Yep. More trail=sluggish. But trail is defined by the head tube angle as well as the fork rake. Using more rake is a way to offset a slacker head angle (which is common for MTB geometry), so if thats how your frame/fork combo was designed, that slacker head angle is also responsible for the sluggish steering in some situations.
not really - mtb fork manufacturers don't play too much with rake (gary fisher in conjunction with fox "g2 offset" being an exception - they increased the rake on their bikes to make the handling more nippy despite 29" wheels and/or longer wheelbases). they *increase *trail by slackening the head angle, probably because it would be prohibitively expensive to mess around with trail on already expensive suspension forks. for the last 10 years or so everyone wants more trail in mtb in order to calm down the steeering, make it less twitchy.
if you're looking to make pretty much any bike "turn in" quicker, you should increase the rake as this will reduce the trail. i can't envisage a head angle/wheel size combination where the opposite would be true.
it's totally counter-intuitive, but a straight line running through the centre of the head tube to the ground will always hit the ground ahead of a vertical line from the axle to the ground. therefore adding rake reduces trail...
sorry to bang on about it - but i always thought it was the case that less rake = less trail and was forced to change my mind.
for polo, it's debatable you'd want to increase the rake as although it'll decrease trail it'll also increase front-centre (making it a longer stretch to shoot round the fron wheel) and also increase wheelbase, which could debatably counterbalance the trail you've lost by widening the turning circle... bloody complicated.
i'm trying to figure out if reducing trail also makes 'tucking under' of the front wheel more or less likely. i reckon probably so, as fear of this is what really prevents me turning faster as it always results in my launching off the bike and hurting my wrists.
not really - mtb fork manufacturers don't play too much with rake (gary fisher in conjunction with fox "g2 offset" being an exception - they increased the rake on their bikes to make the handling more nippy despite 29" wheels and/or longer wheelbases). they *increase *trail by slackening the head angle, probably because it would be prohibitively expensive to mess around with trail on already expensive suspension forks. for the last 10 years or so everyone wants more trail in mtb in order to calm down the steeering, make it less twitchy.
if you're looking to make pretty much any bike "turn in" quicker, you should increase the rake as this will reduce the trail. i can't envisage a head angle/wheel size combination where the opposite would be true.
it's totally counter-intuitive, but a straight line running through the centre of the head tube to the ground will always hit the ground ahead of a vertical line from the axle to the ground. therefore adding rake reduces trail...
sorry to bang on about it - but i always thought it was the case that less rake = less trail and was forced to change my mind.
for polo, it's debatable you'd want to increase the rake as although it'll decrease trail it'll also increase front-centre (making it a longer stretch to shoot round the fron wheel) and also increase wheelbase, which could debatably counterbalance the trail you've lost by widening the turning circle... bloody complicated.
i'm trying to figure out if reducing trail also makes 'tucking under' of the front wheel more or less likely. i reckon probably so, as fear of this is what really prevents me turning faster as it always results in my launching off the bike and hurting my wrists.