Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    309

    Question - 29er with short chainstays

    What advantages (if there are any) have short chainstays on 29er bikes?

    Does 29ers with short chainstays handle better?

    Thanks, Mo.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    269
    I have the same question.
    Because I'm in the market for a new bike I've been doin some homework. Out of the 8 FS 29ers I'm lookin at the chain stays measure from 17.5 to 17.8. Of the two 650b their 16.8 to 17.3 and to compare I looked at one 26", it was 17.1
    They all seem really close to me. Is there that big of a difference between 17.1 and 17.8?
    And like the OP asked, what are the benefits/differences?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    50
    Yep, shorter chainstay and shorter wheelbase provides better handling. You get great rolling from 29" wheels and 26er like handling from such a geometry.
    Superior TEAM 29
    Canyon Ultimate CF SLX

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    309
    The Specialized Enduro 29er has a 430mm chainstay (16.9") and 1,159mm wheelbase.
    The Trek Remedy 26 has a 435mm chainstay and 1,139mm wheelbase.

    So, which bike gives better handling? a bike with shorter chainstay or shorter wheelbase?

  5. #5
    Professional Crastinator
    Reputation: Fleas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by aspms View Post
    Yep, shorter chainstay and shorter wheelbase provides better handling. You get great rolling from 29" wheels and 26er like handling from such a geometry.
    Sorry to nitpick, but "better" is somewhat of an opinion.

    Short chainstays alone don't paint the whole picture. They contribute to a shorter wheelbase, and they make it easier to manual. When the short chainstays are combined with a particular steering geometry and a particular wheelbase, the result is quick (enough) handling with good stability, plus the whole manual/wheelie thing. IMO, it makes for a fun ride that handles a wide variety of conditions very well.

    They're talking about it here:

    why no shorts stays with steep angles?

    ...here:

    Any such a thing as rigid, steel, ss, short-stay, production frameset?

    ...and here:

    Another Canfield Nimble 9 mini-report

    ...among many others pertaining to Canfield Nimble 9 & Yelli Screamy, Kona Honzo, Banshee Paradox, etc...

    With a slack-ish head angle and typical fork the steering usually slows down a bit. It also lengthens the wheelbase a tad, which also slows down the handling (or lends stability, depending on how you view it). Shortening the chainstays brings the wheelbase back in and quickens the steering back to what it would have been with "old" geometry. But now your weight is back a little bit, making descents easier. Steep climbing ability seems to be only very mildly affected, and only bikes with the longest of forks get that floppy steering feel at low speed.

    -F
    Last edited by Fleas; 04-11-2013 at 07:18 AM.
    It's never easier - you just go faster.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    198
    2soulscycles Quarterhorses sliding dropouts offer 416 (16,38") to 430 mm (16,93")cs-length in S to L. Yet 2,4 tire clearance.
    As soon as one of my bikeframes need replacing I'm contemplating this fun frame...
    2SoulsCycles GmbH & Co.KG - Geometry & TecSpecs

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    309
    Thanks fleas!

    I sure did learned from what you wrote.

    Mo.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    269
    Ok. I hope I don't sound to much like a Jabroni, but. . .

    Of the 10 bikes I'm lookin at, all FS, the two 650b's have the shortest CS. 16.8/426 and 17.3/439. They have the longest WB 44/1117 and 44.9/1140. And the slackest HA 67 and 68.3. Note that of the 29er's I'm checking out one has a CS below the 17.3
    So.
    Compared to the eight 29er's am I to deduce that the Bronson and Altitude will not "handle" as well?
    I bet someone is going to say "not nesessarily".

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    794
    my new ENGIN is built with shorter chainstays and i notice a real difference in how it handles with a 100 MM fork. i am used to a full rigid or a more trandtional HT with front suspension from time to time. Slacker angles to sit but im getting used to it and with adjustments i feel it rides really well.....

    xpost here: First Look: ENGIN Ti 1x10

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    620
    Yea, the idea of "better" and "short" are relative to what / where you are riding.

    There was some talk years ago about 29ers being tough to climb because getting enough weight to the rear of the bike was tough to do. My though has always been that technique goes a lot farther than arguing over 10-15mm of extra length. So I think originally it was a big deal because technique hadn't been explored enough. Now I don't see the chainstay length talked about as much anymore. Frame geometries have stabilized and people know how to ride them.

    I could see that if you are a top level racer, getting into the detail of 5-10mm might be something to consider. But for 99% of the world... not really. And if you are a top racer, what the heck are you doing on MTBR? Just ride what feels comfortable and seems to work for you.
    - The only thing that keeps me on a bike is happiness.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    269
    So am I wrong in first considering those 29ers with shorter CS and WB as a type of "reference" point to finding a "better handling" bike?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cenzobear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    223

    Question - 29er with short chainstays

    Not necessarily wrong, but there's a lot more that affects bike geometry and handling than chain stays and wheelbase. Including Ht angle, BB height, etc... Components play a factor as well.(although not as much)


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    2013 Rockhopper 29- The hot rod fun bike
    2013 Stumpy HT Comp 29- The racin' machine

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    269
    I'm sure your right. I'm just trying to find a educated starting point for my demo list. Because I'm so short I'm trying to eliminate bikes that will possibly be "to much" for me.

    When it comes to HT angle would you say the slacker the angle the slower the response? Of the 13 bikes I'm looking at the angles go from 68.5 to 71. Not a huge gap.

    I've also taken 4 measurements (CS, SO, BBH, and WB) and ranked them in order of shortness. So for instance, the Giant Trance X29 1 has the lowest SO height at 25.4. Three different bikes have the shortes CS length at 17.5 one of which is the Yeti SB95. And so on. Then I added up the 4 rankings to see which bikes are the most "compact" if you will. The Santa Cruz Superlight has the lowest over all ranking with a first place, a second place and two third places. So basically a ranking number of 9. Whereas the Trek Rumblefish has a ranking number of 32, the least compact of the four measurements.

    Remember, I'm only doing this to eliminate certain bikes from my demo list.
    Is this stupid and am I full of shyte?

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    881
    I had Steve Potts build me a bike a couple of years ago. I didn't tell him what I wanted geometry wise, I just told him I wanted a bike that excells in fast twisty turny singletrack. He sent me the best riding bike I have ever owned, and I have owned quite a few bikes. The chainstays are 17.5. There are plenty of bikes out there that will have shorter and so many people get hung up on the geometry numbers but in reality the builders have a much much better idea on how to build a bike than any of us do. If you are looking for a good all-around bike I think you are best to trust the builders and don't base anything on one number. Get out and ride as many of the bikes as you can and don't look at any geometry numbers. I think you will surprise yourself with what you like.

  15. #15
    Trail Prospector
    Reputation: Flyin_W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,589
    ^^ (givati) No, not at all stupid. That would be going to Wallyworld to buy a $200 bike, and thinking that you're gonna shred all gnar.

    Many variables work together to create how a bike performs:
    - WB is a quick guide to how quick it'll be on tight switchbacks.
    - HA provides an idea of DH stability, or it's ability to slice turns.
    - CS may indicate how well it climbs, and loft the front wheel.
    -BB height can determine it's ability to hop chunk, or carve like a knife.

    Since you mentioned a height concern, best to focus on proper TT length, and standover.
    IMO- Smaller frames are better suited for riding tech.
    (edit) above post says it well - leave it up to the builder.
    The best is the one you want to ride most often..

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,513
    Quote Originally Posted by givati View Post
    I'm sure your right. I'm just trying to find a educated starting point for my demo list. Because I'm so short I'm trying to eliminate bikes that will possibly be "to much" for me.

    When it comes to HT angle would you say the slacker the angle the slower the response? Of the 13 bikes I'm looking at the angles go from 68.5 to 71. Not a huge gap.

    I've also taken 4 measurements (CS, SO, BBH, and WB) and ranked them in order of shortness. So for instance, the Giant Trance X29 1 has the lowest SO height at 25.4. Three different bikes have the shortes CS length at 17.5 one of which is the Yeti SB95. And so on. Then I added up the 4 rankings to see which bikes are the most "compact" if you will. The Santa Cruz Superlight has the lowest over all ranking with a first place, a second place and two third places. So basically a ranking number of 9. Whereas the Trek Rumblefish has a ranking number of 32, the least compact of the four measurements.

    Remember, I'm only doing this to eliminate certain bikes from my demo list.
    Is this stupid and am I full of shyte?

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    [/QUOTE]

    Not stupid at all. One thing I'd suggest, throw out that Stand Over, really mean very little as far as proper fit. You're never going to crash and land both feet flat on the ground straddling your bike.
    13 Lenz Lunchbox punkass

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    269
    Not stupid at all. One thing I'd suggest, throw out that Stand Over, really mean very little as far as proper fit. You're never going to crash and land both feet flat on the ground straddling your bike.[/QUOTE]

    Haha. Good point. In that case I'll need to consider the Satori again.

  18. #18
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyin_W View Post
    ^^ (givati) No, not at all stupid. That would be going to Wallyworld to buy a $200 bike, and thinking that you're gonna shred all gnar.

    Many variables work together to create how a bike performs:
    - WB is a quick guide to how quick it'll be on tight switchbacks.
    - HA provides an idea of DH stability, or it's ability to slice turns.
    - CS may indicate how well it climbs, and loft the front wheel.
    -BB height can determine it's ability to hop chunk, or carve like a knife.

    Since you mentioned a height concern, best to focus on proper TT length, and standover.
    IMO- Smaller frames are better suited for riding tech.
    (edit) above post says it well - leave it up to the builder.
    +1... AKamp nailed it.

    and +1 Flyin_W- lots of variables make for a good frame recipe and ultimately, I leave the heavy lifting design stuff for the frame builders. Add to it that everyone has different ideas about what works for them and you've got even more (intangible) variables.

    I too prefer a slightly smaller frame for technical stuff. I ride a large '09 Turner Sultan with 18.2" chain stays (I did not even think about chain stay length when I selected any of my three 29er's). Beyond the most important- fit, the other criteria I look for: the front wheel stays down on steep 'n fugly climbs, I get predictable handling in general and maintain control when bombing down hills.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,765
    CSs should be proportioned to the rider's CG, and adjusted according to how they want the bike to handle.

    For years, manufacturers and riders defended long stays, claiming that 29ers were simply 'different', immune to physics, I guess. Nowadays, having seen how well proper-length stays work, they're jumping on the bandwagon.
    I am ByStickel
    ByStickel Facebook Please take a look.

Similar Threads

  1. Small size 29er with short chainstays
    By Whason in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-04-2012, 03:56 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-01-2012, 12:10 PM
  3. SS 29er frame with short chainstays
    By Clink in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 05:16 PM
  4. 29er hardtail, long wheel base, short chainstays
    By jparman in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-21-2011, 02:34 PM
  5. Vexing question: short chainstays and 29ers
    By meltingfeather in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-17-2011, 10:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •