Forum menu
I really shouldn't get caught up in the weird world of internet experts, especially when it comes to 29er bikes.
Reading some of the comments about chainstay length (MTBR 29er forum is very guilty of rabid opinion) it would seem anything over 17 inches is an abomination. Does it really matter? I was looking at getting a new bike, Canfield Yelli Screamy, but very expensive frame in the UK. However my eyes where drawn either to the new Saracen 29ers or the Trek Stache 8. So will a 17.5" chainstay really make a bike handle like a cargo ship, or is it just ill formed bonkers talk on the net?
Yes/no/maybe.
It'll make it [b]feel[/b] better at some things and worse at others.
There's more to how a bike handles than chainstay length.
Try a few different bikes out and see what you like.
Though my Yelli is rather nice. 🙂
Noooooooo!!!!! Can of worms!!!! 😯
I reckon the best handing 29ers I have ridden have slackish ha and short chainstays (sub-17"). ie stable going down, but still climb well and nimble.
I think longer chainstays are fine with a steeper ha as the quick steering front makes up for the longer rear.
It also depends how you ride; I've definitely found shorter chainstays work well for standing ss climbing.
The Trek Stache looked great - until thet revealed the geo. Slack ha and long chainstays. Very stable going down, but I imagine a pig in tight singletrack.
Canfield et al have lead the way in this; I do wonder if guys at Trek have ridden a Canfield?!? Kona seem to have caught on...
is it just ill formed bonkers talk on the net?
Yes
My 29ers my XC bike though so the things people sometimes tout as drawbacks are advantages.
Long chainstays = brilliant climbing traction
Bigger gyroscopic effect of wheels = stability at higher speeds*
etc
etc
*and unlike 26" + slack angles that stability isn't at the expense of floppy handling whilst climbing.
That and I'm sure Trek with $millions in R&D budgets made a prototype and the designers got to ride it, unlike some person on an internet forum who if they were so 'right' with the numbers would be employed by every bike company, think how much they could save in R&D if someone could get it right first time and never have to protoytpe or test anything!
Can of worms is right. I am a big fan of Kona, but the Honzo and Taro just don't do it for me, no matter how short that chainstay is, and I do like a front mech (I know someone has fitted one onto a Honzo). The Canfield I love, but spendy. Look forward to reading about the new Saracens when more info appears, and yet that Trek just seems so good, and I really liked riding a Superfly. Thanks for any input especially when Kaesae is taking up everyones attention.
Long chainstays = brilliant climbing traction
As I said I'm talking ss, but I find shorter stays = more traction.
As ever, every rider and bike setup is different.
If the stays were 1/2" longer on my Yelli I'm sure it wouldn't be a dog.........but I'm bloody glad they are'nt.I've played around with the sliders on my unit which changes cs length by over an inch and it definitely affects the handling,some stuff was better,some stuff was worse.
For a slack 'fun'bike I'd say sub 17" isn't mandatory but it's very desirable .For an all day xc bike I'd say it's pretty irrelevant.
Basically stop being a tightwad and buy a blooming Yelli ya big girls blouse! 😀
Mine end Ed's proto El Guapo 29ers have 471mm chainstays! Mental long!
It rode BRILLIANTLY but there was NO WAY we could bring that to market as people would laugh their cocks off (more than usual).
Production is 458mm on those (with 140mm of rear travel).
The new Titus Fireline Ti Evo has 435mm chain stays. That's actually measured centre to centre, not some ludicrous "effective horizontal" dimension that lots of people use to fake "short" chainstays.
It's part of the picture, it's about as useful as judging a bike by it's head angle alone, i.e it's not very.
So, it may or may not matter depending on a whole host of other factors.
Ride different sorts to see what works for you. All our opinions will differ and only you know what you want
Mine end Ed's proto El Guapo 29ers have 471mm chainstays! Mental long! It rode BRILLIANTLY but there was NO WAY we could bring that to market as people would laugh their cocks off (more than usual).
Would they?
I can't say I ever even considered chain stay length - or even known what it was - on any of my bikes
Although I did have a bit of a search to find a long enough chain for my Titus Rockstar running 3x10, maybe that has a long chain stay?
I got a Honzo for this reason, I think it is better having short stays.
Doesn't make a huge difference though.
My ideal hardtail 29er would be the honzo with the head angle steepened a smidgeon - in carbon 🙂
The Karate Monkey has a 17" stay, which I think is based on the wheel being right up in the horizontal drop. Now in reality the wheel is going to be in the order of half an inch farther out. Karate Monkeys are definitely not barge-like, far from it.
Brant......hurry up old chap 😉
In the old days (late 80's) a sub 16" chainstay was a real climbing machine
Seems like one of the things people tout about 26ers over 29ers is greater manouverability in tight singletrack. I would think by shortening 29er chainstays to get the same effective wheelbase (and hence, turning circle) you can overcome some of this.
I think as a tall riders i have benefited from longer chain stays. Tall riders sit further behind the bottom bracket (for the same seat angle). So for me longer chain stays has meant better for aft balance, particulalry climbing.
Your mileage may differ.....
I was surprised how little difference it made having 15mm longer rear centre (aka brants cheaty fake measurement 😉 ) on the Solaris when compared to the Soul. As someone's said, taller guys sit further back on the bike because of the higher saddle so longer can be better in some ways. When I worked it out, the weight distribution on the large Solaris is roughly the same as the small Soul.
Short answer = doesn't really matter taken in isolation