Trail: GR vs Velo Routier

[J-D Bamford]

I'm shopping for an affordable porteur frame for my wife. Planning upright (gently swept Jitensha city handlebar) singlespeed built. I've read some interesting comparisons of the Grand Randonneur and the Velo Routier. Both have plusses and minuses. The VR's available centerpull brake bosses is an interesting option. But anyway... My question is specific to trail and geometry. My wife rides a traditional 49cm road race frame, so either the GR or VR would be perhaps the smallest or second-from-smallest frame size (taking into account a longer top tube matched to upright, gently swept handlebars). I noticed that the GR's HT angle varies, so trail varies between 29-35mm (35mm for smallest size). Whereas the Velo Routier has a fixed HT angle across the range, resulting in identical trail 30mm for every size.

I'm aware of considerations such as reach and toe overlap. But I'm curious what people think about the 35mm vs 30mm trail at the smallest size? She'll be riding 50% unloaded (empty demi-porteur rack), and 50% loaded with a single tall bag of food from the farmer's market on weekends. I'm thinking that mid-trail is a better target than low trail, given her planned usage. I'm guessing 30mm is probably at the low trail end of the range, whereas 35mm is marginally less low trail. We actually considered getting a mid-trail fork fabricated to match her existing road race frame, but it seems less risky to buy a porteur style frame designed for the task. Thanks for any tips or insight...

[Oregonjunco]

I'm not sure if I can help you on the trail issue but I do ride a bike with a Grand Randonneur frame in the smallest size and also own a Velo Orange mixte with a trail of around 50. I use the VO with a front rack and basket for light and moderate grocery loads and it handles fine. I have Nitto Albatross bars on it. I use the GR with drop bars above seat height for exercise and pleasure riding with a light front load. It handles fine at the slowish speeds I ride. I have some bars similar to the Jitensha which I may eventually put on the GR but I wouldn't use a bar with more sweep because the top tube length is right for the short reach drop bars with a short stem. I'm quite sure that the GR could handle bigger loads. I think for your wife's purposes a wide range of trail numbers could work.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 10:03:52 AM UTC-6, J-D Bamford wrote:

I'm shopping for an affordable porteur frame for my wife. Planning upright (gently swept Jitensha city handlebar) singlespeed built. I've read some interesting comparisons of the Grand Randonneur and the Velo Routier. Both have plusses and minuses. The VR's available centerpull brake bosses is an interesting option. But anyway... My question is specific to trail and geometry. My wife rides a traditional 49cm road race frame, so either the GR or VR would be perhaps the smallest or second-from-smallest frame size (taking into account a longer top tube matched to upright, gently swept handlebars). I noticed that the GR's HT angle varies, so trail varies between 29-35mm (35mm for smallest size). Whereas the Velo Routier has a fixed HT angle across the range, resulting in identical trail 30mm for every size.

I'm aware of considerations such as reach and toe overlap. But I'm curious what people think about the 35mm vs 30mm trail at the smallest size? She'll be riding 50% unloaded (empty demi-porteur rack), and 50% loaded with a single tall bag of food from the farmer's market on weekends. I'm thinking that mid-trail is a better target than low trail, given her planned usage.

I would be wary of mid-trail for front loads. I love mid-trail race-bike handling but all my experiences with front loads on mid-trail bikes have lots of flop that requires constant attention. All my experiences have been on drop bar bikes so maybe that accounts for some difference. Maybe for an upright position, mid-trail is fine for front loads like Oregonjunco found.

I have read that although 30mm was the Herse standard for performance low trail, higher 30s low trail is better for porteur loads. Can't remember why that is but some have looked into it. 

--Mitch 

[Steve Palincsar]

BQ did a comparison of Kogswell P/Rs with varying trail for heavy loads,
as I recall.

[Brad]

If using a low rider pannier system, mid trail should be fine. 
But can you find crab or cat litter buckets for the groceries?

[satanas]

I'd suggest that a test ride would be extremely useful, and could save a lot of angst. My experience, with drop bars ~60mm below saddle height was that I didn't like 31mm trail at all; 45mm (new fork) felt much better to me with all speeds and load conditions.

It may(?) be difficult to optimise handling with both no load and a high front load on a porteur rack, in which case both variations need to be at least tolerable, and *not* aggravating.

Good luck,
Stephen (whose next 650b bike is going to have ~65mm trail)

[Paul Sherman]

If it were me I'd go for the GR at 35mm of trail, given your predicted usage. The BQ test that Steve mentioned found that 40mm of trail best handled heavy loads. I have 2 bikes running 650bx42 tires with roughly 35mm trail that see frequent commuting duty and load hauling. One is equipped with a light rando rack and usually carries ~10 pounds while commuting. The other has a large and rigidly attached porteur rack. Both handle predictably while loaded, but I prefer the porteur's handling unloaded. Must be the extra weight permanently up front since both bikes are set up similarly.

I can't speak to the demi-porteur/Jitensha bar combo, although I bet it'll work great. I'm planning to build up a more upright porteur with those bars next time I'm in the US.

Paul
Kunming, PRC

[Philip Kim]

i have both BQ issues for testing. The VR has a more favorable review. the GR has seen significant changes since then. I would get the GR. I found trail in the low 30's to be bit too low, have two now with trail 39 and 40mm. the GR seems to be a bit more versatile as well, and can take more "standard" racks and brakes.

[Oregonjunco]

One comment about the Grand Randonneur in the 49.5 frame size not related to trail: It's way overbuilt for someone who is not overweight hauling a single bag of groceries or riding it unloaded. The frame triangles are small and it's very stiff. Unfortunately there is not a lot of choice in that type of bike unless you go custom.

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-7, J-D Bamford wrote:

[Reed Kennedy]

I own a Velo Routier and use it as my every-day bike: 

https://goo.gl/photos/Mi12pH43ygHDahFo9

https://goo.gl/photos/Qw2YEe9c5UZs4EiK8

(The bars swap out in about two minutes, so I tend to switch it back and forth a few times a month.)

I also set up a Soma GR for a friend of mine:

https://goo.gl/photos/xhGCVeoayNFR5Tet9

So I have some experience with each bike, though the GR didn't fit me at all and I only rode it around the block.

Short version? They're very similar. I'd personally decide just based on either brake type or aesthetics depending on which matters more to you. I personally don't think I could feel the difference between a bike with 30mm and a 35mm of trail.

Myself? I love the braised on centerpulls of the VR and dislike the sloping top tube and extended seat and head tubes of the GR. For me, it would be the Velo Routier every time. But the GR is good too, and if you need extra standover clearance, want truly high bars, or just plain prefer cantilevers, you'll probably like the GR better.

I have a (moderately heavy) Nitto 27F rack and Wald basket permanently attached to the front of my Velo Routier, so it is never truly unloaded, but it handles well with the basket empty. It also handles well with the basket full of a lock and heavy groceries. The most I've had on it was 50 lbs of Costco stuff in the basket and front panniers. (Yes, I weighed it when I got home.) That was a bit too much, but it seems happy with anything from 2-30 lbs up front.

Overall? My Velo Routier is my favorite bike I've owned, and I've owned many bikes. If anything happened to it, I'd just buy another one.

Reed

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:03 AM, J-D Bamford <isp...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm shopping for an affordable porteur frame for my wife. Planning upright (gently swept Jitensha city handlebar) singlespeed built. I've read some interesting comparisons of the Grand Randonneur and the Velo Routier. Both have plusses and minuses. The VR's available centerpull brake bosses is an interesting option. But anyway... My question is specific to trail and geometry. My wife rides a traditional 49cm road race frame, so either the GR or VR would be perhaps the smallest or second-from-smallest frame size (taking into account a longer top tube matched to upright, gently swept handlebars). I noticed that the GR's HT angle varies, so trail varies between 29-35mm (35mm for smallest size). Whereas the Velo Routier has a fixed HT angle across the range, resulting in identical trail 30mm for every size.

I'm aware of considerations such as reach and toe overlap. But I'm curious what people think about the 35mm vs 30mm trail at the smallest size? She'll be riding 50% unloaded (empty demi-porteur rack), and 50% loaded with a single tall bag of food from the farmer's market on weekends. I'm thinking that mid-trail is a better target than low trail, given her planned usage. I'm guessing 30mm is probably at the low trail end of the range, whereas 35mm is marginally less low trail. We actually considered getting a mid-trail fork fabricated to match her existing road race frame, but it seems less risky to buy a porteur style frame designed for the task. Thanks for any tips or insight...

--
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 post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Hawrylak]

Feb 2006 BQ  The PR model with forks with 25mm, 40mm, 50mm trail   Here's the conclusion

Conclusion

The three bikes felt very different. The biggest difference was between the 40 mm and the 50

mm trail bikes, whereas the 25 mm and 40 mm trail bikes felt more similar. The differences

were most noticeable at slow and moderate speeds (below 20 km/h/12.5 mph) and with a

front load. At higher speeds, especially without a load, the bikes felt more similar than we

expected. Also, the differences faded the longer we rode each bike. Immediately after

switching bikes, the different inputs required often were quite startling, especially when

riding no hands. On the 50 mm trail bike, we failed to make large enough corrections and

veered off course easily. On the 25 mm bike, especially when coming from the 50 mm bike,

our corrections were so large they sent the bike veering the other way. After a few km of refamiliarization,

riding no-hands became much easier.

All bikes worked great under all conditions tested, with two exceptions: Riding out of the

saddle, the 25 mm trail bike was less than optimal with only a large rear load, and the 50 mm

trail bike did not work well with a heavy load at the front. One should remember that a backto-

back test like this one highlights subtle differences in handling. Each of these geometries

would work well for most riders, especially once it becomes familiar after a few weeks of

riding. With that in mind, I recommend the following geometries:

Jan suggested changing the 25 to 30mm.  

[Evan Baird]

It appears Soma finally decided to offer the GR fork separately. My hope is they'll introduce more rake options so the handling can be characterized. There doesn't seem to be much consensus on how much trail is preferable for a porteur, but I've ridden bikes on both ends of the spectrum and my conclusion was that a sturdy rack attachment is way more important in terms of steering performance.