Low trail schmo trail......

[charlie]

Just rode my 'Sam' after obsessing over low trail forks for the last few months. With my new drop bars and hobo bag I never noticed 'wheel flop' or any tendency of the bike to wander as some might contend. Just a nice pleasant ride uphill and down and straight line performance was solid. My new Hillborne rides like a dream. If you are on the fence and are considering a low trail fork or frame over your Rivendell like I was starting to do......rest assured your Riv is a fine ride. I think we cyclists are often fickle when it comes to bikes and the latest new gadget or re-invented design. I guess I'm just saying (maybe for my own benefit) try other brands if like but know that a Grant designed Rivendell is a solidly designed frame. Go Grant !  

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2012-12-08 at 21:17 -0800, charlie wrote:
> Just rode my 'Sam' after obsessing over low trail forks for the last
> few months. With my new drop bars and hobo bag I never noticed 'wheel
> flop' or any tendency of the bike to wander as some might contend.
> Just a nice pleasant ride uphill and down and straight line
> performance was solid.

You're not likely to notice wheel flop or a tendency to wander unless
you are going extremely slowly up a very steep hill. Did you do that?

[PATRICK MOORE]

To expand this discussion: I found the Sam Hill very floppy going
uphill with a **rear** load; for my purpose and taste, intolerably so.

However!

The Fargo has huge trail (88? IIRC with the Big Apples, 72 or so with
the Kojaks), per jimg's trail calculator and the data I found on the
Fargo site for the Fargo I model, and it is much, much more tractable
in the same circumstances.

OTOH, on fast downhill sweepers, and generally when taking curves, the
Sam HIll was rock solid and confident while the Fargo with either
wheelset is much less so. Note that the Fargo is not horrible, it just
does not feel -- to me -- like one of the benchmark bikes, of which I
put Rivs in first place in this respect.

What gives?

> --
> 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-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>



--

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[PATRICK MOORE]

One more anecdote that may or may not be relevant: when I once put 30+
lb on front lowriders on the Sam, the steering was so heavy I could
literally hardly turn the bar --- I was not comfortable going faster
than 15 mph and quickly abandoned the experiment. Very odd. Needless
to say the Fargo is much less affected by similar front loads. Again,
what gives?

[RJM]

Ride-wise, I think the Sam is great. I wonder if the floppy feeling with certain loads is size based. I ride a 48cm, and generally keep a small saddlesack with a tool roll, spare tire, pump, some food, some extra clothing and possibly another water bottle in it. With that load, the only time I get the hint of flop in the front is when I am going very slowly up a rather steep hill. It isn't a lack of control or anything, just a feeling that I am going too slow and should probably speed up.

 

I think the low trail thing is for people who really want to put a bunch of gear on the front of their bikes with no load on the rear. I just don't get it all that much.

[Kenneth Stagg]

I didn't know anything about low trail when my Mariposa arrived, I just knew that the handling was amazing compared to my Heron, or pretty much anything else I'd ever ridden (exception being Moultons) and I wanted to know why.  Digging showed that it was a combination of three main factors in the geometry of the bike, which had been optimized by Mike Barry for my preference of carrying  a handlebar bag (not too heavily loaded) and saddlebag.  The other two factors were the seat tube angle (72 degrees is pretty shallow these days for a 53cm frame) and bb height (designed around my 165mm cranks).  The trail, though, was the part that was specifically about lightening the handling of the bike, particularly with the handlebar bag.

Further reading after the fact suggested that shortening the trail for the tandem would make it nicer for a team that tended to go uphill slowly - I'm sure the Erickson would be great for a fast team on 25C tires but for a slow team on 30Cs going uphill was a lot more of a workout for my upper body than for my legs (when we finished Tour de Blast on the Erickson my arms were jelly but my legs were fine - that's the day that I decided to replace the tandem.)

-Ken

--

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/-/hVYbyT2HstgJ.

[charlie]

I have done that before however not yesterday but... my observation is, if I'm going so slow that my hub generator doesn't light my headlamp I may as well get off and walk. I can see how a heavily loaded front end might cause wheel flop going super slow and for a front load only 'Rando rider' that might not be ideal.....I just balance the load front and rear putting my heavy tool roll, spare tube etc. under the saddle and my light load; rain jacket, phone, wallet, food etc. up front. It seems to work. I guess my point is one can adapt with a little planning and the Sam Hillborne handles perfectly fine downhill and up if that is done.

[charlie]

 Here is how I load my Sam front to rear.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200150032779781&set=a.2522635871448.2142301.1419870581&type=3&theater

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 08:57 -0800, charlie wrote:
> I have done that before however not yesterday but... my observation
> is, if I'm going so slow that my hub generator doesn't light my
> headlamp I may as well get off and walk.

I don't know at what speed your hub generator won't light your light,
but with a bike with high wheel flop you would probably notice wandering
and the tendency to dart unpredictably from side to side at 4 mph
climbing a 12% grade in a gear in the low 20s. On the same grade I
think you would be hard pressed to walk at 2 mph on that same grade, and
maybe when you got done smacking your ankle against the pedal, etc.,
might end up averaging something like 1.5 mph. At least, that's been my
experience.

> I can see how a heavily loaded front end might cause wheel flop going
> super slow and for a front load only 'Rando rider' that might not be
> ideal.....

Wheel flop is not caused by load on the front, it's caused by geometry.

> I just balance the load front and rear putting my heavy tool roll,
> spare tube etc. under the saddle and my light load; rain jacket,
> phone, wallet, food etc. up front. It seems to work. I guess my point
> is one can adapt with a little planning and the Sam Hillborne handles
> perfectly fine downhill and up if that is done.

The adaptations you mention will in all probably mitigate the condition.
However, you can still be surprised even with little to no load: I
recall climbing one 14% grade with no more than 3 lb load, all in a
Carradice, on my Rambouillet when after having to constantly wiggle the
bars to keep the bike going straight against its tendency to veer
sideways, the bike suddenly went left at 90 degrees, straight across the
road. I managed to stop and dismount before going off the left
shoulder, and fortunately it was a very lightly trafficked road, so no
oncoming cars.

[Mojo]

I like what Grant has said many times, poorly paraphrased here, you get used to what you ride. I have four Rivendells and absolutley love the handling of three of them and live just fine with the fourth. Beyond those frames, I have also acquired a poor-man's Atlantis, the Surly LHT.  After some experience carrying stuff on the LHT and reading lots I decided to change the fork. Tom Matchak built it for me http://tommatchakcycles.blogspot.com/2007/03/frame-neutral-replacement-fork.html

The difference was subtle but distinctive and very pleasurable. I think I may talk to Tom Matchak about that fourth Rivendell.

[Kenneth Stagg]

Maybe some of the time, but I was used to the Heron's handling and its handling was the reason I ordered the Mariposa.  I specifically told Mike that I wanted the new bike to have lighter handling than the Heron because I was tired of having to muscle it around.  I actually had a hard time believing just how much better the Mariposa handled - it was like night and day.

-Ken

On Sunday, December 9, 2012, Mojo wrote:

I like what Grant has said many times, poorly paraphrased here, you get used to what you ride. I have four Rivendells and absolutley love the handling of three of them and live just fine with the fourth. Beyond those frames, I have also acquired a poor-man's Atlantis, the Surly LHT.  After some experience carrying stuff on the LHT and reading lots I decided to change the fork. Tom Matchak built it for me http://tommatchakcycles.blogspot.com/2007/03/frame-neutral-replacement-fork.html

The difference was subtle but distinctive and very pleasurable. I think I may talk to Tom Matchak about that fourth Rivendell.

--

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/-/EhMi8BKT5DcJ.

[dougP]

Charlie:

Congrats on enjoying the handling of your new ride.  You are correct that we sometimes over-think our bikes.  The ability of Rivendells to accommodate a wide range of tire sizes, racks, luggage, baskets, ets., and still handle well is quite amazing and a testament to Grant's experience and design talent.  It's often said that Rivs are "rear loaders" but there are plenty of photos on the RBWHQ website of them with large front baskets stuffed full of camping gear, out on trails. 

IMHO, discussions regarding trail, shimmy, loading, handling, etc., often ignore the rider input factor.  Our position on the bike, pedaling style, tires & pressure, etc., must have a significant influence.  Generally even a lightweight rider outweighs the bike, even loaded for a camping tour. 

Trail is only one element of bike design, and thinking about it in isolation is pointless.  If one is considering a Rivendell and another bike with a significantly different trail, it would be difficult to predict handling variations.

After years of time on my Atlantis and a lots of different loading arrangements, I had a 40 mm trail fork made for it.  That corrected the irritating front end wander but it's a subtle change.  One of my concerns was whether there was a downside hiding in the low trail concept, and after well over a year I can't find one.  The fact that 25 mm can be added to the wheelbase without screwing up something is a good testament to Rivendell's design philosophy. 

dougP

[PATRICK MOORE]

I would be very interested in learning more about how position, rider
size and weight, tire width and pressure, and for that matter pedaling
style affect handling for a given geometry. My wandering problem on
the Sam was with heavy rear load and nothing in front; and my favored
position is rearward biased.

Interesting ...

One of the best rear load bikes I had was that Motobecane with very
light 531 tubing and long stays -- better than other bikes with
equally long stays and stouter tubing. It's all very odd. This even
pushing the limit for the Tubus Fly rack.

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:21 PM, dougP <doug...@cox.net> wrote:IMHO,

[charlie]

Yea Steve....I've had that happen on several bikes going up super steep hills (tendency to not hold a straight line) I'm not sure what a 12% grade is but some I've gone up are so steep I thought I would vapor lock and puke barely making it up. At my age, weight and with sketchy knees I can still climb but must use MTB gearing 22x32x44 12-32 on the Surly and it gets me up anything I want to climb. I live in the foothills of Mt. Rainier and hills are a reality being both long and steep. My current bike (Surly) with a generator hub  flickers at low speed so I'm probably going at walking speed......sometimes a little walking is a relief on long climbs and uses different muscles giving my behind a rest also. 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 13:33 -0800, charlie wrote:
> Yea Steve....I've had that happen on several bikes going up super
> steep hills (tendency to not hold a straight line) I'm not sure what a
> 12% grade is but some I've gone up are so steep I thought I would
> vapor lock and puke barely making it up.

A reasonable way to find out is to plot a known hill on ridewithgps.com
and see what it says the grade is. This is also a very useful way to
make cue sheets. What we went through 20 years ago to create a cue
sheet, plotting it off a map and then driving the course, noting the
mileages for turns, is simply unthinkable today.

> At my age, weight and with sketchy knees I can still climb but must
> use MTB gearing 22x32x44 12-32 on the Surly and it gets me up anything
> I want to climb.

Nothing at all wrong with getting gearing that works for you. If only
modern MTB cranks weren't so godawful ugly...

> I live in the foothills of Mt. Rainier and hills are a reality being
> both long and steep. My current bike (Surly) with a generator hub
> flickers at low speed so I'm probably going at walking speed......


> sometimes a little walking is a relief on long climbs and uses
> different muscles giving my behind a rest also.
>

That's true. And clearly you're better off walking than hitting max
heart rate and "burning all your matches". But the fact remains,
walking pushing a bike uphill can be a very unpleasant experience!

[Esteban]

I love my Pelican, Ebisu, and Nobilette low-trail bikes.  It works.

I love my Rivs - mid-trail.  Totally works, too!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25671211@N02/8258743340/

Frame design is more than trail. Grant's is a complete package - and has always, in my experience, held the qualities of stability, predictability, solidity, and high-class.  

[soapscum]

I've never been on a bike that didn't wander a bit on climbs, and I've always just internalized that as "I always wander a bit when riding up hills". I guess once I get my technique dialed-in (I mean, I've only been riding for 40 years or so), I'll start working on the bike...

 

Shawn

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 9:17:07 PM UTC-8, charlie wrote:

[Toshi Takeuchi]

I dunno what this wandering is either. Is it like when you are
stopping at a stop light and you are going nearly 0 miles an hour and
you have to turn your wheel from side to side to keep your balance?
Maybe the hill is so steep that your bike wants you to ride sideways
to cut the gradient (Is that the bike or driver)?

Sure, I always ride with a ~8 lb (klickfix) handlebar bag on my tandem
and I've ridden up steep hills with my son and a little one in a
trailer. Yeah, I've gone slower than the bike computer would recognize
(maybe 2-2.5 mph) and yes, my front tire would wobble a bit, but it
was like when I am trying to balance at a stop light, and I was never
in any danger of falling. Would the rake of the fork potentially solve
that wobbling? (I try to keep an open mind)

Toshi in Oakland, CA, whose squirming children cause many more
handling difficulties than the bicycle thusfar.

[William]

Toshi

I'm like you, I think.  As I think you know, I've got a Hilsen and a Rawland.  Unlike people who say the difference between high trail and low trail is night and day, my experience has been a bit more nuanced.  In summary, I'm like Esteban, in that for me "they both work".  

The low-speed stability trick that I can do on my Rawland that no other bike I've owned can do:  I can ride up a >10% grade no-handed.  I'm not saying that's a critical enhancement, but it is for me an objective empricism that tells me there is a difference in ultra low speed stability.  Take that for what you want.  What I've noticed as well is that now that the seed was planted in my mind that riding in a straight line up a hill is possible, I find myself wanting to ride my Hilsen in a straight line up hills as well.  It forces me to keep my upper body very quiet with a very light touch on the bars.  I get leverage on the pedals with my lean, not with a death grip on the bars.  I think it's made me a better climber, and it's helped me work on my flexibility.  

The other difference is that my Rawland does shimmy coasting no handed at above 16mph or so and the Hilsen does not.  Maybe I'll get a needle bearing headset to try and get after that a little.  My Hilsen is totally shimmy-free.  For long brevets if my neck and shoulders are getting tired, being able to sit up on the Hilsen is really nice.  Neither the Hilsen nor the Rawland has ever had a rear rack on it, so whether there's a shimmy difference with a rear load, I wouldn't know.  

They are both splendid bikes, and choosing one for a ride is like choosing between a Les Paul and a Gibson (and no, I don't know how to play guitar).

Bill

[charlie]

The idea of a bike that shimmies would not give me confidence......but then I never ride without at least one hand on the bar. I remember getting the stink eye from a fellow rider on the local bike path because I rode without a helmet ( he mentioned I should have one on too) but he was riding with no hands on the bars.....less safe than riding sans helmet IMO.

On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:42:23 PM UTC-8, William wrote:

Toshi

I'm like you, I think.  As I think you know, I've got a Hilsen and a Rawland.  Unlike people who say te he difference between high trail and low trail is night and day, my experience has been a bit more nuanced.  In summary, I'm like Esteban, in that for me "they both work".  

[Kelly]

This thread is now complete.. We had trail and now helmets... :)

Wait wait.. I can make it complete without anyone's mother getting run over by a freight train..

Politics...

[cyclotourist]

Cycle-chic: Empowering or repressing? Please discuss.

--
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/-/zuwzDa9s0WAJ.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

**
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." -Mark Twain

[charlie]

 The helmet story was mentioned to make a point about keeping ones hands on the bars. I thought it humorous that the other rider mentioned my lack of helmet all the while riding no handed but...... actually I was responding to Williams comment about his Hilsen....."my Rawland does shimmy coasting no handed at above 16mph or so and the Hilsen does noti.  Maybe I'll get a needle bearing headset to try and get after that a little.  My Hilsen is totally shimmy-free".

 The fact that his Hilsen does't shimmy doesn't surprise me since it has enough trail. Shimmy at any speed could be terrifying if you are not expecting it which is the main point I wanted to make in that Grant designs that out of his frames by adding enough trail. It may compromise straight line handling or the ability to hold a line better up a slow grinder but overall it results in a safer ride IMO.

[Joe Broach]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:28 PM, charlie <cl_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

 The helmet story was mentioned to make a point about keeping ones hands on the bars. I thought it humorous that the other rider mentioned my lack of helmet all the while riding no handed but...... actually I was responding to Williams comment about his Hilsen....."my Rawland does shimmy coasting no handed at above 16mph or so and the Hilsen does noti.  Maybe I'll get a needle bearing headset to try and get after that a little.  My Hilsen is totally shimmy-free".

 The fact that his Hilsen does't shimmy doesn't surprise me since it has enough trail. Shimmy at any speed could be terrifying if you are not expecting it which is the main point I wanted to make in that Grant designs that out of his frames by adding enough trail. It may compromise straight line handling or the ability to hold a line better up a slow grinder but overall it results in a safer ride IMO.

Charlie, I'm not convinced that trail has much to do with shimmy. It so happens that a lot of modern low trail bikes also have light tubing, and I would guess that has more to do with it. My 63cm Romulus has a nasty shimmy with any load on a rear rack. It's a great no hands bike with light front load and/or saddlebag, though. No hands riding is one of cycling's great joys. To each his own, but don't not try it out of safety concerns. I'm actually typing this on my phone while descending no hands at speed. Just kidding. I'll just say that my bikes that can be ridden sans hands get more miles than the other ones!

Best,

joe "still can't trackstand, though, dangit" broach

portland, or

[Philip Williamson]

"This post was written by my good friend Steve Goodman, who said he thought he'd written the perfect Rivendell Owners Bunch forum post.
"I told him, no, he hadn't written the perfect Rivendell Owners Bunch post, because he didn't mention Lance..., planing..., carbon..., or paleo."

Philip
www.biketinker.com

[Philip Williamson]

I have two bikes (really I have 4 bikes), a low trail touring bike, and a medium-high trail Quickbeam. They're both fixed, and usually run a 72" gear. They're both great bikes. The main difference seems to be that I can point my hips on the Quickbeam to turn the bike, and the Ross ignores input from behind the bars. Back to back (jump off the Quickbeam, leap onto the Ross), I've actually turned the bars the wrong direction to straighten the bike, leaving the driveway. I don't know what that was about, but after a "that was weird" moment, I just rode away happily. I wouldn't mind replacing the Ross with a Boulder, in order together a longer top tube (and a little more respect), but it isn't pressing.
The Ross actually handles rough undulating gravel surprisingly well, but I don't take it into the woods like I do the Quickbeam.

Philip
www.biketinker.com

[Michael Williams]

In reading all this trail business, of which I am very uninformed,   could I assume that a low trail bike would make a less desirable "trail" bike,     i.e. off road bike?   Or low or medium or high trail doesnt really make a difference.   thanks  -Mike

--
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/-/MyGvkpMkwFgJ.

[rcnute]

To perfect your analogy, I think you meant Fender vs. Gibson.  :)

Ryan

On Monday, December 10, 2012 5:42:23 PM UTC-8, William wrote:

[charlie]

Joe you are correct about the light tubing and shimmy, that, combined with low trail seems to cause it. Precisely why I didn't order a Boulder frame.... at my weight I'd have to pay extra for heavier tubing. These frames seem to be built more for a specific purpose and rider weight than for general riding. At least that was my perception. I wouldn't mind trying a low trail frame/fork combo to see if it makes much difference. I do know my latest 'Sam' rides pleasantly and I'm not sure it could be improved upon much overall.