Mountain bikers love meddling with dials, spacers, air pressures, …heck, anything that can be readjusted has probably been changed. Flip chips are one of those features commonly built into bikes to slacken or steepen the head angle within the manufacturers guidelines. We’ve also seen those invertible pieces used to change the suspension’s leverage rate, as seen on Trek’s Session. Another place they’re popped up more recently is on the rear triangle, allowing riders to switch between 27.5" and 29” rear wheels.
Lately, I’ve noticed a few new bike models which can accept either rear wheel sizes, but that comes with a compromise - the 29" chainstay is longer than the 27.5 setting. Take for example the new
Scott Ransom and the
Arc8 Extra.
You might think the rider who wants the smaller rear wheel is looking for more maneuverability, so surely they’d appreciate a shorter chainstay too. While that may be true to a degree, it drastically changes the tone of the bike. In fact, I’d argue that it potentially ruins the nature of the bike by positioning too much weight over the rear wheel. Changing the rear wheel size already changes the front to rear balance of the bike, even without altering the chainstay length.
We can look at the shift that downhill bikes underwent as they moved from dual 29" with relatively short chainstays, to mixed-wheeled configurations with chainstays that measure longer than their 29 counterparts. This long rear center and small rear wheel combo retains stability but allows the wheel to tip into corners easier.
I recently had the opportunity to put that theory to the test by riding a yet-to-be released DH bike that used multiple flip-chips, one to switch between rear wheel sizes and another to alter the chainstay length. Not every bike can offer both of these flip-chips, though. That can be due to packaging constraints, added cost, negative attributes which influence the suspension kinematics linkages, or just the brands’ intended ride characteristics.
The Giant Reign and We Are One Arrival are two enduro bikes with medium to longer chain lengths (443 and 447mm, respectively) that can accept either rear wheel size without altering the geometry. During the review period of these bikes I had a chance to try back-to-back comparisons with both wheels. Although the geometry doesn’t change on paper, there is an inherent effect in which the smaller wheel makes the bike feel like it has a shorter chainstay already.
The larger diameter, and therefore heavier, rear wheel simply brings along greater forces, in both vertical and lateral directions, meaning It can kick you around when plunging straight down the hill and requires more leverage to initiate the bike into a turn. When you switch to the smaller wheel and a shorter chainstay, the effective center of mass changes dramatically.
What’s the answer then? After noting my qualitative changes between wheel sizes, bike brands who would like to offer two rear wheel sizes should consider two chainstay length options as well. A more sensible option would be to keep the chainstay length the same when swapping to a 27.5” rear wheel if you’re looking for a more playful bike, or better yet, make the chainstay even longer if you want to retain that stability.
Is that cheap, take less resources, or make bikes less complicated? Certainly not, but simply slapping a flip-chip in there for the sake of fitting both wheel sizes could be hindering the performance of your otherwise outstanding bike.
Not this guy. Coil suspension, 11sp Drivetrain, No flip chips on my current bike and no intention to change any of that. The less time I have to spend messing with my bike the better.
As for the opinion, I don't give a rat's patoody about flip chips and all that. The bike should work just how it is.
how does either an 11spd drivtrain, and coil suspension mean less futzing with your bike?
or the lack of a flip chip?
I'm gonna need some further details.
Riding my hardtail in any sort of aggressive terrain, or in an aggressive manner requires more mental capacity on my part. Its far more hectic, requires much more focus on the terrain further ahead, requires more precise line choice, requires a more dialed back ride on new or blind trails, just reqires more if I'm going to ride at a quick pace. If I'm just toodling around, sure, but it still doesnt make things less complicated.....
And I'm not sure how 11spd, or coils change any of that?
You guys are all so soft, I only ride 8spd
I've got a fully ridgid Stumpy, running 6spd friction shifting, and anything else is so over the top, you guys have no idea.....
Fack we are a weird bunch, what a strange flex!
Dont forget to tell all the "early adopters" that theyre sheep for buying into the SRAM marketing!
You shouldnt even be using clipless pedals, its rattraps or nothing at all!
I have a buddy with a Stumpy evo, loads of adjustability, hasnt tried it in the "low" mode of the setting as he said it would be too low. when I checked the online configurator, it was 1mm lower.....1mm.
Same buddy has splashed out on Fox Factory suspension, but did not know how to measure sag. Also never checks his sag, in fact of 20 buddies who all ride at a very high level, 3 of them would check sag prior to a ride. 5 of them hadnt checked sag all season....all riding expensive full sus mountain bikes
I wish there was a universally acceptable "sarcasm font"
@brianpark, if you developed this, and made it available in the comment section ,i bet it would catch on around the world......
In my opinion it comes down to two topics as to why I think as much adjustability as possible is the way to go. Taste and physiology.
If you look at it from a distance and compare it to things we got used to it comes very clear to me why we should all be able to choose to fit both of the mentioned topics:
Example - Take out all of the adjustability from my car seat please and just get it right the first time. Or just give me 5 positions .As we all come in different size and shape 5 to 6 sizes in frames can’t possibly fit all the riders out there. Now some of you might say that there are handlebars, grips etc. to fix that problem they all have the same dramatic side affects if not more than adjustable geometry plus they don’t necessarily change what you are looking for plus you spend more money on buying parts to error what seems most comfortable for you.
Example for taste - ban all the salt shakers in restaurants and just make the cook get it right the first time. I think I don’t need to elaborate and with things like tyres, grips, airpressure in forks and tyres that we already got used to, we are very picky. Imagine there would be gas filled cartridges according to your weight in forks because the brand has to just get it right…
I totally understand the overwhelming frustration of all the adjustments on modern bikes which leads me to where I think companies should get things right the first time:
Lockout levers for example. Everyone who did some technical climbing knows that traction is key so in my opinion these lockout levers should go. Kinematics should not be designed around the option to lock the rear out. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate a quickly accessible platform to give some more support but that’s not the same thing. Another example would be brake alignment. The number of bikes I see in the shop where the brakepads can’t use the whole surface due to poor tolerances is wild. @specailized I am talking to you. The list goes on with shock/waterborne compatibility etc. These are things where nobody profits from no matter your taste or physiology.
No one forces you to flip a chip or exchange a headset cup. Do you want to ride the stock setup, cool. That’s fine but why not have the option? Complexity? C‘mon…
And of course there’s that one guy who says „but you could mess the geo up and f*ck up the intended ridefeel but to come back to the car example, there are also guys who think they are faster with there seat rolled back all the way and closer to the ground. Idiocy should not be the reason to stop trying making bikes as fitted as possible.
Proof me wrong, I am happy to be convinced.
Sure you could say that the car seat is more analogous to bar highs etc. but what I wanted to make clear that there we are very pleased to have a infinitely variable in x and y axes, same goes for the steering wheel in cars and even then people buy bigger, burlier or different material steering wheels. My point is, who is hurt by geometry adjustment?
To return to your original point, prior to my SJE the flip chip on my previous bike didn’t make that much difference, whereas on my SJE having it set up correctly for the riding that I’m doing has a significant impact on my enjoyment.
*Adjustable CS length
*Adjustable Shock Progression chip (Not a flip chip that changes BB / HA )
*Optional Links to run a Mullet or 29 ( Sold on Mfg website for those that want it)
*External cable routing (mainly for brake line)
*Size specific CS lengths
*Shorter Cranks 155mm-170MM (to correlate with frame sizes and suspension travel)
*Threaded BB
*Generous TT Length ( but not too long)
*76-78.5 deg. STA ( to correlate with size frame)
*Dropper insertion clearance for longer post (all frame sizes)
*Water bottle mount for standard size bottle
*NO HEADSET/ HANDLEBAR / STEM CABLE ROUTING OR INTERNAL SHOCK FRAMES !!!!
To me the difference is- why do you ride? I’m an ex Moto racer for most of my life, and I’m racing the clock when pointed downhill. It’s all I see, and I don’t care who sees me.
I picked up a Trust Message fork for my Tallboy, and was determined to cure the infamous harsh ride. And I did.. It took a lot experimentation, but I found a hidden sweet spot in a psi and unorthodox light rebound setting.
Now I don’t have to talk shit about that fork and throw it out for something else.
Was still just grade school arithmetic that got me there..
For example, I have shoes size 13.
If I ride a 26” dirt jump bike my heels and therefore my weight is way back behind the rear axle. Rides strange, more like a unicycle than my beloved trail slayer.
That’s a completely different riding experience compared to someone with size 9shoes for example.
Addressing this issue with Frame sizing isn’t a perfect solution either as for example short riders sill could have massive feet…
Umm, I went from XC style clipless to clipless platforms, and it allowed me to experiment with more fore/aft foot positions on the pedals.
I’m now about 10mm “back” from what I had to run for support on the full race XC baby pedals.
That’s 10mm more reach, and it’s put my weight further forward where I never knew I needed to be! Feels much more natural.
Size 11 feet.
That came first.
Riding is a pleasure compared to my roadie in the woods set up!
..thank you!
IDK where I got the idea that Mtn biking was “XC based”.
I got into it around year 2000, and I guess that’s all I saw.
Coming from Moto racing, I assumed a certain amount of suckitude because it’s bicycles..
24 years later, things are different, and it’s all good!
Have your cake and eat it.
You can have any wheel arrangement and independent geometry changes. On a bike that is 5 years old and still current.
And they're just about indestructible to boot(er)
You may also get warm fuzzies from not supporting communist factories in China/Vietnam if that's a thing you care about.
I feel like I am having my cake and eating it, the only problem is I have to keep swapping to firmer springs
Also look at their geo charts carefully, the listed stack is often based on a shorter fork A2C than most would choose with any given frame. Most would run a 170mm fork (~585mm A2C) with a G1 but the chart specs 567mm.
People like Jeff Kendall -Weed or other YouTubers will point this out when testing different bikes. With that being said, any given bike may not necessarily be fitting for you and your trails, thus leaving you vexed with the company and their design philosophy. Too add, your particular body mechanics and abilities will render different input / output on any bike design; One may rip on a certain brand and model while the other may struggle or be less confident on that same bike.
For general trails (western NC) I mostly use 29 rear, but on the 27 climbing is just barely slower. It doesn't really feel any worse tho. But park riding is waaaaaay more fun w/ the rear 27, and the difference is palpable, esp w/ running Cush in the 27. I like getting faster times, and in doing lots of testing with this, I still continue to get faster times on either 29 or 27 rear - the main difference is just the more playful feeling on rear 27.
It's just bikes. Play around and you'll find things you don't expect. Often you don't find anything better or noticable and sometimes it's obviously worse but to actually know the differences you have to take it to different places to actually know. Effing around is not required either.... just like what you like - no one really gives a shit. Its your own choice. The point is just to play, cipher, & have fun on a bike.
Ive been guilty of saying reach, BB heights, stack, chainstays, rise & spacer heights (etc) have to be certain numbers but then making changes (esp in park conditions w/ lots of runs) - you can get used to almost anything, and find awesome new ways to tweak a bike.
So I am more than ok with a bike with little adjustments. Just ride it and love it, because in the end it is your bike and you will love just because of that.
While I'm older now I'm on a "budget" enduro bike with mid-tier "set it and forget it" suspension (Marzocchi) and I'm way faster/ better than I was in the past. IMHO it's 90% your skillset not the bike and the setup.
I don’t know about this… unless you’re simply referring to a tiny bit less weight in the rear wheel and tire. But the balance of the bike as your ride it should stay the same as long as the contact patches and bottom bracket are all in the same spot relative to each other, right?
It felt longer at the back than the front. It was unbalanced and scary when descending steep stuff.
Current 29er hardtail has nice short 430mm chainstay, long reach, 66 head angle. Simple. Very balanced.
I am not one of these riders who likes to "meddle with dials". My bike has a fork that is set perfectly and a dropper that goes up and down.
It. Just. Works.
1) wheel size / mixed wheel size
2) adjustable geometry / chainstay length, modular or adjustable dropouts, flip chips, head angle chips
We feel the “optimal” setup is often subjective to what the rider wants and where/how the bike is going to be riden
The “optimal” setup is reached by considering all the adjustments and options at once to understand how they harmonize
In general we feel bikes with adjustable geo options are a “win” for the consumers because they benefit more types of rider needs - we also think the adjustable bikes can often stay relevant longer because they adapt to new trends in suspension, geo, and parts easier - this offers some level of “ future-proofing”
\m/
But I really want my next bike to have an adjustable headset and chainstay so I can dial in the FIT. Medium on my frame is too short, large is slightly too long, if I could reduce reach by 10mm on the large it would fit perfect. Then I would probably want to adjust the chainstay to keep the balance.
Bike makers cannot account for every body type with S/M/L/XL but they can make it easier for riders to get the right fit using adjustable headsets and chainstays.
Crazy
I'm running my S4 Stumpjumper Evo mullet (WRP yoke) but have fitted the seatstay from an S5 siE, this lengthens the chainstay from 438 (neutral head angle, high BB) to 448m.
The increase in stability that the longer chainstay offers is appreciated and allows me to keep a good amount of weight on the front for flat corners whilst maintaining a generous stack height for steeper trails, the long CS also allows me to run a shorter stem to maintain good leverage over the bike for manuals.
I've tried all of the geo settings plus both wheel sizes with the wrp yoke and specialized mullet linkage and this is by far the best all round setting.
Bike companies should start designing and marketing their bikes around front to rear center ratio, a ratio of 1.79 to 1.8 feels great to me, this can be achieved by running the Atunly in the steep head angle (65) and long chainstay (447) brining the front wheel closer and moving the rear wheel away the rider is more in the middle of the bike, it corners so nicely on flat turns here, very intuitively with a sensation of the bike pivoting around you.
Please no. Please?
Just get the geometry right on the first try.
But for those of us who'd like to own one bike that can morph for a handful of special rides per year, flip chips make a lot of sense.
there are many "wrong" geometries however
Then as you said the front will feel lighter with a smaller rear wheel even if geo is fully preserved. For someone who likes the long rear center feel this is sort of a lose lose
If there were two options wouldn't the seatstays have to be changed as well?
short as possible plez (BMX back ground)