| |
Main
Date: 20 Sep 2007 20:54:30
From:
Subject: odd frame
|
This odd frame is in the Bainbridge museum near Seattle:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPnHSM75JI/AAAAAAAAAMw/1REtYgI3AgA/s1600-h/DSC04943.JPG
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.
Here's the picture gallery:
http://2wheelcommute.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
I stumbled over it while heading for this picture:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPlSiM75HI/AAAAAAAAAMg/kk0uQAB4iYA/s1600-h/DSC04945.JPG
Nice solid front sprocket for Chalo. Look closely and you can see that
it's skip-tooth gearing:
http://i18.tinypic.com/6fywm5d.jpg
It's Frank Bartell's auto-paced Los-Angeles land-speed-record bike
from 1935, which reached over 90 mph and averaged 129.5 kmh / 80.5 mph
for the mile--here's a description from Time magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,748541,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
Rompelberg lists Bartell's record as 1937 and Daytona beach, probably
a mistake--untangling this stuff is tricky:
http://www.fredrompelberg.com/en/html/algemeen/fredrompelberg/record.asp#a02P1Q1LKT1UV6572MX66
The Bainbridge museum also has two old tools
***
Site caption "These were how they bent the bars bent into the right
shape":
http://bp1.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPhtSM74-I/AAAAAAAAALY/gFwG4Dxu6WU/s320/DSC04956.JPG
***
Site caption "What to give Grumpy for his b-day. An old wheel building
chair":
http://bp0.blogger.com/_9271u0AiKcs/RgPfzCM749I/AAAAAAAAALQ/hge3vNba9YI/s320/DSC04957.JPG
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:36:32
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Sep 21, 2:44 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:48:52 -0700, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 20, 7:54 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
>
> >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!
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 13:48:52
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Sep 20, 7:54 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:44:33
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:48:52 -0700, Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net >
wrote:
>On Sep 20, 7:54 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
>
>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
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 17:58:37
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
>> carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
> Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>> Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 17:36:34
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:58:37 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>>> carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
>
>> Hank Wirtz <hank@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>>> Is it? It looks like plain-ol' 4x to me. What am I not seeing?
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> 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
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:10:48
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
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
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 16:32:39
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:10:48 -0400, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>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
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:45:04
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Sep 21, 1:37 pm, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> /Marten (who came up with 'factor' for a dimension? ) Gerritsen
Wasn't Q-factor a marketing phrase from Ritchey?
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 04:31:49
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Sep 20, 9:54 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
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
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 13:30:26
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:31:49 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com >
wrote:
>On Sep 20, 9:54 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
>
>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
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 18:54:04
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:31:49 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 20, 9:54 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net 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.
>> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 21:37:51
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> 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
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 14:30:53
From:
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:37:51 +0200, M-gineering
<ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> 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
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 09:05:18
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:29a8f3djv50d0sitc73ibm7qdouktj8pms@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:37:51 +0200, M-gineering
> <ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
>
>>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 15:44:45
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>> 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?
> M-gineering <ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
>> hard to see, but the bike probably has a very short bracketaxle for a
>> low Q-'factor'
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> 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
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 22:37:42
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: odd frame
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:37:51 +0200, M-gineering
> <ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
>
>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> 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
|
|
