Kit 2 convert front of upright bike to 2 wheels?

[Sir Ridesalot]

I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?

Cheers

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?
>
> Cheers

http://goo.gl/5lBw5i

a larger front tire than rear ....

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 7:46:56 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?
>
> Cheers

winter commuter

http://billobikes.blogspot.com/2011/01/dodge-motorcycles.html

[avag...@gmail.com]

better search terms yields

http://goo.gl/rnhiGe

[Jeff Liebermann]

<http://www.core77.com/posts/18082/triblean-retrofit-kit-makes-tricycles-for-grown-ups-18082>
A variation of the design was sold by Onya Cycles of San Francisco as
a cargo bike, but that seems to have disappeared.

I don't believe that such an reversed tricycle derangement is more
stable. The problem is keeping all 3 wheels on the ground. If you
loose traction on a conventional tricycle, on one of the rear drive
wheels, you still travel in roughly the forward direction. However,
if you lift one of the two articulated steering wheels on a reverse
tricycle, the handlebars are going to turn inward, pivoting on the
wheel still on the ground, and you'll either crash or loose control.
That's why the Triblean retrofit kit needed the kinematic nightmare in
order to be usable.

If you really want "stability", perhaps a gyroscope might be more
appropriate:
<https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/529668138/jyrobike-auto-balance-bicycle>
<http://shop-us.jyrobike.com>
or maybe a retrofit:
<https://grabcad.com/library/gyroscopic-bike-stabilizer>

This replacement wheel appears to be defunct, but might be raised from
the dead:
<http://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/gyroscopic-bike-wheel-wont-let-you-fall/>

This isn't exactly a gyro stabilizer, but can probably be modified to
provide some stabilization:
<http://www.gizmag.com/flywheel-bicycle-regenerative-braking/19532/>

Or, just buy an ErockIT:
<http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/11/segway-2-0-german-bicycle-on-steriods-comes-to-the-us/>
<http://www.gizmag.com/the-erockit--50-mph-pedal-electric-hybrid-motorcycle/9528/>
Notice that the riders feet never hit the ground, which suggests that
it might be gyro stabilized, but I'm not sure. The domain seems to
have expired, so who knows if this one will ever hit the market.



--
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

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/19/2015 10:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
> <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels
>> and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the
>> two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe
>> two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?
>
> <http://www.core77.com/posts/18082/triblean-retrofit-kit-makes-tricycles-for-grown-ups-18082>
> A variation of the design was sold by Onya Cycles of San Francisco as
> a cargo bike, but that seems to have disappeared.
>
> I don't believe that such an reversed tricycle derangement is more
> stable. The problem is keeping all 3 wheels on the ground. If you
> loose traction on a conventional tricycle, on one of the rear drive
> wheels, you still travel in roughly the forward direction. However,
> if you lift one of the two articulated steering wheels on a reverse
> tricycle, the handlebars are going to turn inward, pivoting on the
> wheel still on the ground, and you'll either crash or loose control.
> That's why the Triblean retrofit kit needed the kinematic nightmare in
> order to be usable.

I'm pretty sure that a trike with two front wheels (i.e. a tadpole
trike) is much more stable than a single front wheel trike (i.e. a delta
trike). The big difference comes when a person "overcooks a turn,"
entering it too fast. The natural response is to brake, which (in
common parlance) throws the rider's weight forward and toward the
outside of the turn. A tadpole trike has a front wheel in a position to
resist the resultant tipping; a delta trike does not.

Regarding the kinematic nightmare in the triblean, my guess is that it's
needed only to allow leaning into the curve. That's probably necessary
for sporting riding, but perhaps not for slow puttering. I doubt it has
anything to do with handlebar reaction torques, which is what I think
you're describing with "handlebars turn inward." I'd think that aspect
could be controlled by the proper choice of steering trail and other
geometry.

Anybody got a link to the details of the tilting front suspension as
used on things like Piaggio scooters? Those seem to work quite well,
although I've never had a chance to test one.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:52:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>I'm pretty sure that a trike with two front wheels (i.e. a tadpole
>trike) is much more stable than a single front wheel trike (i.e. a delta
>trike). The big difference comes when a person "overcooks a turn,"
>entering it too fast. The natural response is to brake, which (in
>common parlance) throws the rider's weight forward and toward the
>outside of the turn. A tadpole trike has a front wheel in a position to
>resist the resultant tipping; a delta trike does not.

On thinking it over again, I have to admit that you're correct.

I happen to be currently looking for a tricycle or tricycle conversion
for a friend who has balance problems. Stability is a major concern
so I did some test rides on prospective used bicycles to see how they
feel. I haven't ridden a tricycle for many years and had no idea how
it would ride. I certainly had problems in a turn, especially on
non-level ground as you describe and agree that reversing the wheel
arrangement would help. This also agrees with the conventional
wisdom:
<http://auto.howstuffworks.com/three-wheel-car4.htm>
It's probably similar to blowing a tire on a automobile. If I lose a
rear tire, the car will skid somewhat. If the engine is still
running, some control can be maintained using the front wheels.
However, if a front tire blows, the car will turn in the direction of
the blown tire, and possibly roll by tripping over the blown tire.

However, I'm worried about how a tadpole arrangement would work on a
downhill run. With most of the weight towards the front, I suspect
that it might cause both wheels to swing in the direction of the turn,
and then pitch pole forward. The area where we live doesn't have any
flat terrain. The only way I can be sure is to try it. I don't have
such a machine, so this is only a guess(tm).

Also, I'm worried about what a tadpole arrangement might do without
the articulated arrangement, where one wheel might lift off the
ground. Again, I would need to try it.

>Regarding the kinematic nightmare in the triblean, my guess is that it's
>needed only to allow leaning into the curve. That's probably necessary
>for sporting riding, but perhaps not for slow puttering.

Agreed, although I think the kinematic nightmare might have steering
and control benefits by keeping all 3 wheels on the ground on rough
and uneven roads.

>I doubt it has
>anything to do with handlebar reaction torques, which is what I think
>you're describing with "handlebars turn inward."

Yep. Part of stability is control. It's difficult to tell from the
photos, but it looks like the equivalent of the head tube angle might
be more vertical than the usual 65 to 75 degrees:
<http://www.core77.com/posts/18082/triblean-retrofit-kit-makes-tricycles-for-grown-ups-18082>
With no hands on the handlebars, my guess(tm) is that it won't go in a
straight line. However, with the different turning radii of the two
front wheels, I don't have a clue what it might do in a sharp turn.

>I'd think that aspect
>could be controlled by the proper choice of steering trail and other
>geometry.

Certainly. A very relaxed 65 degree head tube angle and large front
fork offset (rake) would certainly help. However, too much of these
will make the machine difficult to turn, with the turning resistance
being twice that of a conventional 2 wheel bicycle because one has to
turn two wheels.

>Anybody got a link to the details of the tilting front suspension as
>used on things like Piaggio scooters? Those seem to work quite well,
>although I've never had a chance to test one.

Not me, but there might be something on 3 wheel motorcycle
conversions.

[Frank Krygowski]

As long as we're discussing these things, another disadvantage to 3
wheelers is the need to find not one, not two, but three separate and
properly spaced smooth tracks between the potholes. With the record
crop of potholes in our area, that's no small task.

On a club ride last week, a new guy came along riding his super-low
recumbent trike. It did fine on smooth roads, particularly if they were
downhill. But on one potholey downhill, he screeched to a stop to
recover a taillight that had knocked loose when he couldn't avoid some
bad bumps.

We've got enough potholes that finding one track through, for a
two-wheeler, is sometimes an impossible task. And if that situation
occurs, I can at least stand up, and perhaps jump the bike over a hole.
He had no such defense.

But I can certainly see an upright trike making sense for a person with
balance problems. Heck, I may be in that situation myself, some day.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 21/04/15 03:35, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:52:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

>> I'd think that aspect
>> could be controlled by the proper choice of steering trail and other
>> geometry.
>
> Certainly. A very relaxed 65 degree head tube angle and large front
> fork offset (rake) would certainly help. However, too much of these
> will make the machine difficult to turn, with the turning resistance
> being twice that of a conventional 2 wheel bicycle because one has to
> turn two wheels.
>

ISTM, more rake reduces trail and in fact makes for a less stable
steering geometry. Forks with less rake increases trail because they
put the contact patch further behind the steering axis, rather than
closer to it. There is a small range of trail that, from what I
understand, can provide everything from slow and stable steering to
twitchy and a feeling of instability. Beyond this range may produce
undesirable handling for anyone.

http://www.bikeforums.net/framebuilders/574057-confusion-about-no-rake-forks-handling.html

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

A good test is turning the fork around to face backwards. It is amazing on how many forks, including some touted "scientific" ones, operating the fork rearwards makes no difference to the stability of the bike.

[Sir Ridesalot]

A lot of times turning the fork around means that you can't steer because the wheel now hits the downtube.

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

That too.

Andre jute

[Ralph Barone]

I rode through an area we dubbed "birdshit alley" along with my buddy on
his trike. It was definitely easier for me to avoid the "jewels" on the
pavement. What's worse was that I had fenders and he didn't.

[Ralph Barone]

If you want stability on a trike, you gotta get low. My buddy has a Catrike
and unless he's seriously cooking in a corner, all the wheels stay on the
pavement.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/20/2015 10:57 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> J

>
> If you want stability on a trike, you gotta get low. My buddy has a Catrike
> and unless he's seriously cooking in a corner, all the wheels stay on the
> pavement.

Supposedly, one of Catrike's biggest dealers is about 30 miles from
here, very close to the snack stop for our club's spring invitational
ride. It's close to a very nice MUP that we use for that ride.

At that snack stop, I've seen Catrike riders show off by sliding
sideways as they whipped to a stop in the parking lot.

However, I don't think many of those folks venture off the path with
their trikes. Personally, I wouldn't like mixing it up with traffic
while being so low.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Ralph Barone]

My buddy with the Catrike says that he was in a parking lot once, when
somebody didn't see him and almost drive into him. After he tells the
story, he adds that he was driving his motor home at the time. If
somebody's not going to see you, it may not matter what you're riding.
Besides, that's what the flippy flag is for.

[Frank Krygowski]

From what I understand, this is one of those problems for which
mathematics doesn't yet provide a clean solution. The rules of thumb
that exist seem to have been developed almost entirely by trial and
error, or Darwinian mechanical design. Or perhaps art vs. science.

Fred DeLong's 1974 book _DeLong's Guide to Bicycles and Bicycling_ has a
couple pages discussing stability and its relation to head angle and
fork offset or to trail. One formula that he gives for "satisfactory
steering" is called the Davidson formula:
fork offset = wheel radius * tan((90 degrees - head tube angle)/2)

He also has a graph evaluating "stability index" by other means. I once
evaluated a bunch of bike specs against this graph. They came out with
widely varying "stability indexes" even among bikes of the same general
type (i.e. among racing bikes, or among touring bikes).

DeLong had a fork built with dropouts that allowed adjustable trail,
which he used to evaluate handling under different conditions, which he
rated on a vague scale "poor, fair, good, excellent." He plotted four
different curves, for 1) high speed riding, 2) gravel roads, 3)
hands-off riding and 4) "snaking." According to him, the best handling
for each of those occurred with different amounts of trail.

David Gordon Wilson's _Bicycling Science_ has a chapter on steering and
balancing written by Jim Papadopoulos, who probably knows more about
this than any other human being. It's wonderfully arcane, and it ends
with a confession by Wilson that there's obviously a lot more to this issue.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joe Riel]

I believe Jim Papadoupolous has more or less solved the problem in
the last few years; I've got the paper around here somewhere.

--
Joe Riel

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 21.04.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

> However, I don't think many of those folks venture off the path with
> their trikes. Personally, I wouldn't like mixing it up with traffic
> while being so low.

I commuted on my tadpole recumbent rike for several years. The only
situation where I felt a flag was useful was on an uphill section (< 10
mph) with several lanes suddenly splitting into different directions.
When I was in the right lane due to speed and a car behind me did not
want to overtake shortly before turning right, I was afraid that a
second car would overtake the first car and then pull right into exactly
where I was.

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 20.04.2015 um 01:46 schrieb Sir Ridesalot:
> I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two

> wheels and wonder if there's one to convert the front to two wheels
> as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable than

> the two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front
> conversion?

What's your motivation to convert a bike to a trike? The most common
motivation is to enable riding for somebody who lacks the motor skill to
control the leaning of a normal bike (e.g. after a stroke).

Non-leaning tadpole trikes are stable on two conditions:
1) Ackermann steering
2) low center of gravity

It is completely impossible to reach number 2 on a bike conversion kit.
It is also extremely challenging to think of a steering mechanism that
works on an upright tadpole trike.

[James]

On 21/04/15 14:45, Joe Riel wrote:

>
> I believe Jim Papadoupolous has more or less solved the problem in
> the last few years; I've got the paper around here somewhere.
>

IIRC his is about bicycles that are "self stable" when in motion and
without a rider. Is that useful?

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

Jim Papadoupolous is pretty clear about the (current) limitations of his
work. He's been working mostly on self-stability, but he says
"self-stability is not the same as nice handling qualities."

There's good discussion at
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/bicycle-stability-everything-works-together/

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I've wandered around that site a few times but never looked at the Compass Bicycles page. Gads -- forward into the past! $500 for a 3-arm triple crank with rings that are (AFAIK) unusable on any other crank. http://www.compasscycle.com/cranks_rh_triple.html

$325 for repro Mafacs. http://www.compasscycle.com/brakesCmCpl.html I don't get it. If I were in to super hard-core fat-tire randonneuring, I'd get a bike with discs. Skip the caliper brake clearance issues or the problems with cantis.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

I long ago decided that when I can't understand something, it's probably
art. (I think this applies to many of Gene's posts.)

But it also applies to a lot of things that people purchase, if you
sufficiently broaden the definition of "art" to include purchased
self-expression. And we allow it for those who buy a Picasso, so why not?

I think some of Compass's customers have fairly straightforward
technical explanations for their purchase choices - perhaps something
like "disks aren't as repairable if something goes wrong in the
boondocks" or "I want to fit any tooth count I choose." But I suspect
most of them are also buying into a certain retro aesthetic: "It reminds
me of the good old days when men were men and roads weren't paved." Or
whatever.

I don't think it's any less sensible than, say, the guy with the
basketball-shaped belly who spends an extra $1000 to drop four pounds
off the weight of his "racing" bike. Or the guy who buys a 20" wheel
with 72 radial spokes for his low rider bike. We all have our tastes,
our justifications and our rationalizations.

As some sage once said: Everybody thinks they're right.

And as Andrew's frequently reminded us, we're all allowed to buy what we
prefer.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Which is an important aspect of human culture. If everyone
were happy with the same thing there would be no innovation.
Admittedly, frenetic innovation has given us some
spectacular oddities but even making things which fail to be
popular or even functional is an important part of innovation.

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

[Radey Shouman]

I bought two of these:
http://www.compasscycle.com/lighting_led_tail_bulb.html

It's an LED retrofit bulb for old dynamo taillights. Works great. $20 is
only somewhat ridiculous. I'll admit it's of interest only to atavists.

--

[Sir Ridesalot]

EGADS! Look at how close those brakes are to the tires! Pick up anything in the tread of the front tire and you're liable to endo.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

I don't disagree with any of that -- I just don't get it. If I were going the repro route, I would have picked a better original design for the crank -- or, if I were going to spend that kind of money, I'd find NOS TA.

Mafac Racers were $11/set. https://www.flickr.com/photos/zbillster/2771355579/in/set-72157606789001880

I think $325 for a repro (perhaps with more tire clearance) is a bit much.

BTW, last weekend, I did see a guy on a light bike with full Guinness kit and a giant gut. At first, I was inclined to snicker . . . but then it all made sense. The guy clearly loves his beer. As for the bike, everyone has a light bike these days. I've given up being critical.

-- Jay Beattie.

[jbeattie]

Now that I look more carefully, I was too quick to judge. These are not ordinary Mafac Racers but rather the boss-mounted version that takes a peculiar, cut-down boss:

"The brakes require mounting posts that are brazed onto the frame. The posts are not included, but available separately. These brakes do not fit on posts for cantilever brakes.

The brakes come with all hardware, straddle cable roller, Kool-Stop salmon-colored brake pads. They are available with standard mounting bolts, as well as with 2 special bolts that have a forward extension to mount a rack."

So, for all that money, you get a non-standard boss-mounted brake with no levers. Sign me up!

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

An odd corner of 'standards', that.

Modern cantilever/ linear brakes use the Mafac cantilever
frame boss format, standardized some 80 years ago. The other
format frame boss, for the neo-retro Mafac Raid style you
linked and also for U-Brakes which are current for
freestyle, is also a Mafac design.

There were at least two other frame mounted brake post
designs which failed to catch on, so now it's French or go home!

[Sir Ridesalot]

With tthe tires shown in those images there doesn't look to be much more than one millimetre of clearance between the top of the tire and the brake arms.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/21/2015 2:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
>
> I bought two of these:
> http://www.compasscycle.com/lighting_led_tail_bulb.html
>
> It's an LED retrofit bulb for old dynamo taillights. Works great. $20 is
> only somewhat ridiculous. I'll admit it's of interest only to atavists.

I'll raise you on the "ridiculous" part. I made my own.

See, a friend gave me some super LEDs a few years back. Just to play
around, I put one of them into an old taillight base. Saved myself $20
(or less) and only took me about, oh, maybe two hours of work.

Since I'm retired, I get to waste my time as I like. :-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 5:20:30 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> considered Sun, 19 Apr 2015
> 16:46:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?
> >
> >Cheers
>
>
> http://www.roman-road.co.uk/index.htm

*THANKS! That's *PERFECT*!

Cheers

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:57:26 GMT, Ralph Barone
<addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>If you want stability on a trike, you gotta get low. My buddy has a Catrike
>and unless he's seriously cooking in a corner, all the wheels stay on the
>pavement.

Probably a good idea but looks rather expensive:
<http://www.catrike.com>

Another idea would be to add large "adult" training or stabilizer
wheels to a conventional bicycle. Something like these:
<http://www.stabilizerwheels.com>
<http://www.bikemania.biz/stabilizer-kit-adult-training-wheels.html>
<http://www.amazon.com/Bike-USA-Stabilizer-Wheel-Kit/dp/B001BRE0G6>
<http://www.mcenterprisesusa.com/garage/whatshappening.html>
I really don't know anything about these, but they might be a
tolerable alternative to a tricycle conversion. Looks easy enough to
make my own.




--
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.]

Didn't Pudd'nhead Wilson say "its the difference of opinion that makes
horse races"?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I suspect too that there is a certain amount of "price snobbism"
involved. After all, a "$3,000 bicycle" must be better than a "5
dollar bicycle". I mean, "it stands to reason" and of course,
"everybody knows".
--
cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

It's tempting to evaluate the economics of doing it yourself based on
one's day job rate. That's usually a mistake, because what's needed is
the *marginal* rate.

I work for a fixed salary. I'm sure I *could* drum up some extra work,
but I would have to invest significant time in setting that up, which
means that my marginal cost of labor is whatever I think leisure time is
worth.


--

[John B.]

It could even be a negative rate if you watch much T.V.
i.e., if you calculate the cost of electricity versus the information
received :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 10:20:30 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Sir Ridesalot <@yahoo.ca> considered Sun, 19 Apr 2015

> 16:46:54 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?
> >
> >Cheers
>
>
> http://www.roman-road.co.uk/index.htm

Thanks, Phil. Very useful link; saved for my old age, in another twenty years of so. Nice thread, Ridealot.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:54:12 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> I long ago decided that when I can't understand something, it's probably
> art. (I think this applies to many of Gene's posts.)

Jesus, Frank, that's limp. It licences the incompetent and the lazy and the poseurs to impose on your goodwill. I've practiced in several of the arts, and been a critic in those (when I wasn't practising that particular art form) and others, and it soon becomes clear that what an intelligent member of the public -- that's you in this instance -- can't understand (notice I don't say "appreciate") is almost always the crap of a no-talents posing as an artist too deep for anyone to "get it". Their work never survives, and the test of art is survival, not what a trendy and his claque tries to make out on the day.

> But it also applies to a lot of things that people purchase, if you
> sufficiently broaden the definition of "art" to include purchased
> self-expression. And we allow it for those who buy a Picasso, so why not?

People who buy art are on the fringes of the arts, in the sense of being patrons. They are not artists. That's a distinction that should be clear even to an engineer.

> I think some of Compass's customers have fairly straightforward
> technical explanations for their purchase choices - perhaps something
> like "disks aren't as repairable if something goes wrong in the
> boondocks" or "I want to fit any tooth count I choose."

This attempt at a technical justification is an artifact of the general tendency of cyclists to conformity and conservatism. (And their struggle for at least a distinction of wealth within that overall group-think is entertaining for psychologists for the stress it causes.) Nothing more is required than to say, "Screw your pursed lips. It's my money and I'll spend it on what I like."

> But I suspect
> most of them are also buying into a certain retro aesthetic: "It reminds
> me of the good old days when men were men and roads weren't paved." Or
> whatever.

You must admit, that three-arm spider that Jay linked is very beautiful, even if the crank itself is straight Chinese copy of the iconic Stronglight and TA designs of the interwar years. I can look up the type numbers if you like but suspect you and everyone else already know them.

The rest of this is real tolerant, for you. Are you mellowing in your sunset years?

> I don't think it's any less sensible than, say, the guy with the
> basketball-shaped belly who spends an extra $1000 to drop four pounds
> off the weight of his "racing" bike. Or the guy who buys a 20" wheel
> with 72 radial spokes for his low rider bike. We all have our tastes,
> our justifications and our rationalizations.
>
> As some sage once said: Everybody thinks they're right.
>
> And as Andrew's frequently reminded us, we're all allowed to buy what we
> prefer.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute
Amazing to be able to agree with half a post from Frank Krygowski.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:21:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 6:28:35 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> I've wandered around that site a few times but never looked at the Compass Bicycles page. Gads -- forward into the past! $500 for a 3-arm triple crank with rings that are (AFAIK) unusable on any other crank. http://www.compasscycle.com/cranks_rh_triple.html

Very beautiful spider. And the price is merely obscene rather than impossible. But what is the real killer is that the customer who buys that crank with its proprietary (anyone else make it, Andew?), singular and very odd PCD, ties himself in to a single source of supply, which was probably Herse's original intention; he was a smart marketer.

Anyway, the crank itself is a straight copy of the TA/Stronglight of iconic interwar memory, so instead I'd buy TA or Stronglight original cranks for a fraction of the price of those Rene Herse cranks; I'd have the real thing, of which the Rene Herse is an over-refined boutique copy, much the same way that today a lot of the boutique MTB stuff is merely expensive variation of Shimano gear, without any engineering justification.

The 52mm PCD may be obsolete (except at Velo Orange?) but there are a gazillion chain rings in a huge selection of tooth counts out there. The last time I looked, about ten years ago, and didn't buy TA or Stronglight 52mm PCD cranks it was because I was going to 60mm tyres and the TA/Stronglight are too straight to clear the chainstay around such fat tyres, and I anyway don't want the narrow tread (trendy-speak: "Q-factor") so beloved of the roadies. But I could have had any number of high quality chainrings, some still at that time in production by Stronglight, or just recently out of production. It wouldn't surprise me to discover Muzi can still fix you up with TA 52mm PCD rings.

Andre Jute
Good taste but never a fashion victim, and nobody's cash cow.

[AMuzi]

Of course.
http://www.yellowjersey.org/esoteric.html

There's a TA crank on my own most-ridden bike
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/TACYMINE.JPG

[jbeattie]

This does get in to personal taste. I never liked the products from that era -- and in fact, when I looked at the old Hetchins and Singers and Herse bikes, I thought they were klunky and even creepy, but it could have been the context. There were racks of old bikes with Cambio Corsa (and various aborted derailleur systems on the evolutionary path toward Nuovo Record) displayed outside at the old Wheelsmith shop in Palo Alto. The shop was hardly more than a shed, so all this "classic" stuff was in racks outside -- and even outside, it looked and smelled musty. It struck me as a bicycle freak show.

A few blocks away at the Palo Alto Bike Shop, they were displaying Ritchey's dyno-filed fast-back lugged and filet brazed frames and Masi and what-have-you from the then modern era. That's what I wanted. My sentimental attachment is to Italian frames and equipment from the very late '60s through the '70s -- and American frames, too. I remember seeing a Bruce Gordon frame in the late '70s and salivating. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBUWmtm_thM/UKUzlcgaGSI/AAAAAAAAAHM/G4ZkguHC_Zo/s640/DSC00460.JPG Although, like I've said before, I always wanted a Gran Criterium. http://tinyurl.com/kayp9dx

There is no national standard "golden era," but when some designer goes before or after my personal golden era ("PGE"), I don't understand it. One hopes they never bring back Octalink or ISIS -- or other bad equipment from someone else's PGE.

OT, my son loves to rag on his Bohemian cohorts who buy Crosley record players -- which are basically record lathes and a death sentence for vinyl. http://www.crosleyradio.com/Turntables These kids pine away for an era they never knew. He says that cassettes are making a comeback. I'm sure 8 track is next.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 12:53:28 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Of course.
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/esoteric.html
>
> There's a TA crank on my own most-ridden bike
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/TACYMINE.JPG
>

Second try on this post. I hate touch pads.

We've got TA cranks on our ancient (1978) custom tandem. They were pretty much
the only game in town, as I recall.

More weirdly, I've got a TA clone made by Sugino on my 1972 Raleigh Super
Course utility bike. I've never seen or heard of this crank anywhere else.
Back when Nashbar was a local company, some odd prototypes would show up in
their outlet store at very low prices, and this was one of them.

Not that I love the TA design. Infinite chainwheel choice is nice, I guess,
but it's a finicky assembly arrangement with a plethora of screws. And it
never seemed very rigid. I remember adding screws and spacers between the two
larger chainrings, trying to stiffen things up.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 2:02:38 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
> I remember seeing a Bruce Gordon frame in the late '70s and salivating. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mBUWmtm_thM/UKUzlcgaGSI/AAAAAAAAAHM/G4ZkguHC_Zo/s640/DSC00460.JPG

That looks extremely similar to the custom Lippy frame that forms the
chassis of the retro 3 speed I built up a few years ago.

> OT, my son loves to rag on his Bohemian cohorts who buy Crosley record players -- which are basically record lathes and a death sentence for vinyl. http://www.crosleyradio.com/Turntables These kids pine away for an era they never knew. He says that cassettes are making a comeback. I'm sure 8 track is next.

I like my music wooden.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:02:38 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>
>> I always wanted a Gran Criterium. http://tinyurl.com/kayp9dx
>

Oh, my sainted haemrrhoids! That's not a bicycle, that's an instrument for wrecking your bum and your lower back and probably your shoulders, elbows and wrists as well.

Andre Jute

[AMuzi]

I beg to differ. Having sold and ridden quite a number of
them, the Masi Gran Criterium is an exceptionally beautiful,
remarkably consistent and great handling race bike.

If you were to say don't want a race bike, that's valid and
commendable (cognosce te ipse and all that) but becomes a
matter of taste.

[Andre Jute]

Not taste, the hostile kinesthetics of overly narrow tyres.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 7:50:03 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 21.04.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>
> > However, I don't think many of those folks venture off the path with
> > their trikes. Personally, I wouldn't like mixing it up with traffic
> > while being so low.
>
> I commuted on my tadpole recumbent rike for several years. The only
> situation where I felt a flag was useful was on an uphill section (< 10
> mph) with several lanes suddenly splitting into different directions.
> When I was in the right lane due to speed and a car behind me did not
> want to overtake shortly before turning right, I was afraid that a
> second car would overtake the first car and then pull right into exactly
> where I was.

A friend, not a cyclist, every time he saw a cyclist on a busy road, would say, "It's the second that gets the cyclist."

Andre Jute

[AMuzi]

Nothing sings as sweetly as a good tubular on a fast
descending corner. Music of the spheres, or of the hoops anyway.

[M.T. Garner]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 6:46:56 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> I know there's a kit to convert the rear of an upright bike to two wheels and wonder if tthere's one to convert the front to two wheels as the two front wheels trikes are said to be a lot more stable tthan tthe two rear wheels trikes are. Anyone know of a two wheels front conversion?
>
> Cheers

surely you found that by now 5 years and 2 decades