Originally Posted by
queerpunk
The Langster Pro is a decent bike, even considering the fact that it doesn't have sprint geometry.
Originally Posted by
Hida Yanra
.... you know, I can't name anything wrong with them at all, other than "the geo is traditional track geo" - Those bikes can go fast, they can Madison, they can move up and down track on steep tracks with no problems I've ever seen..... dunno.
Originally Posted by
queerpunk
I used to ride a Felt TK2, which has traditional sprint geometry, and I actually hated how it responded sometimes. I wouldn't really be able to describe it - it's been a few years - but while I liked the nimbleness of a steep headtube there was something else I didn't like.
When I replaced the TK2 with a Langster Pro, the LP's 73deg headtube and 45mm fork struck me as "not right" - even though the trail measurement winds up being a totally reasonable number, like 56 or 57 IIRC.
I really believe that a lot of geometry has probably been pretty well refined by trial and error over the last century or so, but there's also a lot of recycled "wisdom" out there for which there's no clear basis. Unfortunately, there's also often no agreement about what falls into either category. Moreover, "optimal" depends on use case.
This is relevant to a project Colby Pearce and I are undertaking. We've been frustrated by the handling of certain frames and the relative dearth of definitive information on what works best for track. So, we're going to build a number of frames, for which we'll vary the geometry in a controlled fashion, set them up identically, and then go ride test and race them. Full disclosure, this is a commercial endeavor, but as an additional output I hope to be able to answer some of these questions in a data-based way soon.