Velocipedia

zelos wrote: post #6

atdt wrote: post #2

What is wrong with the topmost bike?

The frame is missing the tube between the rear wheel hub and where the pedals connect - it would presumably splay out if you sat on it.

If you're really lucky, then the chain would provide some strength. Pedaling would be really hard with such a tight chain, though.

Re: Velocipedia

#9

Post by amelius » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:27 AM UTC

gggggggg wrote: post #4

atdt wrote: post #2

What is wrong with the topmost bike?

No frame between rear wheel and front chainring. No strength.

But the front wheel is also missing that beam on a correct bicycle.

Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?

Re: Velocipedia

#10

Post by Piskvorrr » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:31 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #9

gggggggg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No frame between rear wheel and front chainring. No strength.

But the front wheel is also missing that beam on a correct bicycle. Edit: implying: if the front wheel doesn't need it, why would the rear wheel?

I would like to see you turn a bike with front-wheel chainstays. Straight-only driving, turns are obsolete! :D

Also, the front wheel is connected to the frame in a very different way than the back wheel: single strong tube, only diverging further on; and there is no requirement for the front wheel to be powered - therefore the front wheel can (and does) move WRT the frame, something the back wheel must not do. Yes, they're both wheels, but that's where the similarity ends; the rest of the requirements are very different.