I guess I like a fair bit of trail

[thirdgenbird]

I have owned quite a few frames but never spent much time comparing front end geometry until another member and I got to discussing it. After a bit of evaluation, I realized my favorite two frames (by a considerable margin) both employ more trail than seems typical.

The first was a Colnago Nuevo Mexico. I was not able to find specific information, but to my knowledge, they use higher trail numbers than usual.

The other is a Yeti ARC-X which appears to have 66mm of trail. I use this as my daily road bike despite it having trail numbers more similar to a retro rigid mountain bike. (If I recall correctly)

Is it possible this is a coincidence or am I in the minority? It seems most are critical of trail numbers in the 60s.

[unterhausen]

with the colnago, you could measure the HTA to be sure. It might not have a lot of rake, but it also might have a steeper than normal HTA. I find high trail on a road bike to be somewhat annoying out of the saddle and low trail feels livelier to me. I don't think all that many people have experience with low trail, it's pretty much available only on niche bikes.

[thirdgenbird]

I no longer have the Colnago so I am unable to measure.

I’ve not had trouble with the yeti out of the saddle and I regularly climb out of the saddle. Often in the drops.

[OtayBW]

I have an Italian steel with trail in the low-mid 60s and I love the handling. As expected, a little twitchy at low speed, but it's like a freakin' bullet at high speed. Aim it and she goes there....

[ColonelJLloyd]

Is it possible this is a coincidence or am I in the minority? It seems most are critical of trail numbers in the 60s.

I'm not sure that's true. That's a common trail figure for a lot of gravel bikes with with slack HTAs today (~71°). I'm finishing up a Lynskey GR270 for a friend and it also has 66mm trail.

If you might be saying that people seem to make more of an effort to praise relatively low trail and I would say that's my perception too.

[Peter P.]

From internet pics of the Yeti ARC-X it looks like the fork is aftermarket carbon. Therefore, the rake is likely a sticker or printed on the steerer. Head angle varies from 71-72.5 degrees based on frame size. (https://www.google.com/search?q=yeti+arc-x+geometry&client=firefox-b-1-e&sxsrf=ALeKk01dTESHoT--GWrM-kCs2TxD1pselg:1599878528222&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=5khKBwAaplcLAM%252CQEmEXtSY-NXpWM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRp1dkDkH4pVSBFyUqz1GTUWF_2Zw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn0O76y-LrAhWrgnIEHWQABcAQ9QF6BAgMEBw&biw=1344&bih=738#imgrc=5khKBwAaplcLAM)

So you should be able to get real numbers on your Yeti.

As for the Colnago; I've heard the same thing the OP has; Colnago tended to have higher trail figures. But without having the bike in-hand, it's tough to squeeze some real numbers and everything is just conjecture.

Count me in the camp of liking higher trail bikes, and I've known the numbers of the various frames I've owned, and have owned low trail bikes (50mm) and definitely do not like them.

In fact, I'd say the front end of my mountain bike, which by their nature have higher trail figures than road bikes, is one of my favorite handling bikes.

My current road frame has a 72 degree/50mm/25mm tire arrangement and it's just leaning to the high side of trail figures (58mm). It was designed by me and I enjoy the results.

I've always wanted to try one of Dave Moulton's Fuso frames. His bikes had extreme trail figures due to short fork rakes for their sizes (73 head angle/37mm rake), and they seemed to be pretty popular.

[thirdgenbird]

bullet at high speed. Aim it and she goes there....

Yep. Steer with the saddle, not the bars :)

If you might be saying that people seem to make more of an effort to praise relatively low trail and I would say that's my perception too.

Generally, but in my search to find the trail numbers on the Colnago, I saw a number of comments about poor handling when trail exceeded 60ish.

[thirdgenbird]

From internet pics of the Yeti ARC-X it looks like the fork is aftermarket carbon. Therefore, the rake is likely a sticker or printed on the steerer. Head angle varies from 71-72.5 degrees based on frame size. (https://www.google.com/search?q=yeti+arc-x+geometry&client=firefox-b-1-e&sxsrf=ALeKk01dTESHoT--GWrM-kCs2TxD1pselg:1599878528222&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=5khKBwAaplcLAM%252CQEmEXtSY-NXpWM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRp1dkDkH4pVSBFyUqz1GTUWF_2Zw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn0O76y-LrAhWrgnIEHWQABcAQ9QF6BAgMEBw&biw=1344&bih=738#imgrc=5khKBwAaplcLAM)

So you should be able to get real numbers on your Yeti.

Somehow I missed this post

I am running a steel fork that did not come with the frame. I believe it’s 1mm off from factory. I also run two different tire sizes depending on condition. This is why I said appears to be not perfect, but should be within 1mm or so based on my measurements.

Looks like a Fuso with 28s would have near identical trail numbers. Maybe I will have to try one, I’ve always found them attractive:)

[zennmotion]

When Tom Kellogg designed my steel all-road I had the trail numbers in mind to provide him. During my fitting he stopped my trail blather mid-sentence and asked how I prefer my bike to handle and then he requested if he could just design the bike to fit my riding style and I knew enough to stop trying to drive the geometry myself. It's perfect, and it turns out I like neutral trail, 56-57mm, with all the other dimensions that are part of his whole design for me. I have other bikes with identical trail that handle noticeably differently, don't overfocus on trail.

Here's some trail knowledge from Tom:
https://www.spectrum-cycles.com/geometry.php

[Mark McM]

Here's some trail knowledge from Tom:
https://www.spectrum-cycles.com/geometry.php

That's an interesting take on the affect of trail, but I think it is a bit over-simplified. A large part of how trail affects handling is how the rider interacts with affects of trail. This article appears to be make a lot of assumptions based on how Tom rides, which many not apply to how other people ride. This paragraph in particular is seems quite a bit off:

Decreasing trail below the neutral range has a couple of effects as you might expect. The first thing a rider will notice about a low trial bike is that it appears to resist attitude changes (lean angle changes). It requires more physical effort to get the bike to lean into a corner and more effort to get it to straighten up. The second thing that you will notice is that while cornering at higher speeds, the bike will have a tendency to climb out of the turn on its own. Finally, you will find that the way the bike responds to rider input is affected by the speed of the bike. As you might have guessed by now, at lower speeds, a low trail bike will have a tendency to want to go straight and do so pretty much on its own. What you will find at higher speeds (like over 30mph) is that a low trail bike will become quite vague in the front end. The front wheel will feel as though it is wandering a bit and the contact patch feel will simply go away.

For those who practice active counter-steer for turn initiation, low train bikes change lean angles quicker, because steering forces can be lighter with lower trail. As far as a "tendency to climb out of the turn on its own", this depends greatly on how the rider uses right/left weight balance to maintain a turn. At low speeds, most rider find that low trail bikes are actually more nimble at slow speeds, and easier to change direction. One feature of low trail bikes is that the rider has to take a more active part in guiding the bike. For those riders that do, low trail bikes don't feel vague at speed at all.



Increasing trial above the neutral range will cause opposite effects for the most part. At lower speeds, handling response will be light and consequently, attitude changes will be much easier.

This sentence also doesn't jibe with many people's experience. Handling response tends to be heavier at low speed with a higher trail. In some cases, high trails can require large rider inputs to handle at low speeds - particularly if the rider out of the saddle on steep grades, high trail can lead sto excessive steering flop, causing the rider to need to use some muscle on the steering to keep the bike going straight.


The steering geomtry (and trail in particular) is just one part of the steering control system, and the rider can be a much larger part. How the rider interacts with the affects of trail plays a large role in determining what trail dimension is desired, and even what trail dimension feels "neutral" to the rider.

[Peter P.]

That's an interesting take on the affect of trail...

My experiences with low trail bikes agree with Tom Kellogg's.

[OtayBW]

How the rider interacts with the affects of trail plays a large role in determining what trail dimension is desired, and even what trail dimension feels "neutral" to the rider.Agree, except the discussion was about pure ride characteristics as affected by geometry, not how we interact to modulate that ride. There is - for me - clearly a difference in handling between my high-trail bike vs. others in the ~56 range. I embrace that difference and avail myself to those different handling characteristics. I enjoy both options.

[ronlau]

I've always wanted to try one of Dave Moulton's Fuso frames. His bikes had extreme trail figures due to short fork rakes for their sizes (73 head angle/37mm rake), and they seemed to be pretty popular.

Hello, I had a 53cm Fuso and it dives right into a 90 degrees corner but you need to commit to it.

Moreover, do keep in mind the amount of bodyweight you put on the handlebar and its trail.

I found Fuso rides best when you have 4+ cm of handlebar drop. Most of them go for $1000's with old parts, I rode a modern version Fuso before (same geometry with much lighter tubes) and it was great.

Sincerely,
Ron