PMK

I can't really answer the exact question, but compare this to weighting the outside footpeg. The result obtains more side bite on the tires. Weighting the inside footpeg unloads the sidebite.

If you lower the BB (or footpegs) within a reasonable range you can corner better with no other changes.

The post above, where the body was lowered but not the BB flipped to the low position is purely a CG change. The idea posted of less direct dimension change when leaning into a turn makes sense with less inertia to slow when uprighting.

Lowering the BB would also lower the CG, as for lowering the center of rotation, I would still expect that to remain the tire contact point since these vehicles have no real suspension to work roll centers. I'm probably wrong with the term, but moving the BB and weighting the outside pedal moves the instantaneous center of mass to the outside, since it unweights the inside leg. This places more weight over the inside of the tire.

Also, the turning of the bars will alter the instantaneous trail dimension which in a proper design of geometry will add sidebite to the tire also. This is the reasoning behind so much testing with motocross and woods riders to find the best offset on triple clamps. In this case 2mm change in offset is a large change in trail dimension, resulting in more or less front bite, and different weighted feel to the bars.

Crown offset and how they angle fork tubes on a mountain bike can also be effected. Very few if any riders worry about fork offests and trail dimension. They are more concerned with clickers and weight. The one person I am aware of that took this stuff serious was Keith Bontrager and had RockShox make special crowns for him and the bikes he built. There are a few other OEMs that have followed this, but it may have been based on KB pushing it since he and Fisher are under the same roof.

PK