What does “flickable” mean to you?

circus bike

The Scandinavian Flick was used in mid 2000s freeride video segments with Canadians “flicking” their rear wheels any which way but straight while bombing a massive scree field for the boys.

There’s a real art to making a good paper football.

In honesty For me flickable is riding a smaller, lighter, active bike for maneuverability versus a larger bike for stability, grip, durability.  Really meant to jib and play versus shred and push the limits of speed/magnitude.

@seanfisseli I can't lie, I have no idea what "flickable" means either. If it's associated with the Scandi Flick, then it seems to indicate pointing the bike wide on a corner, and then aggressively turning to the inside in order to make the turn. You'll get some rear wheel drift as the bike rotates in the opposite direction to the desired turn [i.e. if it's a right turn, the bike rotates slightly to the left]. I'd imagine you'd need to transfer a bunch of weight to the front wheel in order to have any chance of completing the turn. 

I think I have done this unintentionally a few times when I came over a rise on the trail and it didn't go in the direction I thought it did. Pure panic, but it felt cool. I have definitely done it in a car and whilst riding a snowboard. 

If we extend this to what makes a bike more "flickable", I'd assume reduced swing weight would be a key factor. Shorter rear center, lighter rear end. 🤷

Shorter rear centre (chain stay) means heavier weight bias over the rear.

Long rear centre will induce naturally occuring oversteer more often than short. Try two of the above in fast flat gravel turns and the difference is immediate.

Flickable comes from the idea that a bikes rear end is more easily manipulated around tight obstacles. With short chain stays, the rear wheel is closer to the riders body so you have more leverage over the back of the bike. In theory it becomes easier, or more intuitive to maneuver the rear around, think of a ski with bindings mounted true centre vs downhill mounting position slightly further back. With the rear closer to underneath you its more inclined to follow what you do with your hips fairly naturally, whereas too much rear can feel like a lot to control in a turn.

Yes. All bike handling exists on a frequency spectrum - even riding in a straight line (because bikes don't even ride in a straight line, they link a series of oscillating falls and corrective turns).

Google's dictionary definition of flick is "a sudden sharp movement". It's AI answer says ""Flickable" describes something that is light, agile, and easy to maneuver or move with a quick, snapping motion. It most commonly refers to motorcycles or vehicles that change lean angles rapidly"

This makes sense. Cheers! 🍻

Flick-ability could likely be definable along a spectrum based on the amount of input force needed to change the direction of the bike. How this direction change is defined or quantified would be situation dependent and further define what is flick-ability for each person. However, the concept remains the same. If your goal is to perform a moto-whip in the air, a bike that takes 10N of force to throw the back end sideways would be more flick-able than a bike that takes 100N of force.

You could then assess what variables on the bike affect that required force, i.e., wheel size/mass and gyroscopic effects, chain stay length 😉 and moment of inertia about the bike/rider center of mass and whip axis, etc, etc. 

Bottom line, I think a more flick-able bike takes less force to change the bike's direction. How that is applied and where a person assigns value to that characteristic is highly variable and personal preference.

I think “flick-able” and “flick-ability” are broad terms that get applied to a lot of situations.

Yes, it could be applied when performing a “scandi-flick” cornering maneuver. It could also be applied to folding a table-top out of a quarter pipe at the skatepark or a moto-whip on a fest size jump.

I think most people unconsciously use it as synonym for maneuverable which is ultimately just as ambiguous.

That’s why I think you define “flick-able” as the force required to move the bike’s position. Then each rider can define what task or part of riding to apply that to. It could be cornering or it could be jumping but at least it gives you a jumping off point and allows you to make comparisons between two bikes.

Maybe you are interested in having a “flick-able” bike for riding slower speed janky single-track. One could then look at the type of maneuvers that occur in that riding and start to dissect which bike variables play the biggest role and select from there.

The hard part is that “flick-able” will never apply the a fixed type of maneuver or riding on single type of trail style, thus it will always maintain some level of ambiguity.

I think the use you describe is possibly some weird  artifact of a couple threads here on Vital.

I’ve read a lot of the posts you’re referring to and agree it’s been the modus operandi recently.

However, in my own life and groups of riding friends it’s always been used more how I described. Really used when comparing two bikes, i.e., I liked the Trek Fuel more than the Raaw Jibb because it felt more “flick-able” on Trail A.

My own experience isn’t too helpful here now though I suppose. Hope you can work out a satisfactory answer! Cheers

Do you mean less stable? Please don't use absolutes like unstable. 

this was 6 years ago, this "new definition of flickable" may not apply, but i think it still does : )

Jasper's riding is as close to a textbook definition as one can get.

When I say that long chainstays can feel like “a lot to turn,” I’m using colloquial language based on how they are often described by non‑Cahal believers. What I actually mean is slightly more specific.

If we treat the head tube as a pivot point and assume identical front centres, then comparing two bikes: one with a short rear centre and one with a long rear centre, the input force required at the pedal or bottom bracket to rotate the bike about that pivot is greater with the longer rear centre than with the shorter one.

Consider a scenario where rider input induces rear‑wheel loss of traction. When attempting to counteract the forces acting on the rear wheel, less energy is required with a shorter rear centre than with a longer one, because the lever arm acting about the pivot is shorter.

A bike is a complex system with many interacting variables and forces, as Buckets Up explained. To me “whipping” or “flicking” a bike, whether endo turns, in the air, or through corners, are all fundamentally variations of a lever rotating about a pivot, whether that pivot is the head tube or a point on the ground etc

Additionally, consider the same bike offered with two rear‑centre lengths. In a situation where the rider passes an obstacle and must initiate a turn immediately afterward, if both bikes are the same perpendicular distance from the obstacle, the longer‑rear‑centre bike must travel farther past the obstacle before turning to avoid a collision. This is just a simple explainer of the classic long bike versus short bike manoeuvrability argument, but is applicable with two identical bikes with long vs short rearends. Of course it doesn't account for the arguably superior control offered by the longer rear.

The answer has to be no. Its all personal preference, what you're comfortable with and that which you are accustomed to.

I was going to make a statement on this. Haha

I actually think ‘twitchy’ might be attributes of ‘flickable’ gone too far. It’s all a continuum.

I think of bmx bikes. I can’t ride the modern street frames because their HTAs are too steep and CS are too short. These bikes are ‘twitchy’ to me. For the bmx I do ride, the frames I prefer are considered hogs by modern riders.

I do think highly skilled riders can overcome deficiencies in stability and tracking better than average riders and thus can consider other aspects of handling such as ‘flickability’ more. Basically what is ‘twitchy or negative’ to me is ‘flickable or positive’ to someone better.

As an example, many pros ride frames with sub 13” rear ends and 75.5 degree HTAs. They boost these bikes and hit large street features at high speeds. I would be so sketched even rolling into some of these features on their bikes. They are willing to compromise some stability for other attributes they prefer, which could probably be classified as ‘flickable’ to them.

Now I’m not commenting on anyone here and their riding ability at all, but, in MTB I’d bet there is some analogy. Some individuals who prefer longer CS do so because they ‘need’ the extra stability. Others who may be more skilled prefer shorter CS because it lets them perform certain maneuvers better and they can deal with the negatives that show up elsewhere in handling easy enough.

It’s fun to discuss all this, but we all need to realize it’s a bit pedantic and there is no one right answer.

And for reference, both sides would probably laugh at my bikes current geo and component selection, but I enjoy it immensely.

The term “flickable” was first used back in the 80s to characterize roadracing or sport bikes that could quickly transition cornering directions. It was in the 80s that engineering, manufacturing, and tire technology improved to the point that roadracing bikes, especially GP machines could be ridden with sudden extreme force of input without the bike trying to spit the rider off. This was accomplished with ultra-rigid frames, steep head angles, and well damped suspension.  This tech trickled down to street bikes and soon bikes like the Kawasaki GPz-550 were deemed flickable. 

The true test was a near violent transition from full lean in one direction to full lean in another in as little time and space as possible. Soon larger more powerful bikes also became “flickable”. 

Of course the term can mean other things now, but that was the original application of the term to two wheels. 

jibberish BS

Yes.  But there is also another factor in maneuverability.  Which can be a lot of fun.  And is even more of a factor for shorter and/or less skilled riders.  I have a throttle and a spire both in medium and I’m pretty sure the throttle is some 70-90mm shorter in wheelbase and is much lower to the ground.  Sure I can’t get close to the traction I can on my spire but I can maneuver that throttle anyway I want to.  Where as I’m stuck in a very neutral riding position on the spire or I’m going to eat a tire in my butt.  Also no rear suspension and an extremely stiff fork means the bike is far more reactive.  Again less traction but more control of the inputs on the bike.  Especially at the medium speeds those more traditional mtb geo bikes excel at versus a more contemporary geometry.
 

Flickable is another BS term used only by mtb dorks. Another term is poppy. No other sport that uses suspension would even have that in their vocabulary. Suspension is supposed to keep you glued to the ground for speed and poppy will kill you.