All

I'm just waiting for the usual Dougal Crash out - which happens every single time someone disagrees with him regardless of who's right. 😏 - Popcorns in the microwave

It doesn’t matter if they are tip to tip, tip to tail, or tail to tail so long as they are in the correct orientation because vectors are summed based on their components. Same goes for gravity. It’s broken down into components in that diagram such that everything is parallel or perpendicular and can be summed easily. Go look up the FBD of a car braking. This is basic stuff. Static is essentially the same as setting the coefficient of friction to tan(theta) so you’re changing a relationship to that is fundamental to the problem by looking at that. D'Alembert's...

How they are positioned on a piece of paper only impacts the end result if you create the summed vector by tracing a line from the first tail to the last tip. But I’m not tracing lines so it doesn’t matter. There are only four numbers to plug in. It doesn’t necessitate a spread sheet. I’ve thrown countless numbers into it that I’ve listed here before. I can come up with weight distributions and friction values that will give pretty much any weight shift imaginable. There’s no point. This was all to show that with a rearward weight bias it’s...

That said, if you use an initial distribution of 2/3 on the rear wheel, a CG height of 1000, a wheelbase of 1299, and a coefficient of friction of 0.5, you get 28% of weight on the rear wheel under max braking regardless of angle.

Now if I put in an initial distribution of 0.78, CG height of 650, wheelbase of 1299, and coefficient of friction of 0.5 I get 0.53… there are four variables. I’m pretty sure we don’t ride around fixed to our bikes in one position. You can get even higher if you go with something actually slippery for friction like 0.2.

Lmao

We got 2 weeks out of him guys, kind of proud of Dougal here for lasting so long without a diatribe of rhetorical baiting.

Welp, we had a good run here at Vital didn't we.

Stop using AI for frivolous shit.

Shut the fuck up about drivetrain efficiency. Holy shit. Go find a different thread.

I think this is a great valid question. Here's my two cents on how to make a bike flickable/playful/poppy/unstable (four words that mean basically the same thing in MT : 1. Shorter chainstays. This has been beaten to death. 2. Higher BB. As others have said, your bike is more stable front to back when your feet are below the axles, and less stable when your feet are above them. 3. Smaller wheels. A mullet is more "flickable" than a 29" bike, and a dual 650 bike is going to be more unstable than a mullet bike. 26" bikes are king...

The changes to the B1 all seems like a response to issues people had with the A1 without admitting it. And the biggest complaint of all, "the lever is too hard to pull" confounds me to this day. Really? I think the A1 line is preferrable in this chart, at least it's unique to other options an not similar like the B1?

So they don’t use a control pad or a control rotor? Their test setup photos don’t look like they properly apply the force to the pocket of the brake lever either. Junk science all around IMO.