\From: jim.gourgoutis [jimg@...]
> If it's more economical, production-wise, to
> make a single batch of common forks with bolt-on
> sliding dropouts, I'm all for it. Heck, put sliding dropouts
> at both ends of the bike!

I heard Matthew say bolt-on, but I never heard him say sliding.  I was imagining
a setup where the dropout was a replacable unit (much like the derailleur hanger
on most aluminum frames) and came in two different models. One would give say
10-15mm more rake than the other.  When you bought the fork it would come with
both styles.

Since dropout alignment is very important on forks I'm less excited about
horizontal dropouts on them.  I like multi-position dropouts for the fork that
have an integer number of positions rather than infinite positions.

alex

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Steve Chan <sychan168@...> wrote:
>
> > Hah - why stop at just moving the wheel dropout forward and back?
>
> > Have the low trail dropout forward and _higher_ as well.
>
> > Maybe you could get an inch of axle to crown difference
> > and a few cm of rake as well...
>
> This is why I like bolt-ons.  They seem much more versatile.
>
> I wonder how bolt-ons would handle fender stays?
>

Matthew, I do like your idea of bolt-on front dropouts.  Once set up, they'd be
no-fuss (better for liability?).  The only practical downside I can see is
they'd prevent someone from easily/quickly altering the front wheel position,
which MIGHT be handy W.R.T. having a front load or not.  However, I think we can
mostly all agree that even the weight of a largish, empty rack is enough to
trigger the Low Trail Effect, so ad-hoc moving the wheel around may be unneeded.
James B. (dual position king) has even stated that he doesn't move the wheel
around much on his cycle truck.

If it's more economical, production-wise, to make a single batch of common forks
with bolt-on sliding dropouts, I'm all for it. Heck, put sliding dropouts at
both ends of the bike!

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Steve Chan <sychan168@...> wrote:

> Is it an expectation that people would swap back
> and forth between trail configs beyond the initial
> buildup and shakedown rides?

Some low-trail riders are looking for ways to adjust
the trail based on front load.  So for them it would
be nice to do so without having to adjust the brake
pad alignment.

MG

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, james black <chocotaco@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 00:55, Steve Chan <sychan168@...> wrote:
>>
>>     Hah - why stop at just moving the wheel dropout forward and back? Have
the low trail dropout forward and _higher_ as well. Maybe you could get an inch
of axle to crown difference and a few cm of rake as well...
>
>
> One reason is so that you don't have to readjust the brake pads.
>

     Is it an expectation that people would swap back and forth between
trail configs beyond the initial buildup and shakedown rides?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Kogswell Cycles
<kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
>
> This is why I like bolt-ons. They seem much more versatile.
>
> I wonder how bolt-ons would handle fender stays?

     Do you have an drawings/sketches of the proposed design?

--
"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a
habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel
Smiles

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Steve Chan <sychan168@...> wrote:

> Hah - why stop at just moving the wheel dropout forward and back?

> Have the low trail dropout forward and _higher_ as well.

> Maybe you could get an inch of axle to crown difference
> and a few cm of rake as well...

This is why I like bolt-ons.  They seem much more versatile.

I wonder how bolt-ons would handle fender stays?

MG

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:50 AM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...> wrote:

> You could do it this way for less than 15mm betwixt positions...

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimg/435490064/

Huh.

Thanks, JG.

MG

So neither of the two P/R framesets offered by Paul's Bike Shop on eBay gathered
even one bid (one at $450 and one at $500, which included a bunch of
components). Was it because they included 1" forks and no shim kit? Has the
market for the P/R dropped off? Bad time of year? I suppose I should hold on to
my G2 P/R for awhile.

Neal Lerner
Brookline, MA

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Ethan Labowitz <elabowitz@...> wrote:
>
> http://bit.ly/35s7rb
>
> Thoughts on these?  Is $425 + $80 shipping a good price?
>
> Thanks
>
> E
>
>
>
> Ethan Labowitz
> Graduate Assistant
> Department of Technology
> Appalachian State University
> Boone, NC
>

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
>
> But if memory serves me, there's at least a 15mm
> difference between the two slots.
>
> Which renders choices like 45/30 or 40/25.
>
> And I think 35 is the way to go.
>

You could do it this way for less than 15mm betwixt positions...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimg/435490064/

That made me laugh, James.  New shoes are sometimes cheaper than tires.

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, james black <chocotaco@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 19:12, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
> > But if memory serves me, there's at least a 15mm
> > difference between the two slots.
>
> Yes, 15mm is about the minimum with the kind of design I used.
>
> For reference, here is the latest version of the design that I drew
> for the dual fork-end, which I think is relatively nice looking in
> concept:
>
> http://james.architectureburger.com/cycle/cyclebin/cargo-41.gif
>
> And here is a photo (it looks different from the drawing, as David
> Wilson modified the design to accomodate a disc brake on the other
> side):
>
> http://james.architectureburger.com/cycle/cyclebin/cargo239.jpg
>
> On another note, crazy kids with these bar spins! Today I saw two kids
> on what looked like hipster fixies with short riser bars, but they
> surprised me by having freewheels and no brakes. They were slowing
> down by dragging their feet. I figured that this is like a combination
> of the fixie freestyle craze with the no-brakes freewheel BMX craze. I
> wasn't surprised when I passed them by, me on a real fixed gear,
> geared lower than theirs at 65". But a few blocks later, one of them
> seemed keen to catch up to me, and passed me at over 20 mph. After he
> caught me, he started dragging his feet as he approached the next
> intersection. Dang crazy kids.
>
> James Black
> Los Angeles, CA
>

From: rswatson@... [rswatson@...]
> I vote for 40/25.
>
> 30's been done, let's see how low we can go!

The prototype bikes were built with 25mm and 40mm trail forks (plus the 50mm
rake forks that never really sold very well).  They seemed to handle quite
nicely.

I don't know how many of those 25mm trail forks were made, maybe just 2?  My
prototype P/R bike (sadly stolen after I sold it) had a 40mm trail fork, Jan's
had a 25mm trail fork.  Beth Hamon (who also sold her prototype) got a 50mm
trail fork.  I don't remember which fork Joel Metz got, and don't know where the
other two prototype bikes went.

alex

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 19:12, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
> But if memory serves me, there's at least a 15mm
> difference between the two slots.

Yes, 15mm is about the minimum with the kind of design I used.

For reference, here is the latest version of the design that I drew
for the dual fork-end, which I think is relatively nice looking in
concept:

http://james.architectureburger.com/cycle/cyclebin/cargo-41.gif

And here is a photo (it looks different from the drawing, as David
Wilson modified the design to accomodate a disc brake on the other
side):

http://james.architectureburger.com/cycle/cyclebin/cargo239.jpg

On another note, crazy kids with these bar spins! Today I saw two kids
on what looked like hipster fixies with short riser bars, but they
surprised me by having freewheels and no brakes. They were slowing
down by dragging their feet. I figured that this is like a combination
of the fixie freestyle craze with the no-brakes freewheel BMX craze. I
wasn't surprised when I passed them by, me on a real fixed gear,
geared lower than theirs at 65". But a few blocks later, one of them
seemed keen to catch up to me, and passed me at over 20 mph. After he
caught me, he started dragging his feet as he approached the next
intersection. Dang crazy kids.

James Black
Los Angeles, CA

On Nov 10, 2009, at 20:12, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...>
wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I think I do, but a waterjet-cut dropout (e.g. James Black's design)
>> is likely to be both simpler and lighter, I reckon.
>
> Certainly simpler and lighter.
>
> But if memory serves me, there's at least a 15mm
> difference between the two slots.
>
> Which renders choices like 45/30 or 40/25.
>
> And I think 35 is the way to go.
>

I vote for 40/25.

30's been done, let's see how low we can go!

Ryan

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...> wrote:

> I think I do, but a waterjet-cut dropout (e.g. James Black's design)
> is likely to be both simpler and lighter, I reckon.

Certainly simpler and lighter.

But if memory serves me, there's at least a 15mm
difference between the two slots.

Which renders choices like 45/30 or 40/25.

And I think 35 is the way to go.

MG

Jim,

I can't get to the tinyurtl link right now, but I did see a photo ( on
a friend of a friends facebook page) of what I think was that exact
fork on a chromed Elevated rear stay trackbike in a window in a  shop
in San Francisco. I assumed it was for freestyle trick bike, bar
spinner in one set up and road riding in another. I think the shop
looked like it was all trendty shirts and maybe called fat****, I
probably can find the photo again tonight when am at home.

Later

Tarik


On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Check out this 2-position fork end!
>>
>> > http://img08.shop-pro.jp/PA01034/855/product/12219519_o2.JPG
>>
>> > from http://tinyurl.com/yfeacs4
>>
>> > Zero or 38mm of offset.  Hmmm.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> That's a wide range.
>>
>> You do get what I mean by bolt-on front dropout, right?
>>
>> I think that would be the ticket.
>>
>
> I think I do, but a waterjet-cut dropout (e.g. James Black's design) is likely
to be both simpler and lighter, I reckon.
>
> That fork I linked to is a trickster-hipster freestyle fixie fork, BTW.  You
move the wheel to the zero-offset position for bar-spin tricks, I think, so it
doesn't matter if the fork is backwards or not.  Like the bikes used in
gymnastic cycling.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Tarik Saleh
tas at tariksaleh dot com
in los alamos, po box 208, 87544
http://tariksaleh.com
all sorts of bikes blog: http://tsaleh.blogspot.com

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...> wrote:
>
> > Check out this 2-position fork end!
>
> > http://img08.shop-pro.jp/PA01034/855/product/12219519_o2.JPG
>
> > from http://tinyurl.com/yfeacs4
>
> > Zero or 38mm of offset.  Hmmm.
>
> Interesting.
>
> That's a wide range.
>
> You do get what I mean by bolt-on front dropout, right?
>
> I think that would be the ticket.
>

I think I do, but a waterjet-cut dropout (e.g. James Black's design) is likely
to be both simpler and lighter, I reckon.

That fork I linked to is a trickster-hipster freestyle fixie fork, BTW.  You
move the wheel to the zero-offset position for bar-spin tricks, I think, so it
doesn't matter if the fork is backwards or not.  Like the bikes used in
gymnastic cycling.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, jim.gourgoutis <jimg@...> wrote:

> Check out this 2-position fork end!

> http://img08.shop-pro.jp/PA01034/855/product/12219519_o2.JPG

> from http://tinyurl.com/yfeacs4

> Zero or 38mm of offset.  Hmmm.

Interesting.

That's a wide range.

You do get what I mean by bolt-on front dropout, right?

I think that would be the ticket.

MG

Check out this 2-position fork end!

http://img08.shop-pro.jp/PA01034/855/product/12219519_o2.JPG

from http://tinyurl.com/yfeacs4

Zero or 38mm of offset.  Hmmm.

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, "rcnute" <rcnute@...> wrote:

Beeswax!

Exactly!  Not what I'd call "elegant," but certainly cheap, light and effective.
That's what I used.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 1:33 PM, justinoaugust <justin@...> wrote:

> Hey Matthew-
> Are there any 700c konversion forks available?

Hi, Justin.

I have some 700C forks with the following specs:

1"
threadless
spaced for 59mm brakes
w/ canti posts
unpainted

they would take a 32mm tire and good fender
like a 365mm Honjo

call for details

Matthew

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Lowe <cyclocrossmechanic@...> wrote:
>
> Stainless bolts are expensive and needlessly heavy. I use nylon screws
> instead. Much cheaper and much lighter. You can get them at any decent
> hardware store that has a Servalite section.
>

How well do they work to fasten a rack in place?

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, "humblecyclist" <bmilam@...> wrote:
>
> My second 559 Kogswell P/R Gen2 is built up with a mix of parts from the parts
bin and some new stuff. My goal was to do an inexpensive built up to use the
bike as a utility bike.
>

Pretty nice!  That front Minoura rack is pretty interesting -- never seen that
before.  Question: what's the fattest tire the 559 P/R will accept?

http://tinyurl.com/yeu6kgt

This is link to photo of my SECOND 559 Kogswell.

My first 559 Kogswell is set up as a city bike with Albatross bars and Nexus Red
Band 8 speed hub, and basket.

My second 559 Kogswell P/R Gen2 is built up with a mix of parts from the parts
bin and some new stuff. My goal was to do an inexpensive built up to use the
bike as a utility bike.

I really like 559 wheel size for the soft ride and durable wheels.

This new  Kogs build up has given me a new desire to ride the Katy trail - a
goal I've not yet accomplished.  The 26 x 1.75 tires should do well on the
crushed limestone rail-to-trail.

...Bill

Hi Bernie,
    Sorry to hear about your endo.
    I'm with the others that the difference in trail is going to make
little to no difference. There is a MTB descending technique that was
common back in the day of all rigid mountain bikes - you would quickly
scoot your rear end off the back of the seat and flatten out your back
to get your center of gravity as low and far back as possible, and
keep your arms relaxed. This was the standard way to avoid going over
your handlebars on bumpy descents back in the Ye Olde Eighties. A
quick google search indicates that its still considered proper
technique:

http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/images/tech-drop2.jpg

http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/trail.html

     Its a useful reflex to develop, and I'm often glad that I got
"into" biking via mountain biking when I was young(er).

     Steve

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM, ranyu2 <ranyu2@...> wrote:
>
> bike. This week I had 6 glorious 10 mile rides in beautiful fall weather. But
the crash got me thinking about what effect--if any-- low trail has on emergency
stopping. At the time of the crash I had an empty porteur rack, no extra weight
on the front of the bike. It seems to me that low trail should actually help one
to stay aboard during an emergency stop, though in this case the braking was so
sudden that there was no way for me not to go over the bars. What is the
thinking on this out there among you Koggers? Low trail with an empty rack? How
about low trail Kogswell carrying a moderate load (U lock, multi-tool, spare
tube) in a bag on the front rack? What, if any, effect would this have on
emergency stops and going over the bars? Thanks for any ideas about this.
>
> Bernie
>
>


--
"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a
habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel
Smiles