Long vs short chainstays- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 146 of 146
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    122

    Long vs short chainstays

    Bought me a new frame, Silverback Mercury 29 and it has longer chainstays than my still to be replaced Axis. It is about 20 mm longer, to be honest I can not say that it has a real effect on cornering and climbing. A 29er shootout in a local mtb mag favoured shorter stays for climbing and cornering , but states that longer stays are more stable at speed. Your expierience in this regard please.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,569
    For me, the biggest difference I find is that longer chainstays make it harder to wheelie. I'm trying a 69er project to really feel the difference.
    http://www.bikingtoplay.blogspot.com/
    RIGID, not "ridged" or "ridgid"
    PEDAL, not "peddle." Unless you're selling stuff

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    643
    I've argued this point for a long time... people seem to deal with 20-30mm trail difference just fine w/ sliding dropouts or horizontal dropouts. I think it is a solution for a non-issue in most cases.
    - The only thing that keeps me on a bike is happiness.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nutball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    61
    Count me as the type that really prefers a short chainstay. That being said, a difference of 20 mm is not an absolute deal breaker if the rest of the geometry is decent for you.

    For example, my two current bikes are a Niner Jet 9 and a Canfield Yelli-Screamy. Prior to picking up the Niner last year, I rode a Titus Switchblade for ~8 years. The SB chainstay is roughly 16.7 inches while the Niner's is roughly 17.7 inches. On the street i didn't notice a difference at all (at least not due to the chainstay). I didn't notice a difference for the most part on the trail either with two exceptions. On steep climbs I found myself losing traction more than normal on the Niner and it was definitely more challenging to get the front end up over largish rocks or trees (~1 ft for example). It was not impossible to get the front end up, only marginally more difficult.

    I originally chalked up the tires breaking free during steepish climbs to differences in tires between the Niner and the SB.. However, I picked up a Yelli-Screamy (chainstay: ~16.7 in) a few months ago and can better compare the effects of chainstay. I only have one set of 29er wheels so I swap them back and forth between the Yelli and the Niner. The Yelli climbs noticeably better (for me) than the Niner unless the trail is rough where the rear suspension on the Jet 9 really helps. Standing climbing is impacted the most but seated climbing traction is still noticeably better (for me). Popping the front end up over obstacles is noticeably easier on the Yelli as compared to the Jet. Even so, I ride the Jet on the same trails as the Yelli and can clear the same obstacles, I just have to work a bit harder on the Jet in the tougher sections.

    For what its worth, I bought the Yelli specifically for its short chainstay and slack head tube angle as compared to the Jet; that thould put my post into some perspective. Even so, it was the Niner's head tube angle that bothered me more than its chainstay. The ~1 inch difference is chainstay is only really noticeable (to me) on technical sections or steep climbs. I don't really notice much of a difference on chainstay during cornering unless we are talking tight switchbacks where the shorter chainstay (and wheel base) is better. (Actually, the Niner corners a bit better (for me) in most circumstance due to the improved traction afforded by having rear suspension vs a hardtail).

    -Nutball

  5. #5
    Single Speed Junkie
    Reputation: crux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,111
    Honestly think it is a matter of personal preference. Personally I am of the opinion that the shorter the stays and the fatter the tire clearance the better.

  6. #6
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    My Sultan (with 18.2" CS length) is the best seated climbing bike I have ever ridden....so you can add that to your list.
    1) More stable at speeds - true with most any vehicle.
    2) better seated climber - and by that I mean steep climbs where shorter CS bikes are barely holding their front end down...common sense really.

    Personally when I am buying a bike, i look at CS length and what I am looking for depends on the intended purpose. Although I do think that a shorter CS is better all around for most cornering except steep swithbacks, if I am wanting a short travel racing type bike, I think shorter CSs have an advantage of being a better out of the saddle climber. If I am looking at a LT bike that I will not be doing that, I'd rather it be on the long side.

    Height may have something to do with it. The taller you are, the higher your center of mass and then a longer wheelbase in general is better IMO at least. I just read where Norco I believe is making their chainstays size dependent. IOW, the larger the bike, the longer the CS, so it would seem that someone thinks it important enough to go through all that trouble.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bald_Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    194
    Short stays do help with climbing and cornering. Slacking out the head angle a tiny bit (usually by running a fork that's 10-20mm longer than stock) helps with downhill stability.

  8. #8
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,187
    I sort of agree with the size dependent thing.
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  9. #9
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166

    stuff in my head

    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    Height may have something to do with it. The taller you are, the higher your center of mass and then a longer wheelbase in general is better IMO at least. I just read where Norco I believe is making their chainstays size dependent. IOW, the larger the bike, the longer the CS, so it would seem that someone thinks it important enough to go through all that trouble.
    My thought: taller height also shifts the rider's weight backwards. If a bike designer wants to keep the taller rider's weight centered in the bike, larger sizes will necessarily have longer stays (and longer stems and maybe steeper head tube angles) than smaller sizes.

    Nevertheless...I'm 6'2 with a 36" bike inseam and I still like a fairly short chainstay (17-17.5). But I ride hardtails. If I did a lot of steep seated climbing, longer stays would be preferred. And the high-speed stability does rock.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: zonoskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    977
    Hmm, that's the exact opposite of what @Nutball experienced. Strange.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,301
    I am short (5'6") and ride a medium 29er and the shorter the chain stay the less I have to move my weight back to avoid slippage when climbing out of the saddle. I can see that for taller riders this problem is less apparent.

    As for stability at speed, I cannot say it makes as much a difference as in climbing and cornering.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,453
    I was always under the impression that short CS's made for better handling.The same principle as bikes with lower BB's equate to better handling.

    This theory would make the hardtail shine of course as suspension travel forces bike manufactures to increase BB height and stretch CS length to accommodate this travel.

    I've even read that some bike companies boast that there 29ers have the same trail,bb height and only slightly longer CS length as there 26" offerings.When i hear this it makes me think that the SQUISH compromises handling geometry.

  13. #13
    CP
    Reputation: C.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    198
    Short Stays are chosen based on riding style and experience. For me, (MTBing since '83, with a BMX background) it's all about a riding style that is "playful" in nature - one where the saddle is lower most of the time, and standing through corners and tech-sections is the norm. A bike well suited for "playful" riding has geometry that encourages this style of riding, and doesn't hold you back; In no specific order, shorter stays make a bike ridden in this riding-style more intuitive and easier to:
    • Hop
    • Manual
    • Wheelie/wheelie-drop
    • Maneuver


    ...based on my experience short chainstays make this style of riding possible.

  14. #14
    Category Winner
    Reputation: teamdicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,050
    I've been talking off and on to Steve Stickel about a short stay frame since 2008. He's been building them for either six or eight years now (I forget which), and I finally decided to plunk down a deposit last September.

    I'm gonna horribly summarize what he told me about stability and chain stay length. Stability is a sum of its parts, and a short chain stay bike can be stable if built correctly. I've been riding my Stickel with the sliders set at just over 16 inches, and I've got no issues with stability. I've been to Pisgah on it at least three times now, and it's just bomber coming down the mountain. Sh!t eating grin kinda fun.

    That said, I'm enjoying all the benefits of the short stays tremendously. As one other poster mentioned, it's just playful as all get out. Switchbacks, logs, tecnical climbing... you name it. I'm tired of trying to figure why I like it so much. I just enjoy the ride now.

    It's been set up with a 100mm Fox Terralogic equipped fork for the past few weeks, and it's the happiest I've been with squish up front in a long time,



    WWW.TEAMDICKY.COM

    I get paid 3¢ every time I post on MTBR.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,388
    Isn't "short" chainstays on a 29er the same length as standard chainstays on a 26er. So really not that short.
    Redding Trail Alliance - www.reddingtrailalliance.org

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,453
    Exactly....bike companies want the same handling capabilities of there 26" bikes.
    I'm a big fan of 29ers so the closer the tire is to the seat tube the happier i am.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OmaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Isn't "short" chainstays on a 29er the same length as standard chainstays on a 26er. So really not that short.
    Exactly... which is why I think this chainstay talk ends up being a non-issue. If a person can tell the difference in 1/2", then they are officially over thinking things.

    I agree with the statement above, the bike and how it functions alone is the sum of it's parts, not one specific thing. Add the rider to that equation and things get really loopy.
    - The only thing that keeps me on a bike is happiness.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,453
    Quote Originally Posted by OmaHaq View Post
    Exactly... which is why I think this chainstay talk ends up being a non-issue. If a person can tell the difference in 1/2", then they are officially over thinking things.

    I agree with the statement above, the bike and how it functions alone is the sum of it's parts, not one specific thing. Add the rider to that equation and things get really loopy.
    1/2 " might not make that much difference in the bedroom but its very noticable on a bike.
    Try moving your seat for/aft 1/2" or up/down 1/2" or using a stem 1/2" shorter or longer or cut an 1/2" off your bars,you'll feel a noticable difference right away.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,463
    A small CS change made a big difference for me when it came to traction. I went from a 18t cog to a 21t cog on my track end SS with no chain length adjustment and the slight shortening really helped my climbing. I'm unqualified to comment on all the "bedroom" comparisons.

  20. #20
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird View Post
    1/2 " might not make that much difference in the bedroom but its very noticable on a bike.
    Try moving your seat for/aft 1/2" or up/down 1/2" or using a stem 1/2" shorter or longer or cut an 1/2" off your bars,you'll feel a noticable difference right away.
    You're right. If I added a 1/2" to the dimensions of my bedroom, I wouldn't notice it a bit, but on the CS I would.

  21. #21
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Isn't "short" chainstays on a 29er the same length as standard chainstays on a 26er. So really not that short.
    Why do you think chainstay length should be proportional to wheel size?

    Are there other frame dimensions/angles that change proportional to wheel size?

  22. #22
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by OmaHaq View Post
    If a person can tell the difference in 1/2", then they are officially over thinking things.
    Are you saying you can't tell the diifference in 1/2" of chainstay length?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    Myself I'm a tall guy and I made the switch to 16.9" stay Paradox back in August 2010 and couldn't believe the climbs I could make, how nimble it felt and yet confident on the descents. Now fast forward to February this year and I got my Prime, with 17.6" stays and a 3" longer wheelbase, you know what, it damn well climbs better than the Paradox did with 16.9" stays and I think it's a two-fold reason; 1 - the rear squish helping track the trail better and keep the tyre in contact with it and 2 - the longer stays helping keep the weight planted over the rear tyre for my height. I mean honestly 17.6" is not long for a 130/140mm travel bike, 26" or 29" wheeled, actually about avg for 26" wheeled bikes in this range, so really for a 29er and for me on an XL quite short.

    Been saying it for years that if manufacturers really wanted to have bikes sized up properly they also needed to lengthen the stays for the bigger sizes (or shorten for the smaller) will be interesting to see if this is true and what people think.

    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    ..................Height may have something to do with it. The taller you are, the higher your center of mass and then a longer wheelbase in general is better IMO at least. I just read where Norco I believe is making their chainstays size dependent. IOW, the larger the bike, the longer the CS, so it would seem that someone thinks it important enough to go through all that trouble.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,301
    LyNx: Been saying it for years that if manufacturers really wanted to have bikes sized up properly they also needed to lengthen the stays for the bigger sizes (or shorten for the smaller) will be interesting to see if this is true and what people think.

    Definitely agree with that!
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  25. #25
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Been saying it for years that if manufacturers really wanted to have bikes sized up properly they also needed to lengthen the stays for the bigger sizes (or shorten for the smaller) will be interesting to see if this is true and what people think.
    I think this is true and can be completely justified on the fit argument. When a rider stands, though, the fit changes. I think ultimately how someone views the CS length argument is determined by how they ride. There is an ongoing contradiction over whether short or long is best for climbing. I think riding technique explains that.

    It would be really interesting to see how a long travel 29er FS would work with really short stays. It is possible, just beyond what frame builders seem willing to try.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,998
    I think a lot of the quest for shorter chainstays is driven by the fact that they are so difficult to achieve on a 29er.

    We lust after what we can't have.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,388

    I don't think you understood what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Why do you think chainstay length should be proportional to wheel size?

    Are there other frame dimensions/angles that change proportional to wheel size?
    I said that short chainstays on a 29er are the same as regular xc chainstays on a 26er... so in reality, they aren't short, they are just where they should be.
    Redding Trail Alliance - www.reddingtrailalliance.org

  28. #28
    Trail Junkie
    Reputation: dubdryver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,204
    I think there are a lot of variables that should be taken into account. I don't think long stays are necessarily bad, they just need to take the rider's input differently to operate in the same fashion.

    A longer stay bike is going to carve around a corner with more stability...but that's not an absolute because overall wheelbase, HA, and BB height play a factor as well.

    I have:
    Salsa Selma (29er) with a chainstay of 17.9" wheelbase of 42.62", 71deg HA, 22.83 TT
    Santa Cruz Blur Carbon (26") with a Chainstay of 16.6", wheelbase of 42.8", 69.5deg HA, 23" TT
    Santa Cruz Tallboy (29er) with a chainstay of 17.5", wheelbase of 42.6", 71deg HA, 23" TT

    None of these bikes I feel are unstable. The fact that the 26" bike has the longest wheelbase, but the slackest head angle all contribute to how the bike feels, how quick and nimble it is. I will have to say that there are times with the Salsa..having the longest stays but almost equal to the shortest wheelbase is sometimes a task to get that back wheel come around a corner. It feels like takes longer to do so, where as the Tallboy feels much faster at doing so. So I feel even .4" longer chainstay does have some real merit. Also the Salsa is the hardest to get the front end up, but makes up for it in stability when the trail points downward. Its a downright stable bike on descents!

    I think this is why people dissect these GEO numbers so much, because they know what the different numbers feel like to them, and how they translate directly onto the trail....I feel I do, and I can definitely see a difference as well.

    My newest purchase was a Lynskey Pro29 SL with sliders. I have a 17.3" length currently, but I can slam it all the way forward to 16.9". I absolutely notice a difference between that and the Salsa in terms of how nimble it is. The Lynskey has the same exact TT length, 1deg slacker HA, and .6" shorter stays with a slightly lower BB, but I don't feel its just the shorter chainstay alone. I think the combination of a slacker HA and slightly lower BB combined with the shorter chainstay as a package makes it feel that way.
    Ibis Ripley LS
    Santa Cruz Chameleon SS
    Cervelo S2
    Trek Boone 5 Disc (Gravel)
    GT Piece Tour (Gravel)

  29. #29
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,154

    Jackrabbit or greyhound style?

    Overall, short stays make for a bike that handles well for me. Trails and riding styles either lean toward a jackrabbit riding style or a greyhound style. Snakey, choppy, technical trails are better handled with the jackrabbit style and shorter stays work well here. A longer, stretched out, big cookie spin ride goes the other way. I gravitate toward the jackrabbit style and trails.

    However, a recent finding I've come across is to move down a size in frames. Usually I ride a large but am also close to getting on a medium. My most recent frame, a RIP, has slightly longer stays, and a tt that is a bit on the long side. So, I tried a medium with a setback post. My overall reach is about the same, but my seated weight is placed over the rear wheel a bit more with the setback post. So, the longer CS issue is somewhat offset. As an added benefit, the front to center on the bike is kept shorter, so when I'm out of the saddle I can weight the front end and the bike carves the turns like a knife. Furthermore, the wheelbase is kept relatively shorter relative to a large frame, and that helps with tight handling as well.


    The chain stay issue is similar to xc/backcountry skiing where longer skis are faster, more stable, and more comfortable in the wide open. On the tighter trails, shorter skis are the ticket.


    Being a creature of the NE, I like shorter stays, but that does not mean they are better for everyone.

  30. #30
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Miker J View Post
    Overall, short stays make for a bike that handles well for me. Trails and riding styles either lean toward a jackrabbit riding style or a greyhound style. Snakey, choppy, technical trails are better handled with the jackrabbit style and shorter stays work well here. A longer, stretched out, big cookie spin ride goes the other way. I gravitate toward the jackrabbit style and trails.

    However, a recent finding I've come across is to move down a size in frames. Usually I ride a large but am also close to getting on a medium. My most recent frame, a RIP, has slightly longer stays, and a tt that is a bit on the long side. So, I tried a medium with a setback post. My overall reach is about the same, but my seated weight is placed over the rear wheel a bit more with the setback post. So, the longer CS issue is somewhat offset. As an added benefit, the front to center on the bike is kept shorter, so when I'm out of the saddle I can weight the front end and the bike carves the turns like a knife. Furthermore, the wheelbase is kept relatively shorter relative to a large frame, and that helps with tight handling as well.


    The chain stay issue is similar to xc/backcountry skiing where longer skis are faster, more stable, and more comfortable in the wide open. On the tighter trails, shorter skis are the ticket.


    Being a creature of the NE, I like shorter stays, but that does not mean they are better for everyone.
    Great post!

    I liked my previous long-stay 29ers at high speeds, but otherweise, I'm a jackrabbit.

    I tried downsizing on a long-stay 29er and liked it for xc riding (great steering/handling!) but gave up on it b/c of it's tech ability (too front heavy).

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    423
    i am split right down the middle on this one.

    i love the way my vassago bandersnatch rides with it's long chainstays and reliable downhill stability, comfy ride and going all out on it. i never had an issue with tight switchbacks or similar trails.

    on the other side of the coin my kona unit with the rear wheel slammed all the way in is fun in a different way. both bikes are predictable and stable. they each have their own unique characteristics and i enjoy them both. more so than a middle of the road "so it all" geometry bike that excels at nothing, but does everything just "ok".

    my personal life has changed to where i can only have one bike, so i am having a custom frame built to incorporate the parts of both these bikes i like without having a middle of the road bike(like most manufactures build) that is good at nothing and just "ok" at everything.

    it pains me to sell both of these(in the classifieds right now), but i am hopeful that i can combine my favorite parts and have one fun bike.


    so my answer is "both". long and short. they are both fun.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Been saying it for years that if manufacturers really wanted to have bikes sized up properly they also needed to lengthen the stays for the bigger sizes (or shorten for the smaller) will be interesting to see if this is true and what people think.
    Seriously? I'm tall, and the last thing I want is a bike that is long in the wheelbase and chainstays for no good reason. I need a certain amount of top tube for the bike to fit correctly, so the bike is already going to be pretty long.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,875
    IME, most people who've ridden a lot of 29er hardtails usually conclude that for STANDING climbing, the shorter CS works better 'all else being equal' (which in reality is never the case). For seated climbing, especially if you have a long inseam, the consensus tends toward longer CS being either 'OK' or 'Preferable'.

    The OP may have missed the many threads on this topic reinforcing the above.

    Stability at speed is a different topic entirely, and it's simplistic to think of it as the inverse of the CS question. Most frame designers seem to agree that wheelbase is the main factor driving stability, but HA, BB drop, etc play a role too. Take a sliding dropout, move it all the way back, and you've simultaneously increased CS and WB; to separate these geo effects on stability, you'd have to fabricate different frames.

    my Yelli gets ridden a lot more than my other two 29ers, and it's possible that the short CS/slackish HA is part of the reason.
    Originally posted by bucksaw87
    I still fail to see how mustaches, fixies, and PBR are ironic.

  34. #34
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird View Post
    Try moving your seat for/aft 1/2" or up/down 1/2" or using a stem 1/2" shorter or longer or cut an 1/2" off your bars,you'll feel a noticable difference right away.
    Maybe because all of those things affect the fit?
    apples and oranges

    this is one of those personal preference/perception things that has no answer... as evidenced by the totally contrary opinions expressed in this thread.

    and trying to compare geo metrics between 26" bikes and 29ers is flawed thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  35. #35
    Bedwards Of The West
    Reputation: CommuterBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,451
    I climb better on a bike with longer chainstays. It's easier to keep the front wheel on the ground and to prevent the rear wheel from spinning out on steep climbs, especially when transitioning from sitting to standing on technical steep stuff. I like shorter chainstays for everything else. they make the bike easier to manual and flick around. I think I need to design something like a 'dropper' seatpost design for chainstays...so you can pop them out to full length when you hit a techy climb, and suck them back to short mode for the rest of the ride. Once developed, this technology should be able to be easily applied to wheel size also, so you can go from 26er to 650b to 29er with a button on the handlebars.
    You have no excuse for driving to work
    (unless you don't have studded tires)
    (no excuse for that either)

  36. #36
    mnt bike laws of physics
    Reputation: yogiprophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,648
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Seriously? I'm tall, and the last thing I want is a bike that is long in the wheelbase and chainstays for no good reason. I need a certain amount of top tube for the bike to fit correctly, so the bike is already going to be pretty long.
    It's probably not that much difference in length. Personally, I think having different wheel sizes for different heights works the whole CS length out. IMO, it makes no sense for short people to ride 29ers or bikes with longish chain stays...as much as it does for tall people to ride 26ers hardtails with super short chain stays.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: masterofnone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,240
    In the moto world, specifically bikes modified for hill climb competitions they will fabricate a super long swingarm, like two or three times stock length to get the best compromise of traction and slippage. Just a hair too long it will spin out, too far underneath the bike will wheelie and flip over. I'm assuming the rear is adjustable to compensate for the steepness of each individual track. I can't judge by chainstay length alone or numbers on a schematic and assume I know exactly how a bike will handle, it's the whole package. Like a drag car on the quarter mile, you can't just shove a huge cam or heads in there and expect them to work, it's the whole package.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by yogiprophet View Post
    It's probably not that much difference in length. Personally, I think having different wheel sizes for different heights works the whole CS length out. IMO, it makes no sense for short people to ride 29ers or bikes with longish chain stays...as much as it does for tall people to ride 26ers hardtails with super short chain stays.
    I agree.

    The problem with the hill climbing motorcycle analogy (that is used so often) is that those bikes don't have to turn, and dive through trees.

    A tall guy, on a tall bike, with a long wheelbase is a hell of a lot harder to navigate through twisty terrain than a shorter rider a shorter frame on a shorter wheelbase bike. Since I can't do much about my height, nor my seat height, I can certainly try to keep the wheelbase compact. If shortening the chainstays also makes it a livelier ride (and in my opinion, it does) then sign me up!

    Someone make me a Niner Air9 with a lower bottom bracket and 16.7" chainstays like my Yelli. I'll be in absolute heaven.

  39. #39
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Last Saturday I swapped gears and went back to a 17.2 CS length from 17.6. I wasn't surprised when standing climbs felt more efficient, but I had forgotten how much better the bike steers/handles when set up like this. I got that "telepathic" feeling again. Definitely felt more fun. I also noticed the front end feeling a bit lighter, which is nice seeing how its rigid - I was naturally floating over rocks better. If the bike had gears, steep sitting climbs would probably be a problem (36" inseam). But it's a SS, so not an issue. I really can't understand long CSs on a SS unless (maybe) its a high-speed XC bike.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,463
    I too can feel a cog change ... but we're not supposed to! Short is nice for climbing.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    176
    I personally have come to the conclusion that my short cs 29er is the closest option available that incorporates the positive attributes of my 26 inch bike while achieving the benefits of 29 inch wheels. The downside being the shorter the stays the less the options for front derailleurs and tire clearance issues (ingenuity and creativity aside) . The front derailleur issue was easy enough for me to solve by just running single speed. Single speedin on a short stay 29er and loving every minute of it! Aside from the occasional creak its grab and go baby

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,657
    I always keep my axle as far forward on my Karate Monkey as I can. this makes wheelies easier, which is all that matters.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    For no good reason If you ride SS and/or constantly stand on climbs, then a short CS is super, but if you sit and spin up climbs you'll appreciate a longer CS, especially if you're a tall person - that's MY opinions anyway and thankfully whether you like it or agree/disagree with it doesn't matter, because it's MINE and I can like/think what I want

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Seriously? I'm tall, and the last thing I want is a bike that is long in the wheelbase and chainstays for no good reason. I need a certain amount of top tube for the bike to fit correctly, so the bike is already going to be pretty long.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  44. #44
    Bedwards Of The West
    Reputation: CommuterBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,451
    easy wheelies x2. Priorities, people.
    You have no excuse for driving to work
    (unless you don't have studded tires)
    (no excuse for that either)

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    For no good reason If you ride SS and/or constantly stand on climbs, then a short CS is super, but if you sit and spin up climbs you'll appreciate a longer CS, especially if you're a tall person - that's MY opinions anyway and thankfully whether you like it or agree/disagree with it doesn't matter, because it's MINE and I can like/think what I want
    There is more to riding a bike than climbing.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    ....there is more to riding a bike than going DH.
    ....there is more to riding a bike than riding on the flats.
    ....there is more to riding a bike than .......

    Fact is, it's all one endless compromise, you just have to chose which is the most important to you. For me it's climbing, I just love to climb, the more tech the more fun, however I happen to have lucked out and my XL Prime, with 48" truck" wheelbase climbs like a demon and descending is very confident and nimble TO ME and suits me to a T. Only thing I'd like to change, is for a production one when it comes out with an estimated 700g frame weight loss and some nice tweaks

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    There is more to riding a bike than climbing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  47. #47
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    There is more to riding a bike than climbing.

    good thing that is the case given the average phat assedness of the 29er population who get winded downhilling

  48. #48
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    I always keep my axle as far forward on my Karate Monkey as I can. this makes wheelies easier, which is all that matters.
    do you keep your front axle in the same spot at all times? why are there no adjustable fork dropouts? in carbon

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    ....there is more to riding a bike than going DH.
    ....there is more to riding a bike than riding on the flats.
    ....there is more to riding a bike than .......

    Fact is, it's all one endless compromise, you just have to chose which is the most important to you. For me it's climbing, I just love to climb, the more tech the more fun, however I happen to have lucked out and my XL Prime, with 48" truck" wheelbase climbs like a demon and descending is very confident and nimble TO ME and suits me to a T. Only thing I'd like to change, is for a production one when it comes out with an estimated 700g frame weight loss and some nice tweaks
    That's such an interesting change of position from a man who so vigorously touted the Paradox as the best bike in the history of ever.

    If you don't ride trails that wind through trees for miles at a time, then maybe wheelbase isn't a big deal to you. Having to take super wide lines to get the bike around will slow ya down. Ride what you like man.
    Don't let "for no good reason" get you all wound up. Your new bike has suspension, which is a sufficiently good reason to have longer chainstays, since it's pretty much mandatory.


    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    good thing that is the case given the average phat assedness of the 29er population who get winded downhilling
    I get winded getting my bike out of the truck!

  50. #50
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,698
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by C.P. View Post
    Short Stays are chosen based on riding style and experience. For me, (MTBing since '83, with a BMX background) it's all about a riding style that is "playful" in nature - one where the saddle is lower most of the time, and standing through corners and tech-sections is the norm. A bike well suited for "playful" riding has geometry that encourages this style of riding, and doesn't hold you back; In no specific order, shorter stays make a bike ridden in this riding-style more intuitive and easier to:
    • Hop
    • Manual
    • Wheelie/wheelie-drop
    • Maneuver


    ...based on my experience short chainstays make this style of riding possible.

    and Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Bird View Post
    I was always under the impression that short CS's made for better handling.The same principle as bikes with lower BB's equate to better handling.
    and see these comparative charts for bikes with shorter chainstays and shorter wheelbases from this review



    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  51. #51
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    That's such an interesting change of position from a man who so vigorously touted the Paradox as the best bike in the history of ever.
    it shouldnt surprise you given that the vast majority of Barbadians are well versed in hypocrisy. I will not be surprised in fact if LyNx's next bike is a Niner

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    It still is, but the jump for me in chainstay length was huge coming from my previous bike to the Paradox and flexy FS to super solid HT. Think the stays on the FS were 18.1" or something and then going to the Paradox @ 16.9" was a real eye opener. Now going from the Paradox to the Prime with 17.6" stays (not long at all to me for a 5" travel FS) I've found the bike climbs easier, but I think it's a lot to do with the FS factor and all the other parts that make up the whole, just like some said chainstay length is only 1 small part of the equation that = bike.

    Also as noted, the previous FS was like a wet noodle in terms of how flexy it was, so now having a really solid FS with a decently short CS and nice angles=heaven


    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    That's such an interesting change of position from a man who so vigorously touted the Paradox as the best bike in the history of ever.

    If you don't ride trails that wind through trees for miles at a time, then maybe wheelbase isn't a big deal to you. Having to take super wide lines to get the bike around will slow ya down. Ride what you like man.
    Don't let "for no good reason" get you all wound up. Your new bike has suspension, which is a sufficiently good reason to have longer chainstays, since it's pretty much mandatory.



    I get winded getting my bike out of the truck!
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    But you're making the comparison far more convoluted than it needs to be. I have a Performance Access that handles like absolute butt. The only real difference between it and a ton of other frames is that the Chainstays are almost 18" long, and the wheel base is right at 45". You get that thing in the trees and it's painful. I've ridden a billion other frames and you absolutely can find commonalities based on geometry specifics. So no, every short chainstay bike isn't fun to ride, just like every bike with long chainstays isn't a school bus. However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.

    If I was riding a medium, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

    Let me also add that the Prime looks like a lot of fun.

  54. #54
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Crucial? Not exactly. Beneficial? Absolutely.

  56. #56
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    i agree. the single parameter of chainstay length it not meaningful, frame material is the only thing that is noticeable (e.g,. carbon) and nothing else matters, not rider skill level, not build quality, not other geometry, not components, not tire PSI, nothing

  57. #57
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Crucial? Not exactly. Beneficial? Absolutely.
    Dramatic? Hardly.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Dramatic? Hardly.
    You're welcome to demo my two bikes back to back, and get back to me on which one you prefer, and then you can look at the numbers and tell me why one magically rides better.

    You're showing your ass if you don't think that a half of an inch in wheelbase is notable, especially when we're talking about the far upper end of bike sizing.


    I used to ride a 19" framed 26" bike. Besides being absolutely ridiculous looking and feeling, it was very easy to navigate through twisty corners. Was it the wheel size? The Angles? Probably all of the above, and... here it comes... one of the contributing factors was that it had a 42" wheelbase.

    Everything related to bike handling is subjective. What I like and what I feel works well for my locale may very well be different than you feel about yours. I've chased enough fast dudes to notice their lines, and watch mine and try to figure out how to get a bike from point A to point B quickly. What is considered one of the best riding 29ers made? Check the jones space frame out, tell me what Jeff Jones has to say about wheelbase. Why do xc racers size down, sometimes to extremes? Less weight and a more "flickable" bike. Where do you think that term comes from?

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vindiggitydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Last Saturday I swapped gears and went back to a 17.2 CS length from 17.6. I wasn't surprised when standing climbs felt more efficient, but I had forgotten how much better the bike steers/handles when set up like this. I got that "telepathic" feeling again. Definitely felt more fun. I also noticed the front end feeling a bit lighter, which is nice seeing how its rigid - I was naturally floating over rocks better. If the bike had gears, steep sitting climbs would probably be a problem (36" inseam). But it's a SS, so not an issue. I really can't understand long CSs on a SS unless (maybe) its a high-speed XC bike.
    I am always amazed at how someone can truly feel a .4 in. difference in CS IMO, there needs to be a more significant gap to see any real changes in performance.

  60. #60
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166

    opinions are like axles

    Quote Originally Posted by vindiggitydog View Post
    I am always amazed at how someone can truly feel a .4 in. difference in CS IMO, there needs to be a more significant gap to see any real changes in performance.
    It's not amazing - my experience is different than your opinion.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    601
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    Yes, if I run my KM with the stays slammed all the way I can feel the difference between that and using the 10mm monkey nuts - bike feels a bit less squirely. I can also feel the difference when I run the same size tyres on it and when I throw a bigger one upfront, can def feel the steering relax a bit.

    All this being said, I thought like you while waiting on the Prime, my mind was going crazy thinking I should have sized down because I kept looking at the WB length and the fact it was 3"> longer than the Paradox, the bike I'd come to love and judge other bikes by - too many times people had their own HTs and hope on my Paradox for 2 minutes and when they hoped off were looking to order one because it felt much better than theirs. When I received the Prime I was still sort of freaking out and once I had it built I couldn't believe how big it was sitting there, but once I actually sat on it and pedaled it the extra 3" melted away.

    Now don't ask me exactly where or how Keith did it with the Geo, but he did, the thing barely feels any different from the Paradox in terms of handling and maneuverability, the biggest thing I noticed is the extra weight of the frame (gained about 4lbs from the Paradox) but other than that, very nimble. I'm not really a "fast" type rider, I love slow, tech, rock crawling type riding, but when faced with sweeping, fast trails, most especially with tight trees, the longer wheelbase and 31" wide bars I seem to manage just fine getting through them, in fact guys were on my tail on the open sections often get dropped in the tight, tree lined sections.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    But you're making the comparison far more convoluted than it needs to be. I have a Performance Access that handles like absolute butt. The only real difference between it and a ton of other frames is that the Chainstays are almost 18" long, and the wheel base is right at 45". You get that thing in the trees and it's painful. I've ridden a billion other frames and you absolutely can find commonalities based on geometry specifics. So no, every short chainstay bike isn't fun to ride, just like every bike with long chainstays isn't a school bus. However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.

    If I was riding a medium, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

    Let me also add that the Prime looks like a lot of fun.

    Most powerful tool/weapon in the universe So as I say above, when I swung a leg over my Prime knowing full well it had a 3"> WB to my Paradox and it felt no different I was blown away.
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  63. #63
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You're welcome to demo my two bikes back to back, and get back to me on which one you prefer, and then you can look at the numbers and tell me why one magically rides better.

    You're showing your ass if you don't think that a half of an inch in wheelbase is notable, especially when we're talking about the far upper end of bike sizing.

    ...

    Everything related to bike handling is subjective.
    Right, and you are full of arbitrary hyperbole on the subject.

    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    What I like and what I feel works well for my locale may very well be different than you feel about yours.
    Where have I heard that before? You resort to the "feel" argument when you can't win the fact argument. Typical MTBR tribalist garbage.

  64. #64
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Right, and you are full of arbitrary hyperbole on the subject.

    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.


    Where have I heard that before? You resort to the "feel" argument when you can't win the fact argument. Typical MTBR tribalist garbage.
    Half an inch on almost anywhere on a bike is going to be noticeable if your bike is on the edge of acceptable.

    If your bottom bracket is low, and then you ride a bike with one a half an inch lower and you start smacking pedals like crazy, is it noticeable? If you're riding a frame that's a little too small and you lose .5" off of your ETT, is it noticeable? Seatpost a half inch too low? If you're riding a Karate Monkey and then you ride a frame with a degree steeper headtube?


    If you're honestly telling me that riding a bike with .5" longer chainstays and < .5" longer wheelbase has no real effect on a rider's ability to get a bike through tight corners, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

  66. #66
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Half an inch on almost anywhere on a bike is going to be noticeable if your bike is on the edge of acceptable.
    There you go with "noticeable" again when it used to be "dramatic". There's a difference, you know...

    And while 1/2 inch may be "noticeable" in some dimensions, it is not in all.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If your bottom bracket is low, and then you ride a bike with one a half an inch lower and you start smacking pedals like crazy, is it noticeable?
    A 10mm change in ground clearance is much more than 1%.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If you're riding a frame that's a little too small and you lose .5" off of your ETT, is it noticeable?
    "Noticeable" maybe, dramatic no. I don't accept the popular wisdom here that bike sizing is that critical. Riders can easily adapt to multiple sizes. There is typically only about 20mm difference between sizes so all you are talking about is 1/2 a size, not very significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Seatpost a half inch too low? If you're riding a Karate Monkey and then you ride a frame with a degree steeper headtube?
    These are all irrelevant. You claimed that 10mm of wheelbase makes a dramatic difference, not that 10mm of ground clearance can be noticed. Not all 10mm dimensions are created equal and it doesn't take much intellect to understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If you're honestly telling me that riding a bike with .5" longer chainstays and < .5" longer wheelbase has no real effect on a rider's ability to get a bike through tight corners, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.
    You can't tell me anything. I don't buy into your fantasy. 10mm of wheelbase is not at all significant.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    There you go with "noticeable" again when it used to be "dramatic". There's a difference, you know...

    And while 1/2 inch may be "noticeable" in some dimensions, it is not in all.


    A 10mm change in ground clearance is much more than 1%.
    First off, 1/2" is 12.5mm, so stop trying to trivialize the number by rounding down. This is where I should point out that you're using hyperbole.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    "Noticeable" maybe, dramatic no. I don't accept the popular wisdom here that bike sizing is that critical. Riders can easily adapt to multiple sizes. There is typically only about 20mm difference between sizes so all you are talking about is 1/2 a size, not very significant.
    Pay very close attention to the words I type, please. I wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon
    Half an inch on almost anywhere on a bike is going to be noticeable if your bike is on the edge of acceptable.
    If your bike is on the edge of acceptable. I'm guessing you just glanced over that one. If the bike is not in that happy medium of sizing or angles that you like, then differences will be noticeable.




    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    These are all irrelevant. You claimed that 10mm of wheelbase makes a dramatic difference, not that 10mm of ground clearance can be noticed. Not all 10mm dimensions are created equal and it doesn't take much intellect to understand that.
    You're saying that a half inch doesn't make a difference, I say that it does. I have two bikes built up that are almost identical except for one of them is 44.4" long and one is right at 45" long. The longer one has a slightly steeper STA and .5" longer Chainstays. I have ridden them back to back, in addition to dozens of other frames. The difference between the two is noticeable, I'm not telling you to sell your bike and buy a shorter one. I'm telling you that my trails are tight and winding, and being able to square off the corners on a shorter wheelbase bike is MUCH easier and faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You can't tell me anything. I don't buy into your fantasy. 10mm of wheelbase is not at all significant.
    Do your thing, broseph. How much would it take to be significant? Would 1" added to the chainstays on your current frame be significant?

  68. #68
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,698
    Quote Originally Posted by PeopleForScience View Post
    I do a lot of back to back blind comparisons specifically related to bike geometry and i can tell you that most people cannot tell the difference in small changes(1 or 2 degrees) to ht angle or cs length in a blind test. I Have real world data that shows if you think you are on a short cs bike then you will tell everyone how short they are and how great the bike took corners even when they are not. Your mind is a powerful thing.
    I ride prototype bikes and equipment for a variety of different companies (no divulging names due to confidentiality) for both biking and skiing. The engineers/designers almost always do not give us tech details re changes for reasons that are explained as not wanting to colour our input. The other people who test like me have decades of experience and literally have ridden tens if not hundreds of frames, bikes, skis, boots, etc etc.

    The majority of us (say 9 out of 10) cannot tell the difference between 1 deg of HTA or STA change; or 12mm of BB delta; or degrees of bevel of edge. Some of us can but those who can tend to be the ones who are really picky about bike setup - eg one guy knew that his test bike had a less than 5mm change in chainstay length.

    I'm throwing this out there to give a real world small sample of anecdotal unverified data. Fwiw speaking for myself personally, I adapt easily to different bikes and doubt I could tell differences between 10mm in wheelbase but that maybe, possibly somebody else could
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  69. #69
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL View Post
    I ride prototype bikes and equipment for a variety of different companies (no divulging names due to confidentiality) for both biking and skiing.
    wow! you are almost as awesome as JNC

  70. #70
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,698
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle View Post
    wow! you are almost as awesome as JNC
    Almost! Wish I knew who JNC is so I could compare e-penises
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  71. #71
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    If your bike is on the edge of acceptable. I'm guessing you just glanced over that one.
    I didn't glance over it, I just think it's pathetic that what was once so dramatic has now devolved into b*tching about the difference between 10 and 12.5mm on bikes that are barely suitable to start with. Why do you even bother?

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I'm telling you that my trails are tight and winding, and being able to square off the corners on a shorter wheelbase bike is MUCH easier and faster.
    Yeah, 1% easier and faster. You couldn't tell that in a blind test of your life depended on it.

    I say do your own thing as well, just don't tell us how special the benefit you imagine is. You don't understand how trivial the change in wheelbase is because you don't want to.

  72. #72
    Peace & Love
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL View Post
    Almost! Wish I knew who JNC is so I could compare e-penises
    dont get carried away...i was very clear in saying "almost"

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I didn't glance over it, I just think it's pathetic that what was once so dramatic has now devolved into b*tching about the difference between 10 and 12.5mm on bikes that are barely suitable to start with. Why do you even bother?


    Yeah, 1% easier and faster. You couldn't tell that in a blind test of your life depended on it.

    I say do your own thing as well, just don't tell us how special the benefit you imagine is. You don't understand how trivial the change in wheelbase is because you don't want to.
    You're really good at multi-quote. Even better at ommission!

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoshM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    First off, 1/2" is 12.5mm
    It's actually 12.7mm

  75. #75
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I didn't glance over it, I just think it's pathetic that what was once so dramatic has now devolved into b*tching about the difference between 10 and 12.5mm on bikes that are barely suitable to start with. Why do you even bother?


    Yeah, 1% easier and faster. You couldn't tell that in a blind test of your life depended on it.

    I say do your own thing as well, just don't tell us how special the benefit you imagine is. You don't understand how trivial the change in wheelbase is because you don't want to.
    You're very confident of what others are perceiving and when they're being delusional. OneBadWagon and I have posted some of our experiments and findings. Its true that we can't prove we're not fooling ourselves. On the other hand, have you conducted any experiments or are you just eyeballing the geo numbers and announcing what you think looks significant?

    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vindiggitydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    It's not amazing - my experience is different than your opinion.
    Not meant as a dis......

  77. #77
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    Your experiments are all blind, I assume, to preclude the very powerful and well documented effects of confirmation bias. Right?
    As I'm sure you know, blind and double blind testing, particularly when human interpretation is involved, is a crucial component of experimental protocol for a reason. Without it, most results are considered worthless.
    Nobody can make an argument against what you think you feel/see/hear. Getting defensive if questioned is a typical response. That's why these discussions usually dont go anywhere.
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.

    Oh, and you also changed the fit of your Niner in that experiment. Of course, that has no effect on your results.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 05-18-2012 at 04:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  78. #78
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    You're very confident of what others are perceiving and when they're being delusional. OneBadWagon and I have posted some of our experiments and findings. Its true that we can't prove we're not fooling ourselves. On the other hand, have you conducted any experiments or are you just eyeballing the geo numbers and announcing what you think looks significant?
    I quoted the comments that I responded to and am not interested in your misrepresentation of my position. If making the basic observation that 10mm, or even 1/2 inch, is a trivial change to overall wheelbase then my "eyeballing" should be celebrated, not condemned. It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are. He is no scientist and I suspect neither are you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    That is a difference subject than OneBadWagon's turning radius. Go bait someone else.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I quoted the comments that I responded to and am not interested in your misrepresentation of my position. If making the basic observation that 10mm, or even 1/2 inch, is a trivial change to overall wheelbase then my "eyeballing" should be celebrated, not condemned. It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are. He is no scientist and I suspect neither are you.


    That is a difference subject than OneBadWagon's turning radius. Go bait someone else.
    I've decided that I'm going to sell my bike that has shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You've convinced me that all bikes ride the same, and there is no reason for me to have any preference at all. Since we've determined that according to you, chainstay length, wheelbase, and to a certain extent fit measurements don't matter, I'm saving myself a lot of money. Please keep our little secret long enough for me to make my money back out of two bikes that I previously thought rode great.

    Hopefully you can share some more enlightenment on components next. I'd previously been using parts that I found had good feel and good durability. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to fill me in on the next round of "My opinion is better than yours 2012".


    You've chosen to ignore plenty of my points, and misconstrue / manipulate many of the others. There's no point in discussing things with you. I could tell you that i average 1mph faster on my bike with shorter CS/Wheelbase, and you'd say that was ******** too. Have a nice day sir.

  80. #80
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I've decided that I'm going to sell my bike that has shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You've convinced me that all bikes ride the same, and there is no reason for me to have any preference at all. Since we've determined that according to you, chainstay length, wheelbase, and to a certain extent fit measurements don't matter, I'm saving myself a lot of money. Please keep our little secret long enough for me to make my money back out of two bikes that I previously thought rode great.
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Hopefully you can share some more enlightenment on components next. I'd previously been using parts that I found had good feel and good durability. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to fill me in on the next round of "My opinion is better than yours 2012".
    I've offered no opinion. That's your domain.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You've chosen to ignore plenty of my points, and misconstrue / manipulate many of the others. There's no point in discussing things with you. I could tell you that i average 1mph faster on my bike with shorter CS/Wheelbase, and you'd say that was ******** too. Have a nice day sir.
    Yes it would be, but an approach like that would be right up your alley. As for "manipulating points", look at you. Go ahead and tell some more outright lies, it's done so much good so far.

    It's fine if you wish to wallow in ignorance, just don't inflict it on others.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.
    Well, you've said:
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Completely ignoring that I said that reduced wheelbase AND reduced chainstay length had a cumulative benefit that is noticeable. I also said that I didn't want a bike that was long in both regards due to wheelbase, which is the reason I don't ride XXL bikes.


    The point that you don't seem to understand is that given the choice to somehow cram the ST and ETT that I want onto a frame with a 22.5" wheelbase would be ideal. I'd love to have a bike as maneuverable as a "normal" bike, but since my height precludes that, I have to worth with what I can. You are the only schmuck I've ever seen on the internet or elsewhere that will spout forth about a reduction in wheelbase not having a difference in the feeling of what motorcyclists would call "flickability", or a reduced turning radius, decreased steering effort and a more playful feeling bicycle.

    The fact that you won't address any of my questions directly only further proves that you have no interest in the discussion and only look to be swinging your e-dick around.

    You said
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.
    following these statements:
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Please show me where I said it was crucial. You start trying to put words in my mouth here, a practice which you obviously use to flavor the readers interpretation.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Dramatic? Hardly.
    I thought you said that you weren't offering opinions? Here's a little snippet of subjective information. Thanks for stopping by.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.
    Do you ride a bike with a 45" wheelbase? Please answer the question. It has a lot of bearing on your opinion on the subject, since your entire argument is flavored on what does or doesn't make a difference on XL+ bikes. What would constitute "dramatic"? To me, any tangible benefit is a benefit just the same. I didn't say that jesus came down and blessed my shorter CS/WB bike, just that it handled better. And it does, and you have provided zero evidence that a bike with shorter chainstays and wheelbase wouldn't handle better, because there isn't any.

    The only straw you're grasping at is the linear relationship to wheelbase and turning radius, ignoring the easier maneuverability/easy to manual nature of a bike with a shorter back end and belittling any rider opinion, because it's anecdotal. If I had liked the way my long chainstay bike rode, I would have never purchased another frame! It rode like crap, so I looked at the differences between it and the frame previous. Guess what the difference was? .4" shorter Chainstays and a slightly slacker HTA. By your mentality, none of that matters, but since I'm out riding my bike everyday, and riding the one that I don't like makes me enjoy that time just a little less, I gladly made a change. Just as I would make a change to a bike that I felt was too twitchy, or too soft in the bottom bracket, or anything else I didn't like.

    The simple fact of the matter is that I can tell the difference between two of the bikes that I currently own. It is a very real difference, and just because you don't care to believe that doesn't make it any less true. This isn't internet speculation, this isn't me letting my mind run wild, this is me riding bikes back to back and picking the ones that I like more. If I like the one that has a shorter wheelbase and shorter chainstays, but overall the rest of the geometry is very similar, then call me crazy, but I'm going to have to say that those variables are the deciding factor.


    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yes it would be, but an approach like that would be right up your alley. As for "manipulating points", look at you. Go ahead and tell some more outright lies, it's done so much good so far..
    Please tell me where I'm manipulating points. I'm simply trying to find out how big of a change in geometry are us feeble minded riders supposed to notice.

    Care to support any of your previous statements, or is this just more diarrhea of the keyboard coming from your end?

  82. #82
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Completely ignoring that I said that reduced wheelbase AND reduced chainstay length had a cumulative benefit that is noticeable.
    It isn't a cumulative benefit when it is one change. You also said "dramatic", then changed it to "noticeable" when you got caught.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You are the only schmuck I've ever seen on the internet or elsewhere that will spout forth about a reduction in wheelbase not having a difference in the feeling of what motorcyclists would call "flickability", or a reduced turning radius, decreased steering effort and a more playful feeling bicycle.
    I have said nothing like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The fact that you won't address any of my questions directly only further proves that you have no interest in the discussion and only look to be swinging your e-dick around.
    Again, look who's talking. The biggest e-dick here is you. I have, in fact, addressed your absurd statements more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Please show me where I said it was crucial.
    Where did I say you said that?

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You start trying to put words in my mouth here, a practice which you obviously use to flavor the readers interpretation.
    Tiny intellect on display again. Flavoring the interpretation is your game, not mine. You said the difference was "dramatic".

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I thought you said that you weren't offering opinions? Here's a little snippet of subjective information. Thanks for stopping by.
    Claiming a 1% difference is subjectively small isn't opinion, it's well established fact. You just can't accept it because you want to believe otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    What would constitute "dramatic"? To me, any tangible benefit is a benefit just the same.
    Creating special meanings for words in another tactic of the desperate. It doesn't matter what I believe constitutes "dramatic", the word means what it means. If you wish to communicate, learn the language. Your illiteracy may be the problem here, but it's not my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I didn't say that jesus came down and blessed my shorter CS/WB bike, just that it handled better. And it does, and you have provided zero evidence that a bike with shorter chainstays and wheelbase wouldn't handle better, because there isn't any.
    I've provided as much as evidence as you, I just don't make indefensible claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The only straw you're grasping at is the linear relationship to wheelbase and turning radius, ignoring the easier maneuverability/easy to manual nature of a bike with a shorter back end and belittling any rider opinion, because it's anecdotal.
    It's you that's ignoring that linear relationship because (a) it's a fact, and (b) it disproves your position. The easier "manual nature" of the bike is a different subject, and I won't let you change the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    By your mentality, none of that matters, ...
    I do not have that mentality, you just wish to represent me that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The simple fact of the matter is that I can tell the difference between two of the bikes that I currently own. It is a very real difference, and just because you don't care to believe that doesn't make it any less true.
    That has nothing to do with your claim that small CS length differences result in dramatic differences in maneuverability. You are welcome to offer your retraction on that statement; I'm not interested in your other b*llsh*t.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Please tell me where I'm manipulating points. I'm simply trying to find out how big of a change in geometry are us feeble minded riders supposed to notice.
    Have done so repeatedly. It's funny that someone so eager to tell the feebleminded how it is should say something like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Care to support any of your previous statements, or is this just more diarrhea of the keyboard coming from your end?
    What more do you need? It's clear you are neither able nor interested in learning here.

  83. #83
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,187
    I guess this goes to show you that whether the chain stays on a bike are long or short, people can still be @ssholes
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  84. #84
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489

    For those who are interested

    There is a lot of science in determining the "just noticeable difference" in all areas of human perception (commercially, this is a great way to, say, make your candy bars just enough smaller that you spend less on ingredients, but customers don't notice). I doubt anyone has done this with bikes, but for most stimuli, humans are pretty bad at judging differences in magnitude (regardless of sense) of <10%.

    If you have a lot of expertise with something (say, you're the QC guy who picks up and weighs each candy bar and you've done it 10,000 times) you can get quite a bit better at it, but off the top of my head I'd say that most people are not "expert" to the point that they'll notice a 10mm difference (or more) in most bike dimensions (I include myself in that category, btw, so don't get offended).

    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)

    That said, the fact that you can't *feel* the difference between 420 and 435mm chainstays does NOT mean you are wrong to prefer the shorter ones. That would be akin to saying that the smaller candy bar is just as good as the bigger one - it's not, even if you can't quickly tell the difference by look or feel.

    Some benefits/drawbacks of shorter chainstays are indisputable - with an infinitely long chainstay, you'd never be able to lift the front wheel, for example. A chainstay length of zero, on the other hand, would make it impossible to keep the front end down on almost any climb. I could go on and on but the bottom line is that picking shorter (because you're short, or you want to be able to wheelie just a little easier, or whatever) chainstays isn't wrong, even if the differences you think you notice are mostly in your head.

    -Walt

  85. #85
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166

    you're all conducting a case study, but ignore all your findings

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Your experiments are all blind, I assume, to preclude the very powerful and well documented effects of confirmation bias. Right?
    As I'm sure you know, blind and double blind testing, particularly when human interpretation is involved, is a crucial component of experimental protocol for a reason. Without it, most results are considered worthless.
    Nobody can make an argument against what you think you feel/see/hear. Getting defensive if questioned is a typical response. That's why these discussions usually dont go anywhere.
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.
    I generally agree with you. You deleted this portion of my post: "Its true that [OneBadWagon and I] can't prove we're not fooling ourselves." And it's because one rider's experience is not conclusive that I read/post in threads like this one. I want to read other people's experiences like those by OneBadWagon, Lynx and Leel. Yes, Lynx may be deluding myself, but until I see blind data of seasoned riders, I'll consider his and others' experiences. A collection of testimonies, while still not journal-ready data, is more reliable than a sample size of one.

    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others. The data must derive directly from the ride itself, not selective math calculations. Would a bike journalist reviewing a frame analyze the frame's geo and carbon layup and not bother to build and ride it? A 1% delta may sound insignficant, but I would need to add 4.4" to my chainstay to increase the WB by 10%. And if tonight I somehow alter my bike to have 22" stays, I'm not going to sit around caculating the WB delta. I'll go ride the thing!

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Oh, and you also changed the fit of your Niner in that experiment. Of course, that has no effect on your results.
    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced. And any single change causes multiple variables.Solution? Ride it!

  86. #86
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are.
    Yes, it's a fact. I just think its not very useful - especially when you can conduct the experiment.. I don't see how you can take a number on a page and become convinced what a rider is or should be experiencing. What does a 2% delta feel like? 3%? How do you make that leap, that nexus? It seems like you're just shrugging, and saying, "looks small to me; person X is obviously delusional."
    Last edited by Ryder1; 05-18-2012 at 03:06 PM. Reason: screwed up the quote

  87. #87
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I generally agree with you. You deleted this portion of my post: "Its true that [OneBadWagon and I] can't prove we're not fooling ourselves." And it's because one rider's experience is not conclusive that I read/post in threads like this one. I want to read other people's experiences like those by OneBadWagon, Lynx and Leel. Yes, Lynx may be deluding myself, but until I see blind data of seasoned riders, I'll consider his and others' experiences. A collection of testimonies, while still not journal-ready data, is more reliable than a sample size of one.

    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others. The data must derive directly from the ride itself, not selective math calculations. Would a bike journalist reviewing a frame analyze the frame's geo and carbon layup and not bother to build and ride it? A 1% delta may sound insignficant, but I would need to add 4.4" to my chainstay to increase the WB by 10%. And if tonight I somehow alter my bike to have 22" stays, I'm not going to sit around caculating the WB delta. I'll go ride the thing!

    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced. And any single change causes multiple variables.Solution? Ride it!
    I think a safe assumption is that everyone here rides mountain bikes. "Ride it!" is not a novel concept. There is no "math in a vaccum." We all ride bikes. Some of us also think analytically. We talk about bikes in analytical terms because we like both of those things. It doesn't mean I'm sitting in a lab somewhere poking a bike with forceps. I'm sitting at my desk in a kit cooling off from my early afternoon ride.
    I myself mostly ride singlespeed with sliders, so I have a pretty solid base of comparative riding on differing chainstay lengths.
    I don't quote all of every post I respond to... just the parts I'm responding to... for clarity.
    Most people here seem to respond better to stuff like, "flickability was way high, bro" than any type of quantitative look at things. The thing is, "flickability" doesn't mean anything... or at least it doesn't mean anything that I can understand when two different people use it.
    The irony in the whole thing is... I (almost) only ever talk about bikes analytically here on mtbr... which is where people inevitably say, "go ride your bike." Well... I just got back.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  88. #88
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others.
    This didn't happen, of course. The claim made was that a 1/2" difference in wheelbase made a "dramatic" difference in turning ability. Pointing out that a 1/2" amounts to 1% is in no way "math in a vacuum". It is exactly the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    A 1% delta may sound insignficant...
    And it is...with respect to the subject at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced.
    This was your failure, not mine. I did not introduce additional variables nor change the subject as you did. In fact, I resisted those things...and for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    I just think its not very useful - especially when you can conduct the experiment..
    It is incredibly useful and there would be no experiment that would shed more light on the subject. Experiments aren't needed for everything, that's why we have educations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    I don't see how you can take a number on a page and become convinced what a rider is or should be experiencing.
    Because I think logically and am familiar with the concept of "just noticeable differences" that Walt referred to earlier. A change of this nature as small as 1% would not be noticeable without some means of discriminating. Just because there are people who don't understand this on MTBR doesn't mean it can't be understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    What does a 2% delta feel like? 3%? How do you make that leap, that nexus? It seems like you're just shrugging, and saying, "looks small to me; person X is obviously delusional.
    Start here. There is a science to this and not everyone is ignorant of it.

    Just to be doubly clear, I never said that riders couldn't tell the difference in CS length. I have taken no position on that. I said that riders couldn't notice a 1% difference in wheelbase in regard to turning ability. People love to talk about CS length and it's effect on turning, most of which is ridiculous. CS length affects the behavior of the bike when out of the saddle, it's effect on turning is grossly overblown.

  89. #89
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    I think a safe assumption is that everyone here rides mountain bikes. "Ride it!" is not a novel concept. There is no "math in a vaccum." We all ride bikes. Some of us also think analytically. We talk about bikes in analytical terms because we like both of those things. It doesn't mean I'm sitting in a lab somewhere poking a bike with forceps. I'm sitting at my desk in a kit cooling off from my early afternoon ride.
    I myself mostly ride singlespeed with sliders, so I have a pretty solid base of comparative riding on differing chainstay lengths.
    I don't quote all of every post I respond to... just the parts I'm responding to... for clarity.
    Most people here seem to respond better to stuff like, "flickability was way high, bro" than any type of quantitative look at things. The thing is, "flickability" doesn't mean anything... or at least it doesn't mean anything that I can understand when two different people use it.
    The irony in the whole thing is... I (almost) only ever talk about bikes analytically here on mtbr... which is where people inevitably say, "go ride your bike." Well... I just got back.
    I'm not saying, "just ride." I'm saying "ride AND analyze". My criticism is of the "analyze and don't ride" camp (not that you're part of that camp - I was simply continuing my thought).

  90. #90
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My criticism is of the "analyze and don't ride" camp (not that you're part of that camp - I was simply continuing my thought).
    Your ongoing personal attacks are tiresome. I know that one and one makes two and I don't need an experiment each time I need that answer. If you need an experiment to understand that, by all means do it but don't come here afterward claiming the answer is three. The answer is what it is whether you realize it or not.

    When you try a new bike, do you try every size in order to know what you like best, or do you rely on your personal fit experience? Does using your experience put you in the "analyze and don't ride" camp? Do you start over again every time you make a purchase? If you like a 100mm stem, do you try every stem length again when you switch models? How could you know without an experiment?

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoshM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    547
    This whole thread sucks a bunch of e-dick.

    Who let you guys on the internet anyways?

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,155
    I just went from 18.3" chainstays to 17.3", with an increase of 1" in the top tube, with a 72-69.5 HA. Bike felt more sprightly and eager to change direction than the one before. I can't believe how much the handling improved...or maybe I just can't believe how bad the handling was on the old bike.

  93. #93
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166

    asking the same question twice

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The claim made was that a 1/2" difference in wheelbase made a "dramatic" difference in turning ability.
    Perhaps you two (and I) don't disagree all that much. If OBW narrowed his claim and said that shortening a bike's CS by .5" (and therefore its WB by .5") causes a dramatic change in tight stuff, would you say his claim was necessarily false?

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Just to be doubly clear, I never said that riders couldn't tell the difference in CS length. I have taken no position on that. I said that riders couldn't notice a 1% difference in wheelbase in regard to turning ability.
    Still not clear to me. I don't see how you can be entirely agnostic towards CS length while making a universal (?) statement about WB. Question: Are you saying that your statement holds true even in instances when the 1% comes soley from shortening the chainstay (e.g. sliding dropouts forward)?

  94. #94
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,696
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There is a lot of science in determining the "just noticeable difference" in all areas of human perception (commercially, this is a great way to, say, make your candy bars just enough smaller that you spend less on ingredients, but customers don't notice). I doubt anyone has done this with bikes, but for most stimuli, humans are pretty bad at judging differences in magnitude (regardless of sense) of <10%.

    If you have a lot of expertise with something (say, you're the QC guy who picks up and weighs each candy bar and you've done it 10,000 times) you can get quite a bit better at it, but off the top of my head I'd say that most people are not "expert" to the point that they'll notice a 10mm difference (or more) in most bike dimensions (I include myself in that category, btw, so don't get offended).

    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)

    That said, the fact that you can't *feel* the difference between 420 and 435mm chainstays does NOT mean you are wrong to prefer the shorter ones. That would be akin to saying that the smaller candy bar is just as good as the bigger one - it's not, even if you can't quickly tell the difference by look or feel.

    Some benefits/drawbacks of shorter chainstays are indisputable - with an infinitely long chainstay, you'd never be able to lift the front wheel, for example. A chainstay length of zero, on the other hand, would make it impossible to keep the front end down on almost any climb. I could go on and on but the bottom line is that picking shorter (because you're short, or you want to be able to wheelie just a little easier, or whatever) chainstays isn't wrong, even if the differences you think you notice are mostly in your head.

    -Walt
    That was the only sensible post that I could tolerate to read the entire post.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  95. #95
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Your ongoing personal attacks are tiresome.
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    When you try a new bike, do you try every size in order to know what you like best, or do you rely on your personal fit experience? Does using your experience put you in the "analyze and don't ride" camp? Do you start over again every time you make a purchase? If you like a 100mm stem, do you try every stem length again when you switch models? How could you know without an experiment?
    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.



    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.

    Don't mind craig, who has been blatantly attacking everything about my argument and me personally while failing to address my initial claim of a bike that was .5" shorter in BOTH WHEELBASE & CHAINSTAYS is quicker steering than a comparable bike with .5" longer wheelbase and chainstays. Since I must absolutely be making up my assertion that I can tell the difference, he's made no bones about attacking my intellect, because we disagree on something subjective.

    Craigsj, you're doing everything that you claim I'm doing in this thread, and you look like a chump because of it. There's no reason to continue posting here, as you've already made your mind up to the difference (or lack of) in handling between two of MY bikes.

  97. #97
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Perhaps you two (and I) don't disagree all that much. If OBW narrowed his claim and said that shortening a bike's CS by .5" (and therefore its WB by .5") causes a dramatic change in tight stuff, would you say his claim was necessarily false?
    He has said exactly that and I already responded. I say it is not dramatic and generally not even noticeable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Still not clear to me. I don't see how you can be entirely agnostic towards CS length while making a universal (?) statement about WB. Question: Are you saying that your statement holds true even in instances when the 1% comes soley from shortening the chainstay (e.g. sliding dropouts forward)?
    CS length defines the relationship between the BB and the rear axle. It only affects WB if you assume the front-center stays the same. It would be equally valid to assume that altering CS length changes the front-center because WB stays the same. People don't typically think like that but I do. With interdependent dimensions, you can't change one thing without changing another; you need to understand what effects are attributable to what.

    CS length has no influence on steering. Wheelbase and steering geometry do. CS length can change body position and body position can influence the perception of steering. There is a difference between how a bike turns and how you perceive it. I liken that the the difference between the front and rear seat of a roller coaster. You may like the feel of being further back on the bike, but you can move further back on a bike with longer stays, too. People can be very close-minded when it comes to fit. Once you stand, though, your seated fit becomes irrelevant.

    I am not agnostic regarding CS length, I just haven't expressed opinions here regarding standing handling. Standing vs. sitting is at the heart of the issue, not wheelbase and turning radius.

  98. #98
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.
    You objectively summarized me as an "analyze and don't ride" person based on what? What did you hope to accomplish with that description and why did you think it so important to tell MF that he didn't fit that description so as not to offend him? It's hard in that context not to take that comment as a personal insult because that's precisely what it is. It is unfounded as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.
    So it should be easy to understand that the issue here is that you don't know why this is so easy to know without further experimentation.

    If developers took the "always start over from scratch" approach, we would never have progress in anything, bicycles or even the wheel. We build on past knowledge and achievements and do that through education. Some of us have that education and others do not. Forums make it appear that those groups are on equal footing, and people who lack basic knowledge often believe temper tantrums can get them their way.

  99. #99
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Don't mind craig, who has been blatantly attacking everything about my argument and me personally while failing to address my initial claim of a bike that was .5" shorter in BOTH WHEELBASE & CHAINSTAYS is quicker steering than a comparable bike with .5" longer wheelbase and chainstays.
    You cannot change one without the other unless you make another change. These changes are one in the same. They are interdependent measurements.

    Yes, I have been attacking your argument because it is delusional and you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Since I must absolutely be making up my assertion that I can tell the difference, he's made no bones about attacking my intellect, because we disagree on something subjective.
    The personal attacks start with you, you are absolutely making up your assertion, and this is not a subjective matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Craigsj, you're doing everything that you claim I'm doing in this thread, and you look like a chump because of it. There's no reason to continue posting here, as you've already made your mind up to the difference (or lack of) in handling between two of MY bikes.
    Yes, this is called "tit-for-tat". Look it up. Everything you do to me comes back at you and will continue. You will never dominate an argument with me by being a bigger a-hole. I can play your game too. As for looking like a "chump", look who's talking. At least I know what I'm talking about and I couldn't care less about your bikes.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You cannot change one without the other unless you make another change. These changes are one in the same. They are interdependent measurements.
    Of course they are interdependent, when talking about two different frames with comparable specs otherwise. However when you have two frames that are virtually identical, with the most notable difference being a half inch off of the CS length, thus a half inch off of the wheelbase, it's a bit easier to compare. How ****ing hard is it for you to understand that?

  101. #101
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,698

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)
    -Walt
    Thanks Walt. That was educational
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  102. #102
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,739
    I ride different bikes all the time. This year I have put at least 20 hours of mountain biking on 8 different bikes. I never measure the geometry before I ride a bike, I don't want any pre-concevied notions about the bike influencing how I ride it.

    I can't believe how often I am completely wrong about the geometry. A bike which I think has short chain-stays actually has long chain stays or the other way round. There are so many variables on a bike that it is extremely hard to pin-point the exact cause of a particular handing trait.
    "The best pace is suicide pace, and today is a good day to die." Steve Prefontaine

  103. #103
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Of course they are interdependent, when talking about two different frames with comparable specs otherwise. However when you have two frames that are virtually identical, with the most notable difference being a half inch off of the CS length, thus a half inch off of the wheelbase, it's a bit easier to compare. How ****ing hard is it for you to understand that?
    How ****ing hard is it for you to understand that one change doesn't amount to two? I am not ignoring that you made changes to both CS length and wheelbase because they are the SAME CHANGE.

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Keep waving your little flag. I don't need validation from you when I have the bikes in my garage. If someone changes the CS length via EBB, you don't want to talk about it, and if the change is as a result of two different frames, then it's inconceivable that it could be felt. Get bent, chief.

  105. #105
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Keep waving your little flag. I don't need validation from you when I have the bikes in my garage. If someone changes the CS length via EBB, you don't want to talk about it, and if the change is as a result of two different frames, then it's inconceivable that it could be felt. Get bent, chief.
    Another example of you putting words in my mouth. You are desperate to find something to argue over that you could win.

    It would be easy to talk about changing CS length via EBB but that's not the subject. The subject isn't two different frames, either, it's about minuscule differences in wheelbase. You made a comment about the influence wheelbase on turning ability. No need to change the subject.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    The thread was about long vs short chainstays. I stated that I'll gladly take a reduction in chainstay length with the added benefit of a reduced wheelbase. Stephen Hawking over here is too busy stroking his keyboard to understand that subtle differences are still differences, and can sometimes be felt. In this case, the difference was notable.

    A different poster mentioned the EBB, and you didn't care to discuss it.

  107. #107
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The thread was about long vs short chainstays. I stated that I'll gladly take a reduction in chainstay length with the added benefit of a reduced wheelbase. Stephen Hawking over here is too busy stroking his keyboard to understand that subtle differences are still differences, and can sometimes be felt. In this case, the difference was notable.
    No, you said the difference was "dramatic" and you said the dramatic difference was in the context of maneuverability. These statements were specific and provably untrue. No amount of posturing or douchiness is going to get you your way, and neither will changing the subject or rewriting history.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    A different poster mentioned the EBB, and you didn't care to discuss it.
    And why is that a problem for you? Do you feel entitled to have your opinions go unchallenged?

    Frankly, I always use the example of EBB when discussing changes in CS length since that method leaves WB unchanged. It drives home the point the CS length itself doesn't influence turning. Most people, like you, associate CS length with changes in wheelbase, and then let their imaginations run wild with how profound those differences must be.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No, you said the difference was "dramatic" and you said the dramatic difference was in the context of maneuverability. These statements were specific and provably untrue. No amount of posturing or douchiness is going to get you your way, and neither will changing the subject or rewriting history.
    Where did I say that .5" was dramatic? I said that wheelbase has a dramatic effect, and that even .5" made tight swtichbacks notably easier. You're so busy being on the war path that you can't even slow down and read what I've written, and you're so busy stomping your feet that you don't care to be civil about it.

  109. #109
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You're so busy being on the war path that you can't even slow down and read what I've written, and you're so busy stomping your feet that you don't care to be civil about it.
    Funny how often you describe yourself when describing others. They call this projection. You are a master.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Where did I say that .5" was dramatic? I said that wheelbase has a dramatic effect, and that even .5" made tight swtichbacks notably easier.
    You said it in post 53. I quoted it in post 54. You can now pretend that "dramatic" was referring to the specific example you gave, but neither I nor anyone else will be buying it.

    The standard of "just noticeable difference" is 5%. Assuming that, a wheelbase change of 50-60mm would be needed for typical 29er sizes. That's not the standard for "dramatic", it would be the standard for just noticeable. Who knows what your definition of notable is.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Funny how often you describe yourself when describing others. They call this projection. You are a master.


    You said it in post 53. I quoted it in post 54. You can now pretend that "dramatic" was referring to the specific example you gave, but neither I nor anyone else will be buying it.

    The standard of "just noticeable difference" is 5%. Assuming that, a wheelbase change of 50-60mm would be needed for typical 29er sizes. That's not the standard for "dramatic", it would be the standard for just noticeable. Who knows what your definition of notable is.
    I didn't say that .5" was dramatic. I have openly addressed any of your statements, and you have parroted your same point over and over. Keep your cloudy glasses on and keep patting yourself on the back.

  111. #111
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,447

    Chainstay length...

    ...can make a big difference and this is why:

    First; yes I agree that on paper 1/2" is statistically insignificant when compared to the wheelbase. And only 3% compared to the CS itself. Riding around a level parking lot it would be hard to tell the difference.

    Now consider the whole system; bike and rider, starting up a progressively steeper incline---look (using your imagination!) at the distance of the combined mass of the bike and rider vs where the rear wheel contacts the ground. The location of this combined mass (Center of Gravity) will be in the vicinity of the nose of the saddle (just a ballpark because this will obviously will vary with bike/rider); notice that this CG is quite a ways vertical from the ground and probably behind the BB.

    At first there is not much change but as the slope gets steeper the CG moves aft relative to the tire's contact patch; at some point becoming critical such that the rider can no longer remain seated and keep the front wheel on the ground.

    Near this critical point a 1/2" change in CS length can make a 100% difference in whether or not the front wheel stays on the ground! (And when the rider has to get out of the saddle to keep things under control) Pretty important when maneuvering uphill!

    Yeah, yeah rider position is set by stem, handlebars, seatpost, seat rails, etc but these are adjustable, CS length (or range of length in the case of EBB or sliders) is something built into the bike so it's nice for the rider to get a frame with the CS length being at the "sweet spot" for their riding style.

    Why demo rides are such a good idea.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  112. #112
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    Yeah, yeah rider position is set by stem, handlebars, seatpost, seat rails, etc but these are adjustable, CS length (or range of length in the case of EBB or sliders) is something built into the bike so it's nice for the rider to get a frame with the CS length being at the "sweet spot" for their riding style.
    CG is determined overwhelmingly by the rider position. Small changes in CS length do not affect rider position except while standing.

  113. #113
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166

    instant replay

    OBW's post #53 unedited.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    But you're making the comparison far more convoluted than it needs to be. I have a Performance Access that handles like absolute butt. The only real difference between it and a ton of other frames is that the Chainstays are almost 18" long, and the wheel base is right at 45". You get that thing in the trees and it's painful. I've ridden a billion other frames and you absolutely can find commonalities based on geometry specifics. So no, every short chainstay bike isn't fun to ride, just like every bike with long chainstays isn't a school bus. However, wheelbase is wheelbase, and when things get tight, it definitely has a dramatic effect. Even riding either of my bikes that are only .5" shorter feel notably easier to make tight switchbacks.

    If I was riding a medium, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

    Let me also add that the Prime looks like a lot of fun.

  114. #114
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The standard of "just noticeable difference" is 5%. Assuming that, a wheelbase change of 50-60mm would be needed for typical 29er sizes.
    This is what I was asking for earlier - the math you were basing your position on. What I'd prefer to see is a test of riders attempting various switchbacks on bikes with sliders where the slider is moved back and forth to create a .5" delta in CS (and not changing the front-center). That kind of test would have problems but I'd still much prefer it to relying on a standard 5% JND. Using the test results, you could turn cs delta into a predictive variable and consider the likely truthfulness of OBW's claim that a decrease of .5" cs makes switchbacks noticeably easier for him.

  115. #115
    Trail Junkie
    Reputation: dubdryver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,204
    I know that a lot of this debate is over how small of a margin can be felt or perceived in changes of chainstay length, but when I even pull my sliders back only to take up chain slack from chain stretch, I can feel it. Its subtle, and after riding it for 10-15min I adapt, but fully realize it when I then remove a link and move the rear axle further forward.

    Where this the biggest difference is the placement of the rear tire where it bites the ground around turns, on berms and especially when placing the rear wheel in specific places for a smooth line around corners.

    It is quite easy to say "this is not felt, and the feeling is just your imagination" but I think someone who does spend a lot of time on their bike can pick up these subtle differences.

    I also feel steering precision is subtlety affected as you have to make adjustments in how you approach turns to compensate for a longer chainstay.

    I feel EBB is and isn't relevant in this since your wheelbase is still fixed, but where it does change is your overall sitting geometry which can change your stance on the bike. This was the biggest downfall for me. Making adjustments to chain stretch meant changing to a new cockpit geometry, and in the worst cases caused some knee problems if the BB location was too far out of tolerance.

    I also don't like when the stays are too short. It seems like it takes away some stability and speed, but adds grip and steering quickness.
    Ibis Ripley LS
    Santa Cruz Chameleon SS
    Cervelo S2
    Trek Boone 5 Disc (Gravel)
    GT Piece Tour (Gravel)

  116. #116
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    I don't base my decisions on what bike to ride on chainstay lengths (nor ETT, nor seat tube length, nor maybe even seat angle), unless they're more than 1" (or a few degrees) out of the zone I like. I tend to be more sold on things that can't be quantified easily, such as fit, weight balance/distribution, rider positioning, comfort, confidence, stability, fun factor, nimbleness, flight characteristics, etc. I've been proven wrong by bikes with geo that didn't seem agreeable, but rode far beyond my expectations. People may say you don't notice the change in bike feel with maybe a 10-20mm difference in dimensions, but I personally find 20mm to be a very significant difference in feel, and I'm betting I'd possibly feel a 10mm difference--actually the "5% rule" sounds about right.

    I've personally become increasingly fond of well balanced, neutral feeling bikes. It's like holding a kitchen knife or maybe a weed whacker (or firearm or other sporting equipment); the well balanced ones feel comfortable when handled. They come in all sorts of sizes, but no matter what, the balance seems to be the key to comfort, while other features tend to take the spotlight. There's other tools more specialized purposes, like the butcher's knife or the mattock, which are designed to do their job easier, and I relate those to the bikes that market things like short chainstays. They typically have personality and excel at specific tasks. You may say you want a bike that does better on downs, yet can still climb, but I prefer the jack of all trades, master of none kind of bike, due to the trails I choose to ride varying so much, since I have a long list of trails that I want to explore, within a 60 mile radius of my home. It's more up to the trails you ride and the way you want to ride them. I sometimes take the neutral and balanced feeling for granted until I find something a with more personality to do terrible in some situation, needing to compensate with technique. Shout out to Trek, for seemingly designing many of their high end bikes with virtually perfect balance; I don't own one and have never owned one, but every one I've ridden had that feel.

    I personally find that longer stays (17.5" or so) climb in the saddle with less effort and more comfort. Too short and the front end comes up and traction seems worse in the saddle, especially on a bike with more rearward weight bias. Some might think that's illogical, but I always find myself trying harder to get my weight forward on climbs on such bikes, needing to maintain a fairly uncomfortable position on the tip of my saddle and hunched forward, both to keep the the front wheel on the ground and to get more weight directly over the rear tire contact patch and less on the saddle, which seems to direct the weight behind the rear axle and rotate the bike back. This is conjecture, but I imagine short chainstays helping with out of the saddle traction, since it seems the weight tends to be centered at the BB and having it shorter puts more weight on the rear tire, but that probably doesn't help too much with spinning out from heavy mashing. Longer chainstays also typically means more room for crank and tire options, more stability due to the longer wheelbase, but wider turning radius, which I don't mind too much, since you're limited by tire traction anyways. Short stays seems appealing to me for the BMX, DJ, and freestyle type of riding I want to include in my repertoire, but the last bike I had with stays shorter than 16.9" (which I think is the shortest I'd like for a general all around trail bike), was a hardtail I rode back in the 90s, which I definitely don't miss.
    Last edited by Varaxis; 05-20-2012 at 12:54 AM.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    182
    I don't really care about the chainstay argument one way or another, and in general I am pretty poor at noticing differences... However, something about this JND business in this thread is bothering me.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The standard of "just noticeable difference" is 5%. Assuming that, a wheelbase change of 50-60mm would be needed for typical 29er sizes.
    A measurement on a bike frame is not necessarily something that is directly evaluated by the rider, hence I don't believe you can blindly apply this '5% standard' to any measurement you feel like. It is not as if you're getting on the bike and looking down to evaluate the chainstay length, or reaching down to feel the length... As an absurd example, take HTA - 5% of 70º is 3.5º, so that suggests the difference between 70º and 66.5º is barely noticeable?? If HTA was measured from vertical instead of horizontal, would that change the magnitude of a JND? Of course not. All it really means is that HTA is NOT an absolute or direct measure of the effect on the riding experience. Likewise, neither is CS length or WB. Each measurement on a bike is going to have a different JND threshold.

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaster1200 View Post
    That was the only sensible post that I could tolerate to read the entire post.
    lol me too

  119. #119
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    A measurement on a bike frame is not necessarily something that is directly evaluated by the rider, hence I don't believe you can blindly apply this '5% standard' to any measurement you feel like. It is not as if you're getting on the bike and looking down to evaluate the chainstay length, or reaching down to feel the length...
    Wheelbase, and it's effect on turning, is as "directly evaluate"-able as any measurement and JND in that instance is applied in precisely the manner that JND is always applied. It is not "blind" nor does that have any real meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    As an absurd example, take HTA - 5% of 70º is 3.5º, so that suggests the difference between 70º and 66.5º is barely noticeable?? If HTA was measured from vertical instead of horizontal, would that change the magnitude of a JND? Of course not. All it really means is that HTA is NOT an absolute or direct measure of the effect on the riding experience.
    Yes, so why did you bring it up? This would be an failure of an attempt to apply JND.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    It is not as if you're getting on the bike and looking down to evaluate the chainstay length, or reaching down to feel the length...
    Likewise, neither is CS length or WB. Each measurement on a bike is going to have a different JND threshold.
    No, not likewise at all. If each "measurement" would have a different threshold, JND would be nearly useless. The problem in your example is that you've applied percentages to polar coordinates, not that percentages don't work at all.

    An example of not "directly evaliuate"-able would be CS length's effect on turning. Applying JND to CS length in this context would be invalid. You have to calculate the difference correctly which in the case of wheelbase I did.

  120. #120
    banned
    Reputation: Spinning Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,435
    I say we takes sides and vote! I cast a vote for OneBadWagon.

    I can absolutely tell a dramatic difference on my SS with the sliders a 1/2 shorter. In fact can even tell if it is a 1/4 inch shorter (not as dramatic though, that was for craigsj) Do not want him to get a run down his leg.

  121. #121
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinning Lizard View Post
    In fact can even tell if it is a 1/4 inch shorter (not as dramatic though, that was for craigsj) Do not want him to get a run down his leg.
    You express an opinion like that and think it concerns me? I'd have to respect it first.

    By all means, though, put it up for a vote. We all know how democracy determines facts. The thing about average intelligence is that half the people are dumber by definition, so please, Spinning Lizard, tell us which side you are on.

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    271
    So when is a chainstay long and when is it short?
    I have looked at the geometry a few bikes. GT Zaskar 9er, Scott 29er, Giant 29er and Santa cruz Highball.
    And they all ended up with chainsay lenghts of 17.2-17.5 inches.

  123. #123
    banned
    Reputation: Spinning Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You express an opinion like that and think it concerns me? I'd have to respect it first.

    By all means, though, put it up for a vote. We all know how democracy determines facts. The thing about average intelligence is that half the people are dumber by definition, so please, Spinning Lizard, tell us which side you are on.
    Thought it was obvious, guess it is not your strong suit.

    And you do seem pretty concerned over it will as many posts you have in this thread.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by supersleeper View Post
    So when is a chainstay long and when is it short?
    I have looked at the geometry a few bikes. GT Zaskar 9er, Scott 29er, Giant 29er and Santa cruz Highball.
    And they all ended up with chainsay lenghts of 17.2-17.5 inches.
    The shortest production frames are ~16.3" and the longest are over 18"

  125. #125
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinning Lizard View Post
    Thought it was obvious, guess it is not your strong suit.

    And you do seem pretty concerned over it will as many posts you have in this thread.
    It's called tit-for-tat as I've explained before. Not that I expect you to read, of course.

  126. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Wheelbase, and it's effect on turning, is as "directly evaluate"-able as any measurement and JND in that instance is applied in precisely the manner that JND is always applied. It is not "blind" nor does that have any real meaning.
    Says who? Where does your 5% number come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yes, so why did you bring it up? This would be an failure of an attempt to apply JND.
    That is exactly why I brought it up. You're coming in here spouting off about science and giving people the impression that there is this 5% rule that applies universally. Maybe that is not what you intend, but that's what it sounds like.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No, not likewise at all. If each "measurement" would have a different threshold, JND would be nearly useless. The problem in your example is that you've applied percentages to polar coordinates, not that percentages don't work at all.
    I don't contend that percentages don't work at all. From one of the links posted above "Weber's Law can be applied to variety of sensory modalities (brightness, loudness, mass, line length, etc.). The size of the Weber fraction varies across modalities but in most cases tends to be a constant within a specific task modality." Hence, your 5% number may be valid as a very broad generalization, but the JND does vary depending on what exactly it is you are testing. You could take any dimension of a bike frame and test to determine the JND. They'll all turn out different, because they all have a different relationship to what the rider senses. You could actually do this for HTA, but you'll get a very different number than 5%.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    An example of not "directly evaliuate"-able would be CS length's effect on turning. Applying JND to CS length in this context would be invalid. You have to calculate the difference correctly which in the case of wheelbase I did.
    I will agree with you in that WB is more directly related to what the rider feels in terms of cornering, and hence may conform closer to your 5% number. There is no reason whatsoever why you couldn't determine a JND for CS length changes on their own, either holding WB constant or including the effect of the CS length change on WB.

  127. #127
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    Says who? Where does your 5% number come from?
    ...
    That is exactly why I brought it up. You're coming in here spouting off about science and giving people the impression that there is this 5% rule that applies universally. Maybe that is not what you intend, but that's what it sounds like.
    You've obviously not read enough about JND, yet you offer a hugely flawed application as an example for what's the matter with it. Just because you are ignorant of the subject doesn't mean everyone else is. Don't know how I've come here "spouting off" when I wasn't even the one who brought it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    I don't contend that percentages don't work at all. From one of the links posted above "Weber's Law can be applied to variety of sensory modalities (brightness, loudness, mass, line length, etc.). The size of the Weber fraction varies across modalities but in most cases tends to be a constant within a specific task modality." Hence, your 5% number may be valid as a very broad generalization, but the JND does vary depending on what exactly it is you are testing. You could take any dimension of a bike frame and test to determine the JND. They'll all turn out different, because they all have a different relationship to what the rider senses. You could actually do this for HTA, but you'll get a very different number than 5%.
    No, the article said "sensory modalities". That doesn't mean what you are sensing, it means how you are sensing it. You would be sensing all the various dimensional differences the same way, they would not "turn out different". You should try to understand this before commenting.

    Perhaps you should reviews some studies where JND is applied. You'll find it remarkably consistent for most modalities. That's why it is useful and has been since before we were born. That pesky science...

    As for applying JND to angles, I've already told you that this is wrong. Think about that some more. JND's are fractions, when applying them to angles consider the maximum range of the denominator. Convert the effects of HTA changes to the relevant linear dimensions before applying JND; you'll find 2-3 degrees means far more than 5%. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    I will agree with you in that WB is more directly related to what the rider feels in terms of cornering, and hence may conform closer to your 5% number. There is no reason whatsoever why you couldn't determine a JND for CS length changes on their own, either holding WB constant or including the effect of the CS length change on WB.
    The entire point here is the effect of WB on turning so if you aren't contesting that then you are arguing just to argue. My 5% number is a commonly accepted value for most "sensory modalities", it is not a hard number. JND's are statistically based, they are not black and white.

    Regarding applying JND to CS length, you could do that by holding wheelbase constant, but it matters WHAT you are noticing. CS length has no effect on turning radius on its own. If you aren't talking turning radius then you are changing the subject.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You've obviously not read enough about JND, yet you offer a hugely flawed application as an example for what's the matter with it.
    No, actually I'm not saying there's anything the matter with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No, the article said "sensory modalities". That doesn't mean what you are sensing, it means how you are sensing it. You would be sensing all the various dimensional differences the same way, they would not "turn out different".
    Disagree. There is no 'dimension sense'. In order to sense the length of an object (or perceive a change in length), the length of the object has to stimulate the senses in some way. In the context of riding a bike, yes, all of the various dimensions are sensed in the same way in that they mainly influence forces exerted on the body and hence the sense of touch. The relationship between the dimension in question and the sensory modality in question will influence what the noticeable difference is in the dimension. You know this is true, because you've pointed out several times that in terms of turning WB is the important dimension, and CS length is only related to turning through its contribution to WB.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    As for applying JND to angles, I've already told you that this is wrong. Think about that some more. JND's are fractions, when applying them to angles consider the maximum range of the denominator. Convert the effects of HTA changes to the relevant linear dimensions before applying JND; you'll find 2-3 degrees means far more than 5%. Garbage in, garbage out.
    You are right, but that was sort of my point. You can measure a bike in any fashion you choose, but the measurements that will match best with 'standard' JNDs are the ones which directly determine the forces applied to the body. That said, there is no reason that you can't take ANY measurement you like, do the testing, and establish a threshold for a noticeable difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The entire point here is the effect of WB on turning so if you aren't contesting that then you are arguing just to argue.
    I agree that WB is the correct measurement to be considering for turning, yes. I think 5% is plausible for JND in cornering for WB changes. So perhaps that means I am arguing for the sake of arguing.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    My 5% number is a commonly accepted value for most "sensory modalities", it is not a hard number. JND's are statistically based, they are not black and white.

    Regarding applying JND to CS length, you could do that by holding wheelbase constant, but it matters WHAT you are noticing. CS length has no effect on turning radius on its own. If you aren't talking turning radius then you are changing the subject.
    Thank you. This last part is precisely what I was trying to get across - I suspect we actually agree on more that we disagree on here... At least if you'd stop reading the wrong things into what I say!

  129. #129
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    There is no 'dimension sense'. In order to sense the length of an object (or perceive a change in length), the length of the object has to stimulate the senses in some way. In the context of riding a bike, yes, all of the various dimensions are sensed in the same way in that they mainly influence forces exerted on the body and hence the sense of touch. The relationship between the dimension in question and the sensory modality in question will influence what the noticeable difference is in the dimension. You know this is true, because you've pointed out several times that in terms of turning WB is the important dimension, and CS length is only related to turning through its contribution to WB.
    Sorry, but this is all jibberish.

    You aren't trying to sense length, you are trying to sense a specific effect. I didn't choose that effect, either, OneBandWagon did. If you have any reason to believe that a rider's ability it to sense turning radius is unusual then let's hear it. If we were studying it, then we would need to determine what that threshold was. Otherwise we apply what history tells us is appropriate, and history says that 1% differences are an order of magnitude too small to matter. This isn't about what that number is precisely, it's about certain riders' imaginations and dishonesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    You are right, but that was sort of my point. You can measure a bike in any fashion you choose, but the measurements that will match best with 'standard' JNDs are the ones which directly determine the forces applied to the body. That said, there is no reason that you can't take ANY measurement you like, do the testing, and establish a threshold for a noticeable difference.
    No reason why you can' but reasons why you shouldn't. Math is the language of science; don't invent your own vocabulary.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    I agree that WB is the correct measurement to be considering for turning, yes. I think 5% is plausible for JND in cornering for WB changes. So perhaps that means I am arguing for the sake of arguing.

    Thank you. This last part is precisely what I was trying to get across - I suspect we actually agree on more that we disagree on here... At least if you'd stop reading the wrong things into what I say!
    Fascinating. You flawed examples and bogus objections are now somehow my fault. MTBR never disappoints.

  130. #130
    CP
    Reputation: C.P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    198
    My head hurts...It appears all this back and forth assumes the front tire never leaves the ground surface. If that's how you roll, keep re-reading those posts.

    However, if you like a bike that's playful in nature, ya know, something that beckons to be ridden so the tires get air under 'em, a bike that is more intuitive to loft the front end for playful trail riding like manuals, lofting off kickers, wheelies, drops, jumps, log hops etc you'll find that most riders who identify with this riding as their "typical" riding style will usually gravitate toward shorter stays. YMMV.

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You aren't trying to sense length, you are trying to sense a specific effect.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    If you have any reason to believe that a rider's ability it to sense turning radius is unusual then let's hear it.
    Nope. But how do you sense it, and how does that relate to the frame dimensions?
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    If we were studying it, then we would need to determine what that threshold was.
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Otherwise we apply what history tells us is appropriate, and history says that 1% differences are an order of magnitude too small to matter.
    1% differences in what? Unless you are certain there is a linear relationship between the dimension in question and the effect on the senses of the rider, you may be wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    This isn't about what that number is precisely
    Excellent!
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No reason why you can' but reasons why you shouldn't. Math is the language of science; don't invent your own vocabulary.
    Talk about jibberish!
    Describing the noticeable effects of changing bicycle geometry in terms of common measurements or means of adjustment is useful.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Fascinating. You flawed examples and bogus objections are now somehow my fault. MTBR never disappoints.
    No, actually, in my opinion your fault is that you are a condescending prick.

  132. #132
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    1% differences in what? Unless you are certain there is a linear relationship between the dimension in question and the effect on the senses of the rider, you may be wrong.
    1% JND values, you know, the subject we are talking about. This is very clear.

    I am certain there is a linear relationship between wheelbase and turning radius. Are you certain there is a linear relationship in your HTA example? Who is right and who is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    Talk about jibberish!
    Describing the noticeable effects of changing bicycle geometry in terms of common measurements or means of adjustment is useful.
    But miscalculating and misapplying JND concepts so as to cast doubt on their usefulness is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jduffett View Post
    No, actually, in my opinion your fault is that you are a condescending prick.
    That's what it's really about, isn't it?

    So to sum up, you accused me a "blindly" applying JND to the problem, came up with an example to discredit it, completely failed to understand or calculate that example appropriately, refused to admit your mistake, then recognized my application as correct and my assumptions as being reasonable, then claimed that everything I have been saying is "exactly" your point, then blamed me for "reading the wrong things" into what you say, and now call me a "condescending prick". You deserve condescension. Go learn something before coming here to teach it.

  133. #133
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,307
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    So to sum up, you accused me a "blindly" applying JND to the problem, came up with an example to discredit it, completely failed to understand or calculate that example appropriately, refused to admit your mistake, then recognized my application as correct and my assumptions as being reasonable, then claimed that everything I have been saying is "exactly" your point, then blamed me for "reading the wrong things" into what you say, and now call me a "condescending prick". You deserve condescension. Go learn something before coming here to teach it.
    That's a pretty good summary, I'd say, and a hilarious one to boot.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  134. #134
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    craigsj, is it your position that, given a ~44" bike, a wb difference of 1.5"/40mm or less is probably not noticeable in tight turns?

  135. #135
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    craigsj, is it your position that, given a ~44" bike, a wb difference of 1.5"/40mm or less is probably not noticeable in tight turns?
    No. It is a position you have chosen for me.

    There are two problems here. The first is who doing the "notice"-ing. There are likely some people that could notice 3.5% change but not many, so what may be "probably not noticeable" to a group may not be to an individual. Second, it's not clear what "in tight turns" means. The test would have to be properly blind.

    Here is a example of JND being applied to bicycle testing. Look at Table 1 where they have determined the thresholds of each of 7 riders. The variation in sensitivity is over 2x. If you assume that sensitivity to wheelbase is 5%, then is it likely that no one could detect 10mm but that some could detect 40mm. No doubt that's why your number was chosen.

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Adim_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    723

  137. #137
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    No. It is a position you have chosen for me.

    There are two problems here. The first is who doing the "notice"-ing. There are likely some people that could notice 3.5% change but not many, so what may be "probably not noticeable" to a group may not be to an individual. Second, it's not clear what "in tight turns" means. The test would have to be properly blind.

    Here is a example of JND being applied to bicycle testing. Look at Table 1 where they have determined the thresholds of each of 7 riders. The variation in sensitivity is over 2x. If you assume that sensitivity to wheelbase is 5%, then is it likely that no one could detect 10mm but that some could detect 40mm. No doubt that's why your number was chosen.
    If I'm not misunderstanding you, it's likely there are some who, compared to a 45” wheelbase bike, could notice a reduction of 1.5" from that bike’s wheelbase in "tight turns", but not many. And this would hold true even if the 1.5" reduction was the result of 1.5" taken from the front-center (same headtube angle, shorter effective top tube, extremely long stem, identical grip postion)?

  138. #138
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    If I'm not misunderstanding you, it's likely there are some who, compared to a 45” wheelbase bike, could notice a reduction of 1.5" from that bike’s wheelbase in "tight turns", but not many. And this would hold true even if the 1.5" reduction was the result of 1.5" taken from the front-center (same headtube angle, shorter effective top tube, extremely long stem, identical grip postion)?
    You have to be concerned if you are noticing a change of fit and perception rather than just turning itself. Assuming you've accounted for that, it's the wheelbase that matters, not the BB location.

  139. #139
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You have to be concerned if you are noticing a change of fit and perception rather than just turning itself. Assuming you've accounted for that, it's the wheelbase that matters, not the BB location.
    I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying the contact points (grips/BB/saddle) and rear wheel would remain the same in proportion to one another, but the front hub would be 1.5" closer to the rear hub due to a shorter top tube.

  140. #140
    craigsj
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying the contact points (grips/BB/saddle) and rear wheel would remain the same in proportion to one another, but the front hub would be 1.5" closer to the rear hub due to a shorter top tube.
    Is there a point? Wheelbase effects turning radius, BB location doesn't.

  141. #141
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,166

    loooooong stem

    Would it be noticeable if the bike's chainstay was increased 10" and the front-center was decreased 11.5"?

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    48

    Good job! chainstay length debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Would it be noticeable if the bike's chainstay was increased 10" and the front-center was decreased 11.5"?
    all youse guys need to man up and ride mtn. unicycles

    CS length be dammned!

    p.s.
    after chasing the short cs length for years on my brodies/konas/fishers I find the vassago bandersnatch refreshing

    end it all by getting a hopper (short cs)
    and a mule-r' (long cs)

    and....shut up cause they are all fun! THANKS!

    oh damn, just realized how old a thread I am bringing back to life...happy new year!

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    158
    Short is better. I CAN FEEL a long chainstay and I prefer short. BELOW 17.6 inches is getting there. One of my bikes is a Lenz Milk Money and it is much more fun to wheelee and manuver at closse to 17 inches. Have not ridden a Stickle but i think i would like it. I live out West so big down hills etc.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    222
    Don't you all know that all posts with inquiry pretty much end the same.. Some one asks a question..they get a few responses..all is good. Then someone disagrees with a response and an argument is started. Then the original post's point is lost and it turns into page after page of bickering rambling and throwing numbers at each other..

    Hey...this should be my signature..
    One Gear Under God

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bald_Ben's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnum Ti View Post
    Don't you all know that all posts with inquiry pretty much end the same.. Some one asks a question..they get a few responses..all is good. Then someone disagrees with a response and an argument is started. Then the original post's point is lost and it turns into page after page of bickering rambling and throwing numbers at each other..

    Hey...this should be my signature..
    Then somebody resurrects a thread from 2012 to add nothing to the conversation. It's the circle of life.
    "A thing is right when it tends to perserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." - Aldo Leopold

  146. #146
    Welcome to the Gem...
    Reputation: Mallanaga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    811
    Craigsj is like the Nancy Grace of mtbr... Someone had to say it.
    Ibis Tranny 29


Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.