“It’s a mystery to me why a bike built with 73.5-degree head angles is spec’d with a fork that has only 37.5mm of rake. I’d prefer something in the neighborhood of 40mm at least, and more likely I’d ride a fork with a rake with 2mm or 3mm more than that.”
My question is, as long as a rider doesn’t go beyond a 75 degree eff ST angle, doesn’t the massive amt of trail counter the weight distribution concern?
FWIW, I’ve got a 73 deg HT and am contemplating a 40mm rake. Seat post is 74 deg, and I plan to ride long course tri’s with the seat forward at 75-76.
Frankly, I can never keep straight the whole fork rake, trail, handling relationships. I do know that its not a good idea to change fork rake to adjust your weight distribution. This all gets back to the idea of position (to me - the angles/position of your body without regard to your bike) versus fit (how your body is situated on a bike).
If position were all that mattered a bike could come in one small size and everyone could use long seatposts and shorter or longer stems to get in the position they wanted. But then the wheels and bars would be in a goofy relationship relative to the rider and handling would be awful. With a proper fit the rider is in the same position, but the bike is also in the right place. Primarily, with weight more or less centered and with the handling rather “slow” for a tri bike.
This is where a good fitter comes into play. When someone posts a picture here and asks for advice, we can give a decent opinion as to whether they look “aero” or not, but nothing about comfort or handling. Two people with exactly the same physical dimensions and even flexibility and experience may need to be on two different frames due to handling/comfort preferences. SuperDave is a good example. He has alot of crit and track experience. I’m guessing that he would like a quicker handling bike than a rider who primarily rides alone on wide open roads, even for a tri bike. A good fitter will take all of this into consideration.
Regardless of STA, if you put a lot of weight over the front end of the bike, you are moving that COG. This is more significant when you are trying to get low, less significant if you are racing ITU style. Increasing the rake on the fork will lengthen the front-center and may help mitigate this, but you should talk to a pro about it - like someone else mentioned, you need to fit your bike, and depending on how you interact with it, you may or may not need a bigger rake.
From experience, I can say that moving the COG forward on a road bike that does not have a long enough front-center make the handling a bit twitchy for my tastes. My road bike is very, very stable when I am in the clips, and that’s just how I like it. I don’t know exactly what my HTA is, but my fork is a 45mm.
I think this is an area where Triathlete mag really misses the boat. Bike reviews are very useful to a consumer’s decision making process, and if they had an archive of reviews on their website, that would be of great service. If they charged a user fee of say $20 or $30 a year for exclusive content, so be it. I’d gladly pay it.
Right now, despite whatever defenses of their magazine race coverage, their website sucks. It’s not kept up to date, and the content is very minimal. The could have a business opportunity to generate more revenues by putting the investment to improve the site and include an exclusive content section. They would also benefit from advertising revenues from increased viewings that should come with an improved and more comprehensive product. Use any incremental profits to improving the magazine and its distribution capabilities to get the race coverage out to the readers sooner.
Sorry, but I think the reviews of bikes in the magazines leave a little/lot to be desired. All they are is a list of frame material, components, angles, colours, etc, and they all come out sounding the same, like a boilerplate legal document with names changed does. Nobody ever trashes a bike on test, probably because the bikes tested are all very good anyway and don’t do anything different from any others in their price range or of similar production numbers or exclusivity. I personally would never buy a bike sight unseen/unridden on the basis of a magazine ‘test’. Just from memory, I can recite the words used to sum up any test: this bike is a very capable performer and one I’d be happy to ride if it fit me and with a few modifications…blah, blah, blah…
Now I think the real problem with choosing a bike rests with manufacturers/distributors. Why, oh why, are they so loathe to provide loaner/demo bikes to their dealers so some poor schmuck can hop on the thing for a day or two and see how it really works for him?? My mate bought a Felt earlier this year, after having been blown off by a local shop who told him they would have a Kestrel in the store as a demo, and when he went to ride it ‘oh, sorry, we don’t do that, oh, well, OK, you can ride it round the parking lot, no further’ !!! And he would have bought a Kestrel from them, of that I have little doubt. Now maybe that’s just a LBS, but I suspect it’s like that all over the country. (And why is it such a hassle to exchange a bike seat that doesn’t work for you!!!) I’d guess most of us buy bikes from a visceral sense of what looks like a great bike, or from anecdotal review, or because (you name your triathlete hero) rides one. How many of you have bought a bike after actually riding several beforehand to try to make up your mind? Or from a magazine ‘road test’? OK, I know all about the costs of stocking a few demo bikes and the potential hassle, but really… Tom, any comments from both sides of it, the dealer and the manufacturer? Oh, and I like your road/product tests, BTW, they actually say something meaningful.
slowman writes up a lot of the bike review for triathlete magazine, and his reviews are for the most part very descriptive and provide constructive criticism. i know what you mean in review that sound more like a commercial, but slowman will describe his thoughts on the ride quality, build quality, component spec value, and utility for tri racing when he writes his typical articles.
so i think those reviews would give more value than you’d realize, and would be helpful to consumers in understanding a features, as well as pros and cons on a bike’s qualities.
granted, a lot of publications might be afraid to offend advertisers and beat around the bush on their comments. but it seems triathlete magazine probably gives more leeway for slowman to write frankly on a bike review on a freelance basis due to his reputation as a pioneer in the tri industry.
as for the issue of not being able to adequately test out a bike, it seems that is a deficiency in customer service. tom d is probably the right person to get thoughts on this, but even he has stated that the test ride can be a selling trap, by tinkering with stuff such as the seat and tire pressure to make the bike feel artifically more comfortable than is actually is. getting a bike dealer who is upfront and looking to sell you the best bike for your needs, and not just to clear inventory, is an important thing to look for as well.
and yes, tom’s reviews on his website are very meaningful, and are the types of product reviews it’ll be nice to see on publication’s website, as long as they are candid, informative, and fluff-free.