# My Storck Rebel Carbon (Custom)



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

Work in progress...Do you like it?
More pictures here :

https://www.light-bikes.it/forum/index.php?topic=1644.0


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

Your front caliper is loose...


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

carbon spoked wheels? On a mountain bike? dangerous...
however very very nice.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

MessagefromTate said:


> Your front caliper is loose...


And your chain fell off! :arf:


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Very Nice. It looks a lot like a Pedal Force frame except with decals. Gives me some idea of what mine will look like with the Fournales up front. While I'm sure the wheelset is nice, for me it's not a good visual fit with the bike for some reason. I'm just curious: what made you decide to choose the Storck frameset?


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

I said work in progress, so the bike is still not finished...I'm waiting for some parts, then I will finally assembly it  

I'd like the frame because it looks very "oversize" , Xentis wheels aren't dangerous...they're only more rigid (less comfortable:madman: ) and more expensive than standard wheels, but they're beautiful


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

I am considering the Look fork for my Pedal Force frame, but it appears that it will not fit. The Pedal Force head tube is larger than the Storck. 

What size is your Look fork?
Is the fork able to move freely without modification?
What is the distance between the shock and the head tube badge?

Thanks.


----------



## ferny (Sep 18, 2005)

With other fork and wheels....


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

ferny said:


> With other fork and wheels....


...will be a standard bike :nono:


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

The Pedal Force head tube is larger than the Storck. 

Are you sure? Storck head tube is very big!!!

What size is your Look fork?

Small

Is the fork able to move freely without modification?

Yes!!

What is the distance between the shock and the head tube badge?

4-5 mm


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sorry....*



Dream Bikes said:


> Work in progress...Do you like it?


sorry -i always liked your bikes but this one belongs in the opposite collection...this is a prime example of a "poser"-bike. a cumulation of expensive and just eye-catching parts that don't do any better. but if your primary goal was to build a "different" bike then you sure hit the mark.

honestly - i would be ashamed to ride such a bike.


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

Dream Bikes said:


> The Pedal Force head tube is larger than the Storck.
> 
> Are you sure? Storck head tube is very big!!!
> 
> ...


That's bad news. Pedal Force headtube is 50mm diameter at top and bottom, but bulges forward about 6mm in the center. So, it seems that the Fournales shock would probably hit the headtube bulge. I don't see an easy fix, but I'd love to hear if someone has an idea to move the shock away from the headtube.


----------



## SnowMongoose (Feb 18, 2007)

nino said:


> honestly - i would be ashamed to ride such a bike.


Jesus Nino, I know you're more qualified than most to comment on light bikes...
but you're just trolling this time.
Mom never told you to keep your mouth shut if you have nothing nice to say?
weak.

OP: you liking it is the important thing, get it finished and dirty, then take more pictures for us.


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

I've said nothing about performance...
I've 2-3 bikes ready to use in my garage, they're hi-end bikes but not so light or extreme, then I've other 4-5 bikes and frames here in my show room, for me it's a kind of art...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*he asked for it...*



SnowMongoose said:


> Jesus Nino, I know you're more qualified than most to comment on light bikes...
> but you're just trolling this time.
> Mom never told you to keep your mouth shut if you have nothing nice to say?
> weak.
> ...


sorry - just my honest opinion. he asked for it.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

*Nice frame...*

but that fork!!! 
Now those wheels!!!!









You manged a bike as ugly as Axis II Voodoo.

But if you are happy then ride it and enjoy it. Everyone's taste is different.
It's just not for me.


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

Overall it's a gnarly setup. Yeah, it looks extreme but the Look fork, wheels and frame really go together. I think it's hard to pair the xentis wheels or the look fork with anything, however this is the perfect setup. I'd say the Al on the fork matches well with the cable guides and the xtr cranks. It's the Mclaren F1 of mtb bikes. 

Some of you old men are such traditionalists  We get some real honest-to-goodness bike porn and you chastise it :nono: Funny how two of you are both part dealers - could you start a thread with some cool stuff you've gotten or seen lately! 

Dream Bikes can we get a spec list? Are those carbon-ti rotors? Are you doing single speed or 1x9? 

Let us know how it all performs. I'd say you have a lot of fun equipment to test out there on just one bike :thumbsup: 

BTW - Nice bike gallery! What the hell


----------



## faga steam (Jun 5, 2007)

Which tires are those?

Thanks


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

faga steam said:


> Which tires are those?
> 
> Thanks


Maxxis Wormdrive UST


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

Slobberdoggy said:


> Overall it's a gnarly setup. Yeah, it looks extreme but the Look fork, wheels and frame really go together. I think it's hard to pair the xentis wheels or the look fork with anything, however this is the perfect setup. I'd say the Al on the fork matches well with the cable guides and the xtr cranks. It's the Mclaren F1 of mtb bikes.
> 
> Some of you old men are such traditionalists  We get some real honest-to-goodness bike porn and you chastise it :nono: Funny how two of you are both part dealers - could you start a thread with some cool stuff you've gotten or seen lately!
> 
> ...


Thanks, I agree :thumbsup:

Carbon Ti rotors, XTR crankset with Across ceramic BB and carbon Ti chainrings 20-32(I'm waiting for the 44T...). Speedplay X1 pedals, Extralite The Post UL2 seatpost, Extralite Ultrastem UL2 stem, Extralite Ultrapush barend, Extralite neogrips, Magura Marta SL disc brakes (with titanium and ergal bolts), Look Fournales fork, Xentis kappa wheels, Tune Speedneedle saddle (without cover), Dura-ace 12-27 cassette, shimano XTR sl-M970 gear shifting...I'm waiting for the new XTR shadow carbon rear der.


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

With the Look fork having such a sharp leg angle, would that make the riding a bit nervous?


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Soya said:


> With the Look fork having such a sharp leg angle, would that make the riding a bit nervous?


No. It handles like a normal fork, just better. :thumbsup:


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

*Linckage fork growing in popularity*

Hmm there's been a marked increase in linkage fork users lately.


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

I only like the frame... But I must admit, thats an unusual bike indeed! Nice!


----------



## Monticone (Nov 30, 2004)

Dream Bikes said:


> Work in progress...Do you like it?


My Rebel Carbon was better... :cornut:

Details:
http://www.light-bikes.it/index.php?option=com_rsgallery2&Itemid=92&page=inline&id=21&catid=12&limitstart=2


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Axis II said:


> No. It handles like a normal fork, just better. :thumbsup:


You are confused because you paid so much for it, but the wheel path on the linkage fork is awful, especially for square edged bumps. Not what I would call ideal for what is supposed to be a MTB!


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

ginsu2k said:


> You are confused because you paid so much for it, but the wheel path on the linkage fork is awful, especially for square edged bumps. Not what I would call ideal for what is supposed to be a MTB!


Pure fantasy and some creative art, I'll allow you that. If I'm confused I'm not the only one. I gladly embrace my confusion- it makes me faster. In the end each much decide upon the merits and drawbacks of this particular fork.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Axis II said:


> Pure fantasy and some creative art, I'll allow you that. If I'm confused I'm not the only one. I gladly embrace my confusion- it makes me faster. In the end each much decide upon the merits and drawbacks of this particular fork.


Read a book! If you're willing to spend the money to buy something, wouldn't you like to know how it works? Fortunately, I'm willing to educate you. What you have with the Look Fournales, is called a leading linkage fork. What is preferred is the wheel path of a trailing linkage fork.

Here's a link to a patent for this type of leading linkage fork:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5743547-description.html

This is an excerpt from the introduction. 


> The leading link geometry provides improved wheel clearance, for the full range of wheel travel, and a more efficient configuration for the structure to handle the impact loads while at the same time providing maximum torsional and lateral rigidity. *The trailing link wheel action provides the most efficient wheel path, during impact, to accommodate roadway bumps and obstacles. *


Also,


> Trailing Link Concept
> 
> FIG. 2 illustrates a trailing link front fork concept that can be used to provide the desired rearward and upward (reverse curve) movement of the wheel during impact (path E-E'). The design consists of two stationary stanchion tubes (6L, 6R), two lower trailing links (7L, 7R), two upper follower links (8L, 8R) and the suspended fork link (9), connected to the front wheel assembly (9). This arrangement is a four-bar linkage configuration allowing the fork and connecting wheel to move independently of the bicycle frame during wheel impact. The linkage arrangement in this design provides a much better alignment between the wheel path and the wheel impact force vector compared to the telescoping fork concept in FIG. 1. This will result with a smoother action during wheel impact.


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

ut:


----------



## Batas (Jan 16, 2004)

Wow! Thats nice. The white mavic wheels are almost ok on that bike...


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

I appreciate your efforts to educate me.:skep: It's really touching but you seem to contradict yourself with your own information:

_The linkage arrangement in this design provides a much better alignment between the wheel path and the wheel impact force vector compared to the telescoping fork concept in FIG. 1. This will result with a smoother action during wheel impact. _


----------



## Jkuo (Feb 7, 2007)

I think that part was referring to a trailing linkage fork and he is saying the Look is a leading linkage fork. It is confusing though.



Axis II said:


> I appreciate your efforts to educate me.:skep: It's really touching but you seem to contradict yourself with your own information:
> 
> _The linkage arrangement in this design provides a much better alignment between the wheel path and the wheel impact force vector compared to the telescoping fork concept in FIG. 1. This will result with a smoother action during wheel impact. _


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Jkuo said:


> I think that part was referring to a trailing linkage fork and he is saying the Look is a leading linkage fork. It is confusing though.


Yup, that's exactly the point, it's not that confusing is it?

If you guys really want to learn more read 'Bicycling Science' it's a great book.


----------



## Soya (Jun 22, 2007)

Solution, don't hit square things:thumbsup:


----------



## gremlyn (Feb 27, 2007)

Dream Bikes said:


> I've said nothing about performance...
> I've 2-3 bikes ready to use in my garage, they're hi-end bikes but not so light or extreme, then I've other 4-5 bikes and frames here in my show room, for me it's a kind of art...


OT; Which frame is on that wall? I fell in love with it.  :arf:


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

gremlyn said:


> OT; Which frame is on that wall? I fell in love with it.  :arf:


GT STS Termoplastic (1998):thumbsup:


----------



## gremlyn (Feb 27, 2007)

That is one truly beautiful frame.  I would add Seven IMX and Sintesi Rumba frames also... and then I would have my perfect chillout room. :yesnod:


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

ginsu2k said:


> Yup, that's exactly the point, it's not that confusing is it?
> 
> If you guys really want to learn more read 'Bicycling Science' it's a great book.


No it wasn't confusing. Yes it is obvious that a forward linkage fork will work poorly, but that apparently is not always the primary concern here. I am curious though how could a reverse linkage fork work? It would need to stick way out so it did not hit the down tube when you hit a bump. It would be like riding a chopper.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Actually for square-edge bumps, curbs, rock ledges, roots... linkage forks are superior as the leading edge of the wheel is free to push backwards with the bump as well as upwards. Where linkage forks are inferior is in straight up/down movements which is why, in parking lot tests where people shove downwards on the handlebars they feel stiffer/harsher. 

However since in the REAL world, you're more likely to encounter a root or rock head on, and no just drop into some perfect hole that the only shock is upwards, the linkage fork equipped bikes tend to be faster than the ones with telescopic forks. This is one of the reasons that in tests done by Proflex back in the old days, their full suspension bikes with the linkage forks were faster on XC courses of the day than hardtails with telescopic forks (like rockshox mag-20/21s) which had basically the same wheel travel but weighed less when ridden by Pro/Elite level riders.


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

ginsu2k said:


> You are confused because you paid so much for it, but the wheel path on the linkage fork is awful, especially for square edged bumps. Not what I would call ideal for what is supposed to be a MTB!


you may or may not be right about the wheel path of a leading link fork, I really do not want to get into the science.....

However, what makes you think a Look is a leading linkage fork? It is not. If you look, the upper link is both longer and at a steeper angle than the lower link, ala Amp. Meaning, as the fork compresses, the top of the leg will move out, and away from the frame at a fast rate than the lower linkage attachment point. Voila! That means that the axle will travel in a path that is back and up, not forward and up as you state.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> Actually for square-edge bumps, curbs, rock ledges, roots... linkage forks are superior as the leading edge of the wheel is free to push backwards with the bump as well as upwards. Where linkage forks are inferior is in straight up/down movements which is why, in parking lot tests where people shove downwards on the handlebars they feel stiffer/harsher.
> 
> However since in the REAL world, you're more likely to encounter a root or rock head on, and no just drop into some perfect hole that the only shock is upwards, the linkage fork equipped bikes tend to be faster than the ones with telescopic forks. This is one of the reasons that in tests done by Proflex back in the old days, their full suspension bikes with the linkage forks were faster on XC courses of the day than hardtails with telescopic forks (like rockshox mag-20/21s) which had basically the same wheel travel but weighed less when ridden by Pro/Elite level riders.


Unfortunately, you don't know the difference in the wheel path between a trailing-link linkage fork and a leading-link linkage fork. The wheel path is in opposite directions. If you're running a trailing-link then you have an almost ideal wheel path for square-edged hits. This is NOT TRUE for a leading-link, which is the design of the Look Fournales.

And, what is the 'leading edge' of a wheel?


----------



## STS01 (Dec 29, 2005)

Dream Bikes said:


>


Now that I've seen that I feel guilty for using my STS as a spare bike for my talentless friends to ride... :eekster:


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

STS01 said:


> Now that I've seen that I feel guilty for using my STS as a spare bike for my talentless friends to ride... :eekster:


This frame is a piece of MTB history, like MC San Andreas...


----------



## f3rg (Aug 29, 2007)

*Dream Bikes:* awesome bike! I like exotic stuff, the rarer the better, and that pretty much takes the cake. Those who are insulting it just wish they had the abilitie$ to build such awesome bikes. You'll have to give us a final weight once you're finished.

Seriously, people, if you don't like it, just hit your Back button and move along. Why spend your time and energy just to chastise someone else's work when it in no way will ever affect you? Stop f*cking up the internets and move on.


----------



## gremlyn (Feb 27, 2007)

Dream Bikes said:


> This frame is a piece of MTB history, like MC San


Please post bigger pic of that GT. Thanks!


----------



## J.Mc. (Aug 24, 2007)

f3rg said:


> *Dream Bikes:* awesome bike! I like exotic stuff, the rarer the better, and that pretty much takes the cake. Those who are insulting it just wish they had the abilitie$ to build such awesome bikes. You'll have to give us a final weight once you're finished.
> 
> Seriously, people, if you don't like it, just hit your Back button and move along. Why spend your time and energy just to chastise someone else's work when it in no way will ever affect you? Stop f*cking up the internets and move on.


I couldn't've said it any better f3rg. That is one hell of a build!


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

*Mind numbingly interesting*

Knowing which pickup lines fizzle, and which ones sizzle, keeps us on the cutting edge of flirtation technology. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

f3rg said:


> *Dream Bikes:* awesome bike! I like exotic stuff, the rarer the better, and that pretty much takes the cake. Those who are insulting it just wish they had the abilitie$ to build such awesome bikes. You'll have to give us a final weight once you're finished.
> 
> Seriously, people, if you don't like it, just hit your Back button and move along. Why spend your time and energy just to chastise someone else's work when it in no way will ever affect you? Stop f*cking up the internets and move on.


Thanks f3rg :thumbsup:

Someone say that Xentis wheels aren't offroad rideable...
Here is a picture of my friend's bike (Antonio Brozzu, 2007 Scott Elite, now with Felt) after Rock D'Azure (you can still see the race number...)


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

gremlyn said:


> Please post bigger pic of that GT. Thanks!


Ok :thumbsup:


----------



## gremlyn (Feb 27, 2007)

Thanks! That pic goes directly on the middle of win desktop!


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

ginsu2k said:


> Unfortunately, you don't know the difference in the wheel path between a trailing-link linkage fork and a leading-link linkage fork. The wheel path is in opposite directions. If you're running a trailing-link then you have an almost ideal wheel path for square-edged hits. This is NOT TRUE for a leading-link, which is the design of the Look Fournales. And, what is the 'leading edge' of a wheel?


You are over-simplifiying the problem. Take a closer look at the Fournales fork and you'll notice that it is not a simple parallelogram linkage. In fact, the links are neither parallel nor equal-length. If you use your CAD skills (or an Excel spreadsheet) to model the true wheel path, I think you'll find that the wheel DOES NOT need to move forward as it moves upward.

Axis, is it possible you could let the air out of your fork and photograph it at various positions, preferable showing the dropout on graph-paper background?

Or, could you just measure the link lengths and locations for Ginsu2k to model it?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Wow DB, those are some pretty cool bikes. Not my cup of tea, but they are nice to look at. I like your wall art. Very interesting idea, and I could see something like that in my future.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

ginsu2k said:


> Unfortunately, you don't know the difference in the wheel path between a trailing-link linkage fork and a leading-link linkage fork. The wheel path is in opposite directions. If you're running a trailing-link then you have an almost ideal wheel path for square-edged hits. This is NOT TRUE for a leading-link, which is the design of the Look Fournales.
> 
> And, what is the 'leading edge' of a wheel?


Actually ginsu he may have a valid point. Since the arms are different lengths the fork will tilt in relation to the frame. The top will be pushed out and the bottom pushed in so the axle does not move forward for a small bump. At some point it will. The angle change seems iffy at best to me though sounds like a good way to endo.


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

sxotty said:


> Actually ginsu he may have a valid point. Since the arms are different lengths the fork will tilt in relation to the frame. The top will be pushed out and the bottom pushed in so the axle does not move forward for a small bump. At some point it will. The angle change seems iffy at best to me though sounds like a good way to endo.


At the end of travel, the headtube will be lower and the wheelbase will be shorter, similar to any telescopic fork. If you're worried that this will make you endo, you should ride a rigid fork.:thumbsup:

A Fournales owner could end this debate in 10 minutes by taping a pen in the dropouts of their fork and tracing the path on a sheet of graph paper. Who's up to the task?


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

EuroMack said:


> At the end of travel, the headtube will be lower and the wheelbase will be shorter, similar to any telescopic fork. If you're worried that this will make you endo, you should ride a rigid fork.:thumbsup:


And the angle will be different unlike a telescoping fork. It is humorous when people try to use selective facts and ignore the larger picture.

Lets see the pen and graph paper, but you need one on the headtube as well or it means nothing. It is about relative movement.


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

sxotty said:


> And the angle will be different unlike a telescoping fork. It is humorous when people try to use selective facts and ignore the larger picture.
> 
> Lets see the pen and graph paper, but you need one on the headtube as well or it means nothing. It is about relative movement.


The angle of the fork does not matter! If the front wheel lands in the same location relative to the frame, the likelihood of an endo will be similar. It DOES NOT MATTER if the fork is straight, L-shaped, or S-shaped.

Sorry, I assumed that it would be obvious to any pen-weilding adult that the frame must be fixed while you trace the arc of the wheel travel.

FWIW, I have no strong opinion on whether the Fournales is a good or bad fork. But, I did pass junior high school geometry and it really irritates me when people spread misinformation.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

EuroMack said:


> Sorry, I assumed that it would be obvious to any pen-weilding adult that the frame must be fixed while you trace the arc of the wheel travel.
> 
> FWIW, I have no strong opinion on whether the Fournales is a good or bad fork. But, I did pass junior high school geometry and it really irritates me when people spread misinformation.


This is a really good idea and would immediately end all the debate on the wheelpath.

BTW, if the links are not the same length and are not parallel then they have an instantaneous center of rotation that constantly changes the angle of the stanchions, directly altering the wheel path. This means it's REALLY complicated to calculate the wheel path precisely and amounts to solving for each individual point which really is not a viable exercise for the forum. sorry.


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

ginsu2k said:


> This is a really good idea and would immediately end all the debate on the wheelpath.
> 
> BTW, if the links are not the same length and are not parallel then they have an instantaneous center of rotation that constantly changes the angle of the stanchions, directly altering the wheel path. This means it's REALLY complicated to calculate the wheel path precisely and amounts to solving for each individual point which really is not a viable exercise for the forum. sorry.


WTF? Are you on crack? Its just a friggen 4-bar linkage. You do no have to calculate each point to find wheelpath. Someone just give me the center to center link lengths, the leg length from the center of the top pivot, and the steer tube length and I can have a wheelpath for you in 5 minutes.


----------



## MessagefromTate (Jul 12, 2007)

nino said:


> sorry -i always liked your bikes but this one belongs in the opposite collection...this is a prime example of a "poser"-bike. a cumulation of expensive and just eye-catching parts that don't do any better. but if your primary goal was to build a "different" bike then you sure hit the mark.
> 
> honestly - i would be ashamed to ride such a bike.


That pretty much sums up your bikes. Your drivetrain is now a couple of years old (judging by the pics you throw up). If you actually rode, the rings and cassette would be toast now. You don't ride, you just grind up parts and throw together a mish mash of cr_p to achieve an uber light bike. Your support of 19mm tubulars for the road only further reinforces the "show only" mentality of your bike builds.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

EuroMack said:


> The angle of the fork does not matter! If the front wheel lands in the same location relative to the frame, the likelihood of an endo will be similar. It DOES NOT MATTER if the fork is straight, L-shaped, or S-shaped.


The angle changes and that does matter. If the fork were rigid you would be right that the shape is irrelevant. But it isn't so you are wrong. If they designed it well then the angle change and the height change will counteract and thus minimize the movement of the axle front to back in relation to the frame.

One of you that actually has the fork why not post up the information so chequamagon can give us the answer in 5 minutes.


----------



## cammccarty (Jul 20, 2007)

Hey Dreambike,
Cool ride and cool art. To each their own....... Those who critisize only wish they had. Let me know if you ever decide to get rid of.


----------



## M4nSl4y3r (Aug 11, 2007)

I think that dreambike's bikes are awesome, I love that FS MC. and I have actually been looking for a linkage fork for a long time. if anyone could help me find one for my Cannondale f300 I would greatly apreciate it


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

chequamagon said:


> WTF? Are you on crack? Its just a friggen 4-bar linkage. You do no have to calculate each point to find wheelpath. Someone just give me the center to center link lengths, the leg length from the center of the top pivot, and the steer tube length and I can have a wheelpath for you in 5 minutes.


OK Genius, how do you find the instant center when the links are NOT the same length. It is no longer a parallelogram, that's the whole point of it being difficult!

And yes, I have a set of equations that can calculate the angle of the I3 bar (Theta 3), but I developed them and it took some work and it's really setup for double-wishbone for a honda civic. But, if you want to know how you can do it look at 'Tires, Suspension, & Handling' by John C. Dixon and look up camber change during jounce on double wishbone suspension, it's the exact same type of problem.


----------



## dennis rides Scott (Mar 3, 2005)

Nice bikes you are showing Dreambikes, I maybe wouldn't use all the same parts, but generaly love the bikes. I love how you use the "older" frames as art.
Let those negatif people don't affect your idea about bikes!
BTW what crankset is used on my dreamframe (Paduano)?


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

ginsu2k said:


> OK Genius, how do you find the instant center when the links are NOT the same length. It is no longer a parallelogram, that's the whole point of it being difficult!
> 
> And yes, I have a set of equations that can calculate the angle of the I3 bar (Theta 3), but I developed them and it took some work and it's really setup for double-wishbone for a honda civic. But, if you want to know how you can do it look at 'Tires, Suspension, & Handling' by John C. Dixon and look up camber change during jounce on double wishbone suspension, it's the exact same type of problem.


Wrong-O!

The control bar on the fork has the pivots closer than on the static bar. The instant center is in front of the bike on a Look Fournales, not within the frame as you suggest.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

chequamagon said:


> Wrong-O!
> 
> The control bar on the fork has the pivots closer than on the static bar. The instant center is in front of the bike on a Look Fournales, not within the frame as you suggest.


I didn't suggest anything, I don't have a Fournales, and I have no idea what the lengths of the links are. I said it would be very time consuming and difficult to plot the location of the instant center throughout the travel. You're the one who said it was easy and you could do it.

I still don't see a graph of the wheelpath!

BTW, if I knew if the top link was shorter than the bottom link then I could at least say roughly how much the angle of the fork changes as it moves up in it's travel. It's the same situation as Short-Long-Arm Double Wishbone.

If I were to take a guess I would say the upper link is longer than the lower link so you get a more vertical wheelpath, but I really don't know.


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

ginsu2k said:


> I didn't suggest anything, I don't have a Fournales, and I have no idea what the lengths of the links are. I said it would be very time consuming and difficult to plot the location of the instant center throughout the travel. You're the one who said it was easy and you could do it.
> 
> I still don't see a graph of the wheelpath!
> 
> ...


Im still waiting for some measurements.

However, you must have them, since you posted a wonderful CAD drawing complete with wheelpath. Or did you just make that up?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Ginsu and Cheq, why don't you guys just take it outside and go bare nuckles, and leave this poor guy's (or actually, maybe rich guy  ) thread alone. At least start a new thread if you're going to go at each other.


----------



## Nelg (Sep 10, 2007)

Very cool bike indeed! The carbon wheels are a bit over the top for myself, but for a show piece I think you've created something totally striking.


----------



## Dream Bikes (Oct 1, 2005)

Nelg said:


> Very cool bike indeed! The carbon wheels are a bit over the top for myself, but for a show piece I think you've created something totally striking.


Thanks!!!

Now I'm working for a new cool bike...stay tuned!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

chequamagon said:


> Im still waiting for some measurements.
> 
> However, you must have them, since you posted a wonderful CAD drawing complete with wheelpath. Or did you just make that up?


That's not CAD, it's MSPaint. Yeah, it was back of the envelope completely.


----------



## gotdirt33 (Jul 6, 2008)

maybe im alone here, but i love those wheels, theyre like carbon propellers lol, id like a set for the mojo sl


----------

