....finally came out of the closet.. eh Doug. My personal experience is that without the front load the Riv is more stable and funner to ride. Adding a medium weight upfront/above wheel load changes the equation.
~mike On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:41:20 PM UTC-7, dougP wrote: > > Rene: > > You are indeed brave to post about your experiment, and I hope > everyone else reviews it thoughtfully. > > Something we all need to keep in mind is that as brilliant a designer > as Grant is, every bike is the sum of a large number of compromises. > The fewer the compromises, the more specialized and hence less > versatile a bike is. For me, one of the major attractions of > Rivendell is the versatility of my Atlantis. There just isn't any > ride I would hesitate to do because "my bike can't do that". > > This confidence building versatility has also led me to a lot of "why > not?" adventures in loading, and I'm probably not alone here. It > would be impossible to design a single bike that would be equally > competent handling all the possible combinations of front, rear, high, > & low loading. Rivendell, IMHO, does it better than most, probably > because they actually think about it, load their bikes & go banging > about the hills in the real world. > > I took delivery of my Atlantis in early 03, and it's my go-to bike for > everything. Over the years, I came to prefer having my basic, daily > stuff in a front bag, first a Riv Hobo, then an Acorn Boxy Rando > (holds more). It seemed that with the front bag fairly well stuffed, > the bike had a bit of a wander when climbing at low speed, nothing as > you describe but an irritating tendency to want to go somewhere else. > I always dismissed it as the load and my inattentiveness. Stumbling > into some low trail discussion or article, it seemed like maybe there > was room for improvement, at least to my tastes. > > When touring with a load, the bike was a bit dodgy with everything on > the rear, the problem being an infrequent but unpredictable shimmy. > Spreading the weight around among 4 bags restored stability. Since my > lodging load is 2 bags, on-tour ezperiments with them front vs rear > showed front to be a more stable location. However, the previously > mentioned "wandering" was more annoying with all the weight up > front. > > Tom Matchak also came to my attention courtesy another list member, > and built the same fork for me. Since my issue was not as dramatic as > yours, I was only hoping to get the same stability with a front load > that the bike had with no load. The result meets expectations. The > 40 mm trail is not a relgious experience but a rather subtle change > that solved my personal problem without disturbing anything else about > the bike. > > Note that I did not leap into this without a good deal of second > guessing and self-argument. The Atlantis is a great bike and I did > not want to screw it up. Fortunately, the results justified the > deliberations. It would not surprise me if another Riv owner rode my > bike & hated it. It just works for my & my quirky habits. > > Side bar re: shimmy. If you get shimmy, don't assume the 40 mm trail > is the cure. On a recent S24O (2 bagger) I rode with the bags in > front on the way out and the rear on the return. On a straight, > level, smooth bike trail at perhaps 12 mph, I got a nasty shimmy when > I had to stop quickly, with the load in the rear. After that, all the > way home, I tried to induce it again with no success. The typical > "tail wag when standing" is still there. I've been experimenting with > trying to move the load lower & as far forward as practical. I may > need a change of rack (currently using the Nitto Big Back rack) to get > things where I want them. > > Funny that you want to paint both bikes. I really like the gray & > kidney bean red Hunq paint scheme, and have considered doing that on > my Atlantis. It's spent enough time traveling that I'm thinking new > paint for it's 10th birthday would be nice. Of course, my wife tells > me "it's you; sorta old & beat-up looking". I think there's a > complement in there but I could be just wishing. > > dougP > > > > > On Jun 5, 1:37 pm, René Sterental <[email protected]> wrote: > > Disclaimer: > > > > This is a very long post and I want to start by stating that I don't > mean > > to start another heated debate on high vs. low trail fork, or Jan vs. > Grant > > philosophies, etc. I just want to describe this experiment and its > initial > > results to the group so anyone thinking along the same lines has another > > point of reference. I'll gladly answer any questions that are posted, > > either privately or publicly but let's handle it as the controversial > topic > > it usually is. Also worth noting is that this is a modification I chose > to > > do on my own to my bikes and while Rivendell certainly supports the > > exchange of information and knowledge about bikes, they certainly stand > > proudly by their bikes and their design philosophy. This post is in no > way > > an attempt to challenge that. They are aware of my experiment. > > > > Ok, here I go... > > > > For a number of reasons that I can just summarize, in no particular > order, > > as the tendency of my Rivendell bikes to shimmy with any loads > (especially > > my Atlantis), my dislike for how they handle with any front loads > > and especially heavier ones, as well as with heavy rear loads, all of > which > > magnify the tendency of the front steering to pull and require > > overcorrection when turning, as well as the interesting and very > educating > > online discussions and articles on bike geometry and fork geometry and > its > > effects on the handling characteristics of a bike, I decided to try it > to > > see for myself what the whole low trail geometry claims were about. > > I wasn't able or willing to go buy a new bike just to experiment, and > even > > if I did, there would be no way I could tell what the low trail fork > would > > do to the handling of my Rivendell bikes which, aside from the > > nuances/issues stated above, I love. And yes, while I could > > certainly adjust to all of these quirks, I just didn't like having them > on > > my bikes. The obvious solution recommended by some people on this group > in > > addition to several articles online pointed me to Tom Matchak in the > East > > Coast who had already built low trail forks for other Rivendell bikes. > Tom > > seemed to have a great reputation as a builder and immediately knew what > > this was all about when I contacted him. Due to the long lead time to > have > > the low trail fork built for my Atlantis as was my original intention > plus > > a few additional considerations that came up as part of this process, > like > > the need to have the Atlantis repainted and why not, the Hunqapillar as > > well (never did like that gray color much), I decided to take the risk > of > > ordering two low trail forks for both the Atlantis and the Hunqapillar > as > > these are the bikes I mainly ride loaded. > > > > I asked Jan Heine for his low trail recommendation as well as Tom > Matchak > > and they both came out with the same number: 40mm of trail, which > requires > > a rake of 70mm for 40/50 mm tires. On the Hunqapillar, the same 70mm > rake > > comes out to 42mm of trail. For comparison, the standard Rivendell fork > for > > the Atlantis has 45mm rake/65mm trail and the standard Hunqapillar fork > has > > 50mm rake/63mm trail. I had to send several detailed measurements to Tom > > Matchak so he could preserve the crown race to axle distances on both > > bikes. He also specked cable guides for my dynamo lights as well as > fender > > attachments so I no longer need to fiddle with the darumas to mount the > > front fenders and can screw in the fender directly to the underside of > the > > crown. Additionally, the fork for the Hunqapillar was spec'd with a > Pacenti > > MTB bi-plate crown to run the 50mm tires with 60 mm fenders and the fork > > for the Altantis with a Long Shen A16 crown to be used with 40mm tires > and > > 50 mm fenders. Regretfully but understandably so, I got a negative > response > > to my inquire at RBW on whether I could buy a pair of Rivendell crowns > for > > this project, so while none of these crowns is as beautiful as the > original > > Riv crowns, they're sort of Rivish, especially the A16. Both forks were > > also spec'd with the usual set braze-ons for the normal array of racks > > including the Nova and Duo Lowrider racks. Tom put these braze-ons on > the > > front of the fork instead of on the back where the Riv forks have them > with > > the effect that it will be easier to level them properly. I didn't ask > for > > the braze-ons on top of the crown as I have no use for them. > > > > After the long expected wait (this whole project started in december of > > 2011 and it took until febrary for the orders and details for both forks > to > > be completed. Tom was going to schedule them to be built in March anyway > > and was done in April. He shipped both forks to the local painter Keven > > recommended (D&D cycles); for some reason I never understood, he refused > > from the start to ship the unpainted forks to me, but agreed to ship > them > > to the painter of my choice since the bikes were going to be repainted > and > > the forks would have to be painted to match the frames. > > > > The second phase of this project is for me to disassemble the Atlantis > > first and take it to Rick to be repainted. This repaint was necessary > (as > > these things are) since I had the right down tube braze-on replaced > after > > almost destroying it during the original build (another long story). Not > > wanting to be without both the Hunqapillar and the Atlantis at the same > > time, I asked Rick if he could give me the Hunqapillar fork to use while > > the Atlantis got repainted including the new fork (4 - 6 weeks waiting > > time) and when I took possession of the Atlantis, I'd drop the > Hunqapillar > > so he could repaint it to change the stock gray color. He gave the new > low > > trail fork for the Hunqapillar its primer coat and a quick coat of > > Hunqapillar gray so it wouldn't look bad as I rode it and tested it > before > > the repaint. > > > > I had such a hectic travel and work schedule that I just didn't have the > > time to disassemble the bikes to take them to Rick's shop to be painted, > so > > it wasn't until this past Friday, a bit over a month after the forks > were > > delivered, that I was able to pick up the Hunqapillar fork. On Friday > > afternoon I removed the Hunqapillar's stock fork, took both to my LBS to > > have them swap the crown race from the stock fork to the new fork and > > proceeded to install the new fork. I'm thinking of getting those tools > to > > do that myself, although it's such a low frequency job that I normally > have > > the mechanics at the LBS do it, but it's always a hassle. Anyway, that > > night I finished the installation and put back the Pass & Stow front > rack I > > had before and decided to put the Swift Industries Pelican Porteur bag I > > had ordered when I first ordered that rack. On the standard Hunqapillar > > fork, I hated how the bike handled with the Pelican Porteur bag on the > > rack; the empty Pass & Stow rack wasn't bad on the handling of the bike, > > but loaded with the bag it was awful. It pulled so much on the bars, > > especially when taking turns that while I could adapt to it, like I had > > done on last year's S24O to Mt. Diablo, I just didn't like how it > handled > > and wanted to do a direct comparison. I didn't load it too much, just my > > Fuji X100 camera and a sweater, but the bag itself is kind of heavy with > > its dual canvas exterior/plastic interior and padding. It has the > > extra-heavy black canvas that they offer as an additional option. I also > > put inside a padded F-Stop insert which I discovered recently as a great > > solution for carrying camera and lenses on the bike. > > > > On Saturday morning I did a 15 mile mixed terrain ride (though mostly on > > twisty paved trails with lots of people running and walking around as > well > > to see how the bike would handle with the new fork and boy, was that a > > revelation! The Hunqapillar's handling is, in my opinion, vastly > improved. > > I was afraid it was going to be squirmy or squirrely, but to my > surprise, > > none of the good traits were changed but all the less desirable ones are > > gone. I don't know if I can verbally describe how it feels accurately, > but > > where before I had to "drive" the bike, especially around turns, now all > I > > have to do is think of where I want to go and the bike just responds > > effortlessly. Turns are beautiful, whether at low or high speed, yet the > > bike tracks perfectly and no longer wants to wander or pull on the > > handlebars. The front load dissapeared while riding and I could zig-zag > > around people so smoothly it was a pleasure. Riding on singletrack was > > awesome. > > > > Needless to say, I'll have to do further testing with different types of > > loads and racks, front and rear loads, rear only loads and no loads. > This > > morning I rode my bike/train commute with a bit more on the Pelican bag > and > > it was still very nice. Between the new low trail fork and the Bosco > bars, > > my Hunqapillar is now perfect for me. Perfect fit, perfect comfort, all > the > > hand positions I need, the handling I wanted. Next will be deciding what > > color to paint it, although I'm leaning towards silver now. I cannot > really > > ride my bikes no-handed, but if anything, it would seem to me that with > the > > low trail fork, as expected, it's a bit more difficult for me to ride > > no-handed. Further testing/practice needed to confirm. > > > > Here are the initial comparison photos on a side by side montage to > > appreciate the suble differences between the stock high trail fork and > the > > new low trail fork, especially the rake. *http://tinyurl.com/7phz5kz* > > The photo of the stock fork was taken during the original conversations > > with Tom and I used my iPhone in my office. The photo of the new fork > was > > taken today with my X100 and its quality is better. Obviously the > > perspective on both is not equal. I can add close-ups of the stock fork > > next to the low trail fork if requested. > > > > René -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/HScxmigFwksJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
