Weight distribution

Lowell

100 kW
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver
I tried mounting two battery packs on the down tube, right in front of my knees and the handling on my bike went to shit. Death wobble at 65km/h. Weight distribution checked in at 56r/44f, but it for sure didn't feel right. I shifted the batteries rearwards to 60/40 and that helped a lot. No shakes at 70km/h, but if I bump the bars to induce wobble, I can tell it's still there.

Now is that something inherent in flexi bicycle frames, or should I try more weight rearwards? The X5 probably adds almost 20lbs to the weight of the rear wheel... should that weight be counted towards the front/rear weight balance for handling? The bike felt most stable with a battery pack mounted on the rear carrier, giving a CG behind the bottom bracket.

It's too bad about the poor handling with the batteries on the down tube. I had made an ABS fairing that wraps around flush with the outside of my lower legs, and the bike felt noticeably quicker past 50km/h. No wind on the legs either which is nice. Unfortunately when it came time to stop, much wobbling ensued :shock:
 
Initially I placed all 37 lbs of box and batteries on the rear rack. The wobble above 30mph was intolerable. I could only safely go 28mph or so. I've since split that ~40lbs of weight (not including the rear x5) 50/50 between the rear rack and midframe. Now, the bike is nice and stable to 35mph. But any faster and it starts to wobble once more. It feels like the weight on the rear (maybe wheel, maybe batteries on the rack, maybe both I don't know) goes into a "resonance" with the front of the bike, kind of a 'tail wagging the dog' phenomenon. Trying other configurations would take way too much time and effort for probably very limited benefit.
I get the sense that flexible bike frames are only good for 35-50mph before resonance effects caused by road and wind vibrations overcome the bike's stability.

That's great you made a fairing already. Was it difficult?
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the more weight you have on the front wheel, the more "energy" it takes to correct this with your arms and then the death wobble is more likely to happen. The lighter the front, the more control you have over the front wheel and thus can prevent or correct for any wobble.

I've seen it happen to motorcycles where they go so fast the death wobble starts and the biker crashes, very painful.
 
xyster said:
I get the sense that flexible bike frames are only good for 35-50mph before resonance effects caused by road and wind vibrations overcome the bike's stability.

I wanted to add, the wheel size makes a difference as well. The larger the wheel, the more energy it takes to "unbalance" it due to centripetal force. So larger wheels become more stable at high speeds than smaller wheels. I know that my old 26" e-bike was feeling unstable once I got about 25 mph on it, but my current e-bike with really large 700C wheels feels rock solid well past 40 mph.
 
The larger the wheel, the more energy it takes to "unbalance" it due to centripetal force.

If true, then why are motorcycles stable to 100+mph with smaller diameter wheels than bicycles?
 
:arrow: You need to worry about frame flex.

Motorcycles once had terrible problems with frame flex until they realized it was really important to solve. The bicycle frames as they are really aren't designed to deal with the added weight of batteries and to try to do the stuff I do on my bike at 40+ mph would probably send you to the hospital.

If you plan to get serious about speed you're also going to have to get serious about design. The standard bicycle will never be a good platform for heavy batteries.

You would actually be better off "wearing" your batteries in a backpack literally on your back. That way the forces that are transmitted through your bike as it takes loads will remain in the areas that the bike was designed for.
 
Flex and resonance is indeed the problem. I goess some of the heavy duty downhill mountain bikes might make ideal e-bike platforms as they are very solidly built. 1.5" steer tubes look pretty beefy.
 
I've had my norco to 65 once,, stable as it gets. 24" front .. 20" rear.

My bike has alot of rake the way it's setup, and my wheels are perfectly true.. this makes a difference.

God.. i hope your life insurance is paid up ! :lol:

I understand your insanity, i enjoy every minute of my own.. but bicycles should not travel this fast on level ground !!!! :twisted:
 
xyster said:
The larger the wheel, the more energy it takes to "unbalance" it due to centripetal force.

If true, then why are motorcycles stable to 100+mph with smaller diameter wheels than bicycles?

Heavier wheels vs. larger diameter wheels. Take a bicycle wheel and spin it on the axle. Then try to rock it side to side while it's spinning, you'll feel the "force" resisting the rocking motion. The same thing with heavy wheels, more mass, more momentum you have. Since bicycle wheels are very light compared to a motorcycle wheel, you have to make up for mass with speed.
Throw in E=MC² and basically speed and mass can interchange to influence the energy an object has. Be it moving forward or in a circle.

Thus the larger bicycle wheel (700C) has the outside "spinning" faster than say a 20" wheel even though may be close in weight. So a 20" wheel spinning at 1 revolution per second has less energy than a 700C wheel spinning at 1 revolution per second because the 700C wheel has to spin faster and cover more distance within the same second. So the 700C wheel has more energy than the 20" wheel even though they spin at the same speed.

Now, you would think that since the larger wheel has more energy that it would be the first to become unstable, but because you can neither create nor destroy energy, you must convert instead. The 700C wheel has a translation of energy to movement based on the angle that you tilt. Since a small tilt in a 20" wheel translates to a much larger tilt in a 700C wheel, then it would take more energy to tilt the 700C wheel than the 20" by the same angle of degree. When you apply this to the road, when riding the bike as you sit on the seat you can use your body to tilt the bike to either side. We do this subconsciously when riding to keep the bike steady. As the bike increases in speed, so does the energy. Provided that you compare properly balanced 20" wheels and 700C wheels then in a perfect world, it wouldn't matter. Both wheels would perform just fine. The problem arises from the fact that the road is never perfectly flat nor is the wheel always perfectly balanced. The higher the speed you achieve, the more those imperfections will make themselves know to the rider. Once you hit a certain speed, the imperfections become to great as to destabilize the rider and a resulting crash in which someone gets hurt.

So basically, a decent 700C wheel may allow higher speed than a decent 26" wheel only because the 700C wheel allows more tolerance to the environment because of it's larger size and physics lending a hand to counteract the imperfections in the riding environment.

This of course means nothing if you have a messed up wheel no matter what the size.

Looking back maybe my answer got a bit off. A wheel can be though of like a gyroscope. The faster it spins, the more stable it is. The problem with a bicycle doing 100+MPH is that the wheel isn't designed to do this. The reflector in the bicycle wheel already causes "bounce" because the wheel is off balance. But since bicycles aren't "suppose" to go that fast, you don't worry about it at low speeds. The bicycle wheel just isn't designed for the "energy" it will attain at such high speeds and either will break apart under the force or "wobble" due to imperfections in the way it is designed until someone has a bad crash.

Motorcycle wheels are designed with much higher speed in mind, so you won't see lightweight wheel with things on it that will unbalance it at high speed. The wheels have to be stronger because of the energy they will attain at such higher speeds. It's true, you could build a motorcycle with wheels as large as a 700C bicycle (I've seen some chopper bikes with wheels this big), but it's often easier to add more mass with a heavier wheel than to make some huge "lighter" wheel.
 
it's often easier to add more mass with a heavier wheel than to make some huge "lighter" wheel.

This would be another benefit to the dual hubmotor solution. I understand the basics of gyroscopes and why bicycles stay upright in motion in the first place and I'm sure your explanation has some merit. But as I go faster, I can really feel a back-wagging-front motion I don't think wheel mass accounts for, though it may counteract. BTW, E=MC^2 is only pertinent to nuclear reactions where mass is actually being destroyed by conversion to energy. Until Mr. Fusion (or Fission) comes into being, no mass is being converted on an ebike. To my knowledge (10 years after college, B.S. in biochemistry), mass is not converted to energy in electrochemical reactions like in batteries. It's all about shuttling electrons around, not creating or destroying them.
 
It is indeed a resonance plus flex effect.
A wooden spoked Model T wheel, rim and tire (30" overall diameter)
weighs upwards of seventy pounds.
The tie rod between the two wheels (which pivot on inclined spindle bolts)
can be flexy or rigid (stock is hollow, flexible. Mine was custom solid rod)

IF when starting up, and reaching eight mph, whilst making a turn, IF any tiny bump were encountered= horrible shimmy, self-sustaining and growing worse with speed once it started.
You'd have to stop the car to kill the "wabble".

Now, by introducting some loss in the system by means of a VW hydraulic damper, my car would never shimmy again.

But what does this speak of for the bike? Nothing directly.
For a "flexy" (lossy? or is that -springy-) frame may exacerbate,
or -damp- a shimmy. It's a complex set of variables.

Light wheels, heavy wheels, large diameter, small diameter (shopping carts): all can be made to wobble under certain conditions of set up and circumstance.

I have so little bike experience myself. My stiff steel Currie cruiser, with springer front fork, fat 26" tires, hard tail, could never shimmy--of that I"m pretty sure.

Most of my bike's weight is on the rear. About 70/30 I guess.
I like this for braking efficiency. Weight transfer to front on braking,
plus the fat front slick, give really good front brake power; so I don't use the rear brake much at all (like most, I guess).
 
It is indeed a resonance plus flex effect as noted already, yes?
The forward motion of the bike affords the energy. The situation is self-powered by the bike's movement, and so, propagates violently.

As kids we'd find we could power our bikes along slowly by simply swerving the steering L to R. No pedaling needed to go at a walking speed that way.

Wheel "Wabble" was the bane of early automobiles
A wooden spoked Model T wheel, rim and tire (30" overall diameter)
weighs upwards of seventy pounds.
The tie rod between the two wheels (which pivot on inclined spindle bolts)
can be flexy or rigid (stock is hollow, flexible. Mine was custom solid rod)

IF when starting up, and reaching eight mph, whilst making a turn, IF any tiny bump were encountered= horrible shimmy, self-sustaining and growing worse with speed once it started.
You'd have to stop the car to kill the "wabble".

Now, by introducting some loss in the system by means of a VW hydraulic damper, my car would never shimmy again.

But what does this speak of for the bike? Nothing directly.
For a "flexy" (lossy? or is that -springy-) frame may exacerbate,
or -damp- a shimmy. It's a complex set of variables.

Light wheels, heavy wheels, large diameter, small diameter (shopping carts): all can be made to wobble under certain conditions of set up and circumstance.

I have so little bike experience myself. My stiff steel Currie cruiser, with springer front fork, fat 26" tires, hard tail, could never shimmy--of that I"m pretty sure.

Most of my bike's weight is on the rear. About 70/30 I guess.
I like this for braking efficiency. Weight transfer to front on braking,
plus the fat front slick, give really good front brake power; so I don't use the rear brake much at all (like most, I guess).
 
I've moved one of the 24v 18Ahr batteries to the rear carrier. After giving the bike a shake test again in the garage, the rear carrier can be seen to oscillate slightly. I tilted the carrier forward as much as possible so the battery almost touches the seat post, and tied the pack to the post and seat rails. Much more rigid now, and most of the lateral flex appears to be coming from the sidewalls of the 26x1.95 rear knobby.

That tire is slowly turning into rubber dust, as I've been doing frequent burnouts on the concrete garage floor :) I'll probably replace it with a 26x1.5" wet/dry road tire.
 
You guys are all way off!

Light wheels are a GOOD THING!!!

Weight in the wheels of any kind is called "unsprung weight" and it's always considered a bad thing. (it makes wobbles worse)

What you want is to design a more rigid frame that doesn't allow resonance to get started in the first place. You can test how much flex is in your bottom bracket by simply placing the pedal in the down position and from the side step your foot onto the pedal and twist the bike sideways. Notice how much flex you get and then try it on another bike. You will notice large differences between bikes. When I used to sell bikes at the bike shop that was one of those "technical lessons" that I would show a prospective bike buyer and they would often go for the more expensive bike because it tended to flex less.

However, the "new" forces that you are introducing into the bike frame with batteries means all the old rules go out the window.

:arrow: YOU HAVE TO REDESIGN THE FRAME!

There is no way out of it... However if you read the article below they observe that sometimes the problem is that your rake and trail simply might be wrong. You might want to experiment with less or more trail which means the amount of "offset" from the plane of the steering tube. For my bike I calculated it to be about 1.5" inches. Too much and you might be in trouble. (go out and measure your "offset")
 
speed wobble

Speed wobble or shimmy is the spontaneous oscillation of the front wheel(s), or "wobbling" of a vehicle, at a set speed or speed range. The oscillations are due to the latent resonant frequency of the steered wheel of the vehicle and are a complex phenomenon. It can occur with motorcycles, skateboards, bicycles or in theory any vehicle with a single steering pivot point and a sufficient amount of freedom of the steered wheel; this does not include most automobiles, however,coil-sprung vehicles with a track bar setup such as the Jeep WJ, XJ, ZJ, and TJ with after-market suspension lifts may have this problem also. While usually easily remedied by adjusting speed or changing position on vehicle, speed wobbles can be fatal, especially at high speeds.

Shimmy and Death Wobble
Shimmy and Death Wobble in bikes and motorbikes is an oscillation phenomenon caused by gyroscopic dynamics of the front wheel and positive feedback of the bike+rider.

Sustained oscillation has two necessary components: An underdamped second order system and a positive feedback mechanism.

The underdamped second order system is the nutation of the front wheel. An example of an underdamped second order system is a spring and mass system where the mass can bob up and down (oscillate) when hanging from a spring.

The positive feedback mechanism is the bike+rider, approximating a second order damped system. At a critical bike speed, the front wheel nutation frequency matches the bike+rider natural frequency; if the bike+rider side-to-side system is insufficiently damped, the movement provides a positive feedback to the front wheel second order system, amplifying or sustaining the nutation.

Nutation
Nutation is the torque-free tendency of a freely spinning rigid body's spin axis to oscillate around the average spin axis. Ideally, it is a second order behaviour with no damping. In real cases, the oscillation will decay due to damping in the system.

Nutation is easily demonstrated by suspending a spinning bicycle wheel by the axle such that the axle hangs vertically. If the rim is given a sharp bump parallel to the spin axis, the spin axis will oscillate in a cone-shaped movement around the average spin axis. This is nutation, not to be confused with precession.

A bicycle or motor bike front wheel has 2 degrees of freedom in an effective gimbal system. The inner gimbal is the steering fork, free to rotate around the steering axis. The outer gimbal is effectively the entire bike, able to tilt to either side along the longitudinal axis. This gives the front wheel the required 2 degrees of freedom necessary for nutation to occur.

If a front wheel is disturbed into nutation, the effect on the bike is to rapidly steer from side to side, as well as to tilt the bike from side to side. These 2 motions are rotations around the 2 degrees of freedom of the effective gymbal system described earlier. The effect is manifested in two fundamentally different modes, depending on how much the rider is a part of the gimbal system:

The first is commonly known as shimmy and can easily occur while riding no hands on a bicycle. It is a relatively harmless side to side shaking of the head tube combined with a side to side steering wobble as the front wheel pivots around the ground contact point. The rider is not a major part of the nutation system. The rider on the saddle provides a firm anchor point for the rest of the frame to pivot around.

The second case is less common and can result in a crash. It is variously called a death wobble or weave. It occurs at a higher speed with a firm grip on the bars. The longitudinal pivot is not near the ground contact patch as in shimmy but closer to the rider's body. In this case the rider is part of the gimbal system due to a firm grip on the handle bars. The effect is that the entire bike+rider weaves rapidly from side to side, as if the riders is riding a mini slalom course, as opposed to shimmy in which mainly the head tube and handlebars are shaking.

Damping
The damping coefficient (the inverse of Q factor) of the second order nutation system is a function of the angular momentum. The higher the wheel speed, the higher the nutation Q factor (less damping), other factors remaining the same. With a higher Q factor, less positive feedback is needed for instability to occur. This explains why shimmy and death wobble only happens above certain speeds - the Q factor needs to become high enough for steering instability. Motor bikes are often equipped with a steering damper to increase the gimbal damping, lowering the nutation Q factor.

Gimbal Inertia
The gimbal moment inertia around the steering axis is influenced by how tightly the rider grips the handlebars. No hands on the bars results in the lowest moment of inertia and a higher nutation frequency and a higher Q factor at a given speed. A light grip on the handle bar will have a strong damping effect, lowering the Q factor drastically. However, if the bars are gripped tightly, the rider's body is coupled tighter to the steering gimbal and the arms and upper body become a part of that gimbal, increasing its moment of inertia. The rider's entire body becomes part of the longitudinal gimbal, increasing that moment of inertia as well. The effect is to lower the nutation frequency and nutation Q factor, so a higher speed is required to attain the necessary Q factor for instability as compared to riding no-hands. Because the center of mass for the longitudinal gimbal is higher, the center of rotation is also much higher compared to the no-hands case.

Case 1: Shimmy, no hands on the handlebars
As there is no contact with the handlebars, the gimbal moment of inertia around the steering axis is the lowest. There is no damping from the rider's hands so the nutation Q factor is high even at modest speed. Most bikes will exhibit shimmy if the speed is sufficient. Damping it is also easy by a light grip on the bars or by touching the top tube with a leg. Both actions add "soft" mass to the gimbal system, lowering the Q factor drastically. Pedalling while riding no-hands also connects "soft" mass more firmly to the front of the bike via the pedal arms, resulting in more stable behaviour.

Case 2: Death wobble, tightly gripping the bars
The rider's arms and body are a part of the gimbals. The arms' and upper body mass increase the steering gimbal moment of inertia, while the entire body is part of the longitudinal moment of inertia. The nutation frequency is lower. Since the rider's body is a part of the gimbal system inertia, the longitudinal pivot is much higher towards the rider upper body, since the center of mass is now higher. There is less shaking of the head tube and more weaving of the wheels. The rider is shaken from side to side. It is difficult to control the death wobble since the movement occurs too rapidly to impose muscular control, and the involuntary effect of gripping the handlebars tightly only increases the Q factor. A conscious effort to release the tight grip will have a much better effect by increasing damping.

Since the arms and body are not completely rigid, there is still considerable damping provided, so a higher speed is required for the Q factor to be high enough to enable positive feedback.

Feedback
All 2nd order systems have some amount of damping due to frictional effects. A wheel on its own, if disturbed into nutation, will damp out by itself. To get shimmy or death wobble, a feedback system is required for the nutation to be sustained. The feedback system is provided by the bike+rider.

For positive feedback to exist, there needs to be a system such that nutation is amplified enough for any damping effects to be cancelled. A second order system can provide such feedback at a certain frequency or range of frequencies. If a bike+rider approximates a second order system, then at a certain frequency or range of frequencies, the phase response will be such that positive feedback is established. Since a spinning front wheel is a lightly damped system, only a small amount of positive feedback is required for instability.

Shimmy
Examination of moving and relatively stationary points on a bike during shimmy reveals:

• The front wheel contact patch is relatively quiet, but the head tube is shaking from side to side. This means the front wheel nutation longitudinal pivot is close to the ground.

• Due to the rider's inertia on the saddle, the saddle is also relatively motionless.

• The back wheel contact patch is also relatively motionless. This implies that there must be flexing motion in the back wheel, the frame, the seat post and the saddle to allow the head tube to move sideways.

• The back wheel will usually be flexing the most since 1) it is not as stiff as the other components; 2) it is under rider load, so the lower vertical spokes' tension is reduced, and with a dished wheel the non-drive side spokes are under even less tension; and 3) it is subject to a lever action. It requires only a small amount of sideways flexing to account for the head tube movement.

All these predict that a stiffer wheel, and an equally dished wheel will be less prone to shimmy. Double-butted spokes should be more prone to shimmy, and likewise heavier riders will reduce bottom spoke tension, increasing shimmy.

• The rear triangle is next in line for doing any flexing. Currently it is not clear if the seat stays or chain stays will flex more.

• The main trangle and seat tube should be flexing very little due to the larger tube diameters.

• The fork should flex very little due to the relatively small bending moment on it. The rear wheel suffers the largest bending moment compared to all other components.

• If the saddle is higher, the downward force through the saddle passes closer to the back axle, and less wheel flexing is required to account for head tube movement. This predicts that taller cases will be more prone to shimmy.

• A loaded rear rack adds a leveraged mass behind the saddle pivot and will amplify any bending moments, increasing shimmy.

The flexing parts provide ample sprung mass to generate the required positive feedback.

Death wobble
The entire rider is shaken from side to side. Positive feedback is established if the rider is shaken at his/her body natural frequency: At a critical speed the bike+rider is shaken at exactly the frequency itself wobbles at. It is like shaking a jelly: Too slow and you are merely moving the jelly. Too fast and you are just vibrating the jelly. But just right and the jelly will shake violently and may disintegrate. The bike+rider represents the jelly. The "jelly" can be the rider shifting from side to side on the saddle, effectively rolling on the tissue between the pelvis and saddle. The semi-fluid property of the rider's body in the stomach region will amplify the jelly effect. A rider with excess body fat will be less damped than a lean rider. A soft padded saddle which allows the rider to move sideways through the compliance of saddle padding material is yet another possibility.

System excitation

Shimmy
Since the front wheel is a poorly damped second order system, any amount of disturbance will cause nutation. This will happen at all speeds except zero speed and on all bicycles, essentially continuously because there is always wind and road vibrations and rider movement. Below a certain speed the disturbance is continuously and immediately damped so is not noticed. Above this speed, the nutation frequency matches the natural frequency of any springiness on the bike. As the nutation causes a slight sideways movement of the bike, it pulls along the springy mass. The nutation causes the movement to reverse and the mass is pulled along in the opposite direction. At a critical speed the springy mass is shaken at its natural frequency and positive feedback is established.

To check stability, ride fairly low speed with no hands and give the bars a slight steering bump. You should see nutation which damps out quickly. Increase speed and repeat the experiment. The nutation will take longer to dissipate. At a certain speed it will not dissipate. Press a knee against the top tube or a hand lightly on the bars for damping.

Death wobble
Initiation of death wobble requires a sudden steering movement such that inertia causes a relative sideways movement of mass. The jelly effect will provide feedback to the steering mechanism; if the bike speed is sufficient such that the nutation matches the jelly frequency, death wobble may ensue providing the positive feedback is more than the minimum amount to cancel any nutation damping effects.

It is not advisable to experiment with death wobble except perhaps on a roller system.

Observations explained

Shimmy
Pressing a knee against the top tube dampens it out: Effectively, a mass is added to the top tube. Since shimmy is manifested as a side to side shaking of the head tube, adding mass to the top tube will increase the moment of inertia around the longitudinal axis. In addition, the leg's added mass is connected to the top tube via the muscle tissue and not rigidly fixed, so acts like a powerful damping mass. The combined effect is to lower nutation frequency, shifting it away from the frequency of sufficient positive feedback, and damping the nutation system, such that the positive feedback provided by rider+bike is no longer sufficient to sustain the nutation and it damps out. The damping effect is the most important of the two.

It doesn't happen on xyz bike: Not all bikes have enough springiness to provide the necessary feedback for nutation to be amplified, which explains why many riders have never experienced it; Or they have not reached that critical speed where the nutation Q factor is high enough, or where the nutation frequency matches the natural frequency of any springy mass.

Loaded bike: The inertia of the rider on the saddle in combination with the back wheel contact patch creates a pivot; any mass behind this pivot will have a sling-shot effect and powerfully increase positive feedback to the shaking head tube. An otherwise stable bike will worsen drastically with a loaded rack on the back, more so if the load is not rigidly fixed. A lot of mass shaking sideways near the back of the bike will make any bike shimmy at fairly modest speeds, regardless of how stable it was before.

Slowing down or speeding up: Either case will change the nutation frequency and pull it away from the jelly frequency, eliminating the positive feedback. Speeding up often does not work on bicycles due to the wide range of frequencies in the feedback system where positive feedback is sufficient to sustain shimmy.

Frame stiffness: May play a small part, flexible frames may exhibit some flex during shimmy, decreasing the damping of the system. However, frame flexibility is not required for shimmy.

Different wheels: Changing the front wheel for one with different mass will affect the angular momentum will therefore change the nutation frequency. This may eliminate the effect or introduce it, depending on the critical frequencies. Usually it will change the speed where shimmy is observed. A wheel with more flexibility in it will add tendency to shimmy to a bike.

Death Wobble
It doesn't happen on xyz bike: Not all bike+rider systems provide the necessary feedback for nutation to be amplified, which explains why many riders have never experienced it. Or they have not reached that critical speed where the positive feedback is more than the critical amount, or where the nutation frequency matches the "jelly frequency".

Lifting body off the saddle: Lifting the body up from the saddle completely alters the dynamics of the feedback system and the moments of inertia. In particular, lifting yourself off the saddle eliminates the jelly effect.

Releasing handle bars stops it: releasing the handle bars decouples the rider from the steering gimbal and alters the moment of inertia. Nutation frequency shifts away from the jelly frequency and so positive feedback is eliminated.


http://www.answers.com/topic/speed-wobble
 
triple-tree.gif


:arrow: What is Rake? Rake is the angle of the steering head measured in degrees from a line 90 degrees to the ground.

:arrow: Trail is the distance between an imaginary line drawn through the steering head to the ground and a line straight down from the axle (See figure 1).


http://www.jpcycles.com/Tech/Articles/tripletrees.aspx
 
Back
Top