No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

if thats a gif, decrease the length of single frame. if thats a flash, smooth it out for gods sake!

or is it my laptop? o_O

It takes a couple of minutes for people to grasp the idea of the bike. Even with the bike in their hands people can sense there is something "different" and they keep on looking and wondering what it is they are seeing

The state of nonplussitude* it induces is not, as you surmise, a failure to grasp the what but a failure to understand the why, perhaps mixed with a soupçon of how; not "How does this bike work?" but "How can I get as far as possible from this lunatic without seeming impolite?"

*© Bike Snob NYC

I see disc rotors but no calipers. Where are the brakes?

if thats a gif, decrease the length of single frame. if thats a flash, smooth it out for gods sake!

or is it my laptop? o_O

its javascript. ive added a click and drag instruction. hope its more userfriendly now

I see disc rotors but no calipers. Where are the brakes?

true, I was going for disk brakes but that didnt work out with the rest of the design. The hubs are custom so I cant remove the disks right now. New hubs are on the design table..

The state of nonplussitude* it induces is not, as you surmise, a failure to grasp the what but a failure to understand the why, perhaps mixed with a soupçon of how; not "How does this bike work?" but "How can I get as far as possible from this lunatic without seeming impolite?"

Im not quite sure what youre getting at, or is it that I fail to see the contribution... The if and how about the No-Fork have been covered.

The answer to the why question is cause it looks so cool.

The answer to the why question is cause it looks so cool.

In your opinion, but you might not have sufficient detachment to have an opinion worth listening to on the aesthetic question.

You seem to have proven that a bike built on the piss can be ridable (although we all knew that anyway), but don't kid yourself that you have done something that anybody else will be interested in, except as a circus side show.

Two words:
Camber steer

All the wheel forces are fine, they're close enough to regular bicycle loads and bicycle wheels are usually more than capable of tolerating substantial out of plane loadings, both in the main wheel structure and at the axles/bearings. As pictured, it does seem to be lacking spoke bracing angle on the drive side of both wheels, but that's a surmountable problem. As a proof of concept, it's an interesting demonstration of just how far one can deviate from correct design while still ending up with something ridable, in much the same way as some of Olli Erkkila's builds are, but that's more down to the room for error in the standard bicycle and the standard cyclist than it is evidence that such novel designs are really worth pursuing. We've all ridden old wrecks with the wheels out of line and non-circular and the headset either as loose as a goose or indexed, so it's no surprise that an ordinary rider can maintain control on a well constructed but wrongly designed bicycle.

A shaft drive would solve the drivetrain problems, since there is no problem with rotating the final drive about the shaft axis to any arbitrary angle. It would also have the virtue of being enclosed, eliminating the potential brake disc contamination issue highlighted by other commentators above, and the shaft enclosure tube could also provide the main 'chainstay' structure, simplifying the looks even more. The clean drivetrain would also go well with some of the proposed uses for the concept.

In your opinion, but you might not have sufficient detachment to have an opinion worth listening to on the aesthetic question.

You seem to have proven that a bike built on the piss can be ridable (although we all knew that anyway), but don't kid yourself that you have dome something that anybody else will be interested in, except as a circus side show.

Got a problem Mr Frasier? Dont know who the we is youre referring to but I dont recall you to be one of them.

The build of this bike is not a deviation of correct bicycle design as you suggest, but a new and valid new geometry design that allows for angled wheels. It is the first time in bicycle history that this has been made possible. If you would have checked my Flickr you would know that. If you are skeptical I can respect that and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. If you just want to take a piss, please go somewhere else.

You seem to have proven that a bike built on the piss can be ridable (although we all knew that anyway), but don't kid yourself that you have dome something that anybody else will be interested in, except as a circus side show.

Don't speak for anybody else.

No Fork: awesome project, thank you for sharing, and good luck in the continuation.

Appeciate that. Thanks!

That's this forums particular oeuvre.

Sharing? Thats what forum is about init.

whatever

don't really see the need for all the aggro here. It's a bike project, nothing more, nothing less. Certainly not something to get upset about

what are those bars btw? Velo Orange?

I just want to try one out.

handlebar is misfit psycles with brooks tape.

I just want to try one out.

Everybody is welcome for a ride and a good beer. Just let me know when youre in the neighborhood.

If you just want to take a piss, please join the friendliest forum on the internet™.

ftfy

I think if you took your head out of your arse, you'd see that I've been quite restrained in the matter of piss taking. I thought I had the whole thing covered with "Very interesting...but stupid", and I suppose it's no skin off my nose if you pursue the delusion that you've achieved any more than that.

It's no surprise to anybody who has made even a cursory examination of single track vehicle dynamics that you've made something ridable, since the feedback mechanism of human pilots maintaining and directing the course of a bicycle is already highly attuned to various kinds of inherent instability.

Your proposition that finding a way to have all of the tubes of a cycle frame lie in a single plane is some kind of advance is where you fall down. For almost any imaginable scheme of manufacture, there is almost no cost saving in simplifying the main frame jig, and what there is is more than offset by the jigging and manufacturing complexity of the single sided wheel mounts. There is no structural advantage - supporting the wheels on both sides is very efficient in use of material, and to do otherwise results in heavier or weaker structures. There is no advantage in systems integration - you haven't even managed to get brakes on it yet, and most practical bicycles need some form of variable gearing. Both issues have been successfully tackled in single sided designs, but rarely in an elegant way. You also haven't properly solved the problem of having the crankshaft not parallel with the final drive axis - I have made a serious and, I hope, helpful suggestion in this regard, but others are available. On your 'proof of concept' build, twisting a standard roller chain is acceptable, but the accelerated wear on drive train components and increased friction will not be acceptable on a finished design.

In short, it is interesting that you have chosen to prove in metal what the rest of us would simply have accepted as the probable outcome after only a few moments of consideration, but it is stupid that you think you have made a useful advance in the field of bicycle design.

ftfy

In short, it is interesting that you have chosen to prove in metal what the rest of us would simply have accepted as the probable outcome after only a few moments of consideration, but it is stupid that you think you have made a useful advance in the field of bicycle design.

Have to agree, it seems like you put the effort in but in reality its not going to benifit the cycling industry if it was mr Burrows or one of the millions of engineers before you would have give it thought.
Good work thou.

But not really would have rather made and designed trick frames or a new super spok and sold um to bozos for many dorra.

Im sorry, but I must object to the fact that you (Tester) proclaim to know everything about my bike, you dont.

ftfy

I think if you took your head out of your arse, you'd see that I've been quite restrained in the matter of piss taking. I thought I had the whole thing covered with "Very interesting...but stupid", and I suppose it's no skin off my nose if you pursue the delusion that you've achieved any more than that.

We will talk later about who is the one who needs to take his head out of his arse... not so interesting in my view. Lets concentrate on the pudding.

It's no surprise to anybody who has made even a cursory examination of single track vehicle dynamics that you've made something ridable, since the feedback mechanism of human pilots maintaining and directing the course of a bicycle is already highly attuned to various kinds of inherent instability.

Here's where you go wrong the fist bit. Anybody with a cursory knowledge of single track vehicle dynamics will tell you that if you mount bicycle wheels in an angle to the frame it will compromise the stability. You have named the problem yourself: angled wheels generate camber steer. And as you say, and I fully agree with you on that, a rider can counter those forces to a certain extend.

But I will repeat again: That is NOT the idea behind the No-Fork bike.

Ow, and there is hardly any scientific consensus about "the feedback mechanism of human pilots maintaining and directing the course of a bicycle".

Your proposition that finding a way to have all of the tubes of a cycle frame lie in a single plane is some kind of advance is where you fall down. For almost any imaginable scheme of manufacture, there is almost no cost saving in simplifying the main frame jig, and what there is is more than offset by the jigging and manufacturing complexity of the single sided wheel mounts. There is no structural advantage - supporting the wheels on both sides is very efficient in use of material, and to do otherwise results in heavier or weaker structures. There is no advantage in systems integration - you haven't even managed to get brakes on it yet, and most practical bicycles need some form of variable gearing. Both issues have been successfully tackled in single sided designs, but rarely in an elegant way. You also haven't properly solved the problem of having the crankshaft not parallel with the final drive axis - I have made a serious and, I hope, helpful suggestion in this regard, but others are available. On your 'proof of concept' build, twisting a standard roller chain is acceptable, but the accelerated wear on drive train components and increased friction will not be acceptable on a finished design.

Here's where I have probably not been explicit enough, that might be a cause of misunderstanding. I have not meant to suggest the "the new geometry" is in finding a way to have all the tubes in a single plane.

I do claim that I have found a way, the new geometry, to dynamically (read: under all normal riding conditions) counteract and neutralize the camber steer forces generated by the angled wheels. Thereby making it possible to create a bike with angled wheels that is stable like a normal bike. Also with a profound theoretical underpinning.

In short, it is interesting that you have chosen to prove in metal what the rest of us would simply have accepted as the probable outcome after only a few moments of consideration, but it is stupid that you think you have made a useful advance in the field of bicycle design.

Its is interesting to see that the mental image of what a bicycle constitutes is so strong that otherwise knowlegeable people have a hard time grasping (and a strong resistance to) the No-Fork concept.

That "they" have to include "the rest of us" to give their argument some cachet was already known. Im sorry, but I must object to the fact that you proclaim to know everything about my bike, you dont. But Id be happy to answer any questions though :-)

OK, lets keep this simple.

You claim to have developed a geometry for a canted bicycle which is either as stable, or near enough, as a standard bicycle with the wheels 'in plane'. I'll take your word for it.

What advantage do you regard as springing from this interesting development?

If you cannot give a concrete example of how canted wheels will enable a superior bicycle, your invention remains interesting but stupid. You're not stupid to have contemplated the problem, and clearly pretty clever to have rigorously solved it, if we take that as read. You have on your hands an interesting novelty, a circus act, an amusing divertissemente, but no more than that.

I guess he just wanted it to look cool. Which may be why he posted it here, since a hell of a lot of the bikes posted on this forum are relatively impractical, but look cool.

I think Tester has a great idea, in the the shaft drive concept.

Really, in a way No Fork, Tester is doing you a favour, he is asking you to convince him / us, of the benefit.

It truly is the simple million dollar question.

As an aside, what do you call a woman on the no forks bike ? Eileen ?

give one to tester and let him welll ..... tester it
we'll soon find out if it is a new TT course record holder or an about town cruiser or a death trap !?

Both arguments seem a bit one-sided...