TOURING RACK 2

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
touring rack (one)describes a ply rack and cheap bag combo

reading the spate of touring bike posts then
http://www.coinet.com/~beckman­/bikeframes.html

Check the link I tried it and it was not working.

the question rose-why not brace the rack directly back to the BB area
and avoid the axle mount

takes an engineer to precisely define the load math
but "common sense" suggests significant increases in handling under
load.

more mono frame than tubular?

anyone try this or stumble on this rack frame type?

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:47:10 -0400, "Ken"
<[email hidden]> scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reading the spate of touring bike posts then
http://www.coinet.com/~beckman­/bikeframes.html

Check the link I tried it and it was not working.

http://www.coinet.com/~beckman/bikeframes.html

-Slash
--
"Ebert Victorious"
-The Onion

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
touring rack (one)describes a ply rack and cheap bag combo

reading the spate of touring bike posts then
http://www.coinet.com/~beckman­/bikeframes.html

the question rose-why not brace the rack directly back to the BB area
and avoid the axle mount

After looking at the design, I seem to think that the axle mount might prove
to disperse the weight more evenly across the frame of the bicycle.

takes an engineer to precisely define the load math
but "common sense" suggests significant increases in handling under
load.

more mono frame than tubular?

anyone try this or stumble on this rack frame type?
I have never seen this type before, but I like the intergrated design of the
Sakkit.

the rack mount question doesn't directly relate to the sackit
question was does moving the rack weight to the frame center improve
total touring balance?
or degrade "normal" (in the morning after warmup) touring handling?

the BB mount idea seems to imply a fallacious absurditty that a longer
stretch has a limting point for straight ahead handling ease, that a
point comes where strecth induces wiggle?

is downforce on the rear axle or in autoworld downforce on FWD give
more stability than downforce on the BB/seatpost, increasing the excuse
me polar moment of inertia-and then the touring load bikes turn
handling while maintain strecth for straight on ahead west easing into
the Pacific breeze.

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

Quoted message said:

the rack mount question doesn't directly relate to the sackit
question was does moving the rack weight to the frame center improve
total touring balance?
or degrade "normal" (in the morning after warmup) touring handling?

the BB mount idea seems to imply a fallacious absurditty that a longer
stretch has a limting point for straight ahead handling ease, that a
point comes where strecth induces wiggle?

Okay I think I get what you are saying now. It might improve balance, but I
think that it might be a *weaker* design as the weight would be pushing at
an angle rather that in a downward direction. However your idea of attaching
it to the BB area might be an idea for a suspended MTB/ATB hybid type bike.
Ken

Quoted message said:

is downforce on the rear axle or in autoworld downforce on FWD give
more stability than downforce on the BB/seatpost, increasing the excuse
me polar moment of inertia-and then the touring load bikes turn
handling while maintain strecth for straight on ahead west easing into
the Pacific breeze.

hhhiiisssssssssssssssss...
is there a basic patent hear?
a step forward?

i was thinking the rack to BB might deepen a good touring design's
sweet spot
my thinking is limited.
i defer.

Ken said:

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

Quoted message said:

the rack mount question doesn't directly relate to the sackit
question was does moving the rack weight to the frame center improve
total touring balance?
or degrade "normal" (in the morning after warmup) touring handling?

the BB mount idea seems to imply a fallacious absurditty that a longer
stretch has a limting point for straight ahead handling ease, that a
point comes where strecth induces wiggle?

Okay I think I get what you are saying now.

and that doesn't worry you . . . even just a little?

:-)

well, i spend time thinking about the north koreans
and caws shimano standardized their hubs for spoke length
interchangability
i worry about japan just on the face of it.

hhhisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss