Numbers that count

Has anyone looked at the geometry chart in the back of most bicycle catalogs and noticed some changes in recent years? No, I'm not talking about the much ballyhood lack of tire/fender clearance. Instead look at the column for fork rake - in many (most?) bike catalogs you'll see the same number for a 47cm frame as a 63cm frame. I looked at the specs for Cannondale, Trek, Bianchi USA, Novara, Merckx, Jamis, Pinarello, and Rivendell (Rambouillet/Atlantis) and only two of these brands had more than one rake dimension across their size ranges. As many of you might suspect, Rivendell was one of the two brands. The other brand was Trek - the company so many bike snobs like to pick on. Of course even these companies only offer two rake dimensions.

Am I the only one who finds this a bit odd? I mean maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that a 47cm frame should have the same amount of rake as a 63cm frame. Call me kooky.

I've been thinking about this a lot while riding my Soma Smoothie ES. The bike is great but it still rides more like a racing bike than a bike suited for comfortable, all-day rides. A loaded handlebar bag really makes this apparent. Some people claim the bag is the culprit and maintain that heavily loaded handlebar bags are a bad idea because they put too much weight at too high of a height. Having seen plenty of French built randonneur bikes with downright huge front bags I am inclined to doubt this. I suspect instead that too many product managers are simply ordering cookie cutter frames from Taiwanese factories and/or are simply not thinking about geometry. Jan Heine wrote what is probably the single best article I've ever read on front end geometry and anyone with an interest in this subject should read the article published in Vintage Bike Quarterly (Vol. 3/No. 3)

Later in the new year I plan to have the steel fork on my Soma re-raked and will compare how it rides to the "standard" rake carbon fork I'm currently on.