|   Can Someone Please Explain Slow vs. Quick Handling? | OverTheHill
Apr 25, 2003 10:03 AM | | I am not looking for a simple or trivial answer to this question. I intuatively know the difference between slow and quick. However, I have read previous posts where a couple of people have mentioned that the handling of the XCE is a bit too slow for their tastes (Charles C. and GreenGiant come to mind).
As the proud new owner of an XCE, I am curious to know what "too slow" means. I have felt "too quick", and in fact have almost gotten into trouble a few times because the handling of my other bike was a bit "too quick" for me. However, I can not think of any situation where "too slow" would be a bad thing. It seems like it would give you more time to react, which seems like a good thing. So, what are the bad characteristics of a bike that handles a bit "too slow"? Are there certain situations where you can't ride a bike that handles "too slow"? For example, is it hard to take a set of twisty S-curves at speed, or is it difficult to negotiate switchbacks, or what?
I did rent a bike one time, where the front end felt "floppy", but that's really not the same thing is it? I really disliked the "floppy" feeling while climbing and sprinting out of the saddle. But, at no time did the bike feel "too slow", so I am puzzled by this. I guess my current thought is that I would like my bike to handle as slow as possible, without being floppy. Of course, I understand that a lot of this is personal preference. But, I would really like to know what it is that I am missing.
Thanks.
aka Zag |
| "Too Slow" can mean... | shiggy
Apr 25, 2003 10:16 AM | | ...it takes too much forethought and/or effort to get a bike to turn. The bike just want to continue straight.
Some bikes change direction with little more than a thought.
Others have to be manhandled through a curve. |
| Think slalom ski vs. a DH ski... | World B. Free
Apr 25, 2003 11:24 AM | | The slalom model is more eager to change direction, at the expense of straight-line, high-speed stability. The DH ski is the opposite.
That said, I ride a Klein, which is known for its quick handling, but I dont feel its sketchy at all at speed. |
| Rules of thumb on handling 101-- READ THIS!! | Duckman
Apr 25, 2003 11:37 AM | | Analogy: Remember your little sisters tiny tricycle that you tried to ride down that fast and also steeply down driveway? Remember how it steers at 20+ mph? LOL!! Dangerous as hell, right? Thats quick handling. Short wheelbase, steep steering geo, etc. Turns on a dime tho, as it should for such low speeds its designed for. Now for slow steering...remmber that chopper harley the dude down the street had with the long wheelbase and slack rake in the front fork? Barely can go around corners, but its super stable at fast hwy speeds. No argument here.
There you have it. Everything else is usually inbetween these 2 obviously extreme examples, but true to life, non the less. A longer wheelbase 2 wheel vehicle, HAS to maintain a steeper lean angle then a bike with shorter wheelbase does in order for it to turn the same turning radius as the shorter wheelbase bike. ie: chopper compared to a sportbike. Sportbikes(GSXR750, etc)turns great, but can be tritchy at 168mph on the back straightaway at Road Atlanta, this is from personal experience. This is why steering dampers and such as used by some riders for roadracing as such. Less lean angle means more tire contact patch at any given instance while turning compared to the longer wheelbase bike at the same rate and speed. Period. Simple in these terms..eh? These are facts, not my opinions. |
| and before you ask | Duckman
Apr 25, 2003 11:59 AM | | ..yes..Kurt won that day at Rockinham Speedway in NC. We battled 4 heat races just like that above. We lapped every rider all the way up to 4th place during a 10 lap final in B Superbike(750cc)and Open
formula(anything goes in this class). Same 2 riders, same season, different state and race course. Taladaga GP course in Alabama. 750 superbike Expert class. This day I won. We lapped the entire class that day tho. Note his white helmet and gloves just to left and behind my red helmet and gloves. Kurt Hall is his name, and one of the best guys i've had the pleasure to bang fairings with. figure him and i are about even regarding beating each other. 15 and 15 maybe? who knows, or cares for that matter.
Sure was fun back then. |
| That's all true, but ... | Philber
Apr 25, 2003 12:24 PM | | it isn't just about wheelbase - it's also largely about fork rake (or, indirectly, headtube angle). You can have a bike with a long wheelbase that is still quick steering, if it has little rake. Or, conversely, you can have a short wheelbase bike that steers slow if it has lots of rake. But I agree completely with all your comments about fast steering vs. slow steering.
If a bike is too slow steering, then it'll suck on a tight technical track, because you won't be able to manouver it easily or quickly enough to run a good line. Sure, it'll hold a great line, but it just won't change that line very easily. Great for straights, sucky for switchbacks. And if you're gonna try and ride skinnies or log rides, you'd better pick a good line going in, 'cause that's the line you're gonna be riding the whole way! |
| Yes, thats why I stated | Duckman
Apr 25, 2003 12:31 PM | | ..the slack fork angle regarding the Harley analogy(or less rake regarding the tricycle). Steering rake, as well as several other factors all come into play in ride caracteristics. Of course they do. I was simply putting forth the simplist analogy i can use to explain quick handling "traits" vs the other, more for the action, not the cause. The example of the Cyclocross bike in the other post is a great example of longer wheelbase being used for stability, while at the same time, a steep steertube angle is utilized for its quicker steering traits. We agree on all counts me thinks. |
| Yup, you put it very well. nt. | Philber
Apr 25, 2003 3:14 PM | | nt |
| Relevant experience | pedalAZ
Apr 26, 2003 7:51 AM | | Not too long ago, I modified my RacerX and learned about these issues first hand. The RacerX is known for being a very quick handling bike. It is designed for an 80mm front fork, to maintain its 71.5 degree head tube angle (for the large). When I swapped the 80mm fork for a 100mm Fox Float, the head tube angle got more rake to it, and the bike immediately felt floppy on slow speed, climbing turns.
I've gotten used to it now, but there are some differences. As the Duckster said, even high speed turns are a bit different, requiring a tad more lean, which can lead to washouts.
I like how the new fork handles rough terrain better, allowing me to hold a line through rock gardens, and maintaining control at higher speeds on rough descents, but it is not the best setup for this frame if I were racing on typical IMBA style courses. |
| I've found with mtn bikes, that in general they | Duckman
Apr 26, 2003 9:17 AM | | feel super fast regarding the front steering geo, wheelbase, and of course the much lighter weight. Prob cause of my more motorcycle-ish background. With my blue nrs back to a shorter racer 80mm front end, that i reeeeally have to be more rearward weight bias for most of the time(compared to the longer leg'd blk bike), expecially while descending or fast rough straights. I like the quicker lighter steering thru tech climbs tho for sure, finding it will move off line easier when called for. Everywhere else(?), a bit too fast for my taste, altho i'll just have to adjust since the sid team fork is here to stay on that ride, at least. Figure if one knows these traits exist and why in the 1st place, then half the battle is won if one is(and should be really)trying to manipulate these traits for his or her benefit for a given ride/course/bike or whatever. |
| Just a slight note... | Matno
Apr 26, 2003 4:19 PM | | Head tube angle and rake are not the same thing. Rake is the distance from a straight line drawn through your steerer. Therefore, if you took the same fork, but changed the head tube angle of the frame, the rake would still be the same. "Trail" is the relationship between headtube angle and rake. Basically, you draw a line from where the center of your head tube would contact the ground to the spot directly under the axle (where the tire touches the ground). The tire contact spot "trails" the imaginary head tube contact spot, and the length of your trail affects handling as much as anything else. It's kind of counter intuitive though and I'm no expert... |
| head tube rake | Steve Krebs
Apr 27, 2003 7:16 AM | | OK what do you guys think of this. I started on a Giant aguana in 2001. Then middle of 2002 I got a new job which led to a new set of cranks, new wheels and tubes and a new fork. The new fork has 4" travel the old one 3". The bike lost 3-4 lbs. Not having much experience I did feel the improved quickness and response. But I also noticed that the front came up rather easily when climbing (bike being more layed back). Toward the end of the season I figured out that I needed to change the stem to maybe shift my weight forward for better climbing. Old stem was Maybe 90mm with a 25 degree rise. New is 120 x 0. Not only did it help keep the front down, It also made the bike feel less floppy on slower technical runs as well as climbing. I had been having a hard time keeping the bike under control and thought it was just I needed more practice... I'm thinking that changing were your bar is in comparison to your front wheel and where your weight is will change the handling also?? |
| Yes, a bike can be "too slow" handling | GlowBoy
Apr 25, 2003 12:14 PM | | With a longer wheelbase and a slacker head angle (and maybe higher center of gravity, though that's a matter of debate) a bike can be much more reluctant to turn. And yes, it can make it hard to get through tight turns or around switchbacks. Take an old Schwinn cruiser out and try to maneuver it around on some twisty trails and you'll see what I mean. Or take a long-wheelbase "loaded touring" road bike, like the Trek 520, out into city traffic and try to maneuver it around around traffic, parked cars, potholes, jaywalkers, etc.
Still, like you said, for a lot of riders "too slow" is probably better (i.e., safer) than "too fast".
Cyclocross bikes give a more extreme example of the "faster" steering you're talking about. Mine has a steer angle a couple degrees steeper and a wheelbase a couple inches shorter than my mountain bike, and it definitely steers "fast" for real mountain biking -- it's much harder to follow your line and you end up hitting a lot more stuff with the wheel, the only thing saving my butt being the stability of the bike at speed compared with a mountain bike. |
| Thanks. | OverTheHill
Apr 28, 2003 7:51 AM | | I think I have a better idea now when/where "slow" would be a bad thing. All of my bikes up to this point have been "quick" handlers. It will be interesting to see how my "slow" handling XCE compares. |
| |
