[Closed] Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

Laterally stiff and vertically compliant is where it's at.
No room for a bottle is the latest in hydration replacement technology. It smooths air flow and allows less turbulent air to flow around the frame enabling the rider to achieve peak Strava timing.

Google the term forward geometry

Looks like there are bottle mounts in there, some of it really depends where you stick your suspension and linkages in a frame design. Might not be room on the smaller frames though.

No room for a bottle is because there's a shock there. If the shock was mounted differently there'd be room, so nothing to do with LLS.

The 'Low' part refers to the bottom bracket too, not standover. Lower BB makes for a more stable bike.

Long front centres and short stems mean the same reach measurement as a shorter front triangle/centre with a longer stem, but more direct and responsive steering.

Slacker means more stable at speed, better over chunky stuff.

Low long slack is only part of geometry. A steep seat angle equals better climbing, as does a longer wheelbase.

Low standover and shorter seat tubes allow riders to size up and still be able to run a long dropper post.

Sounds like you haven't ridden a modern FS trail/enduro bike - there's not many out there now that aren't LLS in some way, some more than others. Of course a shorter/steeper bike will be more responsive and better over flatter/tighter terrain, and there's a good compromise to be had for a medium reach and wheelbase to make a more fun bike that's also excellent when pointing down.

Then there's chainstay length and how that affects the ride.

But seriously, just ride one - you'll soon realise they're actually bloody brilliant, even when climbing, if you pick one with a nice steep seat angle.

Long front centres and short stems mean the same reach measurement as a shorter front triangle/centre with a longer stem,

Reach does not include the stem, it's the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the top headset bearing. With a steeper seat-tube, the effective top-tube length will be shorter for the same reach, so a longer reach allows a steeper top-tube for climbing, while also maintaining the same distance from the saddle to the bars, if you keep the same length stem. If you go for wider bars and a shorter stem, then you need a longer reach again to keep the distance from the saddle to the bars constant.

Edit: Also, there's a point at which longer, lower, or slacker becomes too much. Some of the niche manufacturers seem to me to be pushing things beyond common sense just for the sake of marketing fashion. Small sized frames seem to be close to what XL frames were 20 years ago.

Q. Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

A. Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you're an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.

So the saying goes, I wouldn't know. Just sounds like another marketing fad like 800mm+ handlebars that will eventually settle down and they'll find something else to rip the **** out of.

There's a lot of complicated reasons but about two years ago I went from a '93 Kona Hei Hei to a Stanton Slackline and it's significantly faster and more fun down hill and I can't really tell much difference going up (I'm a sit and spinner). Go for it and don't worry about the numbers too much.

My girlfriend inherited my old 26" Transition Trans-Am. Great bike at the time and she doesn't ride it much at all.

Went out yesterday though and I had a go on it.

Jebus! It felt like the front wheel was nearly behind me and I was virtually sitting on the handlebars.

Not sure how I used to ride it to be honest 😄 I did though and essentially you get used to whatever you ride, but the differences are quite noticeable when you directly compare.

I've got the 'old' Cotic Rocket 275, so it's pre-longshot geometry, but plenty LLS .

As above, ride it. Cotic are excellent for Demo opportunity.

Have a watch of this....

I did put up a YouTube link to a video where Cy Turner explains it all, LLS, climbing, descending, the works.

Search “downtime” and “cotic”

Ta, so sounds like my climbing concern won't really exist then. How low is low? I once had a Specialized M5 hardtail and that had a really low bb, pedal strikes constantly - is it like that? Or have bb heights got lower our the years and we have adjusted? Current bike is a 2015 T-130, so not latest trend but not a million miles away (I don't think).
Will check YouTube video, ta.

I'm 6'2" and I started riding in the 90's. On my first proper bike the top tube was up against my family jewels and my toes would hit the front tyre.

Basically, mountain bikes have been the same size and shape as the old road bikes that they mutated from and any attempt to make them longer, lower and slacker is welcome, and decades over due. If you want to ride with your chin sticking out over the front axle, just buy any bike from the last 20 years.

You said you like climbing though, so you would definitely benefit from a longer wheelbase. To be fair the new Flare looks like a very reserved LLS revision with much more progressive bikes available. Just go to Cotic HQ and ride one.

Low standover is also good as it allows longer dropper posts to be fitted by a wider range of people. pre dropper it didn't matter but to run a 150 or 170 dropper then a lower seat tube helps a lot.

Need to clarify, I'm not great at climbing but I've no issues with pedalling up a hill to attempt to ride back down it.

Will head to Laggan for a test ride on 7th as geometry is different on medium and large compared to my large T-130. On paper, the medium is a wee bit longer, lower but large is definitely more. So medium looks a more obvious choice, except I'm 182cm so the large is more suited.

Q. Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

A. Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.

So the saying goes, I wouldn’t know. Just sounds like another marketing fad like 800mm+ handlebars that will eventually settle down and they’ll find something else to rip the **** out of.

Yes let's stop all progress and development into new technology because of the 'good old days'

The BB height on the Flare is similar to your T130, possibly higher. You can fit a bottle within the frame except on the small when it goes under the downtube. The steeper seat angle and longer chainstays help the climbing ability (less need to perch on the tip of the saddle to keep the front wheel down).

The longer reach and slacker head angle increase stability downhill and the longer wheelbase makes it easier to hold on the limit in corners. The low top tube gives you more knee room when cornering and more standover and the short seat tube lets you fit a long dropper post.

Dick - Comrie have the Cotics on Friday, if you can get a day off...

I managed a day in Uni woods with Crispin's Superlight, my Sanderson and my new Marin.
Oh. My. Word. The difference.
The Superlight was so short and felt like I was sat on the front axle when pointed down.
The Sanderson was nicely stretched, I was behind the front wheel on steeps and due to bolt through forks went where it was pointed.
The Marin just feels that bit more stable at speed, definitely more stable on steep and now I'm used to it, does fast/medium corners really well. It takes a touch more shoving around on really tight bends.

“Q. Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

A. Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.”

If we’d gone straight from the ‘70s to the ‘00s and skipped the roadie influences that messed up MTB geometry in the ‘80s then your 10 year old bike would be just like our current ones. Unfortunately we’ve had to waste a lot of time winding back from roadie shaped frames to the pretty long, low and slack Klunkers that started it all and then on towards what unsurprisingly is remarkably like MotoX geometry.

Oh, and i still catch pedals on the Marin at times.

And it's BB is not that low...

It’s only now I understand why I never liked my second MTB as much as my first. The first was a somewhat dated Peugeot with a slacker head angle, short but tall gooseneck stem and massively wide (for a 9 year old) riser bars. My second was an up to date Muddy Fox with NORBA geometry, narrow bars, very long stem, steep head angle. It was SO MUCH WORSE at going downhill. That was the difference between the mainstream bikes in 1988 and 1992. Progress? Not!

I think LLS is just marketing BS for bikes that actually fit. For me at 6'5" I've never really come across bikes that fit well until recently. Previously if you wanted anything close to a longer reach, the seat tube was unnecessarily long.

Long wheelbases and reach add stability but at the detriment of maneouverability

Slack HAa actually give improved handling and stability when going fast. not as many believe for improved handling in super steep terrain.

The "low" part is meant to be selling us low BB heights.
in reality very few modern LLS have genuinely low BBs.
When they did too many spods who can't time a pedal stroke complained about pedal strikes.

I've been riding proper low BB, proper slack HA bikes for 20+ years now.
I can't stand overly long bikes though. For me too long is a fun killer.
I don't care about maximum stability though and find a bit of "sketch" thoroughly enjoyable.

I’m kind of thinking I might fancy a new bike and the Cotic seems to appeal but I want to understand what the lls stuff means and does.

you can read up all you like on geometry but the only real way to find out if you like it is to have a test ride. Cotic have a mobile test fleet so a lot easier to have a proper ride to to make your own mind up than a lot of manufacturers

I love to geek out over a geometry chart and talk crap about it online, but there are a few things that I've come to realise.

1. No one number has any value on its own. Even considering a few parameters is of limited value as they all relate to each other and it's the overall package that either works for you or doesn't.

2. Geometry charts are mostly a marketing exercise. There is very little agreement on how some of the parameters should be measured and none of us have the ability to actually check them. For example, I recently found out that Cotic measure effective SA at some nominal ride height. So their SA will look slacker than another manufacturer who measures it at stack height, even if they are actually the same. At best you are probably getting figures from a CAD plan (often quoted to a tenth of a degree/mm) which make no allowance for the fact that you may then stick tyres of different widths on each end and run different level of sag front and rear.

Can't agree more about the roadie Norba thing in MTBs. Before that happened many mid 80s ATB were closer to off road ideals, eg the first Raleigh Mavericks that were so popular. Shorter stems, more relaxed angles up front, bars ended in better place relative to f wheel. Rear end was a bit lazy but they were fun over the stuff you could expect to ride back then.

On the other hand I'm not convinced LLS is an answer to all offroading, no one geometry theory is. For steep ups and downs and fast rough terrain it's great. For speederbike flowy woodland singletrack give me something a bit steeper and shorter than current trends every time. My 98 Chameleon in L was a perfectly part 4X, part XC bike in places like that.
I also don't like pedalling a very steep seat angle along rolling trails for long, messes with overall balance on the bike, means LLS bikes can be less useful for distance riding (fair compromise though, not intended for that. Just raised as a point where the geo is a compromise).

"At best you are probably getting figures from a CAD plan (often quoted to a tenth of a degree/mm) which make no allowance for the fact that you may then stick tyres of different widths on each end and run different level of sag front and rear."

I really notice how my stack height changes as I adjust the front to rear suspension sag. Even 5mm is obvious!

long is a longer wheelbase and a longer front triangle (so a shorter stem) – why is that good? Wheelbase adds stability but front triangle???

I was comparing 3 of my bikes the other day. LLS 2019 Whyte vs conventional 2014 Cannondale vs old school 2010 Gary Fisher. The rear triangle on all of them is virtually the same - tight around the wheel but the same steep seatube and stubby chainstays. The Whyte however is so slack that if the front triangle was any smaller the bars would be too close to the rider.

Low gives more leg over clearance, no doubt great if you are shorter in leg, but for taller riders, what is the benefit?

Noticeably lower c-of-g. Great if you are a tall spidery unit like me.

Slack is the geometry – great for descending, but what about climbs?

The steep seat tube makes the most difference - you're in the middle of the bike pushing backwards with your legs. There's some fork offset stuff going on so that it even at walking speeds it doesn't feel like something Orange County Choppers have made.

Why is Long, Low and Slack good?

It's not all good. My size L Whyte suffers from bus-on-a-humpback bridge syndrome. Any kind of step that's bigger than a curb - up or down - needs careful crank timing if you're not going to leave bits of pedal/crank/chainring behind. It's a PITA at times, especially on uphill steps where you need to power up and over

I don't think it is all good is it? depends on where you decide to make the compromises. They've lengthened the bike so they can get better climbing performance along with better DH performance...but at the expense of manoeuvrability and agility...this is seen as an acceptable compromise for most due to the current trend for DH and climbing performance.

Personally not sure it is for me, I like the manoeuvrability of my current bike, it suits the trails I ride, and its DH and climbing performance is perfectly adequate for my skill level.

Not so long ago the emphasis was on shorter chainstays and restricting the wheel base, especially on the early 29ers as the impact of a longer wheel base on agility was a general concern, but the market seems to have shifted in favour of more enduro kind of bikes with suspension travel getting longer and longer so more willingness to give up agility in favour of climbing and DH capability. Depends what you want out of the bike.

I don't mind the long or the slack, but I hate the low...the odd pedal strike is expected and part of the game and you can anticipate them and time your pedal strokes to suit terrain by putting gin the odd half or quarter turn to ensure you clear any edges, but the latest breed of bikes are getting ridiculously low and the frequency of pedal strikes is just getting silly now and its unrealistic to try to avoid them because it just upsets the pedal cadence too much in trying to time the pedal strokes.

I really like my non-longshot Rocket Max, has plenty of stability for the DH sections, climbs acceptably well with a decent shock, and agile enough to hustle it through switchbacks and thread through trees, can negotiate technical climbs well enough where a longer bike would feel too clumsy, and high enough so pedal strikes are sensible...i'm keen to try a longshot version, but not sure i am in need of a more capable bike especially if it comes with compromises elsewhere. Also i'm wary of the kind of bike that makes things too easy...You want some assistance to increase your fun and for the bike to flatter you, but if its too easy then it gets a bit boring.

Whilst Cotic do long and slack, they're not generally all that low - Cy and Paul both like a good techy Peaks District climb (as do I, which is good, as I live there), so that passes through into the bikes.

In terms of climbing, the long thing is ace. Long front centre, balanced with longer stays means you're sat in the middle of the bike, but it's a good chunk steeper before you end up fighting the bike and pulling involuntary wheelies. Certainly my MkV Soul is by far the best technical climbing bike I've had in 25 years of riding.

Even compared to a "short for 5 years ago" 50mm stem on my 26" rocket, there's something very right about the way the Soul with a 35mm stem steers. I think you end up with the grips in line with the steering axis, so you're entirely pushing/pulling when turning, there's no overall lateral movement one way or the other (probably not explained that well)

I'll admit I was worried about my Soul not being playful enough with all that extra length, but it really is a non-issue. Timing hops etc is slightly different, but it does just work. I demoed a LS Rocket a month or 2 back, and again, that was surprisingly very easy to pick up, which I was surprised about. Loved being up on the back wheel, which given I can't wheelie/manual for sh*t quite caught me out.

..and a final thing. Took the Soul up to Golfy/Inners last week. Bloody brilliant when it got silly steep. SOOO confidence inspiring. Did Boner, Waterworld, Prospacker, all the usual suspects. Great fun. So on the whole I'm quite a fan of long & slack!

Before that happened many mid 80s ATB were closer to off road ideals

What ideal is that? Why is there one ideal? Back then, you owned an MTB. And trails were whatever footpaths or BWs were in the woods. Now, we have multiple bikes, and many of the trails we enjoy are man-made steep stuff in the woods. Most of the highlights of my local rides literally did not exist 24 years ago when I started riding this area. When I started MTBing with my mates in the local woods, long fire-road descents were the highlight of our ride, we used to seek them out. That would be considered a total waste of altitude now by most - including me.

And because so many people own multiple bikes, the manufacturers can make far more diverse ranges - back then, they made 'an' MTB. I remember the 92 Kona catalogue from which I bought my first MTB - it proudly boasted that all their bikes had identical geometry. Take a look at Kona's current range!

On this thread everyone's bemoaning the time when MTBs became more like road bikes, but you'll find another thread where people are waxing lyrical about their gravel bike - and they're flying off the shelves. That kind of riding is more like what the 90s MTBs were made for, and largely ridden on. For the same purpose I sought out a steep angled frame when I built up a rigid MTB - and they are now very hard to find.

So my point is that LLS is for a particular kind of riding, not for all MTBing. And cut the manufacturers some slack - I think they've done brilliantly, and modern bike ranges are brilliant.

OP- depends, dunnit? I don't think LLS is particularly good all round, but then I can't (don't want to!) afford multiple bikes and for the mix of stuff I enjoy doing (everything from local DH races to buzzing to the shops) I want/need a bike that's not too LLS- the Cube Stereo/Sting 140 I got (rear travel reduced to 120mm and with 130mm forks instead of the 140 or 150 they usually come with) is pretty much as spot-on an all-rounder as I'm likely to find within my budget.

What ideal is that?

Generally speaking, not having a load of weight over the bars as a default position, something that feels natural to a roadie but has drawbacks off-road. Could say it's more of an ideal for XC racing and that was bigger then than now, and not saying there is 1 ideal design of course.

On this thread everyone’s bemoaning the time when MTBs became more like road bikes, but you’ll find another thread where people are waxing lyrical about their gravel bike

True, although I liked that my 1990 MTB was Ok for riding 5-15 miles to/from the good trails, that wasn't what I wanted to do on it at all. Whereas my gravel bike is something that I'll happily ride for 100 miles on road as well as mixed 50/50 rides. Different intentions. I could do that on a 90s MTB yes, but as you say there's more specialism now, even in diverse-use bikes.

I think the LLS is MTBers finally shedding the roadie geometry that they inherited via history.

I consider the Cotic Flare to be "normal" for XC / trail duties in comparison to a long travel Geometron that wants to devour hill sides & mountains.

Its all relative to what you want from a bike really, i'm sure some are happiest in Epping Forset on a gnarpoon, whilst others are happy to tackle Morzine on a CX bike, it just all gets confusing because there is so much choice, cross over, standards & wheel sizes out there right now.

I think this is a fitting pic for the thread:

View this post on Instagram

I'd always looked at it as positioning the rider contact points relative to the bike contact points. Slack moves them rearward, good anti- endo for going down, less efficient pedaling. Steep = forward, efficient pedalling, reduces wheel pops when climbing, bad for going down. Adjust exact nature as needed for what you ride.

Reach does not include the stem, it’s the horizontal distance from the bottom bracket to the center of the top headset bearing. With a steeper seat-tube, the effective top-tube length will be shorter for the same reach, so a longer reach allows a steeper top-tube for climbing, while also maintaining the same distance from the saddle to the bars, if you keep the same length stem. If you go for wider bars and a shorter stem, then you need a longer reach again to keep the distance from the saddle to the bars constant.

Yeah that's what I meant, I didn't exactly explain it as well as you 🙂

Shorter reach + long stem and longer reach + short stem equals the same distance to the bars.

And of course longer reach allows for a steeper seat angle which would otherwise mean a much short ETT.

I genuinely think the average MTBer is actually riding more extreme terrain than ever before. Sure, some people who only pootled along canal tow paths in 1995 are still pootling along those same tow paths today, but a LOT of people i see are riding what would be considered reasonably serious terrain on modern FS bikes, and doing it at a speed that would have been World Cup pace not that long ago.. Yes, some of that pace comes from modern bikes being a lot more durable (i'm old enough to remember pretty much snapping spokes on every off road ride) but a lot comes from the stability and composure of these modern geo bolides!

Personally, being a bit of a lanky git, i find the extra real world stability of my Mondraker with it's forward geo, more than out weighs the on-paper reduction in maneuverability. Certainly it's a bike on which i have made it round many more tight Alpine hairpins without dabbing that i ever did on my old 26" old-skool geo bike!

'Modern LLS slack bike is faster than an old DH bike, AND can be ridden back up the hill' in shock news 😀

Because old bikes are inherently shit and absolutely incapable of handling todays trails (which may look exactly the same as trails of ten years ago if you’re an idiot but smart people know the difference). You will never enjoy riding your obsolete trail bike again after riding a modern bike with modern components.

So the saying goes, I wouldn’t know. Just sounds like another marketing fad like 800mm+ handlebars that will eventually settle down and they’ll find something else to rip the **** out of.

Go ride the descent off of Kaim hill hill down to the cattle grid at full chat on an older XC bike, and then again on something with LLS geometry, and tell me it's bollocks 🙂 This descent has hardly changed in the 15 years I've been riding it, but by god the bikes have.

Its all relative to what you want from a bike really

Exactly, and what a large part of the biking public wants has changed a lot.

Funny that 90s MTBs are being slammed on here but there was another thread the other day waxing lyrical about how wonderful they were compared to this modern garbage.

Go ride the descent off of Kaim hill hill down to the cattle grid at full chat on an older XC bike, and then again on something with LLS geometry, and tell me it’s bollocks

Just try putting some modern forks on an old bike. IMO that's most of the difference.

Just try putting some modern forks on an old bike. IMO that’s most of the difference.

For the descent I'm describing, I'd disagree. The Revelations I used to have on my Heckler were decent enough forks, not a million miles behind the Pikes I use now on my Bronson (which I certainly wouldn't class as LLS by any means) but the difference in how fast I can hit each section at is a step up in terms.

XC mountain bikes: geo is more or less the same as a couple years ago? Biggest change is moving to 29er?

Downhill bikes: did the geo really change dramatically over the last couple years? Most downhill bikes are still 25,7 and moving right now very slowly to 29er? And yes - these bikes are LLS...

Biggest "move" to LLS in the Enduro bike segment? Enduro bikes are such capable "downhill" machines... Yes - those moved into the LLS direction.

Trail bikes: no - those bikes are not all "LLS". And the "LLS" trail bikes are not those which are the most fun bikes in my opinion. "Too low" makes you struggle with pedal strikes and "too long" takes the fun out of the game. And yes - if the head angle is too "XC orientated"/too steep this isn't fun either. So yes - also for trail bikes: those are more slack?

Exotic bikes, example Nicolai Geometron stuff: some love them, some hate them. For my taste: those sleds are way too stable and take the fun out of trail biking. But that's my taste/opinion.

"Funny that 90s MTBs are being slammed on here but there was another thread the other day waxing lyrical about how wonderful they were compared to this modern garbage."

Is Jacob Rees-Mogg on here?

The arguement for retrobikes ( the old kona thread ) did not slam modern bikes, it just said how wonderful konas they were in the right conditions.

did not slam modern bikes, it just said how wonderful konas they were in the right conditions

Yes - it's fun to bike those old designs for some days and then bike modern stuff ... and back.
Some of these old bikes are very low weight and climb really good. And downhill - yes, these old bikes are slower.
But also fun!

Those very capable (downhill) LLS aluminium bikes with those great forks and fantastic 2.6 inch tyres (or so) are neat designs.
But they are very, very heavy.
Example: the new Calibre Sentry. Yes - LLS. Most likely great downhill machine. But heavy like a tank!

Is this the reason why there is this move in the Enduro world to move to Carbon?

It's just a way of The Man selling everyone gnarly bikes that they then find are completely over the top for most of their regular trails so they then have to drive to ride Bike Parks or buy an additional "Gravel Bike" which is very similar to the old MTB they got rid of to get the Long Slack bike, only Gravel bikes have terrible handlebars.

No, it's not - LLS bikes have a real purpose, if the buying public buys the wrong thing that's their problem.

it just said how wonderful konas they were in the right conditions.

So.. the awful roadie based geometry is good in some situations then?

Which particular brand of "The Man" doesn't also offer less slack less travel more lively bikes in their range? Riders have loads of choice these days… if you choose to buy a super capable enduro bike, rather than a lively trail bike, to ride your local trails… that's your choice.

What if I were to tell you you can have a super lively super capable and properly low Enduro bike and ride your local trails on it kelvin?

I'd agree with you. My comment was aimed at those that think "The Man" is only trying to sell "everyone" a particular kind of bike. It's clearly nonsense. Why would bike brands bother to have a range of different bikes if that was the case? Plenty of choice out there.

Riders have loads of choice these days… if you choose to buy a super capable enduro bike, rather than a lively trail bike, to ride your local trails… that’s your choice.

Yes.
Tons of options out there. And that's great.

LLS bikes have a real purpose

Yes.

That's why there are XC, trail, all mountain, enduro, super-enduro and downhill bikes are around I guess.

Maxtorque, I can't say i'd agree with you about people riding much harder terrain at faster speeds. It's extremely rare I see one of the enduro sleds (increasingly they seem to be of the Santa Cruz brand?) that seem to dominate local trails being ridden even remotely fast. If you could take a modern LLS bike back in time and race against Tomac on his rigid he would still be riding much faster than 99% of us. In the past 5 years the average skill level has plummeted but the amount of people biking and the average earnings of said people has dramatically increased, which is why bikes have become so obscenely expensive.

With regards to LLS I think it's good and bad. it's been crazy that for some people to get a bike long enough for them it's been a compromise of too large a seat tube and fits have in many ways changed for the better but some companies have gone way too far on this and just straight into marketing nonsense. There is a limit and it feels like certain brands are just pushing it to get into the magazines. 10ft long 45 degree head angled bikes wont work. in bike sizing (and in all things) there is a compromise. Longer is more stable, but then it's also less manoeuvrable. slacker head angles are great for steep descents, but then they can be vague and a bit "flip floppy" on climbs and even flat. Low enhances stability with a lower CoG, but low also lowers your clearance and greatly reduces chance of pedal strikes.

Everything is a trade off and LLS is no different. It's not better. It's better at certain things.

To the OP, I would say carefully consider your real life riding. If your real life riding is smashing very steep and bumpy straights and then slowly winching back up for another go and you feel your current bike is holding you back then a LLS bike may be for you. If you have a more broad mixture of riding then maybe it isn't. Demo time!

As a slight side note some of these LLS bikes can be very fast on particular descents, the pros use them for a reason and the stopwatch doesn't lie BUT, doing that descent faster doesn't always equal having more fun doing it.

John

My comment was aimed at those that think “The Man” is only trying to sell “everyone” a particular kind of bike. It’s clearly nonsense.

Clearly. "the man" isn't stupid. He wants to talk "everyone" into buying ALL his shit!
😉

Most of "The man"'s market audience are in reality riding nothing that couldn't be ridden on that 1992 Kona but they're now older and have more disposable income. hence more genres/niches 😉

Genius really.

That’s why there are XC, trail, all mountain, enduro, super-enduro and downhill bikes are around I guess.

Good. Apart from the confusing names its good to have choice. Some people seem to think there is 3 catergories - xc race, "middle" and DH. (corresponding to the 3 popular race disciplines i guess.)
Unfortunately every "middle" bike from trail to super enduro is judged against a race winning super enduro sled - so people want every new bike to be another step towards ridiculousness. Why does each new bike need to be a quarter degree slacker than the rival brands of a month ago?
New bronson was slammed for not being a 29er (?), and then the Megatower (29er nomad) is "not progressive enough". What?

I may be behind the times as I considered the bronson to be the epitome of enduro (and also Peaslake posing) bike but

I use now on my Bronson (which I certainly wouldn’t class as LLS by any means)

The Revelations I used to have on my Heckler were decent enough forks

Revelations didn't come out until about 2005 or 2006 IIRC. Try some trailbike forks from the turn of the century like 80mm Dukes or Judys. A set of 130 mm Revs is night and day in comparison.

everyone speaks about choice, but apart from the odd small company and maybe xc bikes all serious bikes seem to have the new geometry and probably would not sell without this. So then people buy gravel bikes for tamer bridleway riding as said above. I am sure LLS is good but not all riding requires this and it must take the fun out of alot of riding the average person does.

Try some trailbike forks from the turn of the century like 80mm Dukes or Judys. A set of 130 mm Revs is night and day in comparison.

I'd happily ride '99 100mm hydracoil Judys now.
I still favour 100mm on my hardtails (DJ/4X)

2005 QR Revs at 100mm weren't really any better

2005 QR Revs at 100mm weren’t really any better

Nonsense. Rebas and Revelations were a massive improvement over their predecessors.

"In the past 5 years the average skill level has plummeted..."

Has it? Has it really? Pretty much everyone I know is as good a or better rider than they were 5 years ago.

but what about the older marzocchis. Or the older pikes. What's probably changed is the level of performance for a level of fork. Entry level Rockshox are now probably just as good as older high end marzocchis and pikes. No doubt equally high end modern forks are now much better.

The lower skillset of riders is probably about those new to the sport buying say a santa cruz fs as their first bike without riding a hardtail or lower end steeper bikes first. This must be a good thing as it keeps the industry alive and means technology trickles down to all levels so cheaper bikes are better in the future. Experienced riders on high end bikes are much better riders as well with all the new innovations. Attracting new riders to the sport is a good thing.

but what about the older marzocchis. Or the older pikes.

The Zocchis performed much better than the RS forks such as the Duke as I recall, but were heavy beasts. The first Pikes were basically just beefed up Rebas. The Reba came out first as an XC trail fork to replace Dukes, the Revelation was a longer travel version that replaced Psylos (a longer travel Duke), and the Pike was a beefed up version of the same basic design. Sids back then were terrifying things, all the rigidity of wet noodles.

OP- Your Whyte is more than capable and has fairly modern geometry so is it just an itch for a new bike that needs satisfying? It's not forward like the Cotic but it's fine.

But yeah - slacker, longer and lower tends to be more stable going down as well as put you in a good body position. Obviously theres a middle ground as too slack will be an issue.

I'm not sure how it's taken so long to get this geometry. Even 10 years ago dh bikes weren't as slack as they are and were riding similar tracks (maybe harder). You would think some manufacturer would have done some testing at opposite ends of the spectrum and find an optimum balance instead its always been incremental changes. maybe so they can create product life and have something for the next model.

We've never had it so good - I struggle to see where we go tbh

My question should be - are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?

Has it? Has it really? Pretty much everyone I know is as good a or better rider than they were 5 years ago.

Aye, pretty much impossible to quantify such a silly statement.

Chief, obviously the individual hasn't got worse over the past 5 years but as the biking community has exploded over the past few years the average skill level has decreased with that. When I started my job 8 years ago I knew of 2 other people at work who biked. It's wasn't common. Now however, everyone is apparently a biker! In my team of say 25 people over half now are into mountain biking. Also to a certain extent cycling is the new golf to a particular demographic so lot's more money floating around and as a consequence, prices have adjusted to make the most out of that. This growth of biking is part of the reason why so many things have changed I think. New standards every 5 seconds, it's because there is so much money in it and so many more people to buy into it.

John

Also, the old Marzocchis were awesome, a bit weighty but I don't see that modern forks are that far ahead. Although I must be wrong as it seems every new fork is a bloody "game changer". Infact everything seems to be a "game changer" these days.

My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?

depends - South Downs way is a bridleway, as is Jacobs ladder.

Nonsense. Rebas and Revelations were a massive improvement over their predecessors.

No they weren't mate.

I have a set of those old hydracoil '99 judys here on an old bike still in use and going strong and also have a set of 2017 100mm Rebas here on my 4X bike.
Performance is actually pretty similar but the Judy has better small bump compliance and slightly less firm damping (Damping on both is pretty similar when run the way I like a fork to preform)
the Reba is quite a bit lighter and not noticeably any stiffer because of it despite having a 15mm axle and tapered steerer.
I have a knackered 2005 Rev here too. similar story when they were working (seals shat and stanchions worn out)
I have a working set of Revs on a bike here too but they're 2017s and 150mm so a completely different chassis so not directly comparable.

I'm guessing you haven't even ridden the 100mm hydracoil Judy I'm talking about, nevermind a well set up one?

Now ride a Cotic Solaris Max Longshot (long low slack etc) bought mainly because I wanted to try a Cotic and it was brand spanking new out (and the JPS gold sparkle paintjob...)

Just rebuilt my old workhorse, 2001 Superlight as The Boy is now big enough. I cannot believe I rode that thing for 10 Years, it just feels wrong .. too small, too short, too steep...

Fooling myself? maybe. But riding them back to back I'd take the Cotic every day.

My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?

FWIW yes, although I wonder sometimes if the geo hasn't just compensated for the move to 29 wheels in terms of 'feel' - I had a Tinbred 26" that felt very like the Cotic does, only smaller wheels ..

Long rides on tame terrain are perfectly OK on Longshot, except you might wheely a bit more just because. If it were a regular thing, I think I'd cut the bars down from 800 though.

I’m guessing you haven’t even ridden the 100mm hydracoil Judy I’m talking about

A friend had some way back in the day. They were definitely better than the Indys I had back then. His bike got stolen and his new one had Zocchis, which were just amazing back then. My next forks were U-Turn Psylos, which were more versatile than the Zocchis but nowhere near as good on rough stuff. I replaced the Psylos with U-Turn Rebas and then with U-Turn Revelations, both of which I still have on different bikes. The Rebas and Revs were noticeably stiffer than the Psylos (all 9mm QR). I think a modern equivalent to the Judys and Psylos would be a 35 mm Revelation.

If you could take a modern LLS bike back in time and race against Tomac on his rigid he would still be riding much faster than 99% of us.

I bet he wouldn't, on a typical modern DH home-made woodsy trail. But the trails they raced DH on were much tamer than today's trails.

My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?

I haven't ridden one, but I can say that XC bikes are so much more capable that they overlap with trail bikes from 10-15 years ago. I have a Trek FS 29er which is pretty much XC through and through, but I can ride the local tech as well as I could on my 5 from years back. Having a dropper is a big part of that, along with big wheels and a wide bar making up most of the rest. But since it's also an XC bike it's great for covering distance as well.

So then people buy gravel bikes for tamer bridleway riding as said above.

And you will notice they are now getting longer and slacker (but not lower). I ride a 74 degree bike on gravel and can see no reason why I need it to be slacker for riding in straight lines over hard packed surfaces but there seems to be a market for it...

Also, the old Marzocchis were awesome, a bit weighty but I don’t see that modern forks are that far ahead. Although I must be wrong as it seems every new fork is a bloody “game changer”. Infact everything seems to be a “game changer” these days.

I was running Z1 Bams 'till about 2013 when the 1999 Cinder cone they were on cracked, fine forks, a bit flexy even with the blackspire brace.
Also was running 2004 bombers on a hardtail until about 6 months ago and a set of 66 SL's on my 1999 Turner RFX up to 2015 when I snapped it. That bike was tall short and steep but still fun at silly speeds in the Alps.

My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?

It's all personal preference, but for me, yes, absolutely. It's one of the things that surprised me with my longshot FlareMax. Yes it gives huge level of confidence on the descents, compensates for my lack of skill and encourages stupid speeds, but I expected that. What surprised me was just how much I enjoy riding it everywhere. Up, across, down, tame forest tracks, fire roads. Heck I even enjoy spinning along on the road some days. It may just be because at 6' tall this is the first mountain bike I've had that actually feels like it fits me.

I have 66 SL ATAs on my Patriot. No matter how fast I go, they keep soaking up bumps really well. I have never tried an equivalent modern bike, so I have no experience, but I'd expect modern forks to be a bit better. Probably more support in the mid stroke with better small bump compliance. That would make them better for climbing and riding flat, but I don't see how anything could improve much on fast rocky rough descents.

I too had a set of 66 RC2X from I think 2006? They were coil jobbies and they were amazingly good, just ate stuff up and also massively stiff, like stiffer than anything else I've ever tried but they did weigh a whopping 3kg so I guess that's to be expected.

John

I've definitely got worse over the last 5 years, not doubt about it. Agreed absolutely nothing wrong with my current bike but a new bike would be nice and the Cotic is definitely making me interested in a new bike.
I don't need a new bike, I don't ride hard enough for a new bike, I'm not fit enough for a new bike but it would be nice (although saying that, I can't afford a new bike so it would need saved for). With that daft idea, I was having a nosey and didn't think I understood LLS, so I asked.

I have 66 SL ATAs on my Patriot. No matter how fast I go, they keep soaking up bumps really well. I have never tried an equivalent modern bike, so I have no experience, but I’d expect modern forks to be a bit better. Probably more support in the mid stroke with better small bump compliance. That would make them better for climbing and riding flat, but I don’t see how anything could improve much on fast rocky rough descents.

I know they're not really the same type of fork and a Lyrik might be a better comparison but I was underwhelmed when I went to a 2015 Pike from a 66SL (2.5 KG).