odd frame

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...

If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--

Uh, some more chain stays?

Odd rear lacing, too.

That looks like a good way to ensure that you'll run aground from time
to time. But it also looks like a feasible way to use a toothed belt
instead of a chain.

Chalo

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:31:49 -0000, Chalo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...

If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--

Uh, some more chain stays?

Odd rear lacing, too.

That looks like a good way to ensure that you'll run aground from time
to time. But it also looks like a feasible way to use a toothed belt
instead of a chain.

Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Aha!

It's the obvious solution to the problem of those pesky
can-I-re-use-them snap-links that anxious 10-speed users are always
asking about on RBT.

With that frame, you can put the chain together with a snap-link just
once and then take it off every week for cleaning without ever undoing
the snap-link again.

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

hard to see, but the bike probably has a very short bracketaxle for a
low Q-'factor'

--
/Marten (who came up with 'factor' for a dimension? ) Gerritsen

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

M-gineering said:

/Marten (who came up with 'factor' for a dimension? ) Gerritsen

Wasn't Q-factor a marketing phrase from Ritchey?

M-gineering said:

Quoted message said:

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

hard to see, but the bike probably has a very short bracketaxle for a
low Q-'factor'

Dear Marten,

Yes, the bottom bracket could be very narrow--that never occurred to
me. The pedals clear all four chain stays, so the the bottom bracket
could be as narrow as the frame tube width or tire.

I wonder how well a bottom bracket that narrow would work with a track
rider's power?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

M-gineering said:

Quoted message said:

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

hard to see, but the bike probably has a very short bracketaxle for a
low Q-'factor'

Dear Marten,

Yes, the bottom bracket could be very narrow--that never occurred to
me. The pedals clear all four chain stays, so the the bottom bracket
could be as narrow as the frame tube width or tire.

I wonder how well a bottom bracket that narrow would work with a track
rider's power?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Obree didn't do so badly

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

Quoted message said:

M-gineering said:

hard to see, but the bike probably has a very short bracketaxle for a
low Q-'factor'

Quoted message said:

Yes, the bottom bracket could be very narrow--that never occurred to
me. The pedals clear all four chain stays, so the the bottom bracket
could be as narrow as the frame tube width or tire.
I wonder how well a bottom bracket that narrow would work with a track
rider's power?

Probably well enough.
Most track riders are human and within a narrow range of power. Self
promotion notwithstanding 'crank/BB flex' is a problem more imagined
than real as far as making a bike go forward.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...

If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--

Uh, some more chain stays?

Odd rear lacing, too.

Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:48:52 -0700, Hank Wirtz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...

If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--

Uh, some more chain stays?

Odd rear lacing, too.

Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?

Dear Hank,

Sorry, I was fooled because I compared the rear spokes to the front
spokes. Thanks for making me look again.

After squinting at it and comparing it to some pictures and counting
on my fingers, I _think_ that the rear is actually just 3-cross. What
fooled me is that the high-flange rear hub gives noticeably different
spoke angles than the 3-cross front wheel.

The cover of Jobst's book has a good diagram of a similar rear wheel,
showing the same angles from the high flange hub and letting you count
crossings.

That is, this 3x high-flange rear wheel on the cover of Jobst's book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0960723668/sr=8-1/qid=1190410591/ref=dp_image_text_0/104-4562519-2765521?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1190410591&sr=8-1
or
http://tinyurl.com/2a5bld

. . . looks the same as this rear wheel on the odd-framed green bike:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3AgA/s1600-h/DSC04943.JPG
or
http://tinyurl.com/yr4gew

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Viking track bike from the early sixties. It is the "SBU Tracker" -
radical in its day, even as it is today. I think it was a "fixie" and
definitely had no brakes.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

clare at snyder.on.ca said:

Viking track bike from the early sixties. It is the "SBU Tracker" -
radical in its day, even as it is today. I think it was a "fixie" and
definitely had no brakes.

Dear Clare,

Aha! You're right:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Viking/Viking_SBU_Tracker.htm

from http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Viking/Viking.htm

But I can't find anything about what the odd frame was supposed to do.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:48:52 -0700, Hank Wirtz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Uh, some more chain stays?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Odd rear lacing, too.

Quoted message said:

Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?

Dear Hank,

Sorry, I was fooled because I compared the rear spokes to the front
spokes. Thanks for making me look again.

After squinting at it and comparing it to some pictures and counting
on my fingers, I _think_ that the rear is actually just 3-cross. What
fooled me is that the high-flange rear hub gives noticeably different
spoke angles than the 3-cross front wheel.

The cover of Jobst's book has a good diagram of a similar rear wheel,
showing the same angles from the high flange hub and letting you count
crossings.

That is, this 3x high-flange rear wheel on the cover of Jobst's book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0960723668/sr=8-1/qid=1190410...
or
http://tinyurl.com/2a5bld

. . . looks the same as this rear wheel on the odd-framed green bike:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...
or
http://tinyurl.com/yr4gew

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The cool thing I just noticed about the bike is that the chain does
not encircle any of the stays - it goes between the two sets of
chainstays, so it can be removed from the bike without breaking it!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...
If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--
Uh, some more chain stays?
Odd rear lacing, too.

Quoted message said:

Hank Wirtz said:

Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I was fooled because I compared the rear spokes to the front
spokes. Thanks for making me look again.

After squinting at it and comparing it to some pictures and counting
on my fingers, I _think_ that the rear is actually just 3-cross. What
fooled me is that the high-flange rear hub gives noticeably different
spoke angles than the 3-cross front wheel.

The cover of Jobst's book has a good diagram of a similar rear wheel,
showing the same angles from the high flange hub and letting you count
crossings.
That is, this 3x high-flange rear wheel on the cover of Jobst's book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0960723668/sr=8-1/qid=1190410591/ref=dp_image_text_0/104-4562519-2765521?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1190410591&sr=8-1
or
http://tinyurl.com/2a5bld
. . . looks the same as this rear wheel on the odd-framed green bike:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3AgA/s1600-h/DSC04943.JPG
or
http://tinyurl.com/yr4gew

Looks like 40 hole rims four-crossed.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:58:37 -0500, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:
> http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...
> If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
> just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--
> Uh, some more chain stays?
> Odd rear lacing, too.

Quoted message said:

Hank Wirtz said:

Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I was fooled because I compared the rear spokes to the front
spokes. Thanks for making me look again.

After squinting at it and comparing it to some pictures and counting
on my fingers, I _think_ that the rear is actually just 3-cross. What
fooled me is that the high-flange rear hub gives noticeably different
spoke angles than the 3-cross front wheel.

The cover of Jobst's book has a good diagram of a similar rear wheel,
showing the same angles from the high flange hub and letting you count
crossings.
That is, this 3x high-flange rear wheel on the cover of Jobst's book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0960723668/sr=8-1/qid=1190410591/ref=dp_image_text_0/104-4562519-2765521?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1190410591&sr=8-1
or
http://tinyurl.com/2a5bld
. . . looks the same as this rear wheel on the odd-framed green bike:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3AgA/s1600-h/DSC04943.JPG
or
http://tinyurl.com/yr4gew

Looks like 40 hole rims four-crossed.

Dear Andrew,

I enlarged the picture, fired up my etch-a-sketch, snapped a line from
the tire valve across the axle, and numbered spokes . . .

http://i13.tinypic.com/61lxhz4.jpg

I get 18 spokes per half wheel and angles that look pretty much like
the 36-spoke on the cover of Jobst's book.

(Double-check . . . 1, 2, 3 . . . Yes, "The Bicycle Wheel" has a
36-spoke wheel on its cover, cross-3--whew!)

But I'm pitting my etch-a-sketch skills against a very experienced
local bike shop owner, so be kind if I'm missing something.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:31:49 -0000, Chalo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3A...

If you look where the three right-hand stays meet the rim, you can
just make out details that show that there are six seat, chain and--

Uh, some more chain stays?

Odd rear lacing, too.

That looks like a good way to ensure that you'll run aground from time
to time. But it also looks like a feasible way to use a toothed belt
instead of a chain.

Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Aha!

It's the obvious solution to the problem of those pesky
can-I-re-use-them snap-links that anxious 10-speed users are always
asking about on RBT.

With that frame, you can put the chain together with a snap-link just
once and then take it off every week for cleaning without ever undoing
the snap-link again.

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

not with a configuration like that - multiple extended load paths?
that'll be worse, not better.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

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

Quoted message said:

M-gineering said:

Quoted message said:

Damned if I can think of any other explanation, but surely someone had
a reason for that weird frame. Maybe they were trying to stiffen it
laterally for sprinting?

hard to see, but the bike probably has a very short bracketaxle for a
low Q-'factor'

Dear Marten,

Yes, the bottom bracket could be very narrow--that never occurred to
me. The pedals clear all four chain stays, so the the bottom bracket
could be as narrow as the frame tube width or tire.

I wonder how well a bottom bracket that narrow would work with a track
rider's power?

The Project 96 bikes built for us on the US track team had no problems with
narrow BBs, even for the enormous force of a kilometer time trial standing
start. The sprinters did use conventional width BBs, but historically
sprinters have not placed aerodynamics at the top of their priorities.