# Slack head angles - good for novice to intermediate level riders?



## SpartyinWI (Jun 24, 2016)

I am pretty sure I want to buy my first FS mountain bike, not in a hurry but over the next year. Pretty positive I want short travel for my trails in SE Wisconsin. The question to me now is the head angle. How do I know if a Tallboy 4 or Salsa Spearfish is better? For 'moderate' riders not taking huge jumps, is there a downside to these slack angles? Thx. I've been riding a couple of hardtails for a few years.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

The two main downsides to a slack headtube are climbing and imprecise steering at low speed. A slack headtube puts the front wheel more forward, which means further away from the weight of the rider (depending on seat tube angle and some other things). That means the front end can be light while climbing.

A slack geometry bike likes to be leaned to be steered. Anytime you actually have to use your handlebars to steer, as in tight and twisties, it's going to be a bit of an adventure that will take some getting used to, assuming you are coming from XC geo. To me, once the bars are turned a bit from straight, they have a bit of a tendency to "flop" to an even greater deviation. Frankly, I still haven't quite gotten used to it.

It's not jumps that slack geometry particularly helps with. It's any time a less slack geometry would put too much weight forward, as in downhill or rough terrain where the front wheel might "stick" in something like a crevice in a rock garden. Also, a slack head tube tends to keep object strikes more "aligned" or parallel with the axis of the fork, rather transverse to it, so it's a bit better oriented to do its job.

Less than 68 degrees gets you toward slack. Getting toward 65 is really slack. There is no right answer. But since you mentioned short travel, I assume that means moderate trails, which might make you a better candidate for the higher-60 degree than the mid-60s frames. Also, until pretty recently, hardtails were rarely or never slack (angles greater than 70), so you are probably used to steep rather than slack.


----------



## SpartyinWI (Jun 24, 2016)

TwiceHorn said:


> The two main downsides to a slack headtube are climbing and imprecise steering at low speed. A slack headtube puts the front wheel more forward, which means further away from the weight of the rider (depending on seat tube angle and some other things). That means the front end can be light while climbing.
> 
> A slack geometry bike likes to be leaned to be steered. Anytime you actually have to use your handlebars to steer, as in tight and twisties, it's going to be a bit of an adventure that will take some getting used to, assuming you are coming from XC geo. To me, once the bars are turned a bit from straight, they have a bit of a tendency to "flop" to an even greater deviation. Frankly, I still haven't quite gotten used to it.
> 
> ...


Thanks man. Great post. I have Timberjack at 68.5 now, and an XC carbon hardtail at 69 degrees. I do like to smash into small rock beds. In my head I think 66.5-67.5 would be best for me for a new bike.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

At your location I'd be looking at a Trek Supercaliber when it comes out or Stache. And I'd demo them on trail or Trek's headquarters.


----------



## SpartyinWI (Jun 24, 2016)

eb1888 said:


> At your location I'd be looking at a Trek Supercaliber when it comes out or Stache. And I'd demo them on trail.


Certainly could. There are so many Treks around here though, not sure if I want to jump on board.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Well, you have already tasted slack then. The other thing to prepare yourself for is that they do lower the bottom bracket some, generally. Between that and a compressed suspension, you will experience lots more pedal strikes on an FS bike until you adjust.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

I think the handling is getting better and better on the slack bikes. I guess I shouldn't say slack at 67.2 and 67.5 degrees but it is far different than 70/71.

I have an FSR and Chamelon. Two head angles are within 1/4 degree of each other. I believe the fork offset is different (handles differently), or the shorter chameleon stem makes a difference. The chameleon tracks every so slightly straighter than the FSR at slow speed up a hill. I ride a lot of uphills. The compromise for ME to have a steeper head tube angle would make the rest of my riding less fun. So it is definitely a give/take scenario.

Plus you'll get used to it too and it will be 'normal'. If you don't have techy downhills though, the slacker hta isn't too important if you want the climbing ability that much more.

And do your own research on bottom bracket height. Suspension design is going to play a part because my FSR has a 3/4" higher BB height than my Chameleon and I have ocassional strikes with the FSR. Because when I sit on it or when I dip the suspension the pedals are closer to the ground. On the spec sheet, my full suspension has the highest BB of my 3 bikes.
So don't buy a bike just cause BB height doesn't sound high enough.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

SpartyinWI said:


> I am pretty sure I want to buy my first FS mountain bike, not in a hurry but over the next year. Pretty positive I want short travel for my trails in SE Wisconsin. The question to me now is the head angle. How do I know if a Tallboy 4 or Salsa Spearfish is better? For 'moderate' riders not taking huge jumps, is there a downside to these slack angles? Thx. I've been riding a couple of hardtails for a few years.


As described already, bikes with a "slack" head angle are generally better suited for stability at speed. Yes, they handle best when leaned aggressively into corners. Trying to turn the bars too much gets "floppy" up front and a bit tough to handle. Those are the generalities, and yeah, there are oftentimes other factors that go along with the slacker bikes like a longer reach, lower bb, and so on that are hard to tease out the details.

Honestly, the only sure-fire way to decide which bike is better for you on the trails that you ride is to hunt down some demo rides and decide what you like. That way, you can consider them in the "big picture" sense as a complete bike, rather than just numbers on a spec sheet.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

For me, the only reason I would buy a bike that wasn't fairly long low and slack is if I was wanting something for hitting dirt jumpers, skate parks and the like. I find the whole cliche that the "modern" geometry is terrible in tight slow tech to be massively overstated.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

93EXCivic said:


> I find the whole cliche that the "modern" geometry is terrible in tight slow tech to be massively overstated.


In a way, that's very true.

I didn't have a problem adapting my riding technique from old geo to new geo bikes. But I did have to change some things. Some people seem to have real problems with that. They lack the mental flexibility to be adaptable, I guess you could say. There have been some pretty angry posts by some people who absolutely refuse to adjust their riding, too. So it's less the ability to be flexible for some, and more a stubborn refusal to be flexible.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

I'm really wondering about the new 65.5 degree Santa Cruz Tallboy. That seems awfully slack for what is marketed as an XCish trail bike, and with the 29" wheels, it would seem the steering would be quite heavy for most riders. The worst part for me about 29ers is the heavy steering, so I wonder who that bike is marketed toward. Stability and wheelbase are good, but I wonder if they've finally gone too far.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Don't look at HTA, or any other single number, in isolation. The current crop of relatively slack (historically) bikes are not going to handle anything like what you would expect of an older bike that magically had a slacker HTA.


----------



## idividebyzero (Sep 25, 2014)

They are good for novice riders because having the wheel further forward gives MUCH more confidence when going down something steep. Going over the bars is one of the biggest fears beginners have to get over, a slack bike minimizes that and gets them riding rather than walking.

I think in general they take a little more finesse to handle but the way they give you more confidence and their ability to more comfortably handle aggressive terrain makes up for that. Its a lot easier to adapt to the steering characteristics than it is to throw a 78degree bike down a steep black trail.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

MSU Alum said:


> Don't look at HTA, or any other single number, in isolation. The current crop of relatively slack (historically) bikes are not going to handle anything like what you would expect of an older bike that magically had a slacker HTA.


100+ mm of trail is 100+ mm of trail. It doesn't matter if it is 20 years ago or now, bikes with a lot of trail have less snappy handling in exchange for greater stability.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

twodownzero said:


> I'm really wondering about the new 65.5 degree Santa Cruz Tallboy. That seems awfully slack for what is marketed as an XCish trail bike, and with the 29" wheels, it would seem the steering would be quite heavy for most riders. The worst part for me about 29ers is the heavy steering, so I wonder who that bike is marketed toward. Stability and wheelbase are good, but I wonder if they've finally gone too far.


I saw that and was slightly shocked.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

twodownzero said:


> I'm really wondering about the new 65.5 degree Santa Cruz Tallboy. That seems awfully slack for what is marketed as an XCish trail bike, and with the 29" wheels, it would seem the steering would be quite heavy for most riders. The worst part for me about 29ers is the heavy steering, so I wonder who that bike is marketed toward. Stability and wheelbase are good, but I wonder if they've finally gone too far.


I have similar concerns. 65.5 is very slack for trail/XC bike. Now there are ways to mitigate the handling impacts, but that can have impact elsewhere. I really wonder how slack can you go for bikes that mean to be ridden all over?


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I have a 65° hardtail. The only time this is an actual issue is in Very tight turns/lines and slow trialsy tech. It helps that the chainstays are only 419mm. Im an aggressive rider, I like leaning the bike hard in turns. Assuming we're not talking about racing XC... I'd say that the question of if the Tallboy is too slack is mostly preference, rider style, what you're used to, etc.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

JoePAz said:


> I have similar concerns. 65.5 is very slack for trail/XC bike. Now there are ways to mitigate the handling impacts, but that can have impact elsewhere. I really wonder how slack can you go for bikes that mean to be ridden all over?


That's as slack as my 27.5 Enduro blaster, which for obvious reasons I use to tolerate climbing and enjoy the downhill (and I could make it a bit steeper with an air shaft change). For a 29er, that is excessively slack; many 29er Enduro bikes aren't even that slack. I really wonder where they were going with that. It seems like too much. Even the 5010 at 66.5 is pretty slack for a trail bike, but not intolerable.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

JoePAz said:


> I have similar concerns. 65.5 is very slack for trail/XC bike. Now there are ways to mitigate the handling impacts, but that can have impact elsewhere. I really wonder how slack can you go for bikes that mean to be ridden all over?


The way to mitigate that is with more weight on the handlebar. Lol...that's one of the reasons for seat tube angles getting so steep. If you don't keep weight on the bar...it"ll either flop or the bike will end up riding you. The lower the speeds...the worse slack bikes handle.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

twodownzero said:


> 100+ mm of trail is 100+ mm of trail. It doesn't matter if it is 20 years ago or now, bikes with a lot of trail have less snappy handling in exchange for greater stability.


An old bike with 100mm of trail and a slack STA will handle much differently than a new geometry type of bike with a steep STA with 100mm of trail.

Again, for the OP, don't look at any single geometry number in isolation.

I wouldn't buy the Tallboy without riding it, but I wouldn't avoid demo-ing it just because of the super slack HTA.


----------



## SpartyinWI (Jun 24, 2016)

MSU Alum said:


> An old bike with 100mm of trail and a slack STA will handle much differently than a new geometry type of bike with a steep STA with 100mm of trail.
> 
> Again, for the OP, don't look at any single geometry number in isolation.
> 
> I wouldn't buy the Tallboy without riding it, but I wouldn't avoid demo-ing it just because of the super slack HTA.


Seat angle is relevant to this as well, right. It hard not to emphasize head angle when the experts writing the reviews are emphasizing it. Its almost the next big question to me after tire sizes, but I think I am honing in on that. For me, 'versatile' is probably best.


----------



## SpartyinWI (Jun 24, 2016)

idividebyzero said:


> They are good for novice riders because having the wheel further forward gives MUCH more confidence when going down something steep. Going over the bars is one of the biggest fears beginners have to get over, a slack bike minimizes that and gets them riding rather than walking.
> 
> I think in general they take a little more finesse to handle but the way they give you more confidence and their ability to more comfortably handle aggressive terrain makes up for that. Its a lot easier to adapt to the steering characteristics than it is to throw a 78degree bike down a steep black trail.


This is interesting and something I thought about. Maybe I would gain more confidence with a slacker HA.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

MSU Alum said:


> An old bike with 100mm of trail and a slack STA will handle much differently than a new geometry type of bike with a steep STA with 100mm of trail.
> 
> Again, for the OP, don't look at any single geometry number in isolation.
> 
> I wouldn't buy the Tallboy without riding it, but I wouldn't avoid demo-ing it just because of the super slack HTA.


I understand where you're coming from, but I still don't agree. Seat angle is going to change weight balance on the bike, but that isn't going to change the steering response. Only steering geometry is relevant to the relationship between steering angle and the resulting lean angle. I do agree with your general sentiment that a geometry chart shouldn't be read piecemeal and should be examined in its entirety. I guess where I disagree is that although anything that changes (static or dynamic) center of gravity is going to change "handling" generally, when I think of handling, I think of the relationship between the bars and the resulting steering response, and there, the primary determinant is steering geometry, not the whole geo chart.

I would ride that bike as well, especially because it's so far outside the norm that I really do want to see if it's something new and great or if it's as sluggish steering as I think it'll be. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

My 2018 Transition Sentinel was a pure beast on the descents. The Sentinel has a 64 degree HTA and was total fun. It was a bit of work to steer it on narrow singletrack trails and switchbacks but I managed with some practice. My Scout actually has 65 degree HTA and it's a great well-rounded trail bike even with so much slack. People nickname the Transition Scout as the "mini enduro." I can still navigate tight turns but I do it faster than my Sentinel. 

You can learn to navigate all sorts of trails on a slacked out mountain bike but it may require a bit of saddle time to get your feel for it.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

MSU Alum said:


> Don't look at HTA, or any other single number, in isolation. The current crop of relatively slack (historically) bikes are not going to handle anything like what you would expect of an older bike that magically had a slacker HTA.


I've been talking to the LBS about this lately, just wondering what life would be like with something less than 70 degrees and more than 120mm. Two different guys basically said that more travel is really to keep the bike planted in rougher terrain but it will not necessarily be faster downhill (I know that sounds counterintuitive). Some of the fastest riders in my area have 80-100mm forks with steeper head tube angles. They get by on skill and fitness, not fork travel. Also, as MSU says, the head tube angle is just one number. You can have 70 degrees and still have a very modern geometry on the rest of the bike compared with the cramped upright bikes of the past (which were basically road bikes with thicker frames and some suspension). Personally, I don't like sluggish handling so I don't think I would really like 160mm front suspension (or 29" voluminous/plus), but I'll try it someday and see.


----------

