Well, a longer wheel base, as you say, usually makes for a more stable
bike, increasing Trail seems to slow down handling and bottom bracket
height also effects handling by effecting the CG.
There is a document - "A FRESH LOOK AT STEERING GEOMETRY
by Chris Kvale" - which goes into quite a bit of detail.
One of the problems is that everything is interrelated. A lower BB
height increases stability but may be a determent for track and cross
country. A longer top tube and a shorter head tube, to some extent,
effect the strength and flexibility of the frame.
Trail, while the easiest to change has some unexpected effects. In the
study I mention the writer describes a Cinelli track frame with 68mm
trail. He described it as:
"extraordinarily stable no-hands, but was very heavy feeling in the
corners, seeming to require actual physical steering rather than mere
leaning. It is important to note that this bike handles perfectly in
its event - steady track time trialing, the very long trail making it
easy to stay right on the pole line without wandering".
Another point. the head tube length is largely determined by the front
wheel size, seat tube length, top tube length and slope. A short seat
tube with a level top tube, for a rider with long arms, with a 300C
wheel, would result in a shorter, then perhaps ideal, head tube.
I believe that the rider also enters into the equation as an
experienced rider may be quite happy with a faster handling bike than
a "newbe" and generally, a stage race bike is more stable then a
criterion bike as the "frisky" crit bike is tiring to ride for long
periods and I would guess that the TT or Iron Man bike would be
similar.
I wonder if there has been a comparison of the bikes used in the RAAM.
I know that they use aero bars but I also read that they adjust them
for comfort rather than minimum wind resistance.
--
cheers,
John B.