All

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...

Longer rear centers of course! Really though a longer rear helps quite a bit when climbing and climbing plays an outsize role in xc performance. Personally I think there is really something on the table there.

@jessemelamed rules

We'll eventually just get to aerodynamics and I'd bet better electronic suspension. And doping. I KIND OF think 32" wheels is going to usher in a wave of even faster-rolling tires. The larger contact patch will give us more grip so the tread will get even smaller. Why do I think that? Just vibes. I think XC racing and Gravel racing are going to veer towards each other indefinitely. The XC/Gravel merger is the singularity Ray Kurzweil was talking about.

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.

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...

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...

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.

We are really living up to the "bitching about it" part in the thread name haha