I thought slacker was better? « Singletrack Forum

Bike Forum

I thought slacker was better?

46 posts & 24 voices | Started 1 year ago by gothandy | Latest reply from toys19

Tags:

slack headangle

Pages: 12 Next »

gothandy - Member

I thought the generally accepted wisdom is that slacker is better, especially on technical downhill stuff?

Just got back from 5 fab days riding with Doug at BasqueMTB and after a couple of days of using my Prophet at the super slack 67.5 degree FR setting, I thought I'd give the 69 degree head angle XC setting a go, at the time it was mostly to make the most of the technical climbing, which I was struggling with. To be honest I thought at the top of the first hill I'd be flipping back to FR for the descents, but to my surprise I found the steeper angles better both up and down, and the extra peddle clearance an added bonus for the signature Basque contoured singletrack.

So was it just a case of me getting my "eye in" on the third day, or is there anyone else who finds the idea that there is such a thing as "too slack"?

Posted 1 year ago #
ahwiles - Member

define 'better'

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

Sounds like you simply don't understand bike geometry all that well, there's way more to handling than just the H/A. I wouldn't worry about it and ride your bike whichever way you like it set-up.

Posted 1 year ago #
doof_doof - Member

67.5 isn't slack, let alone 'super slack'.

Posted 1 year ago #
mikey74 - Member

Sounds like you just weren't use to the different handling the slightly slacker geometry gave you.

Once you get used to it, I find slacker is most definitely better for steeper stuff.

Posted 1 year ago #
thisisnotaspoon - Member

Indeed, I've a DMR switchback in the garrage, proper old skool 'long travel' hardtail geometry, nothing beats it for being able to turn into corners and manouver about the trail quickly.

Slack is good when your going at mach3, but in tight, techy stuff steep may well be better.

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

There's just a widely spread view that slacker is better - no account seems to be taken for either the kind of riding that most people do, or the fact that mountain bike designers might actually know what they are talking about in the first place! I can't see why anyone wold want a bike that is reluctant to turn - provided it doesn't dart around all over the place like a crit bike - if you can ride it no handed fairly easily, it's slack enough in my book.

Posted 1 year ago #
gothandy - Member

thisisnotaspoon thanks your answer makes sense, it was generally slower speed but steep technical stuff. I can see on a Les Gets highway downhill the slack angle would be "better".

doof_doof sorry I cut and paste from the cannondale marketing speil, my mistake

GW I'm sure there is loads more to bike geometry (i'm no bike designer), but in this case the only thing I changed was the head angle.

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

is that "Glen's big book of utter twaddle"?

Posted 1 year ago #
chiefgrooveguru - Member

Steepening the head angle on a given frame will also shorten the wheelbase. And depending on how it's done, as you said, it'll also change the BB height. So you didn't 'just' change the head angle.

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

What?

I'm not surprised the OP found he liked the way the bike handled on the normal side of slack. A bike that is easy to flick about is a pleasure to ride. Gotta go way back to the 80's to find bikes that were a liability, steering-speed-wise.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mister P - Member

but to my surprise I found the steeper angles better both up and down, and the extra peddle clearance an added bonus for the signature Basque contoured singletrack.

I'm sure there is loads more to bike geometry (i'm no bike designer), but in this case the only thing I changed was the head angle

These are contradictory sentences.

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

Changing the head angle by lowering the rear end (which I assume you did) is one thing, changing it by winding out the forks is another.

Think about where you sit on the bike and where you want to put your weight for the kind of riding you are doing.

Slacker is far from always better, otherwise why wouldn't everyone be riding around with 66 degree HAs? Comparing a 5 and a Patriot is interesting - climbing is better on the 5 with a steeper HA but descending super steep stuff is worse. HA is linked to all sorts of things - wheelbase and cockpit reach for starters.

Posted 1 year ago #
davidtaylforth - Member

Its not necessarily better, its just a trend brought over from the dh side of the sport (which appears to be made up of alot of mongs who just tend to follow exactly what the pros are doing)

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

handy - if i were to change the HA by 1.5deg on any of my bikes I'd also be changing the bar/controls height/angle.. possibly even stem length.

DT - I think the term for the mongs you refer to is "fanboys". (but "alot" are fast as **** mongs)

Posted 1 year ago #
z1ppy - Member

Personnaly I couldn't have had a different experience with my Prophet*, I tried the XC setting, found it to be riding a long travel XC bike, off-hand fast(ish) up and nervous down, basically too much travel to be good at anything.
Once in I put it into FR setting,the downs were so much more fun and handling very confidence inspiring. The FR setting may not be quite as good with long haul climbs ("so what?" in my book), but steep technical stuff is a doddle as (my) the balance is better with the slacker handling.

Just goes to show, how two ppl impression of the same bike can be so different, eh?

*I don't believe the Prophet to be super slack, I tried a 2010 Orange (briefly on the road) and thought that very slack, to the point of being more a 'problem' than a recommendation (for XC riding).

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

if i were to change the HA by 1.5deg on any of my bikes I'd also be changing the bar/controls height/angle

That's one reason why some fork lockouts are annoying for riding on roads. They lock the fork at full extension, so you lose the sag and all of a sudden you're sitting up more, which is/feels slower for hacking along roads.

Posted 1 year ago #
davidtaylforth - Member

DT - I think the term for the mongs you refer to is "fanboys". (but "alot" are fast as **** mongs)

Yeh, your not wrong. But they just seem to follow the crowd/fashions a bit too much.

Posted 1 year ago #
one_happy_hippy - Member

And the XC / Road / CX crowd don't...

Half the stuff on this site is either people jumping on the latest band wagon or trying to out niche each other.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ecky-Thump - Member

I am a slacker.... and I am betterer

Posted 1 year ago #
nedrapier - Member

That's one reason why some fork lockouts are annoying for riding on roads. They lock the fork at full extension, so you lose the sag and all of a sudden you're sitting up more, which is/feels slower for hacking along roads.

Agreed! Marz ETA lock-down was (is?) great for not doing that. if only the top-out was less crude.

Posted 1 year ago #
kamina - Member

I have adjustable dropouts on my frame which will affect the HA, chainstay length and BB height.

When I first built up the bike I always used the steepest setting because as you mentioned slacking it up will lower the BB which will result in more banging of pedals. However I did enjoy the slacker setting whenever riding something where pedal clearance was not an issue..

So what is the solution? Can't have it all?

I have a Lyrik fork, and it was the solo air model. To keep it sensitive I was running pretty low air pressure. This made it sensitive, but also kept it running pretty deep in it's travel. When the fork is low in it's travel it means the BB is lower resulting in hitting pedals more... I added some more air and things improved, but the fork lost it's sensitivity to small stuff.

Finally I changed the air spring for a coil spring, got the best of all worlds and as a result I can use a slacker setting and bang my pedals less then I used to on the steeper setting. Now I have 66 HA and still climb technical stuff (a lot of this stuff I could not clear with my old trail bikes that had 68HA) just fine.

A lot of changes affect other things too, you need to see the big picture. I'd prefer wider bars but can't do it due to riding a lot of paths with tight tree's. You need to pick what works for you, and see if you can find solutions to what you want and can't achieve.

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

GW - what exactly is your problem?

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

I have many, nothing you'll be able to help me solve, but thanks for asking.

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

No different to anyone else then - except most people don't take every opportunity to be rude to another person for no reason. Is it some sort of on-line tourette's that is reserved just for me?

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

no, anyone who talks shite is fair game IMO

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

What, the "shite" I said that several other people repeated in their own way?

You just rail up every time I say something which which you disagree. And you are a rude **** with it. Maybe you just think you're funny. I know what I think.

Posted 1 year ago #
buzz-lightyear - Member

is it some sort of on-line tourette's

Don't feel special; he speaks to everyone like that.

Posted 1 year ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Oh no GW is a bit rude. Not suffering fools gladly I believe its known as.

He usually is right behind the rudeness tho.

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

Really?
Who else was dumb enough to type this:
I can't see why anyone wold want a bike that is reluctant to turn - provided it doesn't dart around all over the place like a crit bike - if you can ride it no handed fairly easily, it's slack enough in my book.
in their own way?

Simply stop talking shite and you won't be criticised.

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

So what is the solution?

Kona magic link...?

Posted 1 year ago #
glenp - Member

There is nothing dumb about that. A bike that you can take your hands off without fear of it flitting about (in the manner of a narrow tyred, steep angled 80's xc bike) has enough stability for most people's purposes. I fail to see why you even disagree with that, let alone declare it "shite".

That was just my way of saying that as long as it's not silly steep and twitchy it isn't necessarily wrong, and slacker (as the OP stated and you agreed) isn't necessarily better.

Posted 1 year ago #
GW - Member

That was just my way of saying that as long as it's not silly steep and twitchy it isn't necessarily wrong, and slacker (as the OP stated and you agreed) isn't necessarily better.
Well why didn't you say that then?

What you did say was 100% dumb. eg. I can walk out right now and take my pick of any of 8-10 bikes, HA ranging from 74deg down to 63 and I can easily ride any one of them no handed.
You don't even seem to realise that what you call "reluctance to turn" in slacker bikes is because you don't actually turn them in the same manner as a steeper bike.

Posted 1 year ago #
13thfloormonk - Member

Don't worry Glenp, its not just you, GW managed to deduce that I couldn't climb properly based on one comment I made about black chilli tyres climbing better than non-black chilli tyres, just accept he's better than everyone and move on...

Posted 1 year ago #
Mental Mickey - Member

Posted 1 year ago #