re: no seat stays
that is what I thought too when I saw the first pic:

I am guessing the one seat stay is there for stiffness/flexing issues???

Ewan

---

Ewan

-------------------------

If Ducati can use a single sided swing arm on a 1198R ,QR can eliminate the drive side seat stay the BB is HUGE.

well it can and has been done already....

QR is half way there :-)

Ewan

---

Ewan

-------------------------

ahh the bp stealth. i used to think that was so cool looking.
then again, i said the same thing about softrides...

i still think it looks cool.... :-)

Ewan

---

Ewan

-------------------------

IDK there still is that pesky wheel there. Maybe keep the stays and put a carbon fairing there. ....DIMPLED....hmmmm. Guess there would be racing legalities there. I still like that they are trying to do something. Seems a bit gimmicky but there are other prototypes so who knows.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

Interesting, but with a chain stay that big, can you not get rid of both?

I don't know anything about aerodynamics, but it seems like the rear seat stays seem less important than a more aero fork/headtube assembly.

Which is the other point, I thought trailing brakes on the fork were a no no.

well i think you are a little biased ;-) how many QR's have/do you own?

Ewan

---

Ewan

-------------------------

I think QR's point here is that there is no need to remove the drive side seat stay. As noted, it's based on the CD .01 frame. That frame already directs airflow to the non-drive side of the bike. Since they've removed the the non-drive seat stay, to the wind, there are none. Yes?

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can eat 21 plus a deep-fried turkey!"

Just 2 for now ;o)

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

What I notice is that the left monostay is MUCH bigger, presumably for stiffness but which might interfere w/ the chain and possibly the crankset and/or RD if it were on the drive side, so the chainstay on that side is smaller/normal-sized, hence the more conventional seatstay as well.

don't you have a giant QR Banner a painted wall.... that has to count for at least 0.25 of a bike!

Ewan

---

Ewan

-------------------------

Ehh.. couldn't sleep, nothing else to do during a taper paint cans laying around and well it looked good behind the bike. At least i thought so :o)

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

The way the brakes are mounted leaves a little to be disired too.

---

Brian

I am reminded (once again) of a comment that my engineer-friend Brian Parr (who used to work for Hooker) once made to me:

"At some point or another, you're just pushing the material around."

(Not that there can't be any aero benefit to doing so...just that there is probably a limit to what you can achieve by doing so.)

I'm sorry to say that the 0.1 has always seemed to me like a product following a marketing pitch. That may be unfair but even if you buy that some of the air is moved over and that doing that lowers resistance compared to giving it a bumpier but straighter shot to the back of the bike I don't think anyone's arguing that ALL the air gets moved. Once you've given up UCI compliance I can't think of a good reason not to go the whole way. Plenty of bikes go without seatstays and I think Cervelo have said that they're only there for show on most of their road bikes (though again that may just be marketing).

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Does the UCI require TWO seat stays? I have no idea. Maybe someone spotted a glitch.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

All the UCI rules are written on the basis that no-one will ever test them. They're just not drafted defensively enough which is the source of most of my frustration with them. That said while I don't believe there is an explicit rule that you need two seat stays, 1.3.020 c) (as an example) clearly assumes that all frames will have seat stays plural.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

put 2 small ones on the right side?

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

Exactly and that's all very clever but the front end seems to be a few years behind the trend, no fancy fork with integrated aerobars or nosecone.
SteveMc

I think they'd argue you then don't have "rear triangles." YOu might argue you do - they're both on one side and one's just bigger than the other but they'd say you have a triangle and a trapezium. As I say -the rules suck

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Agreed, and I don't think any other company has made as big a leap as Trek has with the Speed Concept.

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can eat 21 plus a deep-fried turkey!"

 
Imagine hitting a pothole or nice crack without seat stay's. Second thought imagine hitting it without seatstays and carbon fiber arm. It is not going to be pretty. Maybe on a track but not in the real world. There is a reason that a truss is most of the time a triangle or the parts that make up the truss are triangular. At what point do we disregard safety? Just saying.....

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

I'm not arguing against the strength of a triangle. I'm just saying that many, many bikes have shown that with modern construction the size of "triangle" you get from a built up chainstay is more than enough to ride safely on the road. You simply don't need pencil thin seatstays going all the way up to the top tube intersection - it's a hangover like the idea that all bikes below 6.8kg are unsafe or that you even really need a seattube.

I actually like rules that keep bikes looking like bikes but safety is not the reason.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek