I like this delta , however how much trail/flop does it have

Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
Hi all

Whilst still looking for some delta inspiration I came across this


Now as I want a body on the delta this looks a way of making it a bit shorter and a low fork head tube thus making the front lower than say a Kett ?

However I can't figure out whether it has a sensible amount of trail or a excess amount of wheel flop ?

Paul

oops just noticed it may have a front wheel smaller than 20" or the rear wheels are bigger than 20" ?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
2,384
Location
Wakefield, UK
If you want a low front then look at hub centre steering. There are quite a few ways of doing hub centre steering, some involving special hubs and some not. A "simple" way would be to use velayo type rws on the front. All hub centre systems are likely to have less turning circle than a simple headtube.
 
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
3,980
Location
South Benfleet, Essex, England, UK
Hi all

Whilst still looking for some delta inspiration I came across this


Now as I want a body on the delta this looks a way of making it a bit shorter and a low fork head tube thus making the front lower than say a Kett ?

However I can't figure out whether it has a sensible amount of trail or a excess amount of wheel flop ?

Paul

oops just noticed it may have a front wheel smaller than 20" or the rear wheels are bigger than 20" ?
Looks 20/24 to me. :)
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
All hub centre systems are likely to have less turning circle than a simple headtube.
Well that ain't happening !
Paul
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
Seems it has had a variety of rear wheel sizes :- 13 page thread here little build details just riding it [ so far ] as the rider is not the builder.

Paul
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
2,384
Location
Wakefield, UK
Simple (close to) hub centre system that can equal a head tube's articulation. You'll need to play around with the length of the steering arm and the ratios on the right angled chassis mounted arm to get full articulation at the wheel. Simply shortening the steering arm at the wheel will increase it in this example. You'll need a beefier front chassis to take the single side mounting but it won't be wider than any rear wheels. Two the the pictured rails and legs of the chassis, one above the other, with cross bracing would do.

 
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
Popshot

Yes you are talking about the Forkless bicycle....



However I want the maximum turning ability which precludes linkages as you show they stop before they reach full travel , or even worse reverse and won't come back.
I want U/J's or similar directly to the stem , which is why his solution has some appeal as the fork and pedals are considerably lower than say a Kett Wiesel ?



Watch trike in top right of video ?


Paul
 
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
3,980
Location
South Benfleet, Essex, England, UK
I like what he has done TBH, it is narrow, he has pushed the wheel out beyond pedal interference and the "flop" seems to be manageable (by him at least).
It has -ve camber at the rear like a Kett. The space-frame is innovative and where he has the child-seat at the back you could imagine a faired rear box to be housed.
I wonder if it could be adapted to tank steering via a "pinned" cable and pulleys?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
Danny

I am intrigued by the frame , I wonder if it could be built out of mainly bike tubing like Brads Wildcat ?



Maybe with just a square tube for the main spine and the front hacked from an existing bike if I can get a frame with light[ish] tubing.

The flop is only a concern in that the trike probably cannot be ridden no handed ? and when starting to flop may go quickly when past a certain point.

I may compromise and go with single wheel drive however add suspension , it is possible it may be more use than 2wd ?

Yes it looks good for a fairing , putting that on creates the problem where to put the disc brakes ?
By the wheel means inside the mudguard but outside the fairing so lot's of dirt and oil from any driven wheel , inside the fairing probably means hard to adjust ? along side the seat maybe no space or 2 disks on the layshaft ?

Paul
 
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
3,980
Location
South Benfleet, Essex, England, UK
Danny

I am intrigued by the frame , I wonder if it could be built out of mainly bike tubing like Brads Wildcat ?



Maybe with just a square tube for the main spine and the front hacked from an existing bike if I can get a frame with light[ish] tubing.

The flop is only a concern in that the trike probably cannot be ridden no handed ? and when starting to flop may go quickly when past a certain point.

I may compromise and go with single wheel drive however add suspension , it is possible it may be more use than 2wd ?

Yes it looks good for a fairing , putting that on creates the problem where to put the disc brakes ?
By the wheel means inside the mudguard but outside the fairing so lot's of dirt and oil from any driven wheel , inside the fairing probably means hard to adjust ? along side the seat maybe no space or 2 disks on the layshaft ?

Paul
Paul,

Building a "space-frame" would require a fair bit of "jigging" I think, and I am not sure how much lighter it would be than standard 38 x 38 box (which we know to be plenty strong enough). But it would certainly be eye-catching in an un-faired state. :)
It is hard to make out the layout of the frame in the clip in any real detail, but it looks spidery and light. And it looked like it "flexed" a bit when that guy drove it up the kerb.

Suspension? Independent or not? Or, Keep it simple and deploy balloon tyres like the Big-Apples instead?

Barnes-Wallace designed the Wellington heavy bomber which was Geodetic from a frame perspective; light but very strong for the weight.

The 1WD/2WD question is an interesting one. In our hearts we know 2WD is likely to be better, but our minds know how much extra work that represents. :eek:
Front-wheel "hopping" and torque-steer are the only issues 2WD may resolve I suppose.

The profile as seen in the intro clip you presented above really does scream "fully-faired" at me and it certainly turns tightly as shown.
Would some additional length and a more upright set of front forks be very much detrimental? I doubt it, but maybe drawing it out will say otherwise.

I have yet to re-do the heavy steel parts of my 2WD unit in Aluminium (I have the bar-stock, but other family tasks are in play ATM).

I was looking at UJ's today with respect to driveshaft's that are not in a straight line with one another (so you could camber the wheels but have the core of the 2WD fixed horizontally), probably more trouble than it is worth TBH, and for a 12mm shaft the things are 25mm in OD and a bit clunky-looking. Eek!
An interesting challenge though.

Cheers!
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
Paul,

Building a "space-frame" would require a fair bit of "jigging" I think, and I am not sure how much lighter it would be than standard 38 x 38 box (which we know to be plenty strong enough). But it would certainly be eye-catching in an un-faired state. :)
It is hard to make out the layout of the frame in the clip in any real detail, but it looks spidery and light. And it looked like it "flexed" a bit when that guy drove it up the kerb.
Copying the wildcat would not really be a space frame ?
Someone on the Python mailing list build a real space frame front end , he said all the spidery tubing was a pain to weld and an even bigger pain to paint ?

Suspension? Independent or not? Or, Keep it simple and deploy balloon tyres like the Big-Apples instead?
Probably only after suspension proves to hard to build and heavy ?
I though they no longer sold big apples ?

The 1WD/2WD question is an interesting one. In our hearts we know 2WD is likely to be better, but our minds know how much extra work that represents. :eek:
Front-wheel "hopping" and torque-steer are the only issues 2WD may resolve I suppose.
If you have gone to the trouble of mounting a jack shaft then 2wd is 1 extra chain , free wheel and a sprocket

The profile as seen in the intro clip you presented above really does scream "fully-faired" at me and it certainly turns tightly as shown.
Would some additional length and a more upright set of front forks be very much detrimental? I doubt it, but maybe drawing it out will say otherwise.
Length affects turning circle and ability to go around an object.
Upright forks affect height of body as feet need to be about 2" above floor and seat @ about 10" to get it to corner a high front fork makes the body deeper than it needs to be ?

I was looking at UJ's today with respect to driveshaft's that are not in a straight line with one another (so you could camber the wheels but have the core of the 2WD fixed horizontally), probably more trouble than it is worth TBH, and for a 12mm shaft the things are 25mm in OD and a bit clunky-looking. Eek!
Are you looking for an answer to a problem that does not exist ?
There will be no drive shafts ? just a jack shaft and 2 chains ?
If the jack shaft is far enough away from the driven wheels the chain will twist for the camber?
Of course you don't need camber it just makes the trike narrower for a give wheel tread centre width.



Still thinking Paul
 
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
3,980
Location
South Benfleet, Essex, England, UK
Found this, is it the same trike? Space frame again.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,572
Location
Nottinghamshire England
DannyC

Well it is the builder of the swift one ? however the trike seems to differ in a few aspects ?

Steering is not same , why he had such difficulty turning around ? also child not helping

Jackshaft in a different place

Maybe a precursor to it ?

I like the steering on this Instructables delta trike

Paul
 
Top