| |
Main
Date: 14 Mar 2006 03:45:39
From:
Subject: FWD 'bent
|
I'm in the process of building a Front Wheel Drive 'bent, from a set of
Tom Traylor's plans
( http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.com/bike_plans.html ) and wondered
if any of you have done this, too?
http://fwd-bent-update-03-12-06.blogspot.com/
Kind regards.
Lewis.
********
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2006 10:42:36
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Yes, I was going to bring up the P38, as it's riding position is
similar, and it does have the rep of being a good hill climber.
And while you are probably correct about the hillclimbing capabilities
of some FWD bikes in wet conditions, I have never experienced a
wheelspin problem on my FWD bike. I suppose part of this may be
contributed to unloading some of the weight off the drive wheel due to
a shift in the center of gravity of the bike. Perhaps I have not
experience this as the CG of my bike is low.
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2006 06:36:57
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
I too have read this claim, but I also have "seat of pants" data to
support this claim. My FWD bike is much better climbing hills than my
lwb TE clone. Granted, there is a weigh difference between the two,
but I believe the more closed position that the FWD bike gives allows
me to power up hills better than the lwb bike. It's like taking the
tucked position of a DF rider and rotating it back.
Rich wrote:
> limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm in the process of building a Front Wheel Drive 'bent, from a set of
> > Tom Traylor's plans
> > ( http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.com/bike_plans.html ) and wondered
> > if any of you have done this, too?
>
>
> This looks interesting, but I'm a little puzzled by the claim:
>
> "The front-wheel drive gives it the ability to climb as well as a
> standard bike and much better than other types of recumbents."
>
> Why would front wheel drive offer any climbing advantage?
>
> And if this is a false claim, is the rest to be believed?
>
> Rich
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2006 16:07:31
From: Dave Larrington
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
In article <1142865417.016131.36190@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
atombikes (atombikes@gmail.com) wrote:
> I too have read this claim, but I also have "seat of pants" data to
> support this claim. My FWD bike is much better climbing hills than my
> lwb TE clone. Granted, there is a weigh difference between the two,
> but I believe the more closed position that the FWD bike gives allows
> me to power up hills better than the lwb bike. It's like taking the
> tucked position of a DF rider and rotating it back.
Arbut that could equally be done with an RWD bike. The Lightning P38,
for example, has a closed riding position and a rep for being a good
climber. With most FWD bikes the comparatively low loading on the front
wheel can lead to loss of traction on wet or skog(tm)-strewn surfaces.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ >
Dead pigs make perfect, if heavy, earrings.
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2006 16:19:29
From: Jeff Wills
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Jeff, on this link it describes this machine as having:-
>
> "The head angle is 76 degrees and there's some negative fork offset in
> order to give it 1 3/4" of trail."
>
> http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/velox/pages/velox5.htm
>
> I put these figures into a 'Rake/Trail' program, Wheel dia. 24.4, Head
> angle 76 degrees, Trail 1 3/4" and got a _positve_ (not negative) Rake
> of 1 1/4"
>
I've cc'd Lew already, but...
It's a 20" Continental Grand Prix- actually closer to 18" in diameter.
I plugged 18" diameter (9" radius), 76 degree head angle, and -0.5"
offset/rake into the recumbent.com calculator:
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/trail.asp#Actual%20Trail%20Calculator
and came up with 2.75" of trail. That's pretty good for a high-speed
machine like the Velox Solium. They topped out at about 60mph, and it
was
easily rideable at parking lot speeds.
Jeff Wills
------------------------------------------------------------
Make plans now to attend the Portland Human Power Challenge:
http://www.ohpv.org/PIR/index.htm
and the Recumbent Retreat:
http://www.recumbentretreat.org/
------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2006 09:16:25
From:
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Hi, Jeff, on this link it describes this machine as having:-
"The head angle is 76 degrees and there's some negative fork offset in
order to give it 1 3/4" of trail."
http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/velox/pages/velox5.htm
I put these figures into a 'Rake/Trail' program, Wheel dia. 24.4, Head
angle 76 degrees, Trail 1 3/4" and got a _positve_ (not negative) Rake
of 1 1/4"
Do I have a screwed up spreadsheet?
Kind regards.
Lewis.
*******
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 17:28:05
From: Rich
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm in the process of building a Front Wheel Drive 'bent, from a set of
> Tom Traylor's plans
> ( http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.com/bike_plans.html ) and wondered
> if any of you have done this, too?
This looks interesting, but I'm a little puzzled by the claim:
"The front-wheel drive gives it the ability to climb as well as a
standard bike and much better than other types of recumbents."
Why would front wheel drive offer any climbing advantage?
And if this is a false claim, is the rest to be believed?
Rich
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2006 11:00:45
From: Jeff Wills
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
atombikes wrote:
> Jeff, did you ever have a chance to ride one of the Traylor plans built
> FWD bikes?
Nope. Bikes are rarely long enough for me to test ride comfortably (I'm
6-foot-4). This is an exception:
http://www.ohpv.org/albums/pir2003/testride/pages/zach005.htm .
In fact, the only FWD 'bent I remember test riding was the Cal Poly
Velox Solium: http://www.ohpv.org/albums/bm2004/velox/pages/velox5.htm
. It didn't fit either: my knees angled outside of the ends of the
handlebars. I was riding it successfully after two false starts- a
testimony to Bill Patterson's theories on steering geometry.
Jeff
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 14:05:26
From:
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
>>>>
Lewis, How did you bend your front fork to accomodate the drive wheel?
<<<<
Send me $15.00 if you view this.
http://limeyley-l.blogspot.com/2006/03/prototypes-of-my-machines_114164209288274694.html
Lewis.
******
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 07:29:28
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Lewis, How did you bend your front fork to accomodate the drive wheel?
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2006 07:27:44
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Jeff, did you ever have a chance to ride one of the Traylor plans built
FWD bikes?
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 21:24:45
From: Jeff Wills
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> Hmm! So how much does it really cost, at least in materials only, to
> build the "typical" 'bent? Or any given 'bent, really, then...I mean,
> these things sell for $$$$, but it sounds like they probably only cost
> a few hundred in materials?
>
> Just curious -- I'm happy paying for service and peace of mind, believe
> you me!
Believe you me- I'm the *last* person you should ask about money! I
lived my life out of a checkbook until I turned over my finances to my
wife. She gives me an allowance. :-)
There's probably the same amount of raw material in a $500 Sun EZ-1 as
in a $2900 HP Velotechnik Street Machine. The difference comes in
economies of scale- as a WAG, I'd say that there's 100 times as many
EZ-1's built as there are Street Machines. This affects the price of
*everything* throughout the supply chain- from purchasing of materials,
ease of manufacture, keting, after-sale service, etc. What you
*should get* for the extra money is *superior quality* throughout- in
fabrication, in personal contact with the builder, in careful service
by the dealer.
Or, to put it another way, you could spend the same $2900 on a used
Trek Madone and have a bike that's far lighter than a Street Machine.
It would also look and function exactly like the 10,000 other Trek
Madones out there. If HP Velo could build and sell 10,000 Street
Machines, I'd bet the price would come down to under $1000. If
recumbents were built in the same quantities that GM produces pickup
trucks, they'd sell for $100 each... if that.
In fact, if you want to reduce them to their raw materials (16 pounds
of aluminum, 8 pounds of steel), the typical recumbent should only cost
you $17. The difference in price comes in the labor necessary to change
that chunk of ore into a bicycle.
(Commodity prices at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/Pnk_0306.pdf)
So- what was the question again?
Jeff
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 19:30:49
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Jeff Wills wrote:
>
>
> I met Tom Traylor back in the '80's, when I was building recumbent
> trikes. He was a fixture of the Los Angeles Recumbent Riders then, and
> probably still is.
>
> Tom built his own bikes and sold plans- he never sold bikes. Tour Easy
> clones were/are more popular due to the fact they had factory (semi-)
> approval.
>
> A homebuilt Tour Easy might sell for $150, too, if it had cheap
> components and/or the owner wanted to unload it quickly.
>
> Jeff
Hmm! So how much does it really cost, at least in materials only, to
build the "typical" 'bent? Or any given 'bent, really, then...I mean,
these things sell for $$$$, but it sounds like they probably only cost
a few hundred in materials?
Just curious -- I'm happy paying for service and peace of mind, believe
you me!
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 16:40:36
From: Jeff Wills
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> Wow, they've been around that long?
>
> Wonder how they work, then...if someone's selling one for just $150!
I met Tom Traylor back in the '80's, when I was building recumbent
trikes. He was a fixture of the Los Angeles Recumbent Riders then, and
probably still is.
Tom built his own bikes and sold plans- he never sold bikes. Tour Easy
clones were/are more popular due to the fact they had factory (semi-)
approval.
A homebuilt Tour Easy might sell for $150, too, if it had cheap
components and/or the owner wanted to unload it quickly.
Jeff
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 11:39:08
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
atombikes wrote:
> I too am wondering how many Traylor plans-built front wheel drive
> recumbent bikes there are out there? Seems the plans have been
> available since the early 80's? You would think there should be a
> decent number of them built, if it's anything like the Toureasy clone.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/atombikes
Wow, they've been around that long?
Wonder how they work, then...if someone's selling one for just $150!
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 11:38:17
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Right, so, just as an FYI to folks, this is also available
already-built, and, if it works, etc., for a great price!
limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Well its obviously not _THIS_ one.
>
> Lewis
>
> *****
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 07:33:18
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
I too am wondering how many Traylor plans-built front wheel drive
recumbent bikes there are out there? Seems the plans have been
available since the early 80's? You would think there should be a
decent number of them built, if it's anything like the Toureasy clone.
http://www.geocities.com/atombikes
limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>Someone's selling this, built, for $150 in a recent issue of RCN. <<<
>
> Well its obviously not _THIS_ one.
>
> Lewis
>
> *****
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2006 02:42:14
From:
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
>>>Someone's selling this, built, for $150 in a recent issue of RCN. <<<
Well its obviously not _THIS_ one.
Lewis
*****
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2006 18:14:49
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Someone's selling this, built, for $150 in a recent issue of RCN.
limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm in the process of building a Front Wheel Drive 'bent, from a set of
> Tom Traylor's plans
> ( http://traylorfwd.home.mindspring.com/bike_plans.html ) and wondered
> if any of you have done this, too?
>
> http://fwd-bent-update-03-12-06.blogspot.com/
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Lewis.
>
> ********
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2006 12:46:31
From:
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
>>>>>
Oh, another question. How much trail does the front end have? The
head tube angle appears to be around 60 degrees?
<<<<<
You're pretty close.
The angle is 65 degrees and the trail is 4 1/2".
Kind regards.
Lewis.
******
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2006 06:46:58
From:
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
>>>>>
I have a question about the front end detail on your bike. The
dropouts on the front fork; did you shape those yourself?
<<<<<
Yes, I made them but, as this is still a prototype, they aren't
'finished out'.
>>>>>
Is the front fork shortened?
<<<<<
Yes, the fork is shortened. It was made for a 700C wheel and my wheel
is a 26".
>>>>>>
What are the two cables on the front wheel going to?
<<<<<<
I'm using a Rohloff, 14-speed hub and the cables you see are shifter
cables.
Thanks for sharing your very interesting website.
Kind regards.
Lewis.
******
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2006 06:38:15
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Oh, another question. How much trail does the front end have? The
head tube angle appears to be around 60 degrees?
|
| |
Date: 14 Mar 2006 06:21:22
From: atombikes
Subject: Re: FWD 'bent
|
Lewis,
Looks nice! I have not built a Traylor, but I designed and built my
own moving bottom bracket front wheel drive bike. It is a lowracer
that I call the atomBLASTER. If you have not seen it, have a look
here:
http://www.geocities.com/atombikes/blaster.html
I have a question about the front end detail on your bike. The
dropouts on the front fork; did you shape those yourself? Is the front
fork shortened? What are the two cables on the front wheel going to?
|
|
