Forum menu
Well I've done a bit more maths and in fact if you can lay your hands on a full suss with the pivot point (real or virtual) at the BB axle (Cove G-spot, anything else?), you will not notice any difference. The effect then varies with how high the pivot point is, so it would be big on Oranges etc.
Well I've done a bit more maths and in fact if you can lay your hands on a full suss with the pivot point (real or virtual) at the BB axle (Cove G-spot, anything else?), you will not notice any difference. The effect then varies with how high the pivot point is, so it would be big on Oranges etc.
Yes, with a concentric BB single pivot the force vector from the chain can't generate a moment to counter pedal squat - and has zero chain growth for the same reason, so there's no kickback. But that's the only exception. The latest Demo is a concentric BB pivot Horst Link and the Pole hikes are concentric BB pivot short-link 4-bars and they don't escape the importance of chain ring size.
The effective pivot point is high on lots of modern bikes, partly due to the popularity of 1x - many older designs relied on the extra anti-squat from a granny ring to control bob. Just draw lines through the main links to project the pivot point and even Horst Link designs like the Capra and Patrol have high pivot points.
Umm, according to my model chain tension does generate squat or jack even on something like a G-spot (in any gear other than 1:1). Or to put it more generally, when the chainline is parallel to the (real or virtual) swingarm, chain tension has very little effect on the suspension, the more it deviates the more chain tension will move the suspension.
Also, I think drawing lines through the main links will get you to the height of the instant centre, it won't necessarily tell you about the height of the pivot point of the virtual swingarm, which is what we are interested in.
Anyhow, if I got time I will try to represent my maths mark II on a pretty graph to show you.