DE19636484A1 - Two-wheel frame and two-wheel fork - Google Patents

Abstract

A frame (1) and a fork (2) are disclosed for motor-driven and non-motor-driven bicycles. With the disclosed frame (1) and fork (2), the wheels are not directly secured on the side facing the ground (7), but a spar-like part which extends from the frame or fork in the direction of the ground (8, 11) is joined to the side of the frame or fork facing the ground (7). An 180 DEG bend (6, 13) is then shaped in this spar-like part, which then extends towards the wheel fastening site (4, 9). The wheel is secured to the wheel fastening site (4, 9) in the conventional manner. The spar-part joined to the frame (1) or fork (2) has a V-like form.

Description

The invention relates to the frame and the fork of motorized and unmotorized two-wheelers on which the wheels of the respective vehicle are attached. These frames are usually designed in such a way that the attachment points of the wheels to the fork or on the frame the deepest parts of the Framework. One initiated via the pedals Impulse that at the attachment point of the drive wheel on Attacks the frame, acts directly on the Focus of the frame.

The invention has for its object a To create two-wheeled frames, which so far the Acceleration of the wheel mass necessary energy ver diminishes.

According to the invention, this object is achieved by that the bicycle frame is expanded by a part that away from the frame past the wheel attachment point extends as far as possible towards the ground. At the end of this part, there is now a second part torque-fixed, which now extends to the usual place of the wheel attachment extends back. At the The end of this part is now the wheel in the usual way and attached to the usual place.

The wheels are in the same place here too connected to the overall frame as in the state of the Technology. Only this point is with the head frame now only over the additional linkage connected.

A forward impulse acting at the wheel mounting location can no longer go straight to the Act on the center of gravity of the wheel. He has to take the detour over the rods extended to the ground do.

The first part can be both in front and behind the wheel mounting location from the frame to the ground extend. The first part and the second part can create a kink together. You can but can also be connected in an arc. The first Part can be in front of or behind the wheel Place of fortification towards the ground. It can  but also, as far as technically possible, from Walk past the bike attachment point. It is important that the turning point of the connected Parts one and two as close as possible to Soil lies and thus the distance of the Turning point to the wheel mounting location as large as is possible.

The acceleration achieved is optimal when the first part very close to the bike mounting location walks past, whether front or back doesn't matter, and if it is almost perpendicular from the frame to the ground extends, and if additionally the reversal point is generated through part one and part two as far as possible lies on the ground. The last request will be only due to the limited off-road capability limited. The closer the turning point gets to the ground approaches, the less such vehicles are for suitable for uneven terrain.

A significant improvement over the state of the Technology is also achieved when the reversal point is noticeably below the line that the conventional wheel mounting types. The two additional parts are so massive cause that an additional spring effect through these parts as far as possible. The statics of this Parts must be based on the driving behavior of the wheel. The improvement in acceleration has static design has no influence.

A significant improvement in acceleration will be both for bicycles and for motorcycles reached. But it also happens with medical elevators to a much improved acceleration performance and thus energy saving.

The application is not limited to two-wheelers. There is always improvement when one similar situation as with two-wheelers is. That four instead of two wheels are attached is meaningless.  

Further details and features result from the following description of in the Drawings shown schematically the two-wheel frame and two-wheeler according to the invention fork.

Show it:

Fig. 1 shows a first embodiment of the bicycle fork and of the bicycle frame,

Fig. 2 shows a second embodiment of the bicycle fork and of the bicycle frame,

Fig. 3 shows a third embodiment of the bicycle fork and of the bicycle frame,

Fig. 4 shows the formation of the two-wheel fork and the two-wheel frame in the prior art.

Fig. 1 shows a side view of a first embodiment of the two-wheeler frame according to the invention ( 1 ). Compared to conventional two-wheel frames, this is extended by a first spar part ( 11 ) which extends as far as possible from the frame past the wheel attachment point ( 9 ) towards the floor ( 7 ). At the end ( 13 ) of this first spar part ( 11 ), which is also the turning point of the first spar part and the point closest to the floor ( 7 ), a second spar part ( 14 ) is now torque-fixedly attached to it, which is now up to the usual Location of the wheel attachment ( 9 ) extends back. At the end of this second spar part ( 14 ) the wheel is now attached in the usual way and at the previously usual place ( 9 ). The location of the wheel attachment point ( 9 ) remains unchanged. Only the wheel attachment point is connected to the frame ( 1 ) only via the spar parts ( 14 ) and ( 11 ). The frame ( 1 ) therefore has no direct connection ( 10 ) to the wheel attachment point ( 9 ).

In the embodiment of Fig. 1, the first spar part extends behind the wheel attachment point to the tread ( 7 ). In this embodiment, the first ( 11 ) and the second ( 14 ) spar part create a kink ( 13 ). The reversal point ( 13 ) of the connected spar parts ( 14 ) and ( 11 ) is very close to the walking floor ( 7 ). The radial distance ( 16 ) between the tread ( 7 ) and the reversal point ( 13 ) is small. It ( 16 ) should be less than 80% of this distance in relation to the distance of the tread ( 7 ) to the wheel attachment point ( 9 ).

Fig. 1 shows a side view of an embodiment of the two-wheel fork ( 2 ). Compared to conventional two-wheel forks, this is extended by a first spar part ( 8 ) which extends as far as possible from the frame past the wheel attachment point ( 4 ) towards the floor ( 7 ). At the end ( 6 ) of this first spar part ( 8 ), which is also the reversal point of the first spar part and the point closest to the floor ( 7 ), a second spar part ( 5 ) is now torque-fixed to this, which is now up to the usual Location of the wheel attachment ( 4 ) extends back. At the end of this second spar part ( 5 ), the wheel is now attached in the usual manner and at the previously usual location ( 4 ). The location of the wheel attachment point ( 4 ) remains unchanged. Only the wheel attachment point is connected to the frame ( 1 ) only via the spar parts ( 5 ) and ( 8 ). The frame ( 1 ) therefore has no direct connection ( 3 ) to the wheel attachment point ( 4 ).

In the embodiment of Fig. 1, the first spar part ( 8 ) behind the wheel attachment point ( 4 ) extends to the tread ( 7 ). The first spar part ( 8 ) can also extend in front of the wheel attachment point ( 4 ) to the reversal point of the additional spar part ( 6 ) and thus to the point closest to the tread.

In this embodiment, the first ( 8 ) and the second ( 5 ) spar part create a kink ( 6 ). The point of reversal ( 6 ) of the connected spar parts ( 5 ) and ( 8 ) is very close to the walking floor ( 7 ). The radial distance ( 15 ) between the tread ( 7 ) and the reversal point ( 6 ) is small. It ( 15 ) should be less than 80% of this distance in relation to the distance of the tread ( 7 ) to the wheel attachment point ( 4 ).

The same details are given the same reference numerals in FIGS . 2, 3 and 4 as in FIG. 1, so that it is not necessary to describe all these details again in detail in connection with FIGS. 2, 3 and 4.

Fig. 2 differs from Fig. 1 only in that the first spar part ( 11 ) in front of the Radbe fastening point ( 9 ) extends to the turning point ( 13 ).

Fig. 3 differs from Fig. 1 only in that there is no clear kink at the junction of the first spar part ( 11 ) with the second spar part ( 14 ). The first spar part ( 11 ) does not extend in a straight line but in an arcuate manner to the point closest to the running track, which is also referred to as a reversal point ( 13 ).

Fig. 4, which documents the prior art, differs from Figs. 1, 2, and 3 in that the additional spar parts ( 11 ), ( 14 ), ( 8 ) and ( 5 ) are missing. There is a direct connection between the wheel attachment points ( 9 ), ( 4 ) and the two-wheeled frame ( 1 ).

Claims (9)

1. two-wheel fork, characterized in that the fork extends away from the wheel mounting location in the direction of the tread, and that it then changes its extension in the direction of the steering wheel. 2. two-wheel fork, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread the fork linkage is less than 80% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel attachment point. 3. two-wheel fork, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread the fork linkage is less than 50% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel attachment point. 4. two-wheel fork, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread the fork linkage is less than 30% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel attachment point. 5. two-wheel frame, characterized, that the frame from the bike mounting location in Stretched away towards the tread, and that he first then its extension towards the main frame changes back. 6. two-wheel frame, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread to the frame is smaller than 80% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel mounting point. 7. two-wheel frame, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread to the frame linkage is less than 50% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel mounting point. 8. two-wheel frame, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread to the frame linkage is less than 30% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel attachment point. 9. two-wheeled or two-wheeled vehicle, characterized, that the shortest radial distance from the tread the fork linkage is less than 80% of the radial Distance from the tread to the wheel attachment point, and that the shortest radial distance from the barrel floor to frame linkage is less than 80% of the radial distance from the tread to the wheel fixture adjustment point.