[CR]Re: Labor-monobras

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Ideale)

In-Reply-To: <387.8370c5d.31eb4b21@aol.com>
References: <387.8370c5d.31eb4b21@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:43:54 -0700
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "joel metz" <magpie@blackbirdsf.org>
Subject: [CR]Re: Labor-monobras

because it was 1910, still very early in the years of the diamond-frame bicycle, and people would try *anything* to make their frame stronger, lighter, or stand out from the crowd... :) (again, there is nothing new in the world of bikes...)

its called a "truss frame", if i remember correctly - several companies produced them (including iver johnson in the states) - the idea was basically based on bridges and the like - if a truss bridge was stronger than just a straight bridge across something, then why shouldnt a truss arrangement on a top tube of a bicycle be stronger? (note the bridge on the headbadge...)

probably thought to stiffen the frame up a bit, being as theyd removed half the rear triangle - same reasoning, im sure, as the extra mid-stay. whether or not it actually was stronger, who knows.

plus, it gave your frame a distinctive look.


At 03:56 -0400 07.16.2006, StuartMX4@aol.com wrote:
>The Labor-monobras is fascinating and very attractive. Since the same idea
>has been tried on motorcycles and three wheeled cars without any weight
>penalty, it seems logical. But why does the diamond of the frame
>appear to have
>been stiffened up? I can see the point of the 'torque stay' on the
>rear triangle
>but not the curved tube under the top tube.

joel metz : magpie@blackbirdsf.org : http://www.blackbirdsf.org/
bike messengers worldwide : ifbma : http://www.messengers.org/
portland, oregon
i know what innocence looks like - and it wasn't there,
after she got that bicycle...