Low vs Mid Trail for Front Rack + Rando Bag (BMC Monstercross, Road+, Lightning Bolt)

[David Wen Riccardi-Zhu]

I'm looking to get a bike I can use primarily for commuting, but also on the occasional longer ride and bikepacking trip.

I've narrowed things down primarily to a BMC Monstercross, Road+, and the Crust Lightning Bolt.

I plan on running the bike with a front rack and randoneurring bag most of the time.

Would I notice a difference between the mid-trail Monstercross and the lower trail Road+ and Lightning Bolt?

I intend to run something between 42 and 47mm 650B tires (depends partly on which bike).

The assessment of low trail seems to be all over the map, from it making a difference with load to it being detrimental to handling.

Surly seems to think that it's a steep head tube, not trail, which makes carrying a front feel more natural.

A few things I'm concerned about:

1. Climbing out of the saddle.
2. Cornering and descending, and making adjustments while doing so.
3. Making corrections at speed.

Some of my experiences:

I have a Brompton, which I understand are low trail, and feel it rides better with a frontload. It feels a little twitchy without it, but fine with some weight on the front.

Unloaded -- I had a Surly Pacer, found the handling to improve when I switched to a carbon fork (which raised the trail from about 55 to 57mm, I believe). The steel fork felt twichier, but again, this was unloaded.

I ran a handlebar bag on a cross bike once, high trail, didn't like the effort it seemed to add to maneuvering.

Had a basket on a Surly Troll, high trail, felt super stable, and didn't seem to notice significant effort added to steering.

I, have, however, never run a rando bag before, on any bike.

I'd really appreciate any insights. I'd hate to end up picking up the Monstercross, only to find that I dislike the ride with a front load. Vice-versa, pick up a Road+ or Lightning Bolt and find that the handling requires constant attention ascending and descending.

Any thoughts?

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/3/20 8:37 AM, David Wen Riccardi-Zhu wrote:
> I'm looking to get a bike I can use primarily for commuting, but also
> on the occasional longer ride and bikepacking trip.
>
> I've narrowed things down primarily to a BMC Monstercross, Road+, and
> the Crust Lightning Bolt.
>
> I plan on running the bike with a front rack and randoneurring bag
> most of the time.
>
> Would I notice a difference between the mid-trail Monstercross and the
> lower trail Road+ and Lightning Bolt?

Carry a commuting load in a front bag on a mid-trail bike should in
theory be far less optimum than doing so on a low-trail bike.

>
> I intend to run something between 42 and 47mm 650B tires (depends
> partly on which bike).
>
> The assessment of low trail seems to be all over the map, from it
> making a difference with load to it being detrimental to handling.

Aside from "he's just plain nuts" the most reasonable explanation for
this seems to be a difference in riding style.  If you are a
hip-steerer, what I like to call an "ass wiggler," then you might not
like low trail.  If you like to steer with your hands, you might like it
a lot.

>
> Surly seems to think that it's a steep head tube, not trail, which
> makes carrying a front feel more natural.
>
> A few things I'm concerned about:
> 1. Climbing out of the saddle.
> 2. Cornering and descending, and making adjustments while doing so.
> 3. Making corrections at speed.
>
> Some of my experiences:
> I have a Brompton, which I understand are low trail, and feel it rides
> better with a frontload. It feels a little twitchy without it, but
> fine with some weight on the front.

No, you really can't compare the handling of a small-wheeler with that
of a full-size bike regardless of the trail.

>
> Unloaded -- I had a Surly Pacer, found the handling to improve when I
> switched to a carbon fork (which raised the trail from about 55 to
> 57mm, I believe). The steel fork felt twichier, but again, this was
> unloaded.
>
> I ran a handlebar bag on a cross bike once, high trail, didn't like
> the effort it seemed to add to maneuvering.
>
> Had a basket on a Surly Troll, high trail, felt super stable, and
> didn't seem to notice significant effort added to steering.
>
> I, have, however, never run a rando bag before, on any bike.
>
> I'd really appreciate any insights. I'd hate to end up picking up the
> Monstercross, only to find that I dislike the ride with a front load.
> Vice-versa, pick up a Road+ or Lightning Bolt and find that the
> handling requires constant attention ascending and descending.

I see some of those "constant attention" statements and I keep coming
back to "just plain nuts" because that isn't even slightly what the
handling on any of my low-trail bikes (which now include a Johnny
Coast-built Velo Orange Randonneur, a Kogswell P/R, a MAP 650B
Randonneur Project and a JP Weigle) is like.  No, they don't "lock in on
a line like they're on rails;" you can adjust the line in mid-corner. 
But wandering, constant attention?  Not even slightly.  But since I'm
confident based on reading their posts that the folks saying those
things aren't nuts, it's got to be the way they ride compared to the way
I ride.

I think there's only one way to see how well the way you ride fits with
the way these bikes want to be ridden, and that's to actually ride one.



--
Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia
USA

[David Cummings]

I went through a similar process last year. Here’s what I did:

1) I met up with a local guy who has a low trail bike and took it for a spin - loved it.

2) I already have a medium trail vintage Trek with a Cannondale handlebar bag - it’s just OK. So I found a suitable replacement fork and had Gugie the-rake it to convert the bike to low trail. Sadly, other projects have gotten in the way, I just need to do the swap.

3) If I still love low trail after some more serious mileage, I’ll buy a dedicated low trail bike.

So I guess I agree with the above: sometimes you just don’t know until you try it. My process was a low cost, iterative method to get reliable answers.

David “baby steps” in MT

[satanas]

I disagree almost entirely with Steve's comments on handling, and really think the only way you can figure this out is via test riding yourself. It really doesn't matter what other people like or dislike, or find natural or unnatural - what counts is what suits *you*, and there's no way we can know that, or that you can know it for sure without testing.

There's always a temptation for people to say things amounting to "I like it (or Authority X likes it), so therefore it must be right and everyone else should like it too," (or vice versa) but IMHO this is wrong and unrealistic; people vary a lot, and in many respects.

I'm also not fond of handlebar bags, with or without racks and/or decaleurs; IME they complicate cable routing, handlebar fit and handling, whilst often being too small to be very useful; YMMV, especially if you have a huge frame or very high bars - I do not.

While the OP *may* find he agrees with someone(s) here, it shouldn't be assumed that this will be the case; that can get very expensive. Bike setup isn't a democratic process, it's more like an absolute dictatorship that needs to satisfy only one person; numbers for or against anything involving personal preference are irrelevant.

Caveat emptor,
Stephen

[Steve Palincsar]

On 3/3/20 9:46 AM, satanas wrote:

I disagree almost entirely with Steve's comments on handling, and really think the only way you can figure this out is via test riding yourself. It really doesn't matter what other people like or dislike, or find natural or unnatural - what counts is what suits *you*, and there's no way we can know that, or that you can know it for sure without testing.

That's what I said, too.  So doesn't that mean you agree with me?  

There's always a temptation for people to say things amounting to "I like it (or Authority X likes it), so therefore it must be right and everyone else should like it too," (or vice versa) but IMHO this is wrong and unrealistic; people vary a lot, and in many respects.

And it's equally wrong and unrealistic to say "I hate it, therefore it must be wrong and everybody should hate it too."

I'm also not fond of handlebar bags, with or without racks and/or decaleurs; IME they complicate cable routing, handlebar fit and handling, whilst often being too small to be very useful; YMMV, especially if you have a huge frame or very high bars - I do not.

Again we disagree. 

I wouldn't call a GB28 "too small to be very useful," not by any means.  And it seems to me that there's nothing complicated about my cable routing and handlebar fit, which by the way doesn't interfere with anything, and by most measuring standards a 60 cm if frame like mine is at least "large," if not "huge," and these bars are certainly high enough to qualify as "high" by any standards (except, perhaps, the RBW list).

I think it's fair to say, QED.

While the OP *may* find he agrees with someone(s) here, it shouldn't be assumed that this will be the case; that can get very expensive. Bike setup isn't a democratic process, it's more like an absolute dictatorship that needs to satisfy only one person; numbers for or against anything involving personal preference are irrelevant.

I quite agree.  But I would add, don't let the naysayers sway you unduly.  Just because one poster dislikes handlebar bags and low trail, and can't figure out how to route cables so that they don't interfere with things, doesn't mean that he's right about any of it or that you would agree with him if you tried such a bike. 

Caveat emptor,
Stephen

[david wen riccardi-zhu]

Thanks everyone, for your thoughts and insights.

I'm in NYC. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where I might
be able to try a low-trail 650B?

I think part of the difficulty is that (1) this is unfortunately
somewhat of a niche bike, (2) tragically, bike shops seem to be
vanishing here.

I guess the alternative is to make sure that whatever I pick is a
relatively swappable frame. I think the BMC bikes are better on
this front than the Crust.

> I think it's fair to say, QED.
>
>>
>> While the OP *may* find he agrees with someone(s) here, it
>> shouldn't be assumed that this will be the case; that can get
>> very expensive. Bike setup isn't a democratic process, it's
>> more like an absolute dictatorship that needs to satisfy only
>> one person; numbers for or against anything involving personal
>> preference are irrelevant.
>
> I quite agree.  But I would add, don't let the naysayers sway
> you unduly.  Just because one poster dislikes handlebar bags and
> low trail, and can't figure out how to route cables so that they
> don't interfere with things, doesn't mean that he's right about
> any of it or that you would agree with him if you tried such a
> bike.
>
>>
>> Caveat emptor, Stephen
>>
> -- Steve Palincsar Alexandria, Virginia USA
>

> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a
> topic in the Google Groups "650b" group. To unsubscribe from
> this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/L9wBaeEK0Cc/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
> to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion
> on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/38467f60-02e0-03ec-81a3-baeeb936d529%40his.com.

--
dwrz|朱为文

[Kieran J]

I began on 700c high- and mid-trail bikes and eventually added some 700c low-trail ones to my stable. The transition from higher trail (the BMC Monstercross for example with 63mm, which I also have) to a bike with say 40mm can be jarring at first. I would say that low trail does feel twitchy when you are used to mid or high trail. The steering is (IME) more sensitive and the bike can get bumped off course and needs more active control inputs, whereas (IME) higher trail bikes will just go straight ahead over any surface on auto pilot with no drama. I have adjusted to LT but I'm still not sure whether it's categorically better, per se. It really depends on the person and the handling characteristics you are looking for. If you like to steer with your body and you prefer a more sedate handling, a trail figure in the 60's might be better for you.

I enjoy a front-loading bias and certainly MT and to a certain extent HT exhibit more wheel flop than LT at low speeds or stopped. At speed, I find higher trail to feel more relaxed. If you are used to unloaded high trail bikes, you might actually like the way the Monstercross rides with a rando-bag type set-up. Bottom line, you have to try it (or another bike with comparable geo) to find out. 

KJ

[Eli Naeher]

In addition to the points everyone else is making, "low-trail" is a range and the different ends of that range feel pretty different.

I have a Velo Orange Randonneur frame with 51mm trail with the 700cx32mm tires I run (similar to the Road+), and a Crust Romanceur with 37mm trail with the 650bx48mm tires I run (similar to the Lightning Bolt). Both of these were marketed as "low-trail" frames (the VO is arguably more like mid-trail) but they handle very differently. The VO Rando feels nice with or without a medium front load, still allows for some hip-steering, and with a heavy camping front load there is an effect on hand-steering--it's still completely rideable, but you are aware of the load. The Romanceur, on the other hand, feels rock-solid even with a full camping load up front (oversize Docena rando bag plus lowriders) but the handling is too lively for my tastes when unloaded and seems pretty impervious to hip-steering. (Some of the difference may also be due to the flexier tubing on the VO.)

To me it seems possible to make adjustments while cornering on either bike, it's just a question of how much of that is done with hips vs handlebars. Sometimes when I switch from one bike the other other I find myself trying to adjust mid-turn using the "wrong" steering input (hips instead of handlebars when switching to the Romanceur, for example) and it's a little sketchy but I can usually adapt pretty quickly.

I'm in NYC too and you are welcome to come try either of the above-mentioned bikes if you can ride a ~58-59cm frame.

-Eli

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

> an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/87y2shtp9s.fsf%40dwrz.net.
>

[Eric Keller]

I have front bags on 2 relatively high trail bikes.  It works okay, steering is a bit slow.  One of them I have trouble with forced shimmy when I shiver.  Which seems to only happen when I am descending and so I have scared the crap out of myself on a couple of mountain descents.  I am not sure if that's related.  I have a low trail bike, and I do like the steering a bit better.  I think it self-steers a bit too much when I'm out of the saddle, so I am probably going to go with a little more trail on the next iteration.  5mm or so.

Funny thing is that when I take the bags off the high trail bikes, I have trouble with the steering being so quick. Lasts a bit longer than I would expect as well.

Eric Keller

Boalsburg, Pennsylvania

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/f1f9a06e-b7eb-4247-bb2d-6865e1ff8b98%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael McMahon]

There are lots of good considerations here. If your primary use is commuting the lightning bolt may not be the best choice. It would be awesome for long day rides with a rando bag. 

The monster cross is probably the most versatile. 

In my experience you can get used to anything and other aspects of frame geo might matter more? 

I have a mid-high trail bike and I really like a front load on it. But I’ve had it a long time and am really used to it. I’ve had a low trail (rawland stag) bike similar to the bolt and loved it too. I probably wouldn’t have gotten into commuting or touring on that one though. More due to light for you tubes than trail. 

Maybe the trail part isn’t the most important deciding factor in your process? 

Enjoy the process! I have a new MCD on the way! 

Michael, PDX

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/d58cccbb-66f8-4219-88ec-ee7b22592081%40googlegroups.com.

--

   Michael McMahon, L.Ac, LMT
   1235 SE Division St, Suite 106
   Portland, Oregon 97202
   Phone: 503-985-9625  Fax: 844-326-8403

   www.movingmountaininstitute.com

   
   Find Us On: Facebook and Tumblr
 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail and promptly destroy the original message.  Thank you.

[jack loudon]

Like David Cummings, I really liked low trail at first. But after a year and several thousand miles, concluded it wasn’t for me. I had bought a cheapish low trail frame (Rawland Nordavinden - used) as a trial and liked the frame but not the fork, so had a mid-high trail fork built for it. Now I have a bike that’s perfect for me. I guess my point is that it took me about a year of riding low trail to decide I didn’t care for it.

Another thing; after riding nothing but mid or low trail bikes, my high trail bike initially feels awkward, both in normal steering and climbing out-of-saddle. But this feeling goes away after a few minutes and then the bike feels fine.

So for me, initial impressions were misleading. Low trail felt good at first but not in the long run. High trail can feel wonky at first (after low trail) but the handling quickly becomes second nature; the steering feels plenty quick enough and the stability is reassuring on descents and when I’m tired. BTW I usually have a front bag on my high-trail bike and it feels fine to me.

Jack -Seattle

[Stephen Poole]

The bottom line here us that you really ought to test something before buying it, especially if geometry or loading will differ from what you're used to; something similar should work as a guide too - maybe. (YMMV.)

As for Steve's comments: yes, a GB28 would be a useful size, but a GB22 is not; we're not all tall with high bars. (And I didn't hate the GR's handling with the 45mm trail 2nd fork - but still disliked almost everything else about it.)

And someone said (paraphrased) "low trail is a range, with varied handling." This is true, and there have been arguments here about what constitutes *real* low trail, or not. ~30mm is very different to 45mm...

Later,

Stephen (who sometimes wonders if this group is affiliated with The Borg)

[Steve Frey]

Most of my riding is divided between two bikes that are similar, other than the fact that one is low trail and the other mid trail:

1)      ’90 Trek 420 converted to 650b wheels with a replacement fork with 65mm of offset, 42mm tires. Front rack with a basket zip-tied to it. Trail = 35mm = “low trail”

2)      ’82 Trek 614 converted to 650b wheels, 42mm tires. Carries a front Berthoud bag on a rack at all times. Trail = 45mm = “mid trail”

I switch back and forth between these bikes all the time. I notice a difference when I get on one bike after having been using the other for a couple days, but I generally stop noticing the difference a couple minutes into the ride.

Bike #1 handles a front load really well. I’m often carrying a few lbs worth of clothes, lunch and laptop in the basket with no ill effect. I also use this bike for touring when I typically carry 25 – 30 lbs distributed between the basket and two front panniers. Again, no handling problems. Riding it with nothing at all in the basket always feels a little funny at first, but I adjust and stop noticing after a couple minutes.

 

Bike #2 is used on recreational rides and often the front bag carries only a couple lbs of gear, but when I start out a 400k or 600k brevet I might have more like 8 – 10 lbs worth of raincoat, tools, tubes, Fig Newtons, etc. With this bike I notice very little difference in the handling whether the front bag is full or empty.

Both bikes handle well on and off pavement, cornering, out of the saddle, and on high speed descents. 

That said, I’m one who seems to be able to adjust easily to different handling characteristics. I’ve had bikes with high trail, low trail and mid trail, and I’ve ridden them all with and without front loads. I’ve never had a bike that I couldn’t adjust to after a few minutes of riding.

Steve

[Timothy Orr]

A lot has been covered here already, but I'll chime in since I had a monstercross and now I have a lightning bolt. For the the monstercross handled fine with a Wald 137 and my commuter gear(5-10lbs), but I wouldn't go for much more then that. Switching to the lightning bolt, I've noticed that I'm able to take corners much tighter and with more confidence than on the monstercross. Can't say that's just due to the low trail geometry, but likely lots of factors including bb height, wheel size, chainstay length, etc. I take lots of tight corners on my commute which is on residential side streets, so it's a nice plus.

I've only had the LB for a few months, so maybe I'll get sick of low trail, but so far I'm impressed. For context, with the lightning bolt I've put in roughly 400 commuter miles and 500 day ride miles including a loaded century. They've all be enjoyable.

I will say the monstercross inspired more confidence descending on rough off roading, but that's to be expected.

Either way you go, they're both great bikes.

Cheers,
Tim

[Brad]

This is my take.

"Low trail" gets used to describe something that ought to be called "low flop" in my opinion.

Trail is the most readily accessible and measurable number.

Why does flop matter?  Raising the weight on the front wheel uses energy and muscles and all that.  More flop more effort to re-center the bike when the bars turn.

So applied to a commute this is probably less of a concern because the distance is shorter than a long ride.

People put front bags on mid trail bikes hanging over hooks attaching to handlebar stems for years without crashing and burning.

That being said, lower trail - lower flop set ups with racks and decaleurs just plain work better.

If you are going to ride a bike a lot without a bag and a load your focus may switch. 

[Jairp]

I first started out on a 25mm tire road bike with 57mm of trail. Then, moved on to a gravel bike with 48mm tires and high trail (67mm). After moving to the gravel bike, I noticed that the steering felt less lively. I missed the responsive steering of the road bike. By responsive I mean it was more apt to change lines in corner and going straight, and in general put a smile on my face. I agree that not everyone might like such responsive handling. But, for me that was one key aspect of riding a bicycle.

Recently, I moved to a rando bike with 48mm tires and 38mm trail. I do have a small rando front rack on the bike but no front load. I love the way this bike handles, it reminds of the same responsiveness of a 25mm road bike. During the first few rides on this bike, I was surprised at how quickly it changed the line. This one time, I saw a baby snake on the road right in front of the wheel. I was going downhill pretty quickly and only noticed the snake in the last second before running it over. I turned the handlebar and the bike responded immediately. Almost too quickly compared to what I was anticipating. I managed to avoid running over the snake (which would have been impossible on the gravel bike) and also made me scared at the same time. The bike responded too quickly. I do have to get used this steering so that I dont steer it too much and crash.

Apart from that I dont find much more of a difference yet. Standing out of saddle to climb is equally pleasing on all the bikes.

[John P]

This is the exact opposite of my experience. The only low trail bike
I believe I've ever had is a Kogswell P/R with the 40mm trail fork and
38mm tires. It's the only bike I've ever been doored on. I think I
put in enough input to avoid the door with any other bike I've ever
ridden, but for me low trail on that bike was more stable and steers
slower so the bike didn't turn as quickly.
-John

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/8e8ad431-3653-4493-8587-e7f62ffc4019%40googlegroups.com.

[John Hawrylak]

Dave

Can you state what the trail is on your 2 choices?

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[david wen riccardi-zhu]

Hi John,

The numbers I'm seeing on Bike Insights show:

55.4mm of trail for the Monster Cross Disc
47.1mm of trail for the Road+

Mechanical trail:
52.6mm MCD vs 44.8mm Road+

Wheel flop:
16.7mm vs 13.8mm

Both frames with 650B x 47mm.

I'll take this opportunity to also thank everyone for their
feedback so far. It's been very helpful.

> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a
> topic in the Google Groups "650b" group. To unsubscribe from
> this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/L9wBaeEK0Cc/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email

> to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion
> on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/b8a57048-c232-4bc1-a5fe-1035550da9f7%40googlegroups.com.

--
dwrz|朱为文

[Pat Smith]

Hi David, I've got a Black Mountain Road+ with 650b x 47, a rando rack and I've got a full size Rando bag on the way. I'll post my thoughts when it arrives.

The MCD is designed around 700c, no? If you want 650b I'd say get the frame Mike Varley designed for 650b.

[david wen riccardi-zhu]

Thanks, Pat -- I'd love to hear your impressions.

My understanding is that the MCD was designed to also work with
650B: https://blackmtncycles.com/tech-info/mcd-frame-tech/.

I am leaning towards the Road Plus at this point, though...

> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a
> topic in the Google Groups "650b" group. To unsubscribe from
> this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/650b/L9wBaeEK0Cc/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email
> to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion
> on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/bcd8ddc3-503b-4dac-a23a-2e56df28ed75%40googlegroups.com.

--
dwrz|朱为文

[Carl Lind]

I ride my Black Mountain Road Plus (48mm RH ELs) with the same large Swift bag that I have home my low-trail l'avecaise.  Disclaimer--I do not claim be to "trail-sensitive".

The R+ seems more staid but totally predictable. The L'avecaise more nimble.  I enjoy both for their uniquenesses. 

The difference really shows when I load them with the same Swift low-rider bags.  The Black Mtn shimmies without a firm grip on the bar.  The L'avecaise remains neutral, albiet less nimble.

Carl

Seattle

[David Parsons]

Late to the conversation, but in my experience:

Low trail isn't as good as medium trail unless you're fairly heavily loaded.    I've come back from 200ks and spent the last 50k having to fight the machine to keep it from drifting all over the road.   (OTOH, if I ride a frame that's a little too small for me it puts enough of my weight on the front end to stabilize the ride, but that makes fast descents kind of terrifying.)

Why not buy the machine with a low trail fork, then just swap the fork out for a medium trail one if you don't like the ride?   Forks aren't that expensive if you buy them off the shelf, and even a custom fork is cheaper than buying a completely new frameset.

(reference;  I build my own framesets and I've settled on medium trail forks for all of my own machines.)

-david parsons

On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 5:39:20 AM UTC-8, David Wen Riccardi-Zhu wrote:

[Alex Wetmore]

David: I'm curious, why do you ride a frame that is too small if you can build to any size that you like?

My move to low trail also came with a move to using handlebar bags on small racks.  For that reason all of my bikes designed for low trail forks have 9cm or shorter stems because that gets the bars out of the way of the handlebar bag.  They also all have wider tires (at least 32mm, the ones that I ride the most are 38mm or wider).  

About 15 years ago I did ride some of the early 80s Trek touring bikes that are sort of low trail (trail around 45mm).  Those bike fit skinny tires (28s with fenders) and I didn't know better and rode them with a rear rack and panniers.  Those bikes handled terribly in that configuration.  When I picked up another one of those 5 years later I put 35mm 650B tires and a front bag on it and the handling was transformed.

Most of my miles these days are on midtail cargo bikes that I didn't design and where the geometry isn't published.  I carry front loads (frame attached) on both bikes (Tern GSD and Benno Carry-On).  I'm pretty sure both are higher trail and they are working for me too.  I love them because they work well for my longish commute where I ride with my son for the first or last part of it.  I split my time roughly between those bikes and a hybrid e-bike with low trail geometry and my body adapts very quickly.  The biggest difference that I notice is the shorter/more upright cockpit on the Tern GSD (which has a very short top tube because it is one size fits all).

What doesn't work for me with a front load is a mid-trail bike with classic racing geometry (like 73 HTA, 23-622 tires, 45mm fork offset).  Those handle awfully with a front bag, even a small one.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of David Parsons <grr.g...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 1:21 PM
To: 650b <65...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [650B] Re: Low vs Mid Trail for Front Rack + Rando Bag (BMC Monstercross, Road+, Lightning Bolt)

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/3743174f-3596-4ae2-841f-95dd9d48a21c%40googlegroups.com.

[David Parsons]

On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 9:10:22 AM UTC-7, Alex Wetmore wrote:

David: I'm curious, why do you ride a frame that is too small if you can build to any size that you like?

My first serious bike was a Trek 1000 and following the recommendations of the bike shop it ended up too small, and I matched the second one (Soma Speedster) to that size, which is also too small.    I reraked a fork to 65ish for the Soma and ran the Trek with an old low trail Tange fork for a while, and it was fine, but when a friend gave me a GT Talera frame (longer TT) and I stuffed a lower trail fork under it it skittered all over the road whenever I'd get tired.

(Of those three the only one left low trail is the Soma; I put a medium trail fork under the GT when I converted it to disco lyfe, and the Trek now has a carbon fork.    I tend to hang onto my older machines because the resale value of them is basically nil and keeping them at least gives me the opportunity to salvage parts for newer machines.)

  -david parsons

[Mitch Harris]

Yes, you will notice with a front load that it handles better with low trail.

That means a trail figure 45mm and under, preferably with a steeper head angle (for lower flop factor as Brad described), 73 degrees minimum for me, but I’ve ridden 72 deg head angle bikes that are ok for front load with enough offset for low trail. I personally would not try to get a 71 deg or less head angle bike to be low trail.

I’m a big fan of mid-trail (56mm or near that) and low-trail bikes. For me, both are easy to ride and steer on paved or gravel roads, climb descend, whatever. In recent years I adapted to high trail ~62 and up) for road too, which I’ve described here in threads before.

I have two different bikes I’ve ridden in both low and mid-trail versions with different forks, all else equal, and low trail (say 40mm and under) makes a front load almost invisible to handling—sitting, standing, climbing descending. I definitely noticed the difference when it was in its mid-trial version. I did manage to make a couple mid-trail (57mm) bikes ride just fine with a light front load—the key was setting up the mini rack/decaleur to keep the bag as low to the the fender as possible but more importantly to keep it as close the the headtube/steering access as possible. With ordinary light loads it was surprisingly fine, but with a commuting load of approaching 10 lb it required a lot more steering than it would have with low-trail. Still doable but I don’t ride that combination anymore now that I have better set-ups. By the way, that bike was with both narrow 25x622 tires/wheels and after conversion to 40x584 tires/wheels. It was rideable and fine in both versions but I prefer the wider tire and lower trail.

Also compared one of my RTP bikes with a 39mm trail fork, a 48mm trail fork, and a 56mm tail fork, all else equal, front load on all same rando rack and Docena bag. The 56mm mid-trail was doable with the smaller front load (as described above), the 48mm (tweener-trail?) was better with front load but not great with heavier commuter weight, the 39mm low-trail is happy and invisible with any amount I put in the big Docena bag. Rode it to work today.

All three ride great and easily with no weight too. I’ve not experienced that thing others have described where you need a low trail bike to have some load in front or it’s twitchy. My 29mm trail bike rides great unloaded.

See elsewhere in the 650B archive where I describe my idea that habituation is what makes the difference between people who like or dislike low or mid trail. We all learn to steer and handle a bike, do it well, become expert at it, and get a feel for what’s right. The bikes we do that on make a difference. I’ve had my first low trail bike since age 16 (didn’t know what trail was then) and had mid-trail bikes soon after. So whatever habits I developed for bike handling included both.

When I say it’s habituation that also goes along with strong preference for some ppl—and there is no obligation to habituate to some other method of doing the same thing you already are expert at. If someone has excellent bike handling skills and excellent bikes and riding experience, why would they want to habituate to a difference bike handling? Maybe for variety? or adventure? or to see the other side?, but it’s not remotely necessary for that person to learn to like a different handling if they don’t immediately like it. Worth it for some, but not for others.

That’s why I habituated myself to road riding with high trail (62mm and up)—just to explore my habituation explanation. For me it turned out fine, hated it at first but adapted so it was fine, but I’d still never by a high trail bike on purpose. Others love ‘em.

Mitch
in Utah

[Ken Freeman]

If I understand, Alex and Mitch both seem in favor of a steeper head angle, pretty high offset, and a short stem (perhaps can generalize to less than 9?).  Also, I think that’s how Weigles usually look.  So maybe you three are on to something!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/c47f7e42-a562-49a2-85c1-372557fad2e9%40googlegroups.com.

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[Mitch Harris]

Ken said: “...and a short stem (perhaps can generalize to less than 9?)...”

I agree a short stem facilitates front bag room, but I like a long reach number (405mm is perfect). With my fav frame size of 58x58 I use a 10cm stem with MaesParallel (long reach) bar to feel comfortable (bar 5cm below saddle). 10cm works fine for bag fit and I have an 11cm on one bike that has a bit shorter reach. Recently setting up a bike with a 60cm TT so may finally get to use a 9cm stem.
Initially I tried the MaesP bar so I could use a shorter stem but o like several other things about it too.

Mitch
in Utah

[Stephen Poole]

The primary advantages of a short stem IMO are that if you have a bar bag it ends up closer to the head tube so affects handling less, and also that it facilitates/requires a longer front centre, so there's less chance of TCO.

As for trail, YMMV. For me, ~30mm is never happening again, with any size wheels - too unstable, cornering too on/off with 650b, hard to go straight. Haven't tried 38-40mm, but anything from 45 up is fine, though I find 55mm or so is better if there won't be a bar bag. With 700x28 or less, and no front load then IME 55mm upwards is good, ~60mm preferred. For mountain bikey terrain 65mm++, bigger wheels, wider tyres and wider bars are all good.

A lot of this depends on personal preference, wheel diameter, tyre width and mass, what's being carried where, etc, and that's why IMHO test riding is crucial.

Later,

Stephen

[John Hawrylak]

Mitch

You stated  " I personally would not try to get a 71 deg or less head angle bike to be low trail. "

I question this, since a lower HTA (say 71° vs 73°) is able to obtain the same trail by increasing the fork rake by approx. 12mm using a constant trail of 40mm and 700x32 tires. To obtain 40mm trail, a 73° HTA requires 63mm rake while a 71° HTA requires 75mm of rake.  If you are looking at a custom, the rake can be changed to provide the desired trail with the desired HTA.  

The increase in flop, for a constant 40mm trail & HTA change from 73° to 71°, is 1.1mm, from 11.2mm for 73° HTA to 12.3mm for 71° HTA.  The small 10% increase in flop is probably not noticeable.

Smaller frames, say 21" C-T require slacker HTA to avoid TCO while maintaining reasonable TTL.

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[Alex I]

This discussion is really interesting. As part of my winter, soon to be spring (oops), overhauls to my 650b conversion I’m swapping forks. I bought two off the auction site that kept my overall angles about right (geometry wise, +/- 2mm or for height to fork crown). I originally had aspirations of re-raking an off the shelf fork but decided it was a bit much for my skill/patience/attention span.

HTA is 73.5. Stock fork rake was 43mm, 54mm trail (trail numbers from here with 650x38b http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php). Fork 1 has a rake ~57mm for ~39mm Trail, fork 2 a rake ~49mm for a trail of 48mm. I cut fork 1 to try my almost low trail (depending who you ask on the actual #s). I may cut fork #2 as I ordered a crown race for both in case I wanted to swap back and forth for kicks. I may have myself a few rides with each and try to record the immediate impressions of each.

Alex, forking around in CO

[Ken Freeman]

My ‘84 610 is past the era of your “medium trail," the offset was changed from 55 mm in 81 - 83, to 52 mm in 1984, at least for the 610. then was reduced to  Ididn't find problems in standing climbing; I had the bike wandering around sitting and spinningup hills at a low-ish speed - 35" gear?  I don't have a fast climbing gait!  I made some changes: 63 mm offset custom fork, 32 mm Strada Bianca. The head angle is 73 degrees, I  In some occasional rides the tracking while climbing is a lot better!  So now the trail is about 40 mm, versus 49.3 mm with the standard rake (52 mm for 1984).  I didn't calculate flop, but it feels less floppy with less trail.  It's also clearly better with a front Berthoud.  The new fork required longer brake reach, but luckily old Mafac in the front works well.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/650b/SN6PR01MB4271FF93412E58A4EB2D7727D5FE0%40SN6PR01MB4271.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Mitch Harris]

On Monday, March 9, 2020 at 4:36:14 PM UTC-6, John Hawrylak wrote:

Mitch

You stated  " I personally would not try to get a 71 deg or less head angle bike to be low trail. "

I question this, since a lower HTA (say 71° vs 73°) is able to obtain the same trail by increasing the fork rake by approx. 12mm using a constant trail of 40mm and 700x32 tires. To obtain 40mm trail, a 73° HTA requires 63mm rake while a 71° HTA requires 75mm of rake.  If you are looking at a custom, the rake can be changed to provide the desired trail with the desired HTA.  

Sure, and that's why I said "personally." I probably just like 73 and 74 degree head angle bikes. And I don't like the front wheel way way out in front where it gets to with a slacker head angle plus the extra offset required to keep it low trail moves the wheel even further away. That helps avoid TCO I agree, and would probably be the preference for some. I don't have a lot of experience riding different low trail bikes with slacker head angles, just a couple. One was a somewhat direct comparison to a bike of my with 73 angle / 70mm offset, where I've ridden it's smaller frame twin with 72 head angle / 73mm offset for the same trail but the steering geometry feels more different to me than I'd expect with the same low trail. 

 

The increase in flop, for a constant 40mm trail & HTA change from 73° to 71°, is 1.1mm, from 11.2mm for 73° HTA to 12.3mm for 71° HTA.  The small 10% increase in flop is probably not noticeable.

On the other hand, I was headed to yojimg to calculate this but you already did it, and I'm surprised the different in flop is so small. I agree that shouldn't make a huge difference. Also your description above makes me wonder whether a low trail bike with slack head angle might be really nice for trails single track, which close to what Jones does, perhaps. Having the wheel way out front becomes a good thing in some technical offroad situations. 

 

Smaller frames, say 21" C-T require slacker HTA to avoid TCO while maintaining reasonable TTL.

I don't ride small frames 58x58 or so, but I have not minded TCO when I have some. Most of my track bikes have some TCO and the one track bike I didn't like as much didn't have TCO and it felt like the front wheel was too far out there. That one got wrecked on the track Derny racing so long gone, not the fault of bike though (don't do Keirin racing on windy days).  

I think my 58 Romanceur has a bit of TCO too--I'm using large size toeclips that touch the Honjos in some positions. I understand that builders and others don't have a lot of choice with TCO and have to avoiid it for customers and might prefer not to have it anyway. 

Mitch

in Utah