Forum menu
[img]
[url]
Blimey.
Tell me again what the point of elevated chainstays is?
That's so wrong it might just be right!
Tell me again what the point of elevated chainstays is?
Well, one advantage is that it allows for shorter chainstays, tucking the wheel a little closer to the BB. Could be an advantage with the phatnezz.
Ahh, I see! Not sure about that here, because the limiting factor in the BB to hub distance is the seat tube. But I do see the point, if you had that fat stay junction at the BB, you'd need the crank arms a foot wide!
So: fair enough, carry on.
And the stays are the shortest length they can be, joining the seat tube at right angles. Don't know whether that means less material is needed, must be offset by needing a bit more beef as there's less advantage from triangulation.
designed and built by cynic-al by the looks of it
designed and built by cynic-al by the looks of it
My first thoughts too.
Though they've done a betterer job of hiding the spoons. 😛
Tell me again what the point of elevated chainstays is?
The chain doesn't pass through the frame, so it doesn't need to be split/rejoined to be installed.
So fitting a Belt drive might be easier.
^^^ and that one's got adjustable drop-outs too making that sort of thing more likely, combined with a hub gear.
😡
Just been a little bit sick in my mouth...
Not entirely convinced that putting bending loads straight into the middle of a tube is a good idea. Triangles are triangular for a reason.........
Fisher did some like that in 1992 IIRC - they all broke right at the chainstay/seat tube join.