I had a 1982-ish Trek 950 (top-end SL/SP race bike) in 60 cm c-t-t and a 1985 Trek 760 in the same size. Both were nearly impossible to ride no-hands. The earlier bike had a long TT short chainstays, lots of rake. The later bike had a normal TT (57.5) "normal" stays, "normal-ish" rake. The geometries were very different, the result was the same. I was once told that the later bike has a 531SL (531 pro) TT or blades or something that made this happen. Who knows. I do know that I sit crooked on the saddle, due to some sort of assymetry in my legs. I hink this was the common denominator. I also get shimmy on my non-Trek bikes, to a lesser degree.
Tom Dalton
Bethlehem, PA
Scott Goldsmith <sg8357@getcoactive.com> wrote: 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
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access