Two Things

 In today's "Two Things" post, I am going to discuss an idea for gravel bikes which came out of the Checkout discussion and another idea based on a bicycle I posted an image of recently which readers professed admiration for as well. 

My old 2006 Salsa Cycles Dos Niner. 

Dual Suspension Gravel Or Soft-tail?

One of the ideas which came up during the recent discussion about the Trek Checkout was an old MTB design which has not really been thoroughly explored for gravel. This idea is the soft-tail design. I wrote about this idea in detail back in 2022 HERE. 

I tried a soft-tail at the 2010 DK200, and there is merit to this idea. The thing is, no one has yet figured out how to best execute this soft-tail idea for gravel, especially from a vibration reduction standpoint. Unless you want to include Salsa's passive, in-frame designed Class V VRS. Which does do what we are talking about here effectively. (There are some other examples as well)

First of all, suspension for gravel, especially for racing on gravel, is pretty much a no-go. Any kind of interruption of power transfer from human to tire contact patch is a real negative for a racer. So, most anything you try to design for a suspension based vibration reduction system is going to be met with disdain from an efficiency and feel standpoint with a racer's perspective. 

Soft-tail design might actually work if the resources were poured into the damper to give it resistance to movement when power is applied and allow the damper to work below certain power thresholds to help riders be less fatigued over a longer distance. This would probably mean a sophisticated electronic sensor and valve control set up. I think it is 100% possible, but who is going to go "all F1" on this idea? It would cost a LOT of money! 

And then, like I said in the linked article, why not just use a suspension seat post? Less complexity, similar results. It wouldn't be for the Pro and semi-Pro riders, but for everyone else? 

Maybe. 

Does The Past Have Any Answers For Vibration Reduction?

One of my recent images garnered a lot of praise in the comments section. It was of my Honeman Flyer, a custom made frame by King Fabrications, with geometry taken right off a 1936 era track bike combined in a stunning bit of paint work and was the muse of those folks. 

While I could go on about the bike, the paint job, and how much I like this bicycle, I wanted to focus in on a thing I feel many companies miss out on and what was important in the past which maybe should be thought more about now. 

That 'thing'? Ride quality. Maybe you'd call it "ride feel". Which ever way you want to describe this, I think we've lost our way by focusing on gear, electronics, and racing. Maybe we are relying too much on tires and vibration-reducing stems and seat posts. I think the original intentions for the geometry the Honeman Flyer is based upon might be something to consider when it comes to 'ride quality'. 

This type of bicycle was made in the early to late 1930's, a time when extravagance was in short supply. Riders of custom-made bicycles had to pay a dear amount to get their hands on one bicycle. Maybe they threw in together with other riders in a club which afforded these members access to pure-bred racing bikes with stems and seat posts made to adjust to riders of different measurements. This was done as a way to get a racing bike for all club members and share the cost. This was fairly common in these times. 

The predominate form of bicycle racing was still on tracks, but these were few and far between and riders from areas outside of tracks had to make do with training over rough back roads, on gravel, and where possible, on pavement. This meant that for many cyclists of the day who were competitive, their bicycle had to deal with rough roads, gravel, dirt, and be comfortable, handle well, and still perform as a track bike. 

Tall order! But frame builders arrived at certain ways to accommodate this all, and in doing so, created a ride quality which was at once forgiving on rough stuff, a bike which handled well, and still rode fast, and produced good results at track racing events. One such design being produced by John "Pop" Brennan was ridden to national championships on the track by Willie Honeman. This is the design I copied and had Li King execute for me in steel tubing at his shop. 

It is a very unconventional design from our 2025 perspectives, but it rides like a dream. Could it be that a litigious society, testing protocols, designs stemming from one-use mindsets, and fashion has clouded our ability to make a simple bike which rides nicely for the masses? 

Again - Maybe so....

Soft-Tail Design And Gravel: A Match Made In Heaven?

From Ritchey's Twitter feed last Wednesday.

I came across a Tweet from Ritchey-Official last Wednesday. Apparently some Italian folks got a hold of an old Ritchey soft-tail MTB and turned it into a gravel bike. 

The soft-tail design, where chain stays are relied upon for some flex and a small, very short travel damper is placed between the seat stays and the seat tube, is nothing new. The idea has been banging around on mountain bikes since the 1980's, and earlier design patents show that the idea was at least around in the late 19th Century. However; you do not see many of these bikesout and about.

Perhaps that is because the modern soft-tail was always aimed at being a solution for XC mountain biking. The trouble was that typically the travel/damping was not very effective and the design introduced other problems like flex, stress breakage to the chain stays, and difficulties making the design work for smaller sized riders. 

That said, Moots has been making their "YBB" soft tail design for years, and Ritchey and Salsa Cycles made some well known versions of this design over the years as well. That said, it just hasn't really ever been a great mountain bike solution for most riders. This kept sales low, and in some cases, the bikes went away due to design faults and low sales numbers.

My Salsa Cycles Dos Niner at the 2010 DK200

I've tried a soft tail design before in "real" mountain biking situations and for gravel riding. In my experience, the idea seemed to be far more at home on gravel versus the mountains. That said, the soft-tail generally is not designed to mitigate vibrations as much as it is designed to "take the edge off" trail obstacles when the rear tire hits them. 

There is a big difference there. I feel as though the soft-tail design has merit for gravel travel, it is just that no one has really hit the nail on the head with regard to using the idea to mitigate vibrations and not be a "suspension" platform. 

Sure, Moots, as mentioned, does a Routt YBB gravel bike, and BMC has their URS 1. Trek integrated their ISO Speed rear damping design into their Checkpoint bikes. So, there are examples of the idea out there for gravel. It's just that there aren't many choices that don't cost an arm and a leg, so many riders would never benefit from this idea.

And as well, one could counter with the idea of a suspension seat post, which could go into any frame, and is transferable, bike-to-bike. Obviously, such devices cost a lot less as well and have similar, if not the same results in ride feel for the rider. 

One could argue that a suspension seat post turns any bike into a soft-tail.

And if the idea is to protect the rider from vibrations, a suspension seat post is perhaps the better solution here. It doesn't matter if the rider stands up or not, because we only are concerned about vibration reductions at the saddle if the rider is seated. We are not looking for better wheel traction. Plus the design doesn't require expensive frames, and it doesn't over-stress chain stays, which are often the weak point in soft-tail design.

So, is a soft-tail design not a good idea? I wouldn't dismiss this design idea out of hand. If done elegantly and with rider vibration reduction in mind, it makes sense for gravel riding. I don't think "travel" at the rear wheel is what gravel riders necessarily need here, so over-stressing chain stays needn't happen either. 

But yes- Obviously a suspension seat post, or even a rigid post designed to mitigate vibrations, is a much more elegant, less expensive, and non-proprietary way to go. Either way, I think riders could benefit from the designs. 

Maybe I should build up that Dos Niner again and test out my theories.....

Soft-Tail Design And Gravel: A Match Made In Heaven?

From Ritchey's Twitter feed last Wednesday.

I came across a Tweet from Ritchey-Official last Wednesday. Apparently some Italian folks got a hold of an old Ritchey soft-tail MTB and turned it into a gravel bike. 

The soft-tail design, where chain stays are relied upon for some flex and a small, very short travel damper is placed between the seat stays and the seat tube, is nothing new. The idea has been banging around on mountain bikes since the 1980's, and earlier design patents show that the idea was at least around in the late 19th Century. However; you do not see many of these bikesout and about.

Perhaps that is because the modern soft-tail was always aimed at being a solution for XC mountain biking. The trouble was that typically the travel/damping was not very effective and the design introduced other problems like flex, stress breakage to the chain stays, and difficulties making the design work for smaller sized riders. 

That said, Moots has been making their "YBB" soft tail design for years, and Ritchey and Salsa Cycles made some well known versions of this design over the years as well. That said, it just hasn't really ever been a great mountain bike solution for most riders. This kept sales low, and in some cases, the bikes went away due to design faults and low sales numbers.

My Salsa Cycles Dos Niner at the 2010 DK200

I've tried a soft tail design before in "real" mountain biking situations and for gravel riding. In my experience, the idea seemed to be far more at home on gravel versus the mountains. That said, the soft-tail generally is not designed to mitigate vibrations as much as it is designed to "take the edge off" trail obstacles when the rear tire hits them. 

There is a big difference there. I feel as though the soft-tail design has merit for gravel travel, it is just that no one has really hit the nail on the head with regard to using the idea to mitigate vibrations and not be a "suspension" platform. 

Sure, Moots, as mentioned, does a Routt YBB gravel bike, and BMC has their URS 1. Trek integrated their ISO Speed rear damping design into their Checkpoint bikes. So, there are examples of the idea out there for gravel. It's just that there aren't many choices that don't cost an arm and a leg, so many riders would never benefit from this idea.

And as well, one could counter with the idea of a suspension seat post, which could go into any frame, and is transferable, bike-to-bike. Obviously, such devices cost a lot less as well and have similar, if not the same results in ride feel for the rider. 

One could argue that a suspension seat post turns any bike into a soft-tail.

And if the idea is to protect the rider from vibrations, a suspension seat post is perhaps the better solution here. It doesn't matter if the rider stands up or not, because we only are concerned about vibration reductions at the saddle if the rider is seated. We are not looking for better wheel traction. Plus the design doesn't require expensive frames, and it doesn't over-stress chain stays, which are often the weak point in soft-tail design.

So, is a soft-tail design not a good idea? I wouldn't dismiss this design idea out of hand. If done elegantly and with rider vibration reduction in mind, it makes sense for gravel riding. I don't think "travel" at the rear wheel is what gravel riders necessarily need here, so over-stressing chain stays needn't happen either. 

But yes- Obviously a suspension seat post, or even a rigid post designed to mitigate vibrations, is a much more elegant, less expensive, and non-proprietary way to go. Either way, I think riders could benefit from the designs. 

Maybe I should build up that Dos Niner again and test out my theories.....

Friday News And Views

Big Numbers For Series On Trans Iowa:

First of all- Thank You readers! The suggestion to write the stories of Trans Iowa, the more "untold", behind-the-scenes the better, has been a fun thing for me to do. But more importantly, the series has been gaining traction and of late, has become some of the most looked at posts on this blog.

Look- I've blathered on about that event for the better part of 15 years, so I get it if you are one of those that just doesn't care about this stuff. However; it would appear from the stats I get from Google that many of you are actually looking at these posts, and I hope, enjoying them. I just wanted to point this out because it is encouraging to me and helps to push me to write better content.

So, I thought I might share a little bit about the behind-the-scenes on the series. First of all, I write these posts on the "Trans Iowa Stories" series weeks in advance. For example, I am already working on posts for the series that will show up in October. This gives me the chance to revisit each draft and revise, make corrections, or add any newly discovered memories before they "go live" on the site, at which point I don't plan on changing anything.

This also gives me chances to sift through the 15 years of posts that have bits of the story buried in there. I also have been looking at hard physical evidence- roster sheets, drafts of courses, and more that I have squirreled away in folders and three ring binders here. So, it's been fun, and I am enjoying the process, and I hope that it all results in good reads for you.

Thanks again!

Trek Supercaliber w/IsoStrut. Image pinched from Trek's site

 Could It Work On A Gravel Bike?

Design Mission Statement: Make a rear suspension design that is compact, lightweight, pedal efficient, and is "just enough to knock the edges off". This has been an idea that has been tackled by several designers and is an idea that is as old as the Safety Bicycle itself. Many have tried, some have succeeded, but not many have been reasonably priced, effective, and low enough maintenance to prove to be a long term solution.

Of course, we are talking about the "short travel", soft-tail idea. Moots YBB is probably the longest production version of this idea in existence. However, it is crude, not easily tune-able, and is maintenance intensive in dirty environments. Salsa Cycles had the Dos Niner, a fantastic design fraught with breakage due to the flexing Scandium infused aluminum alloy frame bits the design relied upon. Passive versions of this idea exist. Example- Like the aforementioned Salsa Cycles, who now make the Class V VRS system for the Warbird and Cutthroat. However, that passive suspension idea, while fairly bulletproof, is not at all tune-able. This brings us to Trek's latest announcement of the new Supercaliber MTB racing bike.

The Trek design is very much like the Salsa Dos Niner, which also used a strut and relied on flexing stays for its suspension travel. However; Trek's design moves the damper to become part of the top tube, and they employed carbon fiber as a flexing frame material instead of Scandium Aluminum. The Supercaliber has 60mm of rear travel, by the way.

Passive designs, like those being used on gravel bikes these days, all rely on the rider to be seated to work, but a soft-tail design does not, and it makes one wonder- Could something like this be a good thing on a gravel/all-road bike? (I was just thinking- "gravel/all road bike >>>G-ARB?) Anyway....

It's an intriguing thought, and you can bet Trek's in house R&D team have already been toying with just such an idea.

These are NOT looking like motorcycles. Nope! Not in the least....

Eurobike To Be Re-Named "E-eurobike"

Reports coming in from Eurobike are that the "electrification" of bicycles is reaching all-time highs. Euro-folk, apparently, are mad for anything with two wheels and a motor. Now the move is to make these rigs "more connected" and more powerful than ever.

Take this Trifecta RDR bike, shown to the left here. It's 74lbs of futuristic electrified power. It has the options of either 250w, 500w, or 950w power (!!!) and is said to be capable of covering 200K before needing a re-charge. The motor spits out a torque rating of 120Nm. (That's a LOT, by the way. 88.51Ft/lbs of torque on tap, or about 2HP @120rpm)

That's just one example of many. But here's the thing many are not thinking about now. What about all those lithium/ion batteries? What happens when they die? Where do those go? How many chains and chain rings will all this unnaturally created torque eat up? How many more wheels? Freehubs?

The PBMA (Professional Bicycle Mechanics Association) has a forum and you can read about how these HPC's are eating up components at an alarming rate, how these vehicles have to be hooked up to computers and analyzed, like your cars, and how riders, unskilled in shifting and braking techniques, are wreaking havoc on components built for purely human powered bicycles adapted to HPC use to keep weights down.

Eurobike is touting the windfall of profits these vehicles are bringing companies and dealers, but is anyone seeing how we are making bicycling more complex, less inclusive, less environmentally good, and less like.....bicycling? You will retort, "Yeah, but one less car!", or something akin to how your brother's cousin is now enjoying "bicycling" again due to the electrification of cycling. But I say, do we really know that all these HPC's are doing good things like that? My answer to that is- no-we do not. These are platitudes that make us feel better about this move towards complex two wheeled, motorized vehicles. These are things that "sound good" but we have no real metrics we can point to and say these "good things" are actually happening at any real, hugely impactful numbers. All we do know is that a metric ton of these things, full of wires, capacitors, resistors, magnets, and batteries, are being produced and where will they all end up?

Well, if Eurobike is any indication, people will get jaded by the idea of riding outside at all and take up indoor training on virtual bicycle courses, never to be seen in public again on a two wheeled vehicle. That's the other huge trend at the show this year. Indoor cycling.

Okay, that's z'nuff for this week. Have a great weekend and keep on riding!

Friday News And Views

Big Numbers For Series On Trans Iowa:

First of all- Thank You readers! The suggestion to write the stories of Trans Iowa, the more "untold", behind-the-scenes the better, has been a fun thing for me to do. But more importantly, the series has been gaining traction and of late, has become some of the most looked at posts on this blog.

Look- I've blathered on about that event for the better part of 15 years, so I get it if you are one of those that just doesn't care about this stuff. However; it would appear from the stats I get from Google that many of you are actually looking at these posts, and I hope, enjoying them. I just wanted to point this out because it is encouraging to me and helps to push me to write better content.

So, I thought I might share a little bit about the behind-the-scenes on the series. First of all, I write these posts on the "Trans Iowa Stories" series weeks in advance. For example, I am already working on posts for the series that will show up in October. This gives me the chance to revisit each draft and revise, make corrections, or add any newly discovered memories before they "go live" on the site, at which point I don't plan on changing anything.

This also gives me chances to sift through the 15 years of posts that have bits of the story buried in there. I also have been looking at hard physical evidence- roster sheets, drafts of courses, and more that I have squirreled away in folders and three ring binders here. So, it's been fun, and I am enjoying the process, and I hope that it all results in good reads for you.

Thanks again!

Trek Supercaliber w/IsoStrut. Image pinched from Trek's site

 Could It Work On A Gravel Bike?

Design Mission Statement: Make a rear suspension design that is compact, lightweight, pedal efficient, and is "just enough to knock the edges off". This has been an idea that has been tackled by several designers and is an idea that is as old as the Safety Bicycle itself. Many have tried, some have succeeded, but not many have been reasonably priced, effective, and low enough maintenance to prove to be a long term solution.

Of course, we are talking about the "short travel", soft-tail idea. Moots YBB is probably the longest production version of this idea in existence. However, it is crude, not easily tune-able, and is maintenance intensive in dirty environments. Salsa Cycles had the Dos Niner, a fantastic design fraught with breakage due to the flexing Scandium infused aluminum alloy frame bits the design relied upon. Passive versions of this idea exist. Example- Like the aforementioned Salsa Cycles, who now make the Class V VRS system for the Warbird and Cutthroat. However, that passive suspension idea, while fairly bulletproof, is not at all tune-able. This brings us to Trek's latest announcement of the new Supercaliber MTB racing bike.

The Trek design is very much like the Salsa Dos Niner, which also used a strut and relied on flexing stays for its suspension travel. However; Trek's design moves the damper to become part of the top tube, and they employed carbon fiber as a flexing frame material instead of Scandium Aluminum. The Supercaliber has 60mm of rear travel, by the way.

Passive designs, like those being used on gravel bikes these days, all rely on the rider to be seated to work, but a soft-tail design does not, and it makes one wonder- Could something like this be a good thing on a gravel/all-road bike? (I was just thinking- "gravel/all road bike >>>G-ARB?) Anyway....

It's an intriguing thought, and you can bet Trek's in house R&D team have already been toying with just such an idea.

These are NOT looking like motorcycles. Nope! Not in the least....

Eurobike To Be Re-Named "E-eurobike"

Reports coming in from Eurobike are that the "electrification" of bicycles is reaching all-time highs. Euro-folk, apparently, are mad for anything with two wheels and a motor. Now the move is to make these rigs "more connected" and more powerful than ever.

Take this Trifecta RDR bike, shown to the left here. It's 74lbs of futuristic electrified power. It has the options of either 250w, 500w, or 950w power (!!!) and is said to be capable of covering 200K before needing a re-charge. The motor spits out a torque rating of 120Nm. (That's a LOT, by the way. 88.51Ft/lbs of torque on tap, or about 2HP @120rpm)

That's just one example of many. But here's the thing many are not thinking about now. What about all those lithium/ion batteries? What happens when they die? Where do those go? How many chains and chain rings will all this unnaturally created torque eat up? How many more wheels? Freehubs?

The PBMA (Professional Bicycle Mechanics Association) has a forum and you can read about how these HPC's are eating up components at an alarming rate, how these vehicles have to be hooked up to computers and analyzed, like your cars, and how riders, unskilled in shifting and braking techniques, are wreaking havoc on components built for purely human powered bicycles adapted to HPC use to keep weights down.

Eurobike is touting the windfall of profits these vehicles are bringing companies and dealers, but is anyone seeing how we are making bicycling more complex, less inclusive, less environmentally good, and less like.....bicycling? You will retort, "Yeah, but one less car!", or something akin to how your brother's cousin is now enjoying "bicycling" again due to the electrification of cycling. But I say, do we really know that all these HPC's are doing good things like that? My answer to that is- no-we do not. These are platitudes that make us feel better about this move towards complex two wheeled, motorized vehicles. These are things that "sound good" but we have no real metrics we can point to and say these "good things" are actually happening at any real, hugely impactful numbers. All we do know is that a metric ton of these things, full of wires, capacitors, resistors, magnets, and batteries, are being produced and where will they all end up?

Well, if Eurobike is any indication, people will get jaded by the idea of riding outside at all and take up indoor training on virtual bicycle courses, never to be seen in public again on a two wheeled vehicle. That's the other huge trend at the show this year. Indoor cycling.

Okay, that's z'nuff for this week. Have a great weekend and keep on riding!

Friday News And Views

What short chain stays are for...

Short Chain Stays: 

Maybe this doesn't matter.....no, really.....it does matter. Why? Because lots of folks say it does. So, what is going on here?

Chain stay length, the measurement from the rear axle to the center line of the bottom bracket, is a subject of sometimes heated debate by bike nerds all across the digital reality. What does it do? Well, let's take a "gross" example to help us understand a little bit about this....

Imagine if the bike you are riding is a cargo bike. The long tail type, like a Big Dummy from Surly. Okay, your rear wheel is waaay back behind you.  Try popping a wheelie. Hard, huh? Yeah, that's the long effective chain stay length at work there.

Now imagine that you switch back to your current steed. Ahh!  That front wheel is a cinch to get up and over stuff, or to pop a wheelie, should the fit take hold of you. Of course, this is an obvious illustration, but now imagine the passion, the heated arguments that erupt over mere millimeters of chain stay length differences. It's just bizarre.

Salsa Cycles Horsethief

Example: The Salsa Cycles Horsethief. Barely over 18 inches in length for the chain stay. You'd have thunk someone had insulted someone's mother when they find this out.

Had the bike been introduced with 17.8" chain stays, which is what the Trek/Fisher Rumblefish comes with, no one would have batted an eyelash. The difference? 7.3mm Less than 1/3rd of an inch.

Now, I'm not saying that doesn't make any difference, but how much of a difference is that really? I would submit that there are other things going on here that might make a bigger difference in handling than 7.3mm. 

How about wheel base? How about how your weight is distributed across that wheel base? Is the bottom bracket lower, or higher? How long is your stem? If it is a full suspension bike, you add in the metric of monkey motion to the equation, which really complicates things.

So, to merely focus on such a miniscule difference in chain stay length seems rather silly to me. Heck, you move your butt on the saddle more than 7.3mm on a mountain bike. No, it isn't just about chain stay length.  Sure, it plays a part, but it's just one soldier in the troop, and it takes all of 'em to fight the war. Look at the entire package when comparing the bikes. It might show up a few things beyond that "magic bullet" number a lot of folks like to focus on.

Cushy!

Soft Tails seem like the elusive unicorn of the 29"er world. Next to single speeding, the idea of a soft tail, (at least for me), is so wrapped up in how 29"er wheels work, I can't believe that only one company produces a stock model, and only a handful of  custom builders even make them.

Of course, I had a Salsa Cycles Dos Niner. The idea of the soft tail is awesome. I know it works, but there was the rest of the frame,  which was, (let's see if I can put this nicely), was flexy as all get out.

Given a stiff chassis, a soft tail would be a great, simple, nearly fool-proof rear "enhancement". (I hesitate to call it "suspension") Traction? Better. Comfort? Increased. All from about an inch to two inches of "give" in the rear of the bike.

Of course, I could always save my pennies for a Moots. They seem to be the only company really committed to the idea of a simple, little bit of something that makes nice with the rough stuff. Consider this my paean to the soft tail. I wish somebody would make a reasonably priced, better mousetrap here. 

Maybe that'll happen. I imagine a single speed soft tail with bottle mounts a-plenty, a 100mm front suspension device, and room for 2.4's. Grinding away in some mountain climb, or plying some burly single track on a soft tail. Sounds good to me!

Have a great weekend, ya'all! Take some pictures, Ride yer bike!

Friday News And Views

What short chain stays are for...

Short Chain Stays: 

Maybe this doesn't matter.....no, really.....it does matter. Why? Because lots of folks say it does. So, what is going on here?

Chain stay length, the measurement from the rear axle to the center line of the bottom bracket, is a subject of sometimes heated debate by bike nerds all across the digital reality. What does it do? Well, let's take a "gross" example to help us understand a little bit about this....

Imagine if the bike you are riding is a cargo bike. The long tail type, like a Big Dummy from Surly. Okay, your rear wheel is waaay back behind you.  Try popping a wheelie. Hard, huh? Yeah, that's the long effective chain stay length at work there.

Now imagine that you switch back to your current steed. Ahh!  That front wheel is a cinch to get up and over stuff, or to pop a wheelie, should the fit take hold of you. Of course, this is an obvious illustration, but now imagine the passion, the heated arguments that erupt over mere millimeters of chain stay length differences. It's just bizarre.

Salsa Cycles Horsethief

Example: The Salsa Cycles Horsethief. Barely over 18 inches in length for the chain stay. You'd have thunk someone had insulted someone's mother when they find this out.

Had the bike been introduced with 17.8" chain stays, which is what the Trek/Fisher Rumblefish comes with, no one would have batted an eyelash. The difference? 7.3mm Less than 1/3rd of an inch.

Now, I'm not saying that doesn't make any difference, but how much of a difference is that really? I would submit that there are other things going on here that might make a bigger difference in handling than 7.3mm. 

How about wheel base? How about how your weight is distributed across that wheel base? Is the bottom bracket lower, or higher? How long is your stem? If it is a full suspension bike, you add in the metric of monkey motion to the equation, which really complicates things.

So, to merely focus on such a miniscule difference in chain stay length seems rather silly to me. Heck, you move your butt on the saddle more than 7.3mm on a mountain bike. No, it isn't just about chain stay length.  Sure, it plays a part, but it's just one soldier in the troop, and it takes all of 'em to fight the war. Look at the entire package when comparing the bikes. It might show up a few things beyond that "magic bullet" number a lot of folks like to focus on.

Cushy!

Soft Tails seem like the elusive unicorn of the 29"er world. Next to single speeding, the idea of a soft tail, (at least for me), is so wrapped up in how 29"er wheels work, I can't believe that only one company produces a stock model, and only a handful of  custom builders even make them.

Of course, I had a Salsa Cycles Dos Niner. The idea of the soft tail is awesome. I know it works, but there was the rest of the frame,  which was, (let's see if I can put this nicely), was flexy as all get out.

Given a stiff chassis, a soft tail would be a great, simple, nearly fool-proof rear "enhancement". (I hesitate to call it "suspension") Traction? Better. Comfort? Increased. All from about an inch to two inches of "give" in the rear of the bike.

Of course, I could always save my pennies for a Moots. They seem to be the only company really committed to the idea of a simple, little bit of something that makes nice with the rough stuff. Consider this my paean to the soft tail. I wish somebody would make a reasonably priced, better mousetrap here. 

Maybe that'll happen. I imagine a single speed soft tail with bottle mounts a-plenty, a 100mm front suspension device, and room for 2.4's. Grinding away in some mountain climb, or plying some burly single track on a soft tail. Sounds good to me!

Have a great weekend, ya'all! Take some pictures, Ride yer bike!