[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
I am also very interested in hearing about the Atlantis after it comes back from the painter. So far, my only complaint with my 56 Atlantis is fighting the front-end flop, going uphill with a front load at low speeds. On Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:53:46 PM UTC-7, René wrote: Hi Ben, The Atlantis is still at the painters' so unfortunately I haven't tested it yet. The Hunqapillar, though, I'm loving! René On Saturday, July 21, 2012, thebvo wrote: Hey René I'm curious if you've had time to mount you low trail fork to your Atlantis yet. I am bringing my Atlantis when I move to Japan in August and I'm thinking about looking for a local fella/ gal to whip one up for me, but I wanna hear your story first. Happy riding Ben -- 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/-/nzUsv6SzSYoJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- 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/-/k9nr_ivcxaMJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 08:36 -0700, allenmichael wrote: I am also very interested in hearing about the Atlantis after it comes back from the painter. So far, my only complaint with my 56 Atlantis is fighting the front-end flop, going uphill with a front load at low speeds. However, would a low trail fork (i.e., one with more offset) do anything to help with that? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Hi Ben, The Atlantis is still at the painters' so unfortunately I haven't tested it yet. The Hunqapillar, though, I'm loving! René On Saturday, July 21, 2012, thebvo wrote: Hey René I'm curious if you've had time to mount you low trail fork to your Atlantis yet. I am bringing my Atlantis when I move to Japan in August and I'm thinking about looking for a local fella/ gal to whip one up for me, but I wanna hear your story first. Happy riding Ben -- 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/-/nzUsv6SzSYoJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.comjavascript:; . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com javascript:;. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
One of our own, Rob Perks, was so taken by the low trail concept he quit talking about it started building low trail frames forks: http://oceanaircycles.com/ For perspective, Rob was an early adopter of the Roadeo and loves the bike. I've chased him up Saddleback in OC Sulphur Mtn in Ventura, so the Roadeo is pretty good country bike. My 40 mm trail Atlantis fork pre-dates Rob's project but if the idea is intriguing he's a guy you should talk to for a fork only or a complete frame. I have no business connection but we have both ridden the So Cal Riv Group rides. dougP On Jun 6, 12:20 pm, William tapebu...@gmail.com wrote: Greg J, you've described it perfectly. This is exactly my experience with my low trail (Rawland) and my high trail Rivs. I like them all alot, both with and without heavy front loads. I've never had a rear load on my low trail bike so I can't compare that. They are decidedly different but equally great and confidence inspiring to me. On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 5:40:08 PM UTC-7, Greg J wrote: Rene, Thanks for your write up. Very interesting. I have some thoughts about the low-trail issue, FWIW. I definitely noticed a difference in handling between the low trail bike (a Toei I had for a while) and a Riv, which I assume may be attributable to the difference in trail. The hard part is describing the difference in feel, and I thought I'd do my part to muddy the waters even more. You say, 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. That's funny, because I would have described it the opposite way. In my experience, the low trail bike will go exactly where you point the handlebar and will respond to small changes in your input. A positive way to describe this would be it's responsive to steering input. A negative description would be, it requires you to always be controlling the bike. The high trail bike is more stable, in that once you set a course in a turn, it will keep to its natural arc. Positively, it's on rails, and negatively, it resists or fights your input. I think the term automatic can be applied to both, and mean different thing, and that may be where some confusion arises. Low trail is automatic in that it tracks more closely your steering input--it does what you're perhaps subconsciously doing to the bike. High trail is automatic in that it (esp in turns) has its own arc that it will default to once you initiate the turn and it resists efforts to alter that course. Does this make sense? Anyways, as most will agree, it's not a life-changing experience, and plenty of people (myself included) have toured on high-trail bikes with a front bag and survived. But it's a significant enough difference, and I'm glad you embarked on your adventures. Greg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Thanks for the write-up on the low trail fork! I've had a Riv-trail Quickbeam since 2004, and a low-trail Ross since 1999 (I didn't know it was low-trail until about 2006), and find them both great-riding bikes. I would describe the steering response opposite to yours, though - the Quickbeam seems to steer best by pointing my hips, and the Ross seems to steer best by pointing the bars. I like them both, and I'm confident in putting a front load on either. Riding one and then immediately riding the other, there's a momentary dislocation, where the steering input almost seems opposite, and then by the time I turn into the street, everything is fine again. They're both fixed gears, which (in my experience) doesn't allow as fine a reading of handling as a coastable bike. Again, thanks for the excellent post on your motivation and your experience in getting the new forks built. I'm impressed. Philip Philip Williamson www.biketinker.com On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:37:57 PM UTC-7, René 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
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Ha! DougP finally has come out of the low-trail closet! Thanks Rene for your thoughtful review. I too went low trail on my load carrying bike, in my case a Surly LHT with a 72 degree head angle. Tom Matchak built a fork with 68mm of rake compared to the original 45mm. That is nearly an inch of extra rake. With 1.5inch tires, trail went from mid 60s to low 40s. Nothing else changed in my experiment. I found the new steering to be only subtly different, subtle but distinct. As others have said, less wheel flop makes the bike handle heavier front loads with more stability. The LHT does have a tendency towards a light shimmy now that wasn't there before. It is easily controled with a kneee against the top tube. I put a 28mm tire on this bike and did not like its handling at all, that felt very skittish and unstable. Descending was different but not necessarily better. Low trail was more responsive at speed but high trail feels more stable. I don't think I descend faster with either setup. So my impressions are both high and low trail handling have their strengths and weaknesses. Low trail requires a larger tire and handles front end loads well. High trail is quite fun with skinny (I use 27-33mm tires) and only a light front load or no front load. I just carry stuff on them differently. That said, my 26inch AllRounder seems to carry a moderate front load without any compaints. And I often commute on my Quickbeam, a short flattish ride, with 5-15lbs in the front basket with no bother. I am glad I changed the LHT. It had an ugly dog-leg fork before and the new handling is an improvement. I have no desire to change my Rivendells. They ride wonderfully. On Jun 5, 4:41 pm, dougP dougpn...@cox.net 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Greg J, you've described it perfectly. This is exactly my experience with my low trail (Rawland) and my high trail Rivs. I like them all alot, both with and without heavy front loads. I've never had a rear load on my low trail bike so I can't compare that. They are decidedly different but equally great and confidence inspiring to me. On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 5:40:08 PM UTC-7, Greg J wrote: Rene, Thanks for your write up. Very interesting. I have some thoughts about the low-trail issue, FWIW. I definitely noticed a difference in handling between the low trail bike (a Toei I had for a while) and a Riv, which I assume may be attributable to the difference in trail. The hard part is describing the difference in feel, and I thought I'd do my part to muddy the waters even more. You say, 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. That's funny, because I would have described it the opposite way. In my experience, the low trail bike will go exactly where you point the handlebar and will respond to small changes in your input. A positive way to describe this would be it's responsive to steering input. A negative description would be, it requires you to always be controlling the bike. The high trail bike is more stable, in that once you set a course in a turn, it will keep to its natural arc. Positively, it's on rails, and negatively, it resists or fights your input. I think the term automatic can be applied to both, and mean different thing, and that may be where some confusion arises. Low trail is automatic in that it tracks more closely your steering input--it does what you're perhaps subconsciously doing to the bike. High trail is automatic in that it (esp in turns) has its own arc that it will default to once you initiate the turn and it resists efforts to alter that course. Does this make sense? Anyways, as most will agree, it's not a life-changing experience, and plenty of people (myself included) have toured on high-trail bikes with a front bag and survived. But it's a significant enough difference, and I'm glad you embarked on your adventures. Greg -- 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/-/X3HjTElYFkYJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Well written and thoughtful treatment of the subject. I'm super glad you are getting positive results for your substantial efforts. And I for one think the Pacenti crown looks dynamite. On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:37:57 PM UTC-7, René 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 (DD cycles); for some reason I never understood, he refused from the start
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Kudos to you for doing what you wanted, how you wanted. :-) And thanks for sharing the thorough description with the rest of us. ...but not liking the Hunq gray? Really? We have to talk. ;-) Regards, -Allan -- 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/-/i-NoUf2YJIsJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Wow. This sounds like an amazing project. It's nice to know that the bikes retain the positive aspects of their handling without adding many (if any) negative aspects when going to low-trail. I'm super tempted to try the same for my Bleriot! -J On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 4:37:57 PM UTC-4, René 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 (DD cycles); for some
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
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 orthie...@gmail.com 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 15:41 -0700, dougP wrote: 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. But Grant is not a brilliant experimenter. When he did the low trail fork experiment in Riv Reader he neglected to factor in one highly significant variable (especially highly significant in the context of low trail): tire width. He tried low trail with narrow tires and did not like it. Although it was pointed out to him that wide tires add pneumatic trail and one point of lowering geometric trail is to maintain the balance and keep total trail reasonable, by that time his mind was made up and he refused to try wider tires. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Rene, Can you comment on toe overlap between the different forks on your Atlantis. It looks like you ride a 58cm and have a small amount of overlap here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/orthie251/6617229451/in/photostream/. Very curious to know if the low-trail fork eliminates any TCO as I'm casually considering going up to a 58 from 56 Atlantis. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Thank you all for your comments and feedback, and for appreciating my intent in this post. @C.J.: I'll comment on the toe overlap when I get the Atlantis with the low trail fork installed. I have no toe overlap on the Hunqapillar. @Patrick: Yes, I ride with my bars higher than the saddle and find my hands, neck and shoulder pain go away in a more upright position. Now with the Bosco bars I've found Nirvana... and you may be right, maybe that has an impact on the front tendency to wander. I didn't, however, change any other aspect of my riding position or bike components when I switched the forks. @ Allan: Yeah... I don't really like the gray color; it's the only color in Riv's bike pallete that has refused to grow on me over time. Now I have to make up my mind if I really want to paint it silver or go with another color. The Atlantis, however, I'm keeping in its original color. I don't think I could come up with a better one for it. It's part of its soul... :-) René -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
Re: [RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Rene, Thanks for your write up. Very interesting. I have some thoughts about the low-trail issue, FWIW. I definitely noticed a difference in handling between the low trail bike (a Toei I had for a while) and a Riv, which I assume may be attributable to the difference in trail. The hard part is describing the difference in feel, and I thought I'd do my part to muddy the waters even more. You say, 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. That's funny, because I would have described it the opposite way. In my experience, the low trail bike will go exactly where you point the handlebar and will respond to small changes in your input. A positive way to describe this would be it's responsive to steering input. A negative description would be, it requires you to always be controlling the bike. The high trail bike is more stable, in that once you set a course in a turn, it will keep to its natural arc. Positively, it's on rails, and negatively, it resists or fights your input. I think the term automatic can be applied to both, and mean different thing, and that may be where some confusion arises. Low trail is automatic in that it tracks more closely your steering input--it does what you're perhaps subconsciously doing to the bike. High trail is automatic in that it (esp in turns) has its own arc that it will default to once you initiate the turn and it resists efforts to alter that course. Does this make sense? Anyways, as most will agree, it's not a life-changing experience, and plenty of people (myself included) have toured on high-trail bikes with a front bag and survived. But it's a significant enough difference, and I'm glad you embarked on your adventures. Greg -- 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/-/BVf-frFiaLcJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
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 orthie...@gmail.com 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
Re: [RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 15:41 -0700, dougP wrote: 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. But Grant is not a brilliant experimenter. When he did the low trail fork experiment in Riv Reader he neglected to factor in one highly significant variable (especially highly significant in the context of low trail): tire width. He tried low trail with narrow tires and did not like it. Although it was pointed out to him that wide tires add pneumatic trail and one point of lowering geometric trail is to maintain the balance and keep total trail reasonable, by that time his mind was made up and he refused to try wider tires. There are many factors that go into bike feel. Trail is only one of them and perhaps not even the most important. Trying to boil down how bikes ride to the notions of low trail vs high trail or front-loading vs rear-loading or high BB vs low BB etc. is something of a fool's errand. No one factor dominates. A high trail bike with a 75 degree head tube will feel different than a bike with same amount of trail and a 72 degree head tube; ditto low trail bikes. The math that describes a bike's handling is very complicated, not actually solved yet, and is right up there with jet aircraft dynamics. The important thing IMHO is that people find bikes that ride the way they like bikes to ride. That way they will ride more and will have fun. It's great that there are a variety of bike designs out there. I am glad the OP had a successful experiment and has found something that works better for him. To each their own. I have not liked any low trail bikes I have ridden. Some people love them and, who knows, I might ride one some day that I really like- there is no reason to rule that out. Jan is eloquent in his praises of them. I've never experienced the problems with high trail bikes that he and some other folks report. My high trail bikes don't pull in turns and I can change my line in the middle of a corner at will, maybe the result of many miles spent racing road races and criteriums on high trail bikes- I steer a bike with the saddle as much or more than the handlebars. What made me think about matching riding style to bike feel is that I have one bike- which I built and which came out with unintentionally high trail, due to the head tube steepening when I brazed up the frame- that feels dramatically better if I lean aggressively to corner like I am racing and feels weird if I try to corner by steering with the handlebars. And some things are even confusing- track bikes tend to have high trail (they are ridden pretty much in a straight line around the banking of a velodrome) and yet are typically praised for their nimbleness when, according to trail theory, they shouldn't be. The danger in any discussion comes when we confuse subjective preference with objective fact, and especially getting really attached to the factuality of one's beliefs and preferences- whether about bikes, politics or religion. FWIW my 1996 All-Rounder is a great handling bike with a front load (about 10 lbs has been the maximum) or a rear load (about 18 lbs in a Carradice Nelson), on 26 x 1.25 Paselas. I don't even know for sure whether it's high or low trail; my best estimate using straightedges ad tape and rulers and drawings on the floor is that it's about 55 mm with the current tires, so medium trail. Bigger tires would make it higher trail, smaller tires would make it lower trail. The Paselas at 1.25 seem to be the sweet spot with that bike. It's sort of like my old Volvo 240- really comfortable, sportier than you'd expect and astonishingly nimble. The best handling bike I have ever ridden is my high trail Ritchey with 700 x 25 tires, almost completely telepathic when riding it. So, I say ride whatcha like and works for you. The OP made a very clear discovery for himself with his bikes that will be very useful to him. Other people may find it useful and I say bravo for posting it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Interesting write up. I noticed in the pictures that your load is fairly forward relative to the front axle. I am assuming that is so because you've chosen swept back bars (those new Boscos) and your stem is therefore necessarily longer than normal to compensate. The long stem means the front bag is also pushed forward. It is an interesting predicament. Will On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 3:37:57 PM UTC-5, René 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
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Tim mentioned The important thing IMHO is that people find bikes that ride the way they like bikes to ride. That way they will ride more and will have fun. That is what it's all about. Whatever works for you may be vastly different than what works for me. Rider weight, riding style and how the bike is loaded have way more affect than subtle geometric differences, IMHO. I had over 30,000 miles on the Atlantis before I even dreamed of changing the fork, and even then argued with myself for at least a year. The issue evolved into a curiousity about what if? and of course I had the stock fork in case my ideas were proven wrong. Like the book says, Just Ride. dougP On Jun 5, 6:51 pm, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 15:41 -0700, dougP wrote: 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. But Grant is not a brilliant experimenter. When he did the low trail fork experiment in Riv Reader he neglected to factor in one highly significant variable (especially highly significant in the context of low trail): tire width. He tried low trail with narrow tires and did not like it. Although it was pointed out to him that wide tires add pneumatic trail and one point of lowering geometric trail is to maintain the balance and keep total trail reasonable, by that time his mind was made up and he refused to try wider tires. There are many factors that go into bike feel. Trail is only one of them and perhaps not even the most important. Trying to boil down how bikes ride to the notions of low trail vs high trail or front-loading vs rear-loading or high BB vs low BB etc. is something of a fool's errand. No one factor dominates. A high trail bike with a 75 degree head tube will feel different than a bike with same amount of trail and a 72 degree head tube; ditto low trail bikes. The math that describes a bike's handling is very complicated, not actually solved yet, and is right up there with jet aircraft dynamics. The important thing IMHO is that people find bikes that ride the way they like bikes to ride. That way they will ride more and will have fun. It's great that there are a variety of bike designs out there. I am glad the OP had a successful experiment and has found something that works better for him. To each their own. I have not liked any low trail bikes I have ridden. Some people love them and, who knows, I might ride one some day that I really like- there is no reason to rule that out. Jan is eloquent in his praises of them. I've never experienced the problems with high trail bikes that he and some other folks report. My high trail bikes don't pull in turns and I can change my line in the middle of a corner at will, maybe the result of many miles spent racing road races and criteriums on high trail bikes- I steer a bike with the saddle as much or more than the handlebars. What made me think about matching riding style to bike feel is that I have one bike- which I built and which came out with unintentionally high trail, due to the head tube steepening when I brazed up the frame- that feels dramatically better if I lean aggressively to corner like I am racing and feels weird if I try to corner by steering with the handlebars. And some things are even confusing- track bikes tend to have high trail (they are ridden pretty much in a straight line around the banking of a velodrome) and yet are typically praised for their nimbleness when, according to trail theory, they shouldn't be. The danger in any discussion comes when we confuse subjective preference with objective fact, and especially getting really attached to the factuality of one's beliefs and preferences- whether about bikes, politics or religion. FWIW my 1996 All-Rounder is a great handling bike with a front load (about 10 lbs has been the maximum) or a rear load (about 18 lbs in a Carradice Nelson), on 26 x 1.25 Paselas. I don't even know for sure whether it's high or low trail; my best estimate using straightedges ad tape and rulers and drawings on the floor is that it's about 55 mm with the current tires, so medium trail. Bigger tires would make it higher trail, smaller tires would make it lower trail. The Paselas at 1.25 seem to be the sweet spot with that bike. It's sort of like my old Volvo 240- really comfortable, sportier than you'd expect and astonishingly nimble. The best handling bike I have ever ridden is my high trail Ritchey with 700 x 25 tires, almost completely telepathic
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Will, You are right about the Pass Stow rack putting the load high and forward. I liked it and wanted to try it since it allows both the Porteur bag type, front panniers and any other load that requires a flat surface which also works great for baskets. It fits very well with the Bosco bars, but one had nothing to do with the other. I may keep them or not, based on hoe they behave after trying different loads, particularly on the Porteur bag. I will also be testing the regular Nitto mini with and without Lowriders, as well as the Platrack with its matching bag. Lots of things to test over the course of the next several months... René On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Will wrote: Interesting write up. I noticed in the pictures that your load is fairly forward relative to the front axle. I am assuming that is so because you've chosen swept back bars (those new Boscos) and your stem is therefore necessarily longer than normal to compensate. The long stem means the front bag is also pushed forward. It is an interesting predicament. Will -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
[RBW] Re: Low Trail Fork Experiment ... FYI only - Not intended to start another debate...
Rene, Another member JimG and I both did something in the same vein. Jim had a 80's Trek 400http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimg/5646813626/in/set-72157618420547360/that he turned into a bike with low trail front end geometry using a Kogswell fork. I did the same to my 80's Specialized Sequoiahttp://bikegarage.blogspot.com/2012/02/low-trail-specialized-sequoia.html, also with a Kogswell fork and change the wheels to 650b size. I did it because the two other bikes I had are ones with mid- and low-trail front end geometry, and I found that I prefer that geometry especially in descents and climb, and with heavy front load. I totally relate to the front load disappearing experience with my Kogswell carrying a heavy load on its porteur rack. Franklyn On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:45:09 PM UTC-7, René wrote: Will, You are right about the Pass Stow rack putting the load high and forward. I liked it and wanted to try it since it allows both the Porteur bag type, front panniers and any other load that requires a flat surface which also works great for baskets. It fits very well with the Bosco bars, but one had nothing to do with the other. I may keep them or not, based on hoe they behave after trying different loads, particularly on the Porteur bag. I will also be testing the regular Nitto mini with and without Lowriders, as well as the Platrack with its matching bag. Lots of things to test over the course of the next several months... René On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Will wrote: Interesting write up. I noticed in the pictures that your load is fairly forward relative to the front axle. I am assuming that is so because you've chosen swept back bars (those new Boscos) and your stem is therefore necessarily longer than normal to compensate. The long stem means the front bag is also pushed forward. It is an interesting predicament. Will -- 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/-/suG-tacmq7IJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
