what do you think to this



Status
Not open for further replies.
Form is supposed to follow function. To my way of thinking, that item has function following form at
a distance almost certain to lead to exclusion under the 107% rule.

Back in the mildewed past of time-trialling, frame builders were forever coming up with "innovative"
designs which ostensibly made their machines better, but actually just made them distinctive enough
to stand out in photographs, since the rules forbade them to sponsor riders or advertise time-
trialling success. Hence Bates Cantiflex, the Flying Gate, Thanet Silverlight, Hetchins "Curly" and
the Paris Galibier. [Astonishingly, some MTB "designers" came up with a frame almost identical to
the latter and were astonished by the fact that a bottom bracket on the end of an unsupported tube
flexed like a flexible thing when subjected to the kind of torque put out by strong riders on steep
hills.] Very few of them actually did what it said on the tin.

Just say "no" to marketroids, kids.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> "jamie g" <""> writes:
>
>> http://www.phatbritain.com/3g%20S-Rod.htm
>
> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
>
> The object of a bike frame is to achieve the maximum stiffness with the minimum weight. That's why
> the tubes are typically straight: they act as pure struts transmitting load long their length.
> It's also why the frame is fundamentally made up of triangles.
>
> The frame shown has something approaching the minimum stiffness for the maximum weight. Try
> again...

Maximum stiffness with minimum weight only applies to a subset of bicycles. There are plenty of
attempts to provide flexibility in the vertical plane while being stiff in the lateral direction.
Pivoting and sliding suspension is just one answer to the problem. Have a look at these bikes some
of which have been going for a long time

http://www.slingshotbikes.com/ http://www.moots.com/bike-mtn-ybb.php
http://www.castellanodesigns.com/tech.html

Tony
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Innovation needs to be based on a sound understanding of the technical objectives. I don't believe
> this is. Quite apart from the fatigue issue, how heavy is that frame?

No it doesn't. You can hardly say that of the predecessors of the mountain bike.

Fatigue is not an issue in steel or titanium frames within their yield limits. It would be if it
were an aluminium frame. For illustration look at the softtail designs that use flexing of the chain
stays to provide rear suspension and have been reasonably successful

Tony
 
"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Agreed that you need to risk failure to innovate. Alex Moulton's space frame designs never 'caught
> on' but came from an attempt to rethink and analyse the requirements of the frame (indeed growing
> from the earlier rethink of the whole bike with the earlier F frame, small wheel with suspension
> designs -- which also looked 'cool' but which failed because it was too different). Likewise a
> Whyte frame tries to answer real
engineering
> problems. A Brommie may not be the best bike -- but it preserves a fair bike within a package that
> folds very well -- so compromises are made for
an
> additional benefit.
>
> The S frame's 'innovation' seems to be to look different and 'cool' rather than to answer
> engineering problems. As such I doubt it will survive as a long term contribution to
> bicycle design.
>

I get the impression that it wasn't done only to 'look cool' - the designers may well equally argue
that this is also "an attempt to rethink and analyse the requirements of the frame". It seems to be
an attempt to build a frame like spring, presumably for comfort purposes! But, I can't see it as
being either cool or effective in terms of any engineering purpose. Even more so than innovation
like the moulton, I doubt it will catch on..

Rich
 
"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It seems to be an attempt to build a frame like spring, presumably for comfort purposes!

Yebbut, the axis in which it springs is not the axis along which uncomfortable shocks arrive is it?
An S-shaped seatpost I could understand, but an S-shaped frame? It seems designed to give the same
effect as chopping the roof off a car and calling it a cabriolet: the handling turns to jelly and
the additional structural strength required to stop it snapping in half on the first bump destroys
any weight saving.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> It looks like another go in the long line of adding suspension through the frame flex - the much
> copied Moots, the Ibis BowTi and the Slingshot.
There
> is nothing instrinically wrong with using frame flex in this way with the right frame materials.

True

> No-one is forcing you to buy one and you haven't ridden one so give it the benefit of the doubt.
> Like most innovations the market will sort them out and most will fail.

True

> Doesn't mean its not worth trying.

Possibly -- but one method of sorting the wheat from the chaff is to look at the benefits it is
claimed to offer. I will pass on this one.

> After all, who thought of something as stupid as a bike where you lay back on the seat and
> pedalled ;-)

Don't know. Sounds silly to me!!

> Cue Fred Astaire singing Gershwins' "They all laughed"

If you wish.

T
>
> Tony
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bvd7cg
[email protected]:

> But I am not the target market.
>

That's what I used to have to keep explaining to my parents when some adverts came on TV when they
said they didn't "get it". If they don't understand it, the advert/product is more than likely not
aimed at them.

Obviously Guy, this means that this bike is aimed at a certain section of the population that does
not come within the "sophisticated, intelligent cyclist" group that most URCers belong to, I was
thinking it was more aimed at "short attention spanned, gadget crazed, fashion victim". :)

Cheers,

Graeme
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> It seems to be an attempt to build a frame like spring, presumably for comfort purposes!
>
> Yebbut, the axis in which it springs is not the axis along which uncomfortable shocks arrive is
> it? An S-shaped seatpost I could understand, but an S-shaped frame? It seems designed to give the
> same effect as chopping the roof off a car and calling it a cabriolet: the handling turns to jelly
> and the additional structural strength required to stop it snapping in half on the first bump
> destroys any weight saving.

Well the top part of the S is not disimilar to the Slingshot frame suspension concept and the bottom
half is not disimilar to a flexy chain stay design. I wouldn't like to comment on its ride without
trying it because you might say the same of some other flexible frame bikes but it would not be
true. The guy behind it seems to have a long history in bicycles but in bmx and choppers rather than
the "proper bicycles" seemingly preferred by urc.

http://www.phatbritain.com/coachdelux_enlarged1.htm

Tony
 
Dave Larrington wrote:

> Back in the mildewed past of time-trialling, frame builders were forever coming up with
> "innovative" designs which ostensibly made their machines better, but actually just made them
> distinctive enough to stand out in photographs, since the rules forbade them to sponsor riders or
> advertise time-trialling success. Hence Bates Cantiflex, the Flying Gate, Thanet Silverlight,
> Hetchins "Curly" and the Paris Galibier.

And the Dave Lloyd Concept 90, which unfortunately has become fashionable with all those compact
road frames. I don't like them - they *look* slow.
 
Clive George wrote:

> Surely 32F/40R if you're going to be traditionalist?

I thought it was 32F/36R for racers. That's what I have...but it's really because when I picked up
the bike from Orbit's old factory in Dudley, the front wheel was wonky so they stuck on a different
one...which happened to be a 32.
 
"MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bvdnrn$qr31v$1@ID-
207671.news.uni-berlin.de:

> Graeme wrote:
>> "sophisticated, intelligent cyclist"
>
> Sophistication ? I've been to Leeds

You have my sympathies. In these enlightened days there are support groups to help you get over the
experience.

Graeme
 
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:57:57 -0000, "MSeries"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sophistication ? I've been to Leeds

And you found your way out again? Well done! You obviously had a map, the roadsigns are
bugger all use.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:57:57 -0000, "MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Sophistication ? I've been to Leeds
>
> And you found your way out again? Well done! You obviously had a map, the roadsigns are bugger
> all use.

Well, I cycled a few times whilst living in Sheffield, and I don't recollect any problems with it.

But mostly I took the easy option and used the train. From that perspective it's not such a
bad place.

--
Nick Kew
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tony W wrote:
> >
> > Innovation yes -- fashion victim no.
> >
> > Innovation is such as a quality recumbent, a Brompton or a Whyte. It must offer something
> > demonstrably better than a standard diamond frame safety.
> >
> > The S bike is a fashion statement/victim.
> >
> > What demonstrable benefits is it supposed to offer?
>
> People ridiculed bicycles, the Brompton and Whyte when they were first introduced and its only
> because time has shown them to be successful that that has abated somewhat. We only get innovation
> because people dare to try and risk failure - and there's always a bunch of yahoos on the
> sidelines ridiculing their attempts.

Actually, having thought about it, you're right and I owe Jamie G an apology. His design is actually
no more outrageous than some of the bike design ideas I play with from time to time, and at least
he's had the guts to turn his idea into real metal, which is more than I have. I was shooting my
mouth off...

> "All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
> Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

Or as Ghandi put it "First they laugh at us. Then they fight us. Then we win."

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

;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14? -- user 'Tackhead', in /.
discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02
 
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:45:36 +0000, Steph Peters
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Sophistication ? I've been to Leeds
>But have you been to Harrogate?

More times than I care to recall. Used to be a standard day-trip for me - drive to Harrogate, do a
day's work, drive back. 512 miles round trip. My old Carlton would do it on one tank of petrol.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back