presumably, money in a project of this kind. The people who think it's Gorgeous Baby Blue skies research are a little off the mark, since there is nothing here which is really far outside the normal sphere of activity of single track vehicle design. You seem to have asked, in essence, "can I ride in a straight line with the wheels at an angle to the surface", which is a valid question but one which is answered every time a commuter rides on a crowned road, or a track cyclist travels down the straight at the velodrome
You may be getting over excited about the stupid/silly question in part because you're missing some cultural reference points, such as this
David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh...
Nigel Tufnel: Clever.
David St. Hubbins: Yeah, and clever.and the whole stream of serious silliness which peaked in the popular consciousness between the Go On Show and Flowery Twats. There is a place for wilful stupidity and whimsical silliness, and it is possible to embed either into an endeavour which also contains deep seriousness and rigour.
It was tacky, but I assumed tester was providing an example of a twisted logic which can occur when someone fails to recognise what is science and what is emotion.
As long as one person gets it, I'm obviously communicating clearly enough. When speaking to a mixed ability crowd, I pitch to the high flyers and assume everybody else will catch up if they want to.
But that is neither here nor there, he's still genocidal.
No serious person would describe the murder of 80 (or even the targeted ~1000) out of a population of 4 million ethnic Norwegians in Norway as genocide. Furthermore, the target was not ethnic Norwegians in general (which would really be fratricide anyway, given the perpetrator) but a narrowly defined political group within the whole population, regardless of ethnicity.
-
Yesterday the second patent application was filed
Look forward to your posting the patent applications here, so that we can see the claims to meet this test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_under_the_European_Patent_Convention
-
I don't think I've ever attacked the validity of your execution or theoretical basis of your project, just questioned the sanityblah blah blah blah blah blah
I can't help but read all of your posts in an irritating Jeremy Clarkson voice, so i'm afraid I only get about a sentence in before giving up.
Suits you though.
-
I can't help but read all of your posts in an irritating Jeremy Clarkson voice
Try not moving your lips when you read.
Also, oxymoron.
kboy
miro_o
gridds
Smallfurry
Sanddancer
TM
4idan
dancing james
ewanmac
gbj_tester
hippy
Kidneys
lemonade-
Post a reply
About
No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked
Posted by
@No_Fork
There's no pleasing some people. Do you lot want me to have fun? In that case, try to keep a grip on your sense of proportion when I get playful with the hyperbolic rhetoric. I know there are plenty of people here who like to nail their bleeding-heart colours to the mast at any opportunity, but doing it here is about as effective as 'Liking' a Kony2012 status (I think that's what the 12-year olds who seem to run the world these days call it)