Enduro vs Trailbike: Marriage and Divorce - Opinion
The honeymoon between the trailbike and its gravity-oriented enduro-racer mate appears to be over, and while some of the sport’s sharper minds argue that the two genres are inseparable, the divorce papers have already been filed. While vanguard designers are pushing “trailbike geometry” towards established downhill standards, leading bike makers are introducing shorter-travel designs that incorporate just enough long, low, and slack to address modern riding styles. Add the resurgence of 29er sales to the unexpected popularity of plus bikes, and there is enough evidence to suggest that “enduro” and “trail” are on divergent and irreconcilable paths.
After more than two years of reviewing progressively longer, lower, slacker bikes with increasing suspension travel, I began to miss the seemingly effortless way that a shorter-travel, slightly steeper chassis feels on a fast-paced singletrack, and the way it gobbles up punchy climbs. I began to look forward to testing lighter weight, livelier feeling bikes – and I wasn't alone with my sentiments.
Recently, riders in my circle of friends – top bike-handlers who can afford to own any bike that they wish for – began selling their Santa Cruz Nomads and Yeti SB6c’s and replacing them with lighter, more brisk handling bikes.
Recently, riders in my circle of friends – top bike-handlers who can afford to own any bike that they wish for – began selling their Santa Cruz Nomads and Yeti SB6c’s and replacing them with lighter, more brisk handling bikes.
Cannondale's Habit SE is one of the new-gen trailbikes in the 130mm-travel range.
When asked, their stories were the same. They didn’t feel that it was worth downgrading the fun of a two or three-hour ride to enjoy a bike that was specifically designed to enhance only five or ten minutes of fall-line descending along the way.
“Versatile” is the word that best characterizes the modern dual-suspension trailbike, and it could be argued that the balanced compromise it strikes between climbing and descending, light weight and durability (as well as its popularity among enthusiast-level riders) can be attributed to the fact that no competition venue existed for mid-travel trailbikes. Without pressure to hyper-specialize one area of its performance, trailbike designers were free to pick and choose racing-derived innovations from XC or DH, like carbon frames, carbon wheels, sophisticated suspension, and slack geometry, or to ignore racing altogether and develop trail-specific solutions like dropper posts.
The well-rounded intense Tracer 275c represents one of the high points in the evolution of the long-travel trailbike.
Inadvertently, the trailbike also created the perfect launch pad for professional enduro racing. For a fleeting moment, “enduro” and “trailbike” were interchangeable terms, and initially, that marriage supercharged the technical performance of the basic trailbike. But, somewhere along the line, while bike and suspension makers rushed to stretch the trailbike’s performance further towards the downhill realm, we forgot that that the magic of a good trailbike is that it enhances all aspects of the riding experience. An enduro racing bike has a much more singular mission statement.
Richie Rude at speed, winning the Spanish round of the EWS.
After two full days on the bike, Yeti’s Richie Rude accumulated only 30 minutes and 32 seconds of actual racing time in seven stages to take the win at the EWS race in Ainsa, Spain. The longest stage was about seven and a half minutes, the shortest was a minute and half. To put that in perspective, that’s about eight hours of climbing to enjoy the same amount of descending that you’d get in three trips down a bike park. The mission of an enduro racing bike, pure and simple, is to maximize that 30 minutes and 32 seconds of downhill. You don't have to race enduro, however, to be a member of the "I only care about the descents club," and there are enough subscribers to encourage designers to push the boundaries of "trailbike" frame geometry into and beyond the realm of DH. Olly Forster's "One Question" is a recommended read on the subject.
When you mimic DH geometry with exaggerated front centers and slack head angles, your bike may descend like a fallen angel, but you’ll also need to mimic DH techniques to ride it – which means you’ll need to be out of the saddle and decidedly forward in order to properly weight and maneuver the bike. Speaking from experience, I’ll go on record that a 30-pound downhill bike with a steep seat angle and low gears can double as a capable trailbike. “Capable,” however, simply means that it can be done. The word does not promise an enjoyable experience, and to be truthful, lugging a long, low and slack bike around the mountains all day often feels like a lot of unnecessary drama.
Nicolai's GeoMetron - on the vanguard of long, low, and slack.
Only a year ago, I would have insisted that a 29-pound, 160-millimeter-travel enduro racer was “the one bike” - the perfect do-it-all machine - but today I keep two bikes at the ready: a slacked out 160-millimeter enduro-style bike for playing rough, and a 130-millimeter trailbike for everything else. I couldn’t say which one I like best. There is no substitute for the confidence that a Fox 36 fork, a long wheelbase and a 65-degree head angle brings when the brake levers snap open at the top of a drop. But, it’s the 130 bike that I ride most often, because it can make almost any trail enjoyable and challenging. They sit in my garage like estranged lovers, transformed by their torrid union into two wonderfully different designs, each with uncertain futures.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
I thought that it was spot on in helping anyone who is having a hard time deciding whether to go "160mm" or "130MM"
But you live here in the West, don't you? You are here, can you get it? In Europe, so you go - Oooooh I can't mountain bike, I'm sick, I have common cold damn iiiiit. I broke my collarbone, I will have to wait for a month nooooooo. Oh the internet is slow, I can't even read Pinkbike - this is bullshit. I am going to call and shout on any btch that picks up the phone in service center of my broad band provider. Mnaaaaaaa! You either accept being in a peer group where we whine that latest Pike has no external HSC regulation, OR you change a hobby... Welcome to the real world - your world. Sorry having one bike doesn't make you better, that's all I am saying.
Me neither. You will see me out on my 9 speed 26inch Banshee trail bike with the widest smile on my face. #26untilitbreaks and all that...
However, there are thousands and thousands of people across the world who are thinking of buying a bike like, **right now**, today. To those people, this article may well be the best thing they have ever seen here on PB.
While clickbait journalism may well do just what you say Benito, you are close to sounding silly if you really believe all "journalism" does so. Try some Jon Ronson, or Louis Theroux.
One of the problems of PB is how everyone tends to be blinded by their own personal situation and cannot see beyond that. Remain firm about your goals, but flexible about your methods, as one William Donaghue said.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=StPeEgz5Cfo
This is why I don't ride my nomad as much and bought a Production Privee Shan hardtail as my To Go bike.
It climbs better, and descends just as good.
You just described my bike lol
How about thinking in a little more depth about the nature of a 160mm bike and wherher it fits in with your needs more than a 130?
In short, how about thinking how there may be some people to whom this article meets a real need they have?
100-130 is hanging a bit in the air, since + size came along. I think it will clarify in 2-3 years time when the second gen of + bikes will come out. Lately I realized that we missed an important bit about some XC bikes: the tubular tyres. Since they run low pressures, they are basicaly half way to what plus size does. Maybe that's what gives N1no an edge: Grip+improved roll over? Who knows, since biggest benefit of plus size is size of contact patch and flex of the tyre, then maybe going down a size and winning 50-100g on rotating mass will be king? 26+ seems promising!
I appreciate the genre but the trouble is that while there is little problem with 1200+ wheelbase on Small sized Enduro bike, the downhill mentality goes full retard on sub 150 bikes. Why would you apply a DH geometry on a bike with 130mm or less travel - WTF?! What is going to happen is that geometry allows the bike to go fast enough for the rear to go out of it's depth rather quickly and rob you off any error margin that you are trying to create with setting up that geo.
I had a Nomad and sold it to buy a Blur TRc and at first it had a slim 140 fork and Nobby Nics, but 1 year later I realized I am toughing it up with 36 fork and Minions DHF. So I ended up with exactly same bike as that Nomad, the only difference was that frame had less travel.
So keep your 130 trail bike as a light trail bike. Keep your DH mentality away from it, kick in XC mode and you'll be happy. Otherwise just stay with 150-170 bike, the matter of a fact is with current state of technology those bikes climb rather well. We talk about DH ability of ENduro bikes forgetting that they climb better than 120 bikes in 2008. Therefore 6" bike is still THE ONE bike to rule them all unless you compete in XC Marathons.
PS. Richard is called in as a big subliminal gun to cause the 'inception' of new bike categories pushed by the manufacturers, watch it, it's a pattern!
My advice is buy the bike that compliments the rider you want to be. The more realistic you are, the less regrets and more fun you'll have.
Unless you are racing top level XC, the penalty for the extra squish/weight is so insignificant.
I won't say I got talked into the 160mm Cannondale Jekyll's 29" wheeled, 130mm brother… But I ended up buying a Trigger 29 Carbon 1 in the height of the new wheel size and "all mountain" "enduro" excitement which was 2 years ago. 130mm and 29" wheels, it is an amazing trail bike. Long leisurely rides in the hills, climbs well, never leaves you tired… Yet something is just missing when you point it downhill. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly competent when pointed down. Coming from a downhill background, the bike rides very well. I just find myself often wishing it had just that little extra. To the point where it's in at the shop having a 140mm conversion done on the Lefty right now!
A carbon, weight conscious 160mm bike may be the ultimate. I'd hate to see any new rider get talked, or magazine articled into a 130mm bike, simply because thats the current trend. Don't be scared to spend a little extra and get into a 28lb Carbon 160mm bike, with current technology you are almost getting a DH/park bike and an All Mountain climber all in one. Such is NOT the case with a 130mm.
Take it from someone who spent five figures to get into the 130mm game - wishing he went 160
Anyone who knows this bike understands that it is not fully on board with the new geo being spouted for enduro these days. Its not that slack by todays standards at 66.5. Its definitely doesnt have a long reach at 425 for large. But you know what this bike does really well on the short punchy tech climbs we have here and is not that bad for pedaling. Its also does good enough for me on the DH lift access days. Really it does seem like my perfect do it all bike if there ever was one.
I think I will not blow my money on a different bike this year. thanks
For a big rider, a 29er is still an unbeatable proposition. If I were lighter/smaller, I'd probably go for something like a Process 134, Transition Scout, Santa Cruz 5010 instead. But there's tremendous progress in capable trail bikes over the last few years. Sure, if you're into huge drops and really big air, this is the wrong bike. And if you're all about pedally XC singletrack, this is the wrong bike as well. But for that elusive one bike quiver, the capable short/mid travel 29er hits a sweet spot that's hard to ignore.
Came from a trail bike with 150mm (2012 Genius with rear travel adjust) and bought a Meta SX 26".
Couldn't be happier. Not the first up the hills, but not the last either, definitely having the most fun !
To change the Meta, some earth shattering technology needs to arise... and I don't really see it coming soon !
Of course, these bikes, as any bike for that matter, are not for everyone. But in my mind, there lies a beauty in riding something where you can hammer the front part through "harder" stuff but the rear does give very, very strong feedback. It makes me appreciate suspension, as an addendum to my biking experiences. And the drive forward gained with a hardtail is something different, to any rear suspended bike.
Seriously there is absolutely nothing wrong with not having the latest carbon steed there is however a lot wrong with using sentences with this structure "I do X because it makes me apreciate Y more".
I don't agree with that at all though.
Pedal bob is pedal bob and overall weight is overall weight.
Set two bikes side by side, one 130mm one 160mm. If the amount of sag is set the same on both, and the weight is relatively similar… You are not going to know which one has which travel.
Buy purposely buying a bike with less travel, all you are doing is limiting yourself and the capabilities of your machine.
A light weight 160mm bike with the suspension set up on the stiffer side is going to show ZERO ill effects when riding uphill.
Now if both bikes were similar in weight, and both were set up with 25% sag (common all mountain setting) you will definitely feel the lack of travel in the 130mm bike. See below.
130mm or 5" travel less 1.25" of sag - allows 3.75" of travel until the bottom of the stroke.
160mm or 6.3" travel less 1.57" of sag - allows 4.73" of travel until the bottom of the stroke.
The 160mm bike allows almost 5" of compression, after sag - where the 130mm bike only started with 5" before sag.
My comment is then going to be why limit yourself?
Similar given weights, are going to be similar given prices. In my case a 160mm jekyll was $500 less similarly spec'd
I don't see the benefit of going 130 over 160 - as 130 is still too long for an XC racer.
I speak from experience. I wish I went bigger, as it would cause ZERO hindrance on a normal trail ride.
I've ridden both 130mm and 160mm Cannondales, and when weighted the same, set up the same, the only difference to note - is on the descent. Why did I go 130mm? I'm not sure. Hype? maybe.
You always think that less is going to be okay - until you are looking for more.
There is a fine line where too much is too much - and I think 160 is that magic number where it's "just right" when weighted, designed and set up properly. @WAKIdesigns
160mm, 29" wheels. Monster Truckin, Huckin, and still will trek over long distances ALL DAY LONG.
Plus you lose a lot of trail feel with 160 over 130. That's okay, though. Travel is just preference for the rider's style and terrain. But even though these new 160 bikes climb better than those of yesteryear, they sure as sh*t still don't climb like a 130 bike. You're badass if you can climb everything on a 160mm rig. For me the slacker geo and less efficient rear is not worth it most of the time, though it would be nice 10% of the time.
In the end I'm happy that you've found your 2-wheeled companion and you have my blessing to continue as you see fit...... just don't tell everyone that your 160 bike climbs as well as it's equivalent 130 bike, because it doesn't.
PS - No way a new rider should be sold a 160 bike unless they live at a resort or all his/her friends/influencers are bruisers in the DH & All-Mountain disciplines.
PPS - Yes, I'd love to get some time in on carbon 160 bike that weights 28 lbs. It may change my mind. My aluminum 120/140 bike weighs ~31.5 lbs. The lighter weight would be awesome on the climbs, but the geo would still be against me and I'd lose any trail feel whatsoever on half the terrain I ride. Plus I feel just a little bit badass riding dh trails with my friends on bigger bikes and keeping up with or even beating them.
Tracer 275. It had rocket rons.
I honestly don't think travel adjust has ever received the credit it deserves.
I think a 160 mm bike is the ideal for almost all riding unless you're out of the beginner and intermediate classes. At that point, more specialized tools might be preferred.
160mm travel is a DH bruiser? I don't think of DH bruisers until we're talking 200mm.
If I lived at a resort, I sure as heck wouldn't have a 160mm bike.. it would be a dedicated downhiller.
Losing trail feel at 160mm? Absolutely not... That will have to do with suspension setup and amount of sag. The more sag, the less trail feel. Run a 160mm bike nice and stiff, it's going to do the XC things very well. Would I XC race it? Heck no... But it's going to make one heck of an all purpose bike.
Geometry is often VERY close, because 130 and 160 are both in the "trail bike" category. 130mm bikes are also becoming longer and slacker to gain confidence.
After having ridden a few brands 130/160 bikes back to back - the difference is not night at day like you may say. I've got seat time on a few different machines.
In my experience, between 130mm and 160mm with similar weights - where the difference happens is when the downhill comes.
@WAKIdesigns completely agree. Rocket Rons on a 160mm bike, Minion DHF 3C Exo on a 130mm Bike.. The160 will likely be quicker uphill.. There are many more factors than just saying "160mm is too big for every day use".
If you're hitting things at high speed, all that additional capability is really useful. If your skills (or your risk tolerance) dictate lower speeds, then capable bikes are downright boring. They don't become lively until you speed up - and at low speeds they are just unwieldy and spongy.
Agree about geometry and the more capable suspension. Huge difference in suspension from just four or five years ago - so a shorter travel bike these days can absorb bigger hits. And at the same time, there's less bob and sponginess on climbs, so you can get away with slacker bikes there.
My Stats.
150mm to 90mm rear travel adjust
160mm to 130mm front travel adjust
28.1lbs with dropper and pedals
It is "The One" bike! I love it going uphill, it totally steapens seat tube angle and tightens the rear and drops the front. Then it totally slackens out and blast down the hill. There are other geo shifting bikes like Canyon, just put a talas on there or pike dual. You don't have to be stuck with a Nomad with a 36 float! You aren't doing the Mega-Avalanche every weekend! Why settle for a bike that does less than these...
And this is the old 26". Upgrading in a bit to the 27.5 160mm front and rear that shifts to 130mm (Pike) front and 95mm rear and weighs 25 lbs!
Do yourself a favor and test ride.... It didn't win the Enduro World Series 2013 by accident and came 3rd in points last year. either.
WAKI look, you're quasi-famous, even people on obscure posts about 39" bikes on VITALBMX know who you are.
They still have it, but it is much tamer now.
And you can still find new frames of old Genius LT with travel ranging from 185 to 110 - to 0 mm in the back !
You could strap a Totem with travel adjust in the front and could ride it anywhere.
Guess that people started to favour simpler things, like the 1x transmission: not necessaraly better, but more peace of mind.
Great opinion exchange, anyway !
I've since sold XC full suspension and bought a proper steel XC hardtail. Now it's clear which one is for XC and which one isn't. No need to have something that does both poorly when you can have two bike that rock each disipline. Now maybe I should have spent more money on that XC full suspension bike but I didn't think that was the right decision.
While I would agree that saying "I do X because Y is better" might be kind of wrong in most settings, changing between X and Y once in a while to apreciate Y more, is really good for your attitude and fun. And all that with the fact in mind, that X isn't "unfun" or "worse" than Y, but just "different", sharpening my senses and heightening my appreciation for Y in the process while already having fun. But thanks for your patronising me, I guess if that is your approach to other mind sets, well, I won't change that with a comment on a internet platform.
Also, on the topic of hardtails and trends: I posess a longish travel hardtail, it was the first MTB I ever bought. It still is vrey fun to use on a bunch of different trails and conditions, and it doesn't financially speaking sense to sell it. If I could, I would own EVERY KIND OF BIKE, at the moment I am missing a road bike, a XC racer, a CXer and something like a real trekking/adventure/travel bike. But well, here I am, stuck with only 5 different bikes. Poor me, trend whore. Dammit, I like bikes. All bikes are beatiful!
Regardless, in my opinion for a Jack of all Trades - there is no better system.
When I was told that I could adjust my travel, spring rate and rate of rebound at the flick of a switch - I was SOLD. Remember that not only travel changes, but spring rate and rebound do also for each independent travel circuit.
Why more don't do that? I'm not sure. 5+ years of riding them now, not a single issue. They're no more headache than a regular shock - with WAY greater benefits to the rider.
@ freerabbit: according to BikeRadar all mountain is the same as enduro. But it seems to be a vague term, except for BikeRadar I couldn't find any other website defining the term All Mountain.
P.S. I want to neg-prop myself for saying this.
With these days, adjustable travel being what many people want, i cant understand how there aren't any u-turn or similarly adjustable shocks on the market
Also, big suspension needs high speeds and rough trails to come alive. If you lack the terrain what's the point?
Going downhill is where I get the most fun but I also aiming toward being a better rider overall and I've been getting a lot of fun working on climbs lately. Getting better at climbing makes riding much more fun too.
Not sure that it is the opposite of enduro, but it surely is not that marketable movie wise: who will watch a technical climb clip ?
Bet you that less people than a fast, twisting descent...
We even have a saying when we climb: climb like they do it in the ads/movies (fast cadence, standing pedalling).
But that is just in the movies and ads...
Besides, before I did some road racing, I started on the moto, then mtb...now back on the dirt 100%
Still, wouldn't get much views though, but it's super rewarding !
@RichardCunningham I'm actually in the middle of fine-tuning my 26 inch Tracer 2. I've had it for years now and I've set it up as "enduro" as it can, but I just realized I had my shock sag more on the xc side (less than 30%). I think it was because I wanted a firmer platform. I took out 10 psi to get to 30% sag and it feels like a different bike altogether. The front feels more aggressive too because it got slacked out. Pedaling it uphill didn't change much, but it's definitely more plush. You also helped me make the decision to slap the 50mm 0deg stem back and replace the 45mm 10deg I've had for a few weeks now because of what you said about riding a trail bike "decidedly forward in order to properly weight and maneuver the bike." Great article, very well written and really enjoyed reading it.
For what it's worth, I'm riding tomorrow with a buddy who just bought a YT Capra. The way I see it, it's essentially my Tracer just with 27.5 wheels. He's got the bigger wheels, stiffer frame, and much longer wheelbase, but I got the stiffer fork and quicker steering. The trail is "El Prieto" here in Southern CA which is very heavy on the switchbacks, and is my favorite trail. It'll be interesting to see how his Capra handles something where you can't go full speed. Also, we're climbing 7 miles before we make the descent. I feel it's like an episode of Initial D.
No road bike for me ever again. That death wish was no fun when I tried it years ago. Cars and a*shole drivers just DGAF.
Look at the early day Stinkies for example, built with 150mm suspension (F+R) and a granny ring up front so you can pedal up hill. When the definition of freeride started to change more into NWD style hacking of cliffs and north shores, they created the Coiler, which was what the Stinky first was about. And if you look at the geometries, a 2005 Coiler is very similar to a 2016 Process 153. Main difference is the longer top tube lengths bikes have nowadays, but if you buy a frame one size larger you'll have a very similar bike, just with a 1" longer seat tube.
Indeed like you say, what's changed is the relabeling of bikes, not necessarily the bikes themselves.
@DARKSTAR63 : So have I. Look at the Kona Stinky 2002 for example, or at the Specialized Big Hit Comp 2002. These bikes were designed with in mind that they should be able to get you up the hill as well (relatively, for their times), but with their main focus on the descents and jumping. In that same period these companies already had downhill bikes with a 44T single ring with chain guide up front and 200mm front and rear suspension. Still their "freeride" lines always had a granny ring, a reasonable amount of suspension (around 130-150mm) and were a lot less heavy than the downhill bikes.
Only around 2003-2004 is when the definition of a freeride bike started to mean a bike that is as strong as possible so you can huck off the biggest possible cliffs.
But for their time, for example the Stinky and Big Hit Comp (both 2002 for example) were similarly designed bikes to what we now call enduro. Only once freeride went hucking big, Kona continued doing enduro with their Coiler series and Specialized continued doing enduro with the SX Trail.
"PINKBIKE: When I was looking up photos for this article, I came across the 2002 Stinky Primo. I ignored the bike back in 2002, but looking at it now, it's sweet. It's got a Z1 with 130mm of travel, a triple crank, Hayes brakes (which were the best thing going at the time), a shortish stem, and it's a five or six inch travel bike with slack enough geometry that you could jump around on it, but you could still pedal it. Basically it looks like a trail bike. It sounds like if you can mix the efficiency and performance of a downhill race bike with the fun of the original Stinky, that's a pretty darn good bike.
KONA: That's a really astute point. In 2002, the Stinkies, they were really just trail bikes. That's what people were doing on them. As the freeride thing got bigger we evolved them into freeride bikes, but originally everyone was really just riding trail on it before "trail bikes" were a thing. Today’s 160mm pedaling all mountain bike is more capable than yesterday’s 7 inch travel freeride bike. So you can hit all the same moves and your bike is 10 pounds lighter and you can pedal it efficiently."
But again I'm not complaining. Bikes today are just so much better. I totally understand the points you made, however, but let's agree to disagree.
Those bikes had granny rings mainly for traversing flat sections of trails between big hits and getting from the trail to the truck. I know as well I since I was riding them and so where all my friends doing the same thing.
The coiler was probably closer to the first enduro/trail bike.
I've been riding mountain bikes my whole life, and much as I love it, I can't afford one of these $5,000+ modern bikes, let alone TWO! I get what he's saying here, but it's pretty ridiculous to think you need two bikes to have fun. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have more, and we all know about the "n+1" rule, but as long as we're riding, be happy!
RC is right though. We spend a lot of time climbing and twisting our way through flatter singletrack. The article isn't condemning enduro race bikes, it's just pointing out that the bike designs are beginning to diverge. I'm getting a new bike soon and all along I assumed it would be a matter of picking which 150-160mm frame to go with, but I've been grappling with trail vs. enduro. Evil Following or Wreckoning?
But darting though the trees and popping off features on the 5010 made me feel like a kid again and I came away with a massive grin. Far more involving and never felt that the aggressive(ish) geo and short travel got me into any bother that I wasn't ready for.
I'm intrigued by your comments on the playfullness of the 5010. The other decision I have to make is whether to stay with a 29er, or move to 27.5 in shorter travel.
If nothing else, all the options out there these days certainly make it hard to decide on just "one bike".
I think your suggestion is a valid one though. I need to start looking for a few to demo.
Thanks
Anyone who says a 150-160mm is the perfect trail bike really needs to demo a v2 5010 to see how big the difference is.
Climbs better than my previous carbon anthem 29er. 5010 had 20 more MM travel and smaller wheels. Downhill capability was great, but i was using all of the travel on a pretty mellow trail.
I then demo'd a Nomad and it blew my mind. It climbed well and it turned incorrect line choices into "correct" due to the traction and travel. Weight penalty was minimum. I only used 80% of the travel
I bought a demo nomad.
Now RC tells me I need to sell it.
Mainly there seems to be a trend of the last couple years of making enduro courses basically into DH courses. And that is fine and understandable but the effect is that they are requiring the 160mm travel bike (to do well in the race) and full armor. And conversely you hear more and more grumbling at the enduro races about climbing.
Maybe there is something lost in the enduro scene for people who want to race but don't want XC races and don't want full DH enduro courses. Reading the comments there are a ton of people who love riding their "Trail bike" but maybe they also want to race for the competition. What would a trail bike race look like?
Whereas you may give up tenths (or even a second or so) in the downhills, the efficiency of a short travel bike makes that back up in spades on the flats or climbing.
I'm no fan of climbing, but giving me a faster overall speed, allowing to ride longer, faster IS appealing to me.
The terrain near me also dictates my choice of bike. I think if I lived in the Pacific Northwest or BC, a 150-160mm travel bike would make more sense. The terrain I ride daily just isn't as technical or downhilly. I owned an Enduro 27.5 but it was just too much travel, hence I sold it and got an Evil Following. I am still amazed by its composure when it gets steep and rough.
TL;DR
I agree with the article. In my case, all that's needed for me is my Evil Following and a DH bike and that will cover 99% of the riding I do/enjoy.
It's nice to wax poetic, compare/contrast, and even argue semantics once in a while, but...
Ride your bike. And if it's not working for you, ride a different bike.
Now please write me up a review of some really awesome bike I'll never be able to afford.
The Yeti is gathering dust because the 5010 is such a badass, versatile bike. It's an absolute blast to ride and whatever it lacks when things get real rough is more than compensated for by how damn fun the 5010 is everywhere else.
Probably can't sell the Yeti for what it's worth because it's 26"... So I keep it for whenever a buddy wants to ride it or when I know I'm gonna be doing some serious descending.
I think RC sees the future here and in a few years things in the industry are going to swing back to trail bikes being the trendy standard.
Maybe time for a new market 'niche'.....Trailduro folks, you heard it here first
Well, I am still sticking to one, but this season I am daring to try something new, for me at least: I am ditching my kick-ass/ rock n roll Bronson C and putting together a Stumpy FSR EVO 29 Expert. Last year wide rims made a huuuuge change in riding experience, perhaps 29er this year. Try something new!
Originally, Super D, then enduro, was supposed to change all that and bring back to Peoples racing. Enduro entries are currently packed, the CES series sells out each event in 24 hours or so. If US enduro racing, which is "enduro-lite" compared to Europe, perhaps, keeps moving towards the harder terrain and higher speeds that require a 160mm+ bike to compete, will enduro racing also become the intimate little gathering that has driven most local/small promoters out of the sport?
But the "new" 130 mm class is just marketing. Cracks me up how we go in circles and how we are periodically told (as in: " every couple of years or less") that we need new things. With modern shocks and especially if you are on a VPP or DW-link suspension it makes zero difference to be on 130 or 150 travel.
Though yes, it's all just a sick song and dance and in the end if half the population sells their Enduro or Patrol for a Stumpy or Smuggler, then so be it.
Also, not sure I get our 130/150 statement. Don't pretty much all 130 bikes outclimb their 150 counterparts regardless of how their valved or vpp'd? (eg. 5010 vs Bronson) Lock em both out and one still has better geo for climbing.
I do find the idea that suddenly we need 130 bike a bit silly. It is as if all the improvements of the last decade went out of the window. Such a call would have made sense fifteen years ago, before VPP/DW and ultra tunable shocks came to market.
The only thing that matters is being on "your bike".
There are so many choices to get caught up in, that you will waste more time on your computer then actually riding your bike.
The industry always has the next best thing to keep you wanting more.
Do not get me wrong, I love the new tech, but really, the only person that is going to make you happy is you, not the material shit.
Because the HONZO climbs better and gives me more energy to rip the descents (doesn't matter that I'm riding a hardtail). Point is, I can ride longer without getting tired on my HONZO vs my full suspension bike.
I stand by the idea that 160 is the magic number.
A 160mm bike set up stiff, with 1" of sag still has a remaining 5.25" of compression travel (if needed) If not needed it'll pedal well due to the stiffer suspension.
A 130mm bike set up stiff, with .75" of sag only has a remaining 4.25" of compression travel. You are almost guaranteed to use that, and it won't pedal THAT much better.
Most 130mm bikes are slackening out, to produce confidence.. And most 160mm bikes are staying with reasonable head angles to beat the stigma of a downhill bike.
I'm just sitting here crying wishing I went 160mm - still.
I recently bought a 125mm Travel, 650b wheeled Trail Bike, with 140mm forks up at the front (Transition Scout) . This was to replace a 10yr old 123mm Travel, 26" wheeled bike from the North Shore, rocking 130mm Floats (Cove Hustler). The new bike is long and low compared to the old one, inspires so much confidence and plummets like a ton of granite kicked out of a plane. Both bikes climb okay (Scout is 2x10 XT), the Scout maybe a bit lazy on the steering, and I need to perch on the saddle nose on some of the steeper local tech climbs.
Would I go longer and slacker? Not a chance, still haven't acclimatized to the forward descending postilion on this, and the lazy steering on wooded climbs can annoy. But the main reason is I want to have a bike I can blast around the Moors, Trail Centers and Bike Park all day long, with maximum smile per mile. This does that. "Capable" isn't acceptable, "Versatile" is the way to go.
If I could have 2 Bikes? A Ti 27.5+ Hard-tail, with Single Speed Gates Belt Drive and 120mm forks please.
Rider strength
Rider style
Terrain
Tyre choice
Suspension settings /type
Frame stiffness
Fork stiffness
20mm travel ? well you know it's definitely another factor, and it's a breeze to market us a word or too ...
Trailduro
This off season, I've been tempted to get rid of my trusty ol' Sensor (120), and just stick to my Shenanigan (160) as my "full time ride". I've already got my DH up on Buy/Sell...so I'm already going from 3 bikes to 2, and I was pondering life with just 1 full sus mtb. Maybe even considering selling all 3 to get 1 new fangled "quiver killer".
But in reality, most of the riding I do (like 90%) is better suited for a trail bike, your classic 50% up, 50% down single track. Sure, I've done the same trails on my AM whip (yup, all mountain, I said it!), and I'm faster on the downhill parts (albeit slower going back up), but all in all, it's not as challenging- and not as fun.
I'm going to stick with the trail bike in the arsenal. I'll keep the Shenan for days I feel like ripping, or for my trips to the lift access parks, but there's room in my arsenal (and apt, barely) for the trail bike still.
PS - someone please buy my Moorewood Izimu. It's pretty kick ass... I just don't use it often enough, because I've become a puss.
My Stats. Cannondale Jekyll
150mm to 90mm rear travel adjust
160mm to 130mm front travel adjust
28.1lbs with dropper and pedals
It is "The One" bike! I love it going uphill, it totally steapens seat tube angle and tightens the rear and drops the front. Then it totally slackens out and blast down the hill. There are other geo shifting bikes like Canyon, just put a talas on there or pike dual. You don't have to be stuck with a Nomad with a 36 float! You aren't doing the Mega-Avalanche every weekend! Why settle for a bike that does less than these...
And this is the old 26". Upgrading in a bit to the 27.5 160mm front and rear that shifts to 130mm (Pike) front and 95mm rear and weighs 25 lbs!
Do yourself a favor and test ride.... It didn't win the Enduro World Series 2013 by accident and came 3rd in points last year. either.
Genre = 0, get out a ride whatever you have = 1
When I was shopping for a new frame a couple months ago it was always between the HD3 and v2 Bronson.Then I tried the new 5010. Wow, what a difference. Huge. Perfect for the trails I ride and the way I ride. So lively, and poppy and so much fun.
I think you and Scot Nicols are bang on that the current crop of 130mm, 27.5 trail bikes are ideal for a huge segment of riders.
For today's 29niners or 650Bs I think if you can lock the rear shock is enough to do it all.
Cheers.
I love my 155mm travel 29er the only thing I wish was that it was lighter. At just over 30lbs it isn't exactly light...it isn't exactly heavy either, but in the back of my mind I can't help but think - How much slower would less travel make me and how much faster would I be with a lighter bike. It's not just about the climbs, it's about getting up to speed. For me riding fast is what I love to do. A Pivot 429 Trail sits at ~26lbs. The Evil Following sits at ~27lbs.
I admit, I'm an old school retro-grouch, and it's killing me to be priced out of my sport by all the new carpet fiber wonder bikes. Believe me, I'd love to have one, or three. But in my world, one bike covers things just fine.
I definitely don't need to be told I need a 130-140mm travel bike AND a 160mm+ travel bike. I know it's about more than travel, but 20mm is an inch. If that little travel makes or breaks a ride for someone, they need to work on their skills, not buy a new bike.
Ride what ever bike you want wherever and however you feel you'd like to.
Think for yourself..
"At my age you prefer the finer things, you don't need to prove yourself blablabla."
It starts with seeling your dh-bike. Few years later the long travel enduro is gone.
After that there's only spandex and steep head angles.
Can we pls have a reviewer and author that represents the gravity aspect of this website again?
The enduro craze of recent years was bad enough, but reading this shit just made me cringe.
I had an evolving quiver of bikes based on what I thought what best suited my style and local trails.
I ran a DB Mason HT, a slacked out AM hardtail on my local rather smoothish trails...and a Remedy 160/150 for the
rough stuff and big downs. Now I'm running only an Evil Following and love it. I haven't taken any big descents on the Following yet, but I'm not worried about it in the least. 120mm of travel that can shred!
My enduro bike is basically a DH bike i CAN get up the hills on, the descent has has to be something pretty severe for the climbing to be worth it, hence isn't as fun as much of the time.
I wouldn't without either though.
you throw around a 34 lb. bike for 3 hours on a mountainous trail ride and
you get stronger. so you climb slower with it? ok, but there is no substitute
for the bliss you feel on the flows and the fall lines..
apart from my road and dj bikes
Seems like RC rides in a different type of terrain, and also has a different riding style. Good thing there are so many choices for bike buyers these days.
Beautiful.
The SB66 and SB95 are still my favorite trail bikes I've ever owned
I took a few years away from mountain biking, I came back to this term "enduro" all over the place, so I checked it out, it seems it's the same as trail riding but with less fashion sense..
why not to by bike that will fit you riding conditions as well and style and just ride it?
the bike industry must love people like Cunningham.
Interesting to see the travel going up too.....
Anyone want to buy an unused Commencal Meta SX 650b frame?