Yes, Virginia, one can design a proper bicycle without a diamond frame

It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame. Here,
for instanc, is Mark Newsom's MN, marketed by the exemplary Biomega
firm in Denmark. It is made by glueing two foamed aluminium half-
shells together, so both the form and the material is novel.
http://biomega.dk/biomega.aspx

There are literally dozens of successful non-diamond-frame designs,
just counting the crossframes. I ride one myself, and a most superior
bicycle it is too. The base design of my Utopia Kranich was first
produced in 1935 as the Locomotief Crossframe Deluxe, and has been
constantly in production since both as a luxury bicycle like mine
http://www.utopia-fahrrad.de/Fahrrad...anich_103.html
and, with less exotic tubing and other components, as a workhorse as
in the current WorkCycles version
http://www.workcycles.com/home-produ...e-step-through

There is a good case to be made for the Pedersen as the most logical
bicycle of all time, and that too isn't a diamond frame, and is in
production, having refused to die for well over a century now. Here,
for instance, it is in series produciton in Germany (complete with a
North American agent):
http://www.pedersen.info/en/Pedersen_en/Models.html

I'm not even a bicycle historian. Someone who knows his oats can
probably drop another dozen successful non-diamond frame designs into
the conversation before we blink again.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html

On Oct 16, 4:01*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame.

I have been unsuccessful in a brief search for examples of "X"
frames.
Anyone? TIA
DR

On Oct 16, 6:01 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame. Here,
for instanc, is Mark Newsom's MN, marketed by the exemplary Biomega
firm in Denmark. It is made by glueing two foamed aluminium half-
shells together, so both the form and the material is novel.
http://biomega.dk/biomega.aspx

I am not sure those are the ugliest bikes I've ever seen, but...no,
they are the ugliest bikes I've ever seen. Why someone would want to
have their eyes assaulted _and_ hump a 35 pound bike around, I do not
know.

There are literally dozens of successful non-diamond-frame designs,
just counting the crossframes. I ride one myself, and a most superior
bicycle it is too. The base design of my Utopia Kranich was first
produced in 1935 as the Locomotief Crossframe Deluxe, and has been
constantly in production since both as a luxury bicycle like mine
http://www.utopia-fahrrad.de/Fahrrad...80_Kranich_103...

It's good to be in love with your own bike. That's the way it should
be.

and, with less exotic tubing and other components, as a workhorse as
in the current WorkCycles version
http://www.workcycles.com/home-produ...icycles/workcy...

Workcycles is only a couple or three miles from here. I've been
meaning to go check out the place.

There is a good case to be made for the Pedersen as the most logical
bicycle of all time, and that too isn't a diamond frame, and is in
production, having refused to die for well over a century now. Here,
for instance, it is in series produciton in Germany (complete with a
North American agent):
http://www.pedersen.info/en/Pedersen_en/Models.html

Have you ever ridden a Pedersen? I'd like to see what it was all
about. Kind of curious that they don't mention the weight of the
thing on their web site. It's not another 35 pound bike, is it?

One thing has me concerned about the Pedersen - the saddle.
http://www.pedersen.info/en/Pedersen...hersaddle.html
That's a spitting image of the space amoeba that latched onto Spock's
back and made him go blind. I don't want to go blind riding my bike,
and I certainly don't want some space amoeba latching on to my junk
just before I go blind. I'm not sure which would be worse.

I'm not even a bicycle historian. Someone who knows his oats can
probably drop another dozen successful non-diamond frame designs into
the conversation before we blink again.

I'm related to the Oates, and they don't know ****e about
bikes...well, one of them does, but he's the exception that proves the
rule.

R

On 10/16/2011 5:01 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame.





Of course it's possible--but the real question is, can you make a design
that is using less material and less manufacturing time but at least as
stiff as a diamond frame? I suspect not.


-------


The Biomega city bike is ,, um....... -interesting.

How the **** do you lock the thing up, with no holes in the frame?

(and fit with a Rohloff hub no le$$...)

On Oct 16, 11:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 16, 6:01 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

There is a good case to be made for the Pedersen as the most logical
bicycle of all time, and that too isn't a diamond frame, and is in
production, having refused to die for well over a century now. Here,
for instance, it is in series produciton in Germany (complete with a
North American agent):
http://www.pedersen.info/en/Pedersen_en/Models.html

Have you ever ridden a Pedersen? *I'd like to see what it was all
about. *

Sure. If you live in Europe you can borrow a Pedersen from the
factory, delivered to your door to try.

The one I tried belongs to someone I met on the road, and I rode it on
city streets, where its worst downside became manifest: a very high
standover. I imagine, if you're one of those riders who actually stops
and puts a foot down, the Pedersen would soon grow old. I'm not. I
idle in traffic, and don't put my foot down unless I absolutely have
to, and hardly ever come to a complete stop except when I mean to get
off the bike anyway. My new mate, who's had a nice bike or two stolen,
is paranoid about his Pedersen, his Utopia, and a couple of Euro-
custom bikes, so he doesn't commute on it, keeping it for summer
evenings and weekends, but he showed me the style of stopping by
shifting onto one haunch which permits you to put one foot flat on the
ground. I couldn't be bothered; I'd just let the bike tilt until I
could put a foot on the ground, and shove off from there. Some old
chappie who stopped by us on his bike wasn't impressed by this
discussion: his feet were actually tied onto his pedals! I expect that
anyone who remembers toeclips will wonder why I even mention it.

Kind of curious that they don't mention the weight of the
thing on their web site. *It's not another 35 pound bike, is it?

Bound to be. All that tubing, fat rims, fat tyres (well over half a
kilogram for each for the standard fitment Big Apple...), hub gears,
hub dynamo, mudguards, rack, substantial and longlasting touring
fittings, luxurious leather hammock seat, leather grips, it all adds
up to around 14-16kg minimum. Doesn't bother me. Most of my bikes in
everyday trim, with a full water bottle and wet weather gear in the
leather saddlebag, probably push 45-50 pounds. It's like ordering a
big Mercedes: you need to specify the big engine. If you legs aren't
up to it... 90lb weight weenies don't even consider such bikes.

One thing has me concerned about the Pedersen - the saddle.http://www.pedersen.info/en/Pedersen...hersaddle.html
That's a spitting image of the space amoeba that latched onto Spock's
back and made him go blind. *I don't want to go blind riding my bike,
and I certainly don't want some space amoeba latching on to my junk
just before I go blind. *I'm not sure which would be worse.

LOL. I didn't ride the Pedersen long enough, or on roads rough enough,
to discover whether it will give one numb nuts, but, by analogy with
my well-broken Brooks B73 saddle, I would expect not. Most Pedersens
today are sold with 50x622 Big Apples, which is another isolator from
space amoeba munching your junk. Heh-heh! You're a funny man, Rico.

AJ

On Oct 16, 11:01*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame. Here,
for instanc, is Mark Newsom's MN, marketed by the exemplary Biomega
firm in Denmark. It is made by glueing two foamed aluminium half-
shells together, so both the form and the material is novel.http://biomega.dk/biomega.aspx

There are literally dozens of successful non-diamond-frame designs,
just counting the crossframes. I ride one myself, and a most superior
bicycle it is too. The base design of my Utopia Kranich was first
produced in 1935 as the Locomotief Crossframe Deluxe, and has been
constantly in production since both as a luxury bicycle like minehttp://www.utopia-fahrrad.de/Fahrrad_Html/Kapitel_Html/80_Kranich_103...
and, with less exotic tubing and other components, as a workhorse as
in the current WorkCycles versionhttp://www.workcycles.com/home-products/handmade-city-bicycles/workcy...

There is a good case to be made for the Pedersen as the most logical
bicycle of all time, and that too isn't a diamond frame, and is in
production, having refused to die for well over a century now. Here,
for instance, it is in series produciton in Germany (complete with a
North American agent):http://www.pedersen.info/en/Pedersen_en/Models.html

I'm not even a bicycle historian. Someone who knows his oats can
probably drop another dozen successful non-diamond frame designs into
the conversation before we blink again.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
*http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html

The diamond frame came about due to cheap steel production. If the
hobby horse style had been retained with the addition of the roller
chain and sprockets, then the material wood have likely evolved into a
different style.

On Oct 17, 12:25*am, DougC wrote:
On 10/16/2011 5:01 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame.

Of course it's possible--but the real question is, can you make a design
that is using less material and less manufacturing time but at least as
stiff as a diamond frame? I suspect not.

-------

The Biomega city bike is ,, um....... -interesting.

How the **** do you lock the thing up, with no holes in the frame?

(and fit with a Rohloff hub no le$$...)

If you own a bike like that, you most likely know about bicycle-crime
only by reading about it on the bicycle fora. I ride a Rohloff hub
every day to the shops and the bank and the library, and into the
hills. It's not like the States, where you can be murdered for a pair
of clean Reebook sneakers.

Where I live, bicycle crime is me hitting a dent in a fourwheel-drive
that comes too near me with my Abus Granit U-lock, which is a very
handy three-pound hammer, every hit a grand's worth (minimum) of panel-
beating and more if you want a seamless respray job.

As to how you lock the MN: buy an Abus Granit X D-lock, 300mm size,
and you'll soon work it out but, as I say, the owner of a bike like
that generally goes to places where he doesn't need to lock his bike.

Even in the States there must be some people whose first consideration
when they choose a new bike isn't how they will stop some arsewipe
from stealing it.

AJ

On Oct 17, 12:25*am, DougC wrote:
On 10/16/2011 5:01 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame.

Of course it's possible--but the real question is, can you make a design
that is using less material and less manufacturing time but at least as
stiff as a diamond frame? I suspect not.



And there's the rub. Any new technique has to compete with a well
established system which required a few minutes of labour (with
automated machinery) to produce a competent and economical machine.
The middle market is where you need to pitch a new product when
competing with a well-establishec design, to be able to generate
sufficient sales without making a loss when production is at
capacity.


-------

The Biomega city bike is ,, um....... -interesting.

How the **** do you lock the thing up, with no holes in the frame?

(and fit with a Rohloff hub no le$$...)

If that'll be their only offering, they wont profit.

On Oct 16, 11:15*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:01*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame.

I have been unsuccessful in a brief search for examples of "X"
frames.
Anyone? TIA
DR

Must have been a *very* brief search, Dirt.

An excellent historical crossframe bicycle
site: http://www.rijwiel.net/kruisfrn.htm

Current production crossframes are pretty common too. Every proper
mixte is a crossframe. I've already given you links to two makers of
crossframes in this thread; you can see more of their crossframe bike
on these links, accessible from their homepages. Utopia's Roadster is
particularly nice; I look at it every year when bicycle lust overcomes
me.
http://www.utopia-fahrrad.de/Fahrrad...dster_108.html
And the London is a big bike for big riders:
http://www.utopia-fahrrad.de/Fahrrad...ondon_104.html
(it doesn't have to be fitted up with an electric motor)

Or workaday crossframes, much less expensive:
http://www.workcycles.com/home-produ...-city-bicycles
(see the FR8 and the Pastoorfiets)

On Oct 16, 6:36*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:15*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Oct 16, 4:01*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

It is most definitely possible for a proper engineer to design a
bicycle that works well and owes nothing to the diamond frame.

I have been unsuccessful in a brief search for examples of "X"
frames.
Anyone? TIA
DR

Must have been a *very* brief search, Dirt.

An excellent historical crossframe bicycle
site:http://www.rijwiel.net/kruisfrn.htm

Thanks, I did find that one. No images there of what I was thinking
of.

I'm looking for frames that are little more than an "X" made from big
beefy tubes. One arm extends from head tube to rear axle, the other
forms a seatube-like structure. Maybe a diagonal brace somewhere
between the 2 to give the appearance of an inverted numeral "4."

I think Kestrel had an MTB version in the late 80's, but I have not
found that either.

DR