Old 02-21-19, 05:28 PM
  #16  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 964
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 434 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Andrew R Stewart View Post
Anecdotal stories like the Ron Boi low BB bike being this or that without more geometry data is of little real information. No mention of weight placement (front or rear centers), steering angle or trail and the seat/bars relative position WRT his previous bike. Like has been said before- taking one geometry element and trying to associate it with some greater result can be a fool's errand. Andy
I could agree with all that. So try it a slightly different way. The range of BB drop in current production bike is minute. Even full custom bikes currently produced stick to a small range. The range in bikes that have been built and have ridden well is large. Or larger at least. This alone is reason enough to try something different.

Or. Lowering the bottom bracket a full inch (current norm to the RRB mentioned) will lower center of gravity. Vehicles with low center of gravity tend to corner better. Will this apply to bicycles? Gee, it might be interesting to find out.

Or. Aero is everything when you want to go fast. Riders are willing to do crazy stuff, spend all their money on wind tunnel tests, wear Darth Vader helmets. Do you think sitting an inch closer to ground might be aero? Do you think maybe when drafting another rider being an inch lower might tuck you into that rider's slipstream a little tighter? Do you think if it's a rider you ride with all the time it might be possible to notice a change, and have that change be real even with no numerical data?

The gist of previous text was experimentation is good. If the issue at hand is BB drop and you have no data, then make some data. There is enough anecdote to justify an experiment. There is no good reason to shut down discussion because I didn't hand you a blueprint and a wind tunnel report.
63rickert is offline