No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

there might be other feasible schemes.

Such as having the wheel upright.

I think if chain or belt drive is to be retained, it would probably be easier to include the angled shaft coupling mechanism between the cranks and chainring, i.e. where the spider usually lives. The 'cogging' effect of a simple Cardan joint is probably not that big a deal with a pedal cycle with only a few degrees of shaft misalignment, and is probably easier to manufacture than a Rzeppa joint. The only frame modification needed would be an anchor/bearing to constrain the chainring to a plane parallel to the plane of the rear wheel

So the entire chainset would be tipped over? Would that feel horrible?

No, just the chainring. The crankshaft remains horizontal.

1 Attachment

Fair enough.

Like other's have been saying, the whole thing seems like a solution to a problem that never existed but the complexity involved in this part of it would in my opinion, be the straw that broke the camels back.

No Fork, am I right in assuming that you are based in or near Amsterdam?

Where I live is in Zoetermeer, near The Haque. The place where I work on my cars and bikes is in Hillegom, thats about halfway The Haque and Amsterdam. Lived in Amsterdam when I went there to university though...

Wow, suddenly I'm impressed. You have been making some interesting bikes...

No Fork, since you've made all these wonderful bicycles with driveshafts, why didn't you incorporate a driveshaft in the no-fork bike? Surely, as has been pointed out previously, it would be more desirable than a chain drive with the axle angles involved??

on single chain stay it may end bad.

The answer to the driveshaft question is quite straightforward. The clearance between the angular gears in a driveshaft system need to be tight for a low friction loss. The relative flexibility of a bicycle frame makes it hard to maintain that clearance within the right tolerances. With the chain drive the playgorund is much wider. I think that that property is the main reason the chain drive is THE standard for bicycles, and that you hardly see any shaft drive bikes around. Also the belt drive experiences problems in this area. Trek has head a big problem with belt drive because the flex in the frame was just too big, causing friction between te belt and the cog, resulting in the cog being grinded down. The chain drive is the big winner cause it allows big tolerances. Thats the reason you gan have11 chain gears and why ALL the bikes in the Tour the France have them.
If you take the chain of your bike between your thumb and index finger, in the middle between the rear cog and the front chainring, you will be able to twist the chain through 30 degree to one side and the other, without having to exert much force. (depending on chain tension..) Even the chain on the chainwheel and the cog has enough play to twist through more then tens of degrees. And it will use that room when under load. When you have seen that, and the various chain lines of a chain in different gears you will appreciate that a 3(!) degree twist in the chain of the NF bike is absolutely irrelevant.

I think 1Karchangels made a sensible remark, unless you want your bike to look like a BMW..

Cool that you're dutch :) Nice Bikes (creations :P) too.

Dono bout the dutch bit :-) glad you like the stuff I make though!

Where I live is in Zoetermeer, near The Haque. The place where I work on my cars and bikes is in Hillegom, thats about halfway The Haque and Amsterdam. Lived in Amsterdam when I went there to university though...

I know the area well, I used to live in Wassenaar. I will be in the area in about two weeks would it be possible to have a look at the no fork bike in the flesh (and maybe a go on it as well, if that's not too cheeky)?

Sure thing. Will be fun! if you pm or mail me at erik at no-fork.com we can set up a time and date. Looking fwd

Paging Dr Freud

I think that that property is the main reason the chain drive is THE standard for bicycles, and that you hardly see any shaft drive bikes around.

The reason for the ubiquity of the chain is that even a perfectly aligned shaft drive has higher frictional loss than a chain drive. 1% of transmitted power lost in friction doesn't matter much on a BMW R80, but it's the difference between winning and losing in a bicycle race.

Radial spokes on the rear hub? Good luck with that! Hub flanges look very thin relative to the spoke bend radius too, just add insult to injury.

I have a question;

Can you ride it no-handed?

If it goes no-personed, I'd imagine no-handed ain't too big a deal.

Radial spokes on the rear hub? Good luck with that! Hub flanges look very thin relative to the spoke bend radius too, just add insult to injury.

Ohh shit... tis current project => new hubs are in progress

If it goes no-personed, I'd imagine no-handed ain't too big a deal.

True

I have a question;

Can you ride it no-handed?

http://vimeo.com/40853322

No Fork repped for getting out of his armchair and building amazing stuff.

No Fork repped for getting out of his armchair and building amazing stuff.

Thats not how bike forums work.........flame him from behind our keyboards with technical insults gained from googling. Thats the ticket. ;)

Tis interesting stuff though.

I'd like to see her new hubs have security bolts on them. Its not like you need to remove the wheel to swap an innertube. So you might as well thief proof the wheels. If you added a seatpost lock thingie. You'd have a really easy to lock bike.

Those probably arent original ideas. But the project is making me think. Which what these prrof of concept projects are supposed to do.

Unless these were to take off in a big way, you'd probably not have to worry too much about people wanting to pinch your wheels?

is that first video teenslain in training ?
walkenger -> joggenger

No Fork repped for getting out of his armchair and building amazing stuff.

agreed. initially I saw this and thought no fork was a moron, making up problems that he has no need to and making a pointless bike. now however I think it's ace. He did something because he wanted to. Not every bike has to be aimed at a practical goal (being faster, being smoother, being more balanced etc) some can just be for aesthetic, fun, or technically challenging reasons.

tester: this bike is never going to be used to do tts or to ride downhill, or even to make millions for the creator. just a guy who wants to see if he can do it, and he has. that's awesome in my book. this bike may never be as practical as your t3, but seeing as you and him have put similar amounts of effort and technical know how into each creation, can't you just get along...though I guess your questioning might help him haha.

resume your argument!

I have worked out one area where No Forking is better.

For you riders that get a puncture every day... no need to remove the wheel.

So the hubs could be welded to the frame, none of that fancy pitlock stuff.

I have worked out one area where No Forking is better.

For you riders that get a puncture every day... no need to remove the wheel.

So the hubs could be welded to the frame, none of that fancy pitlock stuff.

I assumed the axles were. A'la lefty.

Probably best not to weild the hub shell to the frame though.

I have worked out one area where No Forking is better.

For you riders that get a puncture every day... no need to remove the wheel.

That advantage has already been exploited by many previous single-sided designs without recourse to canting the wheels. The single unique property of the No-Fork project is that it has the steering geometry adjusted to counter the tendency of canted wheels to camber steer into the hedge if left to their own devices. Since riders can already handle this issue when riding on cambered surfaces (i.e. pretty much all roads, as well as velodromes), it's hard to see why the problem needed solving, still less why it was necessary to create the problem is the first place, since every putative advantage of the design has already been exploited in existing 'vertical wheel' designs.