Is this the reason track bikes have such a massive trail and less fork-rake?
Two explanations are offered, firstly by people who don't understand geometry who say smaller fork offset gives the faster steering needed on the track, and secondly by people who do understand who say that more trail gives the extra stability needed on the track. Since it's barely noticeable when you switch from a 30mm offset track fork to a 40mm offset road fork on the same frame, I suspect the true reason for short offset forks on track bikes is that they came into favour in the 1970s when track bikes often had much steeper angles than now (75° or even 76° head angles were not uncommon) and nobody has seen any reason to go back. Look put a 43mm fork on all their track frames from 71.5° (small 596) to 73.5° (large 464), and 34mm or 40mm on the 496 Piste with its 74.5° head angle, so you can see that track bikes work just fine with quite a range of trail, from 50mm to 68mm in the case of the Look range.
Two explanations are offered, firstly by people who don't understand geometry who say smaller fork offset gives the faster steering needed on the track, and secondly by people who do understand who say that more trail gives the extra stability needed on the track. Since it's barely noticeable when you switch from a 30mm offset track fork to a 40mm offset road fork on the same frame, I suspect the true reason for short offset forks on track bikes is that they came into favour in the 1970s when track bikes often had much steeper angles than now (75° or even 76° head angles were not uncommon) and nobody has seen any reason to go back. Look put a 43mm fork on all their track frames from 71.5° (small 596) to 73.5° (large 464), and 34mm or 40mm on the 496 Piste with its 74.5° head angle, so you can see that track bikes work just fine with quite a range of trail, from 50mm to 68mm in the case of the Look range.