Thanks for that write up. I found it well reasoned and helpful. I'm not an expert by any means and in fact have no experience with very low trail bikes, but have read Jan's material and wondered about them. One question, which you didn't address directly but perhaps implied, is how each bike behaves in hi speed descents. In the hills of Vermont, where I live and ride, I routinely descend at 35 - 45 mph, and occasionally faster. I greatly appreciate the hi speed stability of both my Ram & Saluki. They feel, as you note, like riding on rails, which is comforting at high speed. How would you compare your two frames for hi speed descents?
Also, I totally agree about having as much baggage as possible above the fenders. I'll bet Vermont and Seattle both punish panniers pretty severely. For most of 13 years I commuted with a Carradice Barley bag mounted on their SQR. I was only ever aware of the bag when I stood up and it would bounce back and forth a bit, but not side to side. Michael On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 2:13:09 AM UTC-5, stonehog wrote: > > Dave Johnston had a good request on thoughts on trail. Yes it is again > the old low trail vs riv geometry. Here are my thoughts. Spoiler - I see > the point for both - their are advantages either way. If you are not tired > of this debate, have a look and let me know what you think. > > http://stonehog.com/2016/01/06/trail-riding/ > > Brian Hanson > Seattle, WA > Bike Blog <http://www.stonehog.com> > @stonehog > stonehogboɥǝuoʇs > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
