Comments on: Tyrell road bikes

By: shads

shads — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:00:18 +0000

And by the way there's no shock absorber in that one? But i want to try it out though. thanks. comparesportsproducts

By: shads

shads — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:58:30 +0000

Yeah, I love to ride one of these babies. I want to check the bikes and try it out on outdoors. Experience the thrill of riding new bicycle. I really want to have this last one here. Good luck for me. thanks a lot.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 21 May 2010 08:18:00 +0000

Oops, a typo or two, should have been 5′ and under…

By: jorgensen

jorgensen — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:42:28 +0000

Front center dimension is a decision point. Either you live with overlap or you are designing a transportation/utility bike where you can adjust things for a front load, have free toe clearance and a short effective top tube. Way back in school I worked on this, one of the limiting connections to top tube length for at the time was a standard level top tube was the head tube connection. I figured out a few alternatives, I forget the minimum number I came up with where small toe clips and 165 mm cranks while not raising the Bottom bracket the bottom bracket )as was often done on small frames to the detriment of handling with no help in the standover) but it was under 59 cm. I was not happy with the solution of relaxing the head angle and keeping lots of rake to make that clearance. I had a bike with serious overlap, and while not good for a fixed on the street, it was not a big deal, yes, one did have to know the limits. 650′s cure much, but at the time were not viable., especially for a performance bike.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:48:13 +0000

Another bike similar to this: The Workcycles Pastoorfiets
http://www.workcycles.com/home/handmade-city-bicycles/workcycles-kruisframe-aka-pastoorsfiets
The Pastoorfiets solves the problem I mentioned of an overly long seatpost by bringing the lower or rear top-tube (terminolgy here?) diagonally up in the back.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:42:20 +0000

5′ and under–that makes more sense!

But I’m not fully clear on how that helps–the real problem with 700c and 5′ and under is toe clip overlap. I think of this design as being helpful towards a long head tube, as needed when the wheels are small compared to the frame size, not vice versa.

By: jorgensen

jorgensen — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:42:24 +0000

Oops, a typo or two, should have been 5′ and under…

By: jorgensen

jorgensen — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:41:24 +0000

I like this. I penned someting similar long ago, but used a horizontal tube at the same diameter as the diagonals. I have to think about the tall rear drops, and I agree it probably is heavier a tad. My design was to allow the 6′ and a bit under crowd to still use 700c wheels. Looks like it works for a bigger frame too. When I see Tyrell I either think of Bladerinner or Formula 1 though, then it should be deep blue…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:49:45 +0000

Interestingly, I vastly prefer this to mixtes, where the rear triangle always looks awkward and busy to me. This is busy in other ways, but at least it looks like it would be quite stiff.

Can’t say if particularly better than any traditional layout, but it’s sort of neat, anyway.

By: Ron George

Ron George — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:33:33 +0000

Always, designs come with benefits and tradeoffs. For instance, here, the effective lateral clearance between your knees and top tube is reduced by a distance equal to the diameter of that cross-member. Moreover, if you’re off the seat climbing or sprinting, I would think any deflections side to side from the wheels would be better handled by a shorter cross tube tube as they are more stiffer. I don’t know the material used here but an FEM analysis should tell you whether there are larger than usual stresses at the junction of the top tube and seat tube. But hey, now you could place a small water bottle or a GPS unit onto the portion of the cross member above the top tube. So there you go…