View Single Post
Old 05-12-2011, 08:14 PM   #70 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
^I agree on all counts.

MK I had a purity of design that MK II lacks. But while it looked better sitting there in the pic, it was much more difficult to ride- to the point of unpleasantness- and it wouldn't accomodate a streamliner shell. Now the pics of MK I are all that remain of it in that form. I could certainly duplicate it but I don't want to and unless one moves the seat up near the headtube ala Cruzbike, it's not a user-friendly layout.

The long frame tubes stiffen right up when I put little brace tubes between 'em. It's amazing how effective those little braces are; the frame was so springy it was like a suspension component without 'em. I'm not through hacking and tacking yet and you are exactly right, I plan on putting two more in there.

The 20" tires may or may not roll harder than the 26"ers. For sure the front tire is not a low r.r. design; but the back one might be OK. The main criteria for my tire choices at this juncture was that they hold air. I do have some nice fancy-dancy all-aluminum BMX wheels waiting in the wings if R.R. MKII progresses to where I think it deserves them, and if they go on I would probably BUY some NEW tires!!!
__________________


  Reply With Quote