Home » blogs » Arthur's blog

Low CoG limitations reply

Submitted by Arthur on 2 October, 2005 - 5:38pm.

Low CoG limitations reply. This is a reply to David Botting's paper with my comments inserted.

AttachmentSize
Low CG design limitations edited.doc60 KB
» Arthur's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ian's picture

I was looking forward to some

Submitted by Ian on 3 October, 2005 - 9:42am.

I was looking forward to some interesting debate on this. looks like you skirted around, ignored or confused most of the points being made. Congratulations. Oh well.

Which points have been skirted, ignored?

Of Arthur's reply, what is confused and is therefore not correct?

» login or register to post comments
David_botting's picture

I was looking forward to some

Submitted by David_botting on 3 October, 2005 - 7:50am.

I was looking forward to some interesting debate on this. looks like you skirted around, ignored or confused most of the points being made. Congratulations. Oh well.

The article was not meant to say 'All high CG bikes are better in every respect than all low CG bikes'. I thought the title was the givaway on that. I hoped that the article at least added balance to the issue of CG height, if it wasn't totally balanced itself.

I'm pleased that your bike gives you the results you want. Thats the really important thing at the end of the day isn't it?

David.

» login or register to post comments