All

How big of a disadvantage is being taller on the air resistance front? And how much of an advantage being smaller brings here? If we're banning wheel sizes, why not also ban frame sizes?

Also there should be a MTB union.

dafuq you doing dude? You calling your only fan (ayo) on here a kook? Keep up, my message wasn’t cryptic or without introduction: the dude said something that made him sound like he’s not a feminist and I doublechecked (hint: we should all identify as feminists, the bar is super low and easy to achieve. It doesn’t make you less of a man to gas up the women, or to understand why that’s important). He said “oh no this is what I meant” and that was good. Every man should try the period zapper. It’s insane how uncomfortable it is...

It is refreshing to see a short travel bike without flex stays. This would be top of my list of I was looking for a full suspension down country bike.

Guy with "middle eastern" background here, lets go back to mtb rumors...

Chris King hubs used to really be something......

I can’t imagine this thread will be officially cooked until Tippie shows us his new bike, and it’s a slow morning at the bike shop, so I’ll share something very dull: I got an email from our Burgtec distributor this morning advertising the new Minnaar signature grip. I thought to myself ‘Doesn’t CAST make grips?’. Lo and behold, they ALSO have a Minnaar signature grip… that’s a grip double dip!

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...

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...

your currency is not much worth anymore, it lost like 25% in just 4 years against the swiss franc, what do you people expect things to cost when you import everything and the fascist king wants his cut on top?

a good well specced steel hardtail will ride better than a entry level dual suspension bike IMO.

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...

I think we used to call that feeling “twitchy” but marketing people got ahold of it and decided “flickable” could sell those bikes