# 1989 Breezer Kite Bike info



## First Flight (Jan 25, 2004)

Cool bike built for the Art of the Mountain Bike museum show.


----------



## RickD. (Apr 7, 2004)

Very cool concept, it looks like a Trimble got it on with a Slingshot. And I love the handwritten note from Joe. I wonder why it was never ridden?


----------



## First Flight (Jan 25, 2004)

I think I remember there being a $10K offer for the bike at one time/


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

The bike was built for the show and there was no intention of manufacture. I have the entire catalog from the show scanned *here*.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)




----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

That basic design has been done before by a number of (European) makers.


-Schmitty-


----------



## XR4TI (Sep 6, 2005)

Does anyone know what happened to the Ibis?


----------



## First Flight (Jan 25, 2004)

The Paul Brown bike from that same show had a similar design as well. Joe sears that they did the bikes independently and had no idea the other was working on a similar design.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Here is Paul Brown's version, built for the same art show.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

I saw some bikes in museums in Europe that had this design. The bikes were a hundred years old. Have pictures somewhere at home (which is 6000 miles away at the moment so I can't post them).


----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

On another MTBR thread someone invited others to post photos of dropouts, so I added a shot of the rear tips on my Breezer Kite. That led to requests for more shots of the Kite. Here they are.
Joe


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

Man the details on that thing are flat out amazing. 

Thanks for sharing JB, awesome stuff!


----------



## scooderdude (Sep 27, 2004)

Great shots of SUCH an interesting bike!


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2012)

Very cool, thanks JB.


----------



## nightshade_rider (Apr 18, 2007)

Flawless craftmanship - but why would we expect otherwise?

The stem with built-in vanity mirror is to die for. 

And I wonder why the Salsa concept brake never made it into production. Ross hinted at it in one of his brochures....


----------



## Major (Jul 8, 2008)

That's lovely mr B. ! Wonder what kind of sound those wires would make at 25 mph..


----------



## MendonCycleSmith (Feb 10, 2005)

Wow!

Thanks for the pics, just gorgeous.


----------



## MABman (Oct 5, 2008)

I always wondered what the relationship between the Paul Brown bike and this one was. To find out that they were made without any knowledge of the other is wild. 

I guess the other question is why the bike was never ridden? 

Pretty amazing craftsmanship overall. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## crconsulting (Apr 11, 2004)

breezin said:


> That led to requests for more shots of the Kite. Here they are


Outstanding bike and previously unseen pictures.

Thanks for taking the time to post those.


----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

Certainly it was the Braunstein-Quay Gallery show that made the Breezer "Kite" and Paul Brown "Santa Rosa" bikes come about. But why there were two cable-tensioned cross-frame bikes at the show, I really don't know. People were rightly surprised when the show opened January 1989. It wasn't like the design had been making the rounds. 

The cross-frame design was not new however. In the late 1880s, at the advent of the chain-drive safety bike, there were a few such bikes. Some even had a rod or two connecting the resultant cross-frame moment arms. Starley's "Pyscho" was probably the closest. It had rods between BB and head tube, head tube and seat tube, and seat tube and rear axle. I don't think it had rods connecting rear axle and BB to complete the kite.

I had been thinking about the concept since the 1970s, but I don't think I saw such a bike beforehand. When B-Q invited me to make the bike of my dreams I knew what I wanted to make: the Kite or a mono bike, but a mono bike (think 2008 China Olympics closing ceremonies) would've been much more difficult.

Someone sent me a copy of a November 1988 "Freewheeling" Aussie publication. Page 10 shows John McLachlan with his cable-stayed cross-frame bike that he was hoping Michael Kiernan would ride in the 1987 NSW Pursuit title. At the last minute a referee DQ'd the bike citing UCI Article 49. Yet another example of the anachronistic UCI. Hey, let us move forward guys. Sorry, another soapbox...

Anyway, there are many ideas flying around out there, often way below the radar, and people paying attention find them, make their contributions and run with them. I suppose the Kite "info exchange" could have happened on a more local level. At the time, I was sharing space with Salsa Cycles in Petaluma. Paul Brown from up the street in Santa Rosa was a frequent visitor there.

I know the show did inspire at least one company to go into series production with a Kite-like bike. In 1990 when I was visiting Bike magazine in Munich I spied a Corratec Futura Cable X bike. I do not know how many were made.

And why was the Kite never ridden? It was a concept bike, an art bike. I felt it was more valuable unridden. I rode it before it was painted. Seemed to ride like a bike. I had plans to make more Kite bikes, and others offered their encouragement. In fact an engineer for I. M. Pei's Pyramid at the Louvre and Americas Cup sailboat rigging gave me ideas and material towards that end. 

In the end, I had to get back to here and now bikes. And then there was UCI Article 49, which can make it unprofitable to veer from the straight and narrow almighty diamond frame.

Joe

PS--My son just showed me a wonderful shot taken above Yosemite Valley in about 1890 of four riders and their bikes. Google "Mountains bikes c1898". The third guy from the right has a Starley Pyscho. It has chainstay rods. So, it is a full kite.


----------



## stan lee (Mar 5, 2006)

breezin said:


> PS--My son just showed me a wonderful shot taken above Yosemite Valley in about 1890 of four riders and their bikes. Google "Mountains bikes c1898". The third guy from the right has a Starley Pyscho. It has chainstay rods. So, it is a full kite.


....


----------



## MERK26 (Aug 31, 2009)

Love this photo! Bet those coasting pegs came in mighty handy in the mountains! More proof that when it come to bicycle technology..."It`s all been done"


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

JB, you look just the same as you did back in 89! 

How much time did you have from when the BQ people asked you to make a bike to the show?

Your pictures are astonishing! Can't wait to hop down to SFO.

g


----------



## guywitharitchey (Nov 29, 2011)

looks like a rivendell photoshoot.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Those guys are so smug knowing that their safety bikes made it up the up the hill faster than the high-wheelers who still hadn't made it to the top. 

It's great to see a bicycle in such a remote area. In 1898 there were very very few automobiles in the world. The bicycle was the way to cover greater distances than a pair of shoes could take you - and ate less than a horse. There was no "off road" riding because there were no paved roads - there was just bicycling.

And what an opportune time to find a 110+ year old version of an early "kite" bike.


----------



## djmuff (Sep 8, 2004)

This is a great thread. Love the history- over 110 years of it. 

And now I want some vintage wool. And a safety bicycle with skinny, solid rubber tires and mechanical brakes.


----------



## rigidftw (Mar 21, 2010)

stan lee said:


> ....


ha, turns out that here is stated the picture was taken in norway in 1889.


----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

rigidftw said:


> ha, turns out that here is stated the picture was taken in norway in 1889.
> 
> Yes, Norway it is! I was just returning to this page to correct my Yosemite mistake. The tip-off was the år, which means year in Scandinavian languages. Amazing though how close the terrain and shapes are between the two places. There is even a perfect perch on Four Mile Trail leading to Glacier Point that offers such a similar view. Oh well, it was fun tracking down Nærøydalen, a beautiful place I hope to visit some day.
> 
> Joe


----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

girlonbike said:


> JB, you look just the same as you did back in 89!
> 
> How much time did you have from when the BQ people asked you to make a bike to the show?
> 
> ...


I don't think I have a record of that, but it was something like 6 months, maybe more. I have hundreds of hours into the bike. Got a little carried away...

Not sure if I mentioned before, there are no plans to include the Kite at SFO. Their show will include bikes that represent mountain bike evolution. The Kite represents a dead end off that trail, at least for now. 

Joe


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

breezin said:


> I don't think I have a record of that, but it was something like 6 months, maybe more. I have hundreds of hours into the bike. Got a little carried away...
> 
> Not sure if I mentioned before, there are no plans to include the Kite at SFO. Their show will include bikes that represent mountain bike evolution. The Kite represents a dead end off that trail, at least for now.
> 
> Joe


Yaaa, I was hoping to get 4 of the original BQ bikes reunited.


----------



## tfahrner (Sep 27, 2006)

aw geez and here i thought i was onto something at least semi-novel: flickr.com/photos/cleverchimp/6893135739/ [site won't let me paste links because my post count isn't high enough yet... but you know what to do]

"my" take is that the center junction is a pivot, so the frame folds, and seat tube angle can be adjusted, ss/fixed/igh chain tensioned, etc.


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)




----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

Rumpfy said:


>


OMG. Who put this together? Where are they going with it?

If someone is actually going to build a frame, here are some comments that might help:

1/ Since the cables provide zip torque value, the tubing will need to make up for it. Twin laterals offer very little. I managed to find 1.5 x .028" 4130, at Dillsberg Aeroplane Works in PA. Are they still in biz? (717) 432-4589.

2/ Yes, I know, you need to split that great 1.5" torque tube into two for the rear wheel. I found some 1.25 uni-crown blades somewhere.

3/ Use webbed dropouts. My first Breeze-Ins were for the Kite. They were fabricated from 4130 plate and tubing. Simple, light and rigid, and good places to attach the turnbuckles.

4/ The head tube should be as short as possible, so that cable tension at the cantilevered ends of the HT is not trying to wrap the head tube around the main tube. The shorter HT length puts more load on headset bearings. That is why I used an 1-1/4" Fisher headset.

5/ Crossing the "DT" and "TT" cable runs: I know I contemplated this, but I don't recall my verdict. Not sure if it improves stiffness or just complicates stress flow. It might only affect how the cheese is sliced. 

Careful out there.

Joe


----------



## IZH-35M (Jan 15, 2011)

Beautiful. 

Breaks are heavy. 18.6

PorkRinds will finish it.


----------



## tfahrner (Sep 27, 2006)

breezin said:


> OMG. Who put this together? Where are they going with it?


Hi Joe - what an honor! I swear I didn't know about these modern efforts until after I slapped the model together. This 1930s example was the latest I'd seen: flickr.com/photos/cleverchimp/6893211453/in/set-72157629361803025 . Anyway, I'm the guy behind this design, also a "mixte/cross", built by Jonathan Reed: clevercycles.com/blog/2011/09/22/xtravois-2-0-our-oregon-manifest-bike/ . We sell a lot of your Uptown bikes!

I've been thinking of this as a cyclocross or perhaps just a light town bike. Bummer about UCI on the former. At this point it looks like the only real novelty I'm pursuing is that the central tubing intersection won't be beefed up, but rather allowed to pivot, so the frame can fold when the cable is released. Adjustable STA and maybe chain tensioning...



breezin said:


> 1/ Since the cables provide zip torque value, the tubing will need to make up for it. Twin laterals offer very little. I managed to find 1.5 x .028" 4130, at Dillsberg Aeroplane Works in PA. Are they still in biz? (717) 432-4589.


My experience with several mixte-type cargo frames is that as long as the lateral tubing is kind of stout, like .75" OD or larger, unlike classic mixtes, torsional rigidity isn't bad at all! In my mind's eye and in playing with the model, crossing the DT and TT cables helps a lot, too.



breezin said:


> 3/ Use webbed dropouts. My first Breeze-Ins were for the Kite. They were fabricated from 4130 plate and tubing. Simple, light and rigid, and good places to attach the turnbuckles.


Check! yeah, I was wondering where to anchor the cable tensioner: ear of a Breezer style dropout seems good. I see a way clear to use a single turnbuckle to tension a fine single (carbon-fiber? aircraft?) cable lacing all through the bike. Once uniform cable tension and true is checked, then lock down the cables at key frame contact points...



breezin said:


> 4/ The head tube should be as short as possible, so that cable tension at the cantilevered ends of the HT is not trying to wrap the head tube around the main tube. The shorter HT length puts more load on headset bearings. That is why I used an 1-1/4" Fisher headset.


Ah OK... not feasible for the tension of TT, DT to balance around the fulcrum of the giant fillet where the laterals meet? Maybe not in a big hit.... I'm thinking I can keep the HT a normal height, but experiment with a couple of cable lacing points along the front to find a happy medium. In playing with the model, it seems that torsional rigidity improves with crossed cables wrapping the HT some distance from the midpoint.



breezin said:


> 5/ Crossing the "DT" and "TT" cable runs: I know I contemplated this, but I don't recall my verdict. Not sure if it improves stiffness or just complicates stress flow. It might only affect how the cheese is sliced.


The cheese-slicer image comes readily to mind in crash scenarios. bummer to have to sheath them for safety, but maybe a good idea in the cyclocross carry-and-run context...


----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

tfahrner said:


> Hi Joe - what an honor! I swear I didn't know about these modern efforts until after I slapped the model together. This 1930s example was the latest I'd seen: flickr.com/photos/cleverchimp/6893211453/in/set-72157629361803025 . Anyway, I'm the guy behind this design, also a "mixte/cross": clevercycles.com/blog/2011/09/22/xtravois-2-0-our-oregon-manifest-bike/ . We sell a lot of your Uptown bikes!
> 
> I've been thinking of this as a cyclocross or perhaps just a light town bike. Bummer about UCI on the former. At this point it looks like the only real novelty I'm pursuing is that the central tubing intersection won't be beefed up, but rather allowed to pivot, so the frame can fold when the cable is released. Adjustable STA and maybe chain tensioning...
> 
> ...


I can't say I followed everything you said, but I see it will not be a sprint bike (insert understatement face here).

It is true that the torsional value for 3/4" tubing is noticeably stiffer than, say, 1/2" tubing. A simple section modulus calc reveals it is over 2X stiffer. However, tubing with a diameter of 1.5 inches is 12X stiffer than 3/4" tubing.

But hey, I'm really looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Cable tension: I used 4 turnbuckles off the rear dropout as I was concerned with dispropertionate tensioning. Hopefully you'll be able slip the cable around the tubes while under great tension. Grease? Jacks? 
BTW, I used an aircraft control cable with 7x19-strand construction (for its flexibility). It is stainless steel and the diameter measures 0.098" (13 gauge?). I bought the cable hardware from Nor-Cal Supply (415) 569-4416, maybe the cable too.

The HT and fulcrum: What I meant is that the wire tension (yes, placing the cables near the ends is good) will bend the HT. If there is too much overhang from the mid tube(s) and the HT is small diameter, then you might find that the head bearings are not parallel enough to each other for smooth steering. Strength and stiffness are concerns too.

Cheese: It's mainly the upper run I was concerned with. With my parallel run I was considering running a pump in velcroed wrap.

Best wishes,
Joe


----------



## tfahrner (Sep 27, 2006)

Thanks again Joe; I hadn't considered deformation of the HT. I'm hoping that using cables with higher tensile modulus than steel (e.g. carbon fiber per www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/short/OCR/ropes/ ) , I can avoid needing to put the cables under such a high static tension that they'll bend the tubes as you say. Would be a bummer to have to use massively beefy HT just to overcome this issue of an ostensibly weight-saving design.


----------



## breezin (Nov 10, 2007)

tfahrner said:


> Thanks again Joe; I hadn't considered deformation of the HT. I'm hoping that using cables with higher tensile modulus than steel (e.g. carbon fiber per www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/short/OCR/ropes/ ) , I can avoid needing to put the cables under such a high static tension that they'll bend the tubes as you say. Would be a bummer to have to use massively beefy HT just to overcome this issue of an ostensibly weight-saving design.


My Kite's head tube OD was something like 1-9/16 inches. Not sure if I turned that or what. I stated the wrong main tube OD the other day. It is 1-7/8 inches (x .028"). At the HT, I increased the vertical axis to 2-1/4". With 3" HT length, that gave me nearly a zero cantilever beyond the supported structure for upper and lower cable wrap.

With 3/4" mid tubes and a 6-inch-long HT you will have maybe 2 inches of cantilever to cable wrap points at either end of the HT. For a fork with 1" OD steering tube, you could use a 1-1/4" OD HT with traditional throated external headset, or you could use a 1-3/4" HT with new semi-integrated headset (yes, for 1" OD steerer). The latter will have a bending stiffness value of 4x over the former. The weight difference is minimal.

Joe


----------



## tfahrner (Sep 27, 2006)

perhaps ream and face the headtube only after the cables are at full tension...


----------

