What does “flickable” mean to you?

I mean thats a fair question. there are SO MANY variables we can change to alter the ride characteristics. Id be curious what someone would say about the playfulness of a bike if we were to lets say, increase CS, increase stack a lot, and raise the BB a fair amount. Look at the lets say a medium V10.8 and its F/R ratio and geometry numbers and that bike is considered by most a more playful DH bike than most. Case in point- Jackson Goldstone.

That sucker is only a handful of MM shorter in CS than my XL 29 V10.7 in Long CS! Yet.... it works as a very playful, flickable(idk why that word and phrase is abrasive to me but so be it haha) etc bike. so.... there's just so dang much to the big picture to look at. That is at least what I look at as an XL human and wanting a properly proportioned XL bike that I can still set up to have certain handling characteristics that I am after 

Despite the downvotes, I can appreciate your questions on this, as they are inquisitive and are interesting to think about. 

People complaining about terms like poppy and playful make wonder why they ride bikes at all. Don’t get me wrong, there’s the challenge aspect for plenty of us, but isn’t riding supposed to also be about having fun? Or did you buy your $5k+ bike just as a form of conspicuous consumption?

Also poppy is not solely a metric of mountain biking. Many snowboard companies actually grade their decks on how poppy they are. Skateboard companies too have experimented with different construction techniques and shapes all with the intent of more pop. 

We use the term in Motocross, and it applies to the ease/quickness with which one can maneuver the bike, while in motion, from one attack position to another, while moving forward and retaining control. 

For moto - Some say flick-ability is weight related, and some say the rider triangle is the key, and others say it's engine size or weight distribution, or center mass or weight bias and of course these are accurate, but not all, the variables change - introduce a new one and others may be eliminated, example would be to enlarge the rear sprocket a tooth and shorten the length from axle to countershaft and it changes the suspension tuning, the shift points, the response in corners etc .

IMO, for a bicycle - it's rider triangle - if your bike is dialed, suspension set for your weight and skill AND cockpit set for your size/reach/seat to pedal etc - it's going to "feel" flickable as it "puts" you in position and creates good balance while riding and retains that regardless of speed or conditions giving the pilot confidence - 

incorrect tire pressure can affect flick-ability - 

You'll know it when it happens - you'll feel like you can do anything on your bike, it's so flick-able.

My opinion.

I think this is a great valid question. Here's my two cents on how to make a bike flickable/playful/poppy/unstable (four words that mean basically the same thing in MT :

1. Shorter chainstays. This has been beaten to death.

2. Higher BB. As others have said, your bike is more stable front to back when your feet are below the axles, and less stable when your feet are above them.

3. Smaller wheels. A mullet is more "flickable" than a 29" bike, and a dual 650 bike is going to be more unstable than a mullet bike. 26" bikes are king here. Remy Morton even has that insane chainless park bike with an old 24" rear wheel #bighit 

4. Higher bars/stack. As others have mentioned, if you want to manual, step one is leaning back. Taller bars speed up that process.

5. Firmer compression, air springs, or less travel. All of these achieve the same thing- more bike pushing back against you when you compress the suspension. The first step in bunnyhopping is compressing into the bike, and having the bike sag out underneath you doesn't help. Ditto for pumping, obviously.

6. Steeper head angle. Duh.

7. Shorter reach/shorter wheelbase. Also duh.

8. Higher anti-squat. Surprisingly, higher AS levels will produce a suspension that firms up more when you compress into it to pump or pop. Likewise, a bike with a very low AS will sag out.

9. Forward axle path. A bike that gets longer when you pump is going to feel like doodoo when you want to bunnyhop or pump.

10. More tire pressure. Duh. Also lighter tire casings and faster rolling compounds and tread designs. Hard to "flick" when you're going super slow.

11. A good leverage curve. Anything that's pretty straight and falling rate is good (aka progressive). What's bad? For instance, the old top tube shock VPP bikes had an infamous regressive/linear/progressive hammock-shaped leverage rate that pedaled well in the parking lot but fell into travel when you pumped or popped. Not very "flickable."

12. Stiffer wheels and frame. Flex absorbs body inputs, which doesn't help you pop off things.

13. Make the bike lighter. The Bill Nye TV intro had that female voice that said "Inertia is a property of matter," and I think that applies here.

Put all those things together and you have a BMX bike. Go halfway there and you have a slalom bike. Do the opposite and you've created the new Commencal Supreme.

Thread can be closed. Robot just clocked the game.

mechanically it's Slack, or lack of it 

I rented a Ripmo for the Oregon 24, my daily in MN is a Spot SS steel frame 27.5 -the Ripmo felt heavy, slow, like it was in wet cement until I hit the first long, fast decent and then it came to Life!    I know - 2 completely different bikes with different jobs to do however the Ripmo, for me, was anything but flickable. 

It means it’s time to leave, got some mountain bikers around. 

Has anyone let the Air Force know that the F-16 is actually “flickable” not unstable?

https://www.instagram.com/p/DVLQavrDmhz/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

You joke, but that’s the future they’re trying to build for us with flight attendant, live valve, and that patent on abs brakes.

If you still don’t get it go watch a Dylan Siggers edit.

I personally don’t care for any of this navel gazing though. What makes a bike “flickable”? The rider. Are some bikes more “flickable” than others? Yes. Some people wanna have fun and others wanna pretend racer boi/gal, different strokes.

Exactly why Dylan is a good example that the bike is almost insignificant.

The difference between the two types of riders I outlined is that racers are actually racing. But fun havers are still just having fun, so there’s no posing

Just now looked at this video - he does flick that bike, but his skill level exceeds my ham-n-egg approach by a LARGE margin - he could flick a Schwinn Collegiate. 

For the average guy - we have posted some good thoughts on what makes a bike feel good while riding,