Hello Vital MTB Visitor,
We’re conducting a survey and would appreciate your input. Your answers will help Vital and the MTB industry better understand what riders like you want. Survey results will be used to recognize top brands. Make your voice heard!
Five lucky people will be selected at random to win a Vital MTB t-shirt.
Thanks in advance,
The Vital MTB Crew
I don't know, I've found that some pairs of Skis handled a lot better when the binding was set back a bit from the recommended mounting point (a pair of Salomon QST 85s that I demoed for a few days come to mind), not many but some. Depends on the ski, the terrain, and who's using them. Same with bikes. I should check to see what the tip to tail ratio is on my current skis (icelantic Nomad 105s), see how close it is to the bikes fc/rc ratio.
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.
www.vitalski.com
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.
I clicked through really thinking I might find a thread over there about mountain bikes lol
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...
“Flickable” as a quality imparted by short chainstays is nonsense. Riding from a centered position and through the feet makes any wheelbase/chainstay length more flickable
Remember , our sport is full of ideas that have stuck around due to a notion of how things are perceived. Kinda like some roadies who will tell up that a 23c tire at 105psi feels faster. Even though every pro team is running wider tires at a lower pressure..
The shorter rear feels more nimble because the FC was still short.. And, that was based on thinking that went back to the early MTB days where geometry was based on road bike knowledge..
I've wondered what the next big geometry debate/ change would be.. I'm thinking ive now found it..
I'm game.
Oh I know! I was on wide road tires 10+ years ago and it was a real eye opener to see how slow and resistant to change the road world has been. As soon as I stumbled into long chainstays I realized it would be the same thing.
On the flickable note… can someone link to a video of this “flicking” that’s happening on the short chainstay bikes?
"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
I don’t think that’s what “flickable” is referring to but if it is it’s not worth the trade off AND I have seen plenty of people on long CS bikes do those “flicks.” I will also take this opportunity to admit that I have never been able to figure out how to do those, long or short chainstays
Cmon man it’s a vital segment and even in the title
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
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.
Post a reply to: Modern Geo Talk: Chainstays, Stack, Reach, and Bitching About It