Behold: Future Shock

[James]

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock

Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details? Did I miss
something?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 04/04/17 13:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
>> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
> Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details? Did I miss
> something?
>
>

Did you scroll down? There isn't a detailed mechanical drawing or test
data, but there is a cut away view that shows springs in what I gather
is a telescopic fork steering tube of sorts.

And this...

"The Future Shock features up to 20mm of travel, and it's positioned
above the head tube in order to move in a vertical path. So when the
front wheel encounters rough terrain, the bike moves up towards your
hands and preserves your forward momentum without slowing you down.

Another important fact is that, because the Future Shock is positioned
above the stem, the bike's wheels are held together rigidly by the
frame. In other words, because the wheelbase isn't changing throughout
the suspension's travel, like with traditional systems, you get the
added benefit of extremely predictable handling."

"The Future Shock is designed for road riding, not off road trails, so
the system needs to be incredibly active. We've found that springs offer
the best solution to absorbing the frequencies you encounter on the
road, and to grasp why, you just have to look at what's already out
there. Other suspension systems with damping are just too heavy for road
riding, and because of stiction, they require too much force to initiate
their travel. And because of this, they’re pretty ineffective at
smoothing out road chatter."

--
JS

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:41:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
>> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
>Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details? Did I miss
>something?

The future is shocking?

It's been around since about Sept 2016. That's enough time for there
to be plenty of web sites, videos, and test reports:
(web)
<https://www.google.com/search?q=specialized+future+shock>
(video)
<https://www.google.com/search?q=specialized+future+shock&tbm=vid>
(photos)
<https://www.google.com/search?q=specialized+future+shock&tbm=isch>

Tech specs, calculations, performance tests, measurements, numbers?
Nada. If you find an analysis, I would be interested in reading it.
I'm also trying to figure out how it prevents added friction from side
loading caused by the off center downward forces from the handlebars.
I can't tell if there is an internal shock absorber in the stem, if
the entire stem insert is the shock absorber, whether it's externally
pressurized, or if it is big enough to do anything useful. (Note:
There is a shock absorber in the seat post). The guts:
<http://cdn.velonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0Q6A4932.jpg>
Also, I noticed that all of the bicycles shown in the various Future
Shock web pages use wide 28-32mm tires. I wonder if the superior ride
that the reviewers experienced is due to the wide tires and not the
Future Shock spring thing?

This will be a hit-n-run posting. I'm busy resurrecting some junk
microscopes for the next few daze.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:41:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
>> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
>Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details? Did I miss
>something?

Never mind the technical drawings, what is this stiction - "and

because of stiction, they require too much force to initiate their

travel" - is this some new force that we should be aware of?

Will people be saying things like, "Oh, I couldn't open the door,
there is too much stiction"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 4/3/2017 10:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
>> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
> Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details?
> Did I miss something?
>
>

Marketing 101: "The crap we sold you last year is no good.
Here's the new one."

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 6:08:27 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/3/2017 10:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
> >> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
> >
> > Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details?
> > Did I miss something?
> >
> >
>
> Marketing 101: "The crap we sold you last year is no good.
> Here's the new one."
>

Hey, my son sold a couple of the Di2 models just the other day -- a husband and wife pair. If someone wants to put him through college, that's fine with me. He reports that the Roubaix does not ride like a pogo-stick.

I'm not buying Di2 because I'm worried about Russian hacking.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:07:33 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's a term common in the hard disk drive business. When two highly
polished surfaces connect, considerable force is required to separate
them again. No adhesive required. For the disk drives, when the
polished head lands on the polished platter, they stick. The motor
has to work harder to separate the two before head can be made to fly
again. My guess(tm) is that the suspension system has the same
problem, although I can't imagine exactly where.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 22:07:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>I wonder if the superior ride
>that the reviewers experienced is due to the wide tires and not the
>Future Shock spring thing?

This is ridiculous. If Specialized wanted to smooth out the potholes
and road bumps, they should have used a vertical mass damper as is
often used in skyscrapers. Or perhaps produced a vertical electric
generator, which would convert the energy lost in the bumpy vertical
motion into forward motion using a motor instead of wasted as heat
inside a shock absorber:
<http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/bike-generator-harnesses-power-from-bumps-on-the-road.html>

It is also possible to use wearable technology. All that's needed are
two large springs wrapped around the riders forearms. That would
produce the same effect as putting a spring in the stem. Actually,
the springs aren't really necessary as they could be replaced with an
air bag between the hands and the handlebar grips. The bicycle might
ride like a boneshaker, but your arms will never feel a thing while
wearing the air springs.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:44:04 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
> --
> JS

Seatpost shock absorbers often become very sloppy with a fair bit of play after a whil. I wonder how the steering will be affected once this unit develops play?

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:44:04 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
> --
> JS

Aw, hell, I've already had this huge new "invention". These clowns are just copycatting a Shimano innovation from c2002 that didn't take. The original Shimano Di2,besides the headline computer-controlled genuine automatic gearbox (much, much more advanced than the current roadie Di2 which isn't automatic at all but manually triggered electrically assisted shifting, an inferior thing on bikes as it was on Porsche) included a hub dynamo to provide power for the "battery" (actually a capacitor), and front and rear adaptive electronic suspensions. My Trek Smover (officially "Cyber Nexus"
t http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGsmover.html)
had the auto gearbox, control computer, dynamo, and front suspension from the original Di2 groupset, but not the rear suspension which Trek thought superfluous both on their proto (which is now in my possession) and the limited production series by their Benelux operation headquartered in Luxembourg. Of course something this refined was never offered to Americans, though they were able to buy the diamond frame under the L700 series of mountain bikes.

So the front suspension on this 15 year-old bike, now in the loft a couple of floors above me, was more advanced (electronically active) than what Specialized is currently offering as the "future", and very likely worked better. Certainly the Trek rode smoother on its Bontrager Elite Hard Case tyres than a bike with very soft front suspension, my Gazelle Toulouse which had workalike Marathon Plus tyres in a similar size -- I wouldn't be surprised if those tyres were made in the same factory on the same carcases. All the same, neither ride was undisturbed on chip and seal, though of course vastly superior to an unsuspended Peugeot mountain bike I had about the same time, which literally paid for my physic's BMW by wrecking my back. In short, standard front suspension, soft, was an improvement, active electronic suspension was a further improvement, but I thought I could do better. (I always think I can do better; mostly I can, but usually I can also see why the improvement was not worth the marginal cost to a commercial manufacturer.)

I did, on a bike
http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf
designed from the ground up to take advantage of Schwalbe's Big Apple low pressure balloons. The upshot is what should have been obvious to the Specialized designers from the beginning: air is the cheapest, the most controllable (you just inflate to ever lower pressures until the chip and seal shiver disappears from your grips), and the most effective suspension medium ever invented not by man but by god. (I'm not surprised Franki-boy Krygowski, anyway a third-rate engineer, missed this pretty obvious point, mainly because he's an arrogant asshole who thinks manmade is always better than godmade, nor that Jeff Liebermann, a thoughtful sort of fellow, picked it up.)

As a writer, I'm a sort of manual laborer (I operate a keyboard), and I am thus veeeeery conscious of repetitive disturbances to my hands. I don't fancy RSI in my hands, and my experience in automobiles, especially with Citroens of the hydraulic age (I had several DS and SM, the first being fast point-to-point quite out of the class of its ancient tractor engine because of its suspension, and the SM, in its time more expensive than a Rolls, being the most comfortable fast continent-crosser ever made, again, quite out of the class of what for large GT cars -- the SM was a coupe longer than an S-class Mercedes -- was a very modest engine indeed, a sort of cut-down -- and incompetently at that -- three-quarters of an originally excellent Maserati V8) and with fast Bentleys (the self-leveling was licensed from Citroen), has long since convinced me that true comfort in a motorcar starts with the absence of transmitted vibrations and noise. One of my favorite all-time continent crossers was a 7-litre Ford LTD that was quieter inside than a Rolls; Stirling Moss also kept one for fast European touring; mine, admittedly with the engine, suspension and brakes breathed on by me, kicked the living shit out of a Porsche from London to Nardo in the boot of Italy. More, in the late 70s I was doing the fast work in a Ferrari 400, a large four-seater coupe, in Mexico for a magazine and they also had a Lincoln with simple air suspension on test, and I made that Lincoln go faster around the circuit they chose than the Ferrari, simply because it's air suspension conformed better to the rough surface than the Ferrari's harsh springs. So when I design and build or commission a bike intended to be comfortable for touring, i.e. very long days in the saddle and on the grips, I start with eliminating noise and vibration, that is, at the tyres. My current bike has solid forks and seat post; it's entire, very competent, suspension is in those balloons. I've come to view suspended forks and seat posts, in fact all kinds of springs on a bicycle as kludges for incompetent design. Their designers should go back to school and the vendors of sprung forks and seat posts should get eternal heartburn for their greed.

Obviously, I agree with Jeff that whatever improvement the testers observed in comfort was more likely to start at the fatter tyres than at that pretty gimmicky spring in the head tube.

Specialized is pulling a fast one; they should go back to the drawing board and start with the tyres.

This idea didn't work for Shimano, who had a superior suspension system included in their original Di2 umpteen years ago, and it won't work either now or in the "future" for Specialized.

Andre Jute
KISS

[Mark J.]

Yeah. Don't try to outsprint a Katusha rider if you've got DI2. You'll
be on the big cog so fast your head will spin.
No more worries from Tinkoff, though.

Mark J.

[John B.]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 07:54:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:07:33 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:41:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
>>>> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>>>
>>>Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details? Did I miss
>>>something?
>
>>Never mind the technical drawings, what is this stiction - "and
>>because of stiction, they require too much force to initiate their
>>travel" - is this some new force that we should be aware of?
>>
>>Will people be saying things like, "Oh, I couldn't open the door,
>>there is too much stiction"?
>
>It's a term common in the hard disk drive business. When two highly
>polished surfaces connect, considerable force is required to separate
>them again. No adhesive required. For the disk drives, when the
>polished head lands on the polished platter, they stick. The motor
>has to work harder to separate the two before head can be made to fly
>again. My guess(tm) is that the suspension system has the same
>problem, although I can't imagine exactly where.

Err. the "problem" or "advantage" of extremely smooth, flat surfaces
"sticking" together has been around as long as they have been making
"Jo Blocks" which date back to the late 1800's. But I never heard the
term "stiction" used to describe the fact that once you "wring" them
together you can't get them apart.... except by wringing them apart
:-)

Interestingly the force holding them together is much higher then
atmospheric pressure. i.e. if you wring a pair of, say 1 inch square,
blocks together it takes far more then 14 lbs to pull them apart.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 08:19:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 22:07:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder if the superior ride
>>that the reviewers experienced is due to the wide tires and not the
>>Future Shock spring thing?
>
>This is ridiculous. If Specialized wanted to smooth out the potholes
>and road bumps, they should have used a vertical mass damper as is
>often used in skyscrapers. Or perhaps produced a vertical electric
>generator, which would convert the energy lost in the bumpy vertical
>motion into forward motion using a motor instead of wasted as heat
>inside a shock absorber:
><http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/bike-generator-harnesses-power-from-bumps-on-the-road.html>
>
>It is also possible to use wearable technology. All that's needed are
>two large springs wrapped around the riders forearms. That would
>produce the same effect as putting a spring in the stem. Actually,
>the springs aren't really necessary as they could be replaced with an
>air bag between the hands and the handlebar grips. The bicycle might
>ride like a boneshaker, but your arms will never feel a thing while
>wearing the air springs.

Or even take a bit of the load on your legs and relax your arms a bit
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I remember an MTB I had that had a piston-type dmaper on the stem to absorb shocks/bumps. It always felt like I was about to go overthe bars when the bars suddenly dropped when hitting a big bump or pothole. I got rid of that bike pronto. I still wonder what the steering on this newest gizmo will be like once wear sets in and the steering gets a bit sloppy. Do they have a method to rreadjustt he thing to take up any slack?

Cheers

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 07:40:26 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Or even take a bit off the load on your legs and relax your arms a bit
>:-)

Not really. When riding your bicycle, you have 5 points of contact
with the machine. Two arms on the handlebars, two feet on the pedals,
and one posterior on the saddle. If you do anything to take the load
off one or more of these, the load is simply transferred to the
others. If a sprung handlebar were to apply an upward force on the
hands for an extended period of time, the lost upward force would
redistribute itself in additional force on the saddle and feet. You
might get some temporary relief from gravity in the arms from a sprung
handlebar, but when you return to earth from the initial launching,
your arms will feel both the upward return force plus the original
weight of supporting your upper body. That's what you feel when you
jump and land. Sorry, no free lunch today.

Some ways out of this puzzle are to:
1. Distribute the spring launching force over a longer length of
time, thus reducing the peak force. This is part of what a shock
absorber does. Instead of returning the spring compressive force in
one instantaneous bang, it delays the expansion of the spring, thus
stretching out the spring expansion time.
2. Dissipate the energy built up in the spring by heating the air
inside an air shock (Charles's Law). When the air shock volume is
compressed, it raises the air temperature inside the air shock, thus
getting rid of some of the energy that would normally be returned to
the riders arms when the spring expands.

Incidentally, there's yet another way to build a handlebar shock
absorber system. Put each handlebar on a hinge so that the handlebars
swing in line with the head tube angle. On each hinge, attach a
spring and shock absorber, much like those festooned all over the
frame of todays mountain bikes. The effect would be the same as a
spring and shock inside the stem, except that there would be some
rotation of hands involved. Sprung stems and handlebars are nothing
new:
<http://www.cxmagazine.com/stafast-suspension-stem-air-shock-angle-adjustment-gravel>
<http://www.cyclingabout.com/suspension-stems-making-your-ride-smoother/>
<http://www.bikepro.com/products/stems/soft.html>
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimg/2292188092/>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=jd+suspension+slick+rock&tbm=isch>

Can I go back to work now?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/4/2017 9:08 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/3/2017 10:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/3/2017 9:44 PM, James wrote:
>>> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>>
>> Tantalizing, but where are the technical/mechanical details?
>> Did I miss something?
>>
>>
>
> Marketing 101: "The crap we sold you last year is no good. Here's the
> new one."

Come to think of it, are they finally admitting Zertz are worthless?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joy Beeson]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 16:07:33 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Never mind the technical drawings, what is this stiction

It's a contraction of "static friction". In theory, it's a myth that
static friction is greater than sliding friction. In practice, the
difference is easy to measure.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[John B.]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:46:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I see. You are telling me that the rather elaborate springs and shock
absorbers under my wife's car are a waste of money? After all there
are always just those four tires carrying all the weight?

Ridiculous.

Then you go on for 28 lines and include 5 references to tell us all
about springs and compressed air getting hot.

Why, all you got to do is just get on your bike and try riding your
bike over the bumps while sitting there like a blob on the seat. Then
try exactly the same thing except take a little of your weight on your
legs with your knees bent just a little. Hot Damn! Your legs will act
just like your springs and compressed air and you will sort of float
over the bumps. Why, you can even loosen your death grip on the
handlebars and just use your hands and arms to sort of balance
yourself there, on your hind legs.

This is hardly an inovation. "Way back when" even automobiles used to
have "Knee Action". And even earlier people riding horses had made
this unique discovery.

Words:
http://theoldmotor.com/?tag=chevrolet-knee-action-suspension
Pictures:
https://www.google.co.th/search?q=Chevrolet%2Bknee+action&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX-_rM0ozTAhWMRo8KHa1BBMEQsAQIHg
Movin' pitchers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W_J6UhQP6s
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Do you imply that you're (gasp!) riding old products?

[DougC]

On 4/3/2017 8:44 PM, James wrote:
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>

Is this another April-1 thing? I can never tell if what's introduced
around this time is real or not. Looks like probably not...?

It's especially telling when the fake products are more interesting than
the real ones they sell.

How do you answer when you advertise a fake product (a suspended road
bike) and people email you asking how to buy one?...

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:23:05 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:46:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:

>>Not really. When riding your bicycle, you have 5 points of contact
>>with the machine. Two arms on the handlebars, two feet on the pedals,
>>and one posterior on the saddle. If you do anything to take the load
>>off one or more of these, the load is simply transferred to the
>>others. If a sprung handlebar were to apply an upward force on the
>>hands for an extended period of time, the lost upward force would
>>redistribute itself in additional force on the saddle and feet. You
>>might get some temporary relief from gravity in the arms from a sprung
>>handlebar, but when you return to earth from the initial launching,
>>your arms will feel both the upward return force plus the original
>>weight of supporting your upper body. That's what you feel when you
>>jump and land. Sorry, no free lunch today.

>I see. You are telling me that the rather elaborate springs and shock
>absorbers under my wife's car are a waste of money? After all there
>are always just those four tires carrying all the weight?

Yep. For example, some older wheel tractors do not have any springs
or shocks on the big rear wheels. Older models also didn't have them
on the front wheel. The only real springs and shocks were in the
seat.
<https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-tractor-not-have-a-suspension-system>
Since the steering wheel was attached to the frame and therefore the
rear wheels, any bump would be directly coupled to the drivers arms.

>Ridiculous.

Well, if you insist. I forgot to include an executive summary that
might be easier to understand and digest. If Specialized wanted to
make a bicycle with a smooth ride, which I believe is the intent of
the Future Shock contrivance, they need to totally decouple the rider
from the bicycle. The various parts of the bicycle can move
independently and should include shocks and springs. Apparently,
Specialized feels that visible shocks and springs on the Ruby and
Roubaix models are in some way an abomination and has invented Future
Shock mostly to hide the spring and shock to avoid giving the bicycles
the appearance of a kinematic nightmare. Future Shock, in collusion
with a spring seat post, produces the desired effect. What I
attempted to demonstrate was that there were other ways to produce a
sprung and damped handlebar. Is that sufficiently ridiculous?

>Then you go on for 28 lines and include 5 references to tell us all
>about springs and compressed air getting hot.

17 lines (not counting URL's) and I covered more than just hot air. I
mentioned how a shock absorber reduces peak force. It also reduces
peak displacement by delaying spring reaction forces, but I didn't
make that very clear.

Incidentally, if you have an IR thermometer, you might want to measure
the temperature rise in your automobile or truck. I used to drive a
1972 International Harvester 1210 3/4 ton truck with service boxes.
When I stupidly overloaded it while doing construction on my house, I
blew all 4 shock absorbers from overheating. I vaguely recall the
limit being about 175C.

>Why, all you got to do is just get on your bike and try riding your
>bike over the bumps while sitting there like a blob on the seat. Then
>try exactly the same thing except take a little of your weight on your
>legs with your knees bent just a little. Hot Damn! Your legs will act
>just like your springs and compressed air and you will sort of float
>over the bumps. Why, you can even loosen your death grip on the
>handlebars and just use your hands and arms to sort of balance
>yourself there, on your hind legs.

That will demonstrate that leg and arm muscles can be used as springs
and shock absorbers. That's fine, but also very tiring. Some
concession to the comfort of the rider is required for longer rides. I
position my saddle so that my knees are slightly bent for that reason.
For really rough roads, I raise my posterior out of the saddle and let
my legs carry all of the load. For obvious reasons, nobody had
suggest using severed legs as springs and shocks on bicycles.

>This is hardly an inovation. "Way back when" even automobiles used to
>have "Knee Action". And even earlier people riding horses had made
>this unique discovery.

Yep. Since it was so obvious, so common, and full of prior art, I
asked myself, why did Specialized hide it inside the stem when it
would have worked better exposed?

>
>Words:
>http://theoldmotor.com/?tag=chevrolet-knee-action-suspension
>Pictures:
>https://www.google.co.th/search?q=Chevrolet%2Bknee+action&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX-_rM0ozTAhWMRo8KHa1BBMEQsAQIHg

Shorter link for USA:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Chevrolet%2Bknee+action&tbm=isch>

>Movin' pitchers:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W_J6UhQP6s
Nice video.

Rotary dampers are common but probably a bit big and heavy for
bicycles:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever_arm_shock_absorber>
"During the 1960s, the lever arm was replaced by the telescopic
shock absorber. This was encouraged by better roads and motorways,
increasing average speeds and driver expectations of handling. The
telescopic shock absorber dissipated heat more effectively, owing
to its larger working volume of fluid and also the better ratio
of surface area to fluid volume."

Yet another potential problem with Future Shock (Credit to Sir
Ridesalot for mentioning the problem):
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/shimmy.html>
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/shimmy.html>
If it moves, it can oscillate (or vibrate, resonate, shake, etc).

[AMuzi]

But wait! There's more!
Ronco is going public again and if you buy a mere $5000
worth of new issue at the IPO you get a Ronco Rotisserie!

I'm not making this up although I did assume it was humor
not actual news when I first read it.

http://fortune.com/2017/04/03/ronco-rotisserie-veg-o-matic-ipo-stock/

[jbeattie]

You make one! Suspended road bikes have been around in some form for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_suspension#/media/File:Whippet_Safety_Bicycle.jpg


My son has ridden the Roubaix and the Domane (and sold both working for different shops) and thinks they ride well notwithstanding the suspension. There is a market for suspended "endurance" bikes, although I've always endured on my non-suspended bikes. I do wish I had gotten the geometry of the newer version of the Roubaix (minus the spring). The slack head angle on the older model makes the steering feel odd. My complaints were apparently common and Specialized "fixed" the problem. I should have been paying more attention when I did the test ride. I still like the bike -- fender eyelets and room for 28mm tires on a fairly peppy road frame. It is a really good seated climber. A little piggy out of the saddle.


-- Jay Beattie.

[Doug Landau]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 6:44:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
> --
> JS

At risk of revealing my brain-dead condition [uhm... this morning, that is], I'm trying to picture 'axial compliance'.

I see the drawing with the spring inside the stem.
But this spring would be aligned with two spokes, the top and bottom spokes, while a radially laced front wheel is at rest.

Would, then, such an arrangement not provide radial compliance? How do we get to axial compliance from here?

thanks

[AMuzi]

Add an Axial of course:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/michaxi.jpg

you're welcome.

[Frank Krygowski]

We should remember that nothing is new in bicycling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whippet_Safety_Bicycle.jpg


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:52:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

Do you search out these weird sites or do they simply fall out of the
sky.

Having actually (gasp) driven tractors (even at the early age of 12) I
can assure you that the reason tractors don't incorporated suspension
is that they travel so slow that a "bump" is isn't a "bump" at all, it
is simply an irregularity the ground and the tractor climbs up one
side and down the other.

I would also comment that I have driven a tractor built from a Model T
Ford that had front suspension and it didn't result in the weird
oscillation your cite talks about.

The picture your cite shows to describe how suspension would cause the
tractor to rear up on it's hind legs" (as it were) ignores the point
that the attaching point of the plow is below the rear axle
centerline. Which of course results in a force that tends to rotate
the axle in a direction that forces the body of the tractor toward the
ground.

Even the really, really, old folks knew that.
http://tinyurl.com/mzcyca4

>>Ridiculous.
>
>Well, if you insist. I forgot to include an executive summary that
>might be easier to understand and digest. If Specialized wanted to
>make a bicycle with a smooth ride, which I believe is the intent of
>the Future Shock contrivance, they need to totally decouple the rider

Actually I doubt very much that
specialized wanted to build a bicycle with a smooth ride. I suggest
that what they actually wanted top do was make a bicycle that they
could convince a lot of people to buy :-)

>>Then you go on for 28 lines and include 5 references to tell us all
>>about springs and compressed air getting hot.
>
>17 lines (not counting URL's) and I covered more than just hot air. I
>mentioned how a shock absorber reduces peak force. It also reduces
>peak displacement by delaying spring reaction forces, but I didn't
>make that very clear.
>
>Incidentally, if you have an IR thermometer, you might want to measure
>the temperature rise in your automobile or truck. I used to drive a
>1972 International Harvester 1210 3/4 ton truck with service boxes.
>When I stupidly overloaded it while doing construction on my house, I
>blew all 4 shock absorbers from overheating. I vaguely recall the
>limit being about 175C.

Your assertion that overloading a truck causes the shock absorbers to
"blow out" seems strange as I've seem a large number of trucks grossly
overloaded that seemed to have no problems. I remember a fleet of
1-1/2 ton trucks that were used to carry cargo from the port of Medan,
North Sumatra to villages north of the city that were so overloaded
that they bolted wooden blocks to the frames to prevent the truck bed
from resting on the tires.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:58:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>We should remember that nothing is new in bicycling.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whippet_Safety_Bicycle.jpg

And they even had brakes:
http://tinyurl.com/n52j9sp

:-) :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:58:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>We should remember that nothing is new in bicycling.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whippet_Safety_Bicycle.jpg

I know. I steal my best ideas from prior art.

I don't know if you can view Pinterest pages without a login, but you
might find this collection of bicycle ideas that came and went rather
interesting:
<https://www.pinterest.com/pjameswright/bike/>
The Whippet Safety Bicycle is in the collection, along with other
sprung suspensions. Here's a better view of the Whippet:
<http://www.bicyclearts.com/images/bicycles/5.jpg>
I really like the rear brake mechanism.

This one looks even stranger:
<http://www.bicyclearts.com/images/bicycles/4.jpg>

Where bamboo meets NPT (National Pipe Thread) water pipe:
<http://www.bicyclearts.com/images/bicycles/9.jpg>

Would you believe leaf springs on the fork?
<http://www.laufforks.com>
<http://bike-advisor.com/story/first-ride-lauf-trail-racer-29-leaf-spring-suspension-fork.html>

The stranger it looks, the better it works.
Gee... this is almost as much fun as concept bicycles.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/5/2017 11:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:58:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> We should remember that nothing is new in bicycling.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whippet_Safety_Bicycle.jpg
>
> I know. I steal my best ideas from prior art.

I think that's good policy. Inspiration is valuable!

> I don't know if you can view Pinterest pages without a login, but you
> might find this collection of bicycle ideas that came and went rather
> interesting:
> <https://www.pinterest.com/pjameswright/bike/>

Normally Pinterest does keep me out, but for whatever reason I had no
trouble viewing that link. And it was interesting indeed!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:29:34 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:52:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:

>>Yep. For example, some older wheel tractors do not have any springs
>>or shocks on the big rear wheels. Older models also didn't have them
>>on the front wheel. The only real springs and shocks were in the
>>seat.
>><https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-tractor-not-have-a-suspension-system>
>>Since the steering wheel was attached to the frame and therefore the
>>rear wheels, any bump would be directly coupled to the drivers arms.

>Do you search out these weird sites or do they simply fall out of the
>sky.

Are those the only two choices available? Falling out of the sky
implies divine inspiration, for which I certainly don't qualify.
Looking for weird sites is closer to the mark. Perhaps if I explain
how it's done, you might find my examples worth emulating.

I start with a simple Google word search and quickly switch to an
image search. I don't look for weird sites, but rather look for weird
pictures. When I see a picture that looks "interesting", I click on
"View Image" and then "Visit Site". If the site and associated weird
image corroborate my allegations, I add it to my Usenet posting. If
not, I try again with another weird image. If I don't find anything,
I simply link to the page full of images, which is more for
entertainment value than corroboration.

>Having actually (gasp) driven tractors (even at the early age of 12) I
>can assure you that the reason tractors don't incorporated suspension
>is that they travel so slow that a "bump" is isn't a "bump" at all, it
>is simply an irregularity the ground and the tractor climbs up one
>side and down the other.

Well, you certainly have more experience with tractor driving than me.
I'm a city slicker but I went to an agricultural college (Cal Poly,
Pomona). At one point, I took a series of agricultural classes in
tractor driving and mechanics that were amazingly applicable to
engineering. I may have held the record for doing the most damage
with a Caterpillar D6 tractor. I also successfully destroyed about
50ft of chain link fence when I was bounced off a Ford 5000 wheel
tractor by one of your non-bumps and the tractor continued on
autopilot. Notice the total lack of any suspension.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle&tbm=isch>
However, I will agree that bumps and lumps have little effect on the
quality of ride on a wheel tractor, which is cushioned by the fat rear
tires.

>I would also comment that I have driven a tractor built from a Model T
>Ford that had front suspension and it didn't result in the weird
>oscillation your cite talks about.

Well, I also don't recall any oscillations, but they certainly can be
created in bicycles. I had one bicycle when I was a juvenile
delinquent that would shimmy violently at one particular speed. I
thought it was normal for bicycles to do that, so I just sped through
the resonance point and rode faster.
<https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/shimmy.html>

>The picture your cite shows to describe how suspension would cause the
>tractor to rear up on it's hind legs" (as it were) ignores the point
>that the attaching point of the plow is below the rear axle
>centerline. Which of course results in a force that tends to rotate
>the axle in a direction that forces the body of the tractor toward the
>ground.

True. Dragging a plow or other anchor behind the tractor does tend to
stabilize things. Wheel tractors were simply not designed as a
transportation device, but were designed to be dragging something.
Since a wheel tractor has most of its weight over the rear wheels,
there is a tendency for the tractor to lift the front wheels off the
ground when overpowered or one of the rear wheels gets stuck. Dragging
a plow helps.

>Even the really, really, old folks knew that.
>http://tinyurl.com/mzcyca4

The local steampunk group
<http://www.roaringcamp.com>
<http://kineticsteamworks.org>
brings their machines over to Roaring Camp for exhibits. See the
photo of "Pappy". It goes really really really slow. I'll ask them
about the suspension and shimmy issues at the next exhibit.

>Actually I doubt very much that
>specialized wanted to build a bicycle with a smooth ride. I suggest
>that what they actually wanted top do was make a bicycle that they
>could convince a lot of people to buy :-)

They said as much on their Future Shock web page:
<https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock>
See under "Smoother is Faster". However, you're correct that sales is
what drives all such innovation. If it doesn't sell, the money spent
on the innovation is wasted. After smoothness, I presume that
research into which color paint is faster, will follow.

>Your assertion that overloading a truck causes the shock absorbers to
>"blow out" seems strange as I've seem a large number of trucks grossly
>overloaded that seemed to have no problems.

My 1972 International 1210 3/4ton truck was originally my service
truck when I was in the land mobile radio biz. When the business
collapsed, I ended up with the truck instead of back pay. At the
time, I had switching to engineering and was therefore commuting with
the big truck. The radio sites were on top of mountains serviced by
chronically washed out dirt roads, for which the suspension on the
truck was properly tuned. However, at freeway speeds, the shocks were
too stiff. When it came time to replace the shocks, I installed some
rather light duty shocks to give me a smoother ride on the freeway.
That worked fine, until I had to carry an excessive load, and blew out
all 4 shocks. They were replaced by heavy duty shocks and I installed
rubber shocks under the bench seat.

>I remember a fleet of
>1-1/2 ton trucks that were used to carry cargo from the port of Medan,
>North Sumatra to villages north of the city that were so overloaded
>that they bolted wooden blocks to the frames to prevent the truck bed
>from resting on the tires.

We did much the same with a flat bed truck that we built from junk
parts. It had an excessively wide axle that put the wheel well
directly over the middle of the tires. So, we did some more body
work, gouged out the wheel wells, and extended the wheel wells with
plastic racing imitations. The front wheels never did track correctly
on turns, but that wasn't an issue because the truck never left the
yard.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 8:25:55 PM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
>
> Would, then, such an arrangement not provide radial compliance?

Usually not until you bribe the Radial Compliance Inspector.

>How do we get to axial compliance from here?

You fill in the appropriate forms, drive to the appropriate office, pay the appropriate fees, and obtain the appropriate Axial Compliance Permit.

Glad to help.

Andre Jute
Law-abiding citizen

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 8:25:55 PM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
>> Would, then, such an arrangement not provide radial compliance?

>Usually not until you bribe the Radial Compliance Inspector.

It might be safer and easier to hire the services of a consulting
compliance engineer:
<https://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/job-descriptions/compliance-engineer-job-description.aspx>

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 6:44:04 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock
>
> --
> JS

Look at it this way - what do you do when you approach a bump? Do you lift your weight off of the handlebars, the saddle or both?

I don't know about you but I lift off of everything but the pedals. And I prepare my legs to take total weight off of the pedals as much as possible.

Thinking that taking one step of four is sufficient isn't really good thinking in my mind.

[Doug Landau]

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 11:33:18 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 8:25:55 PM UTC+1, Doug Landau wrote:
> >> Would, then, such an arrangement not provide radial compliance?
>
> >Usually not until you bribe the Radial Compliance Inspector.
>
> It might be safer and easier to hire the services of a consulting
> compliance engineer:
> <https://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/job-descriptions/compliance-engineer-job-description.aspx>

Thanks all! I would like to add that before asking, I did google. Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060051227

Unfortunately reading that felt like a setback. Could someone please interpret that page for me?

[Doug Landau]

bunny hop it

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Unless you land perfectly the landing can be more destructive than the bump.

I have had several flats from thorns on fast descents in turns without falling. I can never discover how I remain wheel side down but I do.

[Doug Landau]

Haha right you are - that's the trick, setting it down lightly.

[James]

I thought that was standard practise for tractors. My Kubota tractor is
certainly like that, as is my ride on mower!

--
JS

[James]

We have sections of sealed road that are similar to riding a section of
cobbles. The mine field of patches and holes means a bunny hop isn't
going to help. All you can do is hover over the seat, keep your elbows
bent, pedal harder and avoid the really big holes.

This is fine in a straight line for a short distance, but for kilometre
after kilometre it becomes quite wearing. Not to mention the bike tends
to buck around, and if you had to corner it would not be good.

Bigger softer tyres are the go of course. It's not like the roughness
requires the added weight and complexity of suspended wheels.

I've recently moved to extra thick bar tape. It seems to have helped
reduce the buzz in my hands. If my fork crown allowed for more tyre
clearance, I'd put on a fatter front tyre of course. These rough roads
weren't an issue while I lived elsewhere.

--
JS

[John B.]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:55:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

To be honest, this sounds like fiction. Or incredible ignorance.

I might add that Yes, I have driven farm tractors and Yes, I have done
considerable work around D-6's, and even 7's and 8's and 9's. When I
worked at the Freeport copper mine in Irian Jaya (as it was then) they
hired stone age savages who had never seen a mechanical device and
within a month they were running D-9's with no problems.

Of course, at the mine there weren't any fences and missing a turn was
probably avoided. As Sam Johnson said "Depend upon it, sir, when a man
knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind
wonderfully", and I suppose the possibility of driving off a 2,000
cliff would have the same effect.

><https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle&tbm=isch>
>However, I will agree that bumps and lumps have little effect on the
>quality of ride on a wheel tractor, which is cushioned by the fat rear
>tires.

Actually the large rubber tires are there to improve traction not to
absorb bumps :-)

A Traction Engine, as it was known in England. I've never actually
seen one but my grandfather owned a "gravel pit" and at one time owned
a "Steam Shovel", which (again) I never saw in operation :-)

>
>>Actually I doubt very much that
>>specialized wanted to build a bicycle with a smooth ride. I suggest
>>that what they actually wanted top do was make a bicycle that they
>>could convince a lot of people to buy :-)
>
>They said as much on their Future Shock web page:
><https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock>
>See under "Smoother is Faster". However, you're correct that sales is
>what drives all such innovation. If it doesn't sell, the money spent
>on the innovation is wasted. After smoothness, I presume that
>research into which color paint is faster, will follow.

I've always understood that red was the fastest color. Although, come
to think of it, the SR-71's were black.

>>Your assertion that overloading a truck causes the shock absorbers to
>>"blow out" seems strange as I've seem a large number of trucks grossly
>>overloaded that seemed to have no problems.
>
>My 1972 International 1210 3/4ton truck was originally my service
>truck when I was in the land mobile radio biz. When the business
>collapsed, I ended up with the truck instead of back pay. At the
>time, I had switching to engineering and was therefore commuting with
>the big truck. The radio sites were on top of mountains serviced by
>chronically washed out dirt roads, for which the suspension on the
>truck was properly tuned. However, at freeway speeds, the shocks were
>too stiff. When it came time to replace the shocks, I installed some
>rather light duty shocks to give me a smoother ride on the freeway.
>That worked fine, until I had to carry an excessive load, and blew out
>all 4 shocks. They were replaced by heavy duty shocks and I installedr
>rubber shocks under the bench seat.
>

Again, this seems, at best illogical. And yes, I've owned, and
presently own. a 3/4 ton pickup. But I never noticed any difference in
driving on rutted dirt roads or smooth freeways that could be
attributed to shock absorbers. Unless, of course, one was driving at
extremely high speeds on the "washed out roads", which seems rather
(well) foolish.

>>I remember a fleet of
>>1-1/2 ton trucks that were used to carry cargo from the port of Medan,
>>North Sumatra to villages north of the city that were so overloaded
>>that they bolted wooden blocks to the frames to prevent the truck bed
>>from resting on the tires.
>
>We did much the same with a flat bed truck that we built from junk
>parts. It had an excessively wide axle that put the wheel well
>directly over the middle of the tires. So, we did some more body
>work, gouged out the wheel wells, and extended the wheel wells with
>plastic racing imitations. The front wheels never did track correctly
>on turns, but that wasn't an issue because the truck never left the
>yard.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The Indonesian trucks were
quite obviously purchased with only the cab and the cargo bed was
locally built with steel cross members and a plank cargo bed bolted on
top. No "wheel wells". In fact this seems to be the norm here too.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:22:53 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Even with horses the attaching point is below the center of gravity
(as one might call it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sledge_2.JPG
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:59:16 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>To be honest, this sounds like fiction. Or incredible ignorance.

Inexperience, going too fast, not watching where I was going, debris
on the field, and twisting one ankle so that I couldn't run after the
tractor. Unfortunately, that was about 1967, before digital cameras
became common, so I didn't take any photos. I might find one of me
with crutches. It's also difficult for me to remember incidents from
50 years ago, but if there's something specific that seems lacking,
I'll try to recall the details.

Incidentally, notice the throttle on the Ford 5000 tractor:
<http://www.tractordata.com/photos/F000/266/266-td4-b02.jpg>
It's the lever to the right of the steering wheel. Let go of the
throttle lever and it just keeps going and going and going.

Here's a rear view of the tractor:
<https://www.tractorpartsasap.net/eqphotos/EQ-18052-D.jpg>
No suspension. I bounced over the low back of the seat, bounced off
the left fender, and came down on an auxiliary hydraulic pump that was
attached to the PTO (power takeoff). The hydraulic lift cylinders in
the photos were not present. Looks like the seat was replaced in this
photo:
<http://en.visonerv.com/cgi-bin/md/M11646/s3.pl>

>I might add that Yes, I have driven farm tractors and Yes, I have done
>considerable work around D-6's, and even 7's and 8's and 9's. When I
>worked at the Freeport copper mine in Irian Jaya (as it was then) they
>hired stone age savages who had never seen a mechanical device and
>within a month they were running D-9's with no problems.

As I previously mentioned, the few classes I took in tractor driving
and mechanics at Cal Poly were the sum total of my experience with
tractors. Add in a little dirty work over the years with a backhoe
and small skip loader, but those don't really count.

At Cal Poly, we had our own equivalent of stone age savages. They
were foreign exchange students, mostly from Iran (before Shah Pahlavi
was deposed). Being the sons of Iran's elite, they were not expected
to do any manual labor or tasks that were deemed to be menial. A few
brought their servants with them to do these things. Few had every
operated a screwdriver, much less a complicated machine. Teaching
them basic mechanical skills was challenging but most survived.
Looking back, I think we could have done better with your stone age
savages.

>Of course, at the mine there weren't any fences and missing a turn was
>probably avoided. As Sam Johnson said "Depend upon it, sir, when a man
>knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind
>wonderfully", and I suppose the possibility of driving off a 2,000
>cliff would have the same effect.

We had the equivalent of the 2,000 ft cliff available. It was the
nearby San Bernardino Freeway (I-10). One wrong turn from the
practice field and the tractor would be climbing a short onramp into
traffic. The school probably deduced that nobody would be dumb enough
to try driving a tractor on the freeway, and therefore did provide any
protective measures. Well, someone did try, survived, and was the
inspiration for the chain link fence that I partially mangled.

>Actually the large rubber tires are there to improve traction not to
>absorb bumps :-)

True. The tire pressure varied depending on what we were doing with
the tractor. Quite a bit of classroom time was spent to the topic. As
I vaguely recall, we used 17 psi on a wheel tractor with zero load on
the hitch. I could see the tire bounce a little from the weight of
the tractor, but nothing that would be considered a shock absorber.

>A Traction Engine, as it was known in England. I've never actually
>seen one but my grandfather owned a "gravel pit" and at one time owned
>a "Steam Shovel", which (again) I never saw in operation :-)

I've had a little experience with steam engines. Mostly dirty work in
trade for getting free rides and helping a college friend build a
working steam car.

>>After smoothness, I presume that
>>research into which color paint is faster, will follow.

>I've always understood that red was the fastest color. Although, come
>to think of it, the SR-71's were black.

There's been quite a bit of work on optimizing aerodynamic surfaces on
anything that is expected to move rapidly. In theory, the ideal
aerodynamic surface would look like a golf ball.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=mythbusters+golf+ball+car&tbm=isch>
The idea is to maintain laminar (non-turbulent) flow over the largest
surface area. Color plays a small part by heating the air near the
surface. Hot air is less dense than cold air, so hot air means
slightly less air friction and wind resistance. The black SR-71 color
was no accident where at Mach 3, little things like surface heating
become important. The ideal bicycle frame would be dimpled and black.
I'm sure Specialized has considered the possibilities, and immediately
discarded them as unsellable.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug Landau
<doug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks all! I would like to add that before asking, I did google.
>Here is what I found: https://www.google.com/patents/US20060051227
>Unfortunately reading that felt like a setback. Could someone please
>interpret that page for me?

No. I can't understand anything in the patent or what it has to do
with bicycle tires.

Rewind. The original article sorta, kinda, maybe, explained it:
<https://www.specialized.com/us/en/future-shock>

Not All Compliance is Created Equal

When it comes to compliance, there are two competing schools
of thought. In one corner, there's splay. In the other,
there's axial compliance. Essentially, splay is the fore
& aft movement of the front axle, relative to the frame,
as a result of any bending of the frame and fork. Meanwhile,
axial (or vertical compliance) can be characterized as the
movement of the handlebars, relative to the front axle, as
a result of fork, frame, and stem compliance.

We tested both along all of the critical performance metrics,
and what we found is that, while splay certainly excels
in the comfort department, it's neither the smoothest or
fastest. Vertical compliance, however, was off the charts
in relation to all of the aforementioned criteria, and thus,
we had a runway to create a revolution in compliance: The
all-new Future Shock.

Reading between the lines of marketing gibberish, it would seem that
compliance has something to do with the bending of the frame and fork.
Decoding the buzzwords, my non-authoritative guess(tm) is that:
1. Radial compliance is the opposite of splay, which is the change in
wheelbase length caused by the bending of the front forks.
2. Axial compliance is the opposite of the change in distance between
the handlebars and the front axle caused by bending in the fork,
frame, and stem.

Note that I'm assuming that "compliance" is the same as "stiffness"
which is the opposite of "bending". The mention of "revolution in
compliance" seems to really mean "more stiffness".

Duz this help?

[John B.]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 09:37:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:59:16 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>To be honest, this sounds like fiction. Or incredible ignorance.
>
>Inexperience, going too fast, not watching where I was going, debris
>on the field, and twisting one ankle so that I couldn't run after the
>tractor. Unfortunately, that was about 1967, before digital cameras
>became common, so I didn't take any photos. I might find one of me
>with crutches. It's also difficult for me to remember incidents from
>50 years ago, but if there's something specific that seems lacking,
>I'll try to recall the details.
>
>Incidentally, notice the throttle on the Ford 5000 tractor:
><http://www.tractordata.com/photos/F000/266/266-td4-b02.jpg>
>It's the lever to the right of the steering wheel. Let go of the
>throttle lever and it just keeps going and going and going.
>

Hand throttles were/are pretty common on tractors. But I never saw one
that required the operator to maintain a death grip on it. Just
pull/push to get the right RPM and you could work all day without
touching it again.

>Here's a rear view of the tractor:
><https://www.tractorpartsasap.net/eqphotos/EQ-18052-D.jpg>
>No suspension. I bounced over the low back of the seat, bounced off
>the left fender, and came down on an auxiliary hydraulic pump that was
>attached to the PTO (power takeoff). The hydraulic lift cylinders in
>the photos were not present. Looks like the seat was replaced in this
>photo:
><http://en.visonerv.com/cgi-bin/md/M11646/s3.pl>
>

>

>At Cal Poly, we had our own equivalent of stone age savages. They
>were foreign exchange students, mostly from Iran (before Shah Pahlavi
>was deposed). Being the sons of Iran's elite, they were not expected
>to do any manual labor or tasks that were deemed to be menial. A few
>brought their servants with them to do these things. Few had every
>operated a screwdriver, much less a complicated machine. Teaching
>them basic mechanical skills was challenging but most survived.
>Looking back, I think we could have done better with your stone age
>savages.

Of course. After all a "gentleman" cannot be expected to actually
perform physical labour. Can he? Labour is preformed by them. Not US!
This is noticeable in many societies. The Irians I mentioned were all
"po folks". The Upper Class had large numbers of pigs and a sufficient
number of wives to care for them :-)

In fact, the mine caused an upheaval in the local societies that were
effectively pre stone age as I never saw any of them with a stone or
metal tool.

The mine paid in cash but of course cash has no value in the mountains
of Irian Jaya so there was a "company store" where one could exchange
one's cash for material goods like Levi's and steel knives and axes.
Can you imagine being the only one in a village with a steel axe? More
better than a Cadillac Car!

>
>>A Traction Engine, as it was known in England. I've never actually
>>seen one but my grandfather owned a "gravel pit" and at one time owned
>>a "Steam Shovel", which (again) I never saw in operation :-)
>
>I've had a little experience with steam engines. Mostly dirty work in
>trade for getting free rides and helping a college friend build a
>working steam car.
>
>>>After smoothness, I presume that
>>>research into which color paint is faster, will follow.
>
>>I've always understood that red was the fastest color. Although, come
>>to think of it, the SR-71's were black.
>
>There's been quite a bit of work on optimizing aerodynamic surfaces on
>anything that is expected to move rapidly. In theory, the ideal
>aerodynamic surface would look like a golf ball.
><https://www.google.com/search?q=mythbusters+golf+ball+car&tbm=isch>
>The idea is to maintain laminar (non-turbulent) flow over the largest
>surface area. Color plays a small part by heating the air near the
>surface. Hot air is less dense than cold air, so hot air means
>slightly less air friction and wind resistance. The black SR-71 color
>was no accident where at Mach 3, little things like surface heating
>become important. The ideal bicycle frame would be dimpled and black.
>I'm sure Specialized has considered the possibilities, and immediately
>discarded them as unsellable.

Actually the dimples in a golf ball aren't the whole story. Years ago,
when I played golf, I came across an article in a British golfing
magazine about a bloke who had done considerable experimenting with
golf balls. The dimpled balls have to spin to increase the range. He
had concocted a muzzle loading mortar to launch balls with and without
spin and proved that a ball without spin wouldn't fly far. Something,
I'm sure, that the golf ball manufacturers already knew :-)

By the way, the SR's leaked fuel when on the ground. Not a downpour
but a sort of drip, drip. We did a little work on them when I was in
SAC prior to them being fully manned and according to their people
once they got up to speed, or operating temperature one might say,
they expanded and stopped leaking.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:18:23 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Of course. After all a "gentleman" cannot be expected to actually
>perform physical labour.

It was a bit more complexicated than that. The exchange students were
all sons of VIP's, government ministers, and the wealthy upper class.
In the middle east, they were not expected to do any real work.
However, their fathers seemed to consider this a bad thing, which is
one reason they were sent to the US to get an education. To prevent
the students from doing much besides studying, the fathers would
drastically restrict the how much spending money they sent their sons.
While they appeared obviously well off, they were also chronically
short on cash. At the time, I was the local loan shark, loaning money
exclusively to these students. That worked very well as they knew
that they might get sent home if the fathers ever found out.

>Can he? Labour is preformed by them. Not US!
>This is noticeable in many societies. The Irians I mentioned were all
>"po folks". The Upper Class had large numbers of pigs and a sufficient
>number of wives to care for them :-)

Different societies have different ideas of what constitutes wealth.
In the US, wealth is marked by the number of coulombs of charge, saved
in a rather volatile computer storage system, that represents the
quantity of government paper that a person has accumulated. Pigs and
wives would seem like a better and more reliable alternative.

>In fact, the mine caused an upheaval in the local societies that were
>effectively pre stone age as I never saw any of them with a stone or
>metal tool.

One of my former friends (never loan a friend money) has a problem
that might also appear in your pre-stone age workers. His father was
an automobile mechanic and didn't want his son to grow up also being a
mechanic. Every time his son tried to use a tool, his father would
take it away. Predictably, his son grew up with absolutely no
mechanical abilities and literally could not operate a screwdriver or
hammer. I had always thought such skills were instinctive or easily
learned, but apparently not. Did something similar happen with the
pre-stone age workers when they tried to use metal tools?

>Actually the dimples in a golf ball aren't the whole story. Years ago,
>when I played golf, I came across an article in a British golfing
>magazine about a bloke who had done considerable experimenting with
>golf balls. The dimpled balls have to spin to increase the range. He
>had concocted a muzzle loading mortar to launch balls with and without
>spin and proved that a ball without spin wouldn't fly far. Something,
>I'm sure, that the golf ball manufacturers already knew :-)

Yep. It would seem that the laminar flow would improve as the golf
ball velocity increased. With rotation, it would also provide a more
even distribution of air flow near the surface and eliminate stagnant
air at the leading and trailing ends of the ball. I'm guessing, but
spin does seem to be a good idea. Unfortunately, a spinning bicycle
frame might be a little impractical.

>By the way, the SR's leaked fuel when on the ground. Not a downpour
>but a sort of drip, drip. We did a little work on them when I was in
>SAC prior to them being fully manned and according to their people
>once they got up to speed, or operating temperature one might say,
>they expanded and stopped leaking.

<http://www.historyinorbit.com/15-fascinating-facts-about-the-sr-71-blackbird-the-fastest-plane-on-earth/10/>
So it is written, so it must be.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snippeed

> <http://www.historyinorbit.com/15-fascinating-facts-about-the-sr-71-blackbird-the-fastest-plane-on-earth/10/>
> So it is written, so it must be.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Shouldn't that be the fastest manned plane above the earth? LOL VBEG

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/8/2017 12:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 08:18:23 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In fact, the mine caused an upheaval in the local societies that were
>> effectively pre stone age as I never saw any of them with a stone or
>> metal tool.
>
> One of my former friends (never loan a friend money) has a problem
> that might also appear in your pre-stone age workers. His father was
> an automobile mechanic and didn't want his son to grow up also being a
> mechanic. Every time his son tried to use a tool, his father would
> take it away. Predictably, his son grew up with absolutely no
> mechanical abilities and literally could not operate a screwdriver or
> hammer. I had always thought such skills were instinctive or easily
> learned, but apparently not. Did something similar happen with the
> pre-stone age workers when they tried to use metal tools?

I think there's a lot of individual variation. My favorite photo of my
grandson was taken when he was, oh, maybe 1 year old. IIRC it was an
age where he could walk, but not yet talk. Anyway, his non-mechanical
dad and I were working on something outside. The little guy walked over
to the open tool box, took out a Phillips screwdriver, toddled over to a
bike that was parked nearby, and plugged the screwdriver into a Phillips
screw on the fork blade and tried to turn it.

And for a while, his favorite toy was a power screwdriver. His mom
mentioned taking a shower while he was in the bedroom, coming out of the
shower and finding one of the bathroom door hinges had been partly removed.

>
>> Actually the dimples in a golf ball aren't the whole story. Years ago,
>> when I played golf, I came across an article in a British golfing
>> magazine about a bloke who had done considerable experimenting with
>> golf balls. The dimpled balls have to spin to increase the range. He
>> had concocted a muzzle loading mortar to launch balls with and without
>> spin and proved that a ball without spin wouldn't fly far. Something,
>> I'm sure, that the golf ball manufacturers already knew :-)

Supposedly the purpose of the dimples is to add energy to the boundary
layer, which allows it to stay attached further around the perimeter of
the ball. IOW they delay flow separation. The detached low pressure
area behind the ball is thus smaller, so aero drag is less.

This works with other objects as well, independent of spin. Some
airplane wings and some race car bodies have little "vortex generators"
installed for the same purpose.

> Yep. It would seem that the laminar flow would improve as the golf
> ball velocity increased. With rotation, it would also provide a more
> even distribution of air flow near the surface and eliminate stagnant
> air at the leading and trailing ends of the ball. I'm guessing, but
> spin does seem to be a good idea. Unfortunately, a spinning bicycle
> frame might be a little impractical.

I suspect that the big effect of spin is to increase lift, keeping the
golf ball in the air longer. Backspin has a lifting effect by slightly
speeding relative air velocity over the top, slightly reducing air
velocity on the bottom. As Bernoulli predicts, the result is a net
upward pressure. This action is obvious when (for example) playing
table tennis.


--
- Frank Krygowski