Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Maybe its just my yoof and relatively little experience, but I get the impression that a lot of bikers think that a head angle of less than 70 is "slack", whereas I'd consider anything less than 67 as slack angled. Might be a dull question, but it got me thinking about how bikes are perceived in terms of handling, particularly when you read reviews of bikes that have "slack" angles.
Prime example for me is the Cotic Soul (having looked into buying one) where reviewers talk about it being nice and slack for confidence on descents, particularly with a 140mm fork (67.6). I find this odd, as my Cove Handjob is slacker angled with a 120mm fork (about 67) than the Soul, yet is considered a cross-country bike, with different riding capabilities to the Cotic.
Er not sure where I'm going with this arguement, but I guess when I've been looking at bikes with slack/relaxed angles I'm after head angles of around 67 but mags/manufacturers consider only 69 to be slack.
What would you expect? And does this represent the fact that most experienced bikers/manufacturers are used to 70/71 head angles because of historical bike geometry (of which I have limited experience)?
At the end of the day, probably makes no difference anyway...
A slack angle: one that won't get on a bus to go and find a job?
IGMC
I had a set of 1st gen Marzocchi 66s for a while, on the front of a Norco. At their longest setting I think it snuck under 65. That's a slack head angle.
65-ish is for Dh race bikes.
67-ish is 'normal'.
70-ish is a road bike*.
(*or a bmx)
i'm 32. - i'm not a yoof anymore.
yeah i reckon i see less than 70 as being slack.
both are right it's just that you are new school init.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
The head angle alone doesn't tell me enough to say what is slack, rake & trail is where it's at.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Arround 68 would be my benchmark, but TBH it makes less of a difference than people claim.
My 456 with 150mm z1's (very tall) handles pretty much the same as it did with 130mm menjas (very short).
65-ish is for Dh race bikes.
67-ish is 'normal'.
70-ish is a road bike*.
I agree
Many XC race hardtails are still 70+
(Specialized/Trek - Nicoali Argon is 69.5). With short travel forks 72/72 used to be standard.
The head angle alone doesn't tell me enough to say what is slack, rake & trail is where it's at.
You're not an MBR reader, perchance? 😀
Many XC race hardtails are still 70+
I guess that's my [badly made] point is that bikes which aren't pitched as race bikes, still have steep geometry. The Soul isn't billed as a race bike, but with 100mm forks it has a HA of 70 degrees. And I think the SC Superlight has a HA of 71, also not pitched specifically as a race bike.
and that's why they're rubbish!
I find it hard to believe that a Soul has a 67ish degree head angle with a 140mm fork (trail / rake are set by suspension fork manufacturers these days so not much choice unless you want to ride a Fisher....). My Chromag has that sort of angle with a Pike and it's handling is completely different to the Soul I had.
Anything beginning with a 6 is slack for a race/lightweight trail bike.
Anything lower than 67 is slack for a trail/mountain bike.
You don't need these super lazy angles that are fashionable on a lot of trails (especially stuff like the pentlands, glentress, these southern trails like the Downs).
My rad hardtail has a 68 degree head angle, and I wouldn't want it any slacker, but my bouncy bike has a 66.5 degree one which is great for rides down massive mountains and stuff.
My Hemlock was pretty slack, til I stuck a 2 degree head angle adjuster in it, now it's just plain slack. Lovely.
BTW, according to Cotic the Soul has a 68.6mm HA when sagged with a 140mm fork, which is probably 67 degrees-ish if you take it unsagged. But it's not just about head angles o'course.
SpokesCycles - Member
You don't need these [s]super lazy[/s] stupid steep angles that are [s]fashionable[/s] a pain in the ar53 on a lot of trails
there, i fixed it for you...
65-ish is for Dh race bikes.
65 would be considered steep by most pro DH riders theses days... 63 or less is becoming the norm for world cup DH bikes!
Slack is very subjective of course. My airborne Lancaster with a rockshox SID on felt slack to me, whereas my Santa cruz bullet felt steep... Different things for different applications, the airborne was supposed to be a lightweight xc bike but the head angle seemed slack at about 70 degrees to me, the bullet felt steep as I was using it for DH riding with some 7" boxers on and the head angle was about 67 degrees... So there you go!
Depends on the rider as well, I have long legs and a short body, steep angles puts me over the front too much, slacker angles just suit me better even for a race bike.
Head angle isn't everything. Some rear suspension systems work well with more sag than others or squat more under load/braking. This means two bikes with the same angles can feel very different when ridden hard. Hardtails don't benefit from rear suspension keeping angles more stable. My 64 degree session feels totally different to my old 64 degree single pivot nicolai on steep stuff.
ahwiles - Member
"You don't need these super lazy stupid steep angles that are fashionable a pain in the ar53 on a lot of trails"
there, i fixed it for you...
Have you actually ridden many slack bikes? my Mmmbop's fairly slack but I'm yet to see a downside to that, it still handles lovely, corners nicely, and climbs well, it just bounces down things better. A well designed slack bike still performs.
I read that that the individual measurements are less relevant than the ratio between them.
I guess a slack head angle and wide bars can be a big help if you lack skill and/or confidence but with practice I think you will all come to appreciate steering that reacts a little quicker. Just build your confidence gradually, you can't go straight from the equivalent of a 747 to a Eurofighter just like that 😉
70 degree on a road bike! the ones i see are more like 73. Traditionally MTBs were 71/73 suspension forks have kicked the head angle back a couple of degrees. To me slack on an MTB is in the 60's steep over 71. on a road bike 72 is slack, and 74 steep.
But the actual ride is affected by the fork as well, travel and rake.
Northwind - Memberahwiles - Member
"You don't need these super lazy stupid steep angles that are fashionable a pain in the ar53 on a lot of trails"
there, i fixed it for you...
Have you actually ridden many slack bikes? my Mmmbop's fairly slack but I'm yet to see a downside to that, it still handles lovely, corners nicely, and climbs well, it just bounces down things better. A well designed slack bike still performs.
you've been drinking haven't you? - you're misquoting me, go and read my last post - and please pay attention to the childish strike-through thing i did to spokes post.
i will accept your apologies when you're ready to offer them.
Er, no, I'm not misquoting you at all- other than the strikethroughs, which didn't transfer into my quote right, but the content is exactly what you wrote. Now if you're going to say you meant your comments ironically, that's fair enough but it's not clear at all if that's the case.
no, i wrote "You don't need these stupid steep angles that are a pain in the ar53 on a lot of trails"
you lost my strike-throughs and childish alterations. and i am feigning offence.
X
(unless you're being ironic by misquoting me, misquoting 'spokescycles' - in which case you've succeeded in confusing me)
Wait... Now I'm confused too
My Meta doesn't feel slack, it's supposed to be 68 degrees, my Pitch does though at 67 degrees.
The numbers don't always seem to match what you actually get, the MojoI used to have was supposedly 69, yet it was somewhere between the Pitch and the Meta (all with 140mm forks).