"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote:
> in article
[email protected], bikconsult at
[email protected] wrote on 01/14/2003
> 11:15 PM:
>
> > Saw this image recently in a British magazine & just assumed that the shop had spec'd the bike
> > themselves , then I logged onto Cannondale's website & was amazed to see this monster! Apart
> > from the woeful setup for the photo the forks seem to have a 45mm rake!!
> >> I wonder if the Cannondale designers have ever been to a track event
> > or have seen a track bike before

?
> >
> >
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3PR3K.html
> >
>
> The geometry of all the frames is here:
>
>
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/geo-40.html
>
> And yes, it is spec'ed with a 45 mm rake fork. It's also spec'ed with a corresponding 73 degree
> head angle.
>
> --
>
> Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
> bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee
> why you ti ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
> double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash
The resulting trail of this bike is 5.69cm (73x4.5). The trail for a Bianchi Pista is 6.52cm
(74.5x2.8), while that for a Serotta RapidPiste is (was?)
6.63cm (74x3.). Obviously there is a difference in opinion here in what makes a good track
bike geometry.
What I find funny is that I was always led to believe (not having actually ridden on a track) that
track bikes were designed to be very responsive. Yet these calculations seem to indicate that they
actually have more stable geometry when running straight than most road bikes. I believe that these
large trail values make these bikes very jumpy though when a steering input is delivered through the
bars, as a large trail would translate into a larger contact patch movement for a given steering
input. Anyone else want to comment on this?
MOO, Matt