650B Adventure Touring Bikes

[Harold Bielstein]

We have been discussing 650B bikes especially in terms of low trail geometry. However the latest type of bike to enter the 650B genre has been the adventuring touring/racing bike characterized by radically sloped top tubes and 2.1 to 3.0 inch wide tires. If you look at the geometry specs for these commercially produced types of bikes you’ll find that most of their trail numbers are in the 70 and even 80 mm range with head angles around 69 deg. Yet under actual riding conditions (fully loaded) they’ll be carrying quite a lot of weight on the front end. Besides carrying considerable weight on the handlebars they’ll also cary extra water bottles on the fork legs as well. Having gotten used to riding a low trail randonneuse (38mm trail) with a loaded handlebar bag I'm wondering how well a fully loaded adventure bike with 70-80mm trail handles. Could such bikes benefit from low(er) trail geometry? Any thoughts? Both types of bikes spend much of their time on gravel roads as well as paved.
Hal Bielstein
hkbie...@gmail.com

[Palmer]

Hello Hal,
It seems most of these bikes have wide handlebars. The Jones Loop is very popular.
When I went low trail, only about 40mm, my go to 44 cm drops made the front end too twitchy unless a good load up front. I ended up with 40 cm bars and liked it much more.
Just one data point, but I do not like the crazy wide new age MTB bars either.
Looking forward to other comments on this.
Tom Palmer
Twin Lake, MI

[Steven Frederick]

I tried the low trail, front loader, allegedly planing thing for a while with a Rawland Stag and, while it was a nice enough little bike, it wasn't the transformative experience that such bikes have been for some folks.  I'm currently riding a 650b custom with Rivendell-based, mid-trail geometry (trail around 60) which I hope to replace in the next year or so.  I'd like something lighter and livelier, with a more modern aesthetic - preferably titanium and with disc brakes.  Something that's more of a roadish gravel bike than an all road tourer. Something like the Seven Evergreen SL, or even full carbon like Parlee Chewbacco. 

I think the higher trail adventure bikes you referenced are meant to handle more like mountain bikes and be stable, holding in a straight line over varying surfaces and terrain.  I suspect they're designed for "bike-packing," style loading, light weight saddle and frame bags, with not much weight on the front.  But that's just a not terribly informed guess on my part.

Steve

--
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.

[desmond...@gmail.com]

Go with the Seven, wonderful machines .. In the end you'll be closer to a good olde fashion touring bicycle than you think, in Ti with disc brakes no less but still the heart of a touring bicycle.. Cheers Allan 

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Jambi Ganbar]

I could not recommend a Seven enough.  The way you will order your bike, will be to describe how you want it to handle. They are awesome to work with, super reliable and are priced fairly.

The only problem I ever had with my Seven is the fact that it killed my ability to buy more bikes....you can not justify it anymore after getting a full custom handmade bike...

Jambi

http://nomusic.net

[Igor Belopolsky]

can Sevens be ordered frame only?

[Steven Frederick]

They don't show that option on Seven's website, but my favorite LBS is a dealer and says you can order frame only...

Steve

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

can Sevens be ordered frame only?

--

[Steven Frederick]

Thanks for the good word about Sevens, Desmond and Jambi.  Another advantage is that I can work with my local shop, which is a Seven dealer.  I do wonder if I'd notice much difference if I went with an Evergreen S instead of the SL.  The only difference is that the S is straight gauge ti - SL features butted tubing and is nearly a $1000 more.  The small weight penalty isn't an issue but I wonder how ride quality would compare.

Steve

[Igor Belopolsky]

$1000 is a big difference, but if it's going to be your last bike ever, perhaps it's worth it?

I wonder if in a year I'll be down to 3 and only 3 bikes..Would be good to have my commuter (1), go-fast (2)* and all-arounder(3)** 

* single speed

** just as fast with more clearance. Selling two bikes to buy a Seven could be the ticket here.

[satanas]

^ If that $1000 means the bike feels way better then it's worth it, but the only way to tell is to get both and do A:B testing. Please do so and report back. :-)

Re "adventure bikes": The term is a catch all and covers everything from CX/gravel bikes with ~40-622 tyres through b+ and fatbikes, and so it's difficult to make any useful generalisations. If we're talking b+, then most people are going to be using flat bars of some sort for bikepacking, not drops. Given the emphasis is on offroad riding, one of the goals is stability on descents; crashing isn't much fun. Front loads carried are typically bulky but light; heavier things are better carried in frame bags - or left at home.

Lots of interesting stuff here: bikepacking.com

I'm another of those heretics who isn't sold on low trail, and who fails to believe that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but then I don't tolerate shimmy well.

It appears to me that there are at least two types of people out there:

Type 1: Common on this list and in BQ, seems to think that turning corners is arduous work which needs to be made easier by making the bike less stable (low trail); doesn't mind shimmy and has strategies to deal with it.

Type 2: Including me, thinks that having to concentrate to ride in a straight line is annoying, and is happy cornering on bikes which don't have low trail, and which thus aren't politically or religiously correct here.

This is a personal preference thing - everyone is not going to agree!

Later,
Stephen

[Steve Chan]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Steven Frederick <stl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I tried the low trail, front loader, allegedly planing thing for a while with a Rawland Stag and, while it was a nice enough little bike, it wasn't the transformative experience that such bikes have been for some folks.  I'm currently riding a 650b custom with Rivendell-based, mid-trail geometry (trail around 60) which I hope to replace in the next year or so.  I'd like something lighter and livelier, with a more modern aesthetic - preferably titanium and with disc brakes.  Something that's more of a roadish gravel bike than an all road tourer. Something like the Seven Evergreen SL

   This one might be available: http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=198460

--

"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel Smiles

[Justin Hughes]

I owned a bike wearing 44-584 tires with 38mm trail but the contact points weren't where they needed to be for me. I have briefly ridden another bike with the same trail wearing RTPs. In my experience with both my experience was this. 

Regarding your Type 1: the low trail bikes require more input to turn a corner than ~57mm trail bikes, not less

Regarding your Type 2: the low trail bikes want to track straight. Conversely, I have wrestled with even small front loads on bikes with ~57mm trail that want to go every which way but straight and after only a few miles fatigued my shoulders from the constant input required to keep them on the trail

Your mileage may vary and all that. My experience was enough to convince me I wanted 38mm trail on my custom frame. 

[Steven Frederick]

Heh, I'm hoping that if I talk to Seven, they can tell me what if anything ride-quality-wise I'll give up going with the straight gauge tubing.  One fellow with a Seven mtb I spoke to went with the straight gauge to avoid dents.  I hope that won't be as much of a consideration in a gravel bike.

I didn't mind the way the Stag handled-it was different, odd at first but fine.  Shimmy was never a problem for me.  I never noticed anything resembling planing, either, which was a little disappointing.  I'm a spinner, not a powerful rider, so maybe you have to put more watts into the bike to get that sort of feedback?  I dunno. 

Basically, once the novelty of having all my stuff in a big box in front of my bars wore off, the bike was just a bit redundant in my fleet.  I simply didn't need it, and didn't enjoy the unique things about it enough to want to keep it.

Steve

[Igor Belopolsky]

From very little miles on my Grand Bois, I notice a shimmy but not sure if it's bothering me..

[desmond...@gmail.com]

Your not denting Ti tubes from no matter the tube set- it just cost. The Axiom straight gauge with full eyelets everywhere is a joy to ride as they tune the bike based on their 20 questions- So be ready to pull the trigger , otherwise rude to waste their time as it takes quite a bit effort. 6-7 $ k an gets almost everything if in not everything you with that bicycle.. As about a Riv style long low. :) cheers Allan 

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Guglielmana]

Yep, that's my take exactly.  I would add:

Regarding your Type 1: the low trail bikes require more input to turn a corner than ~57mm trail bikes, not less. Once you pick a line, however, it's easier to stay on it.

[Steven Frederick]

I wouldn't consider it rude to want to make sure I'm getting the bike I want.  $6k is a lot of money.  I'm confident they'd be happy to discuss this as long as it takes to help someone make an informed choice, the right choice...

[Stephen Poole]

On 8 March 2017 at 04:09, Justin Hughes <justin...@me.com> wrote:

I owned a bike wearing 44-584 tires with 38mm trail but the contact points weren't where they needed to be for me. I have briefly ridden another bike with the same trail wearing RTPs. In my experience with both my experience was this. 

Regarding your Type 1: the low trail bikes require more input to turn a corner than ~57mm trail bikes, not less

Regarding your Type 2: the low trail bikes want to track straight. Conversely, I have wrestled with even small front loads on bikes with ~57mm trail that want to go every which way but straight and after only a few miles fatigued my shoulders from the constant input required to keep them on the trail

^ My experience differs strongly from this. The GR with 31 mm trail was an absolute nightmare to ride in a bunch, requiring serious concentration to avoid hitting the wheel in front due to continual wandering - riding in a straight line was very hard work with the (correctly aligned) original fork. And then there was the shimmy. With a new fork and 45 mm trail things were much improved in all respects, but there was still occasional shimmy. I didn't find 31 mm trail comfortable at any speed, or with any load condition, being unstable and shimmy-prone most of the time; 45 mm felt much more neutral/less annoying to me. It might be the case that 38 mm would be okay, but I haven't ridden anything like that so cannot comment from experience. I'm sure somebody will cut in here and say their experience differs from mine and that I must therefore be deluded, but I can only tell what works for me - YMMV!

FWIW, I found tight corners with the original fork to be strange. The bike didn't respond to my normal inputs, so major countersteering was needed upon which things happened a lot more suddenly and drastically than I was comfortable with. It *is* easier to change lines in mid corner with very low trail - not that I tend to do that - but I found the handling rather unnerving, and was often anxious about what might happen next. Relaxing was difficult, especially problematic on long brevets.

Based on comments and levels of enthusiasm from others here I was prepared to like the handling, and think it a huge improvement, but that wasn't the case at all.

Later,

Stephen

[Justin Hughes]

I don't doubt in the least that is the experience you had. But, I don't think I'm incorrect in stating that the majority of those who have ridden low trail bikes would describe the handling more or less like I did. 

As to shudder, isn't that a function of the low trail, 1" steerer AND cantilever (or otherwise) rim brakes? Most of my low trail miles were on a 1 1/8" threadless bike with disc brakes and I experienced no shimmy. I sympathize there; I wouldn't tolerate that either. 

[Mark Guglielmana]

There's clearly a relationship between the bike and rider that can't be easily explained by geometry. I'm wondering if where you ride on drop bars has anything to do with it. I've aged to the point where saddle and bars are at the same height, and I'm almost never in the drops, and I like my low-trail, front loaded bikes.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 03/07/2017 08:47 PM, Justin Hughes wrote:

I don't doubt in the least that is the experience you had. But, I don't think I'm incorrect in stating that the majority of those who have ridden low trail bikes would describe the handling more or less like I did.

I have low trail 650B bikes (in the 30mm range), low trail (45 mm) 700C,  700C with 59mm and 60mm.    I honestly can't say any of these bikes require "more input to turn" than any of the others.  None of them wander.  (Even my AM Moulton doesn't wander.)  And none of the shimmy, either.  Regarding "Type 2" - I'd amend what you say to include the phrase "at very low speed especially climbing steep hills in a very low gear."  You can go very slow and the low trail bikes have no tendency to veer off by themselves, but at least some of the high trail bikes have done that - surprisingly, even shockingly - and while climbing steep hills in a very low gear maintaining straight line stability becomes a challenge similar to balancing a pencil by its point on the tip of your finger.

[Mike Schiller]

Hal, good topic.  I've ridden some bikepacking bikes with handlebar harnesses that had trail no's around 80mm.  With a under 10 pounds strapped to the handlebars I haven't noticed any real issues in the bikes handling.  Generally this is with an light camping load so I certainly was more careful on technical descents. 

 I am curious about what the optimum geometry and trails should be for these kind of bikes. Some of the outliers in this area are the Rawland Ulv with 30 mm of trail with 73 d HTA and 79mm of rake.  Also 44 bikes has built some custom 3" tire bikes intended for a front load. He used a 70 degree HTA and 70 mm of rake ,so ~60mm of trail on those bikes.  I'm experimenting with geometry on my 650B+ ( 3 " tires) dropbar off-road touring bike. The frame has a 72 d HTA.  I'm having a 55 mm rake fork made so trail will be also around 60 mm.   My opinion is that low trail for these kind of 3" tire bikes should be more than an allroad low trail bike because the technical terrain that they are used in requires more stability descending.  

~mike

Carlsbad Ca

[John P]

How about this?  Bikes with different trail don't need more strength or force at the bars to turn, but the same amount of force at the bars makes a low trail bike turn less.

  -John

[Steven Frederick]

That's close to my experience.  I would equate the difference in feel between my mid trail Rivendells and low(ish) trail Kogswell PR and (moreso) Rawland Stag thusly: The mid trail bikes steer from the hips-they're centered-they pivot more or less around the center of your body.  The low trail bikes pivot around the front, the wheels or handlebars-sometimes it almost feels like the front is pinned and you are swinging the rest of the bike around that point.  It's a little like the difference in feel between rear wheel and front wheel drive cars.

Steve

[Steve Palincsar]

Yes, that makes sense from a theoretical perspective and it agrees with my personal experience.

[Igor Belopolsky]

Interesting.

I actually am starting to hate the VO Rando. It feels very twitchy to me. I had a front load and it was even worse...

[Igor Belopolsky]

I'm bumping this thread because my randonneur with 35mm trail feels twitchy. I haven't checked to see how tire pressure affects this but seems to be better without a front load. No, not shimmy, just twitchy. Thoughts?

[Greg Achtem]

My (approx) 30 mm trail 80s conversion feels “nervous” without a front bag/load and just normal with.  I get used to the feelings after a few pedal strokes. 

ftr I’m about 175 pounds and run just under 40 psi in Babyshoe Pass EL tires. 

On Mar 24, 2018, at 10:26, Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm bumping this thread because my randonneur with 35mm trail feels twitchy. I haven't checked to see how tire pressure affects this but seems to be better without a front load. No, not shimmy, just twitchy. Thoughts?

--

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.

[Stephen Poole]

FWIW, with 42s (both Hetres and Soma GLs) I found handling became vaguer, and less stable and precise as tyre pressure dropped. It took several days before it was obvious, and adding 5-10 psi fixed things once it did. The bike didn't necessarily feel any slower, but handling got worse. By comparison, with 700x23-26 tyres things only felt slower once pressure dropped by 30% or so, and handling didn't change noticeably even then - IME, and YMMV.

Some tread patterns don't help handling either, i.e., Soma GL, tyres which don't sit straight, etc.

Twitchiness can usually be reduced with wider tyres (more pneumatic trail, more mechanical trail, greater gyroscopic stability), bigger diameter and/or heavier wheels, reduced fork offset and/or head angle, different/better weight distribution, wider handlebars, longer wheelbase, etc.

Later,

Stephen

[Alistair Spence]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm bumping this thread because my randonneur with 35mm trail feels twitchy. I haven't checked to see how tire pressure affects this but seems to be better without a front load. No, not shimmy, just twitchy. Thoughts?

Hmm, that sounds a little odd. I'm running a couple of bikes with 38mm of trail (42mm tires), and those bikes are not twitchy at all. An early re-raking experiment lead me to discover that I did not like 26mm of trail at all. Very light and twitchy in my experience, but I'm surprised to hear that you're finding 35mm of trail to feel that way, and that it's improved by removing the front load is not what I would expect to hear.

When you say twitchy, do you mean floppy, or is it more of a nervousness?

How sure are you of that trail number? Have you measured the HA and rake yourself?

What kind of headset are you running?

Alistair Spence,

Seattle, WA.

 

[Alex Wetmore]

There aren't enough details here.  What tires are you running, and at what pressure?  Do you have a photo of the bike?

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:26:34 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] 650B Adventure Touring Bikes

 

I'm bumping this thread because my randonneur with 35mm trail feels twitchy. I haven't checked to see how tire pressure affects this but seems to be better without a front load. No, not shimmy, just twitchy. Thoughts?

--

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.

[Igor Belopolsky]

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipORmUxDgJu0K4r49QkFp83Ql0fweIqE7jOK9tpdvuwYhkE3xZGXZ2LNYCvUOv_V-g?key=ekJTekVRNWlIazJVM3FLdEdKd0p4RGNkVkhzTmZR

42mm Hetres EL. Not sure on pressure, less than 50

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org> wrote:

There aren't enough details here.  What tires are you running, and at what pressure?  Do you have a photo of the bike?

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:26:34 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] 650B Adventure Touring Bikes

 

I'm bumping this thread because my randonneur with 35mm trail feels twitchy. I haven't checked to see how tire pressure affects this but seems to be better without a front load. No, not shimmy, just twitchy. Thoughts?

--

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.

[Alex Wetmore]

50 is a lot for Hetres, and Hetres do feel a little more skittish than Compass BSP due to the tread pattern.

Do you have a geo table for that frame and fork? 

Have you ridden any other low trail bikes to compare?

alex

---

From: Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 7:01:08 AM
To: Alex Wetmore
Cc: 650b

Subject: Re: [650B] 650B Adventure Touring Bikes

[Jeffrey Arita]

Hi Hal,

I will provide my 2 cents: My wife and I each have Salsa Fargo's (2017 model).  I don't know if these count in this discussion but these bikes are capable of running 27.5+ wheels/tires as you indicate.  We ran 29er wheels/tires (max tire width 2.4") on the Divide (2,080 miles from Puerto Palomas to Butte, MT, northbound).  

I can recall with 100% clarity screaming down hill on those grand dirt roads in Wyoming thinking if I went down I would likely not be getting up.  Also can recall with remarkable clarity: Salsa really dialed in the geometry (whatever it is - I really don't know).  But to put into action what it felt like for us in words: STABLE.  CONFIDENT.  NO STRESS.

Since we were bike-packing, we were definitely front-end weight biased: We each used dry bags on the front handlebars along with water, food and camping gear on the front legs.  Lighter stuff (tent, clothing) was carried on a drybag rig under the seat.  Remaining gear went in the frame bag and downtube area (see pic).  

We plan to re-start the Divide in early July - finish in Jasper vs. Banff.  ACA did extend the route for 2018 in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the GDMBR.  

Best regards,

Jeff

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 12:39:15 AM UTC-8, Harold Bielstein wrote:

We have been discussing 650B bikes especially in terms of low trail geometry. However the latest type of bike to enter the 650B genre has been the adventuring touring/racing bike characterized by radically sloped top tubes and 2.1 to 3.0 inch wide tires. If you look at the geometry specs for these commercially produced types of bikes you’ll find that most of their trail numbers are in the 70 and even 80 mm range with head angles around 69 deg. Yet under actual riding conditions (fully loaded) they’ll be carrying quite a lot of weight on the front end. Besides carrying considerable weight on the handlebars they’ll also cary extra water bottles on the fork legs as well. Having gotten used to riding a low trail randonneuse (38mm trail) with a loaded handlebar bag I'm wondering how well a fully loaded  adventure bike with 70-80mm trail handles. Could such bikes benefit from low(er) trail geometry? Any thoughts? Both types of bikes spend much of their time on gravel roads as well as paved.
Hal Bielstein
hkbie...@gmail.com

[Stephen Poole]

I can't comment on BSPs, but IMHO Hetres are plenty stable; I had zero issues with them, but plenty with the Soma GLs due to their "tread pattern", or lack thereof. I doubt the Hetres are the root cause of any handling problems. The handling did slowly get vaguer/less stable once pressure got below a certain point, but in the same way with both sets of tyres. I didn't have a gauge, but my guess is that ~5psi made all the difference say ~30-35psi versus ~35-40psi, +/- a bit.

Later,

Stephen

[jack loudon]

It seems like low trail bikes can be temperamental; they need to have all the stars in perfect alignment if they are to work correctly.  I could never put up with a bike that is sensitive to tire pressure, front/rear loading, hands off bars, nervous descending, handlebar height, and who knows what else.  And there's that maddening elusiveness as well; two bikes with virtually identical geometry and tubing can have vastly different ride experiences.  Low trail is polarizing; the Soma GR (to name one) has been defiled by some and loved by others.   Good Ol' high trail, on the other hand, just plods along, indifferent to tire pressure, load distribution, and tubing size/flexibility.  You just get on and ride. 

End of rant :)

Jack,

Seattle  (I do have a low-trail bike and like it, but mine doesn't do the bad things that others have experienced.  If it did, I would be very unhappy.  I also like my high-trail bike.)

[Stephen Poole]

I'm not sure that "defiled" is quite the right word here; filed or indented would be more likely to be correct.  ;-)

defile¹

dɪˈfʌɪl/

verb

past tense: defiled; past participle: defiled

1. damage the purity or appearance of; mar or spoil.

   "the land was defiled by a previous owner"

   synonyms:

   spoil, sully, mar, impair, debase, degrade; More

   • desecrate or profane (something sacred).

     "the tomb had been defiled and looted"

     synonyms:

     desecrate, profane, violate, treat sacrilegiously; More

   • archaic

     rape or sexually assault (a woman).

     "and the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom"

Later,

Stephen

[Igor Belopolsky]

Just need to ride it more

[Steve Palincsar]

On 03/27/2018 02:56 AM, jack loudon wrote:

It seems like low trail bikes can be temperamental; they need to have all the stars in perfect alignment if they are to work correctly.  I could never put up with a bike that is sensitive to tire pressure, front/rear loading, hands off bars, nervous descending, handlebar height, and who knows what else. 

From my experience with now four low trail bikes, this is an absurd overgeneralization.  All four of mine work fine and are not temperamental at all.   And in case you hadn't noticed, every bike is sensitive to tire pressure and loading.

And there's that maddening elusiveness as well; two bikes with virtually identical geometry and tubing can have vastly different ride experiences.  Low trail is polarizing; the Soma GR (to name one) has been defiled by some and loved by others.   Good Ol' high trail, on the other hand, just plods along, indifferent to tire pressure, load distribution, and tubing size/flexibility.  You just get on and ride. 

End of rant :)

Jack,

Seattle  (I do have a low-trail bike and like it, but mine doesn't do the bad things that others have experienced.  If it did, I would be very unhappy.  I also like my high-trail bike.)

Yeah, neither do any of mine.

--

Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia 
USA

[p k]

I agree.

I've had 2 low trail bikes (BDB Pelican and Norther custom), both are pretty predictable, and stable. I've also owned a lot of Rivs as well, and they were predictable and stable as well. I will say the Rivs handle better with a higher stem, and my low trail bikes handled better with a lower stem. Other than that, both types of bikes are a blast to ride.

Tubing differences can affect the rides even on high trail bikes...

The SOMA GR was specced with .8/.5/.8 but also had a fork made for disc brake tolerances, and beefy seat stay and chain stays. I also believe the earlier versions were also heavier tubing than specced. Also it had weird geometry when it first came out. Not sure if all those apply anymore.

[Mark Guglielmana]

Bikes don't ride by themselves. The rider is the much bigger part of the mass-spring-damper system. Different riders will have different expriences on the exact same bike. 

--
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/45HveI4mRhw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[satanas]

^ Different riders *may* have different experiences on the exact same bike. Or they may not. There are too many variables to be sure of very much, IMHO, except one's own responses to something; extrapolation is problematic.

[Dustin Larson]

That is an interesting point about handlebar height. We don't often hear about that but it seems a clear part of the conceptualization of rivs and low trails. Also I wonder about handlebar width and stem length in terms of the feel and handling.

[Stephen Poole]

Handlebar height and stem length are likely to have effects on weight distribution since they affects rider position, so will affect handling to some degree. Usually nothing drastic happens though, on higher trail bikes anyway. My impression is that most of those who post here have relatively high bars and short stems; just about all the bike pics I've seen here have bars near to or above seat height, which is definitely weird by racing standards.

Bar width definitely makes a difference in several areas. If one has a bar bag then IMO the bars need to be wide enough to leave room for it, plus one's hands. In my case I'm not sure that's possible since I don't like wide bars and detest having the bag touch my hands when they're on the hoods. If you use 44cm C-C or wider bars it might not be an issue, but 42 is wide for me, and 40 feels better. 44 felt good at first, but definitely caught more wind and soon felt wider than necessary, for me; YMMV. Slightly flared bars that are wider in the drops are fine by me, but the hoods still need to be 40-42cm C-C.

IME long stems and bar bags don't get on well, though things might be better on a huge frame where they won't run into each other. Long or short stems can all be fine given all else is okay - and that one doesn't have anything with significant mass attached directly to the front of the bars; if there is then the longer the stem the worse it feels. If long stems were inherently a problem then none of the World Tour road pros would use them...

Later,

Stephen

[jack loudon]

Steve said: :From my experience with now four low trail bikes, this is an absurd overgeneralization."

Jack replies: Some absurdity was definitely intended :)  Most low-trail bikes work fine for their owners, as mine does for me.  What bothers me about low trail is its unpredictable nature.  I feel bad for people (very experienced riders) who, with high hopes, buy or build a low-trail bike, only to be disappointed or frustrated.  I just don't see that happening so much with high-trail.  Just sayin.

  

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:56:29 AM UTC-7, Steve Palincsar wrote:n 03/27/2018 02:56 AM, jack loudon wrote:

It seems like low trail bikes can be temperamental; they need to have all the stars in perfect alignment if they are to work correctly.  I could never put up with a bike that is sensitive to tire pressure, front/rear loading, hands off bars, nervous descending, handlebar height, and who knows what else. 

[Greg Walton]

With that tire/wheel combo, the Fargo has a trail of 100mm(!) and a wheel flop of 33mm.  We've entered the realm of ultra-high trail.

Greg

Seattle

--

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.

[Steve Palincsar]

All of which supports what I said about overgeneralizations.

On 03/27/2018 10:44 AM, satanas wrote:
> ^ Different riders *may* have different experiences on the exact same bike. Or they may not. There are too many variables to be sure of very much, IMHO, except one's own responses to something; extrapolation is problematic.
>

[Steve Palincsar]

On 03/27/2018 11:19 AM, Stephen Poole wrote:
> Handlebar height and stem length are likely to have effects on weight
> distribution since they affects rider position, so will affect
> handling to some degree. Usually nothing drastic happens though, on
> higher trail bikes anyway. My impression is that most of those who
> post here have relatively high bars and short stems; just about all
> the bike pics I've seen here have bars near to or above seat height,
> which is definitely weird by racing standards.

Over on the Paceline and the VSalon forums, it's Conventional Wisdom
that racing bikes must have long stems - 13mm or better - for "proper
weight distribution" which is essential for "proper handling."   Those
discussions never mention trail.  Not that trail is any kind of constant
in the world of racing bikes.

>
> Bar width definitely makes a difference in several areas. If one has a
> bar bag then IMO the bars need to be wide enough to leave room for it,
> plus one's hands. In my case I'm not sure that's possible since I
> don't like wide bars and detest having the bag touch my hands when
> they're on the hoods. If you use 44cm C-C or wider bars it might not
> be an issue, but 42 is wide for me, and 40 feels better. 44 felt good
> at first, but definitely caught more wind and soon felt wider than
> necessary, for me; YMMV. Slightly flared bars that are wider in the
> drops are fine by me, but the hoods still need to be 40-42cm C-C.
>
> IME long stems and bar bags don't get on well, though things might be
> better on a huge frame where they won't run into each other. Long or
> short stems can all be fine given all else is okay - and that one
> doesn't have anything with significant mass attached directly to the
> front of the bars; if there is then the longer the stem the worse it
> feels. If long stems were inherently a problem then none of the World
> Tour road pros would use them...
>

[Stephen Poole]

On 28 Mar 2018 6:30 am, "Steve Palincsar" <pali...@his.com> wrote:

On 03/27/2018 11:19 AM, Stephen Poole wrote:

Handlebar height and stem length are likely to have effects on weight distribution since they affects rider position, so will affect handling to some degree. Usually nothing drastic happens though, on higher trail bikes anyway. My impression is that most of those who post here have relatively high bars and short stems; just about all the bike pics I've seen here have bars near to or above seat height, which is definitely weird by racing standards.

Over on the Paceline and the VSalon forums, it's Conventional Wisdom that racing bikes must have long stems - 13mm or better - for "proper weight distribution" which is essential for "proper handling."   Those discussions never mention trail.  Not that trail is any kind of constant in the world of racing bikes.

I presume you meant 13cm, not 13mm, though the latter isn't impossible on recent MTBs. I'd have said that normal road stem length was ~110mm +/- 10mm, for non-elite riders, perhaps a bit more or less for those who are extra tall, short or oddly proportioned. 130mm is definitely a long stem; in the past Ritchey only sold longer road stems in markets outside the US (according to their website).

Pro road racers are typically relatively young, super fit, flexible and care quite a bit about aerodynamics. They often ride quite small frames to get the head tube short enough for the bars to be at a low height as a result, and these smaller frames have shorter top tubes, hence the longer than normal stems. Back in the days of steel or alu frames the builder would likely have made customs, at least for the more important riders, but with carbon the cost of doing so is usually prohibitive except with construction methods like those used by Calfee and a few other custom builders. TCO isn't really an issue at 30+ km/h, so can be ignored.

Deciding long stems are necessary for good handling from watching pro usage is IMO getting things backwards. What it does demonstrate is that they don't harm handling significantly. However, Tom Kellogg once said that "rider height should be accommodated in the main triangle," or in other words that those with longer torsos should be on frames with longer top tubes. It seems clear that either approach can work well, with higher trail at least.

As for road (racing) bikes and trail, the vast majority of bikes have fork offsets between 40-50 mm, typically 43 or 45 mm, with head angles from 72° up to maybe 73.5° or so. The bikes with slacker head angles typically use the forks with more offset, and vice versa. Most road bikes thus end up with trail between ~55-60mm, not really a wide range.

Later,

Stephen

[Steve Palincsar]

On 03/27/2018 09:31 PM, Stephen Poole wrote:

On 28 Mar 2018 6:30 am, "Steve Palincsar" <pali...@his.com> wrote:

On 03/27/2018 11:19 AM, Stephen Poole wrote:

Handlebar height and stem length are likely to have effects on weight distribution since they affects rider position, so will affect handling to some degree. Usually nothing drastic happens though, on higher trail bikes anyway. My impression is that most of those who post here have relatively high bars and short stems; just about all the bike pics I've seen here have bars near to or above seat height, which is definitely weird by racing standards.

Over on the Paceline and the VSalon forums, it's Conventional Wisdom that racing bikes must have long stems - 13mm or better - for "proper weight distribution" which is essential for "proper handling."   Those discussions never mention trail.  Not that trail is any kind of constant in the world of racing bikes.

I presume you meant 13cm, not 13mm,

Yes, 13 cm or 130mm.  Sorry.

though the latter isn't impossible on recent MTBs. I'd have said that normal road stem length was ~110mm +/- 10mm, for non-elite riders, perhaps a bit more or less for those who are extra tall, short or oddly proportioned. 130mm is definitely a long stem; in the past Ritchey only sold longer road stems in markets outside the US (according to their website).

Well, in "our" world 100mm is about dead normal, and what two different custom builders designed around when making frames for me.  But, as I said, over on "the forums" it seems to be conventional wisdom that long stems are required in order to get the rider's weight "out where it belongs" for "handling."   They're also of the belief there that raising the stem an inch or two will fatally alter the weight distribution, destroying handling.   Also, long stems are bad for front bags, and "we" use them while racers don't.

Pro road racers are typically relatively young, super fit, flexible and care quite a bit about aerodynamics. They often ride quite small frames to get the head tube short enough for the bars to be at a low height as a result, and these smaller frames have shorter top tubes, hence the longer than normal stems. Back in the days of steel or alu frames the builder would likely have made customs, at least for the more important riders, but with carbon the cost of doing so is usually prohibitive except with construction methods like those used by Calfee and a few other custom builders. TCO isn't really an issue at 30+ km/h, so can be ignored.

Excellent point.

Deciding long stems are necessary for good handling from watching pro usage is IMO getting things backwards. What it does demonstrate is that they don't harm handling significantly. However, Tom Kellogg once said that "rider height should be accommodated in the main triangle," or in other words that those with longer torsos should be on frames with longer top tubes. It seems clear that either approach can work well, with higher trail at least.

As for road (racing) bikes and trail, the vast majority of bikes have fork offsets between 40-50 mm, typically 43 or 45 mm, with head angles from 72° up to maybe 73.5° or so. The bikes with slacker head angles typically use the forks with more offset, and vice versa. Most road bikes thus end up with trail between ~55-60mm, not really a wide range.

The range may be far narrower today, what with the limited selection of offsets available for off-the-shelf commodity carbon forks, but back in the day that wasn't always the case, and I'm sure there were low-trail racing bikes (I can think of at least one example that I know of, although that model wasn't used in the pro peloton as far as I know).

[mitch....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 9:56:03 PM UTC-7, John P wrote:

How about this?  Bikes with different trail don't need more strength or force at the bars to turn, but the same amount of force at the bars makes a low trail bike turn less.

  -John

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but I think it doesn't help to talk about force on the bars for low trail bikes as the main effect. I think that's a secondary effect and varies from rider to rider.

To me the key difference with low trail is that it is less reactive to weight shifts. Low trail has less flop factor (i.e. less drop in the front end as the wheel is turned to the side) and that's what reduces its reactivity to body-weight shifts.

This reduced reactivity to weight shifts explains all the things people report they like about low trail: 1) less reactive to front loads, 2) less tendency to wander due to stray body-weight shifts at very low speeds, 3) less arm effort or bar-width needed / desired for steering (because your arms aren't overcoming as much flop/front end drop), 4) ability to change line mid-curve (because you can steer more with arms where a body-weight shift mid-sweeper is not as easy).

This reduced reactivity to weight shifts may also explain the things people report they dislike about low trail: people who are used to accurately and telepathically steering by subtle body weight shifts like you do with classic mid-trail (~56mm) bikes will likely miss this effective way of steering on a low trial bike as they will find themselves steering more by arm movement to which they are not habituated. They may be likely to oversteer and then overcorrect as the bike doesn't steer in the "natural" way they're used to. This could explain why experienced expert riders might feel low trail bikes veer around more, while others say they veer around less. That doesn't mean those riders wouldn't eventually get used to and possibly like low trail, but why should they. If they have an effective and happy steering feel that works well on other bikes it's reasonable to stick with that.

Habituation to one steering feel or another is easily under-emphasized in these low trail pro-con discussions. Some people habituated to higher flop mid-trail and/or high-trail bikes really like the lighter feel of low trial steering, and others may miss the accurate effective subtle weight-shift steering they're habituated to. Habituation varies a lot from person to person. Not only what have you been riding for years and habituated to, and not only which do you prefer, but also how much do you prefer it, and how much you want to change your style of steering vs how much do you want to keep using steering habits that have been effective for you.

My own habituation experience is that I got my first low trail bike as a teenager in the mid-70s. I had no idea it was low trail, or what trail was. All I knew is that it steered way different from the sport bikes (mid-and high trail) I'd been riding. Steering felt twitchy or too light and reactive too me, and I couldn't ride it no-hands at first. (No-handed riding being a body-weight shift thing.) I didn't like it at first, but it was a ~high-end 531DB race bike and I was a kid and my goal was to learn to like it. I did learn to like it a lot and I still have it and ride it today. I also continued to like mid-trail steering a lot, and when I would go back and forth between my low trail race bike and mid-trail race bike I had to adjust to the different feel--usually only for out-of-saddle riding, and only the first 2 or 3 standing pedal revs is all it takes.

To add another trail characteristic--high trail bikes (~62mm and up) tend to develop more and more self-steering stability at speed. That can feel reassuringly stable on a rough loose descent or it can feel like the bike's on rails and won't initiate a turn when descending pavement at speed (higher speed is where high trail has most stability and tarmac adds resistance to turning). The key to initiating turns on pavement on high trail bikes is counter steering, and all motorcyclists know this, or learn fast, because all/most motorcycles are built with high trail (by our standards) even bullet bikes. At one time I didn't like riding high trail bikes on pavement because of this. Even though I knew about counter steering I seldom used it (it's seldom useful on low and mid- trail bikes) and would forget to do it on a high trail paved descent and the bike's on-rails feeling would annoy me. After I'd started riding motorcycles a lot of miles, and had made counter-steering an intuitive automatic part of every motorcycling turn, I happened to be on a high trail bicycle and noticed how easy it was to turn. I'd habituated myself to high-trail by means of habituating myself to subtle counter-steering.

These two features of bicycle trail explain for me all of the commonly discussed traits of bike trail. 1) low trail bikes have less reactivity to weight shifts, and 2) high trail bikes develop more and more steering stability at speed (mainly on pavement because loose surfaces mitigate high-trail stability, and may be a reason adventure bikes are built with lots of trail).  

This is also why mid-trail really needs to be it's own category. I realize having just a low-high binary would have a simplicity advantage, and I realize there are various degrees of each within the three categories. But mid-trail is different because it has lots of reactivity to weight shifts (plenty of flop) but it does not have the steering stability that high trail bikes have. This is the reason many here dislike mid-trail bikes--they flop with a big front load, they wander at low speed if you don't constantly watch it, and even at high speed they can turn on a dime so you can't zone out and cruise like you can on a stable high trail bike (in the 80s they made triathlon bikes with high trail for this reason). But it's also the reason mid-trail has been the main/most common race and sport bike geometry for 40+ years. In my own habituated experience, mid-trail is great because it is responsive and always ready to turn, even at high speeds, where it still has enough stability to cruise. That said, I can say the same thing (habituated) about my low trail bikes, which are mostly what I ride now (30mm and 38mm) because I can't find anything they don't do well. For me.

--Mitch

[Eric Nichols]

Very insightful and clearly explained. Thanks Mitch.

Eric Nichols
Newfields NH

[John Guild]

Agreed. I'm pretty new to low trail, and Mitch's description does an outstanding job of capturing the differences I've experienced between low, mid, and high trail. Mitch, you should copy it and start a new thread so that people can readily find it.

[Mark Guglielmana]

Mitch's post will now be the one I send to people who want to know what the knob we call "trail" means.

--
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/45HveI4mRhw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Paul Jackson]

The iBob list has the 'iBob House Rules'; perhaps this list needs Mitch's trail treatise pinned at the top.

[mitch....@gmail.com]

Thanks guys.

--Mitch  

[Sukho Goff]

Yep thanks for that Mitch. First fully lucid and sensible description I've ever read on this topic. This should help me try and understand the love/hate relationship I have with low trail.

Sukho in PDX

[Scott Stulken]

+1.  That was a great read, Mitch.

- Scott 

[jack loudon]

Mitch, after reading your post, took longish rides my high-trail and low-trail bikes back to back on 2 consecutive days, and your analysis is right on.   Thanks for taking the time and thought to articulate this.

Jack

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 8:37:16 AM UTC-7, mitch....@gmail.com wrote:

Thanks guys.

--Mitch  

[Ken Freeman]

Justin, my experience agrees with yours!

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017, Justin Hughes <justin...@me.com> wrote:

I owned a bike wearing 44-584 tires with 38mm trail but the contact points weren't where they needed to be for me. I have briefly ridden another bike with the same trail wearing RTPs. In my experience with both my experience was this. 

Regarding your Type 1: the low trail bikes require more input to turn a corner than ~57mm trail bikes, not less

Regarding your Type 2: the low trail bikes want to track straight. Conversely, I have wrestled with even small front loads on bikes with ~57mm trail that want to go every which way but straight and after only a few miles fatigued my shoulders from the constant input required to keep them on the trail

Your mileage may vary and all that. My experience was enough to convince me I wanted 38mm trail on my custom frame. 

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:48:47 AM UTC-5, satanas wrote:

^ If that $1000 means the bike feels way better then it's worth it, but the only way to tell is to get both and do A:B testing. Please do so and report back. :-)

Re "adventure bikes": The term is a catch all and covers everything from CX/gravel bikes with ~40-622 tyres through b+ and fatbikes, and so it's difficult to make any useful generalisations. If we're talking b+, then most people are going to be using flat bars of some sort for bikepacking, not drops. Given the emphasis is on offroad riding, one of the goals is stability on descents; crashing isn't much fun. Front loads carried are typically bulky but light; heavier things are better carried in frame bags - or left at home.

Lots of interesting stuff here: bikepacking.com

I'm another of those heretics who isn't sold on low trail, and who fails to believe that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but then I don't tolerate shimmy well.

It appears to me that there are at least two types of people out there:

Type 1: Common on this list and in BQ, seems to think that turning corners is arduous work which needs to be made easier by making the bike less stable (low trail); doesn't mind shimmy and has strategies to deal with it.

Type 2: Including me, thinks that having to concentrate to ride in a straight line is annoying, and is happy cornering on bikes which don't have low trail, and which thus aren't politically or religiously correct here.

This is a personal preference thing - everyone is not going to agree!

Later,
Stephen

--

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.

--
Ken Freeman
Ann Arbor, MI USA

[Ken Freeman]

I’d also wonder if the frame was overly noodley, where the front and rear wheels don’t track together.

On Monday, March 26, 2018, Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org> wrote:

There aren't enough details here.  What tires are you running, and at what pressure?  Do you have a photo of the bike?

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:26:34 AM
To: 650b
Subject: Re: [650B] 650B Adventure Touring Bikes

 

I'm bumping this thread because my randonneur with 35mm trail feels twitchy. I haven't checked to see how tire pressure affects this but seems to be better without a front load. No, not shimmy, just twitchy. Thoughts?

--
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.

--
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.