Pinkbike Poll: The Great Chainstay Debate - What's Your Preferred Length?
Greg Minnaar's stretched out Santa Cruz V10.
What's the ideal chainstay length? It's no secret that mountain bikers love to argue on the internet, which means there have been countless heated debates on this very topic, with the 'shorter is superior' crowd on one side and the 'balanced is better' camp on the other. The distance from the center of the bottom bracket to the rear axle plays a crucial role in how a bike will handle, but it turns out that there's not one magic length that will work for all riders in all situations.
Shorter chainstays can make it easier to snap a bike through tight corners and lift the front end up into a manual, just like longer ones can add additional stability at speed, but there's not an exact science as to how a bike's chainstay length is decided upon. In the end, it's really up to the frame designer to decide what will best suit the bike's intended purpose. The length is also dictated to some degree by the suspension design and travel amount of a bike - it's a lot easier to create a hardtail with a super stubby back end than it is a DH bike with big wheels and loads of travel.
Having different chainstay lengths for different frame sizes makes a lot of sense, since only increasing the length of a bike's front center for different sizes can affect the balance of the bike. 420mm chainstays may feel great on size small bike with a 430mm reach, but they may not be as ideal on an extra-large bike with a 510mm reach. More companies are starting to change the chainstay lengths of their frames for each size, and there are others that offer frames that allow the chainstay length to be adjusted via a flip chip, but it's still not the norm.
Trek's Stache 29+ hardtail has adjustable dropouts that can shrink the chainstay length all the way down to 405mm.
But does that mean a tall rider won't like a bike with short chainstays, or a short rider won't be happy with longer chainstays? Not exactly – at a certain point it becomes a matter of personal preference, which is one of the reasons there are so many opinions.
For this week's poll, imagine you were designing your ideal mountain bike. For the sake of simplicity there's no category for this mythical bike – enduro, trail, XC, it doesn't really matter – let's just say it's a bike that you'll be using to go up and downhill on a wide variety of terrain.
First, find the section that matches your height, and then select your preferred chainstay length in the poll below.
Rider Height: 155 - 164cm // 5'1” - 5'4”
Rider Height: 165 - 174cm // 5'5” - 5'8”
Rider Height: 175 – 183cm // 5'9” - 6'
Rider Height: 184 – 191cm // 6'1" - 6'3”
Rider Height: 192 - 201cm // 6'4" – 6'7”
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
Shocking to me anyone thinks they've spent enough time on enough bikes with differing stay lengths to have an opinion that is granular to five or six millimeter increments (other than say, a professional bike reviewer).
(BTW only correct answer is 17.2" lol)
But, when I was demoing the Santa Cruz Megatower... I had the option, via a flip chip on the rear axle, to alter the chain-stay length by 10mm. But again, just changing the chain-stay length without changing anything else is not what that flip chip is meant for. It's a 160/160 bike and setting up the bike with the other flip chip in "high", the chain-stay setting is meant to be in the shorter setting. Flipping the bike into "low", the bike was still great (I'd say better)... and then I also changed the chain-stay setting to "long" and didn't like the handling as much. But, many people will overfork this bike (170mm), when you do that, being able to lengthen the chain-stays keeps the bike feeling more balanced vs the shorter setting. Plus Santa Cruz doesn't alter their chain-stay length by bike size, so if you're a taller rider being able to lengthen the chain-stay is nice.
Everyone needs to read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect and think about where they lie on that curve.
Also, I think two bikes failed in the field tests? The Sunday comics said one happened on a jump line at Whistler I believe.
@mattvanders: For me it would be more about geometry than smooth lines and innovative construction methods. If I'd get one of their full suspension bikes, it would probably an Evolink. Just straight tubes welded together does the job nicely. I understand you can also fold these for transportation or storage, which seems convenient enough.
Stuff like this is why I hate Ferrari car tests, they never send a legit production car and they send a team of engineers to make sure it scores well.
Just send something that comes off the production line so people know what to actually expect. And don't blame Pinkbike for getting clicks from your bike breaking, if you don't like them taking advantage of the shock value build a stronger bike.
This is one of, if not the, most important bike reviews for mountain bikes. If you want to get more people interested in your bike it needs to not snap in the test. Also it is not like this test is a surprise, the drop to flat is in the test. If you are sending a prototype then you should probably test it to make sure it isn't going to snap when they do exactly what they tell you they are going to do.
But the real question is when is PB going to share that video? It should be great since they brought the special camera. Will we see ultra slow motion of the frame snapping?
Whether it is the most important bike test out there is arguable. Pinkbike is pretty mainstream so that does make it an important bike test. But Pole has already been getting widespread attention from various media, Pinkbike is just one of them. At the end of the day it is up to PB to do what they feel is best, it is their test after all. Do you want to tell your readers what the production bike is like, the bike the end customer is going to ride. Or do you want to tell what the (faulty) preproduction model is like, the bike no customer is ever going to ride after all. Leave that up to PB to decide and put that in perspective. That determines how "most important" that bike test is.
I would love to see a photo of a chainstay of a 140mm Stamina from an owner.
Let this be a bit of reminder to dumbest of haters who say that big companies have ridiculous mark ups. These mark ups among other things are in place to cover for warranty returns. If a company likePole screws something up with a dozen of frames requiring replacement out of their own pocket, they are screwed. And if someone thinks big companies treat their customers as guinea pigs, then think twice... think what a small company does...
"Hey look Norco has a short travel bike with low and slack geometry, now that's really special!"
"BTR has the Pinner too but we failed to properly preload the headset which got us in trouble so that makes it a bad bike."
"Cotic has a short travel lowslack bike too? Why ever bother riding it?"
The Flare bikes look good fun to me.
"Oh boy Sick isn't delivering, now that is going to generate clicks."
Sorry but if there is no bike, I'm not interested.
The message on the Pole website doesn't come across like blaming, merely putting things in perspective. Pinkbike broke a bike that wasn't like the bike you'd buy as a customer. So that gives the fact that it broke zero information to the end user. But it wasn't blaming. They were quite clear they were wrong sending out a faulty bike for testing. The question I now have is, what is the point of testing preproduction samples if the who purpose of the bike test was to do a group test of bikes they audience is likely to consider as a next bike? Seems to me like it would be best to call for either send finished production bikes or just send nothing at all.
Let me start by saying I’ve owned 4 modern aggressive 29ers and ridden at least a dozen. With chainstays ranging from 430.5mm to 446mm all with a reach from 500-515mm. I also ride 400hours a year and am what you may call a local fast guy, though far from being professional.
The single best way to make an otherwise great (extra large) bike awful is to give it a short chainstay (435). Having this sort of a chainstay does not make it turn fast, the only thing it does is make it break traction quickly. Because the rear end is so short, your weight is always hovering right around the rear axle. This means you cant properly weight the front tire, and as a result:
1. Front feels drifts unpredictably.
2. When riding steep sections the front tire doesn’t bite, you can’t slow down effectively.
3. When you want to hit a turn and not break traction, your weight often shifts backwards under compression and you get the ‘loop out’ feeling. That makes you panic break and standup in the turn, if you haven’t crashed by now.
4. Tall riders also have high seatposts, therefore when pedalling they’re extremely close if not over the rear axle. Factor in dynamic geometry and climbing a steep pitch and it takes immense amounts of effort to keep the front wheel from wandering, and you from looping out. (I’m also a firm believer in steeper seat angles for larger bikes).
The point: the best cornering modern aggressive 29er I’ve ever ridden, was also the fastest in a straight line, the most controlled when riding steeps, and the most comfortable to climb tech pitches with, also had a 446mm chainstay. PROPORTIONAL SIZED CHAINSTAYS are the absolute best and I wish every company adopted them.
Thank you for listening to my rant.
I prefer longer, but short ones work on long bikes, just need to get a little wild with riding style.
Forgive my mistake in my original post, I meant to write 446 vs 436mm chain stays for the Megatower.
My way of describing it to others is like riding a BMX on the rear axle pegs. Sure, it's great to wheelie, but frankly disastrous everywhere else. I recall riding a SCHTLT and wondering why on earth people spent money on it it was that bad (for me).
I've grown tired of seeing brands claiming to obsess over the details yet they ignore this time and time again: Ibis, Pivot, Trek, Specialised... I'm looking at you, but the list is almost endless.
Santa Cruz have just woken up to it. YT and Norco along with Banshee got this ages ago. I may have missed others.
It's so incredibly lazy and arrogant of them and they have absolutely no solid argument to continue with this. The blatant lies that "shorter is best" that many push is insulting.
It's simply down to laziness and trying to keep costs down.
I've looped out on a Pivot I owned and the short rear centre was no doubt part of the reason why it happened.
That caused a very serious spinal injury and led me to seek bikes with longer rears to keep the bike balanced.
My only exception has been my Banshee Paradox hardtail and that's not been ridden on a trail due to recovering from surgery. If it's too twitchy I'll sell it in a heartbeat.
Sooner or later brands will start to address this properly however I suspect it'll be only when they feel it's costing them more than not doing it is saving.
I am looking forward to how some of these brands are going to market this without admitting they produced a substandard bike before.
A bike I would like to try now (it wouldn't necessarily be any good) would be a Pole-like steep seat tube, about the same length of the top tube i have now, ~540 mm of reach off the top of my head (depends on the seat tube angle of course), maybe try 66° of head angle and have 420 mm of chainstays. Minimise the wheelbase and maximise the cockpit space. And put the front wheel closer to the handlebar (to weight it properly) and move the rear wheel closer to the feet. With the steep seat tube, your weight still wouldn't be all over the rear axle on the climbs as well.
I think you do most of the loading of the front through your arms and for the rear mostly through your feet. So it makes sense to me to have the distance between each body part and corresponding axle as small as possible.
When you ride, you have weight on your hands. You also use your upper body to control the bike. I've been playing around with anglesets and different reach bikes, and I even built a custom geometry hard tail. I'm no professional, but in my experience having ultra short chainstays with a long reach can feel balanced if the head tube angle isn't too slack. The 650b Cannondale Jekyl had a slack 65 deg HTA with ultra short chainstays (420) and a medium reach, but it felt way unbalanced and rode like crap. I built up a bike with equally short chainstays (420 again) but a 67 deg HTA and a much longer reach, and it rides much more balanced and stable, even with significantly less travel.
TL
Using DH geo on 140 bike is plain ridiculous. I am glad Pole finally made a bike that makes sense, that is Stamina 180. Travel matches geometric capability. I’d buy one if I had the cash
I have fond memories of riding Stumpy Evo with 456 stays, but would Take Enduro with 430 stays any time of the day
Agreed. I aim for around it over 35% rear centre.
As I ride XL if XXL bikes that gets very difficult to achieve or find. Pivot and Santa Cruz for examples end up at 32% and yes, I can feel the difference compared to my Banshee.
Most bikes I've ridden below that I have disliked.
The know exception has been my hardtail but that's not had a full trail ride yet.
I've two.
I'm running a MY18 Prime with the long drop outs. I've got them both actually and prefer long + low setting.
I also have a V3 Paradox.
The three bikes are 2008 Meta 5.5 in L, 2015 Reign in L and 2019 Bird AM9 in XL. Yeah, both previous bikes were too small for me (should have gone for an XL, but with the Commencal it was fashionable to have a smaller bike and with the Giant there was no option of getting the 1 in XL plus the bike kinda fitted at the time... good old days
I think you do most of the loading of the front through your arms and for the rear mostly through your feet. So it makes sense to me to have the distance between each body part and corresponding axle as small as possible.
@theelias09: agreed, but i think with many bikes these days and how long they are you actually do have to force yourself to weight the front wheel. I have to with my bike and i'm thinking it's because of riding flat pedals. I'm pulled backwards because i'm dropping my heels and rotating myself around the pedal axis since my ankles are already locked. I'll be trying out SPDs after 12 years in the winter to see if i'll be able to be a bit more centred on the bike without fear of my foot being thrown off.
That's another thing, i think long reach bikes will require running clipless pedals for that exact reason.
I don't think the handlebar has any effect on it (i actually chose a 40 mm rise bar), it's simply that i feel myself pulling backwards and have to pull myself forwards, but then i instantly get afraid of blowing off the pedals. It's not that i can't load the front. I can, when i pull my body forwards. It's the fact that i get pulled backwards subconciously.
SPDs will confirm this, i just need to make a purchase and the weather needs to improve so i can actually go out and ride!
Back when I got into mountainbiking I was told that if I wanted to get serious, I needed to get used to riding clipped in. So that's what I did. But I never really got on with them (SPD type pedals). They either unclipped when I really didn't want them to or they didn't release when they should. After a few years I switched to platforms and it was a revelation. I was in control again. I had a short stint with Time Z pedals because I got a heavy full suspension bike and thought it was going to help with climbing, but soon enough I ditched them and never looked back. So from my experience it seems scary to rely to SPD pedals for grip when you can't shift in a good position to extract enough grip from platform pedals (by dropping your heels) but I realize that others have much better experience clipped in so if it works for you then great.
Anything else is unridable
Funny how we pretty much always come back to around 440mm and riser bars.
I remember buying my Mega XL TR275 way back when, I wanted the 440mm chainstays and I was going to run 26" wheels (I am 6ft1).
I was told I was crazy, mad, bonkers and why not buy the Mega TR which had 430mm chainstays as it would be better and running small wheels on a 275 would not work as the BB was so low.
I still ride my MegaTR 275 with 26" wheels, 165mm cranks, -2 angleset and a 160mm fork.
Wait... that is pretty much where bikes are now, just the seat angle is 1 degree steeper
26 is still the most fun too, which is what this bike is about, nobody has changed the local walkers paths and trails around the cliffs to open up and berm the corners for those big wheels...
Short head tubes too compensate, coupled with additinal robustness and tapered steerers.
Negative rise stems to compensate.
Most of us only have our current bike and maybe a few bikes before to judge on and without trying the same bike with different chain stay lengths we can't put anything down to purely chain stay length.
I would like more bikes having adjustable dropouts so we can try different lengths on the same bike and then form a more informed opinion, also gives more flexibility for peoples preferences and to balance it with the front centre.
To my knowledge the only maker really addressing this is Nicolai/Geometron and to a lesser degree Norco. When you go to market with a fixed length chainstay across 4-5 frame sizes it is likely you smallest bikes ride much better and balanced than your large sizes which is where I live.
All I really know, is that at 6'1", I've been starting to feel that the 425mm chainstays on my Kona process 153 29'er (in size Large), are at least a bit on the short side for my preferences. It is nice to (try to) manual pretty easily, but I feel I have to be WAY over the front of the bike to keep it balanced at speed.
I think I'd prefer something longer.
I just don't know how much longer.
I'm currently looking hard at the new Norco Sight frames... I love the idea of the STA and CS length changing depending on the rider size, but the XL Sight has 445mm chainstays, which seems like a huge jump up from my Kona.
TIME TO DEMO!
Also just because I'm tall doesn't mean I need a 48"+ wheelbase. At 6'2", give me a long reach, steep seat tube, a steep (for 2019) head tube and I'm down with short c.s. so I can bunny hop/ manual easy.
Maybe better poll would be?
Type of riding you do and preferred chain-stay length on each?
XC
Trail
Enduro
Downhill
For me I do mainly do slower technical trail/XC riding up and down so I prefer bikes with shorter a WB shorter CS like 430mm.
Being stuck with one set chainstay length is dumb.
My trail bikes have ranged from 415 to 434. They all felt too short when trying to muscle up steep technical climbs. My piece of crap Mongoose fat bike has very long chainstays, and it’ll climb up anything I have the power for without drastic changes in body position. To say that it’s annoying I can only clean a couple of climbs on my $399 bike is a bit annoying!
all else the same 457 was significantly faster and easier to ride.
457mm CS made for less looping, easier to bunnyhop high, more naturally weighting pedals, better front wheel traction at all times, easier to drift rear wheel around tight corners, less pressure on hands and lower center of gravity (because weight isn't on handlebar so much)
there are multiple top pro's who have murmured avocation of long chainstays. Most consistent World cup winning bikes have had long chainstays. Riders successful riding long CS going to short CS have consistently struggled.
Are all you "short chainstay are right" proponents saying Minnar is wrong to have xlong chainstays?
Sam hill is riding 450mm chainstays. Danny hart's mondraker was long, Skarcen has 460mm chainstays. Fabien Barel's Stabs had 464mm chainstays, that didnt seem to slow him down.
I find that i can yank up harder and higher on a bike with longer chainstays without looping it out and the same also applies to lifting my front wheel over obstacles while climbing.
my ideal bike is around 60% weight on rear wheel. Modern bikes like kona process are like 70%
When you have more weight on one wheel than the other the more loaded wheel will see more stress, require a heavier spring, more damping, you will need sturdier tire and rim. the contact pressure at the ground will be higher on one wheel, so less loaded wheel (the front) will be more likely to skate, and the more loaded wheel will be likely to sink. the difference between how hard your rear and front wheel hit things will be polarized, which is not good.
I've been mtb'ing for over 16 years, starting with lots of urban riding. i can hop up a bar height ledge from flat, a 6 stair or or over a large log on a trail.
Mine are long and my latest bike has 455mm chainstays (same as the reach) and it handles brilliantly.
DJ 380, XC/DC 415, enduro 435-440, DH 435-450.
I'm glad there are a mix of bikes to choose from, cause if everyone was going long as reach & 440+mm chainstays I'd have few bikes to choose from in the future that would be more fun than what I already have.
@JesseE - for me personally it is about speeds bikes are ridden at, setup and evenutal possibility of styling. 29" Enduro bike with DH tyres has so much stability out of gyroscopic effect of wheels it makes little sense to go overkill. and yeah, I love the fact that there are bikes like Pole, I am all for diversity I just don't like the BS of it being better for everything and potential phasing out of good bikes. It is obvious Optic is a step too far.
I rest my case... everything I was pounding out of my keyboard for the last few years...
How else can it be that increasing wheelbase wouldn't require you to work harder to throw the bike around? It's physics. At some point bike is too short, you get too much feedback, yes. But at some point... it gets too big for the job...
Also I am tired of people calling bumpy, choppy trails with tight turns "technical" like KAz did... Riding Dirt Merchant is technical. Racing Air DH is technical. Riding VDS track is technical. Being wobbled on rocks at little speed, needing to slow down to almost zero for 90 degree corner is easy in many respects...
It makes sense to proportionally size front and rear triangles, but there are still folks who prefer a more agile bike.
I’d never consider having a short read end as being a reason for a bike feeling twitchy. If anything, a short front end and overly steep HTA is the cause for said twitch Ines.
Maybe learn to slarve a little?
Oh also short and like short chainstays.