Framebuilders - Randonneur Geometry

Sorry, I just realized this is a zombie thread! But I like it, too.

But I'd still like to find someone to add rake to a stock fork ... and it is true that I'm now sold on low trail for front rack loads - not sure how this translates to low riders, however. I'm pretty sure the high fork CG (rando bag) versus the low CG (low rider panniers) make a significant difference.

I saw some of my comments and did not remember making them at all

I got in a hurry with my current bike and didn't put the braze-on under the fork crown. I had a couple made up on the lathe. Really wish I had done it now, the crown I used is a real pita to mount fenders to without something there.

the recent "science" article doesn't really address what is "important." They are talking about riderless bikes that are pushed. There is very little controversy over how bikes with riders work. The fact of the matter is that the different amounts of trail are a matter of comfort, not stability. At least in the technical meaning of "stability." I don't think that researchers are going to be able to characterize handling qualities of bikes, which is what the "high trail" vs. "low trail" discussion is really about.

I can appreciate that this article isn't the total answer, and does not explain the riding and the experience of controlling a bicycle. I assume this is what you meant by "important." But it's part of the scientific effort to figure it out, done by some of the few scientist/bikies who can work in this field. We really need to appreciate that science usually moves in incremental steps, building up step by step. Large leaps in understanding are rare, and stand on the basis of decades of incremental progress.

You call it "science" as if it isn't really of any value, but its a step in the right direction. One thing it shows is that front wheel loading can result in added stability at least under limited conditions. The old school (more trail = more stability, as several racing-experience frame builders have lectured me with exasperation) would not have accepted that at all.

Will we ever get what's "important?" Who knows?

what I meant was "Science," as in the journal. I think what they did was interesting, possibly even important, but it keeps being misrepresented everywhere I see it.

Ok, Unter, that makes it more understandable. When there's such a lot of snark around, it can get hard to recognize when it's just a simple typo! My apologies.

When I started seeing articles about short trail road bikes, I measured my bikes and found that my 40 yr. old Jack Taylor Marathon had that geometry: about 73.5 degree head angle, about 63.5mm of fork offset and about 35mm of trail with 700x28c tires. I got a Nitto M-12 front rack for it and put on an Acorn bag. It works great! Weight in the front bag actually makes the handling better.

The low trail "king", Jan Heine, recently wrote of the Taylor's bike design - essentially a 73 head angle and 2.5 inches (63.5 cm) of fork rake for everything, including tandems. He wrote that this actually makes sense, because no matter what you're doing, this geometry is adequate if not ideal. The bike can be ridden with or without a front load, rear load, panniers, whatever, and still provide good-to-great handling.

I think he's exactly right - though I suspect the Taylors were doing it out of convenience rather than genius.