Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
11-06.-2008, 11:56 AM
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
http://www.kogswell.com/
Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 kg on the rack. |
|
|
11-06.-2008, 08:39 PM
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >http://www.kogswell.com/ > >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 kg on >the rack. Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide rack... what am I missing? Jones |
|
|
|
12-06.-2008, 07:09 AM
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
In article <b8ev44lg6la4e02q5v6hhqqcvoefhfv1o1@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >http://www.kogswell.com/ > > > >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 > >kg on the rack. > > Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide > rack... what am I missing? Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail. |
|
|
|
12-06.-2008, 07:32 AM
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-CE71DF.17095611062008@news.iphouse.com... > In article <b8ev44lg6la4e02q5v6hhqqcvoefhfv1o1@4ax.com>, > !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >> >http://www.kogswell.com/ >> > >> >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 >> >kg on the rack. >> >> Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide >> rack... what am I missing? > > Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There > are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or > 50 mm trail. But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate to long in the first place? The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency. That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything. |
|
|
|
12-06.-2008, 10:37 AM
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
In article <B9KdnZx667_nz83VnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote: > "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message > news:timmcn-CE71DF.17095611062008@news.iphouse.com... > > In article <b8ev44lg6la4e02q5v6hhqqcvoefhfv1o1@4ax.com>, !Jones > > <hi@there.org> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim > >> McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> > >> >http://www.kogswell.com/ > >> > > >> >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to > >> >100 kg on the rack. > >> > >> Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the > >> wide rack... what am I missing? > > > > Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. > > There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result > > in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail. > > But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate > to long in the first place? Typical road bike trail is about 60 mm. 30 mm is very low trail and is suitable for heavy loads on the fork. > The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when > you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the > fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those > bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure > that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency. > > That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything. Yup. At least in terms of steering geometry. But "getting used to" and "best for the application" are different things. |
|
|
|
12-06.-2008, 10:49 AM
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-3DFE49.20374411062008@news.iphouse.com... > In article <B9KdnZx667_nz83VnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com>, > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote: > >> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message >> news:timmcn-CE71DF.17095611062008@news.iphouse.com... >> > >> > Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. >> > There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result >> > in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail. >> >> But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate >> to long in the first place? > > Typical road bike trail is about 60 mm. 30 mm is very low trail and is > suitable for heavy loads on the fork. Whoops, I got confused. I guess the trail on my Look is 47 mm and not 27 mm. >> The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when >> you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the >> fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those >> bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure >> that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency. >> >> That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything. > > Yup. At least in terms of steering geometry. But "getting used to" and > "best for the application" are different things. Well, I don't believe that the average user would see much difference. As noted above - if they couldn't complain about REVERSE trail, telling the difference between some trail and a little more probably would go so far over their heads that it isn't funny. |
|
|
|
12-06.-2008, 11:19 AM
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:09:56 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There >are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or >50 mm trail. OK. I have ridden bikes with l-o-n-g trail. The Schwinn B6 with a springer comes to mind... an obscene contraption from a handling point of view, but it looks cool! And I have an old Littlejohn tandem with almost no trail... BMX fork. How does that change the load carrying charaisterics? I think I'd be trying to get the load lower than it is in the picture... what do they call those bikes with the 20" front and the low basket? I want to say "Workman", but I may be thinking of the wrong machine... never ridden one, anyway. Seems like they're long trail, though. Jones |
|
|
|
12-06.-2008, 11:50 AM
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Load carrying devices.
In article <af115497psfo6mol0u8asbp65r7fss3l9v@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:09:56 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > >Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. > >There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in > >30, 40 or 50 mm trail. > > OK. I have ridden bikes with l-o-n-g trail. The Schwinn B6 with a > springer comes to mind... an obscene contraption from a handling > point of view, but it looks cool! And I have an old Littlejohn > tandem with almost no trail... BMX fork. I can't tell if you are are talking about fork rake (offset) or trail. > How does that change the load carrying charaisterics? I think I'd be > trying to get the load lower than it is in the picture... what do > they call those bikes with the 20" front and the low basket? I want > to say "Workman", but I may be thinking of the wrong machine... never > ridden one, anyway. Seems like they're long trail, though. You can find good explanations of trail at various places on the web- Sheldon's site, for example. With less trail, the steering is less sensitive to weight on the front of the bike. There's less wheel flop, the front end doesn't rise and fall as much as the bars sweep through their range from lock to lock, etc. The P/R was basically copied from Rene Herse and Alex Singer "porteur" bikes, which were designed for French newspaper carriers hauling up to 100 kg of newspapers from the printer to the kiosks all over Paris. There was an annual race, too, which began in 1895 and ran until the 1960s: http://www.blackbirdsf.org/courierracing/journaux.html Click the links on that page, there are some great photos of these guys racing around Paris on the bikes with big piles of newspapers on them. It was a big deal in those days: http://www.blackbirdsf.org/courierr...urnaux_unk.html |
|
|
Linear Mode
