With the Chile EWS being the first enduro race for him since he joined Specialized, this is a big weekend for Jared Graves. As expected, he's aboard an Enduro.
Graves is running mismatched cranks - his drive-side arm is an XX1 unit from SRAM while a prototype Stages carbon fiber crank on the opposite side is home to a power meter. I wonder if the computer simply says "A LOT" when he looks at the power numbers he puts out during a race?
A lot of racers are running longer travel forks in Chile, including Graves. He's got a 170mm travel Lyrik up front.
Damien Oton and his Devinci Spartan are going to be hard to miss this weekend.
Mr. Tuto Tuesday himself, Yoann Barelli, is all smiles during practice.
Reach for the sky... or maybe just the brake levers? Barelli is well known for preferring to run his levers nearly parallel to the ground.
A lot of racers are running HT's latest trail pedal.
Remy Absalon is all about the green. His Scott is running a Suntour Durolux fork up front and a single ring XTR drivetrain.
Joe Nation with his blue Bergamont.
The Alien is always on an interesting bike. Nico's Lapierre is sporting mismatched rims - note what appears to be a wider carbon rim up front - a coil sprung shock, and a prototype Michelin tire up front.
With a heavy background of cross-country racing, Rocky Mountain's Andreane Lanthier-Nadeau isn't going to be worried about fitness during the EWS race in Chile. Plus, she obviously knows a thing or two about style.
Robin Wallner and his X-Fusion equipped Ibis Mojo HD3.
Another HD3, this time it's Anita Gehrig.
Another Rocky Mountain Altitude, this one belonging to Seb Claquin.
Sarah Leishman looks pretty happy to be in Chile with her Juliana.
Another racer who made a big off-season move. Anneke Beerten went from Specialized to GT for 2016 and beyond, and she chose to race aboard the Sanction in Chile.
Martin Maes is clearly ready for this weekend to kick off.
@Lagr1980 I do hope you are joking. If you think the shocks on WC DH bikes are dissipating less energy than the shocks on enduro xc bikes then you are sorely mistaken...
Probably related to how compression rates change during travel. Airspring can make linear rates more progressive and steel springs can make progressive rates more linear.
Some will agree and some won't. Doesn't really matter tho. If you have a dh bike, you've prob got 7 speeds or so...you could still be faster without a chain tho... So wheel size, air or coil, drivetrain, clothing, brands, etc.
Coil springs have a linear rate curve. Air springs ramp up the rate as they go through their travel, thus they have a progressive rate curve. The kinematics of the suspension linkage can be designed to be more linear or more progressive so suspension designers generally design the suspension around either an air spring or a coil spring. Then we, as riders, buy the bikes, tell the engineers that they don't know shit, and promptly put anything we want on it.
A frame by itself with no shock will have no progressiveness. A frames progressive design is designed around a shock and a specific tune that they see fit to get the desired suspension characteristic. So when they design a frame to have a specific spring curve with a shock that they spec, if that shock is switched out with anything different then the original designed, spring curve will change.
Suspension kinematics do contribute to the overall rate curve of the rear suspension. It's known as the leverage ratio and it changes through the stroke of the suspension. The overall rate curve of the rear suspension is the product of the leverage ratio curve and the spring rate curve.
For an interesting read search for "linkage design blogspot". You'll have to translate it from Spanish, but Google is pretty good at that these days.
@AznKiDrew ?? That is completely false. Some frames have a naturally progressive shock rate, some are fairly linear and some are regressive. All I am saying is that there is no such thing as a regressive shock. Shocks are either progressive or linear. There is no way to make a naturally progressive frame design less progressive without altering the frame itself.
I agree that you cannot change the progressiveness of a frame as it is intended without physically altering kinematics of it but you can still change the progressiveness of the suspension action with the use of different shocks. Thats why there are things like volume spacers for air shocks.
Maybe, just maybe, at the end of the day it simply boils down to personal preference... As if that's that first time MTB gear arguments have boiled down to that point, whether its tires, suspension setups, or handle bar width. There is no right answer, but everyone knows the correct one.
Or maybe it comes down to there being a small number of setups that perform well, and a large number of poorly performing setups based on some notion of "personal preference" that owe more to aesthetics or some sort of perceived "cool factor" rather than any real critical thinking. As the OP stated, it seems strange that the current DH trend is to move towards air shocks, while the enduro trend is to move towards coil. I imagine these trends in DH have a lot to do with the fact that DH bike performance has plateaud somewhat recently so the weight game is the only real means companies have to generate sales. Due to that some expensive air shocks have been released recently that the companies that manufacture them are pushing hard with marketing and sponsorship deals, despite them not being ideal for every track. I imagine the trends in enduro have a lot to do with the fact that enduro is trying hard to distance itself from the xc crowd, and promote a more hardcore "nearly DH" image, despite being essentially a variant on xc racing where the uphill sections are not timed. Again due to this perceived cool factor riders often ignore the weight advantages of air shocks in favor of the reliability and sensitivity of coil, when in reality an air shock would probably be preferable for a lot of stages. Yes both styles of shock have their places in both sports, however peoples ability to look past their personal preference and concentrate on what will get them to the finish line fastest is somewhat lacking.
@gabriel-mission9 your essay is invalid because you you said enduro is basically a variant of xc. boy. What are you doin tryna hop in this argument like that. Because many enduro bikes are so light nowadays, riders don't suffer much from having a coil shock as opposed to a float x2 or similar high volume air shock. Especially considering that part of an enduro race thats timed isn't the part where you're climbing, the descending preformance gains more than make up for the small additional amount if fatigue a rider may suffer from the extra weight and climbing pedal bob. You are correct in that people care to much about what is cool (myself included) but sometimes I don't really mind.
whereas on a dh bike where you dont climb to the top at all, the performance gains don't outweigh the weight? your argument makes no sense, and is a perfect example of what I said. You are clearly irritated by by "enduro is like xc" comment, and I should imagine that that is because dh is percieved as "cool" or "moto" or whatever, while xc has this "lycra wearing" boring image. However if you have ever watched an xc race, you will be aware that to win these days you need some shit hot bike handling skills, and if you have watched a dh race you will be aware that to win these days you need to have put in some serious road miles and eaten a good diet and all that boring crap. The images both have are nothing more than people letting their made up opinions get in the way of the facts. The fact is, in xc you ride up a hill then down it, so weight matters a huge amount as climbing on a heavy bike is knackering. In enduro you ride up a hill then down it, so, same kinda thing. The uphill bit isn't timed, so yeah you can relax a bit, but you still have to tow all that weight up a hill. In DH a lift gets you to the top, so whilst weight matters, (a light bike is a nimble bike) it takes a back seat to traction and bump eating capability, as the bikes are so focused on their one job, that they go a lot faster, and hit things much harder.
You guys are more the smart sheep that can talk on family guy. He basically tells his shepherd what to do. it gets weird quick, but it really would make you guys want to come join the rest of us idiots who didn't care about all this and just went hey...Did someone just baa? Ba a a a a aaaaa! And in the back of our minds an old tune started to play and we pictured a green hill and a foot plant 360 and it all worked out -not bad! Join us
There exists both linear and progressive rate springs. Both have their good and bad without going into detail.
That said, the preference for coil is most likely related to sensitivity.
I havent seen a progressive wound coilspring on an mtb for maaaaaany years now. Probably because they suck. However the point I have been trying to make is that there is no such thing as a regressive spring, coil or air...
I don`t think anybody in this whole thread said that a spring was regressive. Not sure who you are arquing with... The only thing that has been said is that if you mount a coil spring it will be less progressive than with the airshock it was designed for. So if you put a coil shock into a bike that is very linear with an airshock it can become regressive. Just look at the new Scott Genius for example.
A shock will experience more heat during an enduro race than a DH race because enduro stages are well over three times the length of a DH race. A 3-4 min race won't heat up a rear shock enough to effect the performace, but in a 14 min enduro stage it might (if you are going as fast as the pros go)
"Airspring can make linear rates more progressive and steel springs can make progressive rates more linear." That is what I was disagreeing with... You cant make a progressive frame design more linear without changing the frame layout. This is all I have said all along...
Yes DH runs are shorter than enduro stages, however the workload the shock receives is far higher. Astronomically higher. Remember the shock will be radiating heat for the entire time it is hot. When it is approaching temps that will have a detrimental affect on its performance it will be radiating heat very quickly and as soon as you reduce the workload on the shock it will return to a workable temperature within about 30 seconds. To heat a shock up to the point it no longer functions properly you have to put a large amount of energy into it very quickly. WC DH races are a much more effective way to do this than a drastically less stressful enduro stage.
@gabriel-mission9 Evidence? The evidence here is that many pro enduro racers use coil shocks because they say they can feel the damping performance change over the longer course of an enduro stage, despite the weight and climbing penalty, while DH riders don't have a similar complaint.
Actually, it's not that cold during the day, when it can reach up to 25-26 C, but it looks like the pictures were take in the morning, when it's colder.
Every single one of them has some sort of chain guide as well. Sheesh, can these guys not afford the latest greatest bikes either? Thought that was just us non-sponserd guys....
@paulaston With all due respect I don't see your point. Many of racers have been running 29" wheels in Enduro in previous seasons. @Trudeez poke at plus is still valid. If they are really an advantage for traction, why don't we see the all of the top athletes running them? I ask the same of carbon rims.
Perhaps paulaston was pointing out that even tho Absalon was running a bike designed specifically for, and supplied with + wheels/tyres, he had actually gone to the effort of removing them and fitting something else? Perhaps he wasn't. Either way, that is what's happened.
Hey, I'm not at all convinced that 27+ is anything near the revelation the industry wants to push - but to criticize it based on the fact that enduro racers don't use it doesn't make a lot of sense. 27+ does provide shitloads of traction in low-speed riding. You know, the sort of riding that weekend warrior type riders do. Pushing into turns at mach speed (like Enduro or DH racers do) quickly overpowers that system, plus the beefy casings required of tires ridden over rough terrains at race speeds would kill the + bike concept rather quickly.
27+, as a "trend" to be promoted by the bike industry, makes much more sense than full-on enduro race bikes promoted to normal riders (the previous "trend"). The former leads to average blokes getting a bike that makes them ride a little more confidently and have a little more fun on their (non-EWS-grade) trails at their (non-race) speeds. The latter left a lot of punters with bikes that were punishing on the uphills and not very exciting on the descents until they got up to speeds that are not safely manageable for said average blokes.
It's a little bit like "carving" skis - no they won't ever be used by racers, but they sure make life easier (and skiing more enjoyable) for intermediates.
@g-42 you are absolutely correct. I think a lot of us realize this, but what pisses us off is the way they are marketing them - The hype tells you how they are the latest and the greatest, when really they are best for a certain group of riders/trails/styles (however large that group may be.) Although this style of marketing is the norm in today's world, I believe the mtb industry would just prefer if some of the bullshit was cut.
However tell a marketing guy that you want your next advert to read like this: "Hey, are you slow as f*ck? Do you basically just hold on for dear life and hope like hell that you make it to the end of that surfaced footpath round the lake alive? If so, BUY THIS!" (Picture of your new product with some fat bloke on it, leaning against a tree using his inhaler)
Dammit, looks like I'm late to the "plus size sucks for aggressive riding party". Anyways, I agree with @g-42 - Plus size tires are indeed great at low speeds. And not particularly rough riding. For aggressive riding, as I think we can all see, beefy standard tires are still the king.
My problem with plus size tires in general is I don't think they actually offer a fundamental advantage in any way.
Last weekend I was out riding, and got a slow leak on my rear tire as I was heading back to the car. As the pressure was slowly dropping through the teens, it felt REALLY good. All the trail chatter got sucked up, and there was traction for days. Which leads me to my point: plus tires really have only one advantage- they can be run at comparatively lower pressures without losing stability (at low speeds). The traction is not a product of the tire size, it's only about the pressure, because basic physics will tell you a 3.0" tire and a 2.2" tire have the same size contact patch at the same pressure.
So why don't we run normal tires at these low pressures all the time? Answer- because their casings aren't designed for it. That's it. Maxxis has quietly started to solve this issue with their new WT casings, which are optimized for 35mm internal rims. Add in procore (or hopefully, in the future that won't even be necessary), and you can run the same pressures on the same rims as plus tires. The only difference is it won't suck at high speed.
So, what do we really need? Better STANDARD tires optimized for wide rims and low pressures. That would fit the bill for both experienced aggressive riders, and newbies. What is the industry giving us? The plus size fad to sell more crap to new riders that they will grow out of.
don't forget juliana bikes are a total gimmick! All juliana bikes are the same as their respective santa cruz models in every aspect, except all sizes are a half size smaller and different paint jobs
It's so weird to see Jared on anything other than a Yeti and not wearing turquoise! Still rooting for him though! As for favorite bike, Richie's sb6-c that's not shown here and the RM altitude's... Because I own one
Schwalbe tires labeled "First Ride" are basically prototypes, right? Wonder what's different about Martain Maes' Nobby Nic? Was just thinking that a 2.35 Double Defense might make a nice fast rear tire for a Magic Mary front.
Right- they recently changed the tread design, and it's already offered in Trail Star, so I'm hoping the casing is something a bit more substantial (i.e. Double Defense or something along those lines for the 2.35- it's only offered in 2.25 currently). Seems to have worked well for Martin today!
@trialsracer Richie Rude? He is about 5´11". I dont know what size Graves is on now but when he was with Yeti he preferred medium, mainly because of his BMX days, according to himself.
And then you have Robin Wallner on the Ibis team. He is 5´9", rides a large HD3, but might opt for XL depending on where they ride. But then again, HD3 has very short reach.
He's on a Large Enduro, which is about a medium for any other "enduro" frame. I was hoping he'd show up on a proto/2017 frame that would be a medium but hint at the direction we'll see for their new reach/stack layouts...?
Gwin and Graves both on HT pedals, that's compelling.
I'm surprised so many Enduro bikes still come stock with a Pike, I'd figure everything would have the Lyrik now.
Damn't, I thought we'd see the 2017 version(decals) of some suspension that will be released within a few weeks. Perhaps some black stanchions on Fox or a lever on the X2.
Specialized, time to get those Cables routed into the Frame. Not a good idea using them as an impact shield for the Downtube!!
Devinci Spartan is the best looking Bike,
I've never had less visual interest in a "Pro Bike list" than the one shown above. Pretty boring representation of "cool". I guess the fast people with the cool looking bikes are only on STARVA.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzsdtaySY4
now can we please move over?
I do hope you are joking. If you think the shocks on WC DH bikes are dissipating less energy than the shocks on enduro xc bikes then you are sorely mistaken...
Vouilloz was riding a coil spring in DH, now he is riding a coil spring in Enduro...
A frame by itself with no shock will have no progressiveness. A frames progressive design is designed around a shock and a specific tune that they see fit to get the desired suspension characteristic. So when they design a frame to have a specific spring curve with a shock that they spec, if that shock is switched out with anything different then the original designed, spring curve will change.
For an interesting read search for "linkage design blogspot". You'll have to translate it from Spanish, but Google is pretty good at that these days.
?? That is completely false. Some frames have a naturally progressive shock rate, some are fairly linear and some are regressive. All I am saying is that there is no such thing as a regressive shock. Shocks are either progressive or linear. There is no way to make a naturally progressive frame design less progressive without altering the frame itself.
I agree that you cannot change the progressiveness of a frame as it is intended without physically altering kinematics of it but you can still change the progressiveness of the suspension action with the use of different shocks. Thats why there are things like volume spacers for air shocks.
your essay is invalid because you you said enduro is basically a variant of xc. boy.
What are you doin tryna hop in this argument like that. Because many enduro bikes are so light nowadays, riders don't suffer much from having a coil shock as opposed to a float x2 or similar high volume air shock. Especially considering that part of an enduro race thats timed isn't the part where you're climbing, the descending preformance gains more than make up for the small additional amount if fatigue a rider may suffer from the extra weight and climbing pedal bob. You are correct in that people care to much about what is cool (myself included) but sometimes I don't really mind.
The only thing that has been said is that if you mount a coil spring it will be less progressive than with the airshock it was designed for. So if you put a coil shock into a bike that is very linear with an airshock it can become regressive. Just look at the new Scott Genius for example.
That is what I was disagreeing with...
You cant make a progressive frame design more linear without changing the frame layout. This is all I have said all along...
Many thanks in advance.
27+, as a "trend" to be promoted by the bike industry, makes much more sense than full-on enduro race bikes promoted to normal riders (the previous "trend"). The former leads to average blokes getting a bike that makes them ride a little more confidently and have a little more fun on their (non-EWS-grade) trails at their (non-race) speeds. The latter left a lot of punters with bikes that were punishing on the uphills and not very exciting on the descents until they got up to speeds that are not safely manageable for said average blokes.
It's a little bit like "carving" skis - no they won't ever be used by racers, but they sure make life easier (and skiing more enjoyable) for intermediates.
However tell a marketing guy that you want your next advert to read like this: "Hey, are you slow as f*ck? Do you basically just hold on for dear life and hope like hell that you make it to the end of that surfaced footpath round the lake alive? If so, BUY THIS!" (Picture of your new product with some fat bloke on it, leaning against a tree using his inhaler)
Watch marketing guy have a meltdown...
My problem with plus size tires in general is I don't think they actually offer a fundamental advantage in any way.
Last weekend I was out riding, and got a slow leak on my rear tire as I was heading back to the car. As the pressure was slowly dropping through the teens, it felt REALLY good. All the trail chatter got sucked up, and there was traction for days. Which leads me to my point: plus tires really have only one advantage- they can be run at comparatively lower pressures without losing stability (at low speeds). The traction is not a product of the tire size, it's only about the pressure, because basic physics will tell you a 3.0" tire and a 2.2" tire have the same size contact patch at the same pressure.
So why don't we run normal tires at these low pressures all the time? Answer- because their casings aren't designed for it. That's it. Maxxis has quietly started to solve this issue with their new WT casings, which are optimized for 35mm internal rims. Add in procore (or hopefully, in the future that won't even be necessary), and you can run the same pressures on the same rims as plus tires. The only difference is it won't suck at high speed.
So, what do we really need? Better STANDARD tires optimized for wide rims and low pressures. That would fit the bill for both experienced aggressive riders, and newbies. What is the industry giving us? The plus size fad to sell more crap to new riders that they will grow out of.
Funny but soo true.
Can't come right now honey, I'm watching EWS Bike porn.
She did not get the "EWS bike" part of it ...
Oh Well...
Even Richie Rude who is between sizes rides on a medium sized bike.
And then you have Robin Wallner on the Ibis team. He is 5´9", rides a large HD3, but might opt for XL depending on where they ride. But then again, HD3 has very short reach.
thanks!
Each to their own I spose