Reply to comment


July 26, 2016, 3:07 p.m. -  Nat Brown

#!markdown I think our feeling of what works for us individually is purely subjective, but that doesn't make it unimportant at all. The unfortunate part of that is our objective understanding of what a bike will be like from the numbers is far from complete. There tends to be enough uniformity in bikes these days that judgements made on a subset of geometry numbers falls within a range that often works. An exception would be that full rigid bike reviewed by Omar a month or two ago. (I imagine you recall the review, I'll find you a link if not.) The numbers of that bike diverged from the norm dramatically but it was functional beyond what the contemporary dogma would predict. All the above and my previous comment disregard suspension, but that further complicates things obviously. Horst's design is a good example in isolation. My experience is that many people fall short in understanding the obvious role of the Horst design, including manufacturers in marketing materials. To me that calls into question the understanding within those companies. If the understanding is there, it calls their ethics out. Related; I'm really surprised I haven't seen more discussion about the dw6 link design on that new custom Robot bike out of the U.K. Perhaps I just haven't seen it though, but to me it seems to approach the ideal in terms of objective theory. Imposition? Are you a printer or graphic designer?

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.