[Closed] Long, Low, Slack

Function innit. 'Gravity' and 'enduro' are there fashion and long, low, and slack is the right tool for the job. I wouldn't want to be hitting rock garden or taking a jump on something that was tall, high and steep.

Edit/ meant short, high and steep

Long, Low, Slack

Were a '90's Kingston dancehall act that never made it big outside of Jamaica?

Why don't you go race this down Llangollen then come back and tell us?
[img] [/img]

Thanks but I have no desire to ride at Llangollen thanks 🙂

Also known as, techy climb, clip pedal, on me arse again.

Function, [u]and[/u] fashion.

The function bit: as above, long low and slack is great when the trail is steep, fast and gnarly.

The fashion bit: most people don't ride trails steep, fast, or gnarly enough to warrant geometry that's a pain in the neck when we're just bimbling along...

At least, that's my take on it.

Having recently purchased the longest and slackest, though not the lowest, bike I've ever owned I certainly wouldn't trade back again for any of the bikes I've owned. Even though it's a 29er hardtail with 120mm of travel and relatively conservative geometry by some standards, I know that I'm the limiting factor, not the bike. A better rider could hit most things short of Rampage stuff on it. Modern geometry is significantly more confidence inspiring than the old, steep angled, arse in the air, nose over the front axle stuff I grew up riding.

Modern geometry is significantly more confidence inspiring than the old, steep angled, arse in the air, nose over the front axle stuff I grew up riding.

Whilst I agree entirely, the reverse problem is that to derive much enjoyment from said modern geometry bikes, you pretty much have to be hitting the bigger/steeper/harder terrain all the time as they invariably make "bimbling about in the woods" much less of an experience than an old school 71/73 angled 100mm stem bike will do.

Function, and fashion.

Again couldn't agree more.

There's riders out there that have been screaming for longer/lower/slacker for ages cos their riding has always warranted it. There's some of us that have embraced these bikes that have allowed us to push our own boundaries more than we thought possible. And then again there's also the trail centre car park warriors that always have to have the latest and greatest kit no matter what, just for a quick spin of the blue/red route.

But that's no different than it ever has been! Mountain Biking has always been part function, part fashion led...

invariably make "bimbling about in the woods" much less of an experience than an old school 71/73 angled 100mm stem bike will do

Which sadly, for bimblers like me it means finding bikes that suit harder.

Anyway, that's my moan out of the way.

As you were... 😆

Yes, no, maybe...

Still to this day the best bike I've ridden is a Saracen Ariel from when the brand relaunched in 2012.
It had 140mm of travel front and back but Saracen were willing to warranty them even with 160mm forks fitted, Ride.io website rated it best with a 150mm fork and described the bike as a mini-DH bike.
I used mine on local single track and uplift days at FoD, I got my best ever race result on it too, it would be considered short and with a high BB by 2017 standards and the 68 degree HA is laughable compared to the 62 and 63 degrees angles being written about in the Geometron thread, it was also built like a tank and heavy but there is more to a bike than an individual measurement, they are the sum of the parts...maybe it was the suspension kinematics?, maybe it was the frame itself?, who knows?...all I know is that in the intervening years I've had 4 hardtails all with the same or longer forks and slacker HAs, I've also had a full on DH sled and a current trail/enduro bike with 160mm of travel and a 66 degree HA....and I was quicker at the FoD on the 2012 bike!?!?

Sadly it was stolen, the home insurance paid out but by then they'd switched to a carbon swingarm and there were horror stories of cracking frames and seizing bushings...problems the mk1 bikes never had.
I'd give my eye teeth to have that bike back.

When WC downhill racers chasing ultimate speed and riding places like Val di Sole are using 62-64 HAs its almost funny to peel back the marketing BS and wonder why we're being told we need the same (or even more extreme, read the Geometron thread!) to pedal around trail centres!

A LOT of the mountain bike industry is hype, marketing and BS and most people ARE over biked despite what they think.

Don't know about particularly low and long, but knocking off a degree or two on my old heckler transformed it.

That said, not sure I'd want to go much slacker than about 66 on a trail bike. Fitted some off set bushes to my trance, and the front end is vague when climbing

On a downhill orientated bike, slacker the better. I took my dh rig with 63 ha to the alps having not been on a mtb in about a year, and i was so much more confident than on my enduro 2 years before, despite having ridden far more beforehand.

Sure it has slightly more travel, but it was just so much better on the really steep stuff.

I own a geometron. They work. Shit for bimbleing tbh, when you start going fast, they work.

It's both a real thing, and a journo thing- quite often they say long, low, slack about things that aren't any of those. (I found an old MBR where they tested an old BMC and declared it enormous and cumbersome, it was a large with a wheelbase of about 1100mm, these days the same journo would call that cramped and unstable.

tpbiker - Member

That said, not sure I'd want to go much slacker than about 66 on a trail bike. Fitted some off set bushes to my trance, and the front end is vague when climbing

That's a big mix of different characteristics though- you can have slacker bikes that climb like goats, original Ragleys are a good example- and offset bushings slacken the seat tube as well as the head.

My hemlock climbed like a bag of shit after I slackened it but that's because it wasn't designed for it

you can have slacker bikes that climb like goats

Slacker & longer requires steeper seat angle, short stem, wide bars, it's a package....

It works for me, my old old bike i recently built up feels cramped & twitchy as ****, not even a great climber tbh,I was a sucker for the whole 'flickable' thing that I bought into in the late 90s, so what do I know !

Lookingbback over my MTB past I first got into mountain biking in the early '90's and the Peak District was my back garden and I used to hit it every weekend on my fully rigid, v-braked, toe clipped 26" Giant Escaper. It was very interesting with a lot of walking and avoiding features. I then had a lay off for 15 to 20 yrs or so and came back into modern mountain biking on a long travel 29er full suss bike with disc brakes and all the advancements that modern bikes have, including longer, lower and slacker geometry. Well the difference is night and day and the stuff I'm riding now, and not just bumbling over, but hitting fast, I would have thought was impossible to negotiate on a bike back in the early '90's. And I'm no Brandon Semunek. The new tech and new geo definately not a fashion fad. It really does work.

Turns out I can be almost exactly as mediocre on a short steep tall bike as on long low slack bike most of the time. However, high speed stuff the modern bike wins all day long. Also you can get away with some very lazy riding that would have you out the front door on an older bike.

Which sadly, for bimblers like me it means finding bikes that suit harder.

I find that hard to believe. The amount of different bikes available nowadays is fantastic. Something in every flavour. The long, low and slack stuff dominates the Enduro/gnarpoon end of the market but there's no issue in finding trail orientated bikes that are more suited for normal riding

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/longer-lower-slackerhave-manufacturers-been-taking-the-pee-pee-a-bit

That time again

BoardinBob - Member

I find that hard to believe. The amount of different bikes available nowadays is fantastic. Something in every flavour. The long, low and slack stuff dominates the Enduro/gnarpoon end of the market but there's no issue in finding trail orientated bikes that are more suited for normal riding

Also, fatbikes make magnificent bimblers, I'd expect a plus hardtail to do the same.

Also, fatbikes make magnificent bimblers, I'd expect a plus hardtail to do the same

Aye I'm sure all the long low slack stuff dominates the magazines and internet articles but there's loads of good stuff out there that doesn't get the exposure

@boardinbob
I was talking about the type of geometry I had quoted.

Even in the world of fat bikes that has changed.

However my Pugsley delivers for me.

@boardinbob
I was talking about the type of geometry I had quoted.

Even in the world of fat bikes that has changed.

I've got both so it just depends on what I'm doing.

The old school geo bike just makes the basic stuff more interesting for me.

Just IMHO.

Took my 2001 Cove stiffee 26" 26lb hard tail on last week's mtb club ride, took my 2017 full suss 29" 32lb orange segment this week.

The Cove was slack (70degree head angle) in its day. I catch my knees on the handle bar if I try as thats how long the top tube is.

We rode almost the same trails. I was faster up and down on the Orange but had to pay much more attention on the Cove.

They were both fun in different ways buti rode stuff on the segment I refused on the Cove.

Tonight I will be riding the same trails on the segment, so that tells it's own story

Normal Man - Member

The old school geo bike just makes the basic stuff more interesting for me.

Slightly OT but, I always find this really interesting- the reason I usually have a fatbike or a rigid bike or some other stupid thing is because sometimes, I want a less good bike. But riding my good bike if it's got something wrong- like, just now it has a rigid post in, no dropper- is never satisfying at all, it just feels broken. I wonder what it is that makes bad qualify as good sometimes but not others.

(fatbike's proven to be my best option for shittily brilliant so far, it lacks the sheer unpleasantness of a rigid xc bike but has most of the "benefit" but I can't really rationalise it)

+1 for many natural trails I prefer a "basic" bike keeps them more interesting.

My modern ish 100mm XC bike isn't far off the 71 HA and you can certainly make things interesting on it, in fact plenty of XC HT's would fit the bill

For more all around riding - I prefer a slightly higher BB than a lot of modern FS bikes have. It's why a ride a hardtail on my more off-piste rides - less change of BB height is very handy on slow speed and uneven surfaces.

I'm fairly confused about all this now. I know I like low but everything nowadays is low, everything in from 1970something to 1990something was low and we only had about a decade of BB height silliness, caused by the rise of full suspension and the freeride movement. Somewhere around 300mm sagged is great, a little higher helps with techy climbs, a little lower viable with gravity on your side or smooth trails.

But long, I seem to have settled around the 440mm reach area, which isn't that long at 5'10 odd. Not short though!

And slack - well, I'm most confused there. With various anglesets, different fork lengths and moveable dropouts I've tried 10 different configurations between my full-sus and hardtail, with sagged head angles ranging from under 64 degrees to about 67 deg. The full-sus rides best at its slackest, the hardtail at its steepest!

From running Nicolai UK I've pretty much ridden the same bike (Helius CC/AC) since 2004 in each of it's iterations as it's has followed geometry trends. The earliest were short even and high even by the standards of the day.

Back in 2004 the XL had a 602mm top tube and a 70 degree head angle on a 125mm fork and a BB height 10mm over axles.
The 2015 model has 645mm top tube, 66.5 degree head angle on a 140mm fork a -15 BB (but its on 27.5 wheels so the axles are 12.5mm higher.).
The seat angle is basically the same - Nicolai were well ahead of the pack on steep seat angles (one of the reasons they have always climbed so well). The AC is a burlier bike than the original CC but still the closest equivalent.

I had a Geometron for a few months for the full 'how long low and slack can you go' experience but didn't work for me. Most of the changes are great - the extra length means it fits much better and can move around more. The slacker HA definitely works better descending and seems to be at about the limit before steering flop starts to become an issue and the bike becomes a handful for slow speed tech (up or down - one of the things I really didn't like about the Geometron).

The low BB is the compromise I'm never completely sure about. Pedal strikes are more of an issue and it's led to a few offs, stalls and bottom outs on ruts and rocky climbs that a higher bb might have avoided.

I think the thing with low bb is that it's really obvious when it's causing you problems but it's not as blatant when it's helping, so the compromise is more in your face than the benefit.

And, well, "best" is a really complicated concept, I'm riding for fun so subtle changes that I don't feel all the time probably aren't that important to me but something that really grates from time to time is.

The best thing about the "long, low & slack" thing is that it's helped a lot of people (me included) actually get an understanding of how bike geometry works and how different aspects affect a bike's handling.

Sometimes a proper long (at both ends) and slack bike will be just the ticket, other times a normal mainstream geometry bike can be more fun for hustling round trail centres or the local woods.

Now instead of having a long and a short travel FS bike I'm gonna have two bikes of the same travel & wheel size but contrasting geometry.

I own a geometron. They work. Shit for bimbleing tbh, when you start going fast, they work.

Love it. That Geometron daisy-chain thread needs more honesty like this.

eek. re-read before posting.

Most of the changes are great para refers to Helius. The Geometron had gone too far for me. Steering flop nasty, whole bike too big and unwieldy. Great at speed downhill on stuff that isn't too tight. Will climb up a stupid steep fireroad but I can get the Helius up steeper technical climbs because I can still move it around.

Is there a long and slack bike with a high B.B.?

I can't stand long bikes but have been riding low/slack bikes for a very long time.
Pretty much none of the current long/slack bikes are actually properly low Groundskeeperwilly.

Depends on what you consider high. On mid -travel current full-sus bikes I consider <335mm very low, 340 low, 345 normal, >350 high.

Run 5% less sag and you'll raise the BB by 8mm on a 6" bike. Put some 2.6" instead of 2.3 tyres on and you'll gain another 8mm.

Or stick 29" wheels in an 27.5 frame and you'll lift it by 19mm (as with the Geometron) if you have the clearance.

Pretty much none of the current long/slack bikes are actually properly low Groundskeeperwilly.

Numbers please.

Is there a long and slack bike with a high B.B.?

Hardtail wise, Stanton's have fairly tall BB's compared to their peers. Not the longest, but certainly pretty slack.

Numbers please.

My NS Eccentric CroMo 27.5 with 26" wheels was about 282 mm off the ground to the BB spindle centre IIRC. The lowest bike I've ever owned, great round pump tracks and smooth flow trails, but needed more careful pedalling elsewhere. For general riding it was very low but ridable IMO.

I'd say 290 mm with 170 mm cranks is as low as I'd dare go with a HT. FS I'd want at least 320 mm as a bare minimum. I'm talking mid travel here and as low as I'd dare, at the extreme ends you would have to add or subtract accordingly.

Which numbers do you require chief?

BB height please. Or BB drop. Thanks!

I think it's genuinely function. In the past 2 years I've jumped up the geometry ladder a bit. I owned a Santa Cruz Superlight for quite a long time and enjoyed it but was never really confident at speeds over techy stuff. My mate still road an Orange P7 that I bought in 93 and sold him. A quick ride on that after many years and I felt uncomfortable and unstable. So certainly something in the geometry changes over 18 years made a difference between those two bikes.

I sold the Superlight for a Cannondale Trigger 18 months ago and my riding improved significantly overnight. Maybe it was placebo but I don't think so. I felt much more confident, comfortable, and stable over the techy Singletrack. I started riding things I'd walked before.

This month I sold that for a Hightower. That bike seems to make rocks smaller and I feel much more stable at speed. I'm riding off small drops now, where before I took the chicken route. But I'm no less capable on the climbs, and arguably faster on the flat. It's even more capable on tight and techy too.

Just because it's longer and slacker than before doesn't mean it's going to make flats and climbs tough or bimbly. Unless you pick the wrong bike. Pretty sure a V10 wont work so well as a trail bike. Right tool for the job etc.

I'm not necessarily any faster on the Hightower than the Trigger, but I feel less on the edge, more in control.

315mm - Slack (62deg), not particularly long 170mm* travel full sus.

*Bonus numbers matter too 😉