[Closed] Long, Low, Slack

That's incredibly low! What is it?

Medium bike
65.5 Degrees
BB is quoted as -12mm from the axles or 343mm from the ground
TT603/Reach 435

It's the longest bike I've owned, probably the slackest that I pedal up and no idea about the BB comparison.

It's fast, stable and a bit of a pain at lower speeds.

My 140mm bike with 160mm fork is:
425mm reach, 1183mm wheelbase
339mm BB height
63.7 deg head angle

150mm hardtail is:
436mm reach, 1165mm wheelbase
305mm BB height
65.4 deg head angle

Once sagged, compared to the full-sus the hardtail is longer of reach (but shorter of wheelbase), still lower BB height and much steeper head angle.

I only ride the full-sus in this slack/low setting when it's very steep, very greasy or uplifts. The rest of the time it's 6mm higher and 0.5 deg steeper - fewer pedal strikes on techy climbs, steeper seat angle helps pedalling and longer reach is nice. I've experimented with it a lot in the 3+ years I've owned it. Hardtail has had three different angle headsets and three lengths of forks. Both bikes have had two lengths of cranks.

it's not "incredibly low" chief.
it's higher than my DH bike. Like I said, been riding low bikes for a long time so am used to them.
other numbers:
420 reach
62deg HA
170mm cranks. and it's ridden everywhere. No drama.
1175mm wheelbase. like I also said. I don't like long bikes.
PM me if you're really need to know what it is.

My hardtails aren't much lower. too low a BB on a hardtail is detrimental to its playfulness. As is too long a fork. Personally, I'd never use longer than a 120mm travel fork on a hardtail. and even then I'd be running it super stiff.

it's not "incredibly low" chief.

Well, as a semi-pro geometry geek 😉 I can tell you that it's way lower than anything* that's currently on the market.

I've run 100, 130, 140, 150mm forks on hardtails (including 130/140/150 on the same Pike on the same bike). Inspired by BTR I tried going down the shorter travel route and running it much firmer but found I preferred how the bike handled with more travel and more sag up front, so a much plusher feel. Obviously that's a personal preference. I also found I liked the hardtail less slack, which surprised me because I prefer the full-sus slacker. Anglesets have been great for helping me find what I really like.

*If there's something that's that low, I'd like to hear of it!

Dude I was running a short 62 deg HA 100mm hardtail with a sub 12" BB 20 years back.

I don't really care what is current/fashionable*

😉

*I also dislike Big tyres, overly wide rims, low tyre pressures, and excess sag. (on the 170mm FS you're interested in I'm running 18-20% sag upfront. 25% rear)

This is back from 2014
[url= http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/news/2014/05/14/1400066762079-sl3u7z9eojbm-630-80.jp g" target="_blank">http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.imdserve.com/images/news/2014/05/14/1400066762079-sl3u7z9eojbm-630-80.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Chris designed the frame with a super-slack 63 degree head angle.
Head angle: 63 degrees
Top tube length: 700mm
Stem length: 10mm
Wheelbase: 1,295mm
Chainstay length: 450mm
BB height: 330mm

is he still riding this kind of bike?

That is horrendous! ^^

is he still riding this kind of bike?

Awaits Chainline... 😉

gwurk - Member
Dude I was running a short 62 deg HA 100mm hardtail with a sub 12" BB 20 years back.

Was it custom? That's at least 7 degrees slacker than anything I can think of that you could buy off the shelf at the time.

not sure how low my bb is (i'll measure tonight) but the website states -9 based on 180mm fork. thing is i've put a 160mm fork on the front as the trails i rode dont need over biking! Anyway it feels low now so i'm running the rear shock with 20% so aas to keep it higher in its travel. didnt think about increasing the tyre volume... good tip!!

sorry that should be -6mm!

groundskeeperwilly - Member

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

Currently riding an Aeris 120, which I believe is on the long and lowish end of things, though not particularly slack (67 HA).

The long bit I'm sold on, the bike feels great at speed and cornering and is better at riding switchbacks than my old short'n'steep bike but I'm still adjusting to the low BB. One local narrow singletrack favourite, which was always a bit of a pedal / derailleur risk with rocks submerged in the heather has become harder to ride without whacking the pedals every so often. I didn't think of using the shock lockout or pedal mode to try and reduce this, could help, but a few extra mm clearance would be handy sometimes.

Speeder - No. Production frame direct from Tiawanese factory. a Friday special (a second really). Just a lucky find. ropey angled frames were fairly common around the late 90s. this one just so happened to be ropey in all the right ways. I still have it. kinda.

have we done this yet?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

http://sickbicycleco.bigcartel.com/product/wulfbaron-frame-pinion-gearbox

Do any of their bikes actually exist or are they all one off builds with occasional CAD render?

Ive seen & touched one, not ridden it though

scottfitz off here has one

I do wonder if head/seat angles are the right thing for us to be measuring in some ways.

Reach maybe tells you more about the position the bike is going to place the rider in, and then you can relate that back to the axles throught chainstay and Wheelbase measurements should be useful in determining how weight balance fore/aft might work.

Measuirng angles isn't 'wrong' as such, but you need to maybe think about why you might want a slacker HA; mainly its in order to place the front wheel further forwards and improve support of the rider on steeper terrain, allowing better control in certain situations...

I kind of feel like everything should be laid out using the BB as a Datum, where are the axles and where are the bars and saddle all relative to the point where my feet are supported...

mainly its in order to place the front wheel further forwards and improve support of the rider on steeper terrain,

*sigh~*

no. it isn't.

it's for stability at speed.

Steeper HA bikes are absolutely fine for riding super steep trails at lower speeds so long as the bars aren't too low.

I had an interesting chat with the designer of the new Rallon. He was saying that if they had made that bike 4 years ago most people wouldn't have been able to ride it. The gradual-ish trend towards longer and slacker had given people time to adjust their techniques. It struck true with me as we see far less people hanging off the back than we did even a couple of years ago. Mostly people have an idea that they need to weight the front of the bike and lean it in. The average mountain biker rides way, way better than they did a few years ago and the bikes have evolved, or been able to evolve, to take advantage of that. Whether it's the bikers driving the design or the bikes driving the bikers I don't know but I think it's true. A sudden leap to long low and slack a few years ago would have been great for the riding gods and people from a DH background but 90% of the bikers would really have struggled I think.

He was saying that if they had made that bike 4 years ago most people wouldn't have been able to ride it...

The gradual-ish trend towards longer and slacker had given people time to adjust their techniques...

A sudden leap to long low and slack a few years ago would have been great for the riding gods and people from a DH background but 90% of the bikers would really have struggled I think.

this assumes that the riders you're talking about have regularly changed bikes during this evolution period but while some have, many haven't and I suspect it's overstating the degree of change as it translates into how rideable the bike is. For example as mentioned above I went from a 2004 bike to a 2017 bike in one step, I'm far from being an expert rider but it took only a couple of rides to get a feel for the changes. I'd be pretty confident that would be the case for all but the most handling-sensitive rider. It's really not that radical.

Yep - I had the same experience as joemmo. Not that radical. People who jump on a Goemetron from a standard bike don't seem to find it in the realms of 'not rideable' either.

Much more about what the market want to buy, rather than what they will ride like.

What the guy from Rallion said is pretty laughable Doug.
Every good all round bike rider I've ever met is able to swap between a short, steep playful hardtail and a long, low slack DH bike instantly.
Whereas most of the new breed of longer and slacker bandwaggon riders despite now riding more challenging trails still couldn't ride that little hardtail well to save themselves.

The average mountain biker rides way, way better than they did a few years ago

not riding off the back isn't necessarily an indication of how skilled a rider is. There are some absolutely incredible rear wheel bias riders out there. A super long bike isn't always going to be what a rider like that wants (or needs).

You seem to have forgotten all about choice here in favour of simply believing what is fashionable/marketted at us is correct. It's simply not that black and white.

mainly its in order to place the front wheel further forwards and improve support of the rider on steeper terrain,

*sigh~*

no. it isn't.

it's for stability at speed.

Steeper HA bikes are absolutely fine for riding super steep trails at lower speeds so long as the bars aren't too low.

Potato/potato... we might be talking at cross-purposes.

But yeah fine "Stability" if you like, weight distribution; whether pointed down a steep techy hill, or blatting on open tracks surely anything that changes how the mass of any vehicle is distributed relative to its axles is about helping to maintain its stability...

I take your point about HA not being the be all end all, I'm sure my old Mk1 trailstar probably had a relatively steep HA by modern standards, it also had a reasonably long TT (for the time), with a short stem and 2" rise bars so the riders mass, relative to the front axle could be kept back when necessary, and of course the rear end felt quite short Was it Stable? it seemed it at the time, maybe I was doing more work to keep it so, maybe I've got slightly rose tinted hindsight though... I don't recall it climbing well, but then that wasn't really it's main purpose.

I still think a front triangle that fits the rider (not the other way round) and placement of the front axle far enough in front of the CoG does help the bike on steep terrain...

Every good all round bike rider I've ever met is able to swap between a short, steep playful hardtail and a long, low slack DH bike instantly.
Whereas most of the new breed of longer and slacker bandwaggon riders despite now riding more challenging trails still couldn't ride that little hardtail well to save themselves.

That seems to imply that 'new' geometry is so effective that riders used to only that would find it hard to adapt backwards. I bet most of them wouldn't have much trouble.

But, geometry is one thing, suspension is another...

Stick 'em on that l'il hardtail.

No. I was simply implying contrary to Doug's post that buying a much longer, more stable bike doesn't suddenly make you a better rider.

GWurk??

Has to be.

I don't think that's what Doug was saying
BTW when did your ban expire GW?

I think it's quite touching that GW deigns to visit us proles annually and spare his precious time to bestow righteous condescension.

My current and my last hardtail have very similar head angles at sag (around 67 deg) and when it comes down to battering through rocks there's not all that much in it, especially considering the previous fork's inferiority and the smaller wheels. But when it comes to steep stuff, the vastly lower BB of the new bike plus the longer front centre makes a huge positive difference.

The full-sus is little better when it's steep but as soon as you add roughness or speed or both then the slacker head angle makes a big difference, almost as much as the rear suspension does. When the hardtail was new I'd done things with forks and anglesets to make the two bikes very close in riding geometry so it's been interesting to deliberately diverge them and feel the pros and cons.

Are you GW?? Hahaha! We've ridden together several times. I believe you destroyed me on one of your kids bikes once.... case in point.

Yes, I firmly believe that riders have got a LOT better. Why I don't know but I've seen it with my own two eyes. A hardtail isn't a measure of worth though, don't try that! I think that it's not just that riding the bikes has made the bike better, riding has changed and now more riders have better technique. I've seen it with my own two eyes day in and day out. More riders are ready for better bikes. I saw it during the launch for the Rallon for example, the more xc riders were asking about fork settings and tyres because they were struggling for front wheel grip. The better riders were putting more weight on the front wheel and had plenty of grip.

Could it be that these riders are getting better because people are riding more? My first full suspension bike was a Meta 55, about 1 1/2" shorter, 2.5deg steeper and 20mm less travel than my current Reign. Still think I was quicker on some trails on the Meta.

I rode my Marley hardtail around Llandegla on Sunday. It was my first time out in over 3 months and it's a great little bike. It's 10mm shorter, 1deg steeper and about 3 inches shorter in the wheelbase than the Reign.

Yes, this current geometry seems to inspire confidence, but isn't always faster IMO.

I'm sure that the DHer type riders are no better or worse than they used to be but I think the average MTBer nowadays is less of an XC rider and more likely to be riding steeper stuff and getting more air than they used to.

As a mediocre but enthusiastic rider, I found it very difficult to swap quickly between my short, tall, steep hardtail and my long, low, slack full-sus. I replaced the hardtail with a long, low, slack one and was much happier. The full-sus is now even slacker and the hardtail steeper but I can swap between them just fine, despite the head angles being about three degrees different. Maybe I'd have been fine on the old hardtail if was short, low and steep? The BB height did feel like the main issue once pointing properly downhill.

Enthusiasm is awesome! The main difference between a mediocre rider and very good rider is the amount of time they've put into actually practicing (doesn't need to be structured but repetition is key). Often from a young age. often using multiple bikes and often riding multiple disciplines.
Do you reckon more folk actually practice these days?
Maybe you're right. coming from a BMX background as a kid it was kinda the norm.

I don't like really long, low and slack bikes. There, I said it. I want something that I can manual and hop easily, something that needs a little bit of input from me rather than letting me get away with stuff. I find it difficult to ride newer shape stuff 'properly' because I'm stuck in a BMX-through-small-hardtail rut. I'm quite comfy here (over the back wheel) though, thanks.

Gotta agree with you Kayla.
I can ride either. but long bikes (despite being faster in certain situations) simply aren't as fun

burn (b-u-r-n!) the heretics!

I'd guess me n Kayla are probably too tough for you to approach us (first) IN REAL LIFE nevermind chucking us on the pyre. You're probably burning your money trying to keep up with the latest latest instead of simply riding more and becoming a better rider anyway so just keep doing that.

Enthusiasm is awesome! The main difference between a mediocre rider and very good rider is the amount of time they've put into actually practicing (doesn't need to be structured but repetition is key). Often from a young age. often using multiple bikes and often riding multiple disciplines.
Do you reckon more folk actually practice these days?
Maybe you're right. coming from a BMX background as a kid it was kinda the norm.

I think it depends on your background. Everyone I ride with who used to BMX properly has great skills. I owned a BMX when I was little but I didn't BMX on it, it was just what everyone owned and in the small village I grew up in there was no-one awesome to copy - I had no idea what was possible on a bike. Then I got a MTB when I was 9 and used to go pedalling across the bridleways of the midlands with my Dad.

It's only since I returned to MTBing that I've learnt to hop and manual and jump and drop. I'm hopeless at gap jumps, can't get my head around them. Struggle with steep takeoffs too. Happiest on natural trails. Love getting air when it's a choice rather than a necessity - show me a couple of rollers a fair way apart or a smooth tabletop or a kicker or a rollable drop and I'll send it.

Amongst later starters or those who've never done BMX or DH, I think there's more of a focus on skills than there used to be, driven by the shift in what typical MTBing is. Yes, there's still loads of old school riders bashing out the bridleway miles but trail centres are busy and uplift venues (especially the less gnarly ones like BPW) are super popular.

I think dropper posts have changed things too - when I returned to MTBing in 2009, everyone I met did their trail riding with saddle up or dropped fractionally (woods height). I read about lowering your saddle and tried it and loved it - so used to manually raise it for big climbs but otherwise leave it down. Nowadays the vast majority I ride with (and that's a lot of people) drop their saddles and move about more on the bike (as BMXers and DHers have always done).

One problem with this thread is it sets me off thinking about my Zero AM - which is great but I do suspect it would be better with a bit less reach, a bit more BB height* and a slacker head angle - just like the new BFe. The only thing that wouldn't swap straight across is the headset. It's lucky the hassle of swapping everything across is putting me off! 😉

*This is nothing to do with the pedal strike** I had last week (small tree stump hiding in ground cover on a narrow trail) and the huge bruise on my left thigh from my inelegant landing).

** Don't practise your pedal down / hip twisty / bike leany cornering technique on tight wet rooty natural trails at night - keep the thinking riding for easy scenarios...

Ah. My BMX background is from back when BMX first arrived in the UK not the later resurgence of BMX (some did continue through those quiet years but not many). We're at cross purposes due to age but basically agreeing.
By 8 or 9 before I'd ever seen a BMX in real life I was comfortable hitting fairly big jumps and wheelying for miles on all sorts of shitty kids bikes and mate's motocross bikes so probably had a bit of a headstart by the time I got my first BMX (around 11 or 12 I think). BMX slowly got replaced by Girls, Drink, music n drugs. That and being the only BMXer left in my town is why I stopped riding BMX in my mid teens. Didn't ride an mtb until I was an adult but all the basic handling skills were still there so I wasn't afraid of jumps, drops, manualling etc. A few months after getting my first mtb a girlfriends (keen cyclist) dad entered me in a mtb race. I didn't have a clue. (I'd never even ridden in a forest. just urban woodland, Steep chutes, drops and shale bings (Huge steep quarry mounds). I didn't even own a helmet and turned up in tracksuit trousers and a t shirt and a borrowed helmet. On the start iine each side of me were guys in brightly coloured lycra the most serious looking one of them at the front turned round and by weird coincidence he was someone I knew quite well from a group of friends who went to the same pubs and parties. He won that race. I came second.
All my very first mtb rides were with the saddle slammed. By the mid 90s I was riding or racing DH every weekend and XC during the week. but rode small (despite being 5'11") XC hardtails with 80-100mm forks and 2" risers and thought nothing of riding decent length XC routes without ever raising my saddle. (I still ride 4X bikes for XC to this day. only difference is one of them has a dropper. If anything dropper posts have made me lazier. Being old now my knees are probably thankful.

I still know a ton of mtb riders but rarely make the effort to ride with many anymore as I really can't bear the middle aged, middle class [i]mtb riding scene[/i] playing on a bike in the woods/hills has turned into. You know... fretting over every new bike part/accessory/clothing/tyre/suspension/wheel choice, Strava chat, Trail name top trumps, Trail dogs (They're just dogs FFS) T5/6 lust (it's a van!), coffee shops cyclist seem to need to be seen in.
I'd rather be outside doing cuttys and manuals in a tee shirt on a £200 hardtail (26" and in small obvs) like kids do than in a cafe talking about SantaCruz's and Enduro "events".
I just don't get any of that. I don't even like coffee or cake. Why would you when there are still booze, drugs and Women? 🙁

Haha... sorry for going off on a tangent.
If that offends anyone they need to take a long hard look at themselves though. Not me.

I remember when all of this was fields. 😆

I agree with GWurgh up to the point about coffee and cake, that's nonsense talk. Real men don't drink Earl Grey, not even in a sports direct bucket.

[img] [/img]