Pyromancer wrote:
> That looks rather a lot more work than the Cruzbike though. And while
> the drawbacks of full-sus 99quid supermarket specials are well known, I
> get the impression one of the major ones (pedal energy being wasted in
> bounce) are in fact overcome by the Cruzbike FWD arrangement.
I can't really see why FWD should be any better than rear in this
respect. The main problem with suspension of cheapy y-frames is the
basic sus units are cheese and poorly specified and designed cheese at
that. A lot of the excessive bob you get in Y frame "MTBs" is, I
suspect, due to basically no damping in the shockers...
> Are there any significant advantages / drawbacks to a FWD bike over an
> RWD one?
Good: less length of transmission, generally with no need for idlers, so
the drive should be a little more efficient and easier to keep in trim.
Bad: the transmission is made less efficient any time you turn the
steering as you either have to bend the chain sideways (if the cranks
and front wheel are not on the same bit of frame) or bend your legs
sideways (if they are on the same bit of frame); there is more chance of
loss of traction on steep hills with FWD; usually very ugly :-(
Some people have suggested the "obvious" answer to the sideways bending
of chains/legs is steer the rear wheel and while this is fine in theory
a Mike Burrows answer to "why don't people do this?" query in C+
suggested that theory aside, practice usually involved such machines
being ridden by folk called Koko with big feet and red noses.
In practice, as with many things 'bent, either approach can be used to
make a good bike and it's just one factor in many that combined with all
the others will make a diamond, a pig's ear, or (more often) something
between.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
