[Closed] Does the MTB you are on dictate what you will ride?

In answer to the OP, absolutely. My rigid single speed 29er is not something I'd take on a downhill track nor would I attempt tabletops/doubles on it. Equally I wouldn't take my full susser to the pub or on family rides.

Anything in between, however, is pretty fair game. That said, I don't tend to make a choice mid-ride as to what to ride based on the bike I'm on. I will have already made the decision on which bike to take based on the ride I'm doing.

Those are supposed to be XC race bikes are they? 4lbs heavier than mine for a start, and bars twice as wide 🙂

My rigid single speed 29er is not something I'd take on a downhill track nor would I attempt tabletops/doubles on it

I've been getting air (ok, not a lot) on my rigid 29er at Swinley 🙂 I've learned that you have to hit the sweet spot on the downslope and plant the landing perfectly otherwise you risk breaking things!

I've seen enough videos by the likes of Akrigg, Ashton etc to know that people with crazy skills can ride anything down anything, but what I wanted to know was whether slacker bikes actually gave normal mortals the confidence to take on things they wouldn't do on their XC bike.

Those are supposed to be XC race bikes are they? 4lbs heavier than mine for a start, and bars twice as wide

Not really. I'll have a go at most things on my HT if I've got a lid and pads on.

It's the BC edition with real life wheels the fork run out to 120mm (same fork) and a dropper added - and yes proper bars

So not an XC race bike then.. having slacker angles for a start 🙂

The same frame builds to 10kg FS race bike. It's just pointing out that the bikes we ride are generally not our limiting factor.

The frames might not be, but if you can do anything on any bike they why'd they change the build?

but what I wanted to know was whether slacker bikes actually gave normal mortals the confidence to take on things they wouldn't do on their XC bike.

Yes, absolutely. That's why pro downhillers etc use slack angles - it's easier to ride gnarly stuff quicker on.

Did you get extra pedantic cornflakes this morning molgrips?

Same fork with spacer removed, the video is more we ride these. Race "Race" spec bike all sacrifice strength/longevity for weight saving at the top level, you could probably do all that on the 10kg version just not for 2 years...

Watching the giant boys Paul Van der Ploeg ( https://instagram.com/paulvanderplow/) and Josh Carslon happily gapping stuff on their 29r race spec anthems and out riding the gravity bikes was great to see.

Same fork with spacer removed

Does that not make the fork longer then?

Anyway so what? The video proves nothing that's not obvious, and doesn't explain to the OP about why slack angles exist.

Did you get extra pedantic cornflakes this morning molgrips?

No cornflakes.. high GI.. 😉

no, good point just helps to point out that the bike is not the limiting factor for 95% of people.

no, good point just helps to point out that the bike is not the limiting factor for 95% of people.

I don't agree at all. Whoever you are, it's easier to do steep gnarly stuff with slacker angles. If you're the top 5% then sure you can ride an XCer on gnarly bits and make allowance for it with skill, but for the bottom 50% slack angles etc really helps attack stuff that you'd be too nervous to otherwise.

I learned a lot about jumping off and over things on my long travel bike, which gave me confidence to then do it on my XCer, because I'd done it and gained the skill. I don't think I'm alone here either.

You COULD then use the 'wrong' bike as an excuse not to do things, but that doens't mean we should all be making it harder for ourselves.

Anyway so what? The video proves nothing that's not obvious, and doesn't explain to the OP about why slack angles exist.

No, interesting though the discussion and videos were, I have to confess that (despite much head scratching on the issue) I'm still not really clear on why slack head angles exist 🙂

I get the fact that increasing mechanical trail makes the front wheel want to stay in a straight line (better high speed stability slower low speed steering) but I'm still not entirely sure if/why it makes a bike easier to ride down tricky stuff at more normal speeds. On the one hand it feels as though it should, but on the other hand we are only talking about a few degrees. I bet I can't judge the gradient of a slope to within a few degrees, so why would a few degrees difference in head angle have any bearing on how confident I feel riding down some section of trail?

I'm still not really clear on why slack head angles exist

Ok - so if you are on something steep, your weight is more over your front wheel. If lots of weight is on the front wheel this makes the bike more difficult to handle. And if your centre of mass goes over the front axle you'll go OTB. But before this point your effective HA is steepend by the trail which makes the steering a bit funny and twitchy. Slacker angles mean you can ride steeper stuff before this happens. A few degrees slacker puts your front wheel further away from you which means it's less likely to end up under your centre of mass.

Then when you have suspension, you need slacker angles because the suspension compresses when you put your weight over it. Compressing it makes the fork shorter and steepens up the HA so you need more degrees in reserve, so to speak. Then when you are braking and also hit a bump things get even sketchier, so a bike made for lots of big bumps on steep stuff will have even more degrees in reserve.. plus that bike will have more travel anyway, and so on.

I used to ride a Fisher Cake which had something like a 70.5 degree HA and a 5" fork. That was quite OTBey, as compared to the 5 that replaced it which had the same fork but two or three fewer degrees of HA.

but what I wanted to know was whether slacker bikes actually gave normal mortals the confidence to take on things they wouldn't do on their XC bike.

Sometimes [b]normal mortals[/b] just get [s]trapped[/s] caught up in overthinking things .
Careful you don't stray in to hora/Renton territory 😉

You COULD then use the 'wrong' bike as an excuse not to do things, but that doens't mean we should all be making it harder for ourselves.

My xc bike keeps surprising me as to what I ride and how fast I ride on it, it's nicer on my longer slacker bike but that bike isn't essential. Some of the long/low/slack is a very mental thing and it allows people to mentally get over the obstacle which is most of the problem.

By normal mortal do you mean sedate bimbler? Cos there are plenty of normal non-pros out there that like to "make progress" on the trails!

Some of the long/low/slack is a very mental thing and it allows people to mentally get over the obstacle which is most of the problem

Depends what the trail is. Many trails are well within the easy riding parameters of both XC and slack geometry. Many of us may only ride these trails, and hence you are right it makes no difference. But there are loads of trails out there that are easily accessible and are much harder on XC bikes. Not impossible, but harder.

the bike is not the limiting factor for 95% of people.

There's also the constant quest for "more".

You ride fire roads on a rigid bike, have great fun but want to go faster, so you get a suspension fork. This means you go faster but the fire roads are a but dull, so you seek something steeper or more technical. You find this trail but want to go faster on it, you buy a full suspension bike, but it makes the trails dull so you seek something steeper or more technical. But you want to go faster...repeat...

I'm pretty adamant the rise of CX/Gnarmac bikes is because people are fed up of this cycle, they just want to ride bikes.

ou buy a full suspension bike, but it makes the trails dull so you seek something steeper or more technical

Well no, the trails might get duller but then you ride them faster. I don't understand this idea that the techiness of a trail is the challenge. It's a combination of techniess and speed!

Cwmcarn is just as technical on my 7" bike as it was on my Pace RC200 with its 63mm forks. I'm just going twice as fast on the descents!

Slacker definitely helps somewhere like the Alps or other big mountain descents, even on the more technical footpath trails. Most of the stuff I ride in the Surrey Hills I enjoy on the HT as it makes the trails slightly harder to ride that the FS. If I rode Alps/Lakes/Wales more often I'd ride the FS and with more travel / slacker design.

I used to want suspension to ride faster, now it's cos although I can ride about as fast as I want to on the HT, I get shaken to bits on the stuff I like to ride.

Managed to hang on to the big bike with only the odd very brief arm shake-off to cope with the pump when I stalled or wussed out on tricky bits for just over half an hour's rocky descent last night.

I have done the same descent on my hardcore HT with a couple of longer stops and was genuinely frightened I might not be able to hold on to the bars any more at a couple of points. I wussed out at the same points.

Once I've done it on the bigger slacker full-sus I know I can do it so when I come back to it on the hardtail I'll ride it, even if I didn't before.

After spending a weekend racing/riding Fort Bill DH on a hardtail - it changed my perspective on what was "achievable".

I learned a lot about jumping off and over things on my long travel bike, which gave me confidence to then do it on my XCer, because I'd done it and gained the skill. I don't think I'm alone here either.

I dunno, I mean, when there was only rigid bikes or HT's people managed to learn those skills pretty well. And by your own admission, you CAN do it on your XC bike. You could have learned that skill without buying a long travel full suss.

You COULD then use the 'wrong' bike as an excuse not to do things, but that doens't mean we should all be making it harder for ourselves.

Or you could realise your skill level is at fault and not the "wrong bike" and learn to overcome your weaknesses.

There's not much I'm unhappy riding on my rigid bike, and the stuff I am I practice at and develop the skills to ride it. If you start small and work up to stuff I can't see the need to "learn" on a long travel bike before going back to an XC bike.

I dunno, I mean, when there was only rigid bikes or HT's people managed to learn those skills pretty well. And by your own admission, you CAN do it on your XC bike. You could have learned that skill without buying a long travel full suss

Hah. I rode a fully rigid bike for many years before I got suspension and even then it was only the 63mm travel one. And I wasn't jumping much, surprise.

I don't know why this is so sodding controversial - steep gnarly stuff is easier on a big bike with slack angles, that's why they invented the bloody things FFS, and that's why people who do steep gnarly stuff are generally to be seen on big slack bikes. Unless they are showing off or being paid to ride something else.

You can criticise our skill levels all you like, you're making no sense. As I've said, I've done ALL my local tricky trails on all my bikes, but it's a lot easier, quicker and more fun on the Patriot. Are you saying I'm imagining it?

There's a big difference between "can't" and "comfort" though.

I don't know why this is so sodding controversial

Me either, or why people get so sodding defensive 😆