What are practical limits to making a bike much longer?

[Chance]

Aesthetics and maybe an extra pound or so aside, what are the practical limits to making a single bike much longer?

Tandems, recumbents, and cargo bikes can be quite long, so proper handling must not be something that can't be overcome with proper design.

Assuming we can duplicate contact points and weight distribution, what are possible issues (other than looks) to making a bike much longer?

Bikes have been made with shorter and shorter wheelbases over time to make them slightly faster (incrementally lighter and more aero) and quicker (more maneuverable in heavy traffic inside a peloton), but if not for racing or competitive riding, what are “practical” limits to going in other direction? Any thoughts/opinions (or experiences) on very long wheelbase bikes? My experience on single bikes is limited up to about 44-inch wheelbase (old MTB). That’s about 10 to 15 percent longer than typical road racing bike. So what would happen beyond that wheelbase?

[christian]

Somewhere around 42.5cm chainstays, you'll find an extreme affinity for wearing seersucker and Crocs and affixing a feather to your bicycle to make it unique. Other than that, no real limits. :)

No seriously, the limit is probably just aesthetic. At some point, people will say, hey, that's a touring bike.

Of course, you cannot rake out the fork or change the HTA infintely, so as you make a bike longer, you will naturally increase the amount of weight on the front wheel. This is why I consistently argue that bikes like the Roubaix, with their frighteningly long head tubes should have commensurately long chainstays. GP does get that upright position = long chainstays.

[rugbysecondrow]

Likley not what you are looking for, but as a bigger guy, I can barely transport my bike as is, make it longer and that is a game changer.

Also, will the longer chain be an issue? It always seemed to me that there was more risk of it breaking.

[rustychisel]

I won't speak to other aspects, but I can think of no logical or consideration of physics which would make a longer chain any weaker than it's weakest link.

Mind you, make a chain long enough (hundreds of metres) and the consideration becomes its own unsupported weight over a span.

[timto]

Cargo bikes are def on the long side of bikes out on the road. Here are my observations...


One can adapt to the handling but one must work a lot more to navigate tight spaces. Sometimes I have to dismount and 'work' a bike through a tight corner (think of 180 degree side walk bends on a hilly ramp - somehow I encounter these on campus all of the time!)
They're generally heavy - require more upper body strength to manouver off the bike. In the case of box bikes - really really heavy even before loading kids into it.
Due to the length they are cumbersome in situations where you are around pedestrians - if you use this bike for daily living you run into pedestrian situations all the time when parking, locking, rolling a short distance on the side walk to the road to ride etc.
Because they're generally heavier you need more rider strength - even with really low gearing to push one of these around. Perhaps a lightweight non load bearing long wheelbase bike wont' be nearly as bad
Difficult to transport unless you're a truck owner with an open bed. Or are handy making your roof own rack with extentions - tandem riders know what I"m talking about...


Because of the above factors my wife is uncomfortable riding the cargo bike. The weight and proportions make it challenging for lighter, smaller people.

my 2 cents

[MattTuck]

I think like any vehicle, as you go longer, you lose handling ability. Can you still ride it? Sure. Just like you can ride a 15 foot bicycle, just have to watch out for the power lines.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/StGUvSvMjANpCmG5vy0zNw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00MjA7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/572c4246e525bb0f110f6a706700ba0b.jpg

[Chance]

Also, will the longer chain be an issue? It always seemed to me that there was more risk of it breaking.

Actually, chain length was one of the issues on my list of challenges to work around. But not because of breakage, but rather because if the chainstays are made very long to keep weight distribution within acceptable range, a single chain purchase may not be long enough. And it would suck to have to buy two chains to piece together. Other than that don't know that say a 20-inch chainstay length would be much of a problem since recumbents get around even longer unsupported lengths.

[Chance]

Of course, you cannot rake out the fork or change the HTA infintely, so as you make a bike longer, you will naturally increase the amount of weight on the front wheel. This is why I consistently argue that bikes like the Roubaix, with their frighteningly long head tubes should have commensurately long chainstays. GP does get that upright position = long chainstays.

Not necessarily And this would be the key challenge in my opinion.

Front (steering) geometry is the key unknown here. But mostly in one respect from my perspective. Noticed doing research that many high performance tandems have similar front geometry than racing bikes. Say, a 73 degree head tube angle is not that uncommon with either. Mostly because it makes the captain fit with similar proportions. Main difference is that tandems normally go with a little more fork rake to have a little less trail. That makes them easier to steer under certain conditions because of the greater mass.

If it were a single-person bike of essentially the same weight as a typical single (versus tandem since it's only one rider), then optimum geometry should be very similar to a racing bike. And that just then means a very short stem. And is that a problem?

On almost all non-racing bikes the riders hands are much behind the front wheel axle. Sometimes as much as a foot behind on some cruisers. So would using an extremely short stem make a bike handle weird if the weight distribution was the same?

[fiamme red]

http://bikehugger.com/post/view/the-ugliest-eddy-merckx-ever/

[pdmtong]

what do you mean longer, slightly longer stays or electra townie or yuba mundo? they all ride like bikes but as rugby mentions...not the easiset to transport.

[christian]

Not necessarily And this would be the key challenge in my opinion.
It goes without saying that the weight-distribution of a long-tail single and a tandem are different, but you clearly get that. So I think what you're asking, in the extreme, is the following:

Imagine a bike (like a box bike, but with a traditional frame) with two headsets and two interconnected steerer tubes (via rod or chain). The front steerer is connected to the fork and the rear steerer has a stem and handlebar inserted in it. (i.e. the rear headset sits where the "middle" of the top tube would usually be). If you then extended this bike by 2m in front by extending the top tube between the headsets, and extended the chain stays commensurately, so that the weight distribution remains the same, then clearly you would want the steering geometry (i.e. HTA, rake) to remain the same. The rider in this case is sort of positioned as on a traditional diamond framed bike, but both wheels are further out. Here's a funny looking example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/henryinamsterdam/4968652385/

(This is analogous, in my mind, to having back-raked bars etc.)

However, it's not clear to me that if you simply extend the chainstays, that's true at all. A front-loading cargo bike does not have the same front end geometry as a racing bike; it typically has lower trail to make the steering more responsive - just like a tandem does. This is a result of greater weight on the front wheel.

I think that for a standard FC and wheelbase, you could easily map a curve of preferred rakes based on % weight on the front wheel.

[christian]

And that just then means a very short stem. And is that a problem?

So would using an extremely short stem make a bike handle weird if the weight distribution was the same?

Problem? A short stem will make the bike handle faster, so if you design it for a very short stem, you might want to increase the trail marginally.

A stem of 120mm but going backwards will result in the same moment on the bars as a standard racing bike, so would feel "normal" with respect to a racing bike.

[tannhauser]

Actually, chain length was one of the issues on my list of challenges to work around. But not because of breakage, but rather because if the chainstays are made very long to keep weight distribution within acceptable range, a single chain purchase may not be long enough. And it would suck to have to buy two chains to piece together. Other than that don't know that say a 20-inch chainstay length would be much of a problem since recumbents get around even longer unsupported lengths.

Issues? I don't think of them as such; they are inherent so, as such, I work with them.

Chain -- piecing together two lengths of chain with a tool takes a couple of minutes and is fun; working out chain length on a cargo bike is a bit challenging but it isn't rocket science.

HT* -- laden or not it make zero difference. What makes a dif is...

Weight distribution -- when heavily laden the weight bias is heavily towards the rear; some people like to add a front rack to balance it out. I pretend it's a Dutch bike and, as such, am able to pop the front wheel over curbs easily.

Handling -- I rail my long tail, jump it, ride it like an mtb, cruiser and occasionally like a road bike if I want to punish myself. I handles like a bike.

Ride -- It rides smoothly, more so when weight is added.

Everyone should have a bike like this.

[Chance]

http://bikehugger.com/post/view/the-ugliest-eddy-merckx-ever/

Thanks, great find. That is a weird bike. Although it looks uncomfortable and hard to pedal efficiently.

[Chance]

what do you mean longer, slightly longer stays or electra townie or yuba mundo? they all ride like bikes but as rugby mentions...not the easiset to transport.

When asking the question my mental picture was of a stretched-out racing frame. With rider using exactly the same contact points and same weight distribution. So if you stretched the chainstays 20 percent then the front center would be stretched 20 percent also, more or less to provide same weight distribution. Rider would still pedal exactly as before. The only difference from an ergonomics standpoint is that the bars/hoods would be located closer to steering axis. Probably not even behind like on some existing bikes.

My mental picture is of a bike with proportions similar to a very short tandem but designed for only one rider placed in the middle between where captain and stoker would ride. So in theory it would handle at least as good as a racing tandem. At very high speeds it should be better than a regular bike. Would only require bars to be moved back for proper reach. Proportions would not be that different from lightweight motorcycles of the past.

Good point about difficult transport but people move tandems and recumbents all the time.;) That in itself would not deter me from trying something new if available.

[rugbysecondrow]

When asking the question my mental picture was of a stretched-out racing frame. With rider using exactly the same contact points and same weight distribution. So if you stretched the chainstays 20 percent then the front center would be stretched 20 percent also, more or less to provide same weight distribution. Rider would still pedal exactly as before. The only difference from an ergonomics standpoint is that the bars/hoods would be located closer to steering axis. Probably not even behind like on some existing bikes.

My mental picture is of a bike with proportions similar to a very short tandem but designed for only one rider placed in the middle between where captain and stoker would ride. So in theory it would handle at least as good as a racing tandem. At very high speeds it should be better than a regular bike. Would only require bars to be moved back for proper reach. Proportions would not be that different from lightweight motorcycles of the past.

Good point about difficult transport but people move tandems and recumbents all the time.;) That in itself would not deter me from trying something new if available.


Two people normally move tandems :)

[tannhauser]

I see; the thread is about re-inventing the wheel.

[forrestw]

I think the main limit is handling and then again if you have odd tastes in how your ride handles the extremes of length are interesting.

I've never ridden an extracycle but I'm sure it's not unlike riding this

http://www.scul.org/skynet/images_root/eb/07/eb07a7efde46ed709169de263cbb6399.jpg

but less extreme - more action photos at: http://www.scul.org/skynet/index.php?action=view_ship&entity_id=1551

At the other end of the spectrum this one is much harder to pilot:

http://www.scul.org/skynet/images_root/84/14/8414f5966d6835bb9633a92c3fed7708.jpg

http://www.scul.org/skynet/index.php?action=view_ship&entity_id=1585

I've ridden both of these and their handling is decidedly squirrelly, tall bikes by comparison pretty much handle like bikes (albeit usually highly wheelie-prone bikes). I had plans to build a fixed-gear tall but ... that plan is low on the current priority list.

[Kontact]

If we are re-inventing:

The other way to do this is to raise the BB. If you keep the same angles in front but the bike is taller, the front center gets longer. Increase the chainstay length and you've kept all the same proportions and distribution, but the rider is higher.

[zap]

Noticed doing research that many high performance tandems have similar front geometry than racing bikes. Say, a 73 degree head tube angle is not that uncommon with either. Mostly because it makes the captain fit with similar proportions. Main difference is that tandems normally go with a little more fork rake to have a little less trail. That makes them easier to steer under certain conditions because of the greater mass.



That's largely market driven by the likes of Santana who's market is shall we say, the more relaxed cyclist who's idea of a cycling adventure is a 30 mile ride out in the country.

Proper tandems have similar rake to racing singles.

[palincss]

Likley not what you are looking for, but as a bigger guy, I can barely transport my bike as is, make it longer and that is a game changer.

Also, will the longer chain be an issue? It always seemed to me that there was more risk of it breaking.

Compared to a long wheelbase recumbent? Not a problem!

[palincss]

That's largely market driven by the likes of Santana who's market is shall we say, the more relaxed cyclist who's idea of a cycling adventure is a 30 mile ride out in the country.

Proper tandems have similar rake to racing singles.

Leaving the absurd slur on Santana owners aside for a moment, let me ask you: have you ever heard of the tandems made by Rene Herse, and if so, would you call them "proper," and do you have any idea of their front end geometry? And would you call 1200 km randonnees "30 mile rides out in the country"?

:no: <--- this is me, calling bull$hit on your comment

[Bradford]

Two people normally move tandems :)

My experience is that I move the tandem while my wife stands a few feet away and talking about something else.

[Chance]

I see; the thread is about re-inventing the wheel.

Not really. It’s more about questioning why non-racing bikes are built so similar to racing bikes when the needs and requirements are so very different. And some riders don't care about racing at all.

Besides, what do you consider the “invention” that is being “re-invented”? What do you consider the benchmark to compare against? The latest Tour bikes? Because bikes were much longer before they were made so short in the name of speed. Not that there is anything wrong with speed, but compromises are required when bikes are made shorter and shorter.

Very short wheelbase bikes are twitchy, less stable at very high speeds, and can flip a rider over on his head if he grabs too much brake much easier than a longer bike (everything else being equal including rider talent at any level). So the push to look like Armstrong in Paris doesn’t come without a price. To ask what would happen to go in the other direction is not reinventing anything in my mind.

If anything doesn’t it sound more like “de-inventing” the latest trends?

[Chance]

I've never ridden an extracycle but I'm sure it's not unlike riding this

http://www.scul.org/skynet/images_root/eb/07/eb07a7efde46ed709169de263cbb6399.jpg


Looks a lot like riding a tandem minus the stoker. When unloaded way too much weight on front tire. Rides funny for sure.

By the way, that frame without bracing looks very fragile. Hope he doesn't load it down much.

[Chance]

My experience is that I move the tandem while my wife stands a few feet away and talking about something else.

Great reply. You beat me to it.:beer:

[tannhauser]

Not really. It’s more about questioning why non-racing bikes are built so similar to racing bikes when the needs and requirements are so very different. And some riders don't care about racing at all.

Besides, what do you consider the “invention” that is being “re-invented”? What do you consider the benchmark to compare against? The latest Tour bikes? Because bikes were much longer before they were made so short in the name of speed. Not that there is anything wrong with speed, but compromises are required when bikes are made shorter and shorter.

Very short wheelbase bikes are twitchy, less stable at very high speeds, and can flip a rider over on his head if he grabs too much brake much easier than a longer bike (everything else being equal including rider talent at any level). So the push to look like Armstrong in Paris doesn’t come without a price. To ask what would happen to go in the other direction is not reinventing anything in my mind.

If anything doesn’t it sound more like “de-inventing” the latest trends?

Wow, lots of words.

If you know how to ride a bike properly pitching oneself onto one's head on a properly fitted road bike is pretty hard.

If you are uncomfortable and need a really, really long wheelbase to compensate that is fine.

So reinventing the wheel...yes that's exactly what you are proposing. Show me a bike similar to what you have in mind that does what you want. I'll show you very few buyers for it.

So yes, really.

My race bike is not twitchy at all at high speed and I'm talking over 50mph.

Anyway I think you're talking about a Dutch bike or mid-tail cargo bike like a Kona Ute or a long tail, like I mentioned earlier. They are all out there already, no re-invention required. If one can go otb on a long tail I think that person should not ride a bike.

[zap]

Steve, I did say largely but I will stand by any criticism I make about Bill's marketing of tandems.

Anyhow, you are welcome to drive across the river to casa zap and test different rake forks.

[forrestw]

Looks a lot like riding a tandem minus the stoker. When unloaded way too much weight on front tire. Rides funny for sure.

By the way, that frame without bracing looks very fragile. Hope he doesn't load it down much.
Usually not, but the saying at SCUL is "all bikes are folding bikes"

And yeah I think the geo is if anything less extreme than a tandem

[Chance]

Wow, lots of words.

If you know how to ride a bike properly pitching oneself onto one's head on a properly fitted road bike is pretty hard.

If you are uncomfortable and need a really, really long wheelbase to compensate that is fine.

So reinventing the wheel...yes that's exactly what you are proposing. Show me a bike similar to what you have in mind that does what you want. I'll show you very few buyers for it.

So yes, really.

My race bike is not twitchy at all at high speed and I'm talking over 50mph.

Anyway I think you're talking about a Dutch bike or mid-tail cargo bike like a Kona Ute or a long tail, like I mentioned earlier. They are all out there already, no re-invention required. If one can go otb on a long tail I think that person should not ride a bike.

So which is it? :mad: Reinventing or not? One minute it is and then it's not. Who needs this kind of crap from a guy like you? If you don't like this thread then just stay out of it. Nobody is forcing you to participate.

And apparently you don't read any of my "many words" very well, do you? Because what has been stated repeatedly in my posts is exactly "NOT" what a Kona Ute or long tail is.

Believe in giving people second chances, even after you were a jackass on previous threads to other members. My first instinct was to ignore you completely. It's obvious you are only interested in arguing. And that's not what interests me.

[tannhauser]

So which is it? :mad: Reinventing or not? One minute it is and then it's not. Who needs this kind of crap from a guy like you? If you don't like this thread then just stay out of it. Nobody is forcing you to participate.

And apparently you don't read any of my "many words" very well, do you? Because what has been stated repeatedly in my posts is exactly "NOT" what a Kona Ute or long tail is.
Believe in giving people second chances, even after you were a jackass on previous threads to other members. My first instinct was to ignore you completely. It's obvious you are only interested in arguing. And that's not what interests me.

Thanks for a second I thought you were forcing me into participating.

Duh -- YOU are trying to reinvent the wheel, whereas OTHERS already have "solved" your problem. There is a difference, understand?


Crap from a guy like me? I'm not interested in arguing, but you seem to take everything personally. Like I said, show me a bike that fits your needs.

Sorry you have such a short fuse. I think you want to "try" some bikes rather than become a better rider.

I'm pretty sure you haven't "tried" a long tail or Ute, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to build one in your mind. You're focused on front end geo and trying to build a better bike. I'd think that all the bike manufacturers in the world have a better idea of what works than you, thank you.

Congrats, you have called me a jackass. Mod's, I'd like you to know I'm trying to have reasonable convo here that does not fit Chance's take, so he feels it ok to call me names.

Jeez, I start out answering some questions and the guy goes ballistic.

Congrats you are the third person on my ignore list. Don't worry you're in fine company.

Is this the part where the Fall of the Roman Empire occurs? Once upon a time this forum had members who, in good faith, made inquiries into what constituted a good, sporting bike...

[Kirk Pacenti]

.

[tannhauser]

Bauer on a Dutch bike?

[Chance]

That's largely market driven by the likes of Santana who's market is shall we say, the more relaxed cyclist who's idea of a cycling adventure is a 30 mile ride out in the country.

Proper tandems have similar rake to racing singles.

Had to look up my notes on a Co-Motion tested when looking to buy years ago. The head tube angle on that particular bike was 74 degrees and the fork rake was 5 cm, which yields a fairly low amount of trail compared to just about any racing bike. And that bike was fairly typical in design. My limited understanding is that low trail is used on tandems to make it easier for captains to handle the extra weight while standing out of the saddle, and also when the stoker gets squirmy. Otherwise with more trail the bike tends to self-steer based on stoker movement from side to side. Granted an experienced and strong team may not need this compensation at all. For a single-rider bike in the 120 to 125 cm wb length lower trail is probably not needed.

[Louis]

This conversation is like a bunch of stoners wondering if there are practical limits to the hugest joint ever...

http://www.realworldimage.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/1/6/16060_2.jpg

[Chance]

.

Thanks. Interesting to see they tried both suspension and rigid forks. Hard to tell from pictures but the bike seems to have a shallow HTA to increase front center. And a very short stem compared to racing bikes of the time to compensate for the very long top tube.

Just doesn't look very comfortable or easy to generate much power in that position.

[roydyates]

.

What 's the seat tube angle on that frame? Is it 60 degrees or so? What's the length of the top tube? Is the standover under 30 inches (ie roughly comparable to a 52cm frame?) Does the rider in the pic usually ride a 56, 58 or 60? This frame really is a tutorial that all measurements are useless without the STA.

[don compton]

Somewhere around 42.5cm chainstays, you'll find an extreme affinity for wearing seersucker and Crocs and affixing a feather to your bicycle to make it unique. Other than that, no real limits. :)

No seriously, the limit is probably just aesthetic. At some point, people will say, hey, that's a touring bike.

Of course, you cannot rake out the fork or change the HTA infintely, so as you make a bike longer, you will naturally increase the amount of weight on the front wheel. This is why I consistently argue that bikes like the Roubaix, with their frighteningly long head tubes should have commensurately long chainstays. GP does get that upright position = long chainstays.
I fit the upright bike rider. 60yo, short torso, long legs, and lots of arthritis. The longish stay geo of GP seems to allow me some stability. To the racer folk it seems as a waste, but I am not in this category of rider. My friends and I like to ride along at a 18-21mph pace in the flats with a few higher speeds for short periods. We also like to ride in the hills of the Gold Country of Northern Ca. and spend overnighters in Sonoma Co. My Riv Roadeo and my Hampsten Sbti both have longish stays and have wonderful stability that give my crappy back a break on rides. However, they give up nothing in cornering on fast, curving downhills. Different strokes for different folks.:beer:

[tannhauser]

Lengthen that cs and don't screw up the front geometry. Yup that's where it's at:

http://bikeportland.org/2012/08/15/introducing-kinn-bikes-born-raised-and-made-in-portland-75961#more-75961

[christian]

I also like to ride in the hills of the Gold Country of Northern Ca. and spend overnighters in Sonoma Co. My Riv Roadeo and my Hampsten Sbti both have longish stays and have wonderful stability that give my crappy back a break on rides. However, they give up nothing in cornering on fast, curving downhills. Different strokes for different folks.:beer:No, you misunderstood my gist. I love long chainstays and think that bottom bracket drop begins at 77mm. Totally agree those are attributes of great handling bikes. Am saving pennies for a Strada Bianca now. In fact, I'd say 90% of bikes sold today have too short stays.

[don compton]

No, you misunderstood my gist. I love long chainstays and think that bottom bracket drop begins at 77mm. Totally agree those are attributes of great handling bikes. Am saving pennies for a Strada Bianca now. In fact, I'd say 90% of bikes sold today have too short stays.
Sorry about that. Also, my Riv Roadeo's front end is 73hta and 43 rake, very race like. 77 bb drop.

[54ny77]

Whoa, is that the Merckx long wheelbase Sedan de Ville?

.

[tannhauser]

Wow. Crazy bike:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antbikemike/7451327524/in/photostream

[William]

Wow. Crazy bike:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/antbikemike/7451327524/in/photostream


No, now this is a crazy bike...in a cool sort of unusual way......

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7110/6868568430_b34c8dbf48_b.jpg



I shouldn't have to say it at all but I will: Keep the conversation civil my friends.






William

[Chance]

Thanks to all who communicated constructively. Have decided to pursue such a beast since no one stated a reason why it can’t be done. To me spending the cash seems worth it just to experiment with something different. Like a toy. Whether it works out as expected or not. The journey towards getting it built alone will be worth it for me. Will keep cost reasonable by using existing parts, wheels, and so on. Initially anyway.

Don’t want a cargo bike or anything similar designed to carry stuff. Basically want a “regular-style” steel road frame with 73 degree HTA and STA. Except for long chainstays and long front center. Also with 26 inch wheels and mini-V brakes. Best guess that to accomplish my goals it needs to have chainstays of approximately 50 cm in length, and a front center of approximately 72 cm. This will mirror regular bikes’ weight distribution.

If anyone knows of any builder who can and will build unique one-of steel frames please let me know. Of course it’s expected they probably won’t want to put their name on a strange design and that’s fine with me. Plain paint job is more than adequate for my needs. Please reply or send me a PM if you have names to recommend.


By the way, have been wanting to tackle this project since first time seeing the United Healthcare TV ad with an old man riding the classic motorcycle. Notice at 17 seconds into 33 second ad how the profile looks. That long low look with bars way behind steering axis just works for me. Want to see how it would work on a bicycle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O1i0InZ8bM

[tannhauser]

You're welcome and good luck pedaling that thing.

[Louis]

Remember way back to the days when CHUNK 666 used to post on the forum?

Chance needs to hook up with that gang.

http://dylan.tweney.com/images/chop075.jpg

[Chance]

Remember way back to the days when CHUNK 666 used to post on the forum?

Chance needs to hook up with that gang.

http://dylan.tweney.com/images/chop075.jpg

Louis, sometimes it’s fun to try new things just because you can. Helps break up boredom.

Personally want to find out for myself why almost everyone thinks that road bikes should have an optimum wheelbase of around 97 to 100 cm. What’s magic about that? Why not 90 cm or 110 cm? Inquiring minds want to know. And this regardless of whether the rider is 5 feet tall or 6-foot 6-inches. That just doesn’t make sense unless the answer is that bikes are just right for tall riders and that they can’t be made much shorter for short riders.

Also want to find out for myself why performance bikes supposedly need to have the hoods over the front wheel axle. Sure, everyone swears by it as gospel but where did this theory originate? Is it like the 8-glasses-of-water-a-day rule? Repeated so often it becomes law? Seems strange considering that every other type of bike is quite different. Add to that that all types of motorcycles, including race motorcycles, have their bars much further back and it brings to question the legitimacy of this design rule. My guess is that rider reach has remained nearly the same over the decades and hands appear to keep moving forward because bikes’ front ends keep moving back. Did front centers just keep shrinking and stems keep getting longer?

The shortest motorcycles are scooters. The shortest cars are like the Smart and iQ. Maneuverable in traffic at low speeds but neither class know for high speed stability or handling compared to their longer brethren. So remind me again how you seem to know in advance that a long bike with a wheelbase of 120 to 125 cm (about 48 inches, nothing like the one you posted above) will be a failure when it’s shorter than most recumbents and much much shorter than all tandems? Aside from being slightly heavier and less aero as stated in the OP, that is. Being an engineer and all, if you have inside information please share it with us.

[Louis]

Louis, sometimes it’s fun to try new things just because you can.

I was actually being semi-serious when I posted that. I don't think those guys are still active, but they used to build all sorts of non-traditional looking bikes, and at least one guy using that name did post on the forum for a while. (that was way back)

They used to do all that for fun and to see what worked and what didn't so I actually think their philosophy was similar to yours. Except that I get the feeling you're looking for someone else to build it for you. The CHUNK 666 guys built their own stuff. (as you can tell from the picture) Do you know how to weld? If so, I'd buy several $5 garage-sale bikes and start building! E Pluribus Unum !!!

As far as bringing "real engineering" to bear on the problem, I remember that in one of my classes we actually did some handling stability analysis for a chopper. However, it's been ages, and I really don't have anything truly analytical to bring to the table.

Good luck and have fun with your project.

[Chance]

I was actually being semi-serious when I posted that.

Thanks. Like stated before, already have an old bike 43 to 44 inches in wheelbase (depending on rear wheel placement). Stretching another 4 or 5 is nothing that radical. And the entire point of the exercise is to make the front end like a tandem's with 73 HTA and standard fork, complete opposite of a chopper.

Must travel, so will have to leave this for good. Thanks again.

[AngryScientist]

chance - where are you located??

one builder who i can think of that would almost surely take on your project is Bilinky in Philadelphia. they do all sorts of radical stuff in their shop, they are top notch builders, and a small easy to get along with shop. i bet if you called them, they would be happy to build to your specs, or help you experiment. just a thought.

[Ken Robb]

No, you misunderstood my gist. I love long chainstays and think that bottom bracket drop begins at 77mm. Totally agree those are attributes of great handling bikes. Am saving pennies for a Strada Bianca now. In fact, I'd say 90% of bikes sold today have too short stays.
yep. My Strada Bianca has 42.5, Ramboullet has 44.5 and Riv Allrounder has 45.5 on bikes that are 59.5-61.5 C-C seat tubes. I also enjoy an improved ride on these partly because my saddle is farther forward of the rear axle than it could be on bike with shorter chainstays. To understand this effect imagine riding in a classic jeep in the front seat between the axles vs. the back seat over the axle. I think the STA on my bikes are all pretty relaxed 72 or 72.5 too.

[fiamme red]

Thanks. Interesting to see they tried both suspension and rigid forks. Hard to tell from pictures but the bike seems to have a shallow HTA to increase front center. And a very short stem compared to racing bikes of the time to compensate for the very long top tube.

Just doesn't look very comfortable or easy to generate much power in that position.This was posted by Norris Lockley today on the Classic Rendezvous list about Steve Bauer's bike with extremely slack angles (which might not have been identical to the one he used for P-R that was referenced earlier in the thread):

I actuallly had chance to 'get my leg-over'..ie straddle, but not ride, Steve's bike.

As was my habit I always visited all the European Spring Classics, with the Liege-Bastogne-Liege being a favourite. I think that the occasion when I met up with this bike was at the 1993 L-B-L.

In those days - and perhaps things are still the same ( I haven't been the last couple of years) teams used to stop in hotels very central to the city, with many of them using the Holiday Inn as their base. This resulted in there being a 'pit' area outside the hotel where mechanics prepared the riders' bikes and visitors were encouraged to mix with the mechanics and riders. This freedom generated a truly fabulous atmoshere.

On this occasion I noticed Bauer's bike leaning up against the hotel wall in what would be his team's 'pit'. I was just examining it and having a bit of a laugh with some other fans when the man himself, Eddy Merckx came along and joined us.

He was clearly somewhat embarassed about the bike as it was a far cry from the type of frame he would have chosen to build. However he explained that Steve had developed this theory about a frame that would help him to climb more effectively..and remember there are a lot of severe climbs some of them very short and abrupt in the L-B-L, so Bauer had obviously given much thought to the design.

Merckx admitted that he wasn't convinced at all, but felt that he had to give his rider the benefit of the doubt and the chance of proving him, Eddy, wrong. As it was just about my size, I asked if I could try it out..just to get a feel for the slack seat angle, explaining too, that as a framebuilder, I was very interested in theories from practising Pros. The bike just felt odd..that's the best I can put it..I doubted whether I could actually steer it..so I didn't even try.

Later in the race we had a chance to see the bike in action..it stod out from the rest of the peloton. I don't know this day whether it helped Steve get up the climbs better, but from the roadside vantage-point he appeared to struggle with the machine.The other problem that was really very noticeable was that the bike ust did not want to go around sharp corners. The classic example was the short sharp climb up the Cote du Stockeu..( i'm pretty sure it was the Stockeu) a really abrupt short climb that just rears up at a 90 degrees R/H turn to the flat road on which the riders approach at speed.

While the majority of the pac just swung the bikes over precariously while rapidly dropping the chain onto the inner ring, Steve had to make a long circuitous approach at quite a reduced speed just to get the bike to turn through the angle.

None of us got the chance to talk to Eddy afterwards, but I bet that the bike was in the back of his Mercedes double quick and back to base never to be used again.