Thoughts on the whole low trail thing?

[Reed Kennedy]

I've been a Rivvy sorta guy for the last ten years, owning several of their bikes and numerous others built up in Riv-inspired ways. Recently I've been reading through back issues of Bicycle Quarterly, and back posts on Jan Heine's blog. It's got me wondering about this whole alternate-universe practical bike thing he describes, which seems to be characterized by low trail steering geometry, flexible frames, and carrying loads up front.

I'd love to try it, but such bikes aren't exactly common. 

Does anyone have experience with both Rivvy (mid-trail, burly rigid frame, carrying stuff all over) and the more French rando / Jan sort of bike? What did you think of each?

Reed

[Bill Lindsay]

Reed asked:

Does anyone have experience with both Rivvy (mid-trail, burly rigid frame, carrying stuff all over) and the more French rando / Jan sort of bike? What did you think of each?

Yes I do.  I think both are fine.  Some people feel like it's a night and day kind of difference, and I don't feel that way.  My two low-trail bikes are both Rawlands.  I have their road model, the Nordavinden, and their 650b rando model, the Stag.  My Stag is still my primary brevet bike and it's terrific.  I did a lot of brevets on a 650B A Homer Hilsen before that and it was great, too, but I felt it was somewhat overbuilt for that brevet-only use.  Let me know if you want to check out my Nordavinden (it's a 58-59 Large).  I used that as a platform to just explore the concepts, and I feel like I've learned what I needed to learn.  Most recently I had braze-on centerpulls attached to see what the fuss was about.  I'm now moving my road bike exploration towards contemporary gravel bike concepts.  

I'm a big fan of front loading in general.  I put stuff in saddle bags only as a last resort.  I think front loading works great for me on high trail and low trail.  In my experience a low trail bike unloaded is still fine.  

[Reed Kennedy]

Thanks very much for the thoughts, Bill! You described exactly the sort of experience I was hoping to hear about. 

I'm currently considering training for a couple brevets. I've never done one, and it both seems like an interesting challenge and a good training goal. At the moment the two most appropriate (or perhaps I should say least inappropriate) bikes I own for such a thing are a drop bar'd Hunqapillar and an old 2004 Madone race bike that was given to me and then ignored. I'm concerned that the Hunq is overbuilt for randonneuring and that the Madone would simply be unpleasant. But then, I'm also concerned I'm just looking for an excuse to buy another bike!

Do you feel randonneuring benefits hugely from a purpose-built bike, or should I just go for it with what I have?

Best,

Reed

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bill Lindsay]

Everything is best served with another bike.  N+1.  Always N+1.  The correct question to ask yourself is NOT : "Do I need another bike?"  The correct question is : "What should my next bike be?"  :-)

If I had the choice of doing a brevet on a drop-bar Hunqapillar that I bought for myself and set up to my liking, or a hand-me-down Madone, I would almost certainly choose to do the brevet on the Hunqapillar.  

[Steve Palincsar]

Yes indeed. I sold a Rambouillet to get a Johnny Coast-built Velo
Orange Randonneur, and I sold a Saluki to get one of Mitch Pryor's MAP
Randonneurs. In each case I went from OS Riv tubing and high trail
geometry to standard diameter thinner gauge and low trail geometry. I
liked the Rivs, but I like the "BQ style" bikes a lot better.

[Evan Baird]

I've been riding back to back rake comparisons for the last 2 years, and the conclusion I've come to is you'll probably get used to whatever you ride the most. IF you always carry stuff on your bike, and IF you prefer to keep it within reach, and IF you need to take your hands off the bars often then go for it. That said, I ride my Stag without a handlebar bag and it's fine. I ride the high trail bike with a handlebar bag and pannier and it's fine. I can ride them both no hands. It is a bit easier with the low trail, but there are so many variables that you'd need a ven diagram to quantify it all. The one thing that I feel pretty confident about is that I prefer the slacker head tube for dirt, regardless of the trail. I can't justify that with any data though.

[Reed Kennedy]

Great feedback, thanks Steve! 

Mind if I ask what you think of the MAP Randonneur, and which wheel size yours is in? I've actually found a used Map Randonneur in my size and for sale near me. I'm awfully tempted, but had been hoping for a 650 x 42 wheel and tire, and this one is set up for 700 x 32.

Best,

[Reed Kennedy]

Isn't that the truth Bill! Thanks for the advice. I think I'll finally sell that Madone and aim to train for and do my first brevet on the Hunqapillar. Then, if I like it, I'll start scheming around a low trail bike for brevets.

Plus, that'll give me some good time to dream about what my ideal randonneuring bike would be like!

Best,

Reed

[Steve Palincsar]

The MAP is 650Bx42, and a 59 or 60 cm frame depending on how you measure.  The VO is 700x32C.  What I think of it is, it's fantastic.  I'm sure Mitch's 700C randonneurs are as well.  I am happy to have both, and would replace either if something terrible happened to it.

[jeffrey kane]

Reed -- there has been a near endless run of low vs not-low discussions here and on the iBob and the 650b list. I feel like I've read them all and agonized over the damn concept myself for years. But I've never seen a more sensible and succinct assessment of the whole thing than these quickly punched out 9 posts above. Bill L nailed it one way, Evan B pretty much said what GP himself has been saying forever, which, is you can probably get used to anything given some time and Steve P knows his stuff and has real experience with some pretty darn nice bikes.

Me, I've got only this to add: having bounced through 5 similar yet different 650b rides in the last six years (2 typical trail Rivs, a V/O low trail and now 2 Jeff Lyon even lower trail bikes) I'd say that there can be some unpredictable bike-to-bike variations in performance that don't just fall in line with the "spread sheet" of expectations. Why? I have no idea but I have a Saluki that does not play well front loaded and Bleriot that does (yet, supposedly they are super close in geo). The V/O worked nicely but didn't incite much passion, The 2 Lyon's: one with drops and the other with uprights exhibit somewhat different tendencies, which, I suppose, speaks to the bar choice and riding position. 

I ended up on flexy front loading low-trail rides though ... and I don't see myself going back. Maybe I'll go in another direction altogether but for now, I couldn't be happier.

[René Sterental]

FWIW, I converted two Rivendell bikes to low trail forks and liked them better that way, one I sold (Hunqapillar) and the other one I'm keeping (Atlantis). I preferred their handling vs. the original handling because I wanted front loads, and in the case of the Atlantis, because it shimmied for me with a rear load. Now it doesn't.

I love the handling of the Homer and the Betty in their original geometries, but don't front load them other than a super light load (wallet, phone, glasses). My upcoming custom is low trail 650b, but not a Randonneur geometry.

While you can probably get used to anything, it's when you've compared and liked something more, where the decision to invest to go that way or stay the way you are comes into play.

You can search the forum for my past lengthy posts if you're interested. 

René 

--

[James Chang]

Hi Reed,

I've got both.  A stouty Riv custom and a flexy low trial.  Both I love.  They certainly feel different but 10 minutes on either and any difference fads away.  Do appreciate low trial with a front load though.  The Riv is nice with a saddle bag but if the load is heavy it's kind of a drag when I'm out of the saddle climbing.

James Chang

Taipei, Taiwan

--

*** club sandwich, not seal ***

[Garth]

  While I see lots about low trail bikes with drop bars , I have not heard/seen much about riding on low trail bikes with long sloping top tubes(6+ degrees) and high bars(at least above the saddle height).  Basically a much higher center of gravity than a drop bar bike.  A recent blug post GP mentioned something about this not being so desirable but did not elaborate. 

   So basically I'm wondering how a Bombadil or Hunq would be with Alba type bars at least couple inches above the saddle would be ? 

I've considered another Bombadil or even a Hunq type frame but I need more front foot-tire/fender clearance than either stock bike offers in 60+cm. frames.  I could do this by either going to a low trail design and/or 650b wheels but I have no idea how it would ride.

[Ron Mc]

Borrowed a quote from Jim Merz - Just like an arrow, the weight goes up front.  

[olof...@gmail.com]

First, out of curiosity: I have a custom Riv that I ordered in „dark metallic cinnamon“. Seems very like your. What´s the colour called?

 

Second – and main: I have presently 4 bikes, among those the Riv with 55 mm trail, a Raleigh International from 1971 with 40 mm trail and a Centurion Super Tour from 1982, also 40 mm trail. Have owned a Heron Touring with 66 mm trail. I would call the Heron a rear loader, the Riv more neutral, the others front loaders, all nice to ride unloaded. But I will make a comparision: part of my life I have been quite heavily into ballroom dancing. These bikes all ride somewhat different, but it is like dancing with four different girls who all are very good dancers, but each with some character of her own which just adds to the pleasure.

 

Maybe after all the Riv and the Raleigh are the ones I would be most sad to lose and the Riv would be my last bike. Why? How much I love to ride my low trail Raleigh the Riv is absolutely unbelievably versatile. I have used it as a camper, like on the picture, with heavy load, I have used it for long distance rides to work, I have used it as a go-fast pleasure bike. It does it all. And well. The Raleigh is more of a light loader.

 

On the picture the Riv has 622/35 mm Paselas, presently it sports 584/38 mm PariMotos as doea the Raleigh , the Centurion 584/42 mm PariMotos. That new type of tires is maybe more important than the trail differences.

 

Last: I can´t refrain from giving you Willam deRossets brilliant essay from an earlier thread.

 

Olof Stroh

Uppsala Sweden

[Evan Baird]

Do you know the axle to crown length for the Atlantis forks? I want to try to get a batch of 50 or so 26er conversions made, but I wasnt sure if those were shorter/longer than the OX1s. I realize that it's probably not a sustainable product, but there seems to be more Atlanti owners who have/want to experiment with this. Otherwise I was just going to get 1 1/8 for the LHT/Saga

[tdusky]

I started doing randonneuring a few yew years ago. And had a bike built by John Fitzgerald for that purpose.

Low trail, lights and fenders wide tires etc… My current bikes are a 2001 Rivendell custom Long Low, an Atlantis, and a "72 Paramount P13.

The low trail geometry is amazing with or without a front load, it rides so stable and feels totally correct. See my frame and bike http://www.fitzcyclez.com/frames.html (that's me with my"Juice")

I hate riding my other bikes and I need to sell them. I am a steel, leather wool guy all the way and find most of GP's way to be good. But why does he build these mid trail bikes? Makes me wonder.

BTW my 63cm Long Low dark red custom Rivendell Joe Stark build and my 64cm Atlantis are for sale. So get a low trail and you can go N-2 :)

Tom Dusky

Detroit Randonneurs

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 6:24:31 PM UTC-4, Reed Kennedy wrote:

[René Sterental]

Hi Garth,

After my extensive research and e-mail exchanges with Jan, plus my experience with my Atlantis & Hunqapillar, for upright riding, the low trail target should be 40mm. The Rando bikes depicted usually have around 29mm of trail, meant for more forward positioning/fast riding with lower handlebars.

The Atlantis/Hunqapillar have 40mm of trail and ride very well loaded and unloaded; riding them loaded is amazingly nice.

For my custom, I requested 35mm of trail to have a bit more of the "pure low trail" characteristics and also because i'm now riding with my bars almost level with my saddle.

Still, if in doubt, 40mm seems to be the magical most versatile low trail number to go for. And all caveats about getting used to what you ride apply.

Also, the difference in handling between 30 and 40mm of trail is much less than the difference between 40 and 55, according to Jan's articles.

René 

--

[Ryan Fleming]

OT on the trail...but I love that playing card suit crankset that green bike is rocking

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:46:16 AM UTC-5, James Chang wrote:

Hi Reed,

I've got both.  A stouty Riv custom and a flexy low trial.  Both I love.  They certainly feel different but 10 minutes on either and any difference fads away.  Do appreciate low trial with a front load though.  The Riv is nice with a saddle bag but if the load is heavy it's kind of a drag when I'm out of the saddle climbing.

James Chang

Taipei, Taiwan

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:51 AM, René Sterental <orth...@gmail.com> wrote:

FWIW, I converted two Rivendell bikes to low trail forks and liked them better that way, one I sold (Hunqapillar) and the other one I'm keeping (Atlantis). I preferred their handling vs. the original handling because I wanted front loads, and in the case of the Atlantis, because it shimmied for me with a rear load. Now it doesn't.

I love the handling of the Homer and the Betty in their original geometries, but don't front load them other than a super light load (wallet, phone, glasses). My upcoming custom is low trail 650b, but not a Randonneur geometry.

While you can probably get used to anything, it's when you've compared and liked something more, where the decision to invest to go that way or stay the way you are comes into play.

You can search the forum for my past lengthy posts if you're interested. 

René 

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, jeffrey kane <jsk_o...@mac.com> wrote:

Reed -- there has been a near endless run of low vs not-low discussions here and on the iBob and the 650b list. I feel like I've read them all and agonized over the damn concept myself for years. But I've never seen a more sensible and succinct assessment of the whole thing than these quickly punched out 9 posts above. Bill L nailed it one way, Evan B pretty much said what GP himself has been saying forever, which, is you can probably get used to anything given some time and Steve P knows his stuff and has real experience with some pretty darn nice bikes.

Me, I've got only this to add: having bounced through 5 similar yet different 650b rides in the last six years (2 typical trail Rivs, a V/O low trail and now 2 Jeff Lyon even lower trail bikes) I'd say that there can be some unpredictable bike-to-bike variations in performance that don't just fall in line with the "spread sheet" of expectations. Why? I have no idea but I have a Saluki that does not play well front loaded and Bleriot that does (yet, supposedly they are super close in geo). The V/O worked nicely but didn't incite much passion, The 2 Lyon's: one with drops and the other with uprights exhibit somewhat different tendencies, which, I suppose, speaks to the bar choice and riding position. 

I ended up on flexy front loading low-trail rides though ... and I don't see myself going back. Maybe I'll go in another direction altogether but for now, I couldn't be happier.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 6:24:31 PM UTC-4, Reed Kennedy wrote:

I've been a Rivvy sorta guy for the last ten years, owning several of their bikes and numerous others built up in Riv-inspired ways. Recently I've been reading through back issues of Bicycle Quarterly, and back posts on Jan Heine's blog. It's got me wondering about this whole alternate-universe practical bike thing he describes, which seems to be characterized by low trail steering geometry, flexible frames, and carrying loads up front.

I'd love to try it, but such bikes aren't exactly common. 

Does anyone have experience with both Rivvy (mid-trail, burly rigid frame, carrying stuff all over) and the more French rando / Jan sort of bike? What did you think of each?

Reed

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Garth]

  Thank you Rene as this is very valuable !   I'm still trying to wrap my head around what these bikes handle like compared to the Bombadil I have. I also have another sport/touring type frame with less trail which handles like every racing bike frame I used to ride, which means the front end responds to every little upper body movement.  The Bombadil in comparison is resistant in that way, better responding to hip movement.  The sport touring bike while standing feels completely different than the Bombadil too, almost as if on the Bombadil I'm pushing a wheelbarrow .

  So with even lower trail than the kind of racing bike likely with mid 50's trail, would it be even moreso responsive to every upper body movement or something altogether different ?

[Mark in Beacon]

So, Tom, you like GP's "ways", the only thing you hate is... riding the bicycles he designs and sells. I guess you could say you're on topic. At least this once! Makes me wonder.

[dstein]

I have a hunqapillar and recently built up an ocean air rambler. I'm still playing with the bar height/stem length/seat height/seat setback combo for the rambler and I haven't been on a long ride yet so hard to draw any definitive conclusions. For context, I don't do rando rides, but I do ride with a wald basket and sackville shopsack up front with anything from 2-15 lbs in it. I never felt like the handling was off or needed to feel any different on the hunqapillar. I bought the rambler for other reasons. But that being said, I'm also undecided on how I like the handling of the rambler vs. the hunqapillar. It feels twitchier to me, with or without a load, the hunqapillar feels more stable, but maybe some of that is attributed to dialing in some other things I mentioned. But as others have said, once you're out riding for a bit you kinda don't really notice any more. I really question the low trail thing for front loads because I haven't met a Rivendell that can't handle the front load (and I've owned and ridden a SH, QB, and Cheviot).

[Lungimsam]

My Bleriot seems to take front loads just fine.

But I am interested in a lighter tubing frame for my next bike.

So that means Roadeo or Low trail skinny tubed Boulder. Anyone want to trade their Roadeo for my Blue Hillborne?... didn't think so...ok.

[GAJett]

Been riding my AHH about 4 years now.  Other than gearing, it's just a "stock" set up by Riv., including the Nitto F-15 / Barsack, Noodles, Rich wheels, and Schwalbe Marathons. I rarely carry more than 5 pounds up front, usually less.  I dare not take my hands off the handlebars of the Hilson as the shimmy starts immediately. And it doesn't matter if I have added weight on the rear. 

I previously rode an early-model Raleigh Competition in a size really too large for me.  Would commonly carry up to 10 pounds in a handlebar bag.  I sometimes add another 25 in front panniers.  Never a problem with shimmy or riding hands free. No real idea why as I don't know how the geometries compare.
gajett

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 3:24:31 PM UTC-7, Reed Kennedy wrote:

[Garth]

  I just ran across this article today and it answered many of my questions and more I had not considered like the low trail fork had on rough pavement. Sounds pretty great to me, I'm sold :)  

http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-rakes-progress.html

[masmojo]

I have a couple low trail bikes & a couple that I presume are not and honestly my overall impression is I like the steering on my low trail bikes better, but they have other issues that are mildly annoying, (toe overlap, etc.) I got into trying to digest it at one point, but honestly what I discovered is that there is so much that effects the steering that it is way too complicated to say low trail or not!
Head tube angle, head tube height, fork rake, fork height, top tube length & even the seat angle or the thickness/strength of the seat stays can effect the steering, especially when riding no hands!
So, ultimately it's a mix of all these elements and how the interact with the rider, who is also different then the next rider and the next, etc.
That said I also prefer front loading over rear, I wish rear worked better for me, but it doesn't.

[Pondero]

Reed, I currently have two Rivs (Hilsen and QB) and an Ocean Air Cycles Rambler.  I love them all.  To me the differences are subtle in the sense that they all ride like bicycles, but the differences are significant when it comes to how they handle/feel under different riding conditions.  For example, I love the sensations of my Rivs on a descent, and I appreciate how front loads have almost no impact on the handling of my Rambler.  I tried front loads on my Rivs but it felt to me like the wheel flop was amplified and took away from the delightful feel of the steering when rear loaded.  So I decided I wanted to try a low trail design frameset.  The Rambler handles front loads wonderfully, and I have come to enjoy the convenience of having things "right there".  As a small, light rider, I also enjoy the livelier/more flexible standard diameter tubing.  Lately, and for how I like to use a bicycle, my Rambler has been my ace.  But I could easily be happy with any one of my bikes if forced to own only one.

Chris Johnson

Sanger, Texas

[Reed Kennedy]

Hey René, are you sure about the 40mm trail on the Hunqapillar? This image on Riv's site:

http://www.rivbike.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/WFHunq62.jpg

(From the Hunq page: http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/f-hunqapillar.htm )

Seems to indicate a massive-sounding 67.3mm trail. Or is that talking about some other sort of trail, or measuring it differently?

I'd assumed that my Hunqapillar borders on being quite-high-trail. But if it really is 40mm and the others we've been talking about are but 1cm less, well, that doesn't seem like so much...

Would you mind letting me know where you found the 40mm number for the Hunq?

Best,

Reed

[Reed Kennedy]

Thanks everyone for the extremely educational thoughts, comments, and experiences that have been shared here! I'm somewhat abashed to neglected the search feature and to have started another round of what sounds like a well discussed thread, but I've just loved reading what everyone was kind enough to write. What great information!

It does sound like there is something to the whole low trail thing. I'm going to try to find one to take for a ride see how they feel to me in person. N+1 bikes, as always!

Best,

Reed

--

[David Banzer]

I believe Rene had custom forks built with higher rake than the Riv stock fork, yielding lower trail.
David
Chicago

[dougP]

Reed:

I have a lower trail fork on my Atlantis.  The stock one is 65 mm.  The custom is 40 mm.  While the difference is noticeable, it is subtle and not huge.  It was exactly what I was looking for, in fact.  Like others, I prefer front loading. 

Chris makes a valid point.  The low trail is part of the Rambler design, whereas my approach is a modification.  "Designed in" is usually preferable to "tacked on".  Since a bike's designer must take into account all the parameters of tubing dia., wall thickness, angles, etc., a complete approach is optimal.  OTH, simply changing the fork on my Atlantis has improved it for my purposes. 

dougP

[Reed Kennedy]

Ah, thanks David! I'd missed that detail. What an interesting way to try lower trail. I'm going to consider giving that a go...

Best,

Reed

[Tim Gavin]

Yes, a replacement fork seems like an easy way to try low trail.  There are several framebuilders who will make you a low trail custom fork; Jeff Lyon seems to be a popular choice.

Soma also sells a couple low trail forks, named "Champs Elysees"

Sidepull version, for 650b with long reach brakes:

http://store.somafab.com/chellowtrrof.html

Cantilever version, for 700c (unsure of clearance, but it looks generous)

http://store.somafab.com/sochelfoca.html

I'm considering buying the sidepull Champs Elysees to try on my Riv Road/650b.  I really like the rando bag I have on it but would prefer less wheel flop.  Some eyelets on the front of the dropouts and mid-fork eyelets would be nice as well, since I'm using my Riv as a tourer.

Cheers,

Tim

[Jeremy Tavan]

If only the Champs Elysees forks came in 1" threaded steerer versions...

/Jeremy

[Tim Gavin]

Damnit, you're right.  1 1/8 only, which wouldn't fit in my Riv frame.

Evan Baird frequents this list and the iBOB list, and he floated a question to gauge interest on other versions, like with 1" steerers and/or cantilever posts for 650b cantilever wheels.

[René Sterental]

Reed, I had a custom fork made for my Hunqapillar. That's how I converted it to low trail.

René 

[stonehog]

Here are my thoughts on low trail vs. mid (riv) trail from a few months back: 

https://stonehog.com/2016/01/06/trail-riding/

Brian Hanson

Seattle, WA

[NickBull]

My advice if you're just starting out in randonneuring is ride what you own.  That will give you a chance to figure out whether you really like it, and what "style" of randonneuring you want to do.  People succeed at randonneuring on all sorts of different bikes.

My first five years randonneuring I rode high-trail bikes with most of the load in a saddlebag and a moderate amount in a handlebar bag.  The last six years I've ridden low-trail bikes with most of the load in a handlebar bag and only a small portion in a saddlebag.  I like low-trail better, but it's not a deal-breaker either way.  Way more important is to have a bike that fits well and that is lively.

Nick Bull
RBA MD:Capital Region / DC Randonneurs

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 7:01:30 PM UTC-4, Reed Kennedy wrote:

Thanks very much for the thoughts, Bill! You described exactly the sort of experience I was hoping to hear about. 

I'm currently considering training for a couple brevets. I've never done one, and it both seems like an interesting challenge and a good training goal. At the moment the two most appropriate (or perhaps I should say least inappropriate) bikes I own for such a thing are a drop bar'd Hunqapillar and an old 2004 Madone race bike that was given to me and then ignored. I'm concerned that the Hunq is overbuilt for randonneuring and that the Madone would simply be unpleasant. But then, I'm also concerned I'm just looking for an excuse to buy another bike!

Do you feel randonneuring benefits hugely from a purpose-built bike, or should I just go for it with what I have?

Best,

Reed

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reed asked:

Does anyone have experience with both Rivvy (mid-trail, burly rigid frame, carrying stuff all over) and the more French rando / Jan sort of bike? What did you think of each?

Yes I do.  I think both are fine.  Some people feel like it's a night and day kind of difference, and I don't feel that way.  My two low-trail bikes are both Rawlands.  I have their road model, the Nordavinden, and their 650b rando model, the Stag.  My Stag is still my primary brevet bike and it's terrific.  I did a lot of brevets on a 650B A Homer Hilsen before that and it was great, too, but I felt it was somewhat overbuilt for that brevet-only use.  Let me know if you want to check out my Nordavinden (it's a 58-59 Large).  I used that as a platform to just explore the concepts, and I feel like I've learned what I needed to learn.  Most recently I had braze-on centerpulls attached to see what the fuss was about.  I'm now moving my road bike exploration towards contemporary gravel bike concepts.  

I'm a big fan of front loading in general.  I put stuff in saddle bags only as a last resort.  I think front loading works great for me on high trail and low trail.  In my experience a low trail bike unloaded is still fine.  

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 3:24:31 PM UTC-7, Reed Kennedy wrote:

I've been a Rivvy sorta guy for the last ten years, owning several of their bikes and numerous others built up in Riv-inspired ways. Recently I've been reading through back issues of Bicycle Quarterly, and back posts on Jan Heine's blog. It's got me wondering about this whole alternate-universe practical bike thing he describes, which seems to be characterized by low trail steering geometry, flexible frames, and carrying loads up front.

I'd love to try it, but such bikes aren't exactly common. 

Does anyone have experience with both Rivvy (mid-trail, burly rigid frame, carrying stuff all over) and the more French rando / Jan sort of bike? What did you think of each?

Reed

--