Page 1 of 1

MAB power flick

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:54 pm
by Killerwhale
My mate came to work today to pick up an office chair and had his teeny camera with him so he took a few frames after i was done changing hte drivetrain....17/40 now and it feels better than 16/39....but 17/41 would probably be my cup of tea!

The vid:
MAB Power on the trix

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:15 pm
by twolfe
17/40 is actually a higher ratio than 16/39, therefore it would feel more sluggish of the bottom end.However if you were after more top end speed,you may have gained an extra few kmh.

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:15 am
by Killerwhale
twolfe wrote:17/40 is actually a higher ratio than 16/39, therefore it would feel more sluggish of the bottom end.However if you were after more top end speed,you may have gained an extra few kmh.
Nah, before gear one was kinda useless....had to take all roundabouts on second. Now i can use gear 1 again.
...but as said, 41 in rear would be the shit!
....and shorter between 1-2....one gear between 3-4 and taller between 4-5.....then it would be just GREAT! :wink:

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:15 am
by Killerwhale
twolfe wrote:17/40 is actually a higher ratio than 16/39, therefore it would feel more sluggish of the bottom end.However if you were after more top end speed,you may have gained an extra few kmh.

....and yeah, of cource i know it´s a higher ratio....that was kinda the thing i was after! :lol:

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:24 am
by brush
17/43 mate, is perfect.

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:33 am
by Killerwhale
brush wrote:17/43 mate, is perfect.
Nah, got 16/39 before and that´s kinda same....almost....

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:20 pm
by twolfe
16/39 and 17/43 aren't the same... almost. What are you on Killer ?, cause I want some. :)

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:47 am
by Killerwhale
twolfe wrote:16/39 and 17/43 aren't the same... almost. What are you on Killer ?, cause I want some. :)
It is according to the famous excel sheet

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:53 pm
by Quan-Time
17:43 here..

and 16:39 ISNT the same... they are however VERY close for arguement sake..

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:45 am
by Killerwhale
Quan-Time wrote:17:43 here..

and 16:39 ISNT the same... they are however VERY close for arguement sake..
Yep, that´s why i said ALMOST 8)