I would go for shallower HTA and more rake. It's more comfortable that way and you don't have to worry as much about finding a good fork that will work with the geometry.

What would make it more comfortable? Just curious.

Thanks

---

Jonathan Blyer,
ACME Bicycle Co., Brooklyn, NY

I guess you mean "...decreasing fork rake" above.

I guess your reasoning is correct but why the heck would you want to use a 0 rake fork? Even track bikes use approx 30mm rake, 0 rake gives you way too much trail. Furthermore, a steeper head tube angle puts more weight on the front wheel, not ideal for a tri-bike. Why not use a standard rake fork and just slacken the head tube angle? That also gives you a larger front-center distance, which is probably what you want, and larger trail.

If you look around at different manufacturers tri-bike geometries you'll see that a stable bike has a trail around 70mm and a more lively bike is closer to 50-60mm. Cannondale's site is nice.

/Kevin

What would the disadvantages be of too much trail (achieved by a shallow HTA and little rake), lots of tire scrub? I've noticed that "touring bikes" typically have trails of about 70mm as you mentioned and road bikes are more around 50 mm.



Thanks

---

Jonathan Blyer,
ACME Bicycle Co., Brooklyn, NY

I've never ridden a bike with more than 70mm trail. For larger trails I think you would have to physically turn the handlebars to turn the bike, it does not respond as well to body movements anymore and the bike just wants to go straight. In windy/gusty conditions it might be dangerous with such a slow responding bike (now I'm guessing, though)

Why not stay with what works?

/Kevin