>
>>
>>> That is a very interesting design, though I would think it would be
>>> stronger if both wheels
>>>had three support points instead of two, with one at the very bottom at the
>>>other two at 120-degree points.
>>
>> I think it all comes down to materials. It would probably do fine. It
>> is likely OK for a normal cyclist, but Pharma Armstrong would probably
>> destroy it in 30 seconds. But I do see one critical design flaw. The
>> chain goes down to the bottom of the rear wheel. By placing the drive
>> "hub" down there, it's going to get wet, dirty and broken from FOD.
>> Granted, one advantage for having it there is that it places the
>> strains and stresses right near the point of tire contact, which would
>> greatly reduce wheel and frame stresses, but it's a lube and clean
>> nightmare.
>>
>
>Yes, needs a sealed unit with shaft drive
>
Oooooh!! Now THAT would be a giant step forward in bicycle design.
At the same time, why should a design such as this continue to rely on the
long chain? Why not, instead, have a much shorter chain where the drive to the
rim just behind the seat post? That would satisfy the need to get the chain
away from the ground, plus take a pound or more off the weight, and there is no
derailleur that would require the long chain length. It would also provide the
third support point to make the rear wheel more stable.
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|