[Jimmy_Pop]

... nice to see someone cutting their own path. Hope it all works.

He's been cutting that path for along time.

Coincidence that alot of modern bike design looks like his old stuff ? i think not.

 

[kiwiintexas]

Damn I want one.

 

[dante]

is that 2 chains instead of just a pulley? If so, and you can vary the gear ratios by the two pulleys at the pivot point, then I'd say you can definitely do 12.5 or so as long as you can arrange it for a 30 or 32t chainring (and bashguard), or even smaller. I don't usually clip pedals, but even my 36t bashguard has taken a POUNDING.

 

[RD]

is that 2 chains instead of just a pulley? If so, and you can vary the gear ratios by the two pulleys at the pivot point, then I'd say you can definitely do 12.5 or so as long as you can arrange it for a 30 or 32t chainring (and bashguard), or even smaller. I don't usually clip pedals, but even my 36t bashguard has taken a POUNDING.

I remember one you showed me this summer. It was awesome.

 

[ÆX]

is that 2 chains instead of just a pulley? If so, and you can vary the gear ratios by the two pulleys at the pivot point, then I'd say you can definitely do 12.5 or so as long as you can arrange it for a 30 or 32t chainring (and bashguard), or even smaller. I don't usually clip pedals, but even my 36t bashguard has taken a POUNDING.

exactlly my thought on it. if i am going to a 13.5 bb it will work.

i posted 12.5 but its 13.5

 

[ÆX]

Even making it from carbon I'd be worried that you have no strength in the front end - you've got a virtual pivot where the tubes cross as there's no triangulation. I know it's a "using big wheels and still getting the front end low" thing but I'd imagine it will be heavier for a given strength/flex than it could be if you used proper triangles.

Good work though, nice to see someone cutting their own path. Hope it all works.

yeah, you are right but i am willing to sacrifice some weight for
asthetics. the second pic hasa 8mm bolt in there that will help.

 

[Cloxxki]

Looks great!
Is there no room for larger pulleys? Such small ones, and so many all between pedals and rear wheels, seems like it will take away from the point of pedaling almost? Higher toothcount noticably improves pedaling, and wear.

 

[ÆX]

what i am trying to do is gain ground clearnace by running as small
of a crank tooth as possible, then making it up back to the rear wheel
from the pivot point. there are no pulleys really, its a two chain bike.

 

[JohnnyC]

i agree to an extent. my pdc slammed was running a bb height of 13.5". while this was fine on smoother stuff, i found it detrimental in some of the knarlier sections - limiting pedalling opportunities and sometimes line selection. clipping pedals & augering chainguides gets old. raising things up a bit seemed more beneficial overall than having a very slightly lower cg. of course this is dependent on the tracks you're riding - some people can get away with the super lowriders. having bb adjustability is a good thing (ie, like orange's shock shuttles).

Once sagged, the BB won't drop as much on a high pivot bike as a one with a low pivot, 13.5" could be doable in that case but I wouldn't want any lower, 13.75 would be a nice safe height.

 

[ÆX]

Once sagged, the BB won't drop as much on a high pivot bike as a one with a low pivot, 13.5" could be doable in that case but I wouldn't want any lower, 13.75 would be a nice safe height.

in the past i have road 14.5 with 9'' and half sag.
with this bike i want it to be quicker with more finesse.
stiffer with less travel, something you can't set up your bike
with, you need to have the geometry Incorporated in the
bike travel sag to you get the geo you want.

might even go to 1/4 sag but i am thinking 1/3 will be good.

with the way the shock plates bolt to the frame a 1/4 or rear
height is no problem