This is such an interesting thread. I found myself nodding my head reading John Rinker's note. I bought my Hunq new in 2012, and I never thought about trail per se until 3 or 4 years ago when it seemed trail was in the air, everywhere I turned, and everyone was talking about it. Maybe it's something particular to the Hunqapillar compared with other frames, but I've never felt a need to ruminate over what I had on a front rack or rear rack, balancing loads, whatever. I just never had to think about it. It has always felt stable whether the front was loaded with nothing in the rear, or vice versa, or both front and rear were loaded, or without any load at all. That's not to say that hauling a good sized watermelon on the front rack — which is common for me during the season — doesn't change handling characteristics. It certainly does, but not anywhere close to a degree that I find uncomfortable or problematic at all. I carry what I need to carry, I do what I need to do, and my riding adjusts and compensates accordingly, with little thought about it. It's natural. Anyway, I think we are constantly adjusting how we ride due to varying surfaces, wind patterns, energy or fatigue level, tire pressure, how our muscles and brains feel, elevation, and so on. There are countless dynamic variables that affect handling, requiring us to adjust and readjust on the fly and then we get momentum. On the Hunq, for me at least, the net outcome is a sense of stability, comfort, and confidence regardless of how much I am hauling or where the haul is positioned on the bike.
Except when I experienced a puzzling shimmy. The handlebar would vibrate and swing wildly back and forth at speed if I removed one or both hands from the bar. The oscillation was palpable, annoying, and very much out of character for the bike. It was not related to any front or rear load dynamics, nor to any lights, bells, or mirror mounted to the handlebar. The shimmy would diminish a bit if I touched either leg to the top tub or diagonal tube, but not completely. I bought an IRD double roller bearing headset thinking it might solve the problem (Rivendell was out of stock of their Tange/IRD NeedL BlastR at the time). But before having the new one installed, I reached out to Rivendell to ask about shimmy. In typical transparent and helpful fashion, Grant and Mark both said (paraphrasing): sometimes shimmy happens for no apparent or solvable reason. Bike physics and dynamics are super complicated. Keep your hands on the bar, don't ride ride no-handedly! Try removing the racks (it didn't help). Finally Grant said, no need to spend money on a new headset. It doesn't always solve the problem. Try heavier grease in your headset, and tighten it down more than you normally would. You're not after "buttery smooth" movement. You want some friction and resistance. It won't interfere with steering. Sure enough, these simple steps completely eliminated the shimmy. Stability returned to the Hunq! I wished I had contacted Riv before I bought the new headset. It's a nice piece of kit, now taking up space in the parts bin. On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 5:47:55 AM UTC-4 ascpgh wrote: > I loaded my Rambouillet with a Caradice Nelson Longflap when new to do a > credit card camping take on the TranAm/Western Flyer route from Norfolk, VA > to SF, CA via Pueblo, CO starting in early May. It was perfect, although I > could see being a bit more prepared for contingencies (more stuff) would be > good, but I was within tolerance range of the Rivendale stated optimal max > load. All the good handling attributes felt like they were without damping > by the rear load which in fairness was in front of the rear hub. I dare say > every Rivendell model is different and presents a varying capacity by > design for carrying loads on the front. Those that are more able in total > still have an order by which you add your increments (bags and contents) of > load as you close in on your total. > > Fast forward a decade, I joined a group of Riv riders on the GAP starting > at Cumberland, MD in April. The food and drink needs of the route and > overnight, the climate changes from warm at the start, cool and rainy by > Confluence, PA and snow from Ohiopyle on West Newton, PAwarranted that I > added another bag which was a small VO Berthoud knock-with a little old > French rack. Seemed innnocuous but either the total weight or the front > load itself really snuffed the nice handling. It became more ponderous than > the load would have predicted. My feeling riding it those hundred miles was > that a bike needs to be designed for your load, meaning enough heft of the > tube set and geometry that won't make necessary lots of fine inputs. Not a > super riding bike empty. Loaded as it was, my Ram was awkward because of > the deliberate effort necessary to input the small adjustments for its > specified trail. > > Trail and handling are a dimension and outcome and the relationship > overlooks lots of other dimensions with input to how the bike rides in your > uses. I am over 6" tall and have long legs and a short torso for my height. > That made the under square Rambouillet a very good option for me since I > was a bit short of the experience I later found helpful when pursuing a > custom bike but did prefer a sportier riding bike than say an early '90s > MTB conversion. The front load on the Rambouillet overrode many of the > details that kept it predictably handling without my toe ever tangling up > with the front fender. It has, as previous Ram riders (Steve P.) have > noted, a tendency to veer off track on slow, low-cadence, out of saddle > climbs unloaded or rear loaded due to the higher trail. That I believe is a > combination of the compensations of things that resulted in the front end > geometry including trail and the out of saddle weight distribution coming > forward. The trail dimension can also surprise you when a brief surface > change that addresses the front wheel implies any lateral force to it. I > have short, steeply ramped driveway curb cut that you cross on an angle in > mind. The Ram can be flustered on my exact example, my subsequent lower > trail bike is not, loaded or not. > > As James' at Analog's article points out no one thing is panacea. > Everything has limits, beneficial or otherwise. I found that loading my > Rambouillet enough for rides in austere place for more than a day, keeping > the front unburdened enough left me with a limited size tire that had to be > pumped up pretty high to account for the odd edge, rock or whatever rim > pinch or worse. Not the best ride for this bike and it goes against some > thought that the cargo load, even when compensated with tire pressure, > makes a bike ride smother. I've had two rear wheel destroying hits on this > bike the front wheel floated past unharmed. This rear bias in load > preference, the declining comfort as the load or the road dictates rear > tire pressure to increase and as the geometry for the front end's > contribution to handling gave me the confidence I needed to step off into a > custom. > > I wanted a bike that fit my non-stock body that had enough tire to ride on > the mixed surfaces I frequent, capable of several days of non-camping load > without feeling over burdened, more equalized F-R weight distribution so I > can benefit from the tires' inflation instead of nearing the max to avoid > flats, no toe overlap with fenders and that was fun to ride unloaded. I > have a Disc Trucker commuter so that last point is emphasized as I find it > intolerable after 35 miles due to both being generically overbuilt for > loads and the top tube stock geometry. > > Andy Cheatham > Pittsburgh > > On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 9:50:44 AM UTC-4 brok...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I thought it might be somewhat pertinent to the discussion to link to >> this article about low-trail bikes and handling. Written by James from >> Analog Cycles a couple years back when it seemed like everyone was desiring >> a low-trail frame: >> https://analogcycles.com/pages/debunking-low-trail >> >> While it doesn't directly address the original post's questions about >> front-loading on Rivendells, there's some good info about how certain bikes >> handle with or without loads, but mostly how the design of trail on a bike >> affects the ride in general. >> >> On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 5:41:00 PM UTC-4 Joe Bernard wrote: >> >>> My extremely biased view is Rivs aren't built for heavy front loads and >>> I just won't anymore, it feels unweildy and unsafe. Can it be done anyway? >>> Sure. By people who aren't me. >>> >>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-7 Patrick Moore wrote: >>> >>>> Just curious, after adjusting my Ortlieb Sports Packers to the front >>>> lowriders and carrying home about 12 bulky lbs on the front of the 2020 >>>> Matthews which is a geometrical clone of a 2003 Riv Road custom -- Riv >>>> lost >>>> the geometry chart but I think it's med trail. >>>> >>>> 10 or 12 lb makes almost no difference in handling, but it does make >>>> wheeling the bike one-handed (gripping stem and adjacent bar) through the >>>> aisles less easy; 20 lb does slow the handling noticeably though not >>>> impossibly. ~15 evenly divided is about the max for happiness. >>>> >>>> Rear loads are more stable. 20 lb in the rear is not noticeable, 30 lb >>>> in the rear affects handling less than 20 (evenly distributed) does in >>>> front, and I've carried 45 with the bike still rideable. (For comparo, my >>>> best rear loader was an early 1970s thinnish wall and normal gauge 531 >>>> framed racing bike with long stays and shortish front-center: Motobecane >>>> Grand Record. Though light and flexy, with a *very* stiff 400 gram >>>> Tubus Fly this carried 45 better than any stouter-tubed road bike I've >>>> owned, including any of 4 Riv road models (well, if a first-gen Sam Hill >>>> is >>>> "road). Another nice rear grocery load carrier was an '80s Fuji Royale "12 >>>> speed" that actually handled better with 20 lb in back than it did >>>> unladen; >>>> that one hated front loads. >>>> >>>> So, after that long windup, what is the benefit of front loading *on >>>> Rivendell models*. Is it purely convenience? >>>> >>>> And, different question: what is the benefit of front loading on >>>> *non-Rivendell >>>> low-trail bikes*: convenience? >>>> >>>> Just curious and describing my own experience. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Patrick Moore >>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>>> >>>> -- 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 rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7ee53467-7d4a-478b-a6a0-f4798199596cn%40googlegroups.com.
