Tony Oliver Cycle Frames

[Barrowman]

Just researching an Article for the National Cycle Museum 'Friends' Publication, after some information on Tony Oliver frames. Seen a few bits and pieces online and know about his book on Touring Cycles.
Anyone out there got any information that might help please?

[rjb]

Ive pmed you

[PT1029]

His touring book is a good read, but his frames and touring book contrast.
In my steering geometry part 1 thread viewtopic.php?p=1663299#p1663299, comments on his touring book and steering geometry include
"I don't know where you are going with this, but you might find it makes more sense if you ignore Tony Oliver"
"Tony Oliver no doubt knew what he was doing but the explanation in his book was a mess!"
Sentiments I agree with.

Regardless of what he put in his book, his frames by all accounts were brilliant - I have never heard 1 bad word said about them.

[jimlews]

His touring book is a good read, but his frames and touring book contrast.
In my steering geometry part 1 thread viewtopic.php?p=1663299#p1663299, comments on his touring book and steering geometry include
"I don't know where you are going with this, but you might find it makes more sense if you ignore Tony Oliver"
"Tony Oliver no doubt knew what he was doing but the explanation in his book was a mess!"
Sentiments I agree with.

Regardless of what he put in his book, his frames by all accounts were brilliant - I have never heard 1 bad word said about them.

I have owned a Tony Oliver touring bike and I have to say that it was the best handling bike I have ever ridden. Loaded or unloaded.
As to his book, there is undoubtedly some ambiguity therein that a good technical proof reader would have winkled out..

The first italicised quote above seems very strange, especially as Tony Oliver undoubtedly could 'do the maths'.

[PT1029]

"The first italicised quote above seems very strange, especially as Tony Oliver undoubtedly could 'do the maths'."

I think this was in reference to his book, which had been referred to in the discussion, rather than his frames.

[rogerzilla]

I think the book reverses the usual meaning of quick and slow steering.

He is correct that an expedition tourer (or any heavily loaded bike) needs neutral steering, like a tandem. Thorn get this right; their bikes are a bit floppy and nasty unloaded, but with a ton of stuff on the back they don't try to wag their tails and throw you off every time you stand up.

[Barrowman]

Interesting aside on Tandems there.

I recall taking part in a sponsored 24 hour Tandem Ride.

The Tandems were:

A short wheelbase Claud Butler
A Bob Jackson Touring Tandem
A vintage Sun with front suspension

The different handling characteristics were marked even though I was relatively young then and not too tuned into handling characteristics

The Sun was particularly challenging, the suspension made the front wheel catch the fork if you tried to go round a corner too quickly . It had rim brakes but I suspect it should have had drum brakes.

[slowster]

I have owned a Tony Oliver touring bike and I have to say that it was the best handling bike I have ever ridden. Loaded or unloaded.
As to his book, there is undoubtedly some ambiguity therein that a good technical proof reader would have winkled out..

The first italicised quote above seems very strange, especially as Tony Oliver undoubtedly could 'do the maths'.

I think it is likely that Tony Oliver's original manuscript was correct, because he clearly understood the theory and how it should best be applied in practice, as demonstrated by how highly regarded the handling of his frames is/was, and his choice of trail/steering geometry to be appropriate for the particular usage, e.g. as evidenced by his comments regarding recommending higher trail for local customers riding steep Welsh moutain roads.

I think it is more likely that someone edited the proofs thinking that Tony Oliver had made a mistake, and which they took it upon themselves to correct without actually checking with Tony Oliver. The relationship of head angle and offset and their resulting impact on trail and handling was not well documented and widely understood outside of the cycle framebuilding and manufacturing community in the 1980s, and I could imagine how a proof reader, who maybe had only a limited or general scientific/engineering background, might in error 'correct' something which they thought was a mistake, especially since to someone unfamiliar with trail the idea that increasing offset makes the steering twitchier is counter-intuitive.

[rogerzilla]

I think there are some people who call the sort of steering you get on a TT bike "quick" because the bike is for racing, and call MTB steering "slow" because, well, it has fat tyres and wallows in mud.

In practice most bikes are built within a fairly small envelope of acceptable steering characteristics and you can get used to most variations within a few hundred yards. I did have a 1950s Holdsworth fork with a manufacturing error (steerer not in straight) that gave it a tiny offset and therefore terribly slow steering. It had to be forced around curves, although it was easy to ride hands-off. In the end I put a different fork on it and it handled perfectly normally.

[Barrowman]

No scientific background to this Rogerzilla but in the past I have ridden on the track , time trials and touring too.
I had a dedicated time trial machine , 37" wheelbase , which did indeed have 'quick' steering and wasn't particularly comfortable for longer rides. ( Pedal overlap etc) . I equated the feel to a dedicated track bike.
I subsequently had a general purpose machine from the same maker that I still have and which I can ride all day . Handles really well , comfortable and perfectly responsive , comparable with another 'Touring' machine I have.

[rogerzilla]

I have a 1969 Harry Quinn track bike with a steep head angle and 50mm fork offset which gives extremely quick steering, again unusual for such a use case. If I walk and push it along by the saddle, it can't self-steer.

[jimlews]

I think the book reverses the usual meaning of quick and slow steering.

The graph on p15 of 'The Book' indicates that for a given head angle, increasing fork offset causes slower steering (and visa-versa) up to certain limits (the limits of stability).

I have determined by real world experiment that this is correct; albeit contradicting present day orthodoxy. I don't know where this orthodoxy originated. Most people point to a Wikipedia post. I'm not sure I would design anything on the basis of a Wiki post.
My experiment was to fit a fork with a greater offset than the standard fork. As the top tube of the machine was horizontal with the original fork and remained horizontal when the new fork was fitted, I can be sure that fork offset was the only thing that changed. The steering was slower with the fork that had greater offset.

My comment in a previous post here about ambiguity concerned small parts of the text. Not the graph, or what TO wrote about it.
IMHO the graph is correct.

[peetee]

Most of the frames I have owned, from touring to Audax and race frames, have steered neutrally. That is to say they all feel very similar to the extent that I don’t need to mentally adjust to the different handling. The only exception is an 853 Claud Butler race frame that, the first time I rode it, I nearly put into the kerb on a left turn because it reacted so quickly.

[rogerzilla]

I think the book reverses the usual meaning of quick and slow steering.

The graph on p15 of 'The Book' indicates that for a given head angle, increasing fork offset causes slower steering (and visa-versa) up to certain limits (the limits of stability).

I have determined by real world experiment that this is correct; albeit contradicting present day orthodoxy. I don't know where this orthodoxy originated. Most people point to a Wikipedia post. I'm not sure I would design anything on the basis of a Wiki post.
My experiment was to fit a fork with a greater offset than the standard fork. As the top tube of the machine was horizontal with the original fork and remained horizontal when the new fork was fitted, I can be sure that fork offset was the only thing that changed. The steering was slower with the fork that had greater offset.

My comment in a previous post here about ambiguity concerned small parts of the text. Not the graph, or what TO wrote about it.
IMHO the graph is correct.

My experience is precisely the opposite, unless your definition of "slower" is "twitchier and harder to ride hands-off", which it may well be.

As you haven't defined "slower", I don't really know what the effect was. I define "slower" as a reluctance to take corners, pronounced lean steer, and great stability when ridden no-hands.

[jimlews]

I think the book reverses the usual meaning of quick and slow steering.

I define "slower" as a reluctance to take corners, pronounced lean steer, and great stability when ridden no-hands.

Pretty much what I found with greater fork offset. A tendency to understeer , a newfound stability when riding no hands - I could steer with my backside , so leaning into corners initiated the turn.