This whole notion of slack angles and long fork rakes = stable vs. upright angles and short rakes = responsive is very misleading. Back in the 70's, one of the bike mags did some testing of angles and rakes, trying to come up with a combination that was "unrideable." It turned out, as I recall, that frame designers do know what they are doing. A slack frame uses a long fork rake to make the steering "quicker." A tight, steep frame is equipped with a short rake fork in order to make the bike more stable! The objective is a bike with "neutral steering," a bike that handles predictably. An example of the extreme would be a motor-pace bike ("demi-fond"), where the fork is reversed (points backwards). This not only allows the rider to get closer to the roller on the motorcycle, it makes the bike extremely stable (hard to move off a straight line), a characteristic which is very handly when the bike and motor are travelling at around 80 kmh on a banked track.

What this means is that it doesn't matter if you have a tight bike or a slack bike; they should both steer equally "quickly" or "responsively." (Of course, this assumes both are unloaded except for rider.) The main difference would likely be that the slack bike would be more comfortable in absorbing road shocks, due to the longer wheelbase, while the tighter frame would let you "feel the road," and the whole bike would be shorter and therefore easier to handle in a tight pack or in a velodrome.

L.