Greg Minaar 4:02:45
Rachel Atherton 4:34:69
This feature has 512 comments.
Steve Smith 3.59.59
Rachel Atherton 4.35.83
This feature has 406 comments.
Yeah lets think about the Phrase " Non rear-ward moving travel. Hence a forward rear wheel path, as the bike compresses the rear wheel is shortening the wheel base by travel towards the frame, meanwhile the fork is doing the exact same thing but in a good way, so the wheel base is growing and shrinking constantly which will slow the bike down in bumpy sections. Imagine if your fork had a "non rear-ward moving travel", aka a 105 degree head angle(inverted), now forget about the steering, but imagine how it would absorb bumps, that's essentially what pivoting around the bb is achieving, People know the slacker the head angle the better the fork will work. So why not make the rear wheel have a similar path. This problem though is being done by 95% of manufactures, because rear ward travel path creates chain growth and you need to do something funky with the chain, Aka Balfa or Nico Vouilloz Own brand bike.
This feature has 17 comments.
I think you have the wrong approach! using a shock to counteract a flawed pivot placement design sounds pretty dumb to me. Why not have a properly designed pivot location in the first place. Also no matter how good your shock is it can't change the crappy rear wheel path created by this pivot location.
Pivoting around the bb is a flawed design, pedal bob anyone?? Rotec tried it years ago and fail.
What the....... Must be a german.
This photo has 6 comments.
Front flip at the end won it for me
This video has 9 comments.