Hi Al! - Thanks for the links.

I understand the theory - but in practice it doesn't seem to work that way. Why? If I "reverse" the fork where the rake is pointing backward toward the rider, I've MIGHTILY increased the trail. Based on the "more trail makes for a more stable ride" theory, I shouldn't be able to turn the bike at all! But in actual fact, the bike with a reversed fork is so twitchy as to be almost impossible to keep upright (if I remember my prepubescent experiments with my Schwinn correctly).

Either the theory has additional factors not taken into consideration, I've missed something significant, or the entire theory is bogus. Based on your certainty, I suspect that the second of the above three hypotheses is the correct one. I'll preuse all the links in this thread and see what I can learn. Thanks again!

ADDENDUM TO POST: Eureka! I understand it now - The head angle actually seems to have MUCH more effect on trail than does fork rake. Even a single degree of head angle makes a significant difference in the trail! With older frames (with shallow head angles) there could be SIGNIFICANTLY more fork rake while STILL maintaining lots of trail! As the head angle increases, less fork rake is needed to maintain the same amount of trail. If a heavily raked fork is used with a steep head angle, trail decreases to near zero, causing MUCH twitchier handling. Actually, in my Schwinn example, reversing the fork probably DECREASED trail since the head angle was so lax.

All other things being equal, less fork rake should increase trail and enhance stability. The significant phrase is the first one, though! Head angle makes almost ALL the difference!