Some gentlemen on
Bikerumor (
sic) have been discussing the fact that I don’t know what I’m talking about. This is nothing new.
I mentioned in
my piece on the on-one site that I’d found that the singlepivot system let me make a shorter chainstay bike than a Horst link one, ie: amount of travel achieved until the rear wheel bashes into the seat tube.
This morning, whilst procrastinating various things (and having just signed off my “best frame ever”) I thought I’d fire up Linkage and look again. And it shows just as I thought. With HL pivots in a conventional position (ie: behind the BB and with a dropped chainstay pivot) the rear wheel moves significantly forward through the rear wheels travel. Perhaps this is an anomaly of the rocker link position and geometry I have chosen, but seeing as the bike is designed to run a SINGLE RING there didn’t (to me) see much point in running a dual link design.
Well, that and the fact
Oxley says the proto is “massively rad”.
Posted via email from shedfire’s dumping ground
Mark 12:07 pm on February 28, 2013 | #
if Im reading that right does it show that at full shock compression the rear axle moves an inch forward with the horst link and without it it just moves back a smidge and then forward a smidge?
brant 12:08 pm on February 28, 2013 | #
Yes
Mark 10:04 pm on February 28, 2013 | #
uhuh.
I always thought (*dumbass assumption here*) that horst links were supposed to create a J-shaped axle path (back first, then up) specifically well suited to square-edged trail features….
Do you dont get this kind of complicated bollox on rigid SS dandy-horses do you?
Peter Mac 4:36 pm on March 3, 2013 | #
Dear Him,
firstly, I wish you’d designed this new 29er last year as I now own a Salsa Horsethief, also single pivot.
It functions fine and there is no need to get all caught up in analisations of Horst or any of his bendy mates.
Keep up the jolly work and get on with more creative stuff.
Peter Mac
Boohaa 9:33 pm on April 25, 2013 | #
It is an anomaly of the rocker link position.