Tour Easy head angle

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Guy Bouchard
Hi.

I am building a Tour Easy Replica. I'd like to know what is
the head tube angle of Large Tour Easy bicycle with 406mm
front wheel.

Thanks!

Guy

Dangerously close to 59.5 degrees. Nearly anything between 57 and 62 will be suitable, providing the proper amount of trail in implemented. Good luck

Guy Bouchard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hi.

I am building a Tour Easy Replica. I'd like to know what
is the head tube angle of Large Tour Easy bicycle with
406mm front wheel.

Too steep, leaving you with the choice of a too much tiller,
or a seat back angle too steep for long range confort. The
best TE clones use a shallower angle.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Stonich
Too steep, leaving you with the choice of a too much tiller,
or a seat back angle too steep for long range confort. The
best TE clones use a shallower angle.

I agree Mark, however, it is not necessarily true for all builders if an exact clone is what the rider is after. And, some of us have unusually short legs which allows a 60+ head tube angles without excessive tiller (mine is 7"😉. Additionally, I don't care for the slow steering response associated with 50-ish head tube angles - not to mention the increased turning radius and degraded low speed handling. BTW, my seat back angle is 20+ degrees.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by PaPa
I agree Mark, however, it is not necessarily true for all builders if an exact clone is what the rider is after. And, some of us have unusually short legs which allows a 60+ head tube angles without excessive tiller (mine is 7"😉. Additionally, I don't care for the slow steering response associated with 50-ish head tube angles - not to mention the increased turning radius and degraded low speed handling. BTW, my seat back angle is 20+ degrees.

I lied.. after checking, my SB angle is 30+ degrees (from vertical), not 20, as stated above.

PaPa said:

I lied.. after checking, my SB angle is 30+ degrees (from
vertical), not 20, as stated above.

Recumbent seatback angles are usually measured from
horizontal.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

PaPa said:

Guy Bouchard said:

Hi. I am building a Tour Easy Replica. I'd like to
know what is the head tube angle of Large Tour Easy
bicycle with 406mm front wheel. Thanks! Guy

Dangerously close to 59.5 degrees....

At exactly 59.5 degrees, the bike will explode when
ridden. 😉

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

PaPa a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Guy Bouchard said:

Hi. I am building a Tour Easy Replica. I'd like to
know what is the head tube angle of Large Tour Easy
bicycle with 406mm front wheel. Thanks! Guy

Dangerously close to 59.5 degrees. Nearly anything between
57 and 62 will be suitable, providing the proper amount of
trail in implemented. Good luck

--

Thanks a lot!

Guy

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Tom Sherman
At exactly 59.5 degrees, the bike will explode when
ridden. 😉

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Nice try Mr. S.... LOL

Mark Stonich a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Guy Bouchard <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hi.

I am building a Tour Easy Replica. I'd like to know what
is the head tube angle of Large Tour Easy bicycle with
406mm front wheel.

Too steep, leaving you with the choice of a too much
tiller, or a seat back angle too steep for long range
confort. The best TE clones use a shallower angle.

Thanks Mark.

By the way, your last custom bent is really nice. I think
you are on something. Commercial plan?

I really miss new monthly report on mnhpva.org . We are
far from Minnesota but those report make us feel like we
are friends.

Guy

PaPa <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I agree Mark, however, it is not necessarily true for all
builders if an exact clone is what the rider is after.

Why would anyone want an exact clone, when it's simple to
improve on the design. Everyone I know who has built more
than one clone moved the BB up and forward, and used a
shallower head angle and less trail on the 2nd one.

Quoted message said:

And, some of us have unusually short legs which allows a
60+ head tube angles without excessive tiller (mine is
7"😉. Additionally, I don't care for the slow steering
response associated with 50-ish head tube angles - not to
mention the increased turning radius and degraded low
speed handling.

It's true that shallower head angles mean that the contact
patch will turn slightly less for a given rotation of the
steerer tube. However, if the shallower head angle is used
to reduce excessive tiller, you get more angular movement at
the contact patch for a given amount of hand movement.
Therefore steering will actually be quicker.

As for increased turning radius and degraded low speed
handling, the increased radius is simply because a bike with
a shallow head angle usually has one because the rider is
far back from the front wheel, and lower than on a bike
where proper reach and tiller can be achieved with a steeper
angle. The angle itself has little to do with it, if the
trail is kept to a minimum.

If for some silly reason you do have significant trail,
shallower head angles will lead to more wheelflop.

The biggest issue for low speed maneuverability is how
confident the rider is in his ability to balance the bike.
The big issues there are CoG location, steering ergonomics,
and reducing wheelflop.

Quoted message said:

BTW, my seat back angle is 20+ (Oops, 30) degrees.

Not many people are going to find optimum comfort at 30
degrees (Measured from Vertical?)

Mark Stonich states: "Everyone I know who has built more
than one clone moved

Quoted message said:

the BB up and forward, and used a shallower head angle and
less trail on the 2nd one."

Case in point, my latest is in progress and can be viewed at
www.gate.net/~teblum follow the links to LWB Mark II.

It seems to be morphing into a hybrid rans V2/Tour Easy.

Miles of Smiles Tom

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Stonich

It's true that shallower head angles mean that the contact
patch will turn slightly less for a given rotation of the
steerer tube. However, if the shallower head angle is used
to reduce excessive tiller, you get more angular movement at
the contact patch for a given amount of hand movement.
Therefore steering will actually be quicker.

According to you then, Craig Calfree went to a lot of work for nothing on his new creation.

PaPa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark Stonich said:

It's true that shallower head angles mean that the
contact patch will turn slightly less for a given
rotation of the steerer tube. However, if the
shallower head angle is used to reduce excessive
tiller, you get more angular movement at the contact
patch for a given amount of hand movement. Therefore
steering will actually be quicker.

According to you then, Craig Calfree went to a lot of work
for nothing on his new creation.

???????

Mark Stonich said:

PaPa <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark Stonich said:

It's true that shallower head angles mean that the
contact patch will turn slightly less for a given
rotation of the steerer tube. However, if the
shallower head angle is used to reduce excessive
tiller, you get more angular movement at the contact
patch for a given amount of hand movement. Therefore
steering will actually be quicker.

According to you then, Craig Calfree went to a lot of work
for nothing on his new creation.

???????

Calfee comes out against shallow head tube angles for LWB
recumbents on their website.
<http://www.calfeedesign.com/stiletto.shtml>,
<http://www.calfeedesign.com/recumbent_faq.shtml>.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Mark Stonich a écrit :

Quoted message said:

PaPa <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I agree Mark, however, it is not necessarily true for all
builders if an exact clone is what the rider is after.

Why would anyone want an exact clone, when it's simple to
improve on the design. Everyone I know who has built more
than one clone moved the BB up and forward, and used a
shallower head angle and less trail on the 2nd one.

I am doing it too. The head angle will be shallower. BB
is a bit higher but not by much. Seat will be lower by
a few inch.

Guy

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark Stonich said:

???????

Calfee comes out against shallow head tube angles for LWB
recumbents on their website.
<http://www.calfeedesign.com/stiletto.shtml>,
<http://www.calfeedesign.com/recumbent_faq.shtml>.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Hilarious. Oh well, I guess back when I built my first 'bent
I had a pretty fuzzy understanding of how they worked too.
It's obvious from the 1st two items in the FAQ, and the bike
itself, that he still has a lot to learn.

BTW If anyone wants to get into an argument, I'm much too
busy to busy to discuss all of the things I think are wrong
with his bike or FAQ.

BTW2 The remote steering, steep head angle and steep
seatback would make sense, IF IT WAS GOING TO BE FITTED INTO
A GOLD RUSH TYPE SHELL.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Stonich
It's true that shallower head angles mean that the contact
patch will turn slightly less for a given rotation of the
steerer tube. However, if the shallower head angle is used
to reduce excessive tiller, you get more angular movement at
the contact patch for a given amount of hand movement.
Therefore steering will actually be quicker.

(papa) With all due respect Mark, your description is vague and potentually misleading at best. For face value, I disagree.

The angle itself has little to do with it, if the
trail is kept to a minimum.

(papa) BS!...

The biggest issue for low speed maneuverability is how
confident the rider is in his ability to balance the bike.
The big issues there are CoG location, steering ergonomics,
and reducing wheelflop.

(papa) I could be in error, but I understand your usage of "Steering ergonomics" as a intentional *generalization*.... ???? The only agreeable component in this paragraph is CoG.

I'll be posting numbers (w/drawings) and passing the URL here in the near future.