Noticed anything different about front bag handling

[Shifty]

So, I was just about to plunk down a couple of hundred dollars on a Berthoud front bag at Rene Herse. Mike kindly returned my phone call and immediately asked about the bike I was going to put it on. A Rivendell, I replied (A. Homer Hilsen). He said, do you know that the bag's weight will affect the handling somewhat; some people can't live with it while others aren't bothered by it at all. He said it was because of the "trail" high or low (I don't recall which) of all Rivendell bikes and that Herse bikes have a (high, low?) trail that accounts for weight carrying in the front.

So what do YOU think Rivendell front bag owner? Have you ever regretted the effect the bag has on your Rivendell's handling?

Thanks,
Shifty

[CycloFiend]

on 11/18/11 6:50 PM, Shifty at 1upan...@gmail.com wrote:

So, I was just about to plunk down a couple of hundred dollars on a Berthoud front bag at Rene Herse. Mike kindly returned my phone call and immediately asked about the bike I was going to put it on. A Rivendell, I replied (A. Homer Hilsen). He said, do you know that the bag's weight will affect the handling somewhat; some people can't live with it while others aren't bothered by it at all. He said it was because of the "trail" high or low (I don't recall which) of all Rivendell bikes and that Herse bikes have a (high, low?) trail that accounts for weight carrying in the front.

So what do YOU think Rivendell front bag owner? Have you ever regretted the effect the bag has on your Rivendell's handling?

You should really spend some time and go through the group archives here and on iBob.  There are strong opinions on trail and front bags and front end geometry. The whole topic of front end loading and fork trail can cause very strong opinions among some folks.  The best thing to do might be play with a cheap bag to see if you absolutely hate it before plunking down any major expense.

For me, it makes a huge difference for about 25 yards when I switch between my Quickbeam, which I generally run with a front bag and my Hilsen, which has a rear bag setup.  Then I make whatever minor mental/physical adjustments necessary, forget about it and ride.

You get used to the way you rig your bike, no matter what you do.  I'd get the bag which make sense to you.

Best of luck!

- Jim

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

The Gallery needs your photos! Send 'em in - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"She edged in to get a better look at the bike, how it was made, the intricacy of its brakes and shifters pulling her straight in. Beauty."
-- William Gibson, "Virtual Light"

[Brian Hanson]

The great debate rages on.  I've only test-ridden low-trail bikes (like the Boulder) with front loads, and couldn't really fell much difference.  On my AHH, I have an Acorn Rando that has had up to 10 lbs, as well as the current setup with a platrack and large basket.  I can happily carry plenty of weight there without ill effect.  

Brian

Seattle, WA

--
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.

[William Pustow]

   I have a 57cm Hilsen with a Mark's rack and I have used a Berthoud 22 bag on the Texas Rando Stampede 1200k and on PBP and the bike handled fine.

   I purchased the bag from Rene Herse. Mike Kone adds a stiffener to the bag that really helps it hold it's shape. You will have to sew on a strap to the bottom of the bag in order to attach it securely to the rack. Not a big deal but that seems to be a design flaw - maybe the newer Berthoud bags have solved this.

   By the way, Mike is great to deal with - he may even finish building my Rene Herse bike one of these years ;-)

Bill

Louisville, Ky 

--
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/-/bO1QlWfKRuIJ.

[PATRICK MOORE]

There is a happy connection between frame/fork design, notably the tendency of the front wheel to turn of its own; weight over the front wheel -- and this includes body weight, and changes with stem length and bar height; and the rider's tolerance for or perception of or preference for a bicycle's self-steering behavior. Further! How the weight is attached to frame or fork and how far it is from the steering axis and, further, how high it it is, all affect the final result.

But generally speaking, Rivendells don't handle front loads as well as lower trail/lower flop designs. I have a Herse which is designed for at least modest front loads and two Rivs (customs); the Herse can handle up to, say, 15 lb in front with little degradation of handling while, with the Rivs, anything more than a couple of pounds makes the handling worse.

I personally like the way the Rivs "turn for me" better than the more "aloof" quality of the Herse steering.

My erswhile Sam Hill handled foully -- to my taste -- with anything over a couple of lbs in front; even if the weight were low, in low-riding panniers. But then, I found the SH to handle in a rather mediocre way all around except in its quality of carving fast downhill sweepers with confidence and accuracy. My other three (custom, one sold) Rivs felt far more stable while in no way feeling sluggish in turns -- best of both worlds, so to speak.

OTOH, others on this list have said they sling considerable weights in front of their Sam Hills and find the results perfectly acceptable.

Upshot: your own tolerance or predilections will count for a lot, but generally speaking riders who like weight in front will choose lower trail designs.

Me, I have a medium sized bag on the Herse into which I will carry a load up to, say, a six pack or a goodly sized ham. The Herse can take rear loads up to say, 20 lb, as long as there is at least 10 lb in front, but it is very unhappy with rear biased heavy loads. For very heavy loads I'd need the front low riders. 

On the commuter Riv, my front loads are limited to kit, Edeluxe and other stuff no bigger in bulk than the size of my two fists. I have a small VO Randonneur rack and -- thanks to Ely Rodriguez -- a custom front bag about the size of a Banana Bag. The bigger loads go on the rear.

--

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/-/bO1QlWfKRuIJ.
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
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html

[dougP]

Shifty:

+1 for getting an inexpensive front bag to see how you react to front
weight.

Consider your answers to a couple of questions:
Why do you want the bag in the front?
How sensitive are you to changes in a bike? Do you really notice any
difference between say 32 & 35 mm tires or when you add a rack to a
bike? Subtle stuff like that.

Personally, I like have access to my stuff (food, jacket, etc) right
in front of me. And I'm not very sensitive to minor changes.

The executive summary of my bag adventures started with a Rivendell
Hobo used as a saddle bag and over time ended with an Acorn Boxy Rando
on a Nitto small front rack. This is on an Atlantis set up for
touring (chubby tires, Nitto big back rack, etc). I did not care for
the handling with 2 panniers on the back and a saddlebag. Over time,
weight gradually got moved forward until I figured out my optimal
distribution. This is entirely personal and tough to generalize.

For unloaded, day to day riding, the little Nitto plus Acorn plus
minimal junk adds perhaps 3 lbs to the front of the bike. Wherever
you add a few pounds to a bike, you are aware of it. If I get the
Acorn crammed to 10 lbs or so, it's noticeable but so is 10 lbs
strapped to the rear rack. In neither case does the bike handle
poorly.

It's good that the bag vendor asked about the bike but it's not a deal
breaker. As Jim mentioned, this group & the BOBs have worked over the
trail issue ad nauseum. Rivs are considered "high trail" in
comparison to the school of thought that likes "low trail". The short
answer is a bicycle is a complex design (at least to me) and the trail
is only one of several variables that influence handling. How you
personally like to load your bike, how you ride it, your riding
position, etc., has much more influence on handling than the more
subtle variables of the bike's design.

My guess is you'll like having your stuff right there in front of you
& even if you notice the weight it won't be a big deal. But I've been
wrong before.....

dougP

[RonaTD]

Not all Rivendell bikes are the same, but they tend to have a narrow
range of trail, depending on how extreme you get with tire sizes.
Weight on the front will change the feel of any bike, some more, some
less.

Some recent experimental results on my bikes. On my Bleriot prototype
(theoretically 71 deg head angle, 50mm rake), I have had around 25
pounds of stuff split between the saddle bag and the handlebar bag,
and it handled horribly. The last of the 600km was as bad as the
first, so I had plenty of time to "get used to it." With a 15 pound
commuting load, mostly in the saddlebag, some on the handlebar, the
bike wants to develop a bit of shimmy under moderate pedaling effort.
The same setup on a Heron Road 650B conversion wants to shimmy even
worse. I recently put all 15 pounds on the front, securely fastened to
a rack, and there's no shimmy developing. So, I tried firmly attaching
the saddlebag to the rear rack, and there's a bit of a shimmy coming
back. Interestingly, with all the weight on the front, I find it
easier to ride no-hands than with the weight split front and rear.

The problem on the Bleriot is the wheel flop. It's okay as long as
you're moving at faster than a jogging pace, but at slow speed, it's
VERY difficult to handle with 10-15 pounds on the front. The 71 degree
head angle is a key culprit there. If your Rivendell has a more
typical 73 degree head angle, you may find that weight on the
handlebars doesn't affect it as much. As someone else said, you just
have to try experiment with various combinations and see what works
for you.

Another interesting, somewhat related data point. I put Albatross bars
on my Quickbeam, and that is about the most dramatic change in
handling I've ever observed on a bike. Unfortunately, it's not a good
change - way too twitchy. So, I'm thinking about putting a bunch of
weight on the front to see what happens.

By this time next year I expect to have some experience with a very
low trail, very light weight bicycle carrying the load up front.

[Tim McNamara]

On Nov 18, 2011, at 8:50 PM, Shifty wrote:

> So, I was just about to plunk down a couple of hundred dollars on a Berthoud front bag at Rene Herse. Mike kindly returned my phone call and immediately asked about the bike I was going to put it on. A Rivendell, I replied (A. Homer Hilsen). He said, do you know that the bag's weight will affect the handling somewhat; some people can't live with it while others aren't bothered by it at all. He said it was because of the "trail" high or low (I don't recall which) of all Rivendell bikes and that Herse bikes have a (high, low?) trail that accounts for weight carrying in the front.
>
> So what do YOU think Rivendell front bag owner? Have you ever regretted the effect the bag has on your Rivendell's handling?

This varies not only by a bike's steering geometry but also a lot of other factors. Trying to make it merely an issue of steering geometry over simplifies the issue. For example, wheelbase strongly affects stability with a longer wheelbase bike tending to be more stable. So does the rider's weight distribution as determined by build, weight and the various positioning parameters (saddle height and fore-aft, bar reach and height relative to the saddle, etc.). Lateral frame stiffness (top and down tubes in particular) probably have an effect on how well a frame tolerates a front load. There are probably other factors.

The result is that rider A could have a different experience on the very same bike as rider B just due to differences in weight and build, especially if adjustments are made to the fit of the bike. I won't describe mine in detail because my all-Rounder is so different from your AHH that the comparison would be invalid. Hopefully other people will have bagified the same size AHH with the same rack and bag, and can tell you abut their experiences- just bear in mind that your experience might be very different and the only way to find out for sure is try it.

[Shifty]

Thanks for your replies. I plan to simulate the bag + weight as mentioned. We just got a couple of inches of snow here today in Minneapolis. I hope to test the idea in a few days after a brief. Then, like other hard cores in the area, will go through the ritual of installing studded tires on our bikes for the next several months. A Berthoud bag wouldn't be subjected to such slop riding, of course. I'm just feeding my perfectionism and this is a problem I can't seem to solve.

For the record, I love the ride of my Hilsen with medium saddlebag or rear pannier loads and anticipate it to handle the front weight just fine. Mike's wise comment comments just gave me pause.

I owned a Surly LHT that I thought rode like a brick with, or without weight. Ugh. My former Salsa Casseroll was better but not worth keeping. I have a sweet riding Merlin ti/carbon fork road bike that's awaiting a new owner. I'll happily ride my AHH over it most days of the week though, it's that good of a ride.

Happy Thankgiving!

[William]

My A. Homer Hilsen is a 58cm with 650B wheels.  According to the Riv Geo charts that bike has a 71 degree headtube angle and 49mm of rake.  That calculates out to 63mm of trail and 19mm of flop with my 38mm tires.  I only run it with a handlebar bag.  The Marks rack weighs about a pound and the empty handlebar bag weighs maybe closer to 2 pounds.  I've probably had as much as 15 pounds of total stuff in it.  When I park the bike the front wheel wants to flop over BIG TIME, but riding at any speed I can't imagine a bike being much more stable.  Climbing a steep hill at 8km/hr it goes in a straight line perfectly well.  Descending at up to 80km/hr I've been confident and shimmy free.  Riding no handed is no problem.  I've never ridden this bike with a rear rack at all, but I have one for if and when I need to carry more stuff for a 600k.  I'm also setting up a low-trail bike this winter, so I'll probably have some kind of Pillsbury bake off to see if there is a noticeable difference.  It's got 36mm of trail and 10mm of flop with the same tires that I run on the Homer. 

[Ken Freeman]

I have noticed differences.  I set my Trek 610 with it's modified high-trail (58 mm trail, 28 mm 700c Gators) fork with a front rack and tested riding it with about 10# up front.  It was controllable and rideable for 30 milers, but only with two hands firmly on the bars.  One handed it was sketchy (tending to shudder) and no-handed was impossible.  I could ride it at low speeds, but lost control once at low speed, too.  The bike rides with perfect alignment with no added front stuff.

I put the same wheels and load on my former Woodrup with about 45 mm trail.  It was a lot better one handed, possible to ride no-handed, but still some tendency to shimmy.  I can definitely say I think reducing trail makes a positive difference in front loads.  The wheel base of the Woodrup is 2 cm longer than the Trek, and its drop is 1 cm less.

I now have a custom 65 mm fork on the Trek, which gives a trail of 39 mm with the Gator wheels.  Only problem yet is that I haven't gotten a rack on it, so I can't test it out with a load yet.  Since I got it back, rain got in my way, as did saddle issues, fitting big fenders with 32s, revising the alignment and dish of the rear wheel (it was never right!  Grrr), and sorting out front wheel braking (settled on Mafac with red KoolStops).  The new fork is waayyy longer than the old one.  The Mafac pad posiiton is maxed out.  Now the bike again rides like a bike, so I'm back to selecting a rack, bag, and decaleur.

I also now have a mid-trail 1983 Trek 620 (55 mm fork rake, 73 degree angle, 684 diameter) which sports 47 mm trail and a normal 7.2 cm drop.  We'll see how it handles sometime in the Spring.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:00 PM, William <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

My A. Homer Hilsen is a 58cm with 650B wheels.  According to the Riv Geo charts that bike has a 71 degree headtube angle and 49mm of rake.  That calculates out to 63mm of trail and 19mm of flop with my 38mm tires.  I only run it with a handlebar bag.  The Marks rack weighs about a pound and the empty handlebar bag weighs maybe closer to 2 pounds.  I've probably had as much as 15 pounds of total stuff in it.  When I park the bike the front wheel wants to flop over BIG TIME, but riding at any speed I can't imagine a bike being much more stable.  Climbing a steep hill at 8km/hr it goes in a straight line perfectly well.  Descending at up to 80km/hr I've been confident and shimmy free.  Riding no handed is no problem.  I've never ridden this bike with a rear rack at all, but I have one for if and when I need to carry more stuff for a 600k.  I'm also setting up a low-trail bike this winter, so I'll probably have some kind of Pillsbury bake off to see if there is a noticeable difference.  It's got 36mm of trail and 10mm of flop with the same tires that I run on the Homer. 

--

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/-/EnUdXkB6MmQJ.

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.

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[William Pustow]

   I agree and I forgot to mention that my Homer also lets it's front wheel flop over when parked but is very stable with the Berthoud bag at any speed -  except zero. I run 700cm wheels and 28mm Conti 4 Season tires.

   A funny side note: on PBP on the return, I stopped to pee. I had the bike behind me (supported by my butt) when the front wheel flopped and the chin ring hit my calf and left a beautiful scar. It looked like a bear had clawed me (about one to two inches of blood from each of the four puncture wounds).  I had riders in three languages ask me what the hell happened. It's healed quickly and was never a problem on the ride but I'm thinking of getting a similar tattoo. Way cool!

   By the way, love the Berthoud 22 front bag. It's one of their smaller ones but it's allowed me to carry everything I could possibly need on a 1200 K brevet. I love the various pockets on the front, side, and rear. They let me organize, bars, gels, pills, salves, etc. and leave the main conpartment for extra cloths, rain jacket, mini pump, etc. I also chose the Berthoud 22 because it sits slightly below the handlebars. My generator light is on the handle bars and it illuminates the cue sheet as well as the road. Placing the light on the handle bars also protects it from heavy rain spray. Of course it still gets wet but I've seen too many failures on local brevets here in Kentucky as well as on the Texas 1200k because the lights are lower and were bombarded by road and wheel spray.

Bill

Louisville, Ky

[William Pustow]

........and before anyone mentions it: fenders would solve this problem but here in Kentucky (and it probably applies to the folks in Texas) we normally don't use fenders because we normally don't need them - except on rare occasions when it rains really really  hard.

[Bill Gibson]

Enjoy experimenting. This is a good group to discuss it with, because we like this stuff. For a serious analysis look to  Bicycle Quarterly. But your experience must be your own. I am very pleased at how my Quickbeam handles front loads, compared to a 1997 Cannondale F-1000 mountain bike converted with Albatross bars and a Wald front basket way overloaded with groceries after my Hoss saddlebag was stolen in front of a local Trader Joe's. I don't shop there much anymore.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Shifty <1upan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for your replies. I plan to simulate the bag + weight mentioned. We just got a couple of inches of snow here today in Minneapolis. I hope to test the idea in a few days after a brief. Then, like other hard cores in the area, will go through the ritual of installing studded tires on our bikes for the next several months. A Berthoud bag wouldn't be subjected to such slop riding, of course. I'm just feeding my perfectionism and this is a problem I can't seem to solve.

For the record, I love the ride of my Hilsen with medium saddlebag or rear pannier loads and anticipate it to handle the front weight just fine. Mike's wise comment comments just gave me pause.

I owned a Surly LHT that I thought rode like a brick with, or without weight. Ugh. My former Salsa Casseroll was better but not worth keeping. I have a sweet riding Merlin ti/carbon fork road bike that's awaiting a new owner. I'll happily ride my AHH over it most days of the week though, it's that good of a ride.

Happy Thankgiving!

--
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/-/EixtbsPQuCYJ.

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.

--
Bill Gibson
Tempe, Arizona, USA

[NickBull]

I've ridden a Rambouillet with about 10 pounds in a handlebar bag
mounted directly on the handlebars, "high up," for thousands of miles.

I've also ridden a low-trail bike with about 10 pounds in a handlebar
bag mounted on a front rack "low down" directly over the front fender
for thousands of miles.

The latter is by far the better set up. But the former is just fine.
You're more tired at the end of the day with the higher trail bike.
It takes more effort to keep the steering in line, particularly when
climbing out of the saddle. But it's not a deal breaker from my
perspective.

Nick Bull

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I'm one of those who believes high/low trail is FAR down the priority list of important features on a bicycle. I ride many different bikes loaded in a variety of configurations. There are more that are satisfactory than not. We've sold and installed GB bags and their clones on several Rivs and Rivish bikes, and nobody has complained about adversity as a result.

I also believe that geography plays a role. In Minnesota, we almost never have long climbs/descents. If you ride in the Cascades, and some climbs last all day, and you cruise at 50 mph in descents, then optimizing extreme high/low speed handling may be more of a priority than it is here.

[Mojo]

I have held off this topic, but perhaps I have a some experience to share.

I bought a Tom Matchak fork to fit my utility vehicle, a Surly Long Haul Trucker.

http://tommatchakcycles.blogspot.com/2007/03/frame-neutral-replacement-fork.html

I did this because this bike is my tourer and grocery hauler, and I live in Colorado where climbs can go on for hours, and I was curious about the low trail concept. I found the handling of the stock LHT slow and cumbersome that only got worse with any front load and at slow speeds such as climbing and or heavily loaded. I came to (probably imperfectly) understand this was mainly due to the large wheel flop associated with the high trail geometry. I didn't mind its descending manners.

 

Tom recommended changing my rake from stock 45mm to a custom 68mm. This took the bike's trail from mid 60s to low 40s. Well the change with the new fork was not immediately strange or at all drastic. Now the bike just responds more quickly to my steering inputs. What I have noticed is that on fast descents the bike no longer tracks 'as if it is on rails' but will change course if I ask it to. You may or may not like that.

The bike still has very reliable steering, not at all unstable. The bike rides very easily no handed. It really likes front loads now and I always carry my groceries home on the front racks. I attribute this to significantly less wheel flop.

Nothing else changed with this experiment. All the same racks&fenders&handlebar bag were used before and after. My riding position did not change. The wheelbase did increase by nearly an inch due to the increased rake.

This was a splurge for me. I bought an LHT instead of an Atlantis to save money and to feel I could use it hard and in any weather without guilt. With the new fork I nearly doubled the cost of the frame. For me it was worth it. The LHT is more fun for me now and more pleasant in its intended purpose, carrying stuff. But it may not be the same for you and your bike.

Before: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79695460@N00/5268867525/in/set-72157607471577085/

Comparing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79695460@N00/5268866551/in/set-72157607471577085/

After: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79695460@N00/5269479652/in/set-72157607471577085/

[Tim McNamara]

Glad this worked out for you, and it's nice to have a situation for comparison where there is one primary variable different.

But you mention something that I have read elsewhere, which is that "high trail" bikes (around 60 mm) can't change direction in mid turn. This is not my experience; indeed the best handling bike I have ever ridden is my Ritchey road bike, which should have around 60 mm trail given its 73 or 73.5 head angle and 45 mm fork offset on 700 x 25 mm tires. I can easily flick the bike around objects in the road while cornering fast downhill. Indeed, if one couldn't do that, this sort of geometry would not be the standard for professional racing bikes.

[Kelly Sleeper]

Aside from the hundreds / thousands of bikes that must all be handling terrible and the people riding them are just to dumb to realize it (as low trail propaganda would suggest) or maybe it's not that big of a deal.

I know the above is harsh. And not all of the harsh is from this thread and more from all the reading and time wasted reading about trail has made me harsh. Much as with other things I've found and verified that it is a long laundry list of things not just trail.
I've also ridden everything from my plastic 16lb race bike to the Bombadil and one thing I laugh at is how someone says the weight of a small bag effects handling. My brooks handlebar bag on the handlebar of my carbon bike with a couple of pounds in it didn't effect anything and other than the straps being in the way of hand positions you wouldn't know it was there... then again others say they can tell when a water bottle is missing by the handling of the bike. (glad I have no feelings ahhh feel)

Lets not forget that the low trail doesn't handle rear loading well .. or just as bad as the high trail handles front loads if you believe everything you read.

So my opinion from experience and reading is that it's a tradeoff dependent upon how you want to carry the load and what you want to do with the bike. For 5ish pounds (a bag, tube, tire levers, gloves) it for most people won't make any difference on any bike. Most people will never even notice. For more weight regardless of the trail the load will feel better and more stable on a front rack than on the bars. If you are going to always have 20 plus pounds on the front of the bike maybe low trail is for you... Most of the time even with my camera and rain suit, tubes etc I carry less than 15 pounds.

I've ridden this bike no handed loaded per the picture and on downhills in excess of 40 mph without any issues at all.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tksleeper/6172193515/in/set-72157627604208847

This bike road fine from Boulder to St Louis loaded.. Couldn't ride it free handed as the load wasn't equal but I'm sure low trail would have fixed that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tksleeper/6172717388/in/set-72157627604208847/

So high trail or low, if you ride a quality bicycle you won't have to worry about a good ride as it will just be there. It will be a preference thing not a better than thing. The trail argument is as boring as the helmet one and seems to bring out the worst in all of us. :) Well with the exception of me.. I'm always at my worst. :)

Kelly

[Mojo]

Tim,

 

I actually didn't say the high trail bike 'can't change direction in mid turn.' The term I have often heard about high trails bikes is it corners 'as if it is on rails.' I put that in quotes because it is oft used and I mostly agree with the description. That doesn't mean a high trail bike can't be adjusted in a corner, but that it resists the change. When my LHT's steering was changed to low trail, it now doesn't resist trajectory change at all.

 

Thanks for bringing up tire size. I use 32mm width tires or larger on the LHT. When I discovered a front flat on the LHT I threw in a 27mm (Rolly Poly) tired wheel. I did not like the handling of the bike near as much with a skinny tire.

 

From my limited experience and understanding, un-weighted skinny tires (& I think anything less then 28mm is skinny) do quite well with more trail. Plumper tires especially with weight over them, become more lively with decreased trail. An opposite mixing of tire size and trails can lead to less than desireable results.

[Michael_S]

I've had the same experience as Mojo... going from my Ram to a low trail bike. On a high speed corner the low trail bike will tend to dive into the corner whereas the higher trail bike seems to track straighter. Both work equally well I've found, it's just that body shifting to control the turn is a little different.  Until you ride both kinds you won't understand the difference. I never tried the Ram with a front bag so I can't comment on that difference.

 

~mike

 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 07:52 -0800, Kelly Sleeper wrote:
> Aside from the hundreds / thousands of bikes that must all be handling terrible and the people riding them are just to dumb to realize it (as low trail propaganda would suggest) or maybe it's not that big of a deal.
>
> I know the above is harsh.

It's not only harsh, it's a grotesque distortion and exaggeration of
what has been said. Go ahead and slay the straw man if you like, but
don't forget it's a straw man and has little to no relationship to
what's actually been said.

> And not all of the harsh is from this thread and more from all the reading and time wasted reading about trail has made me harsh. Much as with other things I've found and verified that it is a long laundry list of things not just trail.
> I've also ridden everything from my plastic 16lb race bike to the Bombadil and one thing I laugh at is how someone says the weight of a small bag effects handling. My brooks handlebar bag on the handlebar of my carbon bike with a couple of pounds in it didn't effect anything and other than the straps being in the way of hand positions you wouldn't know it was there... then again others say they can tell when a water bottle is missing by the handling of the bike. (glad I have no feelings ahhh feel)

2 lb worth of handlebar bag you probably wouldn't notice. Make it 5-6
lb, though and I'm confident you will; and 10 lb with the wrong geometry
it'll have you swearing.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 08:47 -0600, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Glad this worked out for you, and it's nice to have a situation for comparison where there is one primary variable different.
>
> But you mention something that I have read elsewhere, which is that "high trail" bikes (around 60 mm) can't change direction in mid turn.

No one said that.

> This is not my experience; indeed the best handling bike I have ever ridden is my Ritchey road bike, which should have around 60 mm trail given its 73 or 73.5 head angle and 45 mm fork offset on 700 x 25 mm tires. I can easily flick the bike around objects in the road while cornering fast downhill. Indeed, if one couldn't do that, this sort of geometry would not be the standard for professional racing bikes.

There's a relationship between geometric trail and tire width: the
narrower the tire, the less the pneumatic train, so the more geometric
trail you need. It's true in the opposite direction as well: the wider
the tire, the more pneumatic trail, and so the less geometric trail you
need.

[Joe Broach]

Thanks for the comparison, Mojo! For those wanting to try the same
thing on a budget, note that the Cross Check fork is about 1cm longer
A-to-C than the LHT fork, which should make it just about "Frame
Neutral" after having a builder re-rake it for the LHT. The recent CC
forks have the lowrider bosses but not the extra dropout boss. If you
were willing to give up ~5mm tire/fender clearance, you could just
have your LHT fork re-raked to a bit less than 68mm, steepening the
head angle by about 0.5 degree.

Best,
joe broach
portland, or

[Kelly Sleeper]

>It's not only harsh, it's a grotesque distortion and exaggeration of
>what has been said. Go ahead and slay the straw man if you like, but
>don't forget it's a straw man and has little to no relationship to
>what's actually been said.

Steve ... actually the sentence below actually stated it was this and other reading and time wasted... so not really about you or what had been said so far on this thread. More additional to the thread and NOT an exaggeration at all much less a grotesque one.

> And not all of the harsh is from this thread and more from all the reading and time wasted reading about trail has made me harsh.

>2 lb worth of handlebar bag you probably wouldn't notice. Make it 5-6
>lb, though and I'm confident you will; and 10 lb with the wrong geometry
>it'll have you swearing.

Obviously our experiences have differed as the pictures I posted would also indicate. It may be "wrong geometry" for you. But obviously it's not a bad geometry for many. 10lbs on the front of my AHH is nothing ... 30lbs / 40lbs on front of my Bombadil handles fine. For me.. maybe not for you.. if not then don't buy it. Point being the "low trail" rhetoric / You apparently tend to jump up and yell wrong geometry every time someone talks about a front load. It' s just not that simple. Most people understand that.

It's how I feel and I like my bikes.. you like or want low trail great.. I'm happy for you... the only grotesque exaggeration present was your reaction to my post .. and playing thread guard telling others what was said and what makes sense and doesn't.

Regards,

Kelly

[dougP]

Shifty:

Hope you got enough info on your bag question to help you sort it
out. Trail discussions tend to get somewhat, eh, lively. But take
heart: it's only geometry, not a religious experience.

dougP

[Jim Cloud]

I've never experienced any problems with front loading a moderate to
high trail bicycle. I've used handlebar bags for about the last 35
years on bikes that have these geometries. I'm sorry, but the low-
trail mantra just isn't supported by my own personal experience.

Jim Cloud
Tucson, AZ

[Ken Freeman]

Kelly, I don't think you should suggest the pro-low-trail story is just rhetoric, much less outright say so.  Just as your experience with front loads, which nobody is belittling and hence is here respected, my experience is in favor of reduced trail with front loads.  I don't say it because of any Kool-aid or other drugs, I say it because I tried it, in an experiment that satisfies me.  I tried the experiment because I am working on the purchase of a custom bike for such riding, and wanted to see if it is worth it to seek out a builder who can do this geometry.  I've concluded that as long as I'm going custom, it is worthwhile to get low trail for this type of riding.  Even though my experiment is really not completed (I'm balking at buying the rack, sometimes the inner cheapskate gets the better of me), I have concrete indications that low trail is better for front loads according to how I want to ride.

By doing this experiment (see my first post in this thread for more information) I turned a suspicion or perhaps a new "old wives' tale" into a result with some insight.  I'm not saying it works for anyone else; clearly you and Grant P don't buy it, just for two examples.  But your opinion differing does not mean mine or that of Steve Palincsar is just "rhetoric" (making it seem to be part or a fallacious or sophistic argument and hence negligible).  It simply means our experiences differ.  Really differ.

We can learn something by looking at why they differed, rather than by descending into ad hominem arguments.  I ask you to stop doing that.  Science moved forward by establishing a means of publicly accepted (the public of scientists) inquiry wherein others' assertions were not just permitted, but expected to be analyzed, critiqued, and tested to verify their validity (not truth!), and combine the knowledge gained to enrich the new insights being developed.  That is what we should do, remaining above arguing ad hominem and in other fallacious modes.  We need to learn from each other.  

My early posts (back to 2005, most likely) on this and other handling topics were skeptical and in some cases critical.  But  after a while you ask, is there really something in some of these new ideas?  And by testing them yourself, which does not require buying three bikes for $5k each, you can find out what works and what does not.  For me the first eye-opener was that a 10# front load does not enable a high-trail bike to handle well, and in my opinion diminishes the handling of an otherwise good frame.  That alone said I had something to learn.  Perhaps we all do. 

--
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/-/V04T8BNKvMYJ.

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.

--

[Jan Heine]

I rode a bike with 57 mm trail and a handlebar bag for years, and tens
of thousands of happy miles. Never thought that there was anything
wrong with it.

Then I rode a few low-trail bikes (also with handlebar bags), and I
found that they were significantly better even with a lightly loaded
bag. There was no adjustment needed when I rode the low-trail bikes,
even though they were unfamiliar to me. When I switched back to the 57
mm-trail bike, I tended to run wide on that bike, and hit things I
thought I had barely missed, even though this was the bike to which I
should have been most attuned, since I rode it all the time.

So the conclusions for me are:
• Mid-trail and bar bag is fine. You can ride it, and be happy.
• Low-trail and bar bag is better. Almost anybody who has done a
direct comparison appears to agree.

Beyond that, it makes sense that if you change a significant handling
parameter, such as the load attached to the steering or the tire
width, that you would have to change the other parameters to suit if
you want to keep the handling the same.

Finally, I have ridden many unloaded bikes with high trail figures
that handled wonderfully. The Calfee test bike in the latest Bicycle
Quarterly is a case in point. It appears that wheel flop and trail
counter each other, so that racing bikes with 50, 55 and 60 mm trail
handle similarly. Adding a handlebar bag changes the picture, though.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.bikequarterly.com

Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/

[allenmichael]

I just did my first tour this past summer on a 56 Atlantis. The
Atlantis was terrific except for climbing at very low speeds. I was
carrying a lot of weight, about 65 lbs., and some of it was on the
front. I had a riv high rider nitto rack with two loaded panniers and
my wife's sleeping pad riding up there.

At low speed, almost no speed, the front tire (and all of the front
weight) kept wanting to flop over. The worst part of the trip, by
far, was fighting with this weight and trying to keep the bike on the
road under these conditions. To the point where I don't think I would
take this bike again if I had to carry so much weight.

Any suggestions, apart from carrying less weight or balancing it
better or loading it lower? Other bikes? Other handlebar set-ups (I
had noodle drop bars, just above the saddle)? Other tires (I had 1.75
Marathon Plus)?

Thanks,
Michael Allen

[Rick]

> You should really spend some time and go through the group archives here and
> on iBob.  There are strong opinions on trail and front bags and front end
> geometry. The whole topic of front end loading and fork trail can cause very
> strong opinions among some folks.  The best thing to do might be play with a
> cheap bag to see if you absolutely hate it before plunking down any major
> expense.

This bit was the take away lesson, I'd say.

[Steve Palincsar]

Assuming the cheap bag is supported well, you could get some useful
results. I had great success with a much-modified $25 Nashbar Elite bag
I used for a couple of years on my Kogswell P/R.

But if the bag isn't mounted and supported on a rack the same way as the
better bag would be, the results might not be comparable, in that a bag
that's loose and free to swing to and fro would have an undesirable
effect on the steering that a better-installed bag would not have.

[Ken Freeman]

My test used an old Rhode Gear bag, a cheap Sunlite-style rack, and a $25 V-O headset decaleur.  Add in nuts, bolts, clamps, scissors, and an ancient toestrap for the bottom.  The bag held still and was quiet, and served well through a sagged tour.  A good, cheap test.

The bag weight rested on the rack and was secured with the toestrap.  The decaleur mounted to the bag such that the bag was pulled up and held its original shape.  Its integral frame held up the front, for a flat map- reading table on top.

No waterproofing, however.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[William]

I imagine I could go through the various forums to look for the answer, but I'll ask anyway.  Jan and others have said:

1.  a high trail bike can ride very well without a front load

2.  adding a front load to ANY bike changes the handling

3.  adding a front load to a high trail bike changes the handling negatively

4.  a low trail bike rides very well with a front load (better than a high trail bike)

My question is:  Does adding a front load to a low trail bike improve that bike's handling?  Or does it just change it less negatively than it does a high trail bike?

The follow up question to each of the two possible answers are obvious:

If adding a front load IMPROVES a low trail bike and DEGRADES a high trail bike, then is there a middleground that is unaffected?  When does it flip from hurting to helping?

If adding a front load just degrades a low trail bike less, then is there a super-low-trail design that is even less sensitive?  In other words, have you Jan ever ridden a legitimate bike for spirited riding that had too little trail?  

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 12:46 -0800, William wrote:
> I imagine I could go through the various forums to look for the
> answer, but I'll ask anyway. Jan and others have said:
>
>
> 1. a high trail bike can ride very well without a front load
> 2. adding a front load to ANY bike changes the handling
> 3. adding a front load to a high trail bike changes the handling
> negatively
> 4. a low trail bike rides very well with a front load (better than a
> high trail bike)
>
>
> My question is: Does adding a front load to a low trail bike improve
> that bike's handling? Or does it just change it less negatively than
> it does a high trail bike?

I had the LBS build up my Kogswell P/R, 30mm trail fork, and took the
bike outside to ride around the parking lot. No load on the bike but
me. "Holy @#$%! What the #$$^ is wrong with this bike???" was my
immediate reaction. The front end felt really, seriously, weird: far
too light, not like anything I'd ever experienced. I later came to find
the bike felt "right" only with a handlebar bag and /something/ in it -
tools, wallet, altogether probably ~2 lb minimum.

[Kevin Turinsky]

Rode w/ 11lbs of bird seed in the front basket of my Atlantis last
Sunday, through the snow for that matter. No problem. I believe the
convenience and practicality of having a basket/bag up front
(especially during a brevet) far out weighs any nominal changes in
handling.

My advice is just to make sure your load is low; on a front rack. I
rode w/ a heavily loaded boxy bag suspended off my my Noodles w/ one
of those Nitto bag holders, and that wasn't good. I don't do that
anymore now that I have a proper front rack installed.

Go for it. Berthoud bags are nice.

Kevin
RBA - Alaska

[benzzoy]

Same experience here. This was with my Brompton that (I believe) has
an approximately 24mm trail. Without any load (front or back), on the
first ride, it was squirrelly to the point where I had to
conscientiously ride it. However, after a week, it was no big deal.
Certainly, it handled differently than my other "normal" trail (~60mm)
bikes but it wasn't anything I couldn't get used to. Then I got a
front bag and on my first ride with a laptop and some stuff up front,
the Brompton was noticeably more stable.

So chalk me up as one who believes adding a front load to a low trail
bike can improve that bike's handling.

[Jan Heine]

On Nov 22, 12:46 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My question is:  Does adding a front load to a low trail bike improve that

> bike's handling?  Or does it just change it *less negatively* than it does
> a high trail bike?

My new 650B bike handles better with a handlebar bag than without.
Basically, it handles like a very good racing bike... So the load
improves the handling. Simply put, the load is one variable that needs
to be in place to optimize the bike.

> If adding a front load IMPROVES a low trail bike and DEGRADES a high trail
> bike, then is there a middleground that is unaffected?  When does it flip
> from hurting to helping?

It's not like that. It's that the load is one component of the big
picture. So if you remove the load, something is missing.

Imagine trying to carry a heavy backpack. You lean forward. When you
remove the backpack, while still leaning forward, you fall over. On
the other hand, when you add a backpack and don't lean forward, you
also fall over. So does the backpack help or hurt your balance? It's
neither, the backpack is part of the system that balances. Trying to
add a backpack without changing the other variables (lean angle
forward/back) does not work well.

> If adding a front load just degrades a low trail bike less, then is there a
> super-low-trail design that is even less sensitive?  In other words, have
> you Jan ever ridden a legitimate bike for spirited riding that had too
> little trail?

I have: the 1947 Alex Singer that is shown in "The Golden Age of
Handbuilt Bicycles." It's got somewhere between 5 and 10 mm trail.
It's not as bad as you'd think - I rode it for 65 miles in one
setting, and for the most part, it was just fine. However, at low
speeds, it was too stable. Imagine a car with the power steering
switched off. I was climbing a hill, and saw a pothole, but the bike
continued to go straight much longer than I anticipated. I barely
missed the hole. Conversely, in high-speed corners, the Singer didn't
hold its line very well. You had to correct constantly to stay on
course. Beyond that, it was fine. It was no problem during high-speed
descents on the straights, nor during normal cruising on the flats.

I am sure that if the current standard was 10 mm trail, then we'd have
people say: "I don't know what the advocates of HIGH TRAIL are talking
about. My 10 mm trail bike is just fine, and I don't see any need to
go to 30 or even 35 mm trail."

All this is discussed in much more detail in the current issue of
Bicycle Quarterly, where we have a detailed article titled: "An
Overview of Frame Geometry – What it Means and Why It's
Important." (Sorry for the plug, but I figure there are a few people
here who might appreciate learning about another resource on the
topic.)

[PATRICK MOORE]

This was my experience exactly on the Sam Hillborne, both with all the weight (no more than 35 lb in my case) in the back and even worse when some of that weight was in the front in a bar bag (Ostrich, firmly attached by decaleur to stem and front rack). Front low riders did slow the flop a bit but made the steering feel very sluggish -- very *oddly* sluggish with 30 lb divided evenly between the two: it was very hard to initiate a turn!. My own solutions was to sell the Sam Hill and buy a Fargo, which handles unobjectionably in all loaded conditions; but of course that is rather drastic. I personally would also be interested in others' suggestions for solutions. I expect finding the right mix of front/rear and high/low is one area to investigate?

Jan's experience of feeling more confident in mid, fast turn with a low trail bike is interesting; perhaps it's simply lack of experience with either or both kinds, but my own impression is that higher trail "corner as on rails" bikes (Rivs) feel more confidence inspiring than the Herse -- not that the Herse is bad, just not "ideal" -- it takes more concentration; one is not as blithely and unconcernedly ready to "let the bike go."

Now the trike seems to handle the same with or without a front load. (That's a joke, Steve -- tho' it's true.)

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, allenmichael <allenm...@mac.com> wrote:

I just did my first tour this past summer on a 56 Atlantis.  The
Atlantis was terrific except for climbing at very low speeds.  I was
carrying a lot of weight, about 65 lbs., and some of it was on the
front.  I had a riv high rider nitto rack with two loaded panniers and
my wife's sleeping pad riding up there.

At low speed, almost no speed, the front tire (and all of the front
weight) kept wanting to flop over.  The worst part of the trip, by
far, was fighting with this weight and trying to keep the bike on the
road under these conditions.  To the point where I don't think I would
take this bike again if I had to carry so much weight.

Any suggestions, apart from carrying less weight or balancing it
better or loading it lower?  Other bikes?  Other handlebar set-ups (I
had noodle drop bars, just above the saddle)?  Other tires (I had 1.75
Marathon Plus)?

Thanks,
Michael Allen

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

[PATRICK MOORE]

I remember putting a Nitto Boxy Bag with bar-clamp rack on a "12 speed" Fuji Royale and sticking, what, certainly no more than 10 lb in it, and trying to ride along a narrow road with fastish traffic and no shoulder in a gusty crosswind. White knuckles! That experience made me sell the Boxy Bag! Definitely a difference with the Fuji that, sans such a load, so placed (note qualification) was unexceptionable if not great.

Oddly, the Fuji handled *best* with a considerable load in rear panniers -- sweet, docile, stable, no-hands-doable. Make of that what you will.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jim Cloud <Clou...@aol.com> wrote:

I've never experienced any problems with front loading a moderate to
high trail bicycle.  I've used handlebar bags for about the last 35
years on bikes that have these geometries.  I'm sorry, but the low-
trail mantra just isn't supported by my own personal experience.

Jim Cloud

[William]

>Imagine trying to carry a heavy backpack. You lean forward. When you
>remove the backpack, while still leaning forward, you fall over. On
>the other hand, when you add a backpack and don't lean forward, you
>also fall over. So does the backpack help or hurt your balance? It's
>neither, the backpack is part of the system that balances. Trying to
>add a backpack without changing the other variables  (lean angle
>forward/back) does not work well.

I like that metaphor.  Thanks for that.  Have you used that one before?  I'd never heard it before.  

[jimD]

I'll echo Patrick's observation.

My Riv custom is my most favorite handling bike of all time.

I have a Tournesol that's a front loader and fun to ride but takes more concentration than the Riv.

That having been said, once I ride either bike for several days in a row I get totally accommodated

to how they handle.

My experience with my Riv is that it is very happy with a seat bag.  In addition to the seat bag I often add a bar tube and carry something less than 10 lbs in the bar bag with minimal impact on handling.

I may not be particularly sensitive to handling nuances. My theory is, ride what you brung.

-JimD

[Ken Freeman]

My experience with seat bags is that they essentially do not affect handling in any way I can detect.  Rear rack trunks OTOH cause problems nearly no matter what.  

[Jan Heine]

It came to me as I was thinking about how to explain the load being a
factor. That is what I like about online discussions - they get you to
think about things in different ways.

[Jan Heine]

On Nov 24, 4:17 am, Ken Freeman <kenfreeman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My experience with seat bags is that they essentially do not affect
> handling in any way I can detect.

Except when you rise out of the saddle. Then, the load is unsupported,
and tends to be the tail wagging the bike. But that applies to all
rear loads, including panniers. Rear low-riders perhaps have the least
effect in that situation, as they are so low that you don't move them
much as you move the bike from side to side. (But rear low-riders,
being so far back, have other issues that make them a good choice only
if you carefully balance your weight distribution when loading the
bike.)

[Ken Freeman]

I have a Carradice but haven't used it much yet.  My usual saddle bags are 3-liter or so wedges, that are tightly coupled to the saddle.

--
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]

Large and heavily loaded saddlebags do wag but not horribly so; and, at least on the right bikes, rear panniers affect handling very little even with rather heavy loads: I was amazed, at least on one of my Rivs, the first one, at how well I could corner (eg, tight S bends across narrow wooden bridges on bike paths) with a rear load in panniers on a Tubus rack, and how easy it was, with even 40 lb (I weighed the load) to ride at 10 mph with no hands (faster was even easier). My later and present Riv commuter does not handle rear loads nearly as well, even though, unladen, it handes better. And I've owned at least one bike (that Fuji) that handled better with a 30 lb rear load than unladen. 

And it's not merely the stiffness of the frame. The Motobecane that I sold to Eric Norris was a very light 531 frame and a considerably lighter frame than that of the current Riv, yet it handled rear loads much better -- the rear *would* wag when I stood but only if the load was over 30 lb or so. I think that the cause is something about the frame geometry; and of course this all implies a stiff rack. 

*And* I never hand any problem with asymmetric loading -- I'd often carry 25 lb in just one rear pannier with no ill effect. I remember once carrying a 2' high stack of library books 10 miles, all stuffed into one very large rear pannier; this on an early Raleigh Technium that did waggle but not because of one-sided loading.

--
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.

[Kelly Sleeper]

It really isn't low trail against every other trail. Yet you couldn't tell that from this thread. Down the line there are nothing but excuses and defiance of the experience of others.

Many say their bikes ride great with medium to high trail and have no issues with front loads... Oh that's because you don't know ...

The low trail (extra low) road bad at low speeds and bad at high speeds but I got used to it.

The high trail is unnoticeable with front load... low trail folks yell... but if you ride low trail bike it's much better you just don't know it because you are used to it.

Sheesh sounds like politicians.. no matter what low trail is the only way to go... now it's ohhhhhh saddle bags and rear loads are bad too.. if loose and you are sprinting, climbing blah blah and throwing the bike side to side ...
throw a loose load on the front and throw the bike side to side... hell put a big loose load anywhere and throw it side to side... ohhh wait you'll get used to it.

Kinda of reminds me of the cheating husband to his wife... "are you going to believe me or your lying eyes"

The truth is some people prefer the handling of low trail bike and others medium and other high and some in-between... some want to take the way they ride and tweak trail, weight load, handlebar height, stem length, body weight, arm length, shoe size, and run formulas. Then there is a new racers (oh sorry randonneurs) routine to ride a bike... weight front bag, banana, nuts, rain coat... place 2 lbs packages at 10 mile intervals incase it rains and I need to replace weight of rain gear in front rack along the way.. (after all optimal performance on this bike is with 12.7779076 lbs front) Get the air pressure to exactly 40.1155576 lbs (new electronic air monitoring for tires will be out next year to update your home computer that will send snmp traps to you via email in case of fluctuation about 2.3357%) Ok... check.. I can ride my bike now and carve turns and feel like a really good race bike....

No Thank You.. I purchased a Rivendell as it handles front loads, rear loads, front and rear loads and doesn't need a load to feel great.. I check the tires once a week.. and carry what I need as an all around bicycle... I change handle bars, tires, bags etc often .. then join a Rivendell Owners group on the web to discuss and explore the wonderful uses of it.. only to have to defend not the bike but my own experience as someone else decides unilaterally that since they don't feel the same way I'm wrong... and no evidence from anyone is valid...they are just used to it and don't know.

I'm sarcastic blunt and things make sense or they don't. Low trail sounds great the way Jan did it .. built the bike to be a performance (race machine) for a specific purpose.. He loves it. The bikes are beautiful and I'm sure they ride great and people get used to them just as "Most" bikes ride wonderfully and people get used to them. After all they are bicycles.... After all from the vast difference of experiences and not just opinions it's obvious that it's not "just a trail thing". It's also true that there are trade offs in bike design. It may be true that low trail bikes with xyz handle a front load of x better than bike z with x amount of load at frame size k rider weight L and front to rear load weight M under N amount of power. It's not the answer to all loads though and writing off others experience is just tiring at best.

Don't tell low trail bike owners they have a nice bike either... they know it already.. you were just to dumb to figure it out as quickly as they did. Guess we only need one bike geometry after all.

FYI: this is not a personal attack on anyone no matter how much you may want to try and feel it is. Also no single sentence by itself above stands alone.. overall this is just stating in a sarcastic but honest statement of opinion based perceptions.. so far in this thread and others. It also goes back to my original notice to the original poster that I disagree with the instant assertion that front loads are bad for all but bike X because your bike can't handle it BS! Mine and others experience and knowledge of how our bikes handle are just as valid as others opinions. I don't argue or believe my bike is better than yours except for me, that is the same respect I expect / demand from you. If not I am sarcastic enough and a big enough asshole to be as obnoxious and oblivious to the truth as anyone just not as eloquent.

Your friendly bear in the china shop

Kelly

[David Faller]

Thanks, Kelly, for saying what many of us are probably thinking!

Every hobby has a joyous geekery about it, and every hobby shared with
like-mined enthusiasts always gets explored to its extremes. I think
that's normal and, to some degree, part of the fun; but the fun bleeds
right out of it when the discussions devolve into intellectual warfare.

I think you are a very good representative of how bicycle enthusiasm
ought to be enjoyed. A great number of folks on this groups make it
about the minutia instead of the fundamental enjoyment.

Having someone occasionally call "bullshit!" to the crowd is grounding
and refreshing, and thank you for it.

Dave

[jimD]

I like bikes that ride differently. I like my front loader, I like my Saluki, I love my Riv custom.
Not one of them rides like the other. All of then are fun. Shoot, I even like my Madone though
I haven't ridden it in more than a year.
For me it's a gestalt thing (to steal an R.Sach's perspective).
-JimD

> --
> 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/-/KYrH8-T-tx4J.

[James Valiensi]

Hi,
When I ordered my custom Rivendell back in 02 I requested braze-on mounts for a small front rack. I had to send a drawing to Grant to show where I thought the mounts needed to be. At this time I don't Rivendell had a request for such mounts.
When I got the bike I eventually mounted a Berthoud front rack and handle bar bag. The Nitto Mark's rack was still years away. The handle bar bag I used was a small one. I did many rides with the set up and never liked it.

The weight of the bag made the steering feel floppy. Especially going up hill. And when I got off the bike the bag would twist the front around; to me this was miserable.

So I'd say adding a front bag to my Rivendell did indeed affect the handling - in a negative way. Perhaps the Rivendell does not have enough fork rake to offset the bag.

James Valiensi, PE
Northridge, CA
H818.775.1847 M.818.585.1796

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[William Pustow]

What he said......