-
With regards to centrifugal forces - gyroscopic forces don't have any effect on the stability of a bicycle. Gyroscopes only work by constantly changing heading relative to their 'axle' as it were - but bicycle wheels rotate around a fixed axle.
Bicycles remain upright through the same mechanism that allows you to balance a broomstick on your finger - by moving the support directly underneath the mass. With a broomstick, you move the support (your finger) whilst the mass (broom head) remains pretty stationary. On a bike, the support (the point where the tyres touch the ground) stays in the same place, but the mass moves around relative to it.
Both of these points are evidenced by the fact that if you lock a bike's steering, it falls over even if it's moving.
-
With a broomstick, you move the support (your finger) whilst the mass (broom head) remains pretty stationary. On a bike, the support (the point where the tyres touch the ground) stays in the same place, but the mass moves around relative to it.
Not quite; we actually move the wheel contact points under us, as conservation of momentum makes them the most mobile part due to the hugely greater mass of the lump on top. The only people who move their body mass around to keep the wheels in the same place are trials riders balancing on beams (see also tight rope walkers etc.). Recumbulent riders can't really move their body mass around at all, but they still manage to ride single track vehicles.
Oh, and this bloke knows all about both moving his body mass and riding with the wheels at an angle to the surface:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3LOKfQ3y2Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3LOKfQ3y2Q[/ame
] -
^That has made my day
-
Too many words, and pretending to know stuff...
Too much bullshit and still not answering the question.
You have applied for a patent.
To obtain a patent, you have to successfully claim that your inventive step solves an objective technical problem in the current state of the art (also that the solution would not be obvious to somebody versed in the art, but we'll leave that for now)
So, what objective technical problem(s) does your invention claim to solve? This should be very easy for you to answer, because you will already have written it down in the patent application.Please pay attention to which questions I am not asking, which include but are not limited to:
Does your invention work?
Can it be ridden by anybody?
Is it pretty?
Is it simpler to manufacture than conventional bicycles?
The answer to the first two is obviously yes, and the answer to the second two is obviously 'depends who you ask'. The answers to none of them are relevant to the main question, the one you keep avoiding with your dissemination and apparently wilful incomprehension. -
Here's the No-Fork fork. Show me how I'm not simple...
Even posting only half the story, you still fail. As any fule kno, the fork crown area has to do some interesting things, which don't change just because it's missing. As well as seating the bearing on an external step, it is normal to change the guage of the steerer between the lightly stressed top and the highly stressed crown joint, and similarly the blade, whether there is one or two, works best with a taper guage, to provide resilience and the necessary strength. A disc brake mount and the highly asymmetric hub loading also add complexity to proceedings. A No-Fork which handles and rides as well as a boring old 531 3-tube assembly will need some fairly intricate butting. Sure, you could make something which rides like a scaffold pole out of, er, a scaffold pole, but you surely wouldn't settle for something which was not at least the equal of a conventional fork in every regard.
When we get to the bottom, which you conveniently omit, we find that it is necessary to mount a very precisely aligned and bored tube to accept the wheel bearings. Do you really think that's simpler than a couple of conventional fork ends? I grant you that we have experience now of pressing bearings into carbon fibre, and the No-Fork may actually be simpler to mould than a conventional monocoque CF fork, so you only have to get it to meet the usual performance and safety requirements while keeping it down to around 500g to be in the fight. That it can be done is not in doubt - Cannondale have shown the way. The Lefty essentially solves all the structural problems you will come up against (albeit not the assembly issues, since Cannondale chickened out and put the brake on the wheel side of the fork), although it does seem to take a 30% price premium over conventional forks of similar quality to do it.
-
Tu quoque. Still not able to change your angle?
A description of objective problem solving is a usual way to make industrial applicability plausible but is not part of the patent law. Cutting the number of parts or welds can be regarded as a problem solved. And also creating possibilities can be regarded as industrial applicable... I dono much about UK patent law but I guess its part of european patent law.
So 3rd question should be: can you make a bicycle with it. A=yes. 4th: is it pretty: A= depends on who you ask. ftfy.
On the other post, bicycle industry is efficient in manufacture of classic bicycles. It has not been my intention to create a low cost bike. Maybe you can enlighten me where you got that suggestion?
You mention "highly stressed crown joint", the more reason not to want any welds or joints there! (another advantage you found and a problem solved for the patent office)
oh, and i know perfectly well how a steerer needs to be made, I know my newtons. Reynolds is already on to it, haha. Regida have made me a nice pair of rims! Too bad this weekend has gone to repairing the waterpump on one of my cars. CNC weekend for the new hubs will be next weekend i hope. Still have to decide on Ti or 953 for the next build. Do you have any suggestions how to waist my money best (or worst ;-))?
-
There's also the creepy whispery video which shows a no-fork fork on a standard frame and it seems to want to turn towards the bikes driveside which by my reckoning, is the way it'd go if the wheel were correcting itself.
I dont understand which video you mean. The test where I have a No-Fork on the grey RIH the bike runs straight i thought... ?
-
it haz.
not sure i'd read it for anything other than my brilliant animal design hacking though. much more original and useful than any of this bicycle orientated charlatanism that's been going on.
You might want to check this before waisting more time and money on your new design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rejDi1u31NI
-
.
Oh, and this bloke knows all about both moving his body mass and riding with the wheels at an angle to the surface:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3LOKfQ3y2Q
technically, he is not riding the bike.
-
You might want to check this before waisting more time and money on your new design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rejDi1u31NI
you don't get it-it's called an Ostrich as it 'ostricises' any animals that don't walk like it does. it wasn't playing tag, it was mercilessly bullying the cretinous giraffe for not putting its name down for my services.
now with a bit of my design hacking the giraffe could have a new way of life, free from fear, laughter and surplus limbs. isn't that something worth striving for?
-
Its been a while since ive had the time to do something with the no fork project, but a few days ago I took some time to take some shots of my daily NF bike. Tje last thing I did seems months ago, it was getting the assym. rims on a bike. I made the fork from a former prototype and set it up to except 2" tires. But somehow the lesser weight of narrower tires feels better. Still pretty satisfied with the rather large fork rake. It looks even longer in the pictures but I think thats due to the construction.
-
I made the fork from a former prototype and set it up to except 2" tires. But somehow the lesser weight of narrower tires feels better. Still pretty satisfied with the rather large fork rake.
At some point, you're going to have to decide whether your bike has a fork or not. :)
Why not make up a catchy word for your version?
-
Flark?
lae
gbj_tester
barmeybear
1000archangels
deleted
edscoble
dicki
Object
spotter
gridds
Oliver Schick
snottyotter
miro_o
Kidneys-
Post a reply
About
No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked
Posted by
@No_Fork
There's also the creepy whispery video which shows a no-fork fork on a standard frame and it seems to want to turn towards the bikes driveside which by my reckoning, is the way it'd go if the wheel were correcting itself.