Thanks very much gentlemen, you both make a lot of sense. I hope you don't mind if I ask some follow on questions that I hope are useful to the discussion?
Both my pull-down spring mod and this mod are designed to reduce the probability of tankslappers, so allowing softer springs to be used safely.
But as tankslappers are thankfully very rare anyway, how can we know if we have succeeded?
Is there anything in the handling of the revised geometry bike that lends support to this view?
I can see that reducing the amount and the variation of trail has improved the responsiveness. Is the steering also lighter at very slow (near walking) speed? That is something I would particularly appreciate, as it is embarrassing how much I weave and wobble!
I fully buy the argument that better & more predictable geometry allows softer springing with the concomitant benefits for grip as well as comfort. Colin Chapman conclusively demonstrated it! But we are still up against the basic physics that the shorter the distance over which a impact is absorber, the higher the average resultant force. Careful tuning of spring-dampers helps enormously, but all things being equal if you reduce suspension travel the bump transmitted to the rider must be greater.
So every mm of travel gained is of benefit, but I am unclear if there is still an intention to test with a longer damper?
As I said earlier, I think I can make a case that the bottom link horizontal position may not be the watershed it is always assumed to be. If I am right, not testing with a longer damper might be a missed opportunity to create a mod that is even more widely appreciated.
Slightly off topic: Norman, can you recall if the Cadwell road repair was across or parallel to the track?
Both my pull-down spring mod and this mod are designed to reduce the probability of tankslappers, so allowing softer springs to be used safely.
But as tankslappers are thankfully very rare anyway, how can we know if we have succeeded?
Is there anything in the handling of the revised geometry bike that lends support to this view?
I can see that reducing the amount and the variation of trail has improved the responsiveness. Is the steering also lighter at very slow (near walking) speed? That is something I would particularly appreciate, as it is embarrassing how much I weave and wobble!
I fully buy the argument that better & more predictable geometry allows softer springing with the concomitant benefits for grip as well as comfort. Colin Chapman conclusively demonstrated it! But we are still up against the basic physics that the shorter the distance over which a impact is absorber, the higher the average resultant force. Careful tuning of spring-dampers helps enormously, but all things being equal if you reduce suspension travel the bump transmitted to the rider must be greater.
So every mm of travel gained is of benefit, but I am unclear if there is still an intention to test with a longer damper?
As I said earlier, I think I can make a case that the bottom link horizontal position may not be the watershed it is always assumed to be. If I am right, not testing with a longer damper might be a missed opportunity to create a mod that is even more widely appreciated.
Slightly off topic: Norman, can you recall if the Cadwell road repair was across or parallel to the track?