Cotic have released the new Flare and it looks really nice. However, no room for a bottle inside front triangle as it is long, low and slack.

Apparently this is really good. I think I understand what each is – long is a longer wheelbase and a longer front triangle (so a shorter stem) – why is that good? Wheelbase adds stability but front triangle??? Low gives more leg over clearance, no doubt great if you are shorter in leg, but for taller riders, what is the benefit? Slack is the geometry – great for descending, but what about climbs?

I’m kind of thinking I might fancy a new bike and the Cotic seems to appeal but I want to understand what the lls stuff means and does.

If it doesn’t climb well then it won’t matter how it descends as I’m mince at descents and weirdly enjoy climbs…so I’d be keen on a bike that does both.

I don’t read mags and I don’t tend to follow the trends, hence my lack of knowledge of current parlance and what it means.

Laterally stiff and vertically compliant is where it’s at.
No room for a bottle is the latest in hydration replacement technology. It smooths air flow and allows less turbulent air to flow around the frame enabling the rider to achieve peak Strava timing.

Google the term forward geometry

Looks like there are bottle mounts in there, some of it really depends where you stick your suspension and linkages in a frame design. Might not be room on the smaller frames though.

No room for a bottle is because there’s a shock there. If the shock was mounted differently there’d be room, so nothing to do with LLS.

The ‘Low’ part refers to the bottom bracket too, not standover. Lower BB makes for a more stable bike.

Long front centres and short stems mean the same reach measurement as a shorter front triangle/centre with a longer stem, but more direct and responsive steering.

Slacker means more stable at speed, better over chunky stuff.

Low long slack is only part of geometry. A steep seat angle equals better climbing, as does a longer wheelbase.

Low standover and shorter seat tubes allow riders to size up and still be able to run a long dropper post.

Sounds like you haven’t ridden a modern FS trail/enduro bike – there’s not many out there now that aren’t LLS in some way, some more than others. Of course a shorter/steeper bike will be more responsive and better over flatter/tighter terrain, and there’s a good compromise to be had for a medium reach and wheelbase to make a more fun bike that’s also excellent when pointing down.

Then there’s chainstay length and how that affects the ride.

But seriously, just ride one – you’ll soon realise they’re actually bloody brilliant, even when climbing, if you pick one with a nice steep seat angle.

Long front centres and short stems mean the same reach measurement as a shorter front triangle/centre with a longer stem,

Reach does not include the stem, it’s the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the top headset bearing. With a steeper seat-tube, the effective top-tube length will be shorter for the same reach, so a longer reach allows a steeper top-tube for climbing, while also maintaining the same distance from the saddle to the bars, if you keep the same length stem. If you go for wider bars and a shorter stem, then you need a longer reach again to keep the distance from the saddle to the bars constant.

Edit: Also, there’s a point at which longer, lower, or slacker becomes too much. Some of the niche manufacturers seem to me to be pushing things beyond common sense just for the sake of marketing fashion. Small sized frames seem to be close to what XL frames were 20 years ago.

Q. Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

A. Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.

So the saying goes, I wouldn’t know. Just sounds like another marketing fad like 800mm+ handlebars that will eventually settle down and they’ll find something else to rip the **** out of.

There’s a lot of complicated reasons but about two years ago I went from a ’93 Kona Hei Hei to a Stanton Slackline and it’s significantly faster and more fun down hill and I can’t really tell much difference going up (I’m a sit and spinner). Go for it and don’t worry about the numbers too much.

My girlfriend inherited my old 26″ Transition Trans-Am. Great bike at the time and she doesn’t ride it much at all.

Went out yesterday though and I had a go on it.

Jebus! It felt like the front wheel was nearly behind me and I was virtually sitting on the handlebars.

Not sure how I used to ride it to be honest 😄 I did though and essentially you get used to whatever you ride, but the differences are quite noticeable when you directly compare.

I’ve got the ‘old’ Cotic Rocket 275, so it’s pre-longshot geometry, but plenty LLS .

As above, ride it. Cotic are excellent for Demo opportunity.

Have a watch of this….

I did put up a YouTube link to a video where Cy Turner explains it all, LLS, climbing, descending, the works.

Search “downtime” and “cotic”

Ta, so sounds like my climbing concern won’t really exist then. How low is low? I once had a Specialized M5 hardtail and that had a really low bb, pedal strikes constantly – is it like that? Or have bb heights got lower our the years and we have adjusted? Current bike is a 2015 T-130, so not latest trend but not a million miles away (I don’t think).
Will check YouTube video, ta.

I’m 6’2″ and I started riding in the 90’s. On my first proper bike the top tube was up against my family jewels and my toes would hit the front tyre.

Basically, mountain bikes have been the same size and shape as the old road bikes that they mutated from and any attempt to make them longer, lower and slacker is welcome, and decades over due. If you want to ride with your chin sticking out over the front axle, just buy any bike from the last 20 years.

You said you like climbing though, so you would definitely benefit from a longer wheelbase. To be fair the new Flare looks like a very reserved LLS revision with much more progressive bikes available. Just go to Cotic HQ and ride one.

Low standover is also good as it allows longer dropper posts to be fitted by a wider range of people. pre dropper it didn’t matter but to run a 150 or 170 dropper then a lower seat tube helps a lot.

Need to clarify, I’m not great at climbing but I’ve no issues with pedalling up a hill to attempt to ride back down it.

Will head to Laggan for a test ride on 7th as geometry is different on medium and large compared to my large T-130. On paper, the medium is a wee bit longer, lower but large is definitely more. So medium looks a more obvious choice, except I’m 182cm so the large is more suited.

Q. Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

A. Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.

So the saying goes, I wouldn’t know. Just sounds like another marketing fad like 800mm+ handlebars that will eventually settle down and they’ll find something else to rip the **** out of.

Yes let’s stop all progress and development into new technology because of the ‘good old days’

The BB height on the Flare is similar to your T130, possibly higher. You can fit a bottle within the frame except on the small when it goes under the downtube. The steeper seat angle and longer chainstays help the climbing ability (less need to perch on the tip of the saddle to keep the front wheel down).

The longer reach and slacker head angle increase stability downhill and the longer wheelbase makes it easier to hold on the limit in corners. The low top tube gives you more knee room when cornering and more standover and the short seat tube lets you fit a long dropper post.

Dick – Comrie have the Cotics on Friday, if you can get a day off…

I managed a day in Uni woods with Crispin’s Superlight, my Sanderson and my new Marin.
Oh. My. Word. The difference.
The Superlight was so short and felt like I was sat on the front axle when pointed down.
The Sanderson was nicely stretched, I was behind the front wheel on steeps and due to bolt through forks went where it was pointed.
The Marin just feels that bit more stable at speed, definitely more stable on steep and now I’m used to it, does fast/medium corners really well. It takes a touch more shoving around on really tight bends.

“Q. Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

A. Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.”

If we’d gone straight from the ‘70s to the ‘00s and skipped the roadie influences that messed up MTB geometry in the ‘80s then your 10 year old bike would be just like our current ones. Unfortunately we’ve had to waste a lot of time winding back from roadie shaped frames to the pretty long, low and slack Klunkers that started it all and then on towards what unsurprisingly is remarkably like MotoX geometry.

Oh, and i still catch pedals on the Marin at times.

And it’s BB is not that low…

It’s only now I understand why I never liked my second MTB as much as my first. The first was a somewhat dated Peugeot with a slacker head angle, short but tall gooseneck stem and massively wide (for a 9 year old) riser bars. My second was an up to date Muddy Fox with NORBA geometry, narrow bars, very long stem, steep head angle. It was SO MUCH WORSE at going downhill. That was the difference between the mainstream bikes in 1988 and 1992. Progress? Not!

I think LLS is just marketing BS for bikes that actually fit. For me at 6’5″ I’ve never really come across bikes that fit well until recently. Previously if you wanted anything close to a longer reach, the seat tube was unnecessarily long.

Long wheelbases and reach add stability but at the detriment of maneouverability

Slack HAa actually give improved handling and stability when going fast. not as many believe for improved handling in super steep terrain.

The “low” part is meant to be selling us low BB heights.
in reality very few modern LLS have genuinely low BBs.
When they did too many spods who can’t time a pedal stroke complained about pedal strikes.

I’ve been riding proper low BB, proper slack HA bikes for 20+ years now.
I can’t stand overly long bikes though. For me too long is a fun killer.
I don’t care about maximum stability though and find a bit of “sketch” thoroughly enjoyable.

I’m kind of thinking I might fancy a new bike and the Cotic seems to appeal but I want to understand what the lls stuff means and does.

you can read up all you like on geometry but the only real way to find out if you like it is to have a test ride. Cotic have a mobile test fleet so a lot easier to have a proper ride to to make your own mind up than a lot of manufacturers

I love to geek out over a geometry chart and talk crap about it online, but there are a few things that I’ve come to realise.

1. No one number has any value on its own. Even considering a few parameters is of limited value as they all relate to each other and it’s the overall package that either works for you or doesn’t.

2. Geometry charts are mostly a marketing exercise. There is very little agreement on how some of the parameters should be measured and none of us have the ability to actually check them. For example, I recently found out that Cotic measure effective SA at some nominal ride height. So their SA will look slacker than another manufacturer who measures it at stack height, even if they are actually the same. At best you are probably getting figures from a CAD plan (often quoted to a tenth of a degree/mm) which make no allowance for the fact that you may then stick tyres of different widths on each end and run different level of sag front and rear.

Can’t agree more about the roadie Norba thing in MTBs. Before that happened many mid 80s ATB were closer to off road ideals, eg the first Raleigh Mavericks that were so popular. Shorter stems, more relaxed angles up front, bars ended in better place relative to f wheel. Rear end was a bit lazy but they were fun over the stuff you could expect to ride back then.

On the other hand I’m not convinced LLS is an answer to all offroading, no one geometry theory is. For steep ups and downs and fast rough terrain it’s great. For speederbike flowy woodland singletrack give me something a bit steeper and shorter than current trends every time. My 98 Chameleon in L was a perfectly part 4X, part XC bike in places like that.
I also don’t like pedalling a very steep seat angle along rolling trails for long, messes with overall balance on the bike, means LLS bikes can be less useful for distance riding (fair compromise though, not intended for that. Just raised as a point where the geo is a compromise).

“At best you are probably getting figures from a CAD plan (often quoted to a tenth of a degree/mm) which make no allowance for the fact that you may then stick tyres of different widths on each end and run different level of sag front and rear.”

I really notice how my stack height changes as I adjust the front to rear suspension sag. Even 5mm is obvious!

long is a longer wheelbase and a longer front triangle (so a shorter stem) – why is that good? Wheelbase adds stability but front triangle???

I was comparing 3 of my bikes the other day. LLS 2019 Whyte vs conventional 2014 Cannondale vs old school 2010 Gary Fisher. The rear triangle on all of them is virtually the same – tight around the wheel but the same steep seatube and stubby chainstays. The Whyte however is so slack that if the front triangle was any smaller the bars would be too close to the rider.

Low gives more leg over clearance, no doubt great if you are shorter in leg, but for taller riders, what is the benefit?

Noticeably lower c-of-g. Great if you are a tall spidery unit like me.

Slack is the geometry – great for descending, but what about climbs?

The steep seat tube makes the most difference – you’re in the middle of the bike pushing backwards with your legs. There’s some fork offset stuff going on so that it even at walking speeds it doesn’t feel like something Orange County Choppers have made.

Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

It’s not all good. My size L Whyte suffers from bus-on-a-humpback bridge syndrome. Any kind of step that’s bigger than a curb – up or down – needs careful crank timing if you’re not going to leave bits of pedal/crank/chainring behind. It’s a PITA at times, especially on uphill steps where you need to power up and over

I don’t think it is all good is it? depends on where you decide to make the compromises. They’ve lengthened the bike so they can get better climbing performance along with better DH performance…but at the expense of manoeuvrability and agility…this is seen as an acceptable compromise for most due to the current trend for DH and climbing performance.

Personally not sure it is for me, I like the manoeuvrability of my current bike, it suits the trails I ride, and its DH and climbing performance is perfectly adequate for my skill level.

Not so long ago the emphasis was on shorter chainstays and restricting the wheel base, especially on the early 29ers as the impact of a longer wheel base on agility was a general concern, but the market seems to have shifted in favour of more enduro kind of bikes with suspension travel getting longer and longer so more willingness to give up agility in favour of climbing and DH capability. Depends what you want out of the bike.

I don’t mind the long or the slack, but I hate the low…the odd pedal strike is expected and part of the game and you can anticipate them and time your pedal strokes to suit terrain by putting gin the odd half or quarter turn to ensure you clear any edges, but the latest breed of bikes are getting ridiculously low and the frequency of pedal strikes is just getting silly now and its unrealistic to try to avoid them because it just upsets the pedal cadence too much in trying to time the pedal strokes.

I really like my non-longshot Rocket Max, has plenty of stability for the DH sections, climbs acceptably well with a decent shock, and agile enough to hustle it through switchbacks and thread through trees, can negotiate technical climbs well enough where a longer bike would feel too clumsy, and high enough so pedal strikes are sensible…i’m keen to try a longshot version, but not sure i am in need of a more capable bike especially if it comes with compromises elsewhere. Also i’m wary of the kind of bike that makes things too easy…You want some assistance to increase your fun and for the bike to flatter you, but if its too easy then it gets a bit boring.

Whilst Cotic do long and slack, they’re not generally all that low – Cy and Paul both like a good techy Peaks District climb (as do I, which is good, as I live there), so that passes through into the bikes.

In terms of climbing, the long thing is ace. Long front centre, balanced with longer stays means you’re sat in the middle of the bike, but it’s a good chunk steeper before you end up fighting the bike and pulling involuntary wheelies. Certainly my MkV Soul is by far the best technical climbing bike I’ve had in 25 years of riding.

Even compared to a “short for 5 years ago” 50mm stem on my 26″ rocket, there’s something very right about the way the Soul with a 35mm stem steers. I think you end up with the grips in line with the steering axis, so you’re entirely pushing/pulling when turning, there’s no overall lateral movement one way or the other (probably not explained that well)

I’ll admit I was worried about my Soul not being playful enough with all that extra length, but it really is a non-issue. Timing hops etc is slightly different, but it does just work. I demoed a LS Rocket a month or 2 back, and again, that was surprisingly very easy to pick up, which I was surprised about. Loved being up on the back wheel, which given I can’t wheelie/manual for sh*t quite caught me out.

..and a final thing. Took the Soul up to Golfy/Inners last week. Bloody brilliant when it got silly steep. SOOO confidence inspiring. Did Boner, Waterworld, Prospacker, all the usual suspects. Great fun. So on the whole I’m quite a fan of long & slack!

Before that happened many mid 80s ATB were closer to off road ideals

What ideal is that? Why is there one ideal? Back then, you owned an MTB. And trails were whatever footpaths or BWs were in the woods. Now, we have multiple bikes, and many of the trails we enjoy are man-made steep stuff in the woods. Most of the highlights of my local rides literally did not exist 24 years ago when I started riding this area. When I started MTBing with my mates in the local woods, long fire-road descents were the highlight of our ride, we used to seek them out. That would be considered a total waste of altitude now by most – including me.

And because so many people own multiple bikes, the manufacturers can make far more diverse ranges – back then, they made ‘an’ MTB. I remember the 92 Kona catalogue from which I bought my first MTB – it proudly boasted that all their bikes had identical geometry. Take a look at Kona’s current range!

On this thread everyone’s bemoaning the time when MTBs became more like road bikes, but you’ll find another thread where people are waxing lyrical about their gravel bike – and they’re flying off the shelves. That kind of riding is more like what the 90s MTBs were made for, and largely ridden on. For the same purpose I sought out a steep angled frame when I built up a rigid MTB – and they are now very hard to find.

So my point is that LLS is for a particular kind of riding, not for all MTBing. And cut the manufacturers some slack – I think they’ve done brilliantly, and modern bike ranges are brilliant.

OP- depends, dunnit? I don’t think LLS is particularly good all round, but then I can’t (don’t want to!) afford multiple bikes and for the mix of stuff I enjoy doing (everything from local DH races to buzzing to the shops) I want/need a bike that’s not too LLS- the Cube Stereo/Sting 140 I got (rear travel reduced to 120mm and with 130mm forks instead of the 140 or 150 they usually come with) is pretty much as spot-on an all-rounder as I’m likely to find within my budget.

What ideal is that?

Generally speaking, not having a load of weight over the bars as a default position, something that feels natural to a roadie but has drawbacks off-road. Could say it’s more of an ideal for XC racing and that was bigger then than now, and not saying there is 1 ideal design of course.

On this thread everyone’s bemoaning the time when MTBs became more like road bikes, but you’ll find another thread where people are waxing lyrical about their gravel bike

True, although I liked that my 1990 MTB was Ok for riding 5-15 miles to/from the good trails, that wasn’t what I wanted to do on it at all. Whereas my gravel bike is something that I’ll happily ride for 100 miles on road as well as mixed 50/50 rides. Different intentions. I could do that on a 90s MTB yes, but as you say there’s more specialism now, even in diverse-use bikes.

I think the LLS is MTBers finally shedding the roadie geometry that they inherited via history.

I consider the Cotic Flare to be “normal” for XC / trail duties in comparison to a long travel Geometron that wants to devour hill sides & mountains.

Its all relative to what you want from a bike really, i’m sure some are happiest in Epping Forset on a gnarpoon, whilst others are happy to tackle Morzine on a CX bike, it just all gets confusing because there is so much choice, cross over, standards & wheel sizes out there right now.

I think this is a fitting pic for the thread:

View this post on Instagram

The evolution of the all terrain bicycle.. – – – – – #mountainbiking #mtb #atb #makeutlonger #andslacker #withsuspension #kleinattitude. @sickbicycles #atthemalverns

A post shared by G E O F F W A U G H (@geoff_waugh) on Jun 17, 2018 at 12:39am PDT

I’d always looked at it as positioning the rider contact points relative to the bike contact points. Slack moves them rearward, good anti- endo for going down, less efficient pedaling. Steep = forward, efficient pedalling, reduces wheel pops when climbing, bad for going down. Adjust exact nature as needed for what you ride.

Reach does not include the stem, it’s the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the top headset bearing. With a steeper seat-tube, the effective top-tube length will be shorter for the same reach, so a longer reach allows a steeper top-tube for climbing, while also maintaining the same distance from the saddle to the bars, if you keep the same length stem. If you go for wider bars and a shorter stem, then you need a longer reach again to keep the distance from the saddle to the bars constant.

Yeah that’s what I meant, I didn’t exactly explain it as well as you 🙂

Shorter reach + long stem and longer reach + short stem equals the same distance to the bars.

And of course longer reach allows for a steeper seat angle which would otherwise mean a much short ETT.

I genuinely think the average MTBer is actually riding more extreme terrain than ever before. Sure, some people who only pootled along canal tow paths in 1995 are still pootling along those same tow paths today, but a LOT of people i see are riding what would be considered reasonably serious terrain on modern FS bikes, and doing it at a speed that would have been World Cup pace not that long ago.. Yes, some of that pace comes from modern bikes being a lot more durable (i’m old enough to remember pretty much snapping spokes on every off road ride) but a lot comes from the stability and composure of these modern geo bolides!

Personally, being a bit of a lanky git, i find the extra real world stability of my Mondraker with it’s forward geo, more than out weighs the on-paper reduction in maneuverability. Certainly it’s a bike on which i have made it round many more tight Alpine hairpins without dabbing that i ever did on my old 26″ old-skool geo bike!

‘Modern LLS slack bike is faster than an old DH bike, AND can be ridden back up the hill’ in shock news 😀

Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.

So the saying goes, I wouldn’t know. Just sounds like another marketing fad like 800mm+ handlebars that will eventually settle down and they’ll find something else to rip the **** out of.

Go ride the descent off of Kaim hill hill down to the cattle grid at full chat on an older XC bike, and then again on something with LLS geometry, and tell me it’s bollocks 🙂 This descent has hardly changed in the 15 years I’ve been riding it, but by god the bikes have.

Its all relative to what you want from a bike really

Exactly, and what a large part of the biking public wants has changed a lot.

Funny that 90s MTBs are being slammed on here but there was another thread the other day waxing lyrical about how wonderful they were compared to this modern garbage.