So other people think short chain stays are stupid too
Short chainstays have trade-offs for sure. "Stupid" depends on how you want the bike to feel.
Shrinking the stem, lengthening the front center, and lengthening the chainstays to balance out weight distribution is certainly a thing.
He talks like anyone who does not do this is basically an idiot because there's no downside, but he's basically assuming that you can increase wheelbase pretty much infinitely with no downside.
I'd argue that his approach may or may not result in a bike that handles better for a specific person and specific purpose, because the wheelbase increase may or may not have a negative effect that cancels out other handling improvements.
He mentions in the beginning that long stems on road bikes were to make the cockpit usable without turning the bike into a freightliner.
He's talking about two ends of what is in reality a spectrum.
He's also pitching it like he's doing something extreme, but in reality a 35mm stem with bars rolled back a little pretty much lines your grips up with the steerer tube and plenty of people ride that way.
I have a two pretty extreme bikes - an xl crossworx which is 510 reach/450 stack. 447 chainstays, 1300mm wheelbase (I'm 5'11") . 32mm stem and pretty much no handlebar offset. I also have an L banshee enigma with 418mm stays and a 50mm stem.
I can ride either bike great or terribly any given day. Neither is better they're just different, which is the point.
I did enjoy the video though, he explains the concept well and it's definitely a relationship worth chewing on for anyone who hasn't!
Last edited by: Kenny on Sept. 21, 2023, 8:54 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
As of last Friday the bike I'm on has 460mm CS, 495mm Reach and a 28mm stem. Grip centres appear to intersect my stem top cap.
I've enjoyed his videos; especially the dual crown for Enduro project from a few seasons ago.
I think "stupid" is a bit short-sighted. The amount of people that have a great time on the Spesh Status shows that there's value for some. I've been enjoying middle-of-the road 435-445 for bikes that fit my 5'11" self, but I can adapt to slightly shorter or longer and bike geo is so personal.
As I remember back in the day we read articals in MBA that told us we wanted short chain stays to put more weight on the back wheel for climbing
and dimensions were quoted in inches not them chi-chi MM
i'm on 449 with a 1239 wb which seems fine fo a short AZN
I think I like the long CS & WB better
Last edited by: XXX_er on Sept. 22, 2023, 12:51 p.m., edited 4 times in total.
Stupid is this guys take on what every bike needs to be for everybody.
I think he needs to lay off the espresso.
I like short chainstays. I don't care that it makes the bike unbalanced. I have found that usually I have more fun on short chainstays.
I like short chainstays too.
I agree longer chainstays are better on big bikes meant to go fast, but short chainstays have their place too. I have the CS at ~420mm on my medium Honzo ESD. I like the feeling of a long and slack front end mated with the super short rear end on a hardtail used for trailriding. The long and slack front end takes care of business when it gets steep...and the short chainstay helps for the tight switchbacks on the way up.
I should say I have a few bikes and I like each of them to have a very distinctive character. Having a modern hardtail with short CS for some rides, and an Enduro monster with longer CS to go fast on other types of rides makes a lot of sense for me.
if a bike has long chainstays and it goes fast real well wouldn't it also go slow really well ?
I think the statement that " short chainstays are dumb " ... is dumb
but he had to write something and slagging e-bikes was already done to death
Last edited by: XXX_er on Sept. 22, 2023, 5:27 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
I'm on team short[-ish] CS. I've taken the time/$ to try out a bunch of different geo options to see what they are like. Getting enough weight on the rear wheel for climbing traction has been a key issue for me and shorter CS along with slacker STAs are solutions that work. I also happen to enjoy the ride feel of shorter CS and since I do not race that's important to me.
Talking more generally about longer vs. shorter bikes I've found that while longer bikes feel more stable in the forest trails I ride being able to turn a bike quickly and change lines makes up for that with a shorter bike. These days I can typically fit onto a medium or large frame in most bikes and I have been happily sizing down to the mediums.
Ultimately when I read/see someone is keen on a geo or setup I don't personally like my first thought isn't "Idiot!" If the bike is working for how/where they ride and they are smiling that's great.
Can someone explain how short chainstays climb better?
I've been thinking about CS length and reach for a custom frame. The frame I'm riding right now could be 45mm longer up front (80mm stem -> 35mm stem, reach would be ~520mm). I want to do that, so I can run a shorter stem. But, I also currently have problems with keeping the front wheel down on really steep climbs. Do y'all think that lengthening the reach (moving the front wheel forwards) will already do that, or should I also take the opportunity to make the chainstays a little longer (10-20mm)?
CS length is 450mm right now (29+/real big fat tires) - thinking 460 or 470mm.
Posted by: TristanC
I've been thinking about CS length and reach for a custom frame. The frame I'm riding right now could be 45mm longer up front (80mm stem -> 35mm stem, reach would be ~520mm). I want to do that, so I can run a shorter stem. But, I also currently have problems with keeping the front wheel down on really steep climbs. Do y'all think that lengthening the reach (moving the front wheel forwards) will already do that, or should I also take the opportunity to make the chainstays a little longer (10-20mm)?
CS length is 450mm right now (29+/real big fat tires) - thinking 460 or 470mm.
There's a few ways to help the front wheel stick to the ground. Off the top of my head -
Longer CS, lower BB, steeper STA, shorter stack... Each one is a trade off somewhere else in the handling.
I don't think I'll ever get a custom frame, not because I don't like the idea, but the analysis paralysis would preclude me ever committing to a set of numbers.
Posted by: TristanC
I've been thinking about CS length and reach for a custom frame. The frame I'm riding right now could be 45mm longer up front (80mm stem -> 35mm stem, reach would be ~520mm). I want to do that, so I can run a shorter stem. But, I also currently have problems with keeping the front wheel down on really steep climbs. Do y'all think that lengthening the reach (moving the front wheel forwards) will already do that, or should I also take the opportunity to make the chainstays a little longer (10-20mm)?
CS length is 450mm right now (29+/real big fat tires) - thinking 460 or 470mm.
This is very exciting! If you’re going custom you could get sliders set up for a 450-470mm chainstay range. I like the sound of that length for an XL-ish bike and a tendency to loop out. Slider options are great if you ever change fork length as well.
I think if your baseline is a 20” Stooge Scrambler the low A2C (and resultant stack) would make it fit very small (for the reach) compared to other hardtails you’d be able to test out. As V mentioned, the slack SA and (presumably) high saddle is going to put your weight pretty far back on the bike, despite the longish CS. Shortening the stem (bars rearward and a bit lower) also may make the front end feel lighter when climbing, so that’s something to consider as well.
I don’t believe that reach is a very good metric for bike sizing. If you’re going to go custom, I’m sure whomever your working with will be able to sort your cockpit dimensions out with whatever value you’d like as a reach number. In terms of steep climbs where the battle is spinning out vs looping out, the main factor should be where your saddle and centre of gravity sit relative to the rear wheel.
Posted by: Endur-Bro
Can someone explain how short chainstays climb better?
To climb effectively you need two things:
1) enough traction on the rear wheel to make use of the power available.
2) front wheel stays down so you can steer and don't loop out.
If you have a problem with either ^^^ you don't climb well.
- As you move the rear wheel backwards [longer CS] you are moving it away from the rider's CG [assuming everything else stays the same] so there is less weight on it and that results in less traction. But, that also means more weight on the front wheel.
- Conversely as you move the wheel forwards [shorter CS] you are moving it closer to the rider's CG [assuming everything else stays the same] so there is more weight on it and that results in more traction. But, that also means less weight on the front wheel.
- My body type carries most of its weight in the upper half so my front wheel is easily weighted and it's hard for me to weight the rear wheel. I never loop out on a bike when climbing for example even with very short CS. However, it's really easy for me to spin the rear tire on a bike that doesn't have short CS because that wheel is not close enough to my CG.
- This situation is made worse by longer bikes [moving bars forward] and steeper STAs [moving CG forward].
- One solution is to shorten the CS. Brings the rear wheel closer to CG and improves traction.
- Another solution is to slacken the effective STA such as with an offset seatpost. Moves CG backwards.
- Final solution is to bring bars closer such as with a shorter frame and/or high Stack. Moves CG backwards.
- Not shockingly my bikes combine some or all of these factors because that works for me.
Now this ^^ all relates to the rider's CG. That's why you have a bunch of people saying they climb better with short CS, a bunch who say they climb better with longer CS, and a bunch who don't care about the topic because most bikes just work fine for them. They are all right.
Last edited by: Vikb on Sept. 23, 2023, 6:35 a.m., edited 2 times in total.
Forum jump:
