I'm only a chemical engineer, but my recollection of engineering statics leads me to believe that a fork with lots of rake transmits less shock to the rider's hands. I believe this was the reason older bikes had more rake, i.e. to absorb shock on rough roads, not because of the reduced trail and theoritically quicker steering. Can any of the framebuilders tell me when the theory of "trail" and its effect on steering was developed or when it was first applied to bicycles? My point is, were framebuilders in the 60's and earlier even aware of trail, or did they just use the angles and fork rake that "worked" based on their experience?
Regards,
Jerry Moos
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ives [mailto:monkey37@bluemarble.net] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:32 AM To: JAMES T. SALZLEIN Cc: richardsachs@juno.com; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Rake (was:Re: [CR]postscript)
Let's hear for some of the engineers on the list on this one. Through my personal experience I feel that bikes with lots of quick rake at the ends of the fork blades have a more comfortable front end. The only way I could think of it was like a leaf spring. I've hear all kinds of anicdotial information, but I want to see some science. enjoy, Branmdon"monkeyman"Ives
"Nobody can do everything, but if everybody did something everything would get done." Gil Scott-Heron
On Thu, 24 May 2001, JAMES T. SALZLEIN wrote:
> Richie, Reference your statement that all the conversation about rake and
> trail was getting too analytical, I agree. I don't know why, in my
opinion,
> my Jack Taylor handles so well. Surely rake and trail had a lot to do
with
> it. It seems that it is more important to have a compatible mix of
angles,
> dimensions, components etc. I have ridden some bicycles that were made by
> respected builders that performed horribly, as if they were two frames
> joined in the middle. I think that situations like this more than prove
> your point.
>
> Jim Salzlein
> Enjoying cycling, and not knowing why in Cape May, New Jersey
>
>
> >From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
> >To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> >Subject: [CR]postscript
> >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:29:33 -0400
> >
> >sorry.
> >i FORGOT to mention that headsets, too, are
> >now minaturized compared to the 'classic' days.
> >for instance, campagnolo headsets are 6-7 mm
> >lower than the nr/sr days. this measurement
> >affects stem plaement just as the others i mentioned
> >before do.
> >i'll be at the bar. who wants a piece of me?
> >e-EICHIE