Originally Posted by
bashley
Juggling variables, thanks Kontact. In a my little database of 15 or so bikes in the adventure/gravel/touring genres, about half publish rake/offset, and only a couple give trail numbers (Vivente Gibb, Soma Grand Randonneur). Perhaps this is because there seems to be very little variation in offset, most makers somewhere in the 45mm-55mm range. The Soma GR is an outlier, on purpose, making low trail (32mm) a marketing feature, and offset is predictably higher at 69mm.
Although my sampling of relaxed geometry bikes is tiny, it suggests that the "industry", generally speaking defaults to a medium rake/medium trail. And if that's the case, the front end handling of these bikes ought to be fairly similar among them, other variables being reasonably equivalent. Would you agree or disagree with this theory.
Another spotty metric among bike makers I've noticed is BB Height. Most firms report BB drop, but lot of them don't publish BB height, Salsa for example.
I'm drifting off-topic here, so I'll start a new thread in the Fit section.
BB height is dependent on tires, but drop is not.
Most roadish bikes are medium to high trail, unless it is designed for loads like a touring bike. There are many exceptions, of course.
One thing you'll find is that trail is often variable between frame sizes - one or two rakes are used with a variety of frame sizes and HTAs.