what is the point of a slack head angle if you dont have a front suspension?
sure, some trailing of the front wheel gives a less nervous feel (that is why all modern road bikes have some + less wheelbase) but on rigid CX and MTB bikes of today just seems too much...
is it there to ease the counter-steering when cornering because that much trail sure doesnt help when going fast on a straight line.
>>948903
I think toe strike is one reason
If you can get a slack ht angle and compensate on the fork rake, you can keep the front wheel from hitting your toes, especially with extra long cranks, fenders, fat tires, etc.
I've got a too-long bike that I actually like because I can ride with toe clips and fenders and have no toe strike. I'd rather have a bike with a swallow HT angle and a proper sized top tube but oh well
>>948903
It sounds like you don't realize fork rake can compensate for various ht angles though, friend. Are you aware of that?
Here's a trail calculator you can fool around with
http://yojimg.net/bike/web_tools/trailcalc.php
>>948916
>I think toe strike is one reason
no way that is the rason.
they deliberatly keep the rake down on road bikes to have a shorter wheelbase. specilized for instance keeps the trail around 5 cm but it could have go to 0 if they wanted to.
>>948920
>It sounds like you don't realize fork rake can compensate for various ht angles though, friend. Are you aware of that?
Smartass detected.
Even on extreme HA like on mtb (65°-69°) you can rake it up to zero trail but compromise with flip-flop effect when cornering (like with cruiser bikes).
the thing is what is the point of a huge ass HA on a rigid in the first place if its not countersteering in corners?
>>948916
>I think toe strike is one reason
one more thing - if toe strike was the reason, they could have made a longer TT and keep the same HA, but insted they change the HA (on CX TT is shorter, but on rigid MTB TT is huge but they still change the HA).
why do they do it?
>>948957
>one reason
One Reason
I don't know why your CX bikes have a swallow ht angle. I'm just saying that a swallow angle helps me with my 180mm - 200mm cranks
pic rel, not the best picture, but the huge HT is visible on this MTB
>>948970
>180mm - 200mm cranks
wew lad, now I understand, those cranksa re huge, are you riding single speed or what?
bump for geometry
>>948903
Jesus christ OP, are you totally dumb? A raked-out head angle increases the Harman coeficient allowing for decreased rolling resistance over irregular surfaces.
>>949328
>A raked-out head angle increases the Harman coeficient allowing for decreased rolling resistance over irregular surfaces.
explain it to a /n/igga please
>>949308
terrible.
>>949853
>To both give you lots of trail and make them more stable on descent.
isnt it better to just put wider bars?
I rode XC and AM geometry hardtails with 66° HA and the huuuuge trailing just feels slugish most of the time, afer I rode some road bikes Ive realised just how much control I was missing with that much trail (and btw that much trail on AM and DH bikes is not exclusivly for stability but mostly to technology limitations)...
CX is mostly lower speed descents a lot of fornt tire slips where low trail can help you manuver, are you sure that it helps because in mtb only reasoen for trail is bigger HA that makes the suspension working great
>>949857
>terrible.
no comment.
>>949859
>isnt it better to just put wider bars?
Doesn't prevent you from doing the stoppie or flipping over, so no. Look at bike in OPs pic; super short stem, slack head agle. This allows you to but your weight far behind the front hub. This is what gives you stability and shifts some of the weight off the front wheel when you tilt the whole thing forwards. The same applies to mountainbikes, and that's the reason for the slack→slacker→slackest development of late. It makes them more stable and better handling when going down hill. It is in fact detrimental to suspension and you need more suspension the slacker the head angle gets to provide the same effective travel. And wheelbase changing throughout the travel has a negative effect on handling. From a suspension point of view you'd like a 90° angle, like on a car suspension.
Low trail does not help you manouver when the front slips. High trail adds both general stability and helps you with ruts.
>>949876
>Doesn't prevent you from doing the stoppie or flipping over
well this is a good point, I havent thouhg botu ti but still , going OTB isnt that common in Cx
>The same applies to mountainbikes, and that's the reason for the slack→slacker→slackest development of late.
this is where you are wrong m8, slack HA is in because fast MTB is in, isntead of singletrack MTB (and technolgoy is more advanced to allow for an enjoyable high speed). you compromise n slow speed control to enojy the fast . Slack HA makes the fork less flexy and relaxed when facing obstacles
huge HA on MTb bring in another problems like not enought mass on the front wheel that makes suspensoin all over the palce if not perfectly adjusted, that is why people put slightly longer stems these days on mtb
>Low trail does not help you manouver when the front slips.
OK, most of the time you can make it out with both trails
> High trail adds both general stability and helps you with ruts.
High trail absolutly sucks at cornering, that is why LongLowSlackTM 29ers are so weird at bents etc. , dont get me wrong I love long, low and slack, but it really makes it into a onetrickpony in many cases especially on slow technicall stuff
>>949887
>mfw what little can be deciphered is not even wrong
English motherfucker, do you speak it?
You not only talk like a fag, but your shit's all retarded too.
>>949890
read between the lines nigga, pure grammar is for fags
>>949891
It's a good thing you left so much blank space inbetween the lines to read shit into. KYS.
bump for geometry, pls contribute to the rrake discussion m8s
>>948903
Increases trail, increases wheelbase, increases front-center.
>because that much trail sure doesnt help when going fast on a straight line.
what
>>950749
>Increases trail
why is that a good thing?
>>950726
what the fuck is that dude doing that he needs like a fucking meter of travel in the front
>>950772
yeah i know but i wanna see some gopros
>>950772
>Greater straight line stability.
yes, but isnt it too much for a CX bike? we are not talking AM MTB fast descent geometry when you really need something more stable (more inert) on straight lines
>>950800
The majority of CX riders I see (UCI pro's included) look extremely twitchy on their bikes. It seems like a slacker head angle and a perhaps even a dropper post, would make them a hell of a lot faster.
>>950800
They have skinny drop bars, skinny tyres, and rough ground, they need all the stability they can get. Most CX bikes aren't super slack, only a few degrees less than road bikes and no where near most mountain bikes.
