Originally Posted by
Andrew R Stewart
I doubt you'll find a premade fork with the combo of specs you list. One could easily get all but the rake spec from a repair grade fork and then remove what will likely be the extra rake they typically come with.
As far as the forks, I kind of figured as much. Have 3 requirements, pick 2 kind of a thing…Maybe shop around the local custom shops or just be happy with a different rake. OEM was trail of 71, after all. A 48 rake would get me almost back to OEM. Maybe I should be less rigid in my search requirements.
Originally Posted by
Andrew R Stewart
As long as you like the handling feel of so much trail more power to you. But 78mm of trail is considered to be a LOT. My own touring bikes tend to have about 15-20% less trail.
If it weren't for my wife's bike, I may never have known any better. I've never felt more stable at speed. While coming down Mission Ridge last summer, I got a case of the wobbles. (I didn't panic, I weighted the front and relaxed and things worked out fine) My Cervelo had carbon rims and I was deliberately sitting up to catch air to keep some speed and thus rim heating out of the equation. On my Scattante I've never felt the "wobbles" like I did on my Cervelo, and the difference is the Scat has the bars 1/4 inch lower, meaning more weight on the front. That nth much makes the difference. Bein's that loaded panniers shift the weight rear, I'd like to make sure that the "wobbles" never happen again.
Originally Posted by
Andrew R Stewart
Don't know where you've been looking for shots of loaded touring bikes but many will also use front panniers on a low mounted rack. In fact i'd say this is considered to be the standard road self contained touring set up. front low rider panniers and rear panniers on standard rear racks.
I did notice they all had front low riders. I figured that adding another requirement to my quest for dream forks would have slashed the lot. Surely a longer rake to quicken the handling, and then the extra weight to dampen the response is a viable plan, but I had never considered front loading. Front racks and whatnot just seemed like extra expense and effort and rider fatigue with an even rarer parts selection. But then again, I don't actually know. Does all that weight up front really make things handle differently when laden or unladen? Does it noticeably affect handling when either front OR rear is loaded? My goal is to have a bike that handles more or less the same no matter how it's loaded for an afternoon recreational to the coffee shop or a weekend trip to the National Park.
Originally Posted by
Andrew R Stewart
Some of the goal with long chain stays is for weight balance WRT the front wheel's weight (and front panniers help here, far more than a couple more inches of chain stay). But some of the goal is heel clearance with the rear panniers (which is why some larger rear panniers have their lower front facing corners cut back). Some of the goal is for less chain angle when using wide range gearing/triple cranks. Some of the goal is to relax the handling (although steering geometry is FAR more the issue here).
I sort of figured that with out the weight up front, the placement of the weight over the rear was of greater importance than would otherwise be given. I did a bunch of looking at various bikes and concluded that the chain stays of dedicated touring bikes are longer than average, but didn't seem like they'd be long enough to actually get behind the load. (read: ALL the weight looks like it is only on the rear wheel and that seems like it would make for a very different bike on different days.) With 18 inch stays I can't imagine that heel clearance would be an issue, but the weight being over or behind the rear axle seems like it would effect things in a negative way, so shotgunning the axle rearward to 20 inches seemed like a good idea at the time. Given the forces involved, I didn't want to go much further lest I need to get into seat stay replacement/lengthening too. In looking at your photo album, your rear wheel is quite a bit back. Do you think it was a good move?
Originally Posted by
Andrew R Stewart
As to your proposed gearing- Whatever works for you. I prefer a triple crank and parts that are more commonly available then the latest stuff. The 24/34/44 rings and the 11/34 rear cogs provide about a 10% lower gear then your set up does, uses far more easily replaced parts and I never have had a need for a gear larger then about 90 inches (and if I could get a 13/34 cog set I would). I also prefer wider chains and cog plates then the latest stuff have. I run a 9 speed cog set on my tour bikes. My front shifter is not indexed (no road bike I have has an indexed front shifter). But gearing is a very personal choice. I have just found that I always wanted a lower gear then what I was using after a couple of hours on the same hill (or mountain pass). Have you done any touring yet?
I'll give a triple some thought. I haven't done any touring yet, but have had my share of mountain passes for quite a bit last summer. Washington Pass (up and down), Blewett Pass (over and back), High Pass Challenge (Mount St. Helens out and back), Mt Baker twice, Hurricane Ridge and Mission Ridge were all done last summer. I quickly learned that 36/25 was terrible, 34/28 was good, and 34/32 was better for when you really needed it. Around the innerwebz I kept hearing 20-25 gear inches is good for touring and the Shimano 11 speed would do that, but as you say, a triple set up with a fat chain and conventional mountain bike gearing may be better in the durability/replacibility department. I'll give this some thought as nothing besides the axle and the head tube is set in stone yet.
Thanks for the reply.