"On the flickable note… can someone link to a video of this “flicking” that’s happening on the short chainstay bikes?"this. I want to see too. I...
"On the flickable note… can someone link to a video of this “flicking” that’s happening on the short chainstay bikes?" this. I want to see too. I have always been curious about this whole flickable side of biking that only short chainstays can do
What am I looking at here? What about this riding necessitates short chance days?
if only people could watch Jackson and realize his size medium chainstay size is a handful of mm off my XL 29 V10.7 in long and his bike proportions are right around 1.8 and yet someway and somehow he is still playful... hmmmmmmm
On a short chainstay bike you get a shorter wheelbase for the same cockpit size and head angle, so it's less stable and cuts a shorter turn. Your feet are closer to the rear wheel so it's easier to feel where it is. It's easier to push in and overwhelm just the rear tire, because when you push with your feet that's where the weight goes. You can turn with your feet more. You don't need to pull as hard on the bars to transfer weight or lift the front.
That's what flickable means, and that's what people generally like about short rear ends. It's not about people flourishing their riding with a "flick". Almost everything in the above video with Jasper would be noticeably more difficult/lethargic on a bike with 15mm longer stays.
Long stay bikes are predictable, they lay into a carve, everything feels slower and more committed. Which is better for faster trails. I ride a lot of tight trails where a really short bike with 750mm bars would be the best tool for the job, but I also like a reasonable cockpit size, and a slack head angle because some of the shit I ride is steep AF. Being able to flick the bike around on those tight trails without the bike feeling lethargic is great, and short stays make a huge difference for that.
It's a shorter radius ski with more rocker, mounted a little forward, in some aspects. If we're still wanking on about that.
On a short chainstay bike you get a shorter wheelbase for the same cockpit size and head angle, so it's less stable and cuts a shorter...
On a short chainstay bike you get a shorter wheelbase for the same cockpit size and head angle, so it's less stable and cuts a shorter turn. Your feet are closer to the rear wheel so it's easier to feel where it is. It's easier to push in and overwhelm just the rear tire, because when you push with your feet that's where the weight goes. You can turn with your feet more. You don't need to pull as hard on the bars to transfer weight or lift the front.
That's what flickable means, and that's what people generally like about short rear ends. It's not about people flourishing their riding with a "flick". Almost everything in the above video with Jasper would be noticeably more difficult/lethargic on a bike with 15mm longer stays.
Long stay bikes are predictable, they lay into a carve, everything feels slower and more committed. Which is better for faster trails. I ride a lot of tight trails where a really short bike with 750mm bars would be the best tool for the job, but I also like a reasonable cockpit size, and a slack head angle because some of the shit I ride is steep AF. Being able to flick the bike around on those tight trails without the bike feeling lethargic is great, and short stays make a huge difference for that.
It's a shorter radius ski with more rocker, mounted a little forward, in some aspects. If we're still wanking on about that.
Long chainstay bikes put more weight on the front tyre and allow you to drift/slide the backend more easily. You lean the bike more and slide the rear like a dirt bike. My 1349mm wheelbase bike is the best cornering bike I have ever had! For 180º switchbacks I just do nose turn/manuals.
Short chainstays for short travel and hardtail bikes. Long for enduro/dh unless you are doing backflips or something still seems to work for me. On a dh bike I’m going to trust the bike to grip and absorb. And I pretty much just pilot with my body weight in the majority of situations and try not to collapse to heavy g forces. On short travel or hardtail bikes I end up way off the back to really use my legs and arms as suspension when the bike bottoms out/gets chattery. Which is bound to happen unless you are going slower or riding a really smooth trail.
Those mistress bikes seem very interesting. Feel like the reach needs to be bigger per size but I’m certainly curious about where the line is for a chainstay being too long. I’d be really curious to try something 450reach/480-500 cs. (I’m 5,8) Anybody try something with what’s wacky long stays on paper?
Long chainstay bikes put more weight on the front tyre and allow you to drift/slide the backend more easily. You lean the bike more and slide...
Long chainstay bikes put more weight on the front tyre and allow you to drift/slide the backend more easily. You lean the bike more and slide the rear like a dirt bike. My 1349mm wheelbase bike is the best cornering bike I have ever had! For 180º switchbacks I just do nose turn/manuals.
I agree.
I used to ride BMX, trials and dirtbikes. Sometimes I want my MTB to ride more like a moto, sometimes I don't.
Basically, made a rig that showed how the longer rear needed more force to lift the front. Then also showed how the weight shifted between the wheels as the rear end length changes..
Basically, made a rig that showed how the longer rear needed more force to lift the front. Then also showed how the weight shifted between the...
Basically, made a rig that showed how the longer rear needed more force to lift the front. Then also showed how the weight shifted between the wheels as the rear end length changes..
Alternatively it takes more weight shifted to the rear to lift the front… so same force, just different balance point
Some skis have a more forward mount to make them more playful by reducing swing weight and leverage the front has over you. Mounting a ski...
Some skis have a more forward mount to make them more playful by reducing swing weight and leverage the front has over you. Mounting a ski ahead or behind the recommended mount point is to compensate for your style of weight distribution (forward or upright). The goal is to always put the weight through the mounting line.
Long chainstays are equivalent to traditionally mounted skis > more stability.
But yes, it all comes down to how you like to out your weight into the ground and what characteristics you want out of the equipment.
100% wrong as far as I understand it. I like a more center biased ski because I don’t want to have work the front of the...
100% wrong as far as I understand it. I like a more center biased ski because I don’t want to have work the front of the ski. I like being in the center of the ski can carving from there. Normal mounting forces you to apply a lot more force through your shins to press forward and into the tips of the skis. This is similar to short CS bikes forcing you to weight the bars to get traction on the front wheel.
Definitely not wrong, and you agreed with me with your reasoning. I think we can agree that it is an analogy that can be taken a...
Definitely not wrong, and you agreed with me with your reasoning. I think we can agree that it is an analogy that can be taken a few ways. Sure Short CS and trad mounted skis make you shift your weight forwards but they also produce two opposing characteristics. Short chainstays = more flickable, Short front of skis (centre mounted)= more pivotable.
Anyways...
No not anyways. Flickable is not a thing. Describe what you mean by flickable because as far as I can tell the longer the front end/shorter the chainstay the more you have to ride the front of the bike, which means you have more leverage to “flick” the rear end out? I’m not sure I just know that we need to define what flickable means and it hasn’t happened in this thread yet
No not anyways. Flickable is not a thing. Describe what you mean by flickable because as far as I can tell the longer the front end/shorter...
No not anyways. Flickable is not a thing. Describe what you mean by flickable because as far as I can tell the longer the front end/shorter the chainstay the more you have to ride the front of the bike, which means you have more leverage to “flick” the rear end out? I’m not sure I just know that we need to define what flickable means and it hasn’t happened in this thread yet
Why the fuck did you read my prior comment about what "flickable" means, like it, and then post that?
I feel like you ride in a way that doesn't suit a short chainstay bike, you're just not interested in entertaining the idea that other people do, and you don't like that they have words to describe how those bikes ride because you just don't get it.
No not anyways. Flickable is not a thing. Describe what you mean by flickable because as far as I can tell the longer the front end/shorter...
No not anyways. Flickable is not a thing. Describe what you mean by flickable because as far as I can tell the longer the front end/shorter the chainstay the more you have to ride the front of the bike, which means you have more leverage to “flick” the rear end out? I’m not sure I just know that we need to define what flickable means and it hasn’t happened in this thread yet
Why the fuck did you read my prior comment about what "flickable" means, like it, and then post that?I feel like you ride in a way...
Why the fuck did you read my prior comment about what "flickable" means, like it, and then post that?
I feel like you ride in a way that doesn't suit a short chainstay bike, you're just not interested in entertaining the idea that other people do, and you don't like that they have words to describe how those bikes ride because you just don't get it.
Easy bucko! I don’t agree that shralps are the flickable that people are talking about
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.
We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist. Sean said so. He has an important opinion here even though he can't actually understand what it even means.
Taller bars/more stack = more "flickability". An easy way of testing this is to ride a drop bar bike, an feel how the difference is between riding...
Taller bars/more stack = more "flickability".
An easy way of testing this is to ride a drop bar bike, an feel how the difference is between riding in the hoods Vs drops.
I'm just wondering how long it will take us to get to a consensus that what you do to the bike and how you do it is very much connected to how comfortable and confident you are on the bike which will mean different people will handle different geometries differently. I'm sure there are people that will find long chainstays more flickable than short because they will just gel with the bike and ride it more aggressively.
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist...
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.
We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist. Sean said so. He has an important opinion here even though he can't actually understand what it even means.
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never even had to define that term in the MTB world before: we have all just taken it for granted.
Look, it’s ok to like short chainstays. You have adapted your riding to them. But you don’t need to be angry at people looking to improve/refine mountain bikes through lengthening the rear centers. Most of us just want proportional CSs not LONG CHAINSTAYS so don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll still be able to have fun.
On a slightly different note, I don’t know how many people have had the chance to ride two completely different chainstay lengths on the exact same bike. A lot of detractors have had a bad experience with longer CS bikes but there are enough other variables that it’s hard to know what the real culprit is.
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist...
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.
We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist. Sean said so. He has an important opinion here even though he can't actually understand what it even means.
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never...
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never even had to define that term in the MTB world before: we have all just taken it for granted.
Look, it’s ok to like short chainstays. You have adapted your riding to them. But you don’t need to be angry at people looking to improve/refine mountain bikes through lengthening the rear centers. Most of us just want proportional CSs not LONG CHAINSTAYS so don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll still be able to have fun.
On a slightly different note, I don’t know how many people have had the chance to ride two completely different chainstay lengths on the exact same bike. A lot of detractors have had a bad experience with longer CS bikes but there are enough other variables that it’s hard to know what the real culprit is.
I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz.
The longer chain stay provides more front end grip more consistently and allows me to ride taller and further back behind the bars effectively increasing my “functional” reach on the bike. That said it takes more effort to load the rear and slide the rear around tighter turns. You can but takes a it more body english to do so and equally rewarding when you do. Fun in rough, technical sections and linking corners when you’re trying to carry speed.
On shorter chainstay, it’s like the latency is lower. It’ll respond quicker to your inputs but I also need to ride more aggressively over the front and i got the overall sensation that my bike and cockpit felt more crammed. Fun in steeps though which is where the setup shines.
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist...
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.
We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist. Sean said so. He has an important opinion here even though he can't actually understand what it even means.
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never...
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never even had to define that term in the MTB world before: we have all just taken it for granted.
Look, it’s ok to like short chainstays. You have adapted your riding to them. But you don’t need to be angry at people looking to improve/refine mountain bikes through lengthening the rear centers. Most of us just want proportional CSs not LONG CHAINSTAYS so don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll still be able to have fun.
On a slightly different note, I don’t know how many people have had the chance to ride two completely different chainstay lengths on the exact same bike. A lot of detractors have had a bad experience with longer CS bikes but there are enough other variables that it’s hard to know what the real culprit is.
I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz. The longer chain stay provides more...
I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz.
The longer chain stay provides more front end grip more consistently and allows me to ride taller and further back behind the bars effectively increasing my “functional” reach on the bike. That said it takes more effort to load the rear and slide the rear around tighter turns. You can but takes a it more body english to do so and equally rewarding when you do. Fun in rough, technical sections and linking corners when you’re trying to carry speed.
On shorter chainstay, it’s like the latency is lower. It’ll respond quicker to your inputs but I also need to ride more aggressively over the front and i got the overall sensation that my bike and cockpit felt more crammed. Fun in steeps though which is where the setup shines.
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never...
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never even had to define that term in the MTB world before: we have all just taken it for granted.
Look, it’s ok to like short chainstays. You have adapted your riding to them. But you don’t need to be angry at people looking to improve/refine mountain bikes through lengthening the rear centers. Most of us just want proportional CSs not LONG CHAINSTAYS so don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll still be able to have fun.
On a slightly different note, I don’t know how many people have had the chance to ride two completely different chainstay lengths on the exact same bike. A lot of detractors have had a bad experience with longer CS bikes but there are enough other variables that it’s hard to know what the real culprit is.
I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz. The longer chain stay provides more...
I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz.
The longer chain stay provides more front end grip more consistently and allows me to ride taller and further back behind the bars effectively increasing my “functional” reach on the bike. That said it takes more effort to load the rear and slide the rear around tighter turns. You can but takes a it more body english to do so and equally rewarding when you do. Fun in rough, technical sections and linking corners when you’re trying to carry speed.
On shorter chainstay, it’s like the latency is lower. It’ll respond quicker to your inputs but I also need to ride more aggressively over the front and i got the overall sensation that my bike and cockpit felt more crammed. Fun in steeps though which is where the setup shines.
He means that it’s faster to respond to inputs from your hands and body, which can also mean more twitchy vs stable in some aspects, which is analogous to the steeper vs slacker head tube angle comparison. There are pros and cons of both sides depending on how/what/where you ride.
People get angry with you because you ignore other people's opinions.
Go watch moimoi test the frameworks enduro bike, discover it's less flickable than he expects, then discover later on that the chainstay is long and that's what he was feeling.
It has always meant something that's less stable, more dynamic, more bmxy, and it's weird AF to pretend that those qualities in a bike don't exist or that you can't attribute a lot of that behaviour to a shorter stay.
People get angry with you because you ignore other people's opinions.Go watch moimoi test the frameworks enduro bike, discover it's less flickable than he expects, then...
People get angry with you because you ignore other people's opinions.
Go watch moimoi test the frameworks enduro bike, discover it's less flickable than he expects, then discover later on that the chainstay is long and that's what he was feeling.
It has always meant something that's less stable, more dynamic, more bmxy, and it's weird AF to pretend that those qualities in a bike don't exist or that you can't attribute a lot of that behaviour to a shorter stay.
“Flickable means it’s flickable” cmon man. You aren’t defining any of those terms. Less stable how? Qualify “more dynamic” please. What does more bmx-y mean?
All I can figure is that people’s muscle memory for the balance point is adapted for short wheelbase and short chainstay bikes. You can easily adapt your technique to a different wheelbase to get your weight where it needs to be to create the same lighter front end, especially when we raise the stack (and probably shorten the reach a bit?)
Not agreeing with you doesn’t mean I’m disregarding your opinion, it means I do not find sufficient evidence to agree with it. I’m still waiting for someone to describe what the flicking is that flickable seems to allude to…
I like riding fast and I think this “flicking” might be happening to slower speed riders who like to “steer” the front of the bike around turns rather than properly carving. Moi Moi even said that’s where the long cs shines is fast rough trails. I guess the unstable flicking only works for slow guys and gals
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist...
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.
We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist. Sean said so. He has an important opinion here even though he can't actually understand what it even means.
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never...
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never even had to define that term in the MTB world before: we have all just taken it for granted.
Look, it’s ok to like short chainstays. You have adapted your riding to them. But you don’t need to be angry at people looking to improve/refine mountain bikes through lengthening the rear centers. Most of us just want proportional CSs not LONG CHAINSTAYS so don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll still be able to have fun.
On a slightly different note, I don’t know how many people have had the chance to ride two completely different chainstay lengths on the exact same bike. A lot of detractors have had a bad experience with longer CS bikes but there are enough other variables that it’s hard to know what the real culprit is.
I bought a nicolai g1 in 2020. Initially ran it with 443mm chainstays. It's a size large with 515mm reach. The front end felt very light and little feel unless I was going down steep stuff. Increased to 453mm, then 462mm and now 474mm. The bike feels much better now with the longer chainstays. Less wheeling uphill, easier to drift/slide the backend and way more drip on the front on flat corners. I'd like to try even longer chainstays but that isn't currently an option.
I am not embarrassed for asking a question. This word is thrown around constantly and still, no one has quantified it. And DEFINITELY no one has explained how flickable is inherent to short chainstays and impossible to achieve on long chainstays. I also don’t care what a rider who has had 10 years of adapting to short chainstays says about long chainstays after one ride. We are looking for real comprehensive data here.
if only people could watch Jackson and realize his size medium chainstay size is a handful of mm off my XL 29 V10.7 in long and his bike proportions are right around 1.8 and yet someway and somehow he is still playful... hmmmmmmm
No comments on chainstay length, you just wanted a video of flickable. So found u one.
On a short chainstay bike you get a shorter wheelbase for the same cockpit size and head angle, so it's less stable and cuts a shorter turn. Your feet are closer to the rear wheel so it's easier to feel where it is. It's easier to push in and overwhelm just the rear tire, because when you push with your feet that's where the weight goes. You can turn with your feet more. You don't need to pull as hard on the bars to transfer weight or lift the front.
That's what flickable means, and that's what people generally like about short rear ends. It's not about people flourishing their riding with a "flick". Almost everything in the above video with Jasper would be noticeably more difficult/lethargic on a bike with 15mm longer stays.
Long stay bikes are predictable, they lay into a carve, everything feels slower and more committed. Which is better for faster trails. I ride a lot of tight trails where a really short bike with 750mm bars would be the best tool for the job, but I also like a reasonable cockpit size, and a slack head angle because some of the shit I ride is steep AF. Being able to flick the bike around on those tight trails without the bike feeling lethargic is great, and short stays make a huge difference for that.
It's a shorter radius ski with more rocker, mounted a little forward, in some aspects. If we're still wanking on about that.
Long chainstay bikes put more weight on the front tyre and allow you to drift/slide the backend more easily. You lean the bike more and slide the rear like a dirt bike. My 1349mm wheelbase bike is the best cornering bike I have ever had! For 180º switchbacks I just do nose turn/manuals.
Short chainstays for short travel and hardtail bikes. Long for enduro/dh unless you are doing backflips or something still seems to work for me. On a dh bike I’m going to trust the bike to grip and absorb. And I pretty much just pilot with my body weight in the majority of situations and try not to collapse to heavy g forces. On short travel or hardtail bikes I end up way off the back to really use my legs and arms as suspension when the bike bottoms out/gets chattery. Which is bound to happen unless you are going slower or riding a really smooth trail.
Those mistress bikes seem very interesting. Feel like the reach needs to be bigger per size but I’m certainly curious about where the line is for a chainstay being too long. I’d be really curious to try something 450reach/480-500 cs. (I’m 5,8) Anybody try something with what’s wacky long stays on paper?
I agree.
I used to ride BMX, trials and dirtbikes. Sometimes I want my MTB to ride more like a moto, sometimes I don't.
This was kinda interesting...
Summary?
Basically, made a rig that showed how the longer rear needed more force to lift the front. Then also showed how the weight shifted between the wheels as the rear end length changes..
Alternatively it takes more weight shifted to the rear to lift the front… so same force, just different balance point
No not anyways. Flickable is not a thing. Describe what you mean by flickable because as far as I can tell the longer the front end/shorter the chainstay the more you have to ride the front of the bike, which means you have more leverage to “flick” the rear end out? I’m not sure I just know that we need to define what flickable means and it hasn’t happened in this thread yet
Why the fuck did you read my prior comment about what "flickable" means, like it, and then post that?
I feel like you ride in a way that doesn't suit a short chainstay bike, you're just not interested in entertaining the idea that other people do, and you don't like that they have words to describe how those bikes ride because you just don't get it.
Easy bucko! I don’t agree that shralps are the flickable that people are talking about
where did I mention shralps?
Even if it was all about shralps, you mentioned you can't shralp a corner anyway, so how would you know?
Taller bars/more stack = more "flickability".
An easy way of testing this is to ride a drop bar bike, an feel how the difference is between riding in the hoods Vs drops.
Yep, a part of "flickability" is getting weight on the rear easily and higher bars help with that.
We have to remember though that flickability doesn't exist. Sean said so. He has an important opinion here even though he can't actually understand what it even means.
I'm just wondering how long it will take us to get to a consensus that what you do to the bike and how you do it is very much connected to how comfortable and confident you are on the bike which will mean different people will handle different geometries differently. I'm sure there are people that will find long chainstays more flickable than short because they will just gel with the bike and ride it more aggressively.
“It's easier to push in and overwhelm just the rear tire,” I assumed you were talking about shralping here?
I love how angry people on this website get when I challenge assumptions. You’re frustrated because you can’t explain flickable. You’re befuddled because we have never even had to define that term in the MTB world before: we have all just taken it for granted.
Look, it’s ok to like short chainstays. You have adapted your riding to them. But you don’t need to be angry at people looking to improve/refine mountain bikes through lengthening the rear centers. Most of us just want proportional CSs not LONG CHAINSTAYS so don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll still be able to have fun.
On a slightly different note, I don’t know how many people have had the chance to ride two completely different chainstay lengths on the exact same bike. A lot of detractors have had a bad experience with longer CS bikes but there are enough other variables that it’s hard to know what the real culprit is.
I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz.
The longer chain stay provides more front end grip more consistently and allows me to ride taller and further back behind the bars effectively increasing my “functional” reach on the bike. That said it takes more effort to load the rear and slide the rear around tighter turns. You can but takes a it more body english to do so and equally rewarding when you do. Fun in rough, technical sections and linking corners when you’re trying to carry speed.
On shorter chainstay, it’s like the latency is lower. It’ll respond quicker to your inputs but I also need to ride more aggressively over the front and i got the overall sensation that my bike and cockpit felt more crammed. Fun in steeps though which is where the setup shines.
What do you mean by the latency is lower
He means that it’s faster to respond to inputs from your hands and body, which can also mean more twitchy vs stable in some aspects, which is analogous to the steeper vs slacker head tube angle comparison. There are pros and cons of both sides depending on how/what/where you ride.
People get angry with you because you ignore other people's opinions.
Go watch moimoi test the frameworks enduro bike, discover it's less flickable than he expects, then discover later on that the chainstay is long and that's what he was feeling.
It has always meant something that's less stable, more dynamic, more bmxy, and it's weird AF to pretend that those qualities in a bike don't exist or that you can't attribute a lot of that behaviour to a shorter stay.
I'm curious as to what would give more "flickable" feel? A smaller rear wheel or a shorter stay?
“Flickable means it’s flickable” cmon man. You aren’t defining any of those terms. Less stable how? Qualify “more dynamic” please. What does more bmx-y mean?
All I can figure is that people’s muscle memory for the balance point is adapted for short wheelbase and short chainstay bikes. You can easily adapt your technique to a different wheelbase to get your weight where it needs to be to create the same lighter front end, especially when we raise the stack (and probably shorten the reach a bit?)
Not agreeing with you doesn’t mean I’m disregarding your opinion, it means I do not find sufficient evidence to agree with it. I’m still waiting for someone to describe what the flicking is that flickable seems to allude to…
I like riding fast and I think this “flicking” might be happening to slower speed riders who like to “steer” the front of the bike around turns rather than properly carving. Moi Moi even said that’s where the long cs shines is fast rough trails. I guess the unstable flicking only works for slow guys and gals
I bought a nicolai g1 in 2020. Initially ran it with 443mm chainstays. It's a size large with 515mm reach. The front end felt very light and little feel unless I was going down steep stuff. Increased to 453mm, then 462mm and now 474mm. The bike feels much better now with the longer chainstays. Less wheeling uphill, easier to drift/slide the backend and way more drip on the front on flat corners. I'd like to try even longer chainstays but that isn't currently an option.
The fact that this has to be explained in this thread is embarrassing.
Sean is going to need you to describe and define "embarrassing", he's not convinced that it exists.
I am not embarrassed for asking a question. This word is thrown around constantly and still, no one has quantified it. And DEFINITELY no one has explained how flickable is inherent to short chainstays and impossible to achieve on long chainstays. I also don’t care what a rider who has had 10 years of adapting to short chainstays says about long chainstays after one ride. We are looking for real comprehensive data here.
Post a reply to: Modern Geo Talk: Chainstays, Stack, Reach, and Bitching About It