the grand-mal is adjustable. this is not. betcha it weighs much less too.what was wrong with the grand-mal?
yup, I don't think they could have gotten a higher COG.I like the shorter stays, but dont like the shock being mounted so high.
i think they had to put the hole in to get around some patent.That said, it's a matter of degree and a low COG should not come at the expense of, say, putting a huge hole in your downtube. (<cough cough GIANT cough>)
Hahaha, nice.You mean... The infamous Giant Boner??? I saw a full-frontal pic one time of one manualing toward the camera...I still feel dirty...*sob,sob*sniff* it was pointed right at me! I must shower now...again...
low centre of gravity also makes for a much more stable feeling bike, and standover is huge, I love how I can throw my bb7 around and not bash my knees off the 'toptube'.......I don't know how you could think things that so greatly affect handling could be insignificant over the things you listed.......if the ride quality is diminished, CS and price don't mean sh!t....I'm surprised people make such a big deal about COG on a frame when their entire upper body is above the top tube...I have a bigger problem with what looks like a pretty high standover than the actual COG. Sure lower COG is better, but I'd say that geometry, frame weight, suspension design, customer service and price trump that...I'm holding out judgement until we see a final version.