Re: [CR]30's Bike Geometries


In-Reply-To: <061520072229.21742.467312DE000ACB09000054EE22070216330B029A019C0A0A9D00@comcast.net>
References: <061520072229.21742.467312DE000ACB09000054EE22070216330B029A019C0A0A9D00@c omcast.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:40:38 -0700
To: freesound@comcast.net, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>, Mitchell Gass <mitchell@gassworks.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]30's Bike Geometries


At 10:29 PM +0000 6/15/07, freesound@comcast.net wrote:
>Even if it was 60 it woldn't be a lot longer than most modern bikes.
>So I think I agree with you to be skeptical about Jan Heine's claim
>that pre-war bikes had super-long trail as any kind of general rule.
>

Ken and Jerry,

You are right, my statement that "builders did not revert to super-long trail in the 1940s, despite the bad state of the roads" could be misleading. When I wrote "super-long trail," I meant this by the standards of the late 1940s, rather than the standards of today.

By 1950, more than 60 mm trail would be considered super-long - I have yet to measure a European racing bike from the 1950s with that much trail. Today, that trail figure is pretty normal, and the normal trail figures of the 1950s would be considered very low.

In the end, the numbers speak for themselves. How you interpret them as "low" "moderate" or "high" trail depends on your point of view. -- Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly 140 Lakeside Ave #C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.bikequarterly.com