Frame Size S M L
A Wheel Base 117.4cm*
46.2" 117.4cm*
46.2" 117.4cm*
46.2"
B Chain Stay 46.9cm
18.5" 46.9cm
18.5" 46.9cm
18.5"
C BB Height 36.8cm
14.5" 36.8cm
14.5" 36.8cm
14.5"
D Head Angle 65° 65° 65°
E Top Tube 61.7cm
24.3"
F Seat Angle 68° 68° 68°
G Size 51.7cm
20.35" 51.7cm
20.35" 51.7cm
20.35"
H Stand Over 80.0cm
31.5" 80.0cm
31.5" 80.0cm
31.5"
18.5" chainstays that will probably grow >2". Dear God, why?
the idler is the one and only idea on that contraption that might actually be worth something.Not to mention an idler below the main pivot point. WHY? It's like an exibition of bad bike design.
Looking at it again yeah maybe but still there are better options out there.honestly i think the idler is the one and only idea on that that might actually be worth something.
yes there will be pedal feedback, but with this kind of construction you can influence that feedback.
might be worth a shot.
anything else on that bike is just wrong...
1st : due to very high pivot location this frame has a lot of anti-squat built in.Not to mention an idler below the main pivot point. WHY? It's like an exibition of bad bike design.
That was only a showroom bike. The carbon rotors had more flex than a piece of paper.
16 pistons, carbon rotors, alloy hats, on a fork with dual external reservoirs? This is like an m4 with tactical-testicles.
Lower COG = better stability. It's not Koolaid, it's physics.It would look kinda cool if you ditched the saddle and integrated some padding into the gray seat tower...
Can someone explain to me why everyone thinks having more weight down by your feet is better than having it in between your knees? Or is it just that kool-aid tastes so sweet?
Have in mind that the real COG is the rider + the bike. The frame is only a small part of that. Lowering the bb means much more than a lower shock/frame.Lower COG = better stability. It's not Koolaid, it's physics.
Oh Physics, that's what it's called! Cheers!Lower COG = better stability. It's not Koolaid, it's physics.
Oh Physics, that's what it's called! Cheers!
True, lower COG does equal better stability. But your physics will have also taught you that a low COG requires higher lean angles and will initiate a corner slower than a high COG. True story.
I'm not saying high COG is better. But I don't say that low COG is necessarily better either. It comes down to rider preference in how he likes his bike to feel. I ride a low COG bike (Legend) and I don't think the COG is giving me any advantage over say a GT Fury with a high COG. And I doubt there are any GT Fury riders that say their bike is unstable or "damn, I wish my COG was lower."
You have to remember these bikes are being made for riders that will say a crankarm 5mm too short or a handlebar .25" too wide will make or break a podium finish.Moving shock from seattower to bb area, changes frame cog around 2" down. Arguing about that is simply stupid, you are not even taking into consideration rider mass...
Right, because all consumers buy all their possessions based on their absolute bare needs and personal requirements. Next time I see a guy driving a Porsche, I should assume he's a racecar driver, right?Yeah, like every1 here and 99% of customers are racers
Yea......that's exactly what I just said...and why not strap 100lb weight to my bb shell? Cmon man... i'm not saying that it has no influence. It has some, but very very small imho.
You missed his point. 2'' in terms of bike CoG is nothing compared to real changes in rider + bike cog. You could probably gain more with a 5mm longer stem that lowers your chest a bit.You have to remember these bikes are being made for riders that will say a crankarm 5mm too short or a handlebar .25" too wide will make or break a podium finish.
Reason and logic can't be applied to racers and their gear selection.
actually, it was something about a porsche driver and his car......Yea......that's exactly what I just said...
You missed his point. 2'' in terms of bike CoG is nothing compared to real changes in rider + bike cog. You could probably gain more with a 5mm longer stem that lowers your chest a bit.
As for bike handling in the air - yes it matters but again - you would need a big difference to feel it. I'm with Troy on that.
always does.thread started out promising and is now getting damn good
nah, a few grams moving about an inch won't change anything...Any thoughts about age related ball drop?
wut45True, lower COG does equal better stability. But your physics will have also taught you that a low COG requires higher lean angles and will initiate a corner slower than a high COG. True story.
Rather than explain the physics behind this, which I'm not sure I can do, I'll give you a real life test. Take a fast corner, hit it Sam hill style, standing proud with high COG. You'll find the bike turns in quickly. Now hit it again, but tucked Steve peat style. Not only will the bike not turn in as easily, but you'll need to give the bike more lean angle. No particular style is quicker, that's governed by other factors. But you don't see too many motocross riders trying to lower their COG in corners do you?wut45
You're forgetting one critical element.......traction. Ever notice how Sam Hill tends to drift more than other guys? That higher COG is causing him to lose a bit more traction.Rather than explain the physics behind this, which I'm not sure I can do, I'll give you a real life test. Take a fast corner, hit it Sam hill style, standing proud with high COG. You'll find the bike turns in quickly. Now hit it again, but tucked Steve peat style. Not only will the bike not turn in as easily, but you'll need to give the bike more lean angle. No particular style is quicker, that's governed by other factors. But you don't see too many motocross riders trying to lower their COG in corners do you?
PS - this has been known, although not necessarily well understood, in motorcycle dynamics for a while now. Although most of the study centers around road racing, where things are a bit different and low COG does help.