WHY LONGER & SLACKER ISN’T ALWAYS BETTER

THE EVOLUTIO NOF the r oad -race bike has come toav irtual standstill .Inco ntrast, there’s so much new and exciting stuff happening in the rest of th e bicycle world. The geometry rules of the mountain bike, for example, are in the midst of a major rewrite, with ‘lower/ longer/slacker’ (LLS) being its hottest and most-evolving trend.

Like a lot of trends, it’s difficult to pin down where, how, and why LLS got its start. Perhaps the movement towards shorter stems and wider handlebars, the proliferation of dropper posts, ever-changing wheel sizes, and the exploding popularity of bike parks and flow trails (both of which encourage riding at higher speeds than on typical singletrack) have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, almost every new mountain bike that launches is lower, longer, and slacker than its predecessor. To decide if that’s a good thing, you must first understand what LLS refers to.

Bottom brackets are increasingly closer to the ground (LOWER). Reach and wheelbase are also increasing (LONGER). Head-tube angles, usually accompanied by a shorteroffset fork, are decreasing (SLACKER). Plus, seat-tube angles are getting steeper and seat tubes are getting shorter. Combined, these changes make for a bike that’s more stable at moderate to high speeds and one that puts the rider in a more efficient position for seated climbing. The trend isn’t being applied only to gravity-oriented bikes; even cross-country race bikes are getting the treatment. Modern trail bikes in general have geometry numbers that wouldn’t have been out of place on a downhill bike a generation ago.

But the trend is not without compromises. It’s hard to build a bike that’s more stable at higher speeds without also making it a bit obstinate at lower speeds. Because LLS positions the rider further behind the front axle, there’s less weight on the front wheel, which can make handling feel vague and the front end more prone to wandering at lower speeds, especially when climbing. Longer bikes can be harder to steer around sharp switchbacks and more difficult to thread through tight obstacles. Positioning the bottom bracket closer to the ground sacrifices some clearance and leads to more frequent crank-and-pedal strikes – absolute hell on a technical and obstacle-rich trail section.

Steep seat angles don’t work with every rider’s biomechanics, and can make for a cramped riding position on flatter terrain. In other words, this growing trend in mountain-bike

geometry isn’t ideal for every type of rider and every kind of terrain.

The trails that I typically ride are – for the most part – open, flowing, and dry. My rides average about 16km/h, and it’s not uncommon for me to hit 40km/h or more on descents. Climbs are typically long and arduous, but they’re usually consistent and not super-steep or punchy. And the technical sections are pretty short – a move or two, then it’s back to the grind. Downhills are technical, whether it’s because they’re very fast or because they’re steep and challenging. Either way, they usually don’t require constant pedalling.

But maybe you live in a place where the trails are more technical, deliberate and slippery. If your route isn’t slick from rain, it might be slippery from leaf cover or humidity. Your average speed might be substantially lower than mine, and your top speed on descents might not exceed 25km/h. Climbs might not be long in distance or elevation gain, but they could be slow because they’re consistently technical and punchy – all moves, no grind. Downhills might not be steep, but they could be slow, obstacle-filled pedal-fests.

You see where I’m going here. Some of the same LLS bikes that I love to ride on my home trails would be an absolute battle to ride on yours. Likewise, bikes that I find too tall and twitchy for my flowing trails would be a perfect match for your technical trails.

Take the Yeti SB130 (size medium), a pretty low (35mm bottom-bracket drop), very long (1 206mm wheelbase, 460mm reach), pretty slack (65.5-degree head-tube angle, 44mm offset fork) trail bike with 150mm of travel up front and 130mm in the rear. It’s one of my favourite bikes to ride on my home trails because it pedals well and its suspension and handling work really well at high speeds. But if I ride it on a slow, technical trail, I find myself fighting to keep the front end from wandering. The bike’s length makes it feel unwieldy when trying to snake through slow, twisty sections, and I have a helluva time turning over the cranks without whacking the pedals on stuff.

The Specialized S-works Stumpjumper 29, on the other hand, feels more dialled on a technical trail. This trail bike (also a size medium), with 150mm of travel up front and 140mm in the rear, has a higher bottom bracket (4mm taller), and is shorter (1 169mm wheelbase, 425mm reach) and steeper (66.5-degree head-tube angle, 51mm fork offset) than the Yeti. It’s easier to steer; its rear suspension is more forgiving on slowspeed climbs; and despite the bike still being somewhat low to the ground, I experience fewer pedal strikes. But on a fast, flowing trail, the bike feels squirrelly, and the rear suspension is overly sensitive and moves too much.

There are so many variables to take into account! And this is why I always caution riders to resist buying the latest bike just because it’s longer, lower, and slacker than last year's model.

I’m glad the mountain bike continues to evolve – it gives me hope that it won’t stagnate, the way the road-race bike has – but if every mountain biker starts to believe that slacker equals more hardcore, or that more travel equals a better ride, there will be a lot of riders buying the wrong bike. And if bikes start to get fashionable LLS updates just for the sake of keeping up with the latest trend, we’ll end up with more bikes like the Yeti and fewer like the Stumpy – better for some, worse for others.

I do believe the lower/longer/slacker trend is making mountain bikes easier, safer, and more fun to ride; but I also believe that higher/ shorter/steeper still has its place.

SLACKER DOES NOT EQUAL MORE HARDCORE, JUST LIKE MORE TRAVEL DOESN’T MAKE EVERY RIDE BETTER.