# What is "low and slack" and why am I supposed to want it?



## RHEL (Dec 7, 2006)

I see this expression all over. Slack means nothing to me, low BB means pedal strikes, which somehow are a good thing?


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Slack is HTA and just a hindrance for those that don't have nice, wide, flowy trails. Turn like crap when it gets really tight.

Low BB is supposed to be all about center of gravity. Ooh let's lower it 15mm and say it'll make you better... It's more "stable" at speed just like being slack. 

Been trying to sort out any benefit of that for a couple years now. It has its benefits in some places and totally sucks for anywhere I've ridden so far. I'd rather adjust my body to make up for.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

RHEL said:


> I see this expression all over. Slack means nothing to me, low BB means pedal strikes, which somehow are a good thing?


Lower bikes "should" handle better (easier, more planted feel). "Slack" head tube angles (closer to 60* than 75*) are more "stable" at high speeds.

It means jack to *you*. Your trails will vary.

I have a Remedy, at about a 65* head angle, and a KTM Scarp at about a 70* head angle.

I'll take the Scarp any day for tight twisty stuff where I need to turn turn turn, and want to feel like I am in a sports car.
I'll take the Remedy when I want to bash over stuff and want feel like I am driving my F150.

Interestingly enough, I was only a few seconds off my Remedy's BEST time, the FIRST TIME I took the Scarp down our one downhill. It's twisty, with a fair amount of rocks. A 140/160mm Remedy with 2.4 new tread XR4 tires on I9 Enduro wheels, against a 100mm Scarp running "tiny" 23mm rims, and XR2 tires.

Only a few seconds slower.... Dang. Skinny rims and steep head angles really are horrible, aren't they?


----------



## RHEL (Dec 7, 2006)

OK, I had to look up HTA ;-) , but I understand that, thanks.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

"Long" refers to the reach- suffice to say a long bike is designed to be used with a little stubby stem.

"Low" is bb of course, and contributes to stability.

"Slack" refers to how far the front wheel is out in front of the head tube of the frame.

Combined, they make a bike that's good at conserving momentum, at the cost that they don't ride that great when you don't have any momentum. A strong/skilled rider can keep the long/low/slack bike up at speed, and knows when to pedal and when to keep his feet up. And we're all strong/skilled riders, right??




In truth, how long/low/slack is ideal depends on your skill, your riding style, and your trails. From my perspective it's been interesting watching the market catch up to my preferences for 10 years just to watch them blow past what i like in the quest for more L/L/S.


----------



## DethWshBkr (Nov 25, 2010)

scottzg said:


> Combined, they make a bike that's good at conserving momentum, at the cost that they don't ride that great when you don't have any momentum. A strong/skilled rider can keep the long/low/slack bike up at speed, and knows when to pedal and when to keep his feet up.


Thats what I think is the tough part about it.

Keeping a bike up in speed, means you are not pedaling uphill. A 65* angle bike with a low BB is intended mostly be going one way - down.
Going up, where it's a slow, long climb, they don't like that too much. If the trails are narrow, and twisty, they don't like that very much.

Often times then, that makes the nature of the trail turn more mellow. Less rocks, less roots, less logs = more speed, which is more for the newer bikes that want to "go faster".

I love the videos I see of out west riding. I can tell my Remedy would be much more at home there than here (although I still love the bike here!) I wish our trails were as wide! I don't always like what appears to be smooth stuff, but I like the wide, high speed stuff!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

It's a matter of degree too, of course.

My XC bike has a 70 degree head angle, rides kinda high, and fits me best with a 90 mm stem.

My trail bike has a 68 degree head angle, sits lower, and fits best with a 50 mm stem. It takes some focus to ride singletrack uphill. But it's more fun on pretty much all descents.

The brand actually makes it in a few different versions arranged by amount of suspension travel and getting slacker as they get longer travel. I have the 140 mm version. There's also a 160 mm version and last year there was a 170 that I think isn't back this year. I found the 160 mm bike to handle more heavily than I wanted.

OP, what's the background for your question? Will this be your first bike?


Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

For a newbie a bit low, slack and long are good things. I find my 130mm trail bike with 30-50mm stems and a 67 degree head angle perfect for the majority of riding. It handles the tightest corners and switchbacks easily, corners like crazy, and is still plenty stable when speeds get into the poopy pants range. Very safe bike as well, it will forgive a lot of mistakes and is very difficult to endo


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
I think bikes in that class are awesome right now, whether it's for a new rider or as a generalist bike for a strong rider. Even competitive Enduro on some courses...

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

As an experienced, descend first rider, I love the new geometry. Long, low, and slack can be made to corner well in all but the most tedious of trails. 

From an inexperienced rider's perspective... most newer riders(most riders period) under weight the front wheel and lean too much with their body in turns. This leads to front washouts, scraped knees/elbows, and bruised egos. This WILL happen more with slack geo, as the front tyre is harder to weight. Young riders make line errors, which will lead to more pedal strikes, and some nasty OTB crashes. 

The upside is that you'll likely become comfortable and confident on the descents sooner, and if you wanna learn the fun stuff(wheelies/manuals/etc) down the road, you're on a geo better suited for it.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Depending on the trails you ride, some of the longer lower bikes have a long wheelbase. The short travel bikes tend to be not so bad. If you're short in stature, the longer WB take a bit more skill on tighter turns.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I don't suppose it matters what "low and slack" means. Just wait a few weeks and the industry will be telling us all the opposite is better anyway.


----------



## RHEL (Dec 7, 2006)

Appreciate all the answers. Rake and trail I get, but "long low and slack" not so much.
I am 6'6", so looking at 29er's for my eventual next bike, term is ubiquitous.
My riding style is much like grandma's. slow on fire roads for now, but there's still hope.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

RAKC Ind said:


> Slack is HTA and just a hindrance for those that don't have nice, wide, flowy trails. Turn like crap when it gets really tight.


Alas! You forgot to mention chainstay length!

A long, slack front end - with a short, tucked rear end - can be a hoot on any type of trail.

My AM hardtail is long, low, slack AND nimble/playful because of its 416mm chainstay length. I can dance that bad boy up/over/around stuff and place the rear wheel exactly where I want it to be.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

RHEL said:


> Appreciate all the answers. Rake and trail I get, but "long low and slack" not so much.
> I am 6'6", so looking at 29er's for my eventual next bike, term is ubiquitous.
> My riding style is much like grandma's. slow on fire roads for now, but there's still hope.


Are fire roads what you want from your riding?

Sent from my E5803 using Tapatalk


----------



## RHEL (Dec 7, 2006)

I found this on the cane creek site while looking up HTA, in case anyone else is as ignant as me. Better search terms yield better results. ;-)

https://www.canecreek.com/culture/blog-news/slack-headtube-angle-what-is-it


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

RHEL said:


> Appreciate all the answers. Rake and trail I get, but "long low and slack" not so much.
> I am 6'6", so looking at 29er's for my eventual next bike, term is ubiquitous.
> My riding style is much like grandma's. slow on fire roads for now, but there's still hope.


you might want to look at the Surly Krampus in the 29+ category.I am not 6'6", but I do know that I feel like the geo of the Krampus, as well as the wheel size can be very versatile. I also chose it because I prefer fully rigid steel bikes. It would do great on fire roads because it is a friendly climber (at least to me) and rolls well over larger gravel or rocks. You can go slow on fire roads, and med or fast on trails when you are ready. I am sort of in your camp right now as I am looking to bike pack (long "straight" riding) but I also like riding singletrack...just not at break-neck speeds yet. This bike does both well....



06HokieMTB said:


> Alas! You forgot to mention chainstay length!
> 
> A long, slack front end - with a short, tucked rear end - can be a hoot on any type of trail.
> 
> My AM hardtail is long, low, slack AND nimble/playful because of its 416mm chainstay length. I can dance that bad boy up/over/around stuff and place the rear wheel exactly where I want it to be.


yeah. My Krampus had a "short" chainstay, (relative to the bike size) and I feel like it helps make the bike more versatile. I wouldn't consider it a "slack" bike with the 69.5 HTA, but it feels like it rides more slack than my old Trek 26er. Given how I shift my weight, the bike can ride either slack or nimble.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

My last bike was steep since it was a 2006, I dont know what angle, probably around 70. Going down hill was never very fun, it was sketchy, I just wanted to get the steep sections over with like swallowing medicine. New bike is a 67.5 angle 29er and downhill is a ton of fun now, I have much more confidence and the bike does what I want it to do, climbing hasnt suffered at all.

low and slack is just more fun


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

RHEL said:


> Appreciate all the answers. Rake and trail I get, but "long low and slack" not so much.
> I am 6'6", so looking at 29er's for my eventual next bike, term is ubiquitous.
> My riding style is much like grandma's. slow on fire roads for now, but there's still hope.





06HokieMTB said:


> Alas! You forgot to mention chainstay length!
> 
> A long, slack front end - with a short, tucked rear end - can be a hoot on any type of trail.
> 
> My AM hardtail is long, low, slack AND nimble/playful because of its 416mm chainstay length. I can dance that bad boy up/over/around stuff and place the rear wheel exactly where I want it to be.





idividebyzero said:


> My last bike was steep since it was a 2006, I dont know what angle, probably around 70. Going down hill was never very fun, it was sketchy, I just wanted to get the steep sections over with like swallowing medicine. New bike is a 67.5 angle 29er and downhill is a ton of fun now, I have much more confidence and the bike does what I want it to do, climbing hasnt suffered at all.
> 
> low and slack is just more fun


it is funny cause I didn't think I would notice a difference going from my old Trek, which was also a 70* to my Krampus, which is 69, but I do. It also might be that the TT is longer on the Krampus, but I feel "further back" when decneding.

I notice the bigger difference in the short chainstay and how it makes climbing "different"...easier in some ways, and trickier in others. Itis easier to make longer climbs, but trickier to do short ones..like real steep quick, techy climbs. I tend to "pop" the bike out in front of me on these b/c I get too far back. Once I get that down, it will be all good


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

In those few instances, 'choking up' on the bike (shifting your weight forward on the saddle, bending your elbows and bringing your chest lower & closer to the stem/bars) will help tremendously. Once you get used to short chainstays in technical riding, there is no going back.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

RHEL said:


> Appreciate all the answers. Rake and trail I get, but "long low and slack" not so much.
> I am 6'6", so looking at 29er's for my eventual next bike, term is ubiquitous.
> My riding style is much like grandma's. slow on fire roads for now, but there's still hope.





06HokieMTB said:


> Alas! You forgot to mention chainstay length!
> 
> A long, slack front end - with a short, tucked rear end - can be a hoot on any type of trail.
> 
> My AM hardtail is long, low, slack AND nimble/playful because of its 416mm chainstay length. I can dance that bad boy up/over/around stuff and place the rear wheel exactly where I want it to be.





06HokieMTB said:


> In those few instances, 'choking up' on the bike (shifting your weight forward on the saddle, bending your elbows and bringing your chest lower & closer to the stem/bars) will help tremendously. Once you get used to short chainstays in technical riding, there is no going back.


yep. I am in the process of that shift right now, but I already know that I love the short chainstay. It reminds me of my BMX bike in a way.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

RHEL said:


> Appreciate all the answers. Rake and trail I get, but "long low and slack" not so much.
> I am 6'6", so looking at 29er's for my eventual next bike, term is ubiquitous.
> My riding style is much like grandma's. slow on fire roads for now, but there's still hope.


Rake and trail are nouns used for specific measurements... Those terms don't give any indication what those measurements are on any particular bike though, they're just the term for the measurement itself.

'Long, low and slack' are adjectives, they describe particular ranges of measurements; long top tube, low bottom bracket and slack head angle.

As for the benefits, the new breed of long, low and slack bikes are just very confident and planted feeling particularly on descents. It's kind of that cliche of sitting 'in the bike' rather than 'on the bike.'


----------



## FJSnoozer (Mar 3, 2015)

The slacker will definitely help you out with confidence and prevention of getting slung forward when things get wild. It hinders climbing and low speed turning. Don't believe anyone that markets a bike as "climbs as good as." A 71 angle head tube XC oriented bike with slammed bars. is going to have very fast steering and is going to easier to climb on when things get super steep and technical going up. with proper riding skills and body position, you can descend like an animal on either bike. The margin of error is less on the 71 degree versus the 68.5, making the 68.5 preferable for most trail riders especially slow ones who want to conquer obstacles drops and jumps versus, setting a fastest lap time while managing obstacles. 

Decide what you want out of your bike, then ride the bikes as rentals or demos and decide if you really wanted what you thought you did in the first place. It should be different depending on the trail you ride. Its probably wise to pick the bike to fit the terrain you spend the most time on. Of course, that could change a lot over the next two years as your skills and appetite change.


----------

