Discussions regarding low bikes or lowering options creep in to all sorts of discussions related to the vertically challenged. Many shorter bikers take it for granted that getting a low bike is the best choice. They therefore head straight for what they think is the optimal solution - namely how to get both feet firmly planted. They usually do this without questioning the merits of this "truth". Worse is that they are seldomly met with any opposing views by others - just more people eager to help them find a sloution closer to ground. Some end up making the poorer choice.

I think this is such a common and very important topic that it deserves thorough debate in a dedicated thread of its own.

How correct is the general consensus?
The general consensus among bikers is overwhelmingly that a rider should steer clear of bikes that they cannot flatfoot, or have them lowered. It is often spewed out as being allmost mission critical or detrimental to having a good and safe time.

Although I agree that being able to flat foot a bike is in general very advantageous - I think this only applies if there is no greater price to be paid for having such a benefit. For tall people, there is no such price to be paid - they can reach ground on all bikes, with both feet planted. For shorter people however, life is not so simple. They will often be faced with the choice of; an inferior bike they can flatfoot, or a superior bike that they can't flatfoot.

It is my belief that the advice of "flatfooting" has been reverberated by so many people, so many times, that it has taken the form as "the only truth" - fuelling the echo chamber even more. Hardly ever do I see anyone questioning the merits of this perspective what so ever.

I suspect that the origin oft his advice, stems from riders and whom themselves have never truely ridden offroad, or riders that have never done so with a bike that they themselves have not been able to flatfoot, - which saddly will ammount to 99% of the riders out there. So, would it be so strange if we are potentially dishing out the wrong advice here, even though most are seemingly in agreement

Lowering most often come at a price (other than money)
Lowering the seat will change your knee angle, making it more of a chore to stand up and sit down again. The seet will likely become more uncomfortable, as may your general posture as well. Further still, your instruments height, controls, etc, may lead to other things you have to deal with (i.e. reduced visibility, a change in buffeting points on head and torso , etc).

Lowering a bike by changing the preload will change your suspension dynamics - and it is a poor strategy for going about lowering a bike. If you need to lower - do it properly.

If you are so lucky to have link bones in the rear, they can easily and cheaply be swapped out to lower a bike a centimeter or three, without too much conswquence other than ground clearance and a sidestand that now might be too long, and a centerstand which is now so tall that getting the bike up might be a chore. Now, just remember to lower both the front and rear equal.

The taller bike is better offraod
Bigger wheels, greater ground clearance, is eksponentially better to have off road - end of discussion. A bike with a 21" inch front wheel isn't 110% better offroad than one with 10" front wheel - it is many hundred percent better! A differnece between a 19" and 21" is far more than 20% when it comes to performance. So, getting a low bike to traverse terrain, because one thinks it is easier for a short person if hte can flatfoot it - may not be the better choice.

You should "never" let both feet touch the ground anyways
When coming to a stop, only one foot should touch the ground. The other should cover either the gear shifter or the rear brake - all depending (but usually the brake). Reasons include; being able to give your hand a rest, prevent uncontrolled rolling and easier hill starts. Actually it also gives more control in preventing the bike from toppling over (more on this in a bit). Covering neither controls isn't really a riding strategy at all - it is shit practice!

Sliding the bum off the seat - best for short and tall alike
In order for short people to be able to flatfoot one foot, they will need to slide their bum off to the side of the seat. In terms of preventing the bike to topple over, this is massively more secure compared to having both feet flat-footed. It doesn't take long to get used to, and it requires less energy than you might think (you want to chill, get a chopper, an automatic scooter or a Goldwing).

When you slide off to the side of the seat, your leg will be planted further away to the side of the bike's center mass - which will make the triangle between both wheels and your foot larger and more stable. In addition, your own center of mass will be off to the side of the bike, adding more stability still. The combined effect will give you enormously more leverage when acting against a bike leaning towards the foot that is planted - than would be the case if both feet where planted close to the bike (only one leg supports the bike at any given moment - better make it a strong one)..

Now, should the bike start to lean in the opposite direction, then this becomes easier to deal with as well. With your leg "hooked" over the saddle, and your body mass of to the opposite side, very little effort is required to get the bike leaning back in the other direction - simply lean your body a fraction and your leg will pull the bike no effort at all.

Now, shhould your bike actually topple over to the opposite side to the foot you are standing on, you will not get the bike over you (as you likely would if both legsstraddled the bike equally). Should it conversely drop to the same side that your foot is planted (unlikely) - you will be better off as well. With your planted leg further away from the bike, and the other leg allready half way over - your odds for being able to get out of the way is greater. If it cant be helped, chances are that you will be able to reduce the impact more. I've heard arguments that the bike would hit the leg lower down, and that this somehos would be better - of this I'm not so sure.

"Dabbing" vs planting
When riding on difficult terrain, many will agree that you are offered more control by standing than sitting. Now, how do you get from the standing position to both feet on the ground in a quick and controlled manner? Well, you shouldn't teven ry to! You better slide off to one side and put one foot down and keep the other on the opposing footpeg.

Now if you are moving, trying to support your bike with your feet, or walking it in any way - makes for a very likely injury. If your bike is about to tip over, the point is not to control the bike's lean trough supporting it with your legs, but to get enough body weight onto the opposing side of the bike. If you at slow speed feel the bike is starting to lean uncontrollably over, you can quickly "dab" your foot onto the leaning side to help your body bounce over to the other side with some speed. It will reduce your weight momenterily on the leaning side, reducing the leaning forces. At the same time it allows you to "spring" over to the other peg, immediatly transfering weight and regaining control. The point here is having the foot touch the ground only for a millisecond to just "bounce" - not to support the bike on the ground.

Now, the "dabbing" technique is so closely related to the sliding off the saddle technique , or having just one foot down at a stop - that mastering the latter two will help you master dabbing. Ergo - don't get in the habbit of putting both feet down to begin with - it should never be done, ever! Both feet down is about as good of a practice as driving a car with only one hand on the wheel - comfortable, yes, better control, no!

Traversing rough terrain is better done with both feet on the pegs
Trying to to paddle a bike over rough terrain is usually allways a piss poor strategy. It usually greatly reduces ones control over the bike. It increases the chances of injury wrom getting your feet knocked arround. It reduces ones ability to get clear of the bike should it topple over.Further still, if you rely on your foothold to keep your bike uptight - what happens when you loose your footing (which is sure to happen if you paddle enough steps)?

Riding with your feet dangling inches off the ground, ready to catch . is even worse. You really think your odds of catching a moving 200 kg piece of metal are good, having virtually no stride? Do you really think your odds of injury are low? In short, flatfooting is over rated.

Under some condititions it seems counter intuitive to get both feet up on the footpegs and entrust one's bike to forward momentum and gyroscopic effects - i.e. crossing a rocky riverbed with some current in it. The truth is that your feet will never have the traction or power that the bike offers, and speed is your friend - and going paddling pace is your enemy

In other words, being able to plant both feet is not really a requirement even here.

Being able to flatfooting has its uses - just not that many
The only real condition I can think off where flattfoting is a reuirement is when one rides on surfaces with absolutely no traction - like wet polished ice. On other poor traction surfaces like snow and sand, one will usually sink into it anyways - leaving ample leg length. But even here, paddling is usually a poor strategy.

Being able to backpaddle a bike can truely only be done on really smooth and plane surfaces. In all other conditions we have to get off the bike and either push or turn it arround on the center stand.

The greatest benefit from having relatively long legs is the fect that every milimiter of leverage counts. Also, it makes it easier to get on and off the bike.

If one plans to spend a lot of time in traffic with lots of traffic stops, then sure, being able to rest on both balls of your feet can be nice. But then again, maybe an aotomatic scooter is the better bike choice?

All our legs will be too short - sooner or later
Anyones legs will sometimes be too short to be able to plant both feet on both sides even on smooth surfaces - i.e. turning on a hill and having to do so across a slope. Offroad it happens all the time.

My advice
It doesn't take much practice to learn how to master a bike they can tippy toe. They can learn both the offroad and the onroad bits not much harder than a person who can flatfoot can. By getting used to sliding off the saddle from the get go, they will advance as offroad riders far faster than someone who has gotten used to planting both feet. The required techniques will make them safer and more effective in soooo many more ways than someone who puts both feet down every chance.

With all other things equal, the rider with longer legs will have an easier time - that is an unchallengable fact. That is not the same as to say that a rider is better off chosing the bike they can flatfoot over one that they can not. Because when we enter this domain, all other things are usually far drom equal.

It is generally true, that independent of the rider - a bike's offroad suitability increases exponentially with the bike's height. A rider whom has overcome fear of altitudes, will have opened themselves up to so many more bikes to choose from - and not just for offroad riding.

So, before dispensing out warnings or advice, let people see the whole picture.

__________________
Blog: www.bamakobyvespa.no
My Youtube Channel