Randonneur Geometry
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,886
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1861 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
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.
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.
#52
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,705 Times
in
2,524 Posts
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.
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.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,886
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1861 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
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.
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?
#54
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,705 Times
in
2,524 Posts
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.
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,886
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1861 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
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.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 570
Bikes: Hollands Touring Bike, Schwinn mountain bike, folding bike, tandem and triple
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times
in
13 Posts
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.
I think he's exactly right - though I suspect the Taylors were doing it out of convenience rather than genius.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Road Fan
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
31
05-18-10 10:58 PM