Re: [CR]steering geometry

Example: Production Builders:LeJeune

From: "dave bohm" <>
To: "Jon M. Schaer" <>
Cc: <>
References: <> <> <> <003d01c0e2d9$ecba8040$> <006301c0e319$bbd8a980$>
Subject: Re: [CR]steering geometry
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:28:13 -0700

I agree that this may be the case with a retrofit of an kestrel ems to an existing bike frame that was sized for a typical steel fork but what I was getting at is that some companies still produce bicycles with steep head tube angles and 45mm rake forks which produces a very low trail measurement.

A good example is ummm-TREK. Now I may take some slack for this but they are a perfect example of poor steering design. OCLV's across the board have trail measurement from 51mm to 53mm. While most of our beloved classic bikes have trails in the 55 to 60 range. I don't even know how Lance really does it on that thing or does it just show how we can get used to practically anything. Most of the time it would be fine but I wonder how it does at very high speed descents.

And like Mr. Sachs said there is a lot more to a good handling bike than just steering geometry.

Dave (don't beat me up too bad) Bohm Bohemian

I follow and agree with the general theme of the post, but this specific example might be a tad misleading, if you're refering to the Kestrel EMS fork. That fork had a 45mm rake because of the unusually high crown seat height, which raised the front end and slackened the head angle enough that the end result (if you do the math with the revised HA) was pretty close trail-wise to using a normal fork with a 40mm rake. The newer EMS Pro fork has a normal crown seat height and 40mm of rake.

Otherwise, this is an incredible thread. Any other builders going to chime in and reveal a few secrets?

Jon Schaer