Kelly, I don't think you should suggest the pro-low-trail story is just rhetoric, much less outright say so. Just as your experience with front loads, which nobody is belittling and hence is here respected, my experience is in favor of reduced trail with front loads. I don't say it because of any Kool-aid or other drugs, I say it because I tried it, in an experiment that satisfies me. I tried the experiment because I am working on the purchase of a custom bike for such riding, and wanted to see if it is worth it to seek out a builder who can do this geometry. I've concluded that as long as I'm going custom, it is worthwhile to get low trail for this type of riding. Even though my experiment is really not completed (I'm balking at buying the rack, sometimes the inner cheapskate gets the better of me), I have concrete indications that low trail is better for front loads according to how I want to ride.
By doing this experiment (see my first post in this thread for more information) I turned a suspicion or perhaps a new "old wives' tale" into a result with some insight. I'm not saying it works for anyone else; clearly you and Grant P don't buy it, just for two examples. But your opinion differing does not mean mine or that of Steve Palincsar is just "rhetoric" (making it seem to be part or a fallacious or sophistic argument and hence negligible). It simply means our experiences differ. Really differ. We can learn something by looking at why they differed, rather than by descending into ad hominem arguments. I ask you to stop doing that. Science moved forward by establishing a means of publicly accepted (the public of scientists) inquiry wherein others' assertions were not just permitted, but expected to be analyzed, critiqued, and tested to verify their validity (not truth!), and combine the knowledge gained to enrich the new insights being developed. That is what we should do, remaining above arguing ad hominem and in other fallacious modes. We need to learn from each other. My early posts (back to 2005, most likely) on this and other handling topics were skeptical and in some cases critical. But after a while you ask, is there really something in some of these new ideas? And by testing them yourself, which does not require buying three bikes for $5k each, you can find out what works and what does not. For me the first eye-opener was that a 10# front load does not enable a high-trail bike to handle well, and in my opinion diminishes the handling of an otherwise good frame. That alone said I had something to learn. Perhaps we all do. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Kelly Sleeper <tkslee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >It's not only harsh, it's a grotesque distortion and exaggeration of > >what has been said. Go ahead and slay the straw man if you like, but > >don't forget it's a straw man and has little to no relationship to > >what's actually been said. > > Steve ... actually the sentence below actually stated it was this and > other reading and time wasted... so not really about you or what had been > said so far on this thread. More additional to the thread and NOT an > exaggeration at all much less a grotesque one. > > > > And not all of the harsh is from this thread and more from all the > reading and time wasted reading about trail has made me harsh. > >2 lb worth of handlebar bag you probably wouldn't notice. Make it 5-6 > >lb, though and I'm confident you will; and 10 lb with the wrong geometry > >it'll have you swearing. > > Obviously our experiences have differed as the pictures I posted would > also indicate. It may be "wrong geometry" for you. But obviously it's not > a bad geometry for many. 10lbs on the front of my AHH is nothing ... 30lbs > / 40lbs on front of my Bombadil handles fine. For me.. maybe not for you.. > if not then don't buy it. Point being the "low trail" rhetoric / You > apparently tend to jump up and yell wrong geometry every time someone talks > about a front load. It' s just not that simple. Most people understand > that. > > It's how I feel and I like my bikes.. you like or want low trail great.. > I'm happy for you... the only grotesque exaggeration present was your > reaction to my post .. and playing thread guard telling others what was > said and what makes sense and doesn't. > > Regards, > > Kelly > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/V04T8BNKvMYJ. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- Ken Freeman Ann Arbor, MI USA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
