No Duh, they had no pivot near the rear dropouts(just like the MacMahon in discusion!)
You posted the scapel which has no bb pivot just flexing carbon. And the fuel has a bb pivot. I was keeping up with the convo and am familiar with what you are throwing down. Relax.
Well next time notice how I only put the perenthacied "No pivot by BB" for the cannondale pic, that would intend that I am only stating it for that pic.
Well then you didn't clarify that the fuel was different. As stated before, not trying to get into it with you. I am done.
so the issue here becomes... why do people consider this a good design?
Another plus is the rear suspension naturally gets stiffer the deeper into the travel it gets. This takes a lot of stress off the tiny air shock, and lets the designer use a very short travel.
so the issue here becomes... why do people consider this a good design?
Another plus is the rear suspension naturally gets stiffer the deeper into the travel it gets. This takes a lot of stress off the tiny air shock, and lets the designer use a very short travel.
isnt there high possibility of frame snap tho? aftertime it would weaken and snap right? thatd be my concern
so the issue here becomes... why do people consider this a good design?
Another plus is the rear suspension naturally gets stiffer the deeper into the travel it gets. This takes a lot of stress off the tiny air shock, and lets the designer use a very short travel.
isnt there high possibility of frame snap tho? aftertime it would weaken and snap right? thatd be my concern
It's steel, it doesn't fatigue like aluminum does. It'd be just as durable as any normal frame.