I live in eastern Massachusetts, which has few hills and most terrain is rolling with short, punchy climbs and tight, twisty, techy trails. I have a trail bike with a slightly steeper head angle for these trails.

I ride a lot in New Hampshire and Vermont, and those trails tend to be more enduro, with long climbs and long descents. They tend to have wider corridors and not so many tight turns. For those trails I'm usually moving a lot faster and I like the slacker bike.

 

I can honestly say that I've never even looked at a bike's trail number when I've been shopping.

 

I can't find it.... Where is this ? Geometry geeks for example doesn't show it ..

 

Bikeinsights.com has the calculated trail numbers (including wheel flop), and has some further info explaining what the values typically mean for a bikes handling.

 

Higher trail to get the bike to tip into corners better. I started a thread a few months ago. Wheel flop and cornering tip in

Steeper HTA works better for steering the bars. Slacker works better for leaning the bike.

 

and, as i understand it, the fork offset plays into the trail, not just if it's a steep or slack HTA

 

Yes to a degree.

 

I'm also in the camp of people who after 25+ years in the sport didn't know this number existed or what it means. LOL.

When I clicked in I genuinely figured you were talking about BB height.

 

it's more recently that i've been getting more awareness and understanding of it... but when i've fleshed out comparisons of bikes I've ridden on the Bike Insights trail numbers, i can see more of the correlation and how it affects the handling / responsive feel (aside from just looking at if it's a steep vs slack HTA).

And the trend I've enjoyed more of late has been on the lower trail side. So it's seemed pretty informative for me when you have a bike that's 75 trail vs 90 trail.

For example: i recently rode a bike that had that stable, swoopy feel when i steered and i could tell a distinction between it and another lower trail bike i'd recently ridden. i later looked up the trail numbers for both and it seemed to bear out my experience.

 

What is a low or high bike? This marketing stuff is just too much anymore.

 

Eh it's not marketing. It's just a geometry thing. Here's an explanation: Trail

 

I've come to the conclusion that I will never be willing to spend the time understanding - and even more so experimenting with - different HA / offset numbers to pinpoint what I like best. I've honestly never found a degree or two of HA in and of itself makes nearly the difference that some find it does (I have absentmindedly left my fork lowered 30mm and unless I hit some chunky stuff did not notice a difference). I just use whatever offset the bike comes with stock (or close to it).

What I notice is that some bikes front ends handle differently, and for the most part I adapt.

 

Same here. If I switch back and forth between bikes I can notice a (usually) subtle difference but if I'm on a specific bike for awhile I adapt to how it handles.

My current bikes range from a 62.5* HA to 64.6* HA so they're all fairly close. I did hop on an older bike with a steeper HA (closer to 70*) and it was a mess. Not sure how I lived with that but at the time it felt great. 🤷‍♂️

 

If you really want to experience the difference ride a low trail touring bike, like a French randonneur or something like it. I had a Soma Grand Randonneur for years--low trail bike designed to carry a front load (had a sweet "french bend" fork). Standing waiting for a light to change that front wheel stayed straight. You had to really lean it to get it to "flop." Which meant cornering required more bar input as lean really wasn't doing too much. Now, compare that to my 63.6 degree headtube angle mountain bike and that thing flops all over the place just standing still. But, in cornering, just lean it a little and she wants to go in that direction! I have another mountain bike that is lower trail than that bike and I have to say going back and forth between the two there is just a little difference. The lower trail (steeper head angle) bike is definitely "twitchier" in the steering. The 63.6 bike is "slower" steering (by just a minute amount) at slower speeds but becomes imperceptible at higher speeds. Lastly, our brains and bodies adjust pretty quickly to these changes and after some time I don't think we notice them as much as when they're "new" to us (as say going back and forth between bikes). When I decided to go 63.6 slack bike this year I was a little concerned about the "slow" steering/flop but honestly it's not really an issue at all. And after having ridden it now for about 100 miles I'd say it has "quick" steering or steering that is quick enough for my riding while being VERY stable at speed and making for a more controlled bike in the chunder.

 

I'm a little surprised that mtbers are not versed in trail.

A computed figure, it is the best predictor of how the front of your bike will steer and respond to inputs. Rake/HTA, offset, wheelsize.

Trail got some attention during the first wave of 29ers and thru Gary Fisher and Trek we got forks with greater offset - to mirror the trail figures of 26'' wheeled bikes of the time.

More recently, trail was revisited once again - this time with shorter fork offsets to address geometry changes and contemporary preferences.

It matters and does make a difference but as others have pointed out, there's no right answer - characteristic preferences.

 

Trail does make a difference in how the bike handles but it's a subtle difference and mostly out of my control. I buy what they build.

OTOH, tires, suspension, wheels, brakes, handlebar sweep/width, and stem rise/length are easily within my control and make a more noticeable change in handling (IMO), which is why I spend more time and energy thinking about those factors.

 

Trail is more relevant to motorcycles where the bike weights twice the rider and you counter street to turn the bike. On mountain bikes we weigh 4 to 5 times the bike and use our body to create stability then lean the bike. Much easier to turn a MTB at 10 to 25mph then a motorcycle at 50 to 100mph. That's why we talk things other than trail.

 

Now that you mention it, I used to race motorcycles, and yeah. We definitely knew exactly what our trail figures were. Going so far as to have my chassis laser measured during suspension setup. But the thought never crosses my mind on a mountain bike at all. Probably largely due to the reasons Yody mentions.

 

Yup. The English guy in the south bay. I have a former NorCal road race past as well.

 

Yea, all of this is a whole lot easier, and thus actually meaningful, in motorsports.

 

Admittedly, I occasional nerd out on the numbers when looking for a new bike. I guess it's a way to at least start a list of what bikes to focus on. But what I've learned over many decades is that, for the most part, whatever bike I settle on usually doesn't fall in line with what the numbers suggest. In the end, I go with the bike that gives me the biggest smile on the trail, regardless of the numbers.

 

I might need to unfollow this thread; probably getting cranky, not feeling well - might be a bit touchy about extrapolating from my exact wording.

I'll just leave it at this: if you want to explain why your HTA makes your front-steering feel a particular way or understanding the steering effect of changing wheelsize or offsets - you're going to have a conversation about trail. That's it. This is the maths behind the effect for comparisons and reference.

I am not saying: chase a particular trail number. or it is an absolute marker of a given bike's handling. or is paramount geo number one should feel down to mm and should be considered in isolation. or is what I personally prioritize or bench mark from. or that one might notice trail over a 200mm stem. or how you decide your bike or equipment is wrong or needs to consider it.

It is a computed figure that helps explain and potentially isolate variables for tuning front-steering characteristics on two wheeled vehicles; it is commonly discussed from motorcycles, road bikes... to caster in cars and shopping carts. If you don't care about the 'why' your wheel feels floppy or tracks a particular way - don't worry about it.

 

Thread title demonstrates the importance of hyphenating compound adjectives.

I thought "wtf is a low trail bike"? Is this another downcountry?

 

It's Hokey-Pokeycountry...

 

I've never paid much attention to the flavor of the month/year gobbledygook market-speak designs. I ride MTB's ranging in age from 2009 - ~2020 geometries. Happy to say none are wider than 142x12 so all rear wheels are interchangeable among my herd.

The newer creations piss me off in the following ways:

Even wider rear axle widths (requiring yet another wheel set)

Internal cable routing

Low BB height

Press fit BBullshit



Sent from my KB2005 using Tapatalk

 

“Trail” is high-level discussion about bike design and cannot be studied or isolated alone and, in some cases, it is a personal preference. All I have to say is that if you are really concerned about trail on a mountain bike and how it will affect steering + handling at low/high speeds AND when combined with other factors such as HTA, fork offset/travel/sag, wheel/tire size, handlebar width, then it’s time for you to join a forum like Velocipede Salon or have a chat with a custom frame builder.

 

I have a very strong opinion about trail in mountain bike design:

Ride what you’ve got and don’t worry about it.

 

Trail is a static calculated number on paper that is not overly important in MTB.

Change sag in front? Trail number changes
Change sag in rear? Trail number changes
Change sag both front and rear? Trail number changes
Change fork travel? Trail number changes
Change fork offset? Trail number changes
Mullet rear wheel? Trail number changes
Increase tire pressure? Trail number changes
Decrease tire pressure? Trail number changes
Flip the geometry chip for high? Trail number changes
Flip the geometry chip for low? Trail number changes
Sit on the seat with dropper up? Trail number changes
Sit on seat with dropper down? Trail number changes
Stand? Trail number changes
Climb? Trail number changes
Descend? Trail number changes

Ride on flat ground with zero sag and tires inflated to exactly the diameter specified by the person who designed the bike? Your trail number is perfect

Its honestly not an important number other than being able to compare one bike to another, and the only time comparing one bike to another is important, is when the sales and marketing departments want your money. Really thats important to the competing sales and marketing departments, and is less important to you.

 

Anyone want to share a mtb company who is marketing their bike's trail numbers as ad copy or a differentiator? I don't think this exists except in the imaginary grievances from mtbrs.

 

You must be a shill for the big trail industrial complex. I've been riding bikes for 68 years and never needed no trail on it! You think I'm going to buy a new bike just so I can get something with the latest "trail" fad. All these enduro bros with their droppers obsessing over 1° of trail. Poor fools.

Anytime I don't understand something I get angry and call it marketing and pretend others are dumb for falling for it.

 

My understanding is limited, but I also have not viewed trail numbers as marketing, but simply geo and some reflection of handling characteristics (based on all the various aspects that equate it that others have listed).

And because I've seen lately a correlation in bikes I've ridden and how they handled or responded to input bear out in the trail numbers when comparing them, I found it interesting and useful info (aside from just looking at slackness/steepness of HTA alone).

Would a 80 vs 90 trail figure make a noticeable difference that would be hard to adapt to, I can't say for everyone. But when I've compared 60 vs 90, the difference is there for me and thus seems to be a helpful figure when looking at other bikes in the future.

 

My understanding is limited, but I also have not viewed trail numbers as marketing, but simply geo and some reflection of handling characteristics (based on all the various aspects that equate it that others have listed).

People who called it marketing were confused by your thread title. "Low trail" was interpreted as a version of "trail bike." For example, "downcountry, low trail, trail, all-mountain, enduro, DH" bikes.

"Low-trail bike" would've been more clear.

 

In fairness to me (not that anyone cares) I know and have known what trail is. But I've never heard someone talk about low and high bikes with the assumption that I would know what they meant.

That was my only point a while back in this thread.