Bikes handle well when they are the correct size and the rider has the correct fit and weight distribution. When the saddle is comfortable enough you are not trying to escape it and the aerobars and particularly the elbow rests have a comfortable shape and padding. Correct air pressure in the tires can help as well. In general, buy the longest bike you can that is still low enough. Finally, learn to RELAX as you ride. Nothing will upset the handling of the bike so much as a tense rider.

The inherent handling differences between most tri bikes is paltry or even nonexistent in comparison to careful consideration of the above factors. You will not make reasonable assessments of handling differences by test riding a bunch of different bikes because 1. They don't really exist and 2. The handling of the bike will be affected more by the differences in set up, as compared to the riders ideal position.

The Felt IA has to be on that short list. The thing is intentionally designed to go in a straight light. The sucker handles like a river barge. I sweat bullets going around sharp corners at speed. On the other hand, crosswinds mean nothing to me on that bike.

This ^

Last year I went from a too-small 51cm Cervelo P2SL to a 54cm P2K (pretty much the same bike other than size and some minor weight differences) and the 54 is SOOOOO much more stable handling and nicer to ride on fast downhills.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

A disc brake tri bike that can run 28 mm tires could help out a good bit if her fit is adequate and she is on the right size bike.

Some good points, it’s funny because we are always taking about pad xy etc but the first two measurements I look at on bikes are FC and Bb drop.

Maurice

i dispute the notion that bikes designed to go in a straight line are the most stable or easiest to handle.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Is this valid? I thought that head tube angle and fork rake dramatically affected handling?

I meant that more metophorically than literally. I'm not sure even how to describe handling, because people probably have very different and personal definitions of stable or easy to handle.

I raced criteriums very long ago. I like responsive road bikes that can corner or change a line in an instant. Some people may call that hard to handle or unstable. But to me it is easy to handle. My IA16 is the opposite of that. Mountain switchbacks are a careful negotiation. And, I often come very close to clipping the cones in one-lane 90 corners in triathlons. But, I can also get blasted by a 30 MPH crosswind and barely move a few inches, while my friends on a Cervelo P2 and P3 got blown into barriers and crashed.

Most tri-bikes have fairly similar head angles and fork rake (it's the resultant trail dimension that's important).

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Probably 90+% of current tri bikes have a head tube angle within 1° of 72°. How much do you think that variation affects handling?

---

infinIT Nutrition
Custom Blended Nutrition Solutions
http://www.infinITNutrition.com

I do not know. SuperDave commented here several times that Felt intentionally designed the IA to have this version of stable handling, and he referenced other more nimble tri-bike designs as contrast. My IA16 has a 72° head angle. A Cervelo P2, which I thought was known as a more nimble bike has a 72.5° head angle. Neither site publishes rake, which also affects handling.

My road bike has a 73° head angle, and it is super quick and nimble. So, just by that simple range, a P2 is half way between my river barge IA16 and my crit-capable road bike. So, maybe 0.5° head angle makes a huge difference.

River barge is exactly what I was going for.
-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

I was the other way around. I had P2 54 size and it was like a big boat. Went down to 51 and oh boy, what a relief! It's much easier to ride and handle now.

My NP2 is somewhere between my road bike (Orbea Diva) and my Felt DA.

The trail on the DA is 65mm, NP2 is 59.5mm and the Orbea is 56mm

There is definitely a difference between them

Wider tires are a good idea in general -- disc or rim brake. You just need to make sure you have a newer bike w/ clearance in the forks and rear. And you'll have to get the brakes adjusted accordingly. I bought a set of HED Jet Plus wheels and threw a 25 mm tire on and it really helps with comfort going in a straight line and I have much more confidence cornering, and there's no aero penalty with a wider tire on a wider rim.

It seems 'trail' has already been covered. A 650 wheel can have less trail than a 700 if using geometry specific to the 700. I have no idea if your wife's Felt was 'corrected' to increase the trail to that of a typical 700 wheel.

I think a lot of people would agree on the point about going as long as possible (reach or front center) while being at the front end height she needs. Long and low is big in mountain bikes for stability, not sure why that couldn't extend to tri bikes.

On an n=1 qualitative level, I had a frame replaced after a warranty issue and asked for one size up from what my (terrible) fitter sold me on before. It was ~20 mm longer in reach and ~20 mm taller in stack. All I did was swap the stem for something 20 mm shorter and knock out the two spacers I had below. It was a world of difference.

I hope we start seeing frames get lower bottom brackets to go with shorter cranks. Riding 160 cranks on a frame with the same height as my 175/172.5 road bikes feels weird. I swear I notice the higher center of gravity.

If your wife is 5'4", I would recommend sticking with a smaller bike with 650b / c wheels if stability is a concern.

A more stable bike usually means
1. Longer stem (slower steering)
2. Steeper head angle
3. Longer trail -> trail is determined a combination of head angle and rake, see http://yojimg.net/..._tools/trailcalc.php
4. Lower BB height
5. Weight distribution on wheels (rear center vs. front center)

1: Your wife is on the shorter end of the 700c wheels, which means she'll probably end up with a fairly short stem, so steering will be quick if she's riding it. She might have her elbow right over the steering axle, which doesn't sound very stable to me (I am less confident on that, so have others chime in?)

2. small sized bikes 700c wheels tends to have steeper head angles, so points to 700c here

3. Small bikes with 700c wheels also tend to have more rake to avoid toe overlap, this reduces trail even though those bikes tend to have slacker head tubes. For example, Felt 48 /51 have less trail than size 54 and up even though the head tube is slacker (albeit not by much).

4. Some smaller sized 700c bikes achieve lower stack by having a higher BB height (e.g. BMC, Orbea).

5. 650c bikes *can* have shorter rear center, resulting in less weight load on the front wheel

On top of it, a 650b/c bike will likely fit her better. So i think that's the better route. options are limited though (I think only Premier and Canyon offers those options) and race wheel choices even more limited. So pick your poison.

(calculator above also have explanation and calculation of wheel flop, etc.)

N=1, but...
I am also 5'4", and moved from a 47cm Slice with 650c wheels to a 51cm IA with 700c wheels and the difference was absolutely night and day. I was certain that I wanted 650's (not least because of toe overlap issues I have with both my CX and road bikes) and really had to be sold on the Felt, but boy, I love that bike. It is river-barge stable, and I feel safe and secure even with my race wheels in the wind. I was so frightened of the Slice that I rode it on the trainer for four years and never raced it once. I cannot advocate strongly enough for the Felt.

I don't have an answer for you, but what I will say is I was very surprised how relatively small adjustments in both bike geometry and set up can make a HUGE impact on perceived steadiness of handling.

I recently widened my pads by 1cm. I feel MUCH more balanced, especially negotiating gentle turns while in aero and dealing with side wind gusts. Think about how much easier it would be for someone to knock you over in a plank position with your arms wide vs narrow/hands touching.

My Speedmax SLX has the ability to adjust trail with little inserts in the fork. You can run it +2.5, 0, or -2.5mm. I recently switched the bike from the -2.5 setting to +2.5 (adding 5mm of trail) and the improvement in stability was incredible. It certainly handles slower, but I was having issues with handling confidence and was nearly ready to sell the bike. The change of just 5mm of trail was night and day, and I think I'll keep the bike now.

Point is, especially with smaller size bike, where I know trail can get kind of wonky is... do your research.

But bike setup (especially pad width and saddle height in my experience), also makes a big difference.

i like the idea of a 650c wheel bike for this lady. i'm with you there. but i disagree with your first 3 points above.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Did you move the axle forward or back in the fork?

The axel moved back (to increase trail). It was sort of counterintuitive to me to shorten the wheelbase and move my weight even further over the front wheel by 5mm, but it’s what the manual said to do and it definitely made a noticeable difference.

i believe you're getting ready to pounce ;-)

if the dropout was moved forward, the rider increased his offset. he increased is front/center. he increased his wheelbase. he might've helped his weight displacement. but he decreased his trail.

this doesn't mean a rider is wrong if he feels his handling got better even with a smaller trail. a tri bike with 55mm of trail will probably handle very quickly. a bike with 70mm of trail will handle very slowly. slow does not equal good, or stable, in tri bikes. too slow is as bad as too quick, for reasons i've explained in the past.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman