Quote:
Originally Posted by supramkivtt2jz
Im an engineer myself, and it is why I have my concerns. With a bike in operational condition, any force exerted on the wheels acts as a point load between the fork arms. With this setup, each arm experiences a different load.
|
I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you mean by "point load" in this context. Perhaps you're referring to the vertical load from the tire's contact patch. If so, I see why you're calling it a point load.
But if that's what you mean, you are grossly underestimating the out-of-plane loads (the plane of the frame and wheels) that bicycles regularly experience. Mountain bikes especially deal with large out-of-plane forces as the front wheel makes oblique contact with obstacles, e.g., brushing one side of the tire against a large rock on a descent.
I'm also confused by your objection that "each arm experiences a different load." Actually, it's the same load, just with a different sign. In engineering terms, it's just a couple that produces a moment. In any case, the load is very small compared to the dynamic loads the fork sees during a ride.
I gather you might be somewhat new to cycling (you called it a "fork arm," not a fork leg) in which case your concern makes more sense. But when you think about it, the loads on a bike on a rooftop carrier are similar. There are all sorts of roll inputs to the car on uneven surfaces, and the forcing frequencies tend to be close to the natural frequency of the bike atop the rack. Rooftop-mounted bikes experience plenty of moment that gets reacted out through the front dropouts. IMHO, this arrangement is no worse and may actually be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supramkivtt2jz
I have a solution being cnc'd as we speak. Ill post up pictures when it is done. I plan on releasing the plans for free
|
Cool! I'll be interested to see what you came up with...you may well have considered lots of things I haven't. I look forward to seeing your drawings.
Cheers,
Jason