You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hello this is a follow on. From my post yesterday recommended me a frame, thanks to all all replied. Part of the post was
Not LLS ….I cannot cope with the long and low due to the damage in my neck.
Part of the discussion focused on the lls bit and what it actual means and rides like. Los which i take as
Long equals longer reach to centre rider over the middle of the bike.
Low equals low bb and lower riding position for attack position
Slack is head angle and fork being slack with seat angle steep to centre rider on ups.
So with the damage to my neck I ended up with 55mm spacers and a 40mm riser on 35mm stem on a Nicolai g13 with a 130mm headtube reach of 510 and stack of 619.
Versus a stooge rigid on a headtube of 130mm reach 590 stack 632 with 10mm spacer and a 55 mm stem, I like the riding position of the stooge just not the rigid nature.
So what am I not getting re LLS and how do I measure up for a new frame?
stooge rigid on a headtube of 130mm reach 590 stack 632
Thats not reach. Unless they are doing a 5XL. Is that effective top tube?
I don't think the low bit of your understanding is correct. Low BB yes - the other bit you wrote, not so much.
It's marginal gains but if you set up your bars the same distance from the ground but lowered you BB the apparent bar height when riding will actually be higher.
Alongside LLS is the seat tube angle. Sat in the saddle my bars are actually closer than they were on my 2009 bike. There are mitigating reasons for this (the 2009 bike was a larger size to get more reach that comes in LLS bikes a size down and in 2009 many trail bikes were beefed up xc bikes and now they feel more like enduro bikes on a diet so maybe less head down, arse up than they were) but I think my 2021 LLS would be easier on a sore neck than my 2009 old skool geometry would have been.
Long = Basically the frames are longer than they were five years ago, mostly at the front but also at the rear, ideally.
Low = The BB being fairly low, but this is somewhat moot and not nearly as important as the long and slack bits IMO. As bikes get really long, the low BB isn't so critical. But it can feel great for cornering.
Slack = Head angles are still getting slacker, with progressive brands hitting around 63deg on enduro bikes and 64deg on trail bikes. Brilliant for steep or fast riding. But can reduce the sense of liveliness on mellower, twisty trails.
There's no official definition.
Long generally means longer reach (distance between BB and top of head tube horizontally). This keeps your weight more central when stood up in the attack position, which is great for steep stuff, and is less tiring on longer descents.
Low mainly means shorter seat tubes and lower standover heights. Now you've got dropper posts you can slam the frame down so it's easier to move around the bike, and keeps the sprung mass of the bike lower down aiding cornering.
Slack refers to head angle, with slack usually being 65 degrees or under. This makes the bike more stable at speed and during descents. It also increases wheelbase which relates to the 'long' part.
LLS doesn't directly refer to seat angles, but these have also changed for a couple of reasons, first being it counters the increase in reach so keeps the effective top tube (distance between saddle and handlebar) similar when in the seated position. This means you aren't stretched out when sat down pedalling. Second, it brings your body weight further forward which is good when climbing up fireroads and for technical punchy climbs.
I suggest you lean your bikes against a wall and do a load of measuring with a tape measure and spirit level.
LLS is a bit of a misnomer.
Long reach is correct, as is long wheelbase. ETT often isn’t that long.
Low BB is sort of correct but only in the sense that it’s not high like the freerider era and is similar to bikes fro the ‘70s, 80s and 90s. Stack is generally high, not low.
Slack is correct for head angles but incorrect for seat tube angles.
Long Low and Slack is just that, you get a longer wheelbase through a slacker head angle, so with the same fork length you'd lower the front, hence lowering the BB height to bring it back, so that the rider, in the seated (and attack) position should be pretty much similar to the older position, but now more centrally over the bike.
The problems occur when folk grab a bike that has a longer reach or geometry that doesn't suit, then change everything around it to bring it back to what they're used too, instead of just picking the appropriate frame for their preference, i've done it myself, you grab something you think will work, but then faff around with saddle position, bars, stem, etc, etc to bring it back.
Also remember just looking at numbers won't always work, reach is just a distance, if you're in the seated position you have to take seat tube angle, how far up the saddle is and this distance for your neck issues and how you can best work it.
Sorry stooge 420 reach.
Handlebars height to match the stooge I need 50mm spacer and 40 mm riser which looks ridiculous and sort of defeats the objective of the designer surely.
Reach on the Nicolai felt long at 510Mm reach but it was the need for all the spacers as the front end was too low for my old neck and body.
Adding lots of spacers above the head tube reduces the reach. Potentially so too does running high rise bars (but not so significant).
Something to bear in mind but good luck finding out the subsequent effective reach and/or doing the maths!
vondally
Handlebars height to match the stooge I need 50mm spacer and 40 mm riser which looks ridiculous and sort of defeats the objective of the designer surely.
If I remember right, the whole idea with the Stooge was to maximise weight on the pedals and reduce weight on the hands, as it's designed for a rigid front end - it's a very different style to the G13
Really don't think a direct comparison between the bikes is going to be very helpful, you don't want to match bar heights across the two - G13 needs the front end weighted for grip.
it was the need for all the spacers as the front end was too low for my old neck and body
Would a higher stack not help this? Some bikes have a very low stack so you will feel very low over the front.
@honourablegeorge yes you made correct re stooge riding ethos and when Hale and fit it was brilliant and yes the Nicolai riding style I could re learn but the front is too low. In my head having the both would be a good contrast in styles..... reality and age begs to differ.
@ bungalistic.....will stack height rise the bike...does that make sense? So if the stack on stooge is 632 I need to be looking in the same ball park for the new frame?
Someone will no doubt come along to correct me but a higher stack will help seat you in a more upright position, which is what you are doing by adding spacers and riser bars. I would assume (possibly wrongly) that the Stooge is both shorter in reach and higher in stack (compared to your full suss) due to it being a rigid bike and therefore you're not meant to have all your weight forward, it's meant to be ridden differently.
These numbers are just a guide though so you may need to test ride bikes to get a good feel of what you like as numbers alone don't tell you everything. Steve from HardtailParty youtube channel often mentions stack height in his videos as he seems to prefer something higher than most LLS hardtails seem to be.
I think it’s really interesting that we have different ideas of what long low and slack actually means on a forum full of enthusiasts!
No wonder marketeers can sell us owt- if we accept lls as a label without really knowing what it means…
Anyway I think that the point of lls is about the characteristics of a bike ridden mainly at speed downhill out of the (dropped well out of the way) saddle.
So for me that means a long wheelbase with most of the increase in length being in the front centre. This gives loads more stability on steep chunky downhill stuff, and also results in a much longer reach than previous designs. You can feel the benefit of being in the centre of the bike, between the wheels not over the back.
Low is about CofG when stood in the old “attack” or “ready” position so is about bb height not seat tube lengths or stand over. Lower is better for railing those berms on groomed trails. Too low results in pedal strikes in different terrain. Shorter cranks are a good idea.
Slack is all about head angle and a slacker head angle gives a longer wheelbase but sorter reach if nothing else changes. The slacker the better when pointing downhill, but we do need to ride these bikes up or along as well so there are probably limits.
Steeper seat angles have pushed reach and front centres longer still. Steeper better for uphil pedalling mainly not downhill though so you can be lls without a mega steep seat tube.
Short seat tubes are needed with steep seat angles to get the saddle out the way better. Low standovers follow that and are great for manoeuvrability but you can have a high steep short bike with a short seat tube and low stand over and it would be rubbish for steep downhill stuff.
None of the above covers stack, and I personally found that to be the hardest number to start to understand what I needed. Perhaps because you can easily change bar position regardless of a frame’s stack number…
But it follows that a bike designed for riding as described needs more stack- because the bars move away from you going down steep stuff and you want to remain centred in the bike. You can bend your arms to get weight lower and further forward but you can’t lengthen them to counteract that. The advantage of more stack is that it also helps take weight off the arms and upper back when seated pedalling so this is a measurement the op needs to look at independently of the other stuff.
When descending we should be heavy feet light hands so stack probably needs to increase with reach I guess, but there is a range and some bikes have longer head tubes than others.
The op isn’t interested in aero pedalling so needs to be looking for bigger stack numbers I guess?
Anyway that’s just my 2p worth, for what it’s worth.
Most bikes tend to still have quite short head tubes, along with shorter seat tubes it means people can size up their bike (get a longer reach) and still fit. The issue is if you're not sizing up then you might end up with a lower front end than wanted/necessary. I'm quite tall and all my bikes have a lot of spacers and high riser bars, no it doesn't look the best but it's necessary for me to get my bars high enough to be comfortable. I would probably need a 170mm or more head tube for me to not need spacers but most XL frames will only have a 130mm head tube.
reach of 510 and stack of 619.
Considering you've said you've put 40/50mm of spacers to get to that stack, it seems awfully low.
My new skool FS is 484mm reach and 634mm stack, and my new skool HT is 497mm reach with 663mm stack.
Argee has already said
position should be pretty much similar to the older position, but now more centrally over the bike.
And this is IMO of the most fundamental about New Skool bikes. They're longer to make space for your entire centre of mass to slide forward, not so that there's more bike infront of you.
Thats why seat tube angle/saddle position is so fundamental.
Crouching low over the front of a New skool bike is not necessary and a hangover from traditional thinking.
There's alot of people sitting too far back with bars too low on new skool frames and then complaining they're vague and sluggish, because set up like that, they are!
so stack probably needs to increase with reach I guess,
I completely agree with this.
Head tubes might look short on many modern bikes but they’re on top of really long forks on big wheels. Coupled with low bottom brackets, a lot of bikes have a lot of stack height. Full-say and rigid geometry can be compared ok for fit because it doesn’t really change with sag (bar the BB height). Hardtails should have a lot of extra stack to compensate for the loss at sag.
Your two bikes have similar stack but the one with longer reach and steeper seat tube needs higher bars to compensate for both. I suspect a lot of your problems might be related to your hip and thus torso angle affecting your neck. Have your tried sliding your saddle right back on the full-sus as well as a shorter stem and higher bars?