Re: [CR]A Baylis TRIKE?

Example: Framebuilding:Restoration

From: Brian Baylis <>
To: "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]A Baylis TRIKE?
References: <>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:29:45 -0700

Harvey and Roy,

I appreciate your guys advice regarding a trike with two front wheels. I know you have my wellbeing in mind. But respectfully, I must resist doing the logical thing in this case. I am familiar with the front wheel trike designs and they are probably the best way to build a trike. But my aim is to build a conventional racing trike; partly on account of it's bad manners. They are a total GAS to ride and it is a bit of a challange. I'm also curious about fixed gear trikes and will be experimenting with them.

I know you guys think I look like Dr. Frankenstein, but I really don't have time for cruel and inhumaine experiments on innoccent tricycles. I'll stick with what I know doesn't work, thank you very much! I have been thinking about rear braking though. Depending on how the axel is set up, I may consider a rear brake system that might be a little bit unusual.

Back to the labatory for some painting.

Brian Baylis La Mesa, CA
> Brian Baylis, amongst the bravest and most experienced of our (motley)
> crew, wrote:
> "With all of this talk of trikes and my mentioning I was thinking about
> another one for myself there have been a few who have suggested I build
> one myself. The topic has come up before in the past at which times I've
> said "no way". Well I finally dicided that there has to be at least one
> built if I want to consider myself a respectable framebuilder. I will
> build one for myself within the next two or so years.
> To that end, I'd like to know if anyone has access to any plans or other
> construction details for racing trikes I could study and benifit from. I
> guess what I'd like is one of the type with Posi-traction rear axel.
> Where can I buy the neccessary bits to make this happen? I'll need hubs
> and rear axel. Maybe one of the conversion kits would be a place to
> start. Actually I'd like one of those also just to have around.
> True to form I will be thinking about some "innovations" in my design.
> Now that I think about it, perhaps a Hetchins style trike would be in
> order! I have a MO lugset, a Hurlow lugset, and an Ephgrave lugset to
> work with. As I write I realize what I must do. GO BANANAS! I might as
> well make the "ultimate trike" since I'm only going to do it once."
> Here's a suggestion I haven't seen yet, probably for some good reason: If
> you're determined to build a trike with bike-type geometry, why not go with
> a pair of front wheels instead of back ones? That would eliminate the need
> for any differential, etc. Use a conventional frame driving a single back
> wheel, and two front wheels. "Proper" design would have a non-turning
> axle, with auto-type steering linkage so the inside wheel could turn
> sharper than the outside, or do it first with a plain old axle with a
> framework carrying it up to a conventional head. We know that
> British-style trikes are not well suited to riding in the US (or anywhere?)
> IMHO, so why not try to improve it?
> Brian also wrote:
> "Anyone have any thoughts about fitting a TA crankset with a quadruple
> chainring?"
> Scott Steketee, in now in Oakland, CA, has used a TA Quad on his Bill
> Boston tandem for a couple of decades now. My memory is that it is all
> half-step, from the days of 5-speed freewheels, but maybe the innermost is
> significantly smaller than the outer three. somehow he was able to space
> things for a quad on the drive side, as well as the transfer cog on the left.
> Your outcomes may vary, neither of these suggestions comes with a
> warranty. But, the two wheels in front idea could be experimented with at
> very low cost. Should corner better than conventional British
> design. Anyone remember (pictures and write-ups) of the 3-wheeled Morgan
> sports cars with that layout? (Obviously, the question is rhetorical,
> since such vehicles are outside our scope for this list).
> harvey sachs
> mcLean va.