Actually the Krampus does not have more fork rake to offset the slack headtube angle. I did some measurements awhile back but can't find them now. As I remember the Krampus has trail values in the 90s! I find this to be bizarre. Surly designs are smart and well thought out. I am just not understanding these super high trail designs. Interesting the iamkeith found the Krampus to be "nimble." My mtn bike experience: my favorite mtn bike so far was the MB-1 with trail in the mid 60s, I found my next bike, a Salsa Ala Carte, with trail in the mid 70s to be not as sprite. I have not tried a Krampus. I have a Pugsley with trail in the 80s. Its super resistant to turns at speed. I still have fun on this bike, but the steering is *suboptimal*. BTW, if you are looking for an adventure bike, the Pugsley of course has tractor capabilities. But with a set of 29er wheels and a 2.3" tire it becomes a faster (not fast!), more versatile all terrain vehicle. And its trail will only be in the 80s, not 90s!
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:34:27 AM UTC-7, iamkeith wrote: > > > On Monday, December 9, 2013 1:09:14 PM UTC-7, Montclair BobbyB wrote: >> >> I love what Surly is doing with the 29er+ bikes (Krampus / ECR), except >> I'm not a big fan of the slightly slack headtube angle (69.5 degree)... >> maybe Surly is concerned about toe overlap (with those gargantuan tires)... >> still I'd rather see a longer top tube than slack head angle... For >> downhill, great... but for climbing, nimble maneuvering and certainly for >> touring I'd rather have something closer to 71/72. >> >> But maybe that's just me... >> >>> >>> > Quite a few manufacturers are going to slacker head angles these days, and > it's been puzzling me, too. Obviously, they've been increasing the offset > of the forks to compensate and reduce the trail back to a familiar > number. The remarkable thing is that almost everybody who rides them says > that they handle just as well in off-road situations as the bikes we're > used to. > > From what I can figure out, I think the move has to do with a slate of new > suspension forks that will be hitting the market, and the desire to be > compatible with them. Those forks must have more rake/offset to them, > too. As the travel gets longer and longer, I guess it makes sense that > you'd want to stick the fork "outward," where it compresses in a slightly > more horizontal vector, rather than keep jacking up the front end. And > slight differences in tire diameter and fork travel would theoretically > have less effect on effective frame angles too, as people experiment with > these things. And I suppose that there's less leverage exerted on the > headtube, for a given fork length, which reduces risk of frame damage. > > I also agree that eliminating toe overlap with bigger and bigger tires > must also come into play, but it's interesting that others BESIDES Surly, > who single-handedly drive the "big" tire market, are going this way. This > is my working theory anyway, as a curious industry non-insider.... > -- 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 post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
