confused about bike low trail handling for a new bike purchase
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
confused about bike low trail handling for a new bike purchase
Looking to buy a new bike. It will be for city riding, moderate and low speeds. Currently I ride a 90s specialized globe 7. can't post a pic yet b/c i don't have enough posts yet tho maybe that will change. any who, things i'm looking for: shorter wheelbase (compared to the globe), 650b or 700c tires, overall lighter weight (than the globe that is), hopefully shorter chain stays. better at hills is what I'm hopefully on the right track about with these desired features. anywho what i don't know about is trail. though I do hang stuff (safely) off the handlebars on the globe and the steering is not twitchy when doing so): see below for more about trail.
I've been reading about trail and handling but it all seems to be conflicting. Here are 2 excerpts that have me especially confused as they appear to be contradictory, can anybody clarify?
1. "If you’re doing most of your riding on the slow end of the spectrum, a low trail bike can make sense, as it will handle well for most of your riding—it will be easy to hold in a straight line, easy to turn. You just need to realize that it might feel a bit too twitchy, feeling as if you have to frequently correct for left and right movement, *at high speeds*. But, once over the initial surprise or difficulty, the attention needed will probably be there and almost become part of the scenery. If you’re riding fast and mostly straight lines, high trail can make sense, as it will favor those riding conditions. You just need to realize that it might feel like you’re having a harder time holding a straight line when riding slowly. --- Hey! You must really like this to be copying it. Hope you're not plagiarizing, but citing me properly. Quite a badge of honor for me. All the same, if you like it this much, you should be supporting Just Riding Along. Toss a few bucks in the jar. You'll find it on the page you just copied this from."
2. Different blogs / sites say low trail is twitchy , light handling at low speeds.
Conclusion thus far: it seems to handle differently at low speed according to different people? one say it is easy, some say it is harder? can anyone clarify for me?only agreement is that it is good for loads up front (which I am personally ambivalent about as I would have a rear rack anyways.
I've been reading about trail and handling but it all seems to be conflicting. Here are 2 excerpts that have me especially confused as they appear to be contradictory, can anybody clarify?
1. "If you’re doing most of your riding on the slow end of the spectrum, a low trail bike can make sense, as it will handle well for most of your riding—it will be easy to hold in a straight line, easy to turn. You just need to realize that it might feel a bit too twitchy, feeling as if you have to frequently correct for left and right movement, *at high speeds*. But, once over the initial surprise or difficulty, the attention needed will probably be there and almost become part of the scenery. If you’re riding fast and mostly straight lines, high trail can make sense, as it will favor those riding conditions. You just need to realize that it might feel like you’re having a harder time holding a straight line when riding slowly. --- Hey! You must really like this to be copying it. Hope you're not plagiarizing, but citing me properly. Quite a badge of honor for me. All the same, if you like it this much, you should be supporting Just Riding Along. Toss a few bucks in the jar. You'll find it on the page you just copied this from."
2. Different blogs / sites say low trail is twitchy , light handling at low speeds.
Conclusion thus far: it seems to handle differently at low speed according to different people? one say it is easy, some say it is harder? can anyone clarify for me?only agreement is that it is good for loads up front (which I am personally ambivalent about as I would have a rear rack anyways.
#2
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked 136 Times
in
72 Posts
Hopefully this helps clear things up regarding "trail". https://www.bikeexchange.com/blog/bike-geometry-charts
"Trail can be a complicated element of a bikes geometry to explain but stay with us as we'll try to break it down. Trail is a combination of the head tube angle and the fork rake and can be thought of as the tyre contact point trailing behind the steering axis.
The short explanation is a small amount of trail equals a 'fast' handling bike, while greater trail equals a 'slow' handling bike. 'Fast' handling is good at high speeds, requiring less rider input but can be described as twitchy as it is so responsive. 'Slow' handling takes more work to steer, providing greater stability and smoother handling, but is less reactive at speed."
Race bikes have low trail numbers because they need to be nimble and agile in the turns at speed. On straights it takes more effort and concentration to maintain a straight line on a race bike with a low trail number. The rider has to constantly tell the bike where to go or else it will have a mind of its own. Endurance bikes have higher trail numbers because riders spend a lot more time going straight (generally speaking) and need the bike to be more stable at speed. There is less effort and less concentration required because the higher trail number makes the bike want to go straight at speed. Going into turns an endurance bike will be forced to slow down more than a race bike because of how the trail number influences handling (i.e. harder to turn at speed). This is an over-simplification, as there are more factors (other than trail) that will influence handling, but that's pretty much the gist of it.
I think where people get confused is when articles talk about the influence of trail on bike handling at low speeds. It's essentially the opposite of the above explanation. Unless you plan to consistently and intentionally ride your bike at very slow speeds I would look at bikes that have the appropriate trail for how you will ride at speed.
"Trail can be a complicated element of a bikes geometry to explain but stay with us as we'll try to break it down. Trail is a combination of the head tube angle and the fork rake and can be thought of as the tyre contact point trailing behind the steering axis.
The short explanation is a small amount of trail equals a 'fast' handling bike, while greater trail equals a 'slow' handling bike. 'Fast' handling is good at high speeds, requiring less rider input but can be described as twitchy as it is so responsive. 'Slow' handling takes more work to steer, providing greater stability and smoother handling, but is less reactive at speed."
Race bikes have low trail numbers because they need to be nimble and agile in the turns at speed. On straights it takes more effort and concentration to maintain a straight line on a race bike with a low trail number. The rider has to constantly tell the bike where to go or else it will have a mind of its own. Endurance bikes have higher trail numbers because riders spend a lot more time going straight (generally speaking) and need the bike to be more stable at speed. There is less effort and less concentration required because the higher trail number makes the bike want to go straight at speed. Going into turns an endurance bike will be forced to slow down more than a race bike because of how the trail number influences handling (i.e. harder to turn at speed). This is an over-simplification, as there are more factors (other than trail) that will influence handling, but that's pretty much the gist of it.
I think where people get confused is when articles talk about the influence of trail on bike handling at low speeds. It's essentially the opposite of the above explanation. Unless you plan to consistently and intentionally ride your bike at very slow speeds I would look at bikes that have the appropriate trail for how you will ride at speed.
Likes For Cyclist0100:
#3
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,810
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6100 Post(s)
Liked 4,732 Times
in
3,262 Posts
It looks like you copied opinion. And without context of the entire conversation I'm not certain how the author meant it. It's already too long for me to want to try to figure out what they meant. And as quoted, it's a tad misleading, IMO.
Trail does have a lot to do with how a wheel tends to want to stay centered while you ride. But it's not the only thing. We tend to think bikes with lot of trail are more stable and easier to ride with no-hands on the bars.
I prefer to think of bikes in terms of handling like a maneuverable sports car or handling like a luxury sedan. Trail in itself isn't going to tell you what that is for that bike. But it's safe to say if you buy a leisure bike from the cruiser category, it'll probably be more like a luxury sedan than a bike from the race category.
Trail does have a lot to do with how a wheel tends to want to stay centered while you ride. But it's not the only thing. We tend to think bikes with lot of trail are more stable and easier to ride with no-hands on the bars.
I prefer to think of bikes in terms of handling like a maneuverable sports car or handling like a luxury sedan. Trail in itself isn't going to tell you what that is for that bike. But it's safe to say if you buy a leisure bike from the cruiser category, it'll probably be more like a luxury sedan than a bike from the race category.
#4
Senior Member
No one is ever going to be clear on the effect of trail except by riding bikes with different trail. Talk about it all day, if you haven’t ridden the bikes you don’t know.
Race bikes do not have low trail. For road racing just about everything out there will be close to neutral trail of 57mm. Neutral means the bike does what you tell it to and does it now. The only road race bikes with significantly lower trail will be antiques. And only a very few of those will be low trail in the sense that randonneurs or low trail advocates will have it. Low trail in that sense means not just lower than neutral, it means 40mm or less.
Consumer bikes generally have high trail in the sense of higher than neutral - anything above 57mm. High trail definitely makes the bike more stable. The bike holds a line much more easily and will continue to hold a line if the front tire hits a pebble or the rider next to you bumps you lightly. Small little upsets that are going to happen just matter less. The flip side is the bike sometimes feels like a truck that won’t turn without advance planning. Some are bothered by that and some aren’t. Manufacturers and their lawyers generally want to play it safe and build high trail bikes.
Off-road bikes almost all have high trail. This makes sense, the contact patch begins out in front of the axle. Different discussion. Small frame bikes will usually have very high trail because the mfrs are too cheap to make more than one fork rake. Also a different discussion.
Describing how low trail bikes handle is just difficult. I have never come across a verbal description that matches the experience. A couple things are clear. Low trail does very well at carrying load. A heavy handlebar bag is a major nuisance on a high trail bike and disappears on a low trail bike. Saddlebags wag the tail of a high trail bike, low trail manages that much better. Front panniers work real well. Rear panniers also work better than with high trail. Low trail does fast descents and most high speed stuff with very little effort. In general it requires less effort. Try to make it do a tight fast turn and it simply won’t. Not raceable. Would be a big mistake to mix up a very different handling bike in a pack of bikes that all steer neutral. When it comes time for tight handling the low trail bike just won’t.
Lots of riders would not even notice. The wifes daily rider of 35 years got a new fork to correct the long-standing toe overlap issue. Trail changed from 60mm to 39mm. She did not notice. She liked the clearance, did not even notice the steering change. Some few riders will be very sensitive to small changes in trail, for most it won’t matter.
Race bikes do not have low trail. For road racing just about everything out there will be close to neutral trail of 57mm. Neutral means the bike does what you tell it to and does it now. The only road race bikes with significantly lower trail will be antiques. And only a very few of those will be low trail in the sense that randonneurs or low trail advocates will have it. Low trail in that sense means not just lower than neutral, it means 40mm or less.
Consumer bikes generally have high trail in the sense of higher than neutral - anything above 57mm. High trail definitely makes the bike more stable. The bike holds a line much more easily and will continue to hold a line if the front tire hits a pebble or the rider next to you bumps you lightly. Small little upsets that are going to happen just matter less. The flip side is the bike sometimes feels like a truck that won’t turn without advance planning. Some are bothered by that and some aren’t. Manufacturers and their lawyers generally want to play it safe and build high trail bikes.
Off-road bikes almost all have high trail. This makes sense, the contact patch begins out in front of the axle. Different discussion. Small frame bikes will usually have very high trail because the mfrs are too cheap to make more than one fork rake. Also a different discussion.
Describing how low trail bikes handle is just difficult. I have never come across a verbal description that matches the experience. A couple things are clear. Low trail does very well at carrying load. A heavy handlebar bag is a major nuisance on a high trail bike and disappears on a low trail bike. Saddlebags wag the tail of a high trail bike, low trail manages that much better. Front panniers work real well. Rear panniers also work better than with high trail. Low trail does fast descents and most high speed stuff with very little effort. In general it requires less effort. Try to make it do a tight fast turn and it simply won’t. Not raceable. Would be a big mistake to mix up a very different handling bike in a pack of bikes that all steer neutral. When it comes time for tight handling the low trail bike just won’t.
Lots of riders would not even notice. The wifes daily rider of 35 years got a new fork to correct the long-standing toe overlap issue. Trail changed from 60mm to 39mm. She did not notice. She liked the clearance, did not even notice the steering change. Some few riders will be very sensitive to small changes in trail, for most it won’t matter.
Likes For 63rickert:
#5
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked 136 Times
in
72 Posts
Iride01 and 63rickert are quite correct when they say that trail (in isolation) is not going to tell you a whole lot about how the bike actually rides. It's definitely one data point that will provide some insight; but yeah, you really do need to ride the bike(s) to get a proper feel. And even after riding a particular bike you may not be aware of how the trail is influencing the ride because there are other aspects of the design impacting feel and handling (i.e. wheelbase, chainstay length, stem length, etc.).
From my perspective, when I look at a geometry chart to get a sense of how a bike is designed and what I might expect in terms of how it rides and handles, trail is one of the last number I look at (if the manufacturer even provides it at all). I first look at top tube length, stack and reach to get a sense of how a bike is sized and whether it is likely to fit me. I then look at seat tube angle to get an idea of how that might impact hip angle... if too slack it might cause hip impingement issues. Then I look at chainstay length, wheelbase and head tube angle to get a sense of how the bike is likely to handle. If the manufacturer provides a trail number or a fork offset number I'll look at it, but if not provided I really don't worry about it.
From my perspective, when I look at a geometry chart to get a sense of how a bike is designed and what I might expect in terms of how it rides and handles, trail is one of the last number I look at (if the manufacturer even provides it at all). I first look at top tube length, stack and reach to get a sense of how a bike is sized and whether it is likely to fit me. I then look at seat tube angle to get an idea of how that might impact hip angle... if too slack it might cause hip impingement issues. Then I look at chainstay length, wheelbase and head tube angle to get a sense of how the bike is likely to handle. If the manufacturer provides a trail number or a fork offset number I'll look at it, but if not provided I really don't worry about it.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Rolesville NC
Posts: 816
Bikes: Had an old Columbia in the 80's, here a used Schwinn hybrid, now a Cannondale Quick 3 and a Topstone 105..
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked 306 Times
in
139 Posts
[QUOTE=Cycletography;21830428]Iride01 and 63rickert are quite correct when they say that trail (in isolation) is not going to tell you a whole lot about how the bike actually rides. It's definitely one data point that will provide some insight; but yeah, you really do need to ride the bike(s) to get a proper feel. And even after riding a particular bike you may not be aware of how the trail is influencing the ride because there are other aspects of the design impacting feel and handling (i.e. wheelbase, chainstay length, stem length, etc.).
This is something I have been wondering about as an influence to handling. Will changing the stem from say a 100mm to a 35mm effect the feel, quickness for lack of another word, of a bike? Not trying to go off topic but I feel that this could contribute to a quicker handling bike but not to the point of overriding the trail.
Frank.
This is something I have been wondering about as an influence to handling. Will changing the stem from say a 100mm to a 35mm effect the feel, quickness for lack of another word, of a bike? Not trying to go off topic but I feel that this could contribute to a quicker handling bike but not to the point of overriding the trail.
Frank.
#7
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,810
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6100 Post(s)
Liked 4,732 Times
in
3,262 Posts
Will changing the stem from say a 100mm to a 35mm effect the feel, quickness for lack of another word, of a bike?
I'd doubt any makes a big difference in your handling of the bike to be detrimental. Just something you might perceive if you are experienced enough to be one with your bike.
Likes For Iride01:
#8
Drip, Drip.
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
My road bike has a relatively slack head tube angle and aggressive fork rake. Trail looks to be medium/low.
I feel like the bike is a bit slow to react around quick transitions at lower speeds, but very stable and precise past a certain speed.
I guess I would need to increase my head tube angle and slightly increase consequent fork trail to achieve the desired effect?
I feel like the bike is a bit slow to react around quick transitions at lower speeds, but very stable and precise past a certain speed.
I guess I would need to increase my head tube angle and slightly increase consequent fork trail to achieve the desired effect?
#9
I am potato.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,073
Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,577 Times
in
910 Posts
Trail isn't the be-all end-all of bike handking characteristics by any means.
Low trail= nimble/twitchy/easy to make constant corrections & instantaneous response. Often used for bikes that have considerable cargo over the front wheel else it's too hard to effect the necessary steering changes. Porteur, cargo, or mail bikes, for example. The need for constant corrections is often mentally fatiguing in it"s own right if there isn't a load present to dampen the input & prevent over correction..
High trail bikes are super stable & take effort to make corrections & direction changes. They ride like trucks or choppers at slow speed, But will be easy to ride in high speed on rough terrain. Rocks & potholes, etc, have lesser effect on changing the line you'd like to ride. High trail bikes take effort to get into a turn especially at high speed, but once you get it to do so, it'll want to "carve" a corner & stay that way requiring an equal or greater effort or throttle/power input to get right again.
Not mentioned thus far is flop. Flop is the product of the head tube angle. Generally, the slacker the head tube angle the greater flop for a given trail. Meaning the more the front end rises & falls with steering. Literally you need to fight the effect of gravity to keep the bike from spiraling into the Earth. Less flop (steeper head tube) makes for lighter feel, more flop (relaxed head tube) requires more effort. Bar width for more or less leverage, are often used to lessen the perceived effort to make corrections.
Lots of flop is why rough terrain bikes have wide bars & TT & track bikes have narrow bars. To keep the bike controllable, manageable & predictable even if their trail numbers on paper really aren't all that different..
I like to think of trail as how you get into a turn, flop is how you get out of a turn.
Rake, trail, & flop are all independant, but related...& we haven't even explored wheelbase yet.
Low trail= nimble/twitchy/easy to make constant corrections & instantaneous response. Often used for bikes that have considerable cargo over the front wheel else it's too hard to effect the necessary steering changes. Porteur, cargo, or mail bikes, for example. The need for constant corrections is often mentally fatiguing in it"s own right if there isn't a load present to dampen the input & prevent over correction..
High trail bikes are super stable & take effort to make corrections & direction changes. They ride like trucks or choppers at slow speed, But will be easy to ride in high speed on rough terrain. Rocks & potholes, etc, have lesser effect on changing the line you'd like to ride. High trail bikes take effort to get into a turn especially at high speed, but once you get it to do so, it'll want to "carve" a corner & stay that way requiring an equal or greater effort or throttle/power input to get right again.
Not mentioned thus far is flop. Flop is the product of the head tube angle. Generally, the slacker the head tube angle the greater flop for a given trail. Meaning the more the front end rises & falls with steering. Literally you need to fight the effect of gravity to keep the bike from spiraling into the Earth. Less flop (steeper head tube) makes for lighter feel, more flop (relaxed head tube) requires more effort. Bar width for more or less leverage, are often used to lessen the perceived effort to make corrections.
Lots of flop is why rough terrain bikes have wide bars & TT & track bikes have narrow bars. To keep the bike controllable, manageable & predictable even if their trail numbers on paper really aren't all that different..
I like to think of trail as how you get into a turn, flop is how you get out of a turn.
Rake, trail, & flop are all independant, but related...& we haven't even explored wheelbase yet.
Last edited by base2; 01-10-21 at 12:19 AM.
#10
Drip, Drip.
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 1,575
Bikes: Trek Verve E bike, Felt Doctrine 4 XC, Opus Horizon Apex 1
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1034 Post(s)
Liked 193 Times
in
163 Posts
Trail isn't the be-all end-all of bike handking characteristics by any means.
Low trail= nimble/twitchy/easy to make constant corrections & instantaneous response. Often used for bikes that have considerable cargo over the front wheel else it's too hard to effect the necessary steering changes. Porteur, cargo, or mail bikes, for example. The need for constant corrections is often mentally fatiguing in it"s own right if there isn't a load present to dampen the input & prevent over correction..
High trail bikes are super stable & take effort to make corrections & direction changes. They ride like trucks or choppers at slow speed, But will be easy to ride in high speed on rough terrain. Rocks & potholes, etc, have lesser effect on changing the line you'd like to ride. High trail bikes take effort to get into a turn especially at high speed, but once you get it to do so, it'll want to "carve" a corner & stay that way requiring an equal or greater effort or throttle/power input to get right again.
Not mentioned thus far is flop. Flop is the product of the head tube angle. Generally, the slacker the head tube angle the greater flop for a given trail. Meaning the more the front end rises & falls with steering. Literally you need to fight the effect of gravity to keep the bike from spiraling into the Earth. Less flop (steeper head tube) makes for lighter feel, more flop (relaxed head tube) requires more effort. Bar width for more or less leverage, are often used to lessen the perceived effort to make corrections.
Lots of flop is why rough terrain bikes have wide bars & TT & track bikes have narrow bars. To keep the bike controllable, manageable & predictable even if their trail numbers on paper really aren't all that different..
I like to think of trail as how you get into a turn, flop is how you get out of a turn.
Rake, trail, & flop are all independant, but related...& we haven't even explored wheelbase yet.
Low trail= nimble/twitchy/easy to make constant corrections & instantaneous response. Often used for bikes that have considerable cargo over the front wheel else it's too hard to effect the necessary steering changes. Porteur, cargo, or mail bikes, for example. The need for constant corrections is often mentally fatiguing in it"s own right if there isn't a load present to dampen the input & prevent over correction..
High trail bikes are super stable & take effort to make corrections & direction changes. They ride like trucks or choppers at slow speed, But will be easy to ride in high speed on rough terrain. Rocks & potholes, etc, have lesser effect on changing the line you'd like to ride. High trail bikes take effort to get into a turn especially at high speed, but once you get it to do so, it'll want to "carve" a corner & stay that way requiring an equal or greater effort or throttle/power input to get right again.
Not mentioned thus far is flop. Flop is the product of the head tube angle. Generally, the slacker the head tube angle the greater flop for a given trail. Meaning the more the front end rises & falls with steering. Literally you need to fight the effect of gravity to keep the bike from spiraling into the Earth. Less flop (steeper head tube) makes for lighter feel, more flop (relaxed head tube) requires more effort. Bar width for more or less leverage, are often used to lessen the perceived effort to make corrections.
Lots of flop is why rough terrain bikes have wide bars & TT & track bikes have narrow bars. To keep the bike controllable, manageable & predictable even if their trail numbers on paper really aren't all that different..
I like to think of trail as how you get into a turn, flop is how you get out of a turn.
Rake, trail, & flop are all independant, but related...& we haven't even explored wheelbase yet.
But wouldn't this increase the wheelbase upfront, and therefore increase stability?
#11
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
Looking to buy a new bike. It will be for city riding, moderate and low speeds. Currently I ride a 90s specialized globe 7. can't post a pic yet b/c i don't have enough posts yet tho maybe that will change. any who, things i'm looking for: shorter wheelbase (compared to the globe), 650b or 700c tires, overall lighter weight (than the globe that is), hopefully shorter chain stays. better at hills is what I'm hopefully on the right track about with these desired features. anywho what i don't know about is trail. though I do hang stuff (safely) off the handlebars on the globe and the steering is not twitchy when doing so): see below for more about trail.
I've been reading about trail and handling but it all seems to be conflicting. Here are 2 excerpts that have me especially confused as they appear to be contradictory, can anybody clarify? ...
--- Hey! You must really like this to be copying it. Hope you're not plagiarizing, but citing me properly. Quite a badge of honor for me. All the same, if you like it this much, you should be supporting Just Riding Along. Toss a few bucks in the jar. You'll find it on the page you just copied this from.".....
I've been reading about trail and handling but it all seems to be conflicting. Here are 2 excerpts that have me especially confused as they appear to be contradictory, can anybody clarify? ...
--- Hey! You must really like this to be copying it. Hope you're not plagiarizing, but citing me properly. Quite a badge of honor for me. All the same, if you like it this much, you should be supporting Just Riding Along. Toss a few bucks in the jar. You'll find it on the page you just copied this from.".....
#12
I am potato.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,073
Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,577 Times
in
910 Posts
As far as wheelbase, (front axle to rear axle) I wouldn't worry about it. We're talking millimeters up to a centimeter on a thing 1000 or 1100millileters, 10-hundred centimeters long.
Alternatively, if your bicycle is designed around a large-ish diameter tire, you can lower the entire bicycle by installing skinny road tires. This will lessen the trail some amount. Not a lot, but by some. IIRC when designing my touring bike 1.25 road slicks had a trail of 58mm, & 2 inch wide all terrain tires had a trail of 65mm. I felt that this was a good compromise because it designed in the maximum amount of freedom for any future use I could see myself doing.
Screenshot_20190401-175449_Adobe Acrobat by Richard Mozzarella, on Flickr
Assuming disk brakes, or you'd like to take to welding on relocated brake studs, you could do the same with 650b or 26 inch wheels in a 700c frame as well. Obviously being conscious of the hazards associated with pedal strikes, (which are not fun.)
Dropout extension & canti studs by Richard Mozzarella, on Flickr
Last edited by base2; 01-11-21 at 09:41 PM.
#13
Senior Member
My road bike has a relatively slack head tube angle and aggressive fork rake. Trail looks to be medium/low.
I feel like the bike is a bit slow to react around quick transitions at lower speeds, but very stable and precise past a certain speed.
I guess I would need to increase my head tube angle and slightly increase consequent fork trail to achieve the desired effect?
I feel like the bike is a bit slow to react around quick transitions at lower speeds, but very stable and precise past a certain speed.
I guess I would need to increase my head tube angle and slightly increase consequent fork trail to achieve the desired effect?
What is your desired effect? For some of us it IS to have low trail, for others it's to be neutral, and for others it's high trail. For others it's a certain description.