It seems that almost every time a manufacturer updates a bike they make it a bit slacker. I can’t recall a bike ever getting steeper (unless the wheel size changed as well). So, what’s the deal? Is slacker always better?

Is slacker always better?

No.

I think to get the best out of a slacker bike you need to wear goggles and say things like “super stoked”.

It’s not better for climbing, but climbing seems to be out of fashion now.

No

So why don’t manufacturers ever make their new bike steeper than the old one? Or am I just not looking hard enough?

No*

*But MTBs started off as adapted road bikes really, so things are going to change to make them ride down bumpy hills better (and up them OK). Also the riding people do is changing as the bikes become more capable people ride more challenging stuff and the bikes become more capable and so on…

No but otoh I’ve never ridden a bike and thought “wish this was steeper”, and I’ve anglesetted/bushingd/otherwise adjusted a few bikes and ever once thought it wasn’t an improvement.

Sometimes bikes do get steeper, they just don’t trumpet it in the same way.

So why don’t manufacturers ever make their new bike steeper than the old one?

Fashion?

Not just about the head angle though is it – my Stanton Switchback is very very slack, and yet is a really good climber (and I don’t need to add ‘considering’ to the end of that).

Sometimes bikes do get steeper, they just don’t trumpet it in the same way.

Yeah a bit of that too.

In the last 15 years the typical head angle (for a “good” all round mountain bike) has probably gone from 71° (AND DON’T FIT LONGER FORKS OR THE HANDLING WILL BE TOO SLOW!!) to 66° or so (AND DON’T FIT LONGER FORKS OR THE HEADTUBE WILL RIP OFF AND YOUR BB WILL BE TOO HIGH AND YOUR SEAT TUBE ANGLE TOO SLACK!!!) – so about a degree every 3 years.

I have thought “ooh this is a bit slack here” but only up hills on one bike. I have also been glad of quick handling on road bikes at times. Horses for courses though, and the course keeps changing.

So why don’t manufacturers ever make their new bike steeper than the old one?

Bikes and trails progress with rider ability or expectations, riders expect more after getting used to the capability of newer bikes, a cycle of improvement. When you look at a 90s FS and what we have now it’s almost hard to see why the rate of change is so steady, slow even. Then along comes the mojo bike as a step-change to see how far is too far, maybe even that bike isn’t ott. It’s getting into more specialist areas of off-road riding though. Truth is most of us aren’t riding at that level and bikes on average may get (already are?) more capable than 90% of riders, but do we actually buy to our ability / trails or instead buy to where we aspire to be?

Horses for courses though, and the course keeps changing

Spot on.

Overall geometry is changing, head angles are just an aspect of it. Marketing focuses on it because it’s fairly easy to understand and it’s something lot’s of riders look to when their bike doesn’t allow they to ride as they might want.

Not a fan of super slack bikes as I like climbing and hate the vagueness/wheel flop you get. Rode a nomad and that was the thing that stuck in my mind. Good for descending but I like all-roundiness from a bike.

I stuck a 2* angleset in an Mmmbop and it was hilarious. Had to sell it as I don’t own any goggles though. I’m on a slightly steeper bike now to keep the levels of stokage down at an acceptable level.

I quite fancy a BTR Ranger now.

In the last 15 years the typical head angle (for a “good” all round mountain bike) has probably gone from 71° (AND DON’T FIT LONGER FORKS OR THE HANDLING WILL BE TOO SLOW!!) to 66° or so

Your idea of a good all round MTB is different to mine 🙂

66° is slack. Also, you’d need to qualify that with wheel size.

Jumping on an older bike is a nice reminder for me that bikes getting slacker has defiantly been a step in the right direction.

The advantages when pointing downhill far far far out weight the slight problems which come with climbing on a slack bike… for me anyway.

66° is slack. Also, you’d need to qualify that with wheel size.

Yeah I suppose I was thinking of enduro/long travel stuff, there’s plenty out there even in that market with steeper angles. Oh and thinking 26er (or 650b as it’s the same give or take tyre size) to keep things comparable.

I recently stuck a 35mm stem and 740mm bars on my Solaris and am loving the way it handles. It’s not so much the climbing (slack bikes have never really bothered me there) but the speed with which you can change direction is addictive. Flicking it from side to side on descents has made me realize that a steeper head angle (compared with the current progressive geometry) has its advantages. However, I see that the Mk2 Solaris is a degree slacker.

MTBs started off as adapted road bikes really

Beach cruisers, surely?

Bikes are like cars. Every model is “improved” over it’s last incarnation, meaning room is eventually made for another one at the bottom. ie the new 3series is a bit bigger than the last one, eventually this makes room for a 1 series, and then that for a Mini, as a result the 3 series is now as big as a 5 series used to be, which in turn is the same size as a 7 series. Eventually the mini itself becomes maxi, meaning they can invent something new to fit into that segment, like the “new mini” or whatever!

Got that, good! 😉

My 66 degree HA mince tank has less front wheel lift climbing than my old 69 degree HA hardtail. It does have a 75 degree seat tube angle, however.

I definitely needs me to lean harder on the bars and use more body weight to turn round tight corners but this isn’t a problem, just a change in technique. It really helps when the tables are turned for straight line stability at high speed where a short wheelbase, steep head angled bike really is more of a problem.

Personally I prefer the current trend of slacker bikes – you seem to get your cake and eat it in the fact that they climb pretty well and descend really well. Don’t forget that manufacturers have finally started to increase things like reach too which I think is bringing benefits too.

My Rune is pretty slack at 65.5 degrees but has a fairly steep seat tube. It climbs pretty well in my eyes for a 160mm travel bike.

Beach cruisers, surely?

Well the klunkers yes were based around beach cruisers, but once folk started making dedicated frames, head angles got a lot steeper.

I think the original klunkers had a 69 deg head angle, very low BB and very long wheelbase, plus no front suspension to dive (and thus steepen the head angle). MTB geometry really lost its way in the early 90s but thankfully we’re well past that era of MTBs like road bikes!

Did klunkers have a 69deg head angle? Every day’s a school day.

71 deg HA on my Salsa el Mar, rigid. Handling is amazingly sharp and sweet. Like most things, there’s more than one definition of good.

asdfhjkl – Member

It’s not better for climbing, but climbing seems to be out of fashion now.

It’s not necessarily worse, either, climbing’s a combination of traits. My Ragley’s the best technical climber I’ve ever ridden, and not by a little bit. It’s not the best plodder but that really isn’t very important. And my C456 climbed better with a slackset in it.

(equally, you can totally build a slack bike that doesn’t descend well)

I quite fancy a BTR Ranger now.

So did I, until I saw the 50% price rise taking them up to Curtis prices.

For me, slacker is always worse.

I run a hard-tail with a 420 A-C fork to get my bike as ‘steep’ as possible.

But then I actually enjoy riding up hills as fast as I can.

thegreatape – Member
I quite fancy a BTR Ranger now.
So did I, until I saw the 50% price rise taking them up to Curtis prices.

😯 Bloody hell! I hadn’t been on their site since it came back. I could have just about justified the original price to myself but not the new one.

kerley – Member
For me, slacker is always worse.

I run a hard-tail with a 420 A-C fork to get my bike as ‘steep’ as possible.

But then I actually enjoy riding up hills as fast as I can.

My 63* franken-bop was a better technical climber than anything I’ve ever ridden.

I loved the way my Orange Alpine rode, thought it had the perfect geometry, rode it for 2 years. Then just to see what it was like I fitted offset shock mounts (as they were £20 a pair) that dropped the head angle from 66.5-65.5. I loved how it rode so when the headset died (cheap crap) I fitted a -1 degree Works headset and now it rides even better. No problems climbing even on really steep stuff( apart from my own weight and lack of fitness).

I don’t think slack head angles make a bike pedal or climb badly, it just takes a bit of technique adapting.

And if BTR is now a similar price to a Curtis I’ll take the Curtis any day. All the ones I’ve ridden were great and they aren’t ugly and don’t have those hideous braces/gussets on them.

Tom Kp

But MTBs started off as adapted road bikes really

couldn’t be more wrong if you tried

MTB geometry really lost its way in the early 90s but thankfully we’re well past that era of MTBs like road bikes!

Absolu-bleedin-lutly

MTBs in those days were great for covering a lot of ground quickly. This isn’t always a bad thing.

My 29er build was an attempt to recreate a modern version of my early 90s bike for that kind of riding. I chose one with a steep HA rather than one of the slacker models.

Slack headangles don’t make a bike climb badly.

Slack seatangles do. Super short chainstays (despite what you remember from the 90s) also don’t help climbing.

My old Ragley blue pig would get up pretty much anything slack headangle and all, because it had a nice steep seat angle and seatstays that were long enough.

MTB geometry really lost its way in the early 90s but thankfully we’re well past that era of MTBs like road bikes!

Not all of us – my position on my MTB is pretty how it is on a road bike when riding on the hoods.

I can ride faster in that position and cover more ground – both things that interest me.