All

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,

Measuring the silverware in that pic it looks like Greg is running the new mega mullet MX. 32/29" combo or I need to get my new LensCrafters.

Get ready to have your mind blown: German speakers “drive” skis (and bikes).

What's even frustrating about the SRAM guards is that the different tiers of chainrings are different so the bashguards are not interchangeable. It looks like Burgtec may have worked around this by not mounting them to the chainring itself.

Not sure if there is really an advantage of those bash guard being alu versus the stock plastic sram one. On the other hand, I wish those 3rd party chainring maker would make their chainring compatible with the sram bash guard.

New Burgtec chainring guard? https://www.instagram.com/p/DVQuvClCFGE/?img_index=1

what, they didn't wanna make tens of dollars?

What an interesting turn this would be, they already make backpacks and tailgate pads so there could be something to this. If I were a ski brand, after this abysmal winter in the west, I’d also be diversifying the portfolio to adding summer products… Big investment if true but the bike looks sick.

Greg Minnaar signature aero extensions coming soon.

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...

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...

And that’s still $1500 to $2k

Sean is going to need you to describe and define "embarrassing", he's not convinced that it exists.

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...

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...

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

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

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"

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...