thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On 7 Jan, 01:25, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote: On 6 Jan, 08:23, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:
On 6 Jan, 03:02, Tom Sherman _
wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
[...]All bikes are vertically stiff enough, [...]
Not true. All diamond frames maybe, but not all bicycles.
Viagra still too expensive?
They make Viagra for bicycles?
Keep claiming they are not all stiff enough and perhaps they will.
The vertical flex in this bicycle is noticeable (and welcome on rough
roads):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/1939602865/sizes/o/in/set-7....

So it is not in need of viagra, it is stiff enough despite your
apparent knee jerk denial to Peter's statement that all bikes are
stiff enough in the vertical plane. It may be possible to
intentionally build a bicycle with improper amounts of vertical
compliance and you may even sell a few, but they become ornaments or
landfill, not bicycles. Bicycles need to be ridden and an exercise in
design and marketing does not make a bicycle.

Here is a bicycle that is NOT stiff enough in the vertical plane (or
torsionally for that matter):
https://home.pacbell.net/recumbnt/hypercycle.jpg. Fortunately, most
recumbent designers have learned from the mistakes of the Hypercycle
that was one of the earliest designs on the market in the modern
recumbent revival.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007