All

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...

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.

Well the last page and a half of this thread definitely has the "and bitching about it" part covered 😎

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...

People get angry with you because you ignore other people's opinions. Go watch moimoi test the frameworks enduro bike, discover it's less flickable than he expects, then discover later on that the chainstay is long and that's what he was feeling. It has always meant something that's less stable, more dynamic, more bmxy, and it's weird AF to pretend that those qualities in a bike don't exist or that you can't attribute a lot of that behaviour to a shorter stay.

He means that it’s faster to respond to inputs from your hands and body, which can also mean more twitchy vs stable in some aspects, which is analogous to the steeper vs slacker head tube angle comparison. There are pros and cons of both sides depending on how/what/where you ride.

I’ve had a chance to rue the same frame with two chanstay lengths using +0 and +10 dropouts on my kavenz. The longer chain stay provides more front end grip more consistently and allows me to ride taller and further back behind the bars effectively increasing my “functional” reach on the bike. That said it takes more effort to load the rear and slide the rear around tighter turns. You can but takes a it more body english to do so and equally rewarding when you do. Fun in rough, technical sections and linking corners when you’re trying to carry...