Folding Bikes - Horst-link rear-triangle mod for ISO305 Swiftlet

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.
timo888
11-16-08, 07:02 AM
This morning, before morning coffee while my brain was still in a state of waking dream, I drew up a design for a 16" (ISO 305) folding bike that starts with the Swift. I want it to eat Brompton's cheese sandwich, so symbolically I gave it a wheelbase of 1066 mm (400 rear, 666 front).
The major differences are:
1. The seat-stay pivot-point is moved to a flange behind the seat tube
2. A second pivot point (like a Horst link except not for suspension) is placed on the chain stay in front of the rear axle. The rear-triangle remains unified, but the pivot allows the angle between chain-stay and seat-stay to become more acute, so the chainwheel can be moved further back towards the seat-tube when, during the fold, the rear-triangle is pivoted beneath the main tube. Repositioning the chainwheel aft during the fold allows a hinge to be placed near the front of the main-tube (like Brompton and Peregrine), which significantly reduces the length of the folded package.
Regards
T
Interesting.
I would not put in the 2nd pivot; I would give the pivot an angle a la Birdy so that the seat tube section ends up next to the top tube, with bottom bracket against it like the Swift.
timo888
11-16-08, 04:39 PM
Interesting.
I would not put in the 2nd pivot; I would give the pivot an angle a la Birdy so that the seat tube section ends up next to the top tube, with bottom bracket against it like the Swift.
With the right placement of the pivot point behind the seat-tube, and a slight adjustment of the chainstay length (e.g. 400-422mm), it should be possible to get the bottom section of the seat-tube to fit directly below the main tube.
Regards
T
Interesting, but:
Why would you introduce a 2nd link (and compromise rigidity) at the rear?
IMHO more effort should be directed at tucking the front wheel.
timo888
11-17-08, 05:27 AM
Interesting, but:
Why would you introduce a 2nd link (and compromise rigidity) at the rear?
IMHO more effort should be directed at tucking the front wheel.
The front wheel is tucked back ... to be face-to-face with the rear wheel. Since the rear wheel can be placed further aft when folded, there is clearance up front on the main tube for a hinge to bring the front-wheel back and to the right, like Brompton.
The seatstay and chainstay tubes would have to be beefed up. A properly implemented Horst link should provide adequate rigidity. They're used on mountain bikes.
Regards
T
timo888
11-18-08, 06:28 AM
OK, here's a crude video rendering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZT_yRmuF40) of a design without the Horst link and with the seat-stay-pivot-point moved to a gusset between seat-tube and main-tube.
Wheels: ISO305
Standover height: 666mm
Wheelbase 1066mm (422/644)
Chainwheel: 48T
BB height: 294mm
The chainwheel is far enough aft to support a hinge behind the head tube (like Brompton) which reduces the length of the folded package to ~ 20 inches (~50cm).
The Horst link would enable further reduction in the height of the folded package -- and a rear suspension without "bio-pace".
And if you were going to eliminate the Horst link, you could curve the seatstay and weld it to the lower segment of the seat-tube:
Regards
T
timo888
11-21-08, 05:45 AM
Here are a couple of good pictures of this type of linkage:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.