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...
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.
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
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...
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.
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.Data:Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm...
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
A huge nothing burger and you had to be a jerk at the same time? “ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others.” so it will just feel less flickable until you adjust your balance point and weight distribution? So Flickable is just riding in harmony with the bikes natural balance points?
over on bikepacking.com people are arguing about long versus short chain stays. they say that short chain stays make the bike accelerate faster. This is absolutely stupid. What is probably happening is that short chain stays exaggerate the feeling of the front and lifting when you apply power to the cranks. We associate front wheel lifting with acceleration and so we assume that because short chain bikes have more front wheel lift that they must be accelerating faster, but if you understand how physics work you’ll know that changing a chain stay length won’t change acceleration.
What I’m trying to say is that we have a lot of misconceptions and assumptions about how bikes work and some of them are right and some of them are wrong. I went through arguments with people for close to a decade about tire sizes for gravel bikes, and road bikes and people were as upset as you guys were with me, but guess who was right and who was wrong?
rude people on Internet forums have argued against every single innovation that has helped our sport. One of the ways that we innovate is by questioning our assumptions and double checking our math. This whole flickable thing is just too vague and undefined for my taste and I think it is the crux of what is holding us back from designing bikes that can be ridden hard as fuck and still give the rider ultimate control. The flickable thing is just too vague and undefined for my taste and I think it is the of what is holding us back from designing bikes that can be ridden hard as fuck and still give the rider ultimate control.
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.Data:Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm...
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
I am pretty much the exact opposite of an engineer and got pretty lost in the weeds on plenty of the discussion here but still felt frustrated with all of the confusion on short chainstays and “flickability” enough to stop lurking and join in. I’m another person who comes with some experience in BMX.
I liked your answer and borderline think the problem is that a lot of people on this thread seem to be approaching things like a math professor as opposed to someone who has ever bunnyhopped on a bike. I have trouble keeping up with some of these threads as they start feeling like dissertations and attempts for people to show off their engineering prowess.
Honestly all of the discussions about long chainstays makes me really want to see what they’re about but this isn’t a binary, both options should exist and both are relevant. Short stays aren’t anachronistic, they’re just for a different style of rider; one who likes a more maneuverable bike that can change direction more easily and doesn’t feel stuck to the ground. Clearly it’s not for everyone, as plenty of people in this thread have demonstrated, but there’s a place for both.
Saying that all chainstays need to be long, or long stays are the future is like telling a skater that longboards are the sole truth. A longboard is the tool for the job if your main aim is to do is carve, go fast, and stay planted, but if your aim is to pop around and jib, you’re going to pick the skateboard every time. Same thing applies here. A shorter stay allows you to lift that front end easier for hopping and manualing and makes the back end easier to whip around, which is desirable if you’re interested in playing more than plowing.
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.Data:Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm...
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
but why do you want your enduro bike to behave like a bmx bike? i thought we have these “jibb“ bikes for that?
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.Data:Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm...
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
but why do you want your enduro bike to behave like a bmx bike? i thought we have these “jibb“ bikes for that?
He answered that in his post. Everyone favors different characteristics in a bike. Everyone on this forum loves to talk about how tall people need have particular needs on a bike, well certain riders and riding styles have different needs as well. One of the great things in BMX is that most companies offer different frames that can meet the needs of these different styles. A lot of street riders prefer steeper bikes with shorter back ends, as it makes the bike easier to manipulate, while a lot of jump/trails riders prefer a slacker head tube and a longer back end for stability in the air (as he mentions). As he also says, both have their place, as they should in mountain bikes as well. DontWorryImAPilot I feel like pretty thoroughly explained most aspects of this in his post. To the point where I’d largely just be rehashing what he’s said. I feel like if you’re still caught up in arguing the semantics of flickable (which he goes into pretty thoroughly as well) or or asking why someone would want this, then I think you’re caught in a binary thought spiral, as I’d argue that his post alone addresses all of this.
video of seanfisseli riding when? I want to see how absolutely fucking fast and shreddy he gets to prove his superior opinion.Absolute hubris.
video of seanfisseli riding when? I want to see how absolutely fucking fast and shreddy he gets to prove his superior opinion.
Absolute hubris.
Tongue in cheek brotha. This happened in the flex stay thread too (RIP) no one has a sense of humor when talking about such serious topics such as “chainstays.”
The mention of BMX reminded me of something I'd noticed back in my race days... Bottom bracket height also can make a noticeable change in the feel of a bike.. A lower bb usually felt more planted in the turns whereas the higher bb helped with a quicker turn in..
Theory: Bringing up the bb and a change in HT length to keep the stack consistent could also give a slightly more nimble feeling?
The mention of BMX reminded me of something I'd noticed back in my race days... Bottom bracket height also can make a noticeable change in the...
The mention of BMX reminded me of something I'd noticed back in my race days... Bottom bracket height also can make a noticeable change in the feel of a bike.. A lower bb usually felt more planted in the turns whereas the higher bb helped with a quicker turn in..
Theory: Bringing up the bb and a change in HT length to keep the stack consistent could also give a slightly more nimble feeling?
This is exactly what I was trying to get at when asking what people by “flickable.” I wasn’t being obtuse, I’m trying to figure out if the sensations they are talking about can be emphasized with other geo changes… maybe longer stays give us wiggle room to increase bb height?
Also on Moi Mois vid he was riding the large but mentioned that he like flickable bikes but but maybe he could ride the medium to get back that nimble feeling? I dunno I think we are all still in the experimentation phase still!
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.Data:Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm...
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
but why do you want your enduro bike to behave like a bmx bike? i thought we have these “jibb“ bikes for that?
We don't. That's why I'm saying it's not all one answer.
The BMX bike was simply a comparative analog that comes from my experience. I'm not doing tailwhips on my trailbike but I can also feel that same ease-of-maneuverability when jumping a hip or nosing into a steep corner. I'm not doing no-footed cancans on my trailbike but I can feel the additional stability when I gap into a berm.
We live in the shades of grey. It is all compromise.
That's pretty funny. The whole discussion is completely meaningless without camber/rocker/sidecut/stiffness/width/area being taken into account. Almost as meaningless as this thread i suppose. You can chunk up bike design into fairly separate parts - geo/wheel path, kinematics, stiffness.. to a point anyway, they're still very interconnected obviously. But you can nail one and not the other. Ski design is holistic voodoo, everything is connected to everything else.
That's pretty funny. The whole discussion is completely meaningless without camber/rocker/sidecut/stiffness/width/area being taken into account. Almost as meaningless as this thread i suppose. You can chunk...
That's pretty funny. The whole discussion is completely meaningless without camber/rocker/sidecut/stiffness/width/area being taken into account. Almost as meaningless as this thread i suppose. You can chunk up bike design into fairly separate parts - geo/wheel path, kinematics, stiffness.. to a point anyway, they're still very interconnected obviously. But you can nail one and not the other. Ski design is holistic voodoo, everything is connected to everything else.
The funny thing is the same applies to bikes.. Over the past decade or so, pretty much every individual dimension has been argued about, but at some point everything needs to be looked at as a whole unit.
That's pretty funny. The whole discussion is completely meaningless without camber/rocker/sidecut/stiffness/width/area being taken into account. Almost as meaningless as this thread i suppose. You can chunk...
That's pretty funny. The whole discussion is completely meaningless without camber/rocker/sidecut/stiffness/width/area being taken into account. Almost as meaningless as this thread i suppose. You can chunk up bike design into fairly separate parts - geo/wheel path, kinematics, stiffness.. to a point anyway, they're still very interconnected obviously. But you can nail one and not the other. Ski design is holistic voodoo, everything is connected to everything else.
My last bike was a Large Megatower v1 with cascade link and long cs position resulting in ~1.75 fc/rc and that gave a lot of confidence...
My last bike was a Large Megatower v1 with cascade link and long cs position resulting in ~1.75 fc/rc and that gave a lot of confidence when cornering. I ended up choosing to ride that bike at bike parks more than the large RAAW Yalla! that I also had at the time because it felt easier to ride. I had a -10mm headset installed and long cs setting on a large which gives something like 1.85 fc/rc. Now riding a medium frameworks enduro with 1.80 Fc/rc and I can’t help but think I still prefer the Megatower haha. Also tried to keep bar height above the ground (approx. 110.5cm to center of bar) similar between each of these bikes but not sure if that’s super relevant given the varying bb heights and fork travel so may need to reconsider that as an appropriate metric.
i have modified my stumpy evo to go from a 1.85 to a 1.75 (approximate, will measure later...) and the difference is huge. I would not...
i have modified my stumpy evo to go from a 1.85 to a 1.75 (approximate, will measure later...) and the difference is huge. I would not have kept this bike if I wasn't able to get it to turn the way I wanted it to. Its amazing that I was able to bolt on the XL seat stay to give me a 453 CS measurement. Honestly I just got lucky this was an available solution, otherwise I would be on a Madonna V3 (a better bike, but it would have cost me a lot of $$$ to switch frames.) I can see how you could like it more than a DH bike, I feel like my stevo feels like a DH bike with the fcrc more balanced. I can really ride the piss out of the thing, and since I can ride it more balanced I feel so much more dynamic and in control. I wish everyone could like their bike's handling this much!
That was always my dream set up, S4 triangle with S5 seatstays.
Those bikes also work well with the mullet link but run it as a 29er. Steepens everything up and gets that BB off the ground, pedals much better.
Reading this discussion makes you wonder what the perfect geo really is. For enduro racing, for example, a shorter bike is almost always faster (Rude, Moir, Melamed..) because it just fits better on those tight turns and makes swinging around them easier. Shorter chainstays on larger bikes also make the bike turn better on tight stuff because the rear follows better around a turn, and the turning radius is smaller due to shorter WB. However, for high-speed applications such as DH (and also modern enduro racing to an extent), a longer rear end offers more stability and better handling characteristics. Managing tight and janky turns isn´t a problem in DH since those just don't occur anymore that often with the development of the sport. Also, for less-experienced riders, longer rear ends make a lot of sense, as they can considerably calm down the handling.
Reading this discussion makes you wonder what the perfect geo really is. For enduro racing, for example, a shorter bike is almost always faster (Rude, Moir...
Reading this discussion makes you wonder what the perfect geo really is. For enduro racing, for example, a shorter bike is almost always faster (Rude, Moir, Melamed..) because it just fits better on those tight turns and makes swinging around them easier. Shorter chainstays on larger bikes also make the bike turn better on tight stuff because the rear follows better around a turn, and the turning radius is smaller due to shorter WB. However, for high-speed applications such as DH (and also modern enduro racing to an extent), a longer rear end offers more stability and better handling characteristics. Managing tight and janky turns isn´t a problem in DH since those just don't occur anymore that often with the development of the sport. Also, for less-experienced riders, longer rear ends make a lot of sense, as they can considerably calm down the handling.
Not only in terms of sizing, but also in the general type of bike. Take Trek’s lineup with the Slash and the Fuel LX, for example. If there were still teams riding Trek, I’d bet quite a few riders would switch to the Fuel LX for exactly that reason: still very capable and forgiving, but quicker and lighter through turns.
Riders at this level can definitely hold onto the bars when things get a bit rougher.
Longer rear end gives more stability and confidence which means you can be more playful on trails or speeds that are on the edge of your comfort zone.
Longer rear end climb better. I love them for tech climbs as there is way more traction and you don't have to put energy into resisting the bike looping out. Sure trials hops are probably harder but who does that?
Why is faster the only metric?
I took a Pivot ebike up a real steep slope. The only tiring part was resisting the bike looping out. Seemed like a huge design flaw.
I'd be curious is racers would prefer a shorter balanced bike, or just short chainstays.
Reading this discussion makes you wonder what the perfect geo really is. For enduro racing, for example, a shorter bike is almost always faster (Rude, Moir...
Reading this discussion makes you wonder what the perfect geo really is. For enduro racing, for example, a shorter bike is almost always faster (Rude, Moir, Melamed..) because it just fits better on those tight turns and makes swinging around them easier. Shorter chainstays on larger bikes also make the bike turn better on tight stuff because the rear follows better around a turn, and the turning radius is smaller due to shorter WB. However, for high-speed applications such as DH (and also modern enduro racing to an extent), a longer rear end offers more stability and better handling characteristics. Managing tight and janky turns isn´t a problem in DH since those just don't occur anymore that often with the development of the sport. Also, for less-experienced riders, longer rear ends make a lot of sense, as they can considerably calm down the handling.
There's not really a perfect geometry based on the fact the personal preferences will come into play..
I have a proposal for the future, can we define flickability for bikes as having a relatively low moment of inertia for the rear end? Ie, less resistance to changing direction.
I have a proposal for the future, can we define flickability for bikes as having a relatively low moment of inertia for the rear end? Ie...
I have a proposal for the future, can we define flickability for bikes as having a relatively low moment of inertia for the rear end? Ie, less resistance to changing direction.
Most people that use that term are referring to the general inherent instability of a given geometry/design.
I have a proposal for the future, can we define flickability for bikes as having a relatively low moment of inertia for the rear end? Ie...
I have a proposal for the future, can we define flickability for bikes as having a relatively low moment of inertia for the rear end? Ie, less resistance to changing direction.
Most people that use that term are referring to the general inherent instability of a given geometry/design.
I feel like we described the same thing in different ways, instability means less resistant to changing direction, or easier to rotate. When we talk about flickability, that usually refers to how easy it is to pick up and move the rear end of the bike, flicking it out so to speak.
Not only in terms of sizing, but also in the general type of bike. Take Trek’s lineup with the Slash and the Fuel LX, for example...
Not only in terms of sizing, but also in the general type of bike. Take Trek’s lineup with the Slash and the Fuel LX, for example. If there were still teams riding Trek, I’d bet quite a few riders would switch to the Fuel LX for exactly that reason: still very capable and forgiving, but quicker and lighter through turns.
Riders at this level can definitely hold onto the bars when things get a bit rougher.
Specialized Enduro team has also chosen the Stumpy over Enduro for years now. And at least some of the athletes in the Forbidden team raced on the Druid vs the Dreadnought. Modern "trail" bikes seem to be all the rage in enduro nowadays!
I am curious if anyone here has experimented with different widths of stem, like the part that clamps onto the handlebar. Do stems with a wider clamp end up making the bar stiffer? Logically that would make sense but im not sure if its enough of a difference to notice.
The Oneup DH direct mount stem has front clamps that can be run either wide or narrow to get more stiffness or flex. I've got one on my V10 but haven't played around with it. Probably pretty hard to tease out any really difference but then again I'm not a pro doing hundreds of offseason laps to test and bracket.
Remembering the flex stay topic...
I’m worried sspomer is going to lock this thread. I’ll just stop posting.
Dammit, I didn't want to write this much but then I got typing and it all happened.
Data:
Take a 20lb dumbbell and hold it with one arm near your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Now take that same 20lb dumbbell in that same one arm but hold it out all the way extended from your body. Move it up and down, left and right, rotate clockwise and counterclockwise.
Which is easier to do?
The length of the lever matters. It doesn't make things impossible but it makes things harder. The same arm has different difficulties manipulating a weight at the end of the arm (a lever) depending on the length of the lever.
End of Data.
Putting that data into practice:
Imagine that dumbbell were a spinning bike wheel at the end of a lever (the chainstays) and that wheel was demonstrating gyroscopic stabilization effects from spinning. Do you think that gyroscopic effect multiplies the difficulty in manipulating the orientation of that wheel?
I'll be honest, I don't have much experience doing tests of this topic on mtb. But I did it a ton of times on a bmx bike where the chainstay is shorter (less effect than on a mtb) and the gyroscopic effect is less because the wheel is smaller (even less effect than a mtb). Scaling it up to mtb sizes, a person could expect to see stronger forces exerted on the lever by the weight. Basic physics doesn't care about front center to rear center ratio.
On a bmx bike, the dropouts are slots that can allow for multiple axle positions based on how long their chain is. Further, a rider can tweak where that axle is by using a half-link chain (making smaller adjustments of axle position possible) and differing sizes of sprockets (chainrings) to make even smaller adjustments to the axle's position in the dropouts. I did ALL of those things many times. Enough times that I sometimes forgot which setup was on my bike at which time. But I always knew what the setup was when I rode the bike.
To put it succinctly the shorter chainstay setups allowed for the bike chassis to be more easily manipulated. "Flickable" is a nothing word that has been used to describe the ease of manipulation. Able to be flicked, I guess. Perhaps "flick" is the word some folks used to describe manipulations of the bike chassis? I don't know the etymology, but that's what I understood what they meant. A person could tease it out from context clues to understand what is meant if they weren't being intentionally obtuse.
A shorter back end on a bmx bike made for easier bike rotations like 180s/360s/540s because the center of gravity was closer to the pivot point on the back wheel (the rotation starts around the back wheel). A shorter back end also made the rider's leverage on the handlebars more effective: pulling for a hop or a manual or some other bike manipulation needed less effort to get the same result as I'd get with the longer back end. All sorts of bike chassis manipulations - tricks like tabletops, turndowns, and tailwhips - were easier with a shorter rear end. Again, the gyroscopic forces were closer to the rider's center of gravity. The length of the lever matters. Also tricks that required hopping off a balance point were easier because the balance point was more manipulable. Carving around a tight bowl was easier. Carrying speed around a more reasonably-transitioned bowl was harder.
A longer back end on a bmx bike made for more stability on ground and in the air. Tricks like no handers, no footers, nothings, cancans, barspins, grinds down rails/ledges were all helped by the additional stability. The bike wanted to stay stable. Manualing or nose wheelieing after being launched out of a ramp was easier because the longer lever resisted twitchy chassis changes and you didn't have to pull up to the balance point (you were put there as you came out of the ramp). Nosing in to a steep landing was harder with a long back end because the bike chassis was less manipulable with the longer chainstay. A high-speed huck was easier because the bike's longer chainstay helped you stay stable. You could generate more speed from pumping on a single roller or landing but multiple rollers in a row was more difficult and the timing needed more precision.
Here's the kicker: ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others. A short chainstay might make tailwhips a little easier at first because the bike is a little easier to spin...but if I only do 1 of those per year I'll be worse at them than if I do 30 a year on a long-chainstay bike. If I'm flexible enough in my hips and strong enough in my glutes to where I can hinge slightly deeper which will weight my front end while cornering a short-chainstay bike, then I don't need the more central weight bias with a more upright stance a long chainstay would encourage...especially if I'm looking to be aerodynamic during a longer, smoother corner!
At the end of the day, different folks like to ride different ways. For some folks, that means a short chainstay gives them the amount of stability they want while making for a bike chassis that is manipulable with the ease they consciously or unconsciously desire. Other folks prefer - consciously or unconsciously - a chainstay that lends itself to increased stability. These characteristics are all intermingled with the melange of other setup and part choices that can all have varying effects over those same sorts of characteristics...and that's all playing second fiddle to the changes in weight distribution of different bodies. A person carrying their weight low in their body will be able to pull into a manual easier than a person carrying their weight high in their body if everything else is identical. What chainstay length should they run?
There is no one answer. There is no one way to ride. There is no one best setup. It's all shades of grey and some people prefer one shade while others prefer another.
A huge nothing burger and you had to be a jerk at the same time? “ALL of those positives and negatives could be overcome by shifting weight while riding or spending more time with certain skills rather than others.” so it will just feel less flickable until you adjust your balance point and weight distribution? So Flickable is just riding in harmony with the bikes natural balance points?
over on bikepacking.com people are arguing about long versus short chain stays. they say that short chain stays make the bike accelerate faster. This is absolutely stupid. What is probably happening is that short chain stays exaggerate the feeling of the front and lifting when you apply power to the cranks. We associate front wheel lifting with acceleration and so we assume that because short chain bikes have more front wheel lift that they must be accelerating faster, but if you understand how physics work you’ll know that changing a chain stay length won’t change acceleration.
What I’m trying to say is that we have a lot of misconceptions and assumptions about how bikes work and some of them are right and some of them are wrong. I went through arguments with people for close to a decade about tire sizes for gravel bikes, and road bikes and people were as upset as you guys were with me, but guess who was right and who was wrong?
rude people on Internet forums have argued against every single innovation that has helped our sport. One of the ways that we innovate is by questioning our assumptions and double checking our math. This whole flickable thing is just too vague and undefined for my taste and I think it is the crux of what is holding us back from designing bikes that can be ridden hard as fuck and still give the rider ultimate control. The flickable thing is just too vague and undefined for my taste and I think it is the of what is holding us back from designing bikes that can be ridden hard as fuck and still give the rider ultimate control.
I am pretty much the exact opposite of an engineer and got pretty lost in the weeds on plenty of the discussion here but still felt frustrated with all of the confusion on short chainstays and “flickability” enough to stop lurking and join in. I’m another person who comes with some experience in BMX.
I liked your answer and borderline think the problem is that a lot of people on this thread seem to be approaching things like a math professor as opposed to someone who has ever bunnyhopped on a bike. I have trouble keeping up with some of these threads as they start feeling like dissertations and attempts for people to show off their engineering prowess.
Honestly all of the discussions about long chainstays makes me really want to see what they’re about but this isn’t a binary, both options should exist and both are relevant. Short stays aren’t anachronistic, they’re just for a different style of rider; one who likes a more maneuverable bike that can change direction more easily and doesn’t feel stuck to the ground. Clearly it’s not for everyone, as plenty of people in this thread have demonstrated, but there’s a place for both.
Saying that all chainstays need to be long, or long stays are the future is like telling a skater that longboards are the sole truth. A longboard is the tool for the job if your main aim is to do is carve, go fast, and stay planted, but if your aim is to pop around and jib, you’re going to pick the skateboard every time. Same thing applies here. A shorter stay allows you to lift that front end easier for hopping and manualing and makes the back end easier to whip around, which is desirable if you’re interested in playing more than plowing.
video of seanfisseli riding when? I want to see how absolutely fucking fast and shreddy he gets to prove his superior opinion.
Absolute hubris.
Well the last page and a half of this thread definitely has the "and bitching about it" part covered 😎
but why do you want your enduro bike to behave like a bmx bike? i thought we have these “jibb“ bikes for that?
He answered that in his post. Everyone favors different characteristics in a bike. Everyone on this forum loves to talk about how tall people need have particular needs on a bike, well certain riders and riding styles have different needs as well. One of the great things in BMX is that most companies offer different frames that can meet the needs of these different styles. A lot of street riders prefer steeper bikes with shorter back ends, as it makes the bike easier to manipulate, while a lot of jump/trails riders prefer a slacker head tube and a longer back end for stability in the air (as he mentions). As he also says, both have their place, as they should in mountain bikes as well. DontWorryImAPilot I feel like pretty thoroughly explained most aspects of this in his post. To the point where I’d largely just be rehashing what he’s said. I feel like if you’re still caught up in arguing the semantics of flickable (which he goes into pretty thoroughly as well) or or asking why someone would want this, then I think you’re caught in a binary thought spiral, as I’d argue that his post alone addresses all of this.
Tongue in cheek brotha. This happened in the flex stay thread too (RIP) no one has a sense of humor when talking about such serious topics such as “chainstays.”
The mention of BMX reminded me of something I'd noticed back in my race days... Bottom bracket height also can make a noticeable change in the feel of a bike.. A lower bb usually felt more planted in the turns whereas the higher bb helped with a quicker turn in..
Theory: Bringing up the bb and a change in HT length to keep the stack consistent could also give a slightly more nimble feeling?
This is exactly what I was trying to get at when asking what people by “flickable.” I wasn’t being obtuse, I’m trying to figure out if the sensations they are talking about can be emphasized with other geo changes… maybe longer stays give us wiggle room to increase bb height?
Also on Moi Mois vid he was riding the large but mentioned that he like flickable bikes but but maybe he could ride the medium to get back that nimble feeling? I dunno I think we are all still in the experimentation phase still!
We don't. That's why I'm saying it's not all one answer.
The BMX bike was simply a comparative analog that comes from my experience. I'm not doing tailwhips on my trailbike but I can also feel that same ease-of-maneuverability when jumping a hip or nosing into a steep corner. I'm not doing no-footed cancans on my trailbike but I can feel the additional stability when I gap into a berm.
We live in the shades of grey. It is all compromise.
We are really living up to the "bitching about it" part in the thread name haha
I feel like my intelligence is best applied elsewhere. I am turning off notifications for this thread see y’all later!
Wanted to provide an actual link for those interested. Haha
https://forums.tetongravity.com/home/forum/gear-buy-sell/tech-talk/11666848-do-you-measure-ski-tip-and-tail-and-should-we-care
That's pretty funny. The whole discussion is completely meaningless without camber/rocker/sidecut/stiffness/width/area being taken into account. Almost as meaningless as this thread i suppose. You can chunk up bike design into fairly separate parts - geo/wheel path, kinematics, stiffness.. to a point anyway, they're still very interconnected obviously. But you can nail one and not the other. Ski design is holistic voodoo, everything is connected to everything else.
The funny thing is the same applies to bikes.. Over the past decade or so, pretty much every individual dimension has been argued about, but at some point everything needs to be looked at as a whole unit.
That was my comment in that thread
That was always my dream set up, S4 triangle with S5 seatstays.
Those bikes also work well with the mullet link but run it as a 29er. Steepens everything up and gets that BB off the ground, pedals much better.
Reading this discussion makes you wonder what the perfect geo really is. For enduro racing, for example, a shorter bike is almost always faster (Rude, Moir, Melamed..) because it just fits better on those tight turns and makes swinging around them easier. Shorter chainstays on larger bikes also make the bike turn better on tight stuff because the rear follows better around a turn, and the turning radius is smaller due to shorter WB. However, for high-speed applications such as DH (and also modern enduro racing to an extent), a longer rear end offers more stability and better handling characteristics. Managing tight and janky turns isn´t a problem in DH since those just don't occur anymore that often with the development of the sport. Also, for less-experienced riders, longer rear ends make a lot of sense, as they can considerably calm down the handling.
Not only in terms of sizing, but also in the general type of bike. Take Trek’s lineup with the Slash and the Fuel LX, for example. If there were still teams riding Trek, I’d bet quite a few riders would switch to the Fuel LX for exactly that reason: still very capable and forgiving, but quicker and lighter through turns.
Riders at this level can definitely hold onto the bars when things get a bit rougher.
@scrubaddict
Longer rear end gives more stability and confidence which means you can be more playful on trails or speeds that are on the edge of your comfort zone.
Longer rear end climb better. I love them for tech climbs as there is way more traction and you don't have to put energy into resisting the bike looping out. Sure trials hops are probably harder but who does that?
Why is faster the only metric?
I took a Pivot ebike up a real steep slope. The only tiring part was resisting the bike looping out. Seemed like a huge design flaw.
I'd be curious is racers would prefer a shorter balanced bike, or just short chainstays.
There's not really a perfect geometry based on the fact the personal preferences will come into play..
I have a proposal for the future, can we define flickability for bikes as having a relatively low moment of inertia for the rear end? Ie, less resistance to changing direction.
Most people that use that term are referring to the general inherent instability of a given geometry/design.
I feel like we described the same thing in different ways, instability means less resistant to changing direction, or easier to rotate. When we talk about flickability, that usually refers to how easy it is to pick up and move the rear end of the bike, flicking it out so to speak.
Specialized Enduro team has also chosen the Stumpy over Enduro for years now. And at least some of the athletes in the Forbidden team raced on the Druid vs the Dreadnought. Modern "trail" bikes seem to be all the rage in enduro nowadays!
I am curious if anyone here has experimented with different widths of stem, like the part that clamps onto the handlebar. Do stems with a wider clamp end up making the bar stiffer? Logically that would make sense but im not sure if its enough of a difference to notice.
The Oneup DH direct mount stem has front clamps that can be run either wide or narrow to get more stiffness or flex. I've got one on my V10 but haven't played around with it. Probably pretty hard to tease out any really difference but then again I'm not a pro doing hundreds of offseason laps to test and bracket.
Post a reply to: Modern Geo Talk: Chainstays, Stack, Reach, and Bitching About It