Addressing Suggestions

[Anthony King]

I've taken some time to read all the suggestions. I've made some
decisions and I'll need to think more about others--hopefully with
your help. For a frameset to be versatile compromises have to be made
that won't make everyone happy. My goal is make the compromises
intelligently as possible.

Matching fenders will be provided. Berthoud or Honjo style hardware.
Someone pointed out that the bike is Frenchy and wouldn't have matched
fenders. Granted. But those who prefer silver fenders can replace the
stock fenders with nice silver 650B fenders, which I stock and can
ship with the frameset.

Dropouts are still up in the air. If a viable dual purpose solution
can be used it will. Thee won't be an eccentric bb. If sales warrant a
run of bicycles with vertical dropouts then I'll make some with
verticals. I know horizontals are a pain with fenders. The dropout
will be shortened to lessen the hassle. The dropours won't be vertical-
only, that's for sure. Not on this run. I'd personally prefer that
because I'll build mine up as a rando w/ derailleurs. Sliding
verticals are not cheap at all.

132.5 rear spacing

1 1/8" threadless.

Wiring mods will be there. Exactly what they'll look like is up in the
air, but I promise you won't need to zip tie wiring to the frame or
fork. We'll need to keep hashing out details in another thread.

Tire/fender clearances between front and rear will be addressed. The
brake bridge will move a little. The bike will still be designed for
50mm fenders, but we'll free up some space so that Hetres will have a
little more room to breath than on G1 and G2. A small spacer at each
mounting point will allow those using the upcoming 38mm 650B tires to
have the same fender spacing as those using Hetres.

Tubing will be tweaked. I'm looking at the solutions various companies
have used to reduce shimmy, particularly Boulder Bicycles and
Jitensha's Ebisu. It will also be interesting to see what shimmy does
or does not occur on the VO Polyvalent frames.

[Anthony King]

I'm not ignoring anyone's comments and will address everyone who took
the time to write, I just won't get it all done tonight.

[james black]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 19:46, Anthony King <longleaf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've taken some time to read all the suggestions. I've made some
> decisions and I'll need to think more about others--hopefully with
> your help. For a frameset to be versatile compromises have to be made
> that won't make everyone happy. My goal is make the compromises
> intelligently as possible.

Sounds great! I look forward to further developments.

James Black

[Dan McCuaig]

On Dec 4, 10:46 pm, Anthony King <longleafbicyc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tubing will be tweaked. I'm looking at the solutions various companies
> have used to reduce shimmy, particularly Boulder Bicycles and
> Jitensha's Ebisu.

Might also make sense to talk to Dan Boxer -- Jan's recent review of
his rando bike makes no metion of shimmy, despite the bike running
Hetres on a relatively light-weight (and standard diameter), low-trail
frame. (Interestingly, the Boxer's head tube angle was a hair under
72* -- maybe the extra flop from the shallower head angle dampens the
shimmy?)

[Jacob Isleib]

>
> Might also make sense to talk to Dan Boxer -- Jan's recent review of
> his rando bike makes no metion of shimmy, despite the bike running
> Hetres on a relatively light-weight (and standard diameter), low-trail
> frame.  (Interestingly, the Boxer's head tube angle was a hair under
> 72* -- maybe the extra flop from the shallower head angle dampens the
> shimmy?)
>

Was that Dan Boxer bike using a needle bearing headset? I've noticed
more than once in BQ that the Miche or old Stronglight headsets are
given a lot of credit for eliminating shimmy.

[james black]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 07:07, Dan McCuaig <dmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Might also make sense to talk to Dan Boxer -- Jan's recent review of
> his rando bike makes no metion of shimmy, despite the bike running
> Hetres on a relatively light-weight (and standard diameter), low-trail
> frame.  (Interestingly, the Boxer's head tube angle was a hair under
> 72* -- maybe the extra flop from the shallower head angle dampens the
> shimmy?)

My suspicion and belief, unfortunately not greatly justified by
rigorous comparisons, but believed nonetheless - for a given trail
value, shallower head angles (e.g. less than 72) will shimmy less, but
also handle a front load much worse, than steeper head angles (e.g.
greater than 73). Shallow angles may eliminate shimmy, but at the
expense of creating a geometry that still won't let you ride no-hands,
because of excessively floppy steering.

It would be great to be able to compare different head angles back to back....

James Black
Los Angeles, CA

[Travis]

On Dec 7, 5:08 pm, james black <chocot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be great to be able to compare different head angles back to back....

Could a simple test be performed by using tires of different diameters
in the front and rear? For example, on a Kogswell P/R, a Fatty
Rumpkin up front (diameter=680mm) and a Cypres in the rear
(diameter=653mm) may slacken the head tube by about 0.75 degrees
(13.5mm difference in tire height on a 1055.9mm wheelbase). On a 700C
frame, perhaps more change to the head angle can be achieved with a
23mm tire in the rear, and a wide tire in the front.

Travis Newhouse
San Diego, CA

[Jacob Isleib]

Could a simple test be performed by using tires of different diameters
in the front and rear?  For example, on a Kogswell P/R, a Fatty
Rumpkin up front (diameter=680mm) and a Cypres in the rear
(diameter=653mm) may slacken the head tube by about 0.75 degrees
(13.5mm difference in tire height on a 1055.9mm wheelbase).  On a 700C
frame, perhaps more change to the head angle can be achieved with a
23mm tire in the rear, and a wide tire in the front.

 

Assuming both tires are inflated to achieve 15% tire drop, wouldn't this effect would be somewhat minimized? 

[james black]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:38, Travis <travisn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could a simple test be performed by using tires of different diameters
> in the front and rear?

I hadn't thought of that - this is a really good idea, actually.
Keeping the front wheel/tire constant and switching the rear wheel
between 559, 584 and 622 would give a decent range of angles. I would
try it myself, but I don't have any 559 or 584 wheels.

[jim g]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:38, Travis <travisn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Could a simple test be performed by using tires of different diameters
>> in the front and rear?

You'll also be changing trail & flop along with head angle.

-Jim G
--
jimg at yojimg dot net

[Will]

On Dec 11, 1:09 pm, jim g <yoj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You'll also be changing trail & flop along with head angle.

Jim G... what's your take on shimmy?

[jim g]

Shimmy sucks! ;) Can you be more specific?

[james black]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 13:12, jim g <yoj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shimmy sucks!  ;)  Can you be more specific?

If we're going to debate shimmy, I'll be happy to take the pro-shimmy
point-of-view for a change.

James Black

[Steve Palincsar]

No, JimG is the undisputed Champion of Shimmy, a veritable Sister Kate
among men. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6gLk7J7A0

[Pondero]

Anthony,

I've been thinking about how much I enjoy my G2 P/R lately, and about
your upcoming project.

As you might recall, my frame is a 56, 40mm trail fork, and I ride it
fixed.

I'm generally satisfied with my frame, but if I were to make
refinements they'd include...

1. Horizontal, or closer to horizontal, top tube.
2. Nicer shaped fork rake.
3. Internal wire routing.
4. Reduce size of spacer required between fork and fender.

I hope you've had some good times with the family lately.

Now, get back to work on this project...:)

Chris

[Fred Blasdel]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Pondero <cj.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Horizontal, or closer to horizontal, top tube.

This would mean getting rid of the way the ST extends above the TT, but would you lower the HT extension to match?

 

2. Nicer shaped fork rake.

YES, the way it bends in a kink is pretty ugly looking. I get jealous when I see people's custom bikes with fine low round curves. Rivendell is the only one I know of getting nice fork bends done in Taiwan, though with much lower rakes.

 

3. Internal wire routing.

Anthony's already on top of this :)

 

4. Reduce size of spacer required between fork and fender.

This turns out to be hard -- the need for the spacer is intentionally designed in, so that you can fit a 50mm fender underneath a normal crown. If you managed to find a wider production casting, you'd have to develop new tooling for adding the custom crown brazeons.

MG's plan for this was to switch to an entirely new Yo Eddy style fork design using a TIGed segmented crown, which apparently would have also cut the manufacturing cost enough that he could sell a integrated conversion fork+rack package for about what people are charging for mediocre adjustable racks.

[Christopher Johnson]

Thanks, Fred.

1. My plan would be to only raise the TT at the ST slightly.  No change at HT.

2. Exactly.

3. I thought so.  Just wanted to chime in my support.

4. The spacer doesn't bother me much.  If I switch from CDLVs to Hetres and larger fenders, maybe it's a non-issue.

I have great confidence that Anthony will work up something that will be excellent.

Chris

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Longleaf Bicycle Grove" group.
To post to this group, send email to longleaf-bi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to longleaf-bicycle-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/longleaf-bicycle-grove?hl=en.

[ji...@yojimg.net]

Why not use the new Pacenti Paris-Brest crown?

--

From ji...@yojimg.net

[Fred Blasdel]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ji...@yojimg.net <ji...@yojimg.net> wrote:

Why not use the new Pacenti Paris-Brest crown?

The extra 6.5mm of quoted width along with the lack of lug points getting in the way would make it easy to shove the fender all the way up there:

  http://www.bikelugs.com/store/index.php?strWebAction=item_detail&intItemID=126

The LC44 that MG used (along with everyone else, including Surly) is probably way cheaper and already stockpiled everywhere in Taiwan:

  http://www.longshen.com.tw/products_view.asp?Pidno=200606150074

For custom work there's no question, but for Taiwanese production I'm not sure it'd be worth it, though Rawland did use a Pacenti-sourced exclusive custom fork crown.

[jim g]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Fred Blasdel <blas...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The LC44 that MG used (along with everyone else, including Surly) is
> probably way cheaper and already stockpiled everywhere in Taiwan:
>   http://www.longshen.com.tw/products_view.asp?Pidno=200606150074
> For custom work there's no question, but for Taiwanese production I'm not
> sure it'd be worth it, though Rawland did use a Pacenti-sourced exclusive
> custom fork crown.

FWIW, I've seen bikes made by Maxway that are using either a Pacenti
Paris-Brest crown, or a knock-off of it. Not sure if the forks were
made by Maxway as well, but they were definitely made in Taiwan.

[Seth Vidal]

Where were the p-series kogswell made? Those were pacenti lugs iirc.

-sv

[Steve Palincsar]

Is there anything new with the Longleaf P/R project? According to last
year's projections, you expected prototypes last spring, with production
versions available now.