Re: [CR] Shim Sham Shimmy

(Example: Humor)

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:28:44 -0400
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Scott Goldsmith" <sg8357@getcoactive.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Shim Sham Shimmy
In-Reply-To: <001801c2281f$2cd1a830$9865fea9@bourke>
References: <CATFOODN8mPB47GRRoA00002fb9@catfood.nt.phred.org>


At 10:36 AM 7/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>The thread on shimmy has been enlightening. When I worked in bike shops,
>there were several times that people came back with this complaint. It was
>almost always on reacing geometry frames, and in taller sizes. We had the
>largest number of complaints on the early '80s Treks, so I think geometry
>has a lot to do with the issue. [snip]
>Steve Barner, Bolton, Vermont, where it is way too nice to be sitting here
>writng email.

Early Trek touring series bikes are 73 head angle with 55mm rake, mine is noticeably squirrely when standing. I haven't seen any modern racing bikes with trail that low (47mm), the bike is thrown off line by bumps easily, but no shimmy.

'79 Trek 412, Cro-mo & Hi-ten for more road hugging weight. ;-) -------- Scott Goldsmith Zinzinnati, Ohio