Thread: Frame Geometry
View Single Post
Old 08-11-08 | 08:41 PM
  #12  
Road Fan's Avatar
Road Fan
Senior Member
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 17,197
Likes: 761
From: Ann Arbor, MI

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Originally Posted by Nessism
Seems obvious to me, and obviously you, but the old urban legend that a low bottom bracket "adds stability" is what a lot of people believe.

One of my favorite experiments to make my point is to tell people to take a yard stick and balance it with their palm underneath. After they get the hang of it, I tell them to try the same thing with a 12" ruler; the yard stick is much easier to balance because the CG if further away from the pivot point. This same thing applies to bikes; a high CG is more stable, but harder to turn. Truth be known though, the total range of effective BB heights on bikes is quite narrow so as to make this discussion somewhat unimportant. Interesting internet banter but not overly significant in the real world.
A real confusion point, Nessism! The design with quicker response (low CG) is percieved as more stable!

Personally I think I can feel those differences between my high CG bike, a Woodrup, and the lower CG one, a Mondonico, but I also can't say that CG is the only cause of that handling difference!
Road Fan is offline  
Reply