Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?

[Denis]

Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
must be ok ?
I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
put on the rear triangle of a road bike
Thanks
Denis

[[email protected]]

Denis wrote:
> Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
> If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
> must be ok ?
> I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
> put on the rear triangle of a road bike
> Thanks
> Denis
>
>
>
I have seen mothers with twins in a trailer so only 40 pounds should be
a walk in the park.
Are you a steady rider (balance)?
Bill Baka

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Bill Baka wrote:
> Denis wrote:
>> Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
>> If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
>> must be ok ?
>> I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
>> put on the rear triangle of a road bike
>> Thanks
>> Denis
>>
>>
> I have seen mothers with twins in a trailer so only 40 pounds should be
> a walk in the park.
> Are you a steady rider (balance)?
>
Were those twins in a single-track trailer, or a two-track trailer? The
latter applies much lower torsional loads to the frame.
]
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Denis]

I'm a steady rider
I'm also concern by the handling of the trailer

Denis
> wrote in message
...
| Denis wrote:
| > Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
| > If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
| > must be ok ?
| > I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
| > put on the rear triangle of a road bike
| > Thanks
| > Denis
| >
| >
| >
| I have seen mothers with twins in a trailer so only 40 pounds should be
| a walk in the park.
| Are you a steady rider (balance)?
| Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> aka Bill Baka wrote:
>> Denis wrote: s
>>> Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
>>> If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
>>> must be ok ?
>>> I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
>>> put on the rear triangle of a road bike
>>> Thanks
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>> I have seen mothers with twins in a trailer so only 40 pounds should
>> be a walk in the park.
>> Are you a steady rider (balance)?
>>
> Were those twins in a single-track trailer, or a two-track trailer?
> The latter applies much lower torsional loads to the frame.
> ]
It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
you mean.
I thought it might be good for me on my really long rides, so I could
take my big telescope for some super telephoto pictures.
It can go to 500x but that requires a time exposure.
That is all I can think of for a non-parent. Youngest daughter just
turned 30.
Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

Denis wrote:
> I'm a steady rider
> I'm also concern by the handling of the trailer
>
> Denis
For street riding there should be no concern but trail riding might be a
bear due to the 2 wheels wide on the trailer.
Bill Baka

[Dan C]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:

> That is all I can think of for a non-parent. Youngest daughter just
> turned 30.

Hey, Bill. If you're a non-parent, how can you have a "youngest
daughter"?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[[email protected]]

Dan C wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>> That is all I can think of for a non-parent. Youngest daughter just
>> turned 30.
>>
>
> Hey, Bill. If you're a non-parent, how can you have a "youngest
> daughter"?
>
>
>
Non small child!.
Why are you here?
Do you want to be MY resident troll as on the Ubuntu group?
The bicycle crowd will not tolerate it.
Bill Baka

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Bill Baka wrote:
> Denis wrote:
>> I'm a steady rider
>> I'm also concern by the handling of the trailer
>>
>> Denis
> For street riding there should be no concern but trail riding might be a
> bear due to the 2 wheels wide on the trailer.
>
I believe the BOB was designed with the intent for trail use, therefore
the single wheel: <http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/>.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Dan C]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:43:28 -0800, wrote:

>>> That is all I can think of for a non-parent. Youngest daughter just
>>> turned 30.

>> Hey, Bill. If you're a non-parent, how can you have a "youngest
>> daughter"?

> Non small child!.

Huh? Make some sense, Bill. That doesn't answer my question.

> Why are you here?

Because I want to be. Why are you here?

> Do you want to be MY resident troll as on the Ubuntu group?

LOL! You're the troll, in both places, and you know it, Billy.

> The bicycle crowd will not tolerate it.

HAR! They won't, eh? Well, we'll see about that.

Hey Bill - I thought I was in your killfile... How can you see my posts
(and reply)? Was that just yet another lie?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[Peter Rathmann]

On Jan 4, 6:42*pm, "Denis" > wrote:
> Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
> If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
> must be ok ?
> I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
> put on the rear triangle of a road bike

Haven't used one myself but I have gone on a tour with someone who
towed a BOB with his road bike.
He didn't encounter any problems beyond the expected extra load when
climbing hills and looking at the attachment mechanism I don't see any
reason to expect a problem with normal road bikes.

[[email protected]]

Dan C wrote:
> HAR! They won't, eh? Well, we'll see about that.
>
> Hey Bill - I thought I was in your killfile... How can you see my posts
> (and reply)? Was that just yet another lie?
>
>
> You are only plonked in the Ubuntu group.
I want to see if you keep trying to splatter my name.
Since you managed to follow me here I can only assume you are targeting me.
If you continue I may track you down and rearrange your face, or someone
else might do me the favor.
You are a sorry waste of skin.
Now, GET LOST.
Bill Baka
Sick of this idiot troll.

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
> I believe the BOB was designed with the intent for trail use,
> therefore the single wheel: <http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/>.
>
I went and saw the trailer and my only question is how the weight
distribution was slip between the trailer and the rear wheel of the bike.
It could affect handling if it had enough weight.
Bill Baka

[terryc]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:


> It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
> you mean.

Not a Bob. Bob style is a single wheel at the back. Great tracking as the
third wheel usually follows the other two. Two wheeled trailers make
three tracks which doubles the chances of your telescope being shaken
about. Depending on the collapsed length, a bob would probably be
better. Or a custom longer length to fit.

> I thought it might be good for me on my really long rides, so I could
> take my big telescope for some super telephoto pictures. It can go to
> 500x but that requires a time exposure. That is all I can think of for a
> non-parent. Youngest daughter just turned 30. Bill Baka

[terryc]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:03:54 -0800, wrote:

> I went and saw the trailer and my only question is how the weight
> distribution was slip between the trailer and the rear wheel of the bike.
> It could affect handling if it had enough weight.

Correct. That is why is has a recommended load limit.

Effect depends on LOAD, terrain, surface and speed. Oh and rider.

I've felt 50kg load flip a bob style trailer just by dropping 1" from kerb
crossing to road surface.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Terry C? wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:03:54 -0800, wrote:
>
>> I went and saw the trailer and my only question is how the weight
>> distribution was slip between the trailer and the rear wheel of the bike.
>> It could affect handling if it had enough weight.
>
> Correct. That is why is has a recommended load limit.
>
> Effect depends on LOAD, terrain, surface and speed. Oh and rider.
>
> I've felt 50kg load flip a bob style trailer just by dropping 1" from kerb
> crossing to road surface.

That is over twice the load I would consider carrying in a BOB.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Dan C]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:00:46 -0800, wrote:

>> Hey Bill - I thought I was in your killfile... How can you see my
>> posts (and reply)? Was that just yet another lie?

> You are only plonked in the Ubuntu group.

Really? Can Thunderbird really do that kind of sophisticated filtering?
Are you really sure about that, Bill?

> I want to see if you keep trying to splatter my name.

I'm not "splattering" anything, Bill. You seem to be taking care of
"your name" just fine all by yourself.


> If you continue I may track you down and rearrange your face, or
> someone else might do me the favor.

There you go again, with the threats. That would be a *really* bad idea
on your part, Billy boy. You would get *seriously* hurt, were you to try
such a thing. Really.

Look both ways before you cross the road, Billy!


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[[email protected]]

Dan C wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:00:46 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>> Hey Bill - I thought I was in your killfile... How can you see my
>>> posts (and reply)? Was that just yet another lie?
>>>
>
>
>> You are only plonked in the Ubuntu group.
>>
>
> Really? Can Thunderbird really do that kind of sophisticated filtering?
> Are you really sure about that, Bill?
>
>
>> I want to see if you keep trying to splatter my name.
>>
>
> I'm not "splattering" anything, Bill. You seem to be taking care of
> "your name" just fine all by yourself.
>
>
>
>> If you continue I may track you down and rearrange your face, or
>> someone else might do me the favor.
>>
>
> There you go again, with the threats. That would be a *really* bad idea
> on your part, Billy boy. You would get *seriously* hurt, were you to try
> such a thing. Really.
>
> Look both ways before you cross the road, Billy!
>
>
>
What are you? 12 years old and obviously too stupid to not post here. I
might just report your crap to the F.C.C. and let them handle it.
As to this group, there are people besides me who will get rapidly
****ed off.
YOU followed me here to tarnish my name, so it appears you are LOOKING
for trouble.
Get a life.
Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

terryc wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:03:54 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>> I went and saw the trailer and my only question is how the weight
>> distribution was slip between the trailer and the rear wheel of the bike.
>> It could affect handling if it had enough weight.
>>
>
> Correct. That is why is has a recommended load limit.
>
> Effect depends on LOAD, terrain, surface and speed. Oh and rider.
>
> I've felt 50kg load flip a bob style trailer just by dropping 1" from kerb
> crossing to road surface.
>
Ouch.
That does not speak well of one wheel trailers.
Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

terryc wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>
>> It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
>> you mean.
>>
>
> Not a Bob. Bob style is a single wheel at the back. Great tracking as the
> third wheel usually follows the other two. Two wheeled trailers make
> three tracks which doubles the chances of your telescope being shaken
> about. Depending on the collapsed length, a bob would probably be
> better. Or a custom longer length to fit.
>
The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
be a good idea.
Bill
>
>> I thought it might be good for me on my really long rides, so I could
>> take my big telescope for some super telephoto pictures. It can go to
>> 500x but that requires a time exposure. That is all I can think of for a
>> non-parent. Youngest daughter just turned 30. Bill Baka
>>

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

aka Bill Baka wrote:
> Dan C wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:00:46 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Hey Bill - I thought I was in your killfile... How can you see my
>>>> posts (and reply)? Was that just yet another lie?
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> You are only plonked in the Ubuntu group.
>>>
>>
>> Really? Can Thunderbird really do that kind of sophisticated
>> filtering? Are you really sure about that, Bill?
>>
>>
>>> I want to see if you keep trying to splatter my name.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not "splattering" anything, Bill. You seem to be taking care of
>> "your name" just fine all by yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you continue I may track you down and rearrange your face, or
>>> someone else might do me the favor.
>>>
>>
>> There you go again, with the threats. That would be a *really* bad
>> idea on your part, Billy boy. You would get *seriously* hurt, were
>> you to try such a thing. Really.
>>
>> Look both ways before you cross the road, Billy!
>>
>>
>>
> What are you? 12 years old and obviously too stupid to not post here. I
> might just report your crap to the F.C.C. and let them handle it.
> As to this group, there are people besides me who will get rapidly
> ****ed off.
> YOU followed me here to tarnish my name, so it appears you are LOOKING
> for trouble.
> Get a life.
> Bill Baka

At least put an "OT" tag in the thread title.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[terryc]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:57:50 -0800, wrote:


> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
> be a good idea.

It actually might be the better idea, unless you go for a luggage trike or
something.

If you are just taking it along smooth sealed roads, any trailer would be
useable, but if you want to climb to the top of local hills up tracks,
then a bob style would be better. You could even put suspension on the
trailer wheel to help.

To my mind, it would require a special case of special foam (3 grades?) to
minimise the shocks transmitted to the scope.

In whch case, you probably want a one wheel trailer in the Jack London
style. Cica 1900 with a flat tray.

[terryc]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:26:14 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:


>> I've felt 50kg load flip a bob style trailer just by dropping 1" from kerb
>> crossing to road surface.
>
> That is over twice the load I would consider carrying in a BOB.

It wasn't a bob. but my own home build trailer. The problem was that the
top of the load (newspapers) was 3' above the tray.
>

[terryc]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:53:57 -0800, wrote:


> Ouch.
> That does not speak well of one wheel trailers.

Naah, I did list the rider as one of the limiting factors. {:-). The nut
case wanted to see if his home built trailer could carry that much and
loaded it the wrong way..

Oh wait, that was me {:-),

[Denis]

Hi,
I'm searching a small ( smaller than a BOB ) trailer
light, one wheel, can carry 40 lbs
,will not break my road frame and
can ride at 40 mph downhill
Denis

"Denis" > wrote in message
...
| Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
| If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
| must be ok ?
| I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
| put on the rear triangle of a road bike
| Thanks
| Denis
|
|

[Peter Rathmann]

On Jan 4, 9:57*pm, " > wrote:
> terryc wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
> >> you mean.
>
> > Not a Bob. Bob style is a single wheel at the back. Great tracking as the
> > third wheel usually follows the other two. Two wheeled trailers make
> > three tracks which doubles the chances of your telescope being shaken
> > about. Depending on the collapsed length, a bob would probably be
> > better. Or a custom longer length to fit.
>
> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
> be *a good idea.
> Bill

I presume this is a Newtonian-style telescope. As long as the mirror
is securely held in its cell there shouldn't be much concern for its
safety. Just make sure there isn't a chance for anything to get loose
inside the tube (secondary, eyepiece holder, etc.) that could bounce
around and hit the primary. The alignment is likely to be knocked
off, but you can readjust that fairly quickly. Is it a Dobsonian
mount? Equatorials would probably be too heavy for reasonable bike
transport.

[Dan C]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:52:40 -0800, wrote:

> What are you? 12 years old and obviously too stupid to not post here.

Nope. Wrong on both counts.

> might just report your crap to the F.C.C. and let them handle it.

OK, Billy. You do that. Don't forget to include the public threats that
you've made against me too, OK?

> YOU followed me here to tarnish my name, so it appears you are LOOKING
> for trouble.

Billy, it's a public forum. I've just as much right to post here as you
do. As for the tarnishing... you don't need any help from me for that.



--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[SMS]

Denis wrote:
> Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
> If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
> must be ok ?
> I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
> put on the rear triangle of a road bike
> Thanks
> Denis

It is not safe. Don't do it.

[terryc]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:22:21 -0500, Denis wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm searching a small ( smaller than a BOB ) trailer

Why do you want it smaller?
What is the load?
Sounds like a custom job and will probably be more expensive.

[Denis]

Because it will be more esthetic, cute
low profile, more aerodynamic
Denis
"terryc" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:22:21 -0500, Denis wrote:
|
| > Hi,
| > I'm searching a small ( smaller than a BOB ) trailer
|
| Why do you want it smaller?
| What is the load?
| Sounds like a custom job and will probably be more expensive.

[Bill]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> aka Bill Baka wrote:
>> Denis wrote:
>>> Is it safe to put a BOB trailer behind my road bike ?
>>> If I put about 40 lbs in the trailer,
>>> must be ok ?
>>> I'm little concern about the torsion and torque
>>> put on the rear triangle of a road bike
>>> Thanks
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>> I have seen mothers with twins in a trailer so only 40 pounds should
>> be a walk in the park.
>> Are you a steady rider (balance)?
>>
> Were those twins in a single-track trailer, or a two-track trailer? The
> latter applies much lower torsional loads to the frame.
> ]
2 wheeler, side by side.

[Bill]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Terry C? wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:03:54 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>> I went and saw the trailer and my only question is how the weight
>>> distribution was slip between the trailer and the rear wheel of the
>>> bike.
>>> It could affect handling if it had enough weight.
>>
>> Correct. That is why is has a recommended load limit.
>>
>> Effect depends on LOAD, terrain, surface and speed. Oh and rider.
>>
>> I've felt 50kg load flip a bob style trailer just by dropping 1" from
>> kerb
>> crossing to road surface.
>
> That is over twice the load I would consider carrying in a BOB.
>
Yeah,
To us Americans that comes out at 110 pounds and that is way more than
the safe limit.

[Bill]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> aka Bill Baka wrote:
>> Dan C wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:00:46 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hey Bill - I thought I was in your killfile... How can you see my
>>>>> posts (and reply)? Was that just yet another lie?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are only plonked in the Ubuntu group.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Can Thunderbird really do that kind of sophisticated
>>> filtering? Are you really sure about that, Bill?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I want to see if you keep trying to splatter my name.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not "splattering" anything, Bill. You seem to be taking care of
>>> "your name" just fine all by yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you continue I may track you down and rearrange your face, or
>>>> someone else might do me the favor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There you go again, with the threats. That would be a *really* bad
>>> idea on your part, Billy boy. You would get *seriously* hurt, were
>>> you to try such a thing. Really.
>>>
>>> Look both ways before you cross the road, Billy!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What are you? 12 years old and obviously too stupid to not post here.
>> I might just report your crap to the F.C.C. and let them handle it.
>> As to this group, there are people besides me who will get rapidly
>> ****ed off.
>> YOU followed me here to tarnish my name, so it appears you are LOOKING
>> for trouble.
>> Get a life.
>> Bill Baka
>
> At least put an "OT" tag in the thread title.
>
Tom,
This nut job does not ride a bike and his only mission is to ruin the
newsgroup experience. If everyone would just kill file him maybe he will
give up. He is completely hated on the ubuntu news group and is chasing
me because I won't use his pet news client.
This child is warped and a waste of time.
Just so people know.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

terryc wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>> It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
>> you mean.
>
> Not a Bob. Bob style is a single wheel at the back. Great tracking as the
> third wheel usually follows the other two. Two wheeled trailers make
> three tracks which doubles the chances of your telescope being shaken
> about. Depending on the collapsed length, a bob would probably be
> better. Or a custom longer length to fit.

The telescope is not collapsible as it is just a big reflector with a
big tube about 1 meter long. I have thought about just wrapping it in a
number of towels for shock absorbing. If it works I will be posting the
pictures on my web site (yet to be built).
>
>> I thought it might be good for me on my really long rides, so I could
>> take my big telescope for some super telephoto pictures. It can go to
>> 500x but that requires a time exposure. That is all I can think of for a
>> non-parent. Youngest daughter just turned 30. Bill Baka

[Bill]

terryc wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:57:50 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
>> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
>> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
>> be a good idea.
>
> It actually might be the better idea, unless you go for a luggage trike or
> something.

Not for 80 to 120 miles on an all day trip. Those rides I can lose about
a pound per day and get back to my pre-holiday prime weight.
>
> If you are just taking it along smooth sealed roads, any trailer would be
> useable, but if you want to climb to the top of local hills up tracks,
> then a bob style would be better. You could even put suspension on the
> trailer wheel to help.

I go on some really nasty gravel roads that are not maintained and are
very rough. The front suspension helps my wrists but there is no rear
suspension and I get smacked in the rear a lot. That means I would need
a suspension for the BOB. Has anyone put a suspension on a bob that you
know of??
>
> To my mind, it would require a special case of special foam (3 grades?) to
> minimise the shocks transmitted to the scope.

Sounds like a plan.
>
> In whch case, you probably want a one wheel trailer in the Jack London
> style. Cica 1900 with a flat tray.
I have to admit a pointer to an URL would be nice, and very appreciated.
Bill Baka

[Bill]

Peter Rathmann wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:57 pm, " > wrote:
>> terryc wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:
>>>> It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
>>>> you mean.
>>> Not a Bob. Bob style is a single wheel at the back. Great tracking as the
>>> third wheel usually follows the other two. Two wheeled trailers make
>>> three tracks which doubles the chances of your telescope being shaken
>>> about. Depending on the collapsed length, a bob would probably be
>>> better. Or a custom longer length to fit.
>> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
>> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
>> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
>> be a good idea.
>> Bill
>
> I presume this is a Newtonian-style telescope.


Pretty much just a basic reflector, but money has been put into it,
including a 5x super barlow.

As long as the mirror
> is securely held in its cell there shouldn't be much concern for its
> safety. Just make sure there isn't a chance for anything to get loose
> inside the tube (secondary, eyepiece holder, etc.) that could bounce
> around and hit the primary. The alignment is likely to be knocked
> off, but you can readjust that fairly quickly. Is it a Dobsonian
> mount? Equatorials would probably be too heavy for reasonable bike
> transport.

It actually is an equatorial mount but I can set it to 90 longitude and
crank it by hand. I don't have a motor drive for the stars but it makes
one heck of a telephoto setup. At 500x I can see things like I am
standing next to them, and the camera actually gets a picture.
Best regards,
Bill Baka (the astronomer).

[Peter Rathmann]

On Jan 5, 3:52*pm, Bill > wrote:
> terryc wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:14:11 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> It had two wheels and the bike could pivot for balance if that is what
> >> you mean.
>
> > Not a Bob. Bob style is a single wheel at the back. Great tracking as the
> > third wheel usually follows the other two. Two wheeled trailers make
> > three tracks which doubles the chances of your telescope being shaken
> > about. Depending on the collapsed length, a bob would probably be
> > better. Or a custom longer length to fit.
>
> The telescope is not collapsible as it is just a big reflector with a
> big tube about 1 meter long. I have thought about just wrapping it in a
> number of towels for shock absorbing. If it works I will be posting the
> pictures on my web site (yet to be built).

When I was in college I used to sometimes transport my 6" reflector on
my old Schwinn Varsity. I just strapped the tube (50" long) and the
mount sideways on the rear rack. It stuck out a little to both sides
but was never a problem. Drivers gave me plenty of extra room,
especially at night with all the reflective tape on the tube.
Once got stopped by the campus cops but they just wanted to check that
it didn't have any university property stickers. They also stopped
one evening when we had the scope set up outside. We said we were
just admiring Venus going through her phases. They wanted to take a
look so we showed them a nice crescent Venus which happened to be
located just over the girl's part of the dorm.

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Baka wrote:
> terryc wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:57:50 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
>>> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
>>> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
>>> be a good idea.
>>
>> It actually might be the better idea, unless you go for a luggage
>> trike or
>> something.
>
> Not for 80 to 120 miles on an all day trip. Those rides I can lose about
> a pound per day and get back to my pre-holiday prime weight.
>>
>> If you are just taking it along smooth sealed roads, any trailer would be
>> useable, but if you want to climb to the top of local hills up tracks,
>> then a bob style would be better. You could even put suspension on the
>> trailer wheel to help.
>
> I go on some really nasty gravel roads that are not maintained and are
> very rough. The front suspension helps my wrists but there is no rear
> suspension and I get smacked in the rear a lot. That means I would need
> a suspension for the BOB. Has anyone put a suspension on a bob that you
> know of??[...]

Hey Bill,

Look more closely at the link I posted up-thread. ;)

The BOB Ibex is suspended:
<http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/trailer_specs.php?product_id=11>.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Dan C]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:48:57 -0800, Bill wrote:

>> At least put an "OT" tag in the thread title.

> This nut job does not ride a bike and his only mission is to ruin the
> newsgroup experience.

How do you know what I may or may not ride, Bill?

That's right, you don't know.

> He is completely hated on the ubuntu news group and is chasing me
> because I won't use his pet news client.

Not accurate on either count, Billy. I may be hated by *you* on the
Ubuntu NG, because I call you on your bull****. I don't give a damn what
news client you use, either, having simply asked you why you *always*
posted to the Linux newsgroups while using Windoze, but claiming to be a
Linux user. Just tell the truth, Bill, and quite making stuff up.

I can see that many of the regulars here in this newsgroup already know
what a blowhard you are, Bill. Your reputation precedes you.

Why not just stop trying to blow smoke up people's asses, and quit
telling tall tales, and maybe folks will take you seriously. At this
point you are nothing but a laughingstock, and don't even appear to
realize that fact. Pathetic, really.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[terryc]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:58:24 -0800, Bill wrote:

>> In whch case, you probably want a one wheel trailer in the Jack London
>> style. Cica 1900 with a flat tray.
> I have to admit a pointer to an URL would be nice, and very appreciated.

Unfortunately, I don't have one. it was a graphic I found/came across one
time. Nor do I currently have a photograph of my build online atm.

Basic frame ideas
http://www.biketrailers.20m.com/MAIN.htm
http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/bobcoz.html

[Bill]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> terryc wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:57:50 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
>>>> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
>>>> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
>>>> be a good idea.
>>>
>>> It actually might be the better idea, unless you go for a luggage
>>> trike or
>>> something.
>>
>> Not for 80 to 120 miles on an all day trip. Those rides I can lose
>> about a pound per day and get back to my pre-holiday prime weight.
>>>
>>> If you are just taking it along smooth sealed roads, any trailer
>>> would be
>>> useable, but if you want to climb to the top of local hills up tracks,
>>> then a bob style would be better. You could even put suspension on the
>>> trailer wheel to help.
>>
>> I go on some really nasty gravel roads that are not maintained and are
>> very rough. The front suspension helps my wrists but there is no rear
>> suspension and I get smacked in the rear a lot. That means I would
>> need a suspension for the BOB. Has anyone put a suspension on a bob
>> that you know of??[...]
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> Look more closely at the link I posted up-thread. ;)
>
> The BOB Ibex is suspended:
> <http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/trailer_specs.php?product_id=11>.
>
Thanks. I have Firefox parked on that page, and it looks pretty good.
This is the kind of interaction these groups are for and not the drivel
coming from DanC.

[Dan C]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:03:03 -0800, Bill wrote:

> Thanks. I have Firefox parked on that page, and it looks pretty good.
> This is the kind of interaction these groups are for and not the drivel
> coming from DanC.

Why do you keep bringing up my name in a post that I have nothing to do
with, Bill? You seem to have some kind of sick fixation on me, or
something. What's up with that? Are you trying to provoke me, or just
doing your usual trolling?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[terryc]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:53:41 +0000, Dan C wrote:


> Why do you keep bringing up my name in a post that I have nothing to do
> with, Bill?

How about you stop replying? You are just fanning the flames.

[Dan C]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:38:53 +0000, terryc wrote:

>> Why do you keep bringing up my name in a post that I have nothing to do
>> with, Bill?

> How about you stop replying? You are just fanning the flames.

Is that what you would do if some whack-job kept bringing up your name
for no reason, and was trying to make you look like you were at fault for
something? Really?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[terryc]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:50:11 +0000, Dan C wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:38:53 +0000, terryc wrote:
>
>>> Why do you keep bringing up my name in a post that I have nothing to do
>>> with, Bill?
>
>> How about you stop replying? You are just fanning the flames.
>
> Is that what you would do if some whack-job kept bringing up your name
> for no reason, and was trying to make you look like you were at fault for
> something? Really?

1) Nope, I use pan as my news reader and right click on the msg list,
then select "ignore author" and select "forever" and go on my merry
way.

To get you to reply is all these idiots seek. They do it for amusement.
They feel gratitified they they have jerked your chin.

2) Plus, you are insulting the intelligent people here. They can read what
is posted and who posts it and make their own judgement. If you keep
posting replies to the jerks,then your S/N ratio goes way down and you
will find yourself on the ignore list of others as a waste of time.

3) Personally, I do not give a damm/tinkers cuss/etc what anyone here
thinks of me. They can take my post or leave them.

[[email protected]]

terryc wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:50:11 +0000, Dan C wrote:
>
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:38:53 +0000, terryc wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Why do you keep bringing up my name in a post that I have nothing to do
>>>> with, Bill?
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> How about you stop replying? You are just fanning the flames.
>>>
>> Is that what you would do if some whack-job kept bringing up your name
>> for no reason, and was trying to make you look like you were at fault for
>> something? Really?
>>
>
> 1) Nope, I use pan as my news reader and right click on the msg list,
> then select "ignore author" and select "forever" and go on my merry
> way.
>
> To get you to reply is all these idiots seek. They do it for amusement.
> They feel gratitified they they have jerked your chin.
>
> 2) Plus, you are insulting the intelligent people here. They can read what
> is posted and who posts it and make their own judgement. If you keep
> posting replies to the jerks,then your S/N ratio goes way down and you
> will find yourself on the ignore list of others as a waste of time.
>
> 3) Personally, I do not give a damm/tinkers cuss/etc what anyone here
> thinks of me. They can take my post or leave them.
>
Thanks for a bit of support, Terry. He is nothing more than a waste of
bandwidth on other groups too..
He seems to have a personal vendetta against me for some reason.
His presence here just means he 'googled' me to find what groups I was in.
I think legal action may be possible at this point..
Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> terryc wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:57:50 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The telescope is expensive enough to worry about the mirror, so shock
>>>> absorbing would be a big deal for me. It is one BIG tube with a big
>>>> reflecting mirror, and is sensitive to shock, so the trailer might not
>>>> be a good idea.
>>>
>>> It actually might be the better idea, unless you go for a luggage
>>> trike or
>>> something.
>>
>> Not for 80 to 120 miles on an all day trip. Those rides I can lose
>> about a pound per day and get back to my pre-holiday prime weight.
>>>
>>> If you are just taking it along smooth sealed roads, any trailer
>>> would be
>>> useable, but if you want to climb to the top of local hills up tracks,
>>> then a bob style would be better. You could even put suspension on the
>>> trailer wheel to help.
>>
>> I go on some really nasty gravel roads that are not maintained and
>> are very rough. The front suspension helps my wrists but there is no
>> rear suspension and I get smacked in the rear a lot. That means I
>> would need a suspension for the BOB. Has anyone put a suspension on a
>> bob that you know of??[...]
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> Look more closely at the link I posted up-thread. ;)
>
> The BOB Ibex is suspended:
> <http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/trailer_specs.php?product_id=11>.
>
I did and it claims to be for 27" and not for a mountain bike.
Does that mean I can't use it??
Bill Baka

[Dan C]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:34:10 -0800, wrote:

> terryc wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:50:11 +0000, Dan C wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:38:53 +0000, terryc wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep bringing up my name in a post that I have nothing to
>>>>> do with, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> How about you stop replying? You are just fanning the flames.
>>>>
>>> Is that what you would do if some whack-job kept bringing up your name
>>> for no reason, and was trying to make you look like you were at fault
>>> for something? Really?
>>>
>>>
>> 1) Nope, I use pan as my news reader and right click on the msg list,
>> then select "ignore author" and select "forever" and go on my merry
>> way.
>>
>> To get you to reply is all these idiots seek. They do it for amusement.
>> They feel gratitified they they have jerked your chin.
>>
>> 2) Plus, you are insulting the intelligent people here. They can read
>> what is posted and who posts it and make their own judgement. If you
>> keep posting replies to the jerks,then your S/N ratio goes way down and
>> you will find yourself on the ignore list of others as a waste of time.
>>
>> 3) Personally, I do not give a damm/tinkers cuss/etc what anyone here
>> thinks of me. They can take my post or leave them.
>>
> Thanks for a bit of support, Terry. He is nothing more than a waste of
> bandwidth on other groups too..
> He seems to have a personal vendetta against me for some reason. His
> presence here just means he 'googled' me to find what groups I was in. I
> think legal action may be possible at this point.. Bill Baka

Hey Bill, ummmm..... might want to read the post again... Look up above
there where he said "To get you to reply is all these idiots seek."...
Who do you think the phrase "these idiots" is referring to?

That's right, Bill. It refers to *YOU*.

LOL. Take a vacation, or just disappear.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

[Chris[_12_]]

On Jan 7, 5:37*pm, " > wrote:
> I did and it claims to be for 27" and not for a mountain bike.
> Does that mean I can't use it??
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

MTB 26"

26" < 27"

All good to use.

Chris

[Chris[_12_]]

On Jan 7, 5:50*am, Dan C > wrote:
> Is that what you would do if some whack-job kept bringing up your name
> for no reason, and was trying to make you look like you were at fault for
> something? *Really?

I've had things not unlike it happen in the past, both here and other
places. It's what I did. It made them look silly for bringing me up
again and again after I had stopped replying, and it wasn't long until
everyone else thought them to be silly as well. But you are free to do
what you want to defend yourself, just like he is free to continue to
demand that you stop following him about.

I welcome you both continuing to entertain us with secondary school
antics.

Chris