Road Cycling - Opinions on fork rake

I'm contemplating getting a new fork. Aegis no longer makes their Hotrod fork but suggest either Reynolds or TrueTemper products. They will paint to match for a small charge though. I was looking on Reynold's website and noticed that I can get the Ouza Pro Criterium in a 50mm rake. My current Hotrod has a 45mm rake. I was thinking that going to 50mm might eliminate that small bit of overlap I have. It's not really that much an issue but it can be annoying at times. I was wondering how much a 5mm rake difference would do to my steering. Has anyone changed their fork rake and can you tell how much it effects handling?

I have one bike with 40mm rake, and it's "twitchier" than my other bikes with 45mm rakes. (same geometry) The bike generally feels more responsive than the others, but this can be a disadvantage going down long, straight sections at high speed. It can begin to shimmy a little bit, which is disconcerting. Going the other way, to 50mm, should make the bike more stable, at the minor expense of repsonse. If I had to do it over again, I'd just go with the 45mm.

Well, this totally depends on the head angle of your current frame. A 50mm rake would work best with a 72.5 degree head angle. If you have a 73, I highly recommend a 48mm rake. I run a True Temper AlphaQ X3 fork as it's the only one I could find at the time in 48, but I believe Reynolds and Wound-Up also have 48's now.

If you have a steeper head angle than that, then you're riding a frame with too steep a head angle for your size and it's exacerbating the toe overlap.

I have one bike with 40mm rake, and it's "twitchier" than my other bikes with 45mm rakes. (same geometry) The bike generally feels more responsive than the others, but this can be a disadvantage going down long, straight sections at high speed. It can begin to shimmy a little bit, which is disconcerting. Going the other way, to 50mm, should make the bike more stable, at the minor expense of repsonse. If I had to do it over again, I'd just go with the 45mm.

its in your head. the less rake, the more trail (and therefore stability) for a given head angle.

Phatman, my under standing is that CM is right. Has to do with the longer wheel base not trail.

This thread covers some of the different considerations when replacing a fork:

www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=57757

its in your head. the less rake, the more trail (and therefore stability) for a given head angle.

No, I don't think so.

http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_r.html#rake

http://www.jeris-springer.com/raketrail.html

Well, this totally depends on the head angle of your current frame. A 50mm rake would work best with a 72.5 degree head angle. If you have a 73, I highly recommend a 48mm rake. I run a True Temper AlphaQ X3 fork as it's the only one I could find at the time in 48, but I believe Reynolds and Wound-Up also have 48's now.

If you have a steeper head angle than that, then you're riding a frame with too steep a head angle for your size and it's exacerbating the toe overlap.
His frame was built around a 45 rake.

Phatman, my under standing is that CM is right. Has to do with the longer wheel base not trail.They are both part of it.

There are many factors that contribute to handling, but if you want to get pedantic, you can throw Centre of gravity into the mix too if you like. However, steering geometry is at least variable if you already own a bike, and contributes a large chunk to how a bike handles, so it's fair to want to put a bit of thought into it or have a bit of an experiment if you like.

As for 'what rake his bike was designed around', as much as I'd like to assume every designer is a genius, the reality is they ain't. Don't ask me how many brands are out there that specifiy the same rake fork, yet have different head tube angles throughout their size range. This is clearly wrong.

My frame has a traditional 73 deg head tube angle. The current fork is 45mm for neutral handling. I understand that going with a longer rake will decrease my trail and thus make my steering twitchier.

73 degree HT angle here too - my Litespeed (59cm) came with a 40mm; I replaced it with an Easton EC90SL 43mm. Love the change.

My frame has a traditional 73 deg head tube angle. The current fork is 45mm for neutral handling. I understand that going with a longer rake will decrease my trail and thus make my steering twitchier.

As you increase the rake (offset) of the fork, you decrease the trail of the bike. Decreased trail makes for quicker steering (less effort needed to change from going strait to turning). The longer the trail, the more the bike wants to ride in a strait line (think Harley dresser vs. rice rocket). If you go to a 45 mm offset fork with that head angle, you will absolutely hate it. It will be quick steering, but you will not be able to relax for one second. Every piece of crap you hit in the road will want to steer the bike. Of course, this is all personal preference.

Back in the day of steel forks, bike manufactures produced frames with more varied head angles and corresponding fork rakes than now. Some manufactures currently use the same head angle and fork rake throughout the size range. Worse yet, some manufactures us the same fork rake throughout the frame size range and vary the head angle 2 degrees or more. I think this is because they save money when they purchase the forks all in one rake.

With a 73 degree head angle, I would prefer the 40 mm offset, with the 43 being the second choice.

If you go to a 45 mm offset fork with that head angle, you will absolutely hate it. It will be quick steering, but you will not be able to relax for one second. Every piece of crap you hit in the road will want to steer the bike. Of course, this is all personal preference.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote. I already have a 45mm rake. I actually like the handling and don't find it difficult to control at all. I am however thinking of going to a 50mm rake both to eliminate the small bit of toe-overlap I have currently and to also make the bike even more quick-steering. My only fear is that it will be too quick. I guess I'm used to quicker steering. My MTB (71.4 deg head angle, 48mm fork rake) with an effective trail of 2.4" (61mm) has relatively quick steering for a full-suspension bike for instance. And my Aegis with the 45mm fork rake has a 2.3" (59mm) effective trail. But going to a 50mm rake fork on the Aegis would give me a 2.1" (54mm) effective trail. A 40mm rake would give me a 2.5" (64mm) trail.

With a 73 degree head angle, I would prefer the 40 mm offset, with the 43 being the second choice.

I guess the question is, can you really feel the difference? Going from a 40 to a 43, I really can't tell the diff, other than the new fork being lighter.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote. I already have a 45mm rake. I actually like the handling and don't find it difficult to control at all. I am however thinking of going to a 50mm rake both to eliminate the small bit of toe-overlap I have currently and to also make the bike even more quick-steering. My only fear is that it will be too quick. I guess I'm used to quicker steering. My MTB (71.4 deg head angle, 48mm fork rake) with an effective trail of 2.4" (61mm) has relatively quick steering for a full-suspension bike for instance. And my Aegis with the 45mm fork rake has a 2.3" (59mm) effective trail. But going to a 50mm rake fork on the Aegis would give me a 2.1" (54mm) effective trail. A 40mm rake would give me a 2.5" (64mm) trail.

Actually... I read it all! But after reading the other posts... I may have lost track of the rake measurements. Is a 50mm offset available?

I am however thinking of going to a 50mm rake both to eliminate the small bit of toe-overlap I have currently and to also make the bike even more quick-steering. My only fear is that it will be too quick.
I don't understand the issue over a little bit of toe overlap anyway.It's common on alot of bikes and lots of people deal with it with no real problem.Look at where your toe hits the fork and then ask if that 5mm that occurs at the dropouts is even going to be measurable at the critical point.

I don't understand the issue over a little bit of toe overlap anyway.It's common on alot of bikes and lots of people deal with it with no real problem.Look at where your toe hits the fork and then ask if that 5mm that occurs at the dropouts is even going to be measurable at the critical point.

I ride 180 cranks and have size 12s and have never had a problem.

If you want to eliminate the toe overlap, get 160-165mm cranks and 38/51 chainrings. If you're 5'5" or so, 160 is more in proportion anyway (at least that's what I measure out to be).

I ride 180 cranks and have size 12s and have never had a problem.probably a bigger bike too?..........The 48cm size of his would have suggested the use of 650 wheels.

probably a bigger bike too?

I ride a 59 c-c frame. Larger frames are prone to toe overlap more than smaller frames, because the head angle is usually steeper to keep the wheelbase short.

I ride a 59 c-c frame. Larger frames are prone to toe overlap more than smaller frames, because the head angle is usually steeper to keep the wheelbase short.Not really.Smaller frames often use a slacker angle to make room for the 700c wheel while keeping the TT length reasonable.But overall smaller frames have the bigger overlap problem, especially with 700c wheels.

Not really.Smaller frames often use a slacker angle to make room for the 700c wheel while keeping the TT length reasonable.But overall smaller frames have the bigger overlap problem, especially with 700c wheels.


Hummmmm.... I will have to confer with my buddy who rides a tiny Lightspeed. I know his seat angle is 74 deg. and his head angle is 72 deg., rake is 45 mm and he has 170 cranks. With that slack of a head angle and that much rake, I don't see how his toes could hit. But, I will ask him if he has toe overlap on that or any of his older bikes.

Hummmmm.... I will have to confer with my buddy who rides a tiny Lightspeed. I know his seat angle is 74 deg. and his head angle is 72 deg., rake is 45 mm and he has 170 cranks. With that slack of a head angle and that much rake, I don't see how his toes could hit. But, I will ask him if he has toe overlap on that or any of his older bikes.It depends on foot size and cleat placement too.Trust me, that 700c wheels on smaller fremes are the bigger factor.

probably a bigger bike too?..........The 48cm size of his would have suggested the use of 650 wheels.

An Aegis Aro Svelte in a 48cm sizes to a 50cm in a traditional frame. I also like the roll of a 700c wheel better than 650c. At anyrate, the toe-overlap while being somewhat of an issue is quite livable and I've seen it on larger frames too. As far as going with a shorter crank, I felt that 170mm was short enough. My riding background is from MTBs and I prefer a bit more leverage at the cranks. My MTB is equipped with 175mm cranks. My real reason for possibly going with a longer fork rake was to quicken my steering but I'm not sure I want to quicken it by that much.