I meant handling in general. Stability vs liveliness.
I also did Lanzarote and found climbing awkward.
On the flats you want things stable. A more stable bike geometry should allow for deeper wheels in crosswinds and less body tension.
This is just my $.02…
I’ve ridden a few road and tri bikes with a lot of trail because I ride a small bike and some manufactures don’t pay attention the front end geometry on their smallest bikes.
Tri bikes with 67+mm of trail ride really straight and easy but when you try to make a turn-around at the end of a road, the bike enters the turn fine then half way through, it dips and becomes difficult to control with any speed. I think that’s where the bad reputation of tri bike geometry comes in.
Bikes with 59-60mm of trail (Cervelo P2 45) don’t have this problem, they go nicely through those type of turns. When riding really fast sweeping turns, like 25+mph the bike “wiggles” a little bit when I’m in the aerobars. There is no problem at all when I’m on the horns but I can see how this might scare a newer rider.
I have a bike with 64-65mm of trail (Felt DA 47) that is a pretty good balance of both of those elements.
There seems to be a lot of small road bikes with +68mm of trail. Those companies make really good 52, 54, 56 etc… bikes but their 45, 48’s suck and it’s because they kick the headtube out and don’t change the fork rake. Those bikes have the same dipping problem as the tri bike with a large trail. They also don’t react well when trying to make a quick turn to avoid someone or something and don’t seem to enter long sweeping turns easily.
So maybe it’s just me but for a road bike I like 58-61mm of trail and tri bike 64-65mm. I honestly can’t tell the difference in chainstay length and wheelbase. Wheelbase is always a result of how long my bikes are and since all of them are short, the wheelbase is short.
I also don’t notice a difference in handling with BB drop, it does however help a bike to fit me since I’m almost always looking for a bike with the lowest stack I can find.
This is just my $.02…
I’ve ridden a few road and tri bikes with a lot of trail because I ride a small bike and some manufactures don’t pay attention the front end geometry on their smallest bikes.
Tri bikes with 67+mm of trail ride really straight and easy but when you try to make a turn-around at the end of a road, the bike enters the turn fine then half way through, it dips and becomes difficult to control with any speed. I think that’s where the bad reputation of tri bike geometry comes in.
Bikes with 59-60mm of trail (Cervelo P2 45) don’t have this problem, they go nicely through those type of turns. When riding really fast sweeping turns, like 25+mph the bike “wiggles” a little bit when I’m in the aerobars. There is no problem at all when I’m on the horns but I can see how this might scare a newer rider.
I have a bike with 64-65mm of trail (Felt DA 47) that is a pretty good balance of both of those elements.
There seems to be a lot of small road bikes with +68mm of trail. Those companies make really good 52, 54, 56 etc… bikes but their 45, 48’s suck and it’s because they kick the headtube out and don’t change the fork rake. Those bikes have the same dipping problem as the tri bike with a large trail. They also don’t react well when trying to make a quick turn to avoid someone or something and don’t seem to enter long sweeping turns easily.
So maybe it’s just me but for a road bike I like 58-61mm of trail and tri bike 64-65mm. I honestly can’t tell the difference in chainstay length and wheelbase. Wheelbase is always a result of how long my bikes are and since all of them are short, the wheelbase is short.
I also don’t notice a difference in handling with BB drop, it does however help a bike to fit me since I’m almost always looking for a bike with the lowest stack I can find.
based on what you’re writing above my assumption is that you ride small bikes, as in, 50cm or smaller. i hate bikes with a trail bigger than 62mm. tri bikes don’t have trail numbers above 62mm, unless they’re made in small sizes with 700c wheels. this is because bike makes have to really shallow the head tubes to kick the front axle forward, which creates a front/center long enough to guard against shoe overlap. this might be okay if they got half that extra front/center from a shallower head angle and the other half from extra fork offset (keeping the trail constant) but they’re too cheap to invest in extra fork molds.
this is why a tri bike that really handles great, in the 40-something centimeter size, will be build with smaller wheels, either 650c or 650b.
the one area where i’ve changed my thinking over the years in bike geometry is in chainstay. i’ve grown fond of longer chainstays, mostly because of the better shifting, and that’s especially the case with 1x. i used to think there was a downside to longer chainstays, but the proof of the pudding is in the riding, and i just don’t find longer chainstays troublesome. now, it may have a bad effect on aerodynamics. or not. depending on how crafty the bike designer.
This is just my $.02…
I’ve ridden a few road and tri bikes with a lot of trail because I ride a small bike and some manufactures don’t pay attention the front end geometry on their smallest bikes.
Tri bikes with 67+mm of trail ride really straight and easy but when you try to make a turn-around at the end of a road, the bike enters the turn fine then half way through, it dips and becomes difficult to control with any speed. I think that’s where the bad reputation of tri bike geometry comes in.
Bikes with 59-60mm of trail (Cervelo P2 45) don’t have this problem, they go nicely through those type of turns. When riding really fast sweeping turns, like 25+mph the bike “wiggles” a little bit when I’m in the aerobars. There is no problem at all when I’m on the horns but I can see how this might scare a newer rider.
I have a bike with 64-65mm of trail (Felt DA 47) that is a pretty good balance of both of those elements.
There seems to be a lot of small road bikes with +68mm of trail. Those companies make really good 52, 54, 56 etc… bikes but their 45, 48’s suck and it’s because they kick the headtube out and don’t change the fork rake. Those bikes have the same dipping problem as the tri bike with a large trail. They also don’t react well when trying to make a quick turn to avoid someone or something and don’t seem to enter long sweeping turns easily.
So maybe it’s just me but for a road bike I like 58-61mm of trail and tri bike 64-65mm. I honestly can’t tell the difference in chainstay length and wheelbase. Wheelbase is always a result of how long my bikes are and since all of them are short, the wheelbase is short.
I also don’t notice a difference in handling with BB drop, it does however help a bike to fit me since I’m almost always looking for a bike with the lowest stack I can find.
Damned interesting stuff: for those (like me) who do not know what trail is, see
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/the-ultimate-guide-to-bike-geometry-and-handling/
I must say indeed it is difficult to make a u-turn on a narrow road with my p5.
the one area where i’ve changed my thinking over the years in bike geometry is in chainstay. i’ve grown fond of longer chainstays, mostly because of the better shifting, and that’s especially the case with 1x. i used to think there was a downside to longer chainstays, but the proof of the pudding is in the riding, and i just don’t find longer chainstays troublesome. now, it may have a bad effect on aerodynamics. or not. depending on how crafty the bike designer.
I’ve found that the shorter chainstays help to alleviate the dive feeling in corners of longer trail (I assume by taking more weight off the front wheel).
Yes, small 650C bikes.
I’m starting to make a move to 700C bikes. I started riding my 2012 Felt F5 (48) again and am working the fit, I’m pretty sure I have it right. I bought the bike in 2013 because the trail was right, the bike handles well but I was on a 650C bike or die streak back then and moved back.
I have been riding a 2011 Orbea Diva 650C (46) and really like it. I got the bike on Ebay for $800 and I rebuilt it with R8000, HED Ardennes wheels and a FSA K-Force light PM. The bike is really fast and fits well. I’m just concerned about tire availability. I like the Schwalbe tires but I don’t know how long they’ll be available.
I’ve been looking at the Quintana Roo PRSix and I’m trying to figure out if I can get it low enough for me. (Pad Stack 505-515) It appears so but I have a question on the QR Fit assistance thread but it hasn’t been answered yet. Trail on that bike is ~65mm so it’s in the range I think I’d like.
Another 700C bike I’m looking at is the Felt IA Advanced. It looks like I would be able to change the stem and get the fit right but my questions about getting the seat low enough have gone unanswered. (610mm)
Since I have not regularly ridden a 700C tri bike I don’t know how the longer geometry is going to feel. I know having that rear wheel behind me more is going to be different, I just don’t have the experience to tell me “how different”. On the 650C bikes all the chainstays are short, they are all around 375mm so I’ve always had that rear wheel right under me.
The only other 700C bike I have is a track bike, (Planet X small) while I can fit on it, the geometry is a disaster.
This is just my $.02…
I’ve ridden a few road and tri bikes with a lot of trail because I ride a small bike and some manufactures don’t pay attention the front end geometry on their smallest bikes.
Tri bikes with 67+mm of trail ride really straight and easy but when you try to make a turn-around at the end of a road, the bike enters the turn fine then half way through, it dips and becomes difficult to control with any speed. I think that’s where the bad reputation of tri bike geometry comes in.
Bikes with 59-60mm of trail (Cervelo P2 45) don’t have this problem, they go nicely through those type of turns. When riding really fast sweeping turns, like 25+mph the bike “wiggles” a little bit when I’m in the aerobars. There is no problem at all when I’m on the horns but I can see how this might scare a newer rider.
I have a bike with 64-65mm of trail (Felt DA 47) that is a pretty good balance of both of those elements.
There seems to be a lot of small road bikes with +68mm of trail. Those companies make really good 52, 54, 56 etc… bikes but their 45, 48’s suck and it’s because they kick the headtube out and don’t change the fork rake. Those bikes have the same dipping problem as the tri bike with a large trail. They also don’t react well when trying to make a quick turn to avoid someone or something and don’t seem to enter long sweeping turns easily.
So maybe it’s just me but for a road bike I like 58-61mm of trail and tri bike 64-65mm. I honestly can’t tell the difference in chainstay length and wheelbase. Wheelbase is always a result of how long my bikes are and since all of them are short, the wheelbase is short.
I also don’t notice a difference in handling with BB drop, it does however help a bike to fit me since I’m almost always looking for a bike with the lowest stack I can find.
Thanks, this is just the kind of anecdote I was hoping for. My P5 has a 62mm trail. Feels odd in some tight/fast turns, and can be a little twitchy on fast descents, but neither is bad enough that I feel the need to slow down. I think I would prefer more stability on straights over better handling in turns just because in races I spend so much more time doing the former. Curious if more front-center and less trail can help with both straight-line stability and turn-in, since I’m pretty stretched out over my bike.
based on what you’re writing above my assumption is that you ride small bikes, as in, 50cm or smaller.** i hate bikes with a trail bigger than 62mm. tri bikes don’t have trail numbers above 62mm**, unless they’re made in small sizes with 700c wheels. this is because bike makes have to really shallow the head tubes to kick the front axle forward, which creates a front/center long enough to guard against shoe overlap. this might be okay if they got half that extra front/center from a shallower head angle and the other half from extra fork offset (keeping the trail constant) but they’re too cheap to invest in extra fork molds.
this is why a tri bike that really handles great, in the 40-something centimeter size, will be build with smaller wheels, either 650c or 650b.
the one area where i’ve changed my thinking over the years in bike geometry is in chainstay.** i’ve grown fond of longer chainstays, mostly because of the better shifting, and that’s especially the case with 1x.** i used to think there was a downside to longer chainstays, but the proof of the pudding is in the riding, and i just don’t find longer chainstays troublesome. now, it may have a bad effect on aerodynamics. or not. depending on how crafty the bike designer.
To the first point, Cannondale lists the SuperSlice as having 64mm trail in all sizes. Do you think the handling in turns is poor with such high trail numbers, or is there another reason you don’t like it?
I haven’t considered the effect of chainstay length on shifting. At what length have you felt a different in shift quality? P5 has 400mm chainstays which is on she shorter end of what I see, while the Speedmax is on the longer end with 420mm.
based on what you’re writing above my assumption is that you ride small bikes, as in, 50cm or smaller.** i hate bikes with a trail bigger than 62mm. tri bikes don’t have trail numbers above 62mm**, unless they’re made in small sizes with 700c wheels. this is because bike makes have to really shallow the head tubes to kick the front axle forward, which creates a front/center long enough to guard against shoe overlap. this might be okay if they got half that extra front/center from a shallower head angle and the other half from extra fork offset (keeping the trail constant) but they’re too cheap to invest in extra fork molds.
this is why a tri bike that really handles great, in the 40-something centimeter size, will be build with smaller wheels, either 650c or 650b.
the one area where i’ve changed my thinking over the years in bike geometry is in chainstay.** i’ve grown fond of longer chainstays, mostly because of the better shifting, and that’s especially the case with 1x.** i used to think there was a downside to longer chainstays, but the proof of the pudding is in the riding, and i just don’t find longer chainstays troublesome. now, it may have a bad effect on aerodynamics. or not. depending on how crafty the bike designer.
To the first point, Cannondale lists the SuperSlice as having 64mm trail in all sizes. Do you think the handling in turns is poor with such high trail numbers, or is there another reason you don’t like it?
I haven’t considered the effect of chainstay length on shifting. At what length have you felt a different in shift quality? P5 has 400mm chainstays which is on she shorter end of what I see, while the Speedmax is on the longer end with 420mm.
i’ve always disliked bikes with trail greater than 62mm. i’ve written often about why this is. tri bikes can’t be slow steering bikes. road race bikes? they can be 55mm of trail and even lower. tri bikes, 59mm to 62mm is the ideal range.