Monostays

Steve Hodgson said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the more
common construction?

easy to build, especially when tigwelding, some customers like them
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

"Steve Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the more
common construction?

People with more money than brains can be separated from the fomer more
easily.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:08:26 +0000, Steve Hodgson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the more
common construction?

The fact that they are designed by Mike Burrows?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the more
common construction?

The fact that they are designed by Mike Burrows?

And you don't have to take the wheel off when the p*nct*re fairy strikes,
a feature I took advantage of coming home from work a few days ago. At
midnight. In the rain.

(I broke a spoke as well. LBS didn't have any spokes for 20" wheels, so I
rang that nice Mr Dixon at AVD, who sent me a half doz. the next day
free of charge. Next time I'll tell him I've broken the Windcheetah and
see what happens.)

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Steve Hodgson said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the more
common construction?

If they're done properly (like suspension and disc brakes, this is not a
given) they should be stronger at the same weight, or lighter at the
same strength, because you can have one fat tube instead of two thin ones.
There are issues with needing a stronger axle and mount, but that comes
into the "doing it properly" bit.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

in message <[email hidden]>, Steve

Hodgson (') said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the
more common construction?

Stiffness, lightness.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.

Mark McN <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the more
common construction?

The fact that they are designed by Mike Burrows?

And you don't have to take the wheel off when the p*nct*re fairy strikes,
a feature I took advantage of coming home from work a few days ago. At
midnight. In the rain.

Depends - are we talking about monostays in the Burrows sense, or
those for conventional hubs/dropouts also known as a 'wishbone'? Frank
Clements of Orbit (later Sirius) never used to put the latter on his
frames, reckoning that they were too 'whippy' compared to orthodox
seatstays. My Trek MTB has a wishbone, but being extremely chunky all
round it's hard to make a comparison with my Cougar road bike and its
small-diameter conventional stays. A lot of the appeal of the wishbone
arragement seems to be down to aesthetics and novelty value, though
the entirely welded-up variety (Planet X Kaffenback, One-One Il
Pompino) looks, to me, uglier than with those using shaped seat stay
tubes (like the Trek mentioned above).

David E. Belcher

David E. Belcher

Steve Hodgson said:

Just curious, what are the advantages of a monostay design over the

more

Quoted message said:

common construction?

Hi there.

Aerodynamics - one less fork leg sticking into the wind. At least in
the case of the original Mike Burrows designed Lotus 'superbike' as
ridden in 1992 Olympics by a certain Mr Boardman.

Cheers, Andy

[email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Hi there.

Aerodynamics - one less fork leg sticking into the wind. At least in
the case of the original Mike Burrows designed Lotus 'superbike' as
ridden in 1992 Olympics by a certain Mr Boardman.

Mr Burrows described said bike as horrible. It served its purpose but
there was apparently some unpleasant flex in the front blade and the
bike wasn't the nicest ride in the world.

Do the UCI still allow monoblades? Is that not a dangerously clever
innovation?

Jon

m-gineering [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

easy to build, especially when tigwelding, some customers like them

Why "when tig welding"? I don't see that the monoblade design has any
advantage over conventional forks for the welder.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

m-gineering [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

easy to build, especially when tigwelding, some customers like them

Why "when tig welding"? I don't see that the monoblade design has any
advantage over conventional forks for the welder.

Jon

I was more thinking along the lines of wishbonestays, but in both cases
it saves the problem of trying to get the weldingtorch between two tubes
(chainstays and seatstays|)

If you are thinking monoblade, you need an enormous amount of material
to get any sort of stifness.
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

Jon Senior said:

Mr Burrows described said bike as horrible. It served its purpose but
there was apparently some unpleasant flex in the front blade and the
bike wasn't the nicest ride in the world.

A fair bit was due to the method of attachment of the front wheel, thobut.
Mr. Burrows having been attaching wheels to bi- and tricycles from one side
for more than ten of the BRITONS' years, it was only natural for the
knobheads at Lotus to say "Let us call upon the services of Mavic, for they
Know About Wheels and will surely come up with a better solution than a Man
in a Shed!" And Lo! They did not. Mike is on record as saying that had
the event been over five thousand meters, rather than four thousand,
Boardman would not have won the gold medal, as his front wheel would have
fallen off.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

in message <[email hidden]>, m-gineering

(') said:

Jon Senior said:

m-gineering [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

easy to build, especially when tigwelding, some customers like them

Why "when tig welding"? I don't see that the monoblade design has any
advantage over conventional forks for the welder.

I was more thinking along the lines of wishbonestays, but in both
cases it saves the problem of trying to get the weldingtorch between
two tubes (chainstays and seatstays|)

If you are thinking monoblade, you need an enormous amount of material
to get any sort of stifness.

Whereas, of course, if you distribute the same amount of material over
two smaller diameter tubes, you get...?

Weight for weight, one tube is always going to be stronger than two.
Strength for strength, one tube is always going to be lighter than two.
Monoblades make sense.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, m-gineering

(') said:

Jon Senior said:

m-gineering [email hidden] opined the
following...
> easy to build, especially when tigwelding, some customers like them

Why "when tig welding"? I don't see that the monoblade design has any
advantage over conventional forks for the welder.

I was more thinking along the lines of wishbonestays, but in both
cases it saves the problem of trying to get the weldingtorch between
two tubes (chainstays and seatstays|)

If you are thinking monoblade, you need an enormous amount of material
to get any sort of stifness.

Whereas, of course, if you distribute the same amount of material over
two smaller diameter tubes, you get...?

Weight for weight, one tube is always going to be stronger than two.
Strength for strength, one tube is always going to be lighter than two.

I hope you enjoy the steering precision offer by a flat frontire,
because that is the feeling you will get if you were to adhere to this
principle.

A conventional fork gives far less displacement of the fronttyre with a
given sideways force. Not only is the fork stiffer (the tubes may be
smaller, but they are at a distance) but the deformation follows a
parallelogram path, and not the single sweep of the cantilevered beam
(been there and did the math afterwards 😉 )

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you are thinking monoblade, you need an enormous amount of material
to get any sort of stifness.

Whereas, of course, if you distribute the same amount of material over
two smaller diameter tubes, you get...?

Much more stiffness if the two tubes are seperated by the width of a typical
hub, and joined by the typical hub's axle.

Monoblades on bicycles are a Completely Dumb Idea.

jtaylor said:

"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you are thinking monoblade, you need an enormous amount of
material to get any sort of stifness.

Whereas, of course, if you distribute the same amount of material
over two smaller diameter tubes, you get...?

Much more stiffness if the two tubes are seperated by the width of a
typical hub, and joined by the typical hub's axle.

Which presupposes that any extra stiffness is

o desirable, or
o detectable, or
o of any use whatsoever

Quoted message said:

Monoblades on bicycles are a Completely Dumb Idea.

Why?

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

jtaylor said:

Much more stiffness if the two tubes are seperated by the width of a typical
hub, and joined by the typical hub's axle.

Errrrr, no.

Quoted message said:

Monoblades on bicycles are a Completely Dumb Idea.

Your reasoning could do with a bit more work.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

jtaylor said:

Monoblades on bicycles are a Completely Dumb Idea.

How many Olympic record breaking bicycles have you designed? Just
curious. OK, lower the bar a bit: how many bicycles have you designed
in total?

Mike Burrows is a leading proponent of monoblades; he designed Chris
Boardman's Lotus bike, the Windcheetah, Ratcatcher, Ratracer, 2D and
8-Freight, all but the first being commercially available right now,
and all having wheels suspended on one side only. The bikes he
designed for Giant had conventional forks, IIRC. The one he built for
Adam Hart-Davies was monobladed.

Perhaps you'd like to tell Mike that they are a Completely Dumb Idea.
Preferably at a BHPC meet where (a) he will be racing one of said
machines and (b) there will be a Several of urc regulars available to
laugh in your face :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Just zis Guy said:

The bikes he
designed for Giant had conventional forks, IIRC.

Bzzzt! The Giant Halfway is a monoblade.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you'd like to tell Mike that they are a Completely Dumb Idea.

Or perhaps that might be a Completely Dumb Idea... ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/