Everything old is new again...

It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

Later, Pierce would make automobiles and trucks.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

Later, Pierce would make automobiles and trucks.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

28 pound full suspension bike...Hmmm, $75 in 1901 would be around $1500
today if I can trust the internet.

Werehatrack wrote:

It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

28 lbs, softtail plus sprung saddle, suspension fork, and a single speed
(fixed?) driveshaft. Pretty cool.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

"dvt" wrote in message
...
Werehatrack wrote:

It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

28 lbs, softtail plus sprung saddle, suspension fork, and a single speed
(fixed?) driveshaft. Pretty cool.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

What's the deal with the bippace chainrings I saw on some of the TT bikes in
the tour prologue?

In article
,
"The P" wrote:

"dvt" wrote in message
...
Werehatrack wrote:

It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

28 lbs, softtail plus sprung saddle, suspension fork, and a single speed
(fixed?) driveshaft. Pretty cool.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

What's the deal with the bippace chainrings I saw on some of the TT bikes in
the tour prologue?

They're probably Osymetrics, which are an anti-Biopace ring:

http://www.osymetric.com/design.htm

There are other non-round ringmakers out there.

Share & Enjoy,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Werehatrack wrote:
It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

Later, Pierce would make automobiles and trucks.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/
--

I've seen one of these and ridden it. It's a beautiful piece of work.
Phil Brown

In article , Werehatrack says...

It seems that a rear suspension system using a flexing chainstay is
not a new idea after all.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/source/7.html

Later, Pierce would make automobiles and trucks.

http://ah.bfn.org/h/pierce/pierce/

The web site also shows that Pierce manufactured shaft drive bicycles. There
has been a recent discussion dismissing them as impractical but apparently
apparently they were marketable.

Ed wrote:


The web site also shows that Pierce manufactured shaft drive bicycles. There
has been a recent discussion dismissing them as impractical but apparently
apparently they were marketable.

They were marketable. Major Taylor rode and won (lots!) on a shaft
drive bike.

But "marketable" doesn't mean better. Shaft drives are certainly less
efficient than chain drives - i.e. they have greater friction losses,
because of the two bevel gears. And if you want multiple gears, your
shaft drive will need an enclosed hub gear, which is less efficient
than a derailleur.

As I understand it, shaft drives around 1890 - 1900 were seen as
elegant and clean. The roads of the day were probably bad enough that
a little friction in the drivetrain wasn't very noticeable. And most
bikes had only one speed, so the efficiency difference wasn't as great
as it would be today, competing against derailleur gears.

While I can appreciate their beauty, I wouldn't want one on my bicycle.
And I speak as the owner of a BMW shaft drive motorcycle!

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

While I can appreciate their beauty, I wouldn't want one on my bicycle.
And I speak as the owner of a BMW shaft drive motorcycle!

Frank, I'm with you on this one (and also ride a BMW shaftie). I
guess the difference is, the BMW has plenty of power to spare. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:
wrote:

While I can appreciate their beauty, I wouldn't want one on my bicycle.
And I speak as the owner of a BMW shaft drive motorcycle!

Frank, I'm with you on this one (and also ride a BMW shaftie). I
guess the difference is, the BMW has plenty of power to spare. ;-)

Yep. And once upon a time, so did I. sigh

Of course, the older I get, the faster I was. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski