On Jun 27, 9:57*am, " wrote:
On Jun 26, 9:11*pm, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:
(Someone opined):

Track bikes have less trail usually and are inherently less stable
because they're meant to be ridden differently than road bikes.

(DLJ replied):

BS.

Well said! Continuing:

*Track bikes have shorter fork rake, thus more trail, than road
bikes. *But they also do not handle badly just because they are track
bikes. *My track bike has always been the best-handling bike I ever
owned. *I can ride it for long periods no hands, and it is as responsive
as any bike can be.

Same here. Track bike, one road bike, a Roberts Crit/TT bike, IMS
74deg head tube, 1" of rake. Maybe 1.25, I believe it was 1" though.

Maybe A. Muzi will remember those as I think he was USA importer?

My favorite road bike, ever. Rode straight straight straight, turned
"now".

But this nonsense of track bikes being ridden "differently" than road
bikes. *How different? *Why would you want poorer handling with a track
bike? *You wouldn't.

250m, or shorter track (constant cornering), steep banking (over 40deg
for some tracks), people turning uptrack and down, no brakes. And
having to stay within fairly narrow lanes, etc. etc. Tight packs, no
freewheeling "saves", the pedals go around when the rear wheel does.

No, not the place for a "twitchy" bike.

Can we please put that one in the grave where it belongs?

Shorter trail, less caster. It's basic bike frame design. Perhaps you
can't feel the effects and dismiss it--don't get a big head about it.