![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
What performance road bike has the most trail. They seem to range from
5.7cm to 5.00 cm (trek 1000 - trek 5200). Since trail determines how stable a bike will be, I was thinking about a performance road bike with about 6.2 cm trail for a frame that would fit someone 6 feet tall ( a 58 frame on a Trek). |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Callistus Valerius wrote:
> What performance road bike has the most trail. They seem to range > from > 5.7cm to 5.00 cm (trek 1000 - trek 5200). Since trail determines how > stable a bike will be, I was thinking about a performance road bike > with about 6.2 cm trail for a frame that would fit someone 6 feet > tall ( a 58 frame on a Trek). Head angle has an effect on stability too, so you can't look at trail alone. It's the combination of the two that matters, and there's no magic number. Generally, larger road frame sizes have steeper head angles, and more trail to compensate. Matt O. |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
> > What performance road bike has the most trail. They seem to range > > from > > 5.7cm to 5.00 cm (trek 1000 - trek 5200). Since trail determines how > > stable a bike will be, I was thinking about a performance road bike > > with about 6.2 cm trail for a frame that would fit someone 6 feet > > tall ( a 58 frame on a Trek). > > Head angle has an effect on stability too, so you can't look at trail alone. > It's the combination of the two that matters, and there's no magic number. > Generally, larger road frame sizes have steeper head angles, and more trail to > compensate. > > Matt O. > The little guys get super stable bikes with lots to trail, and the big guys are stuck with little trail and unstable bikes. I guess that comes with mass production, since the target is smaller guys. |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Callistus Valerius wrote:
> The little guys get super stable bikes with lots to trail, and > the big guys are stuck with little trail and unstable bikes. I guess > that comes with mass production, since the target is smaller guys. That really has nothing to do with it. Small frames have slack head angles for better toe clearance, and also to make up for a shorter wheelbase. Big frames have steep head angles to make the wheelbase shorter. I do agree that larger frames tend to be overly quick steering, because of an obsession with short wheelbases and steep head angles. But the solution is not just to find a bike with more trail. Merely adding trail to a steep bike might make it more stable at high speeds, but create other handling problems. Look for a bike with a longer wheelbase and a slacker head angle, matching trail, and an overall milder design -- like the 70s-style bikes that seem to be making a comeback -- usually called "club sport" or "road sport" geometry. Though they're out of the mainstream these days, there are plenty of stable, sweet handling bikes around. Just find one of those and buy it, instead of screwing around with geometry yourself. Cross bikes are another good choice. Tim McNamara, who posts here, told how he beat all his friends to the bottoms of mountain passes in the Alps, because his Gunnar Crosshairs handled so much better than their bikes. I borrowed a Bianchi Reparto Course cross bike once, and I can't imagine a sweeter all around handler. I'm a fan of bikes like this too. That said, I ride a short, steep, quick/wobbly Italian job. Matt O. |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
> The little guys get super stable bikes with lots to trail, and the big
> guys are stuck with little trail and unstable bikes. I guess that comes > with mass production, since the target is smaller guys. Actually, no. Wheelbase is a major contributor to stability, and the larger bikes have longer wheelbases than smaller ones. Stability with most modern larger-framed road bikes is almost a given, providing that materials & design make for a rigid-enough platform. Ideally, you want a bike that doesn't handle like a boat at moderate speeds, and remains stable at higher speeds. I doubt many currently-made road bikes are too far off the mark in that regard, given that geometry isn't exactly rocket science, and we're many many years into the future from such twitchy designs as the older Gios Torino (what did that have, a 76 degree head tube???!!!). I think it's a tougher job on the smaller bikes to get a combination of handling characteristics that works well. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com |
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
"Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> wrote
> > Look for a bike with a longer wheelbase and a slacker head angle, matching > trail, and an overall milder design -- like the 70s-style bikes that seem to be > making a comeback -- usually called "club sport" or "road sport" geometry. > Though they're out of the mainstream these days, there are plenty of stable, > sweet handling bikes around. Just find one of those and buy it, instead of > screwing around with geometry yourself. Cross bikes are another good choice. Touring frames have geometries similar to the older frames without the high BB's of cross bikes. Long chainstays are a must for stable large frames. |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Wouldn't too much stability be a BAD thing on a racing machine? You want
it to be nimble and have a quick response. Stability would resist this, I would think. - - "May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!" Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman" Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner |
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
From: peter_cole_no_spam_at_all@comcast.net
>Touring frames have geometries similar >to the older frames without the high BB's >of cross bikes. Long chainstays are a >must for stable large frames. Touring bikes are definitely stable. I know, I have one (and love it for that). However, as a "performance" bike, it's TOO stable. Rides like on rails, even at high speed carrying a full set of panniers and camping equipment. However, races rarely take place "on rails", if you know what I mean. And BTW, the longer chainstays are mainly for heel clearance, not stability. - - "May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!" Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman" Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner |
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
> Touring bikes are definitely stable. I know, I have one (and love it for
> that). However, as a "performance" bike, it's TOO stable. Rides like on > rails, even at high speed carrying a full set of panniers and camping > equipment. > > However, races rarely take place "on rails", if you know what I mean. > And BTW, the longer chainstays are mainly for heel clearance, not > stability. What's the geometry or which bike is your touring bike? |
|