The (front) wheel reinvented?

[dabac]

Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following contraption has seen the light of day: Streetsurfer (Yes, despite the name the link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object content...)

Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and similar indefinitely more thrilling, is there any truth to their statement of better cornering ability through the front quad set-up?

(sure, you get 4 contact patches instead of one, but you also get 1/4 of the pressure on each, so is it really a net gain in friction?)

And how often do you feel that tight cornering is what's holding you back on your rides?

Wouldn't it look cute with 4 individual fenders on the front wheels though?

 

[sergio]

On Feb 5, 11:26 am, dabac <dabac.34a...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and
> similar indefinitely more thrilling,

Just stupid, in my opinion.

Sergio
Pisa

 

[datakoll]

On Feb 5, 5:45 am, sergio <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:26 am, dabac <dabac.34a...@no-
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and
> > similar indefinitely more thrilling,
>
> Just stupid, in my opinion.
>
> Sergio
> Pisa

whattsa matta? Diocletion didn;t get the potholes filled yet?

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 5:26 am, dabac <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
> content...)
>
> Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and
> similar indefinitely more thrilling, is there any truth to their
> statement of better cornering ability through the front quad set-up?
>
> (sure, you get 4 contact patches instead of one, but you also get 1/4
> of the pressure on each, so is it really a net gain in friction?)
>
> And how often do you feel that tight cornering is what's holding you
> back on your rides?
>
> Wouldn't it look cute with 4 individual fenders on the front wheels
> though?
>
> --
> dabac

Well, they clearly aren't buying into the idea that a low bottom
bracket might help cornering. Friction is a function of normal force
and surface behavior, not pressure. That's why their reference to the
scrubbing sound is irrelevant. When the front of this contraption
gets turned, the two wheels on the inside are going to break traction
by simple virtue of trying to turn on the same radius as the outer
two. When the inside tires break, weight goes to the outside, and
total friction stays the same. But I guess some people are easily
convinced that rapid tire wear is a sure sign that they're really
pushing the laws of physics.

 

[nmp]

dabac wrote:

> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
> content...)
>
> Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and similar
> indefinitely more thrilling, is there any truth to their statement of
> better cornering ability through the front quad set-up?
>
> (sure, you get 4 contact patches instead of one, but you also get 1/4 of
> the pressure on each, so is it really a net gain in friction?)
>
> And how often do you feel that tight cornering is what's holding you
> back on your rides?
>
> Wouldn't it look cute with 4 individual fenders on the front wheels
> though?

Right.

In his next post, Carl is probably going to show us the same invention
but from the 1800's.

 

[Squat'n Dive]

On Feb 5, 9:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 5, 5:26 am, dabac <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
> > contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
> > (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
> > link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
> > content...)
>
> > Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and
> > similar indefinitely more thrilling, is there any truth to their
> > statement of better cornering ability through the front quad set-up?
>
> > (sure, you get 4 contact patches instead of one, but you also get 1/4
> > of the pressure on each, so is it really a net gain in friction?)
>
> > And how often do you feel that tight cornering is what's holding you
> > back on your rides?
>
> > Wouldn't it look cute with 4 individual fenders on the front wheels
> > though?
>
> > --
> > dabac
>
> Well, they clearly aren't buying into the idea that a low bottom
> bracket might help cornering. Friction is a function of normal force
> and surface behavior, not pressure. That's why their reference to the
> scrubbing sound is irrelevant. When the front of this contraption
> gets turned, the two wheels on the inside are going to break traction
> by simple virtue of trying to turn on the same radius as the outer
> two. When the inside tires break, weight goes to the outside, and
> total friction stays the same. But I guess some people are easily
> convinced that rapid tire wear is a sure sign that they're really
> pushing the laws of physics.

consider the setup on sand patches. I expect the quad to regain the
traction quicker.
But I wonder about cost per mile with the tiny size of these.
If they are anything like rollerblade wheels the costs must be thru
the roof.
And potholes... don't even mention those.
I wonder how well the quad setup would've worked if the wheels were in
the 8-12" range.
Steering must be a ***** then though.

 

[Dave Reckoning]

"dabac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
> content...)
>
> Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and
> similar indefinitely more thrilling, is there any truth to their
> statement of better cornering ability through the front quad set-up?
>
> (sure, you get 4 contact patches instead of one, but you also get 1/4
> of the pressure on each, so is it really a net gain in friction?)
>
> And how often do you feel that tight cornering is what's holding you
> back on your rides?
>
> Wouldn't it look cute with 4 individual fenders on the front wheels
> though?
>
>
> --
> dabac
>

Perhaps it it hubris but, I bet I can achieve more centripetal force on my
fixed gear bike than that kid in the picture can on that thing.

Am I crazy to think so?

--
Dave Reckoning
Noblesville, Indiana

 

[Werehatrack]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:26:01 +1100, dabac
<[email protected]> may have said:

>
>Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
>contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
>(http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
>link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
>content...)

I think you got it right in the last part there.

The fact that something is possible does not automatically make it a
good idea. The fact that someone is making it does not always mean it
works. The fact that it appears to work on first exposure does not
prove it's going to be durable - or safe - in the long term.

Anyone else here recall the Shockster?

For that matter, anyone here still driving an old VW Rabbit?

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:26:01 +1100, dabac
> <[email protected]> may have said:
>
>> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
>> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
>> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
>> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
>> content...)
>
> I think you got it right in the last part there.
>
> The fact that something is possible does not automatically make it a
> good idea. The fact that someone is making it does not always mean it
> works. The fact that it appears to work on first exposure does not
> prove it's going to be durable - or safe - in the long term.
>
> Anyone else here recall the Shockster?
>
I saw on mounted on a LCD P-38 [1].

> For that matter, anyone here still driving an old VW Rabbit?
>
No, mine rusted to the point that the suspension mounts pushed through
their mountings. The floor was rusted enough that the car flooded when
driven through a puddle.

I learned my lesson and now drive cars designed and built by Japan based
manufacturers.

[1] <http://www.lightningbikes.com/p38.htm>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[datakoll]

Sherman forgot to look under the floor mats. Think Rusto! Think?
I watched Jame Hunt drive the 6 wheel GP car-great end straight
acceleration.
That's what I thought when the picture pooped in-getting snubbed in a
pothole and running my mug down the pavement.
Great 28" Rims! how could that be avoided? the front end's gonna go
into a hloe and stay there for 3-4 days but ura gonna continue onward.
The frame could have a metal prong on the stem facing the rider so...
itsa joke right? In Benelux dowah dowha dododowha IN BENELUX...

 

[Tom Sherman]

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
> Sherman forgot to look under the floor mats. Think Rusto! Think?...
>
Nonsense. I looked under the floor mats and saw the surface of the road.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[jim beam]

datakoll wrote:
>
> Sherman forgot to look under the floor mats. Think Rusto! Think?
> I watched Jame Hunt drive the 6 wheel GP car-great end straight
> acceleration.

jeepers, that shows your age!


> That's what I thought when the picture pooped in-getting snubbed in a
> pothole and running my mug down the pavement.
> Great 28" Rims! how could that be avoided? the front end's gonna go
> into a hloe and stay there for 3-4 days but ura gonna continue onward.
> The frame could have a metal prong on the stem facing the rider so...
> itsa joke right? In Benelux dowah dowha dododowha IN BENELUX...

 

[datakoll]

On Feb 5, 11:59 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
>
> > Sherman forgot to look under the floor mats. Think Rusto! Think?
> > I watched Jame Hunt drive the 6 wheel GP car-great end straight
> > acceleration.
>
> jeepers, that shows your age!
>
>
>
> > That's what I thought when the picture pooped in-getting snubbed in a
> > pothole and running my mug down the pavement.
> > Great 28" Rims! how could that be avoided? the front end's gonna go
> > into a hloe and stay there for 3-4 days but ura gonna continue onward.
> > The frame could have a metal prong on the stem facing the rider so...
> > itsa joke right? In Benelux dowah dowha dododowha IN BENELUX...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

whoa! what happens when there's no centrifugal force on the front?
only at the rear.

 

[datakoll]

On Feb 6, 12:20 am, datakoll <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:59 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > datakoll wrote:
>
> > > Sherman forgot to look under the floor mats. Think Rusto! Think?
> > > I watched Jame Hunt drive the 6 wheel GP car-great end straight
> > > acceleration.
>
> > jeepers, that shows your age!
>
> > > That's what I thought when the picture pooped in-getting snubbed in a
> > > pothole and running my mug down the pavement.
> > > Great 28" Rims! how could that be avoided? the front end's gonna go
> > > into a hloe and stay there for 3-4 days but ura gonna continue onward.
> > > The frame could have a metal prong on the stem facing the rider so...
> > > itsa joke right? In Benelux dowah dowha dododowha IN BENELUX...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> whoa! what happens when there's no centrifugal force on the front?
> only at the rear.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Hunt F1 6 wheel car had excellent turn in.

 

[G.fried]

nmp schrieb:
> dabac wrote:
>
>> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
>> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
>> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
>> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
>> content...)
>>
>> Apart from the obvious "advantage" of making potholes, curbs and similar
>> indefinitely more thrilling, is there any truth to their statement of
>> better cornering ability through the front quad set-up?
>>
>> (sure, you get 4 contact patches instead of one, but you also get 1/4 of
>> the pressure on each, so is it really a net gain in friction?)
>>
>> And how often do you feel that tight cornering is what's holding you
>> back on your rides?
>>
>> Wouldn't it look cute with 4 individual fenders on the front wheels
>> though?
>



I have two fenders now ;-)


http://www.hyperbike.cc/docs/original/nachrechts.jpg

cheers


> Right.
>
> In his next post, Carl is probably going to show us the same invention
> but from the 1800's.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Feb 5, 8:23 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Werehatrack wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:26:01 +1100, dabac
> > <[email protected]> may have said:
>
> >> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
> >> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
> >> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
> >> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
> >> content...)
>
> > I think you got it right in the last part there.
>
> > The fact that something is possible does not automatically make it a
> > good idea.  The fact that someone is making it does not always mean it
> > works.  The fact that it appears to work on first exposure does not
> > prove it's going to be durable - or safe - in the long term.
>
> > Anyone else here recall the Shockster?  
>
> I saw on mounted on a LCD P-38 [1].
>
> > For that matter, anyone here still driving an old VW Rabbit?
>
> No, mine rusted to the point that the suspension mounts pushed through
> their mountings. The floor was rusted enough that the car flooded when
> driven through a puddle.
>
> I learned my lesson and now drive cars designed and built by Japan based
> manufacturers.

German cars are now fully galvanized, and rust is only a problem where
it is a problem for all other cars - in places where roads are salted.

The first generation of VW Rabbits were not galvanized, and rusted
quickly in areas with road salt. Oddly, in just the same fashion as
their Japanese contemporaries.

Out here in the West, where they do not see fit to salt the roads, I
see first-generation Rabbits quite often.

E.P.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:40:47 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> may have said:

>On Feb 5, 8:23 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> Werehatrack wrote:
>> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:26:01 +1100, dabac
>> > <[email protected]> may have said:
>>
>> >> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
>> >> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
>> >> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
>> >> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
>> >> content...)
>>
>> > I think you got it right in the last part there.
>>
>> > The fact that something is possible does not automatically make it a
>> > good idea.  The fact that someone is making it does not always mean it
>> > works.  The fact that it appears to work on first exposure does not
>> > prove it's going to be durable - or safe - in the long term.
>>
>> > Anyone else here recall the Shockster?  
>>
>> I saw on mounted on a LCD P-38 [1].
>>
>> > For that matter, anyone here still driving an old VW Rabbit?
>>
>> No, mine rusted to the point that the suspension mounts pushed through
>> their mountings. The floor was rusted enough that the car flooded when
>> driven through a puddle.
>>
>> I learned my lesson and now drive cars designed and built by Japan based
>> manufacturers.
>
>German cars are now fully galvanized, and rust is only a problem where
>it is a problem for all other cars - in places where roads are salted.
>
>The first generation of VW Rabbits were not galvanized, and rusted
>quickly in areas with road salt. Oddly, in just the same fashion as
>their Japanese contemporaries.
>
>Out here in the West, where they do not see fit to salt the roads, I
>see first-generation Rabbits quite often.

But, I will wager, not too many...and if you examine some closely, you
may find undetected faults or evidence of unusual repairs. There are
a number of long-term Rabbit structural failure modes that were not
discovered until the cars had been around for quite a while. One is
that the unibody tends to develop a large crack in the firewall panel
aft of the engine; another (which was known at least as early as 1983)
is that the inner cowl panel above the suspension mount tends to
develop cracks. Then there's the not-necessarily-salt-related
corrosion problem in wet areas due to water getting inside and rotting
out the brake lines under the carpeting. And those are just some of
the body-related problem spots; the electrical system faults, fuel
system glitches and various engine woes combined to make maintaining a
Rabbit more of a career than a pastime. But they were sturdy buggers
indeed by comparison to the Waterboxer Vanagon, which was afficted by
the infamous popcorn motor. (It is possible that I was the coiner of
that term; when I came up with it shortly after they came out, no one
else had heard it. My creativity did not endear me to the powers
within the organization.)


--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[datakoll]

ya gotta paint the little boxes with zinc chromate or linseed oil then
Rusto/metallic latex/Rusto.
Try a rotary brush with the datakoll brush holder.
incroyable!

ifn ura gonna run Rallye then the little box will crack here and there
after all it snot a Volvo.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Feb 6, 4:23 pm, Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:40:47 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> <[email protected]> may have said:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 5, 8:23 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> Werehatrack wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:26:01 +1100, dabac
> >> > <[email protected]> may have said:
>
> >> >> Maybe according to the old adage "the more the merrier" the following
> >> >> contraption has seen the light of day: 'Streetsurfer'
> >> >> (http://www.streetsurfer.nl/streetsurfer) (Yes, despite the name the
> >> >> link does contain cycling content. Well, perhaps bicycle-looking object
> >> >> content...)
>
> >> > I think you got it right in the last part there.
>
> >> > The fact that something is possible does not automatically make it a
> >> > good idea. The fact that someone is making it does not always mean it
> >> > works. The fact that it appears to work on first exposure does not
> >> > prove it's going to be durable - or safe - in the long term.
>
> >> > Anyone else here recall the Shockster?
>
> >> I saw on mounted on a LCD P-38 [1].
>
> >> > For that matter, anyone here still driving an old VW Rabbit?
>
> >> No, mine rusted to the point that the suspension mounts pushed through
> >> their mountings. The floor was rusted enough that the car flooded when
> >> driven through a puddle.
>
> >> I learned my lesson and now drive cars designed and built by Japan based
> >> manufacturers.
>
> >German cars are now fully galvanized, and rust is only a problem where
> >it is a problem for all other cars - in places where roads are salted.
>
> >The first generation of VW Rabbits were not galvanized, and rusted
> >quickly in areas with road salt. Oddly, in just the same fashion as
> >their Japanese contemporaries.
>
> >Out here in the West, where they do not see fit to salt the roads, I
> >see first-generation Rabbits quite often.
>
> But, I will wager, not too many.

No, that is absolutely true. I do, however, see more of them, in
better shape, than Japanese cars of the same vintage.

I almost bought a diesel Rabbit that had been converted to a modern
1.9L TDI diesel motor - the test drive was quite eye-opening. The car
was severely overpriced for what it was, but the guy had done a very
nice job of all the modifications. Complete strip of the unibody to
the shell, then built up with essentially new moving parts. The
interior had been updated to heated leather seating, excellent stereo,
very nice instrumentation, and plenty of sound deadening (a flaw in
the originals). He had well over the $9k he was asking, and I
believed him when he said he could get the thing to reliably get
60mpg. (Considering the weight of the original Rabbit, and the weight
of the motor donor, I would have guessed better than 50 mpg).

It was also quite quick, nice to drive, and very quiet, even at
highway speed. He was justifiably proud of the car.

Every now and then, I am sad that I didn't pony up for the thing. But
I bought a diesel Mercedes and had enough of the $9k left over to push
my turbo Audi to close to 400HP.

Also, my MTB fits in the trunk of the Mercedes. It would have been
tough to get it in the Rabbit, even after taking off the wheels.

E.P.

 

[dabac]

... rotting out the brake lines under the carpeting.

What? Brake lines ran THROUGH the passenger compartment? Never seen such a thing.

(well, actually I have, but that was in a heavily modified rally car, and it certainly didn't have anythig as frivolous as carpets inside...)