View Single Post
Old 11-29-12 | 10:42 AM
  #8  
rhm's Avatar
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,810
Likes: 597
From: NJ, NYC, LI

Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...

This is a bit of a peeve of mine: I know we bicyclists use the word "rake" to refer to offset, but I wish we wouldn't. Rake, if you look it up in a dictionary, really refers only to the inclination from vertical or horizontal.

One mustn't discount the effects of wheel size. Since most bikes have the same wheel size (anything in the 26 to 28 inch range is effectively the same) we can do this, but when you use smaller wheel sizes, the amount of offset has to be reduced accordingly. When you get down to a 16" wheel, the balance of these factors is so critical that changing the tire size of a bike can make a radical difference to its handling. I used to ride a folding bike that handled best with a 2" tire in front and a 1.25" tire in back; with tires of the same size, handling was barely tolerable.

Relative weight loading is also pretty important. I have a couple bikes (relaxed angles, lots of offset) that shimmy badly unless I lean forward.
rhm is offline  
Reply