Can a Trail bike really “do it all”?

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
Can a Trail bike really “do it all”?
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag MB3
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 10:41 Quote
I’m currently shopping around for a new bike after being out of the sport for some time, While I’m keeping my “vintage” hardtail collection, this will be my first modern bike. The thing is, I only see myself having one new bike, not one for every discipline or riding style. To that end, I’d be curious to see what other people would suggest if you were to choose only one bike to own.

Keep in mind that I’m in my 40’s (and hopefully in shape enough to forego any e-bikes), live in Vancouver, have a 12 year old that I plan on riding and keeping up with over for as long as I can, and would like to try my hand at recreational racing again eventually (I used to do XC and a tiny bit of downhill back in the 90s).

I don’t mind buying some extra parts to do some quick and easy swaps to tailor the bike for certain rides or seasons. Maybe have a second set of wheels to switch between XC and more rowdy days?

Was looking at the Trek Top Fuel and the Fuel EX recently... seems like there’s really no weight difference between the alloy versions of each... just specs and geometry (and a neat double lockout feature on the Top Fuel). But open to other suggestions too.

So is there really a jack of all trades bike? Could you really ride a trail bike in an XC race one day, and maybe try an enduro on another day? Or some greens and blues at a bike park?
flag Jasonbourne
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 11:02 Quote
Based on what you wrote the fuel ex could do both easily.
flag kwtoxman
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 16:25 Quote
MB3 wrote:
I’m currently shopping around for a new bike after being out of the sport for some time, While I’m keeping my “vintage” hardtail collection, this will be my first modern bike. The thing is, I only see myself having one new bike, not one for every discipline or riding style. To that end, I’d be curious to see what other people would suggest if you were to choose only one bike to own.

Keep in mind that I’m in my 40’s (and hopefully in shape enough to forego any e-bikes), live in Vancouver, have a 12 year old that I plan on riding and keeping up with over for as long as I can, and would like to try my hand at recreational racing again eventually (I used to do XC and a tiny bit of downhill back in the 90s).

I don’t mind buying some extra parts to do some quick and easy swaps to tailor the bike for certain rides or seasons. Maybe have a second set of wheels to switch between XC and more rowdy days?

Was looking at the Trek Top Fuel and the Fuel EX recently... seems like there’s really no weight difference between the alloy versions of each... just specs and geometry (and a neat double lockout feature on the Top Fuel). But open to other suggestions too.

So is there really a jack of all trades bike? Could you really ride a trail bike in an XC race one day, and maybe try an enduro on another day? Or some greens and blues at a bike park?
Between those two bikes, I'd lean to the Top Fuel if you do much XC and long distance riding. Its efficiency will shine. To me, the Fuel EX trends closer to all mountain spec than XC. I'd all mountain the Fuel EX pretty happily, but for more XC and long distance work it's travel and geometry will hurt and the Top Fuel starts to look better.

I personally like variable pivot rear suspension designs which can bridge the gap between good XC performance and pedal efficiency, as well as good all mountain performance, with frame geometry benefits, etc. I've been riding a variable pivot rear suspension MTB for nearly a decade now and I love it. I ride everything from Canadian rockies enduro shuttle trails to 40-50 km all mountain and XC trails in the backcountry and really appreciate good pedal efficiency. It's similar age comparisons too.

Really think about what kind of riding you do and how often you do each type of riding. If it's biased towards trail and some all mountain (w/ significant downhill) then the Fuel EX is a pretty nice compromise. For more XC and long ride inclusion, your choice will likely trend in the direction of the Top Fuel.

Hope that helps and good luck.
flag mtbtrekracer
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 16:49 Quote
kwtoxman wrote:
Between those two bikes, I'd lean to the Top Fuel if you do much XC and long distance riding. Its efficiency will shin. To me, the Fuel EX is more enduro than all mountain spec. I'd all mountain it pretty happily, but for more XC work it's travel and geometry will hurt.

I personally like variable pivot rear suspension designs which can bridge the gap between good XC performance with lower suspension travel, as well as good enduro performance with higher suspension travel, not to mention the benefits in the frame geometry, etc. I've been riding a variable pivot rear suspension all-mountain MTB for nearly a decade now and I love it. The suspension is variable from 125 to 150 mm and I ride everything from Canadian rockies enduro shuttle trails to 40-50 km all mountain and XC trails in the backcountry. It's similar age comparisons too.

Really think about what kind of riding you do and how often you do each type of riding. If it's a lot of enduro (downhill) then the Fuel EX is pretty sweet for sure. If its a lot of XC, or all mountain, your choice will likely be different.

Hope that helps and good luck.

What are you talking about? the fuel EX is nowhere near an Enduro bike? its more of a modern middle between xc and trail... exactly like hes wanting... it's not even classed as all-mountain

for trek bikes:
XC - top fuel, none or up to 120mm suspension.
trail: Fuel EX, 130 rear and 140mm front suspension
All-Mountain: Remedy: 150 rear and 160 front
Enduro: slash, 160 rear and 170 front.
flag Jasonbourne
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 17:35 Quote
mtbtrekracer wrote:
kwtoxman wrote:
Between those two bikes, I'd lean to the Top Fuel if you do much XC and long distance riding. Its efficiency will shin. To me, the Fuel EX is more enduro than all mountain spec. I'd all mountain it pretty happily, but for more XC work it's travel and geometry will hurt.

I personally like variable pivot rear suspension designs which can bridge the gap between good XC performance with lower suspension travel, as well as good enduro performance with higher suspension travel, not to mention the benefits in the frame geometry, etc. I've been riding a variable pivot rear suspension all-mountain MTB for nearly a decade now and I love it. The suspension is variable from 125 to 150 mm and I ride everything from Canadian rockies enduro shuttle trails to 40-50 km all mountain and XC trails in the backcountry. It's similar age comparisons too.

Really think about what kind of riding you do and how often you do each type of riding. If it's a lot of enduro (downhill) then the Fuel EX is pretty sweet for sure. If its a lot of XC, or all mountain, your choice will likely be different.

Hope that helps and good luck.

What are you talking about? the fuel EX is nowhere near an Enduro bike? its more of a modern middle between xc and trail... exactly like hes wanting... it's not even classed as all-mountain

for trek bikes:
XC - top fuel, none or up to 120mm suspension.
trail: Fuel EX, 130 rear and 140mm front suspension
All-Mountain: Remedy: 150 rear and 160 front
Enduro: slash, 160 rear and 170 front.

This.
flag TheSlayer99
FL
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 18:19 Quote
I owned a fuel ex and I raced enduro on it with a 160 fork on it and I can’t recommend it as more than a trail bike, and it’s not even very good for that. It doesn’t pedal particularly well, it’s terrifying doing any real descending on it and to have any sort of support in the rear suspension you need to make so many compromises to make it work. I would recommend something like the ibis ripmo, the Santa Cruz Hightower, the banshee prime, ect. Basically avoid the trek’s, and look at other bikes in the 130-140 travel bracket.
flag mtbtrekracer
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 18:24 Quote
TheSlayer99 wrote:
I owned a fuel ex and I raced enduro on it with a 160 fork on it and I can’t recommend it as more than a trail bike, and it’s not even very good for that. It doesn’t pedal particularly well, it’s terrifying doing any real descending on it and to have any sort of support in the rear suspension you need to make so many compromises to make it work. I would recommend something like the ibis ripmo, the Santa Cruz Hightower, the banshee prime, ect. Basically avoid the trek’s, and look at other bikes in the 130-140 travel bracket.
For XC racing the Top fuel is a weapon.
I agree on the Fuel Ex and i feel it being an odd one in treks modern line up.
Also consider Nukeproof reactor, YT jeffy and canyon has several.
flag Jasonbourne
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 18:34 Quote
TheSlayer99 wrote:
I owned a fuel ex and I raced enduro on it with a 160 fork on it and I can’t recommend it as more than a trail bike, and it’s not even very good for that. It doesn’t pedal particularly well, it’s terrifying doing any real descending on it and to have any sort of support in the rear suspension you need to make so many compromises to make it work. I would recommend something like the ibis ripmo, the Santa Cruz Hightower, the banshee prime, ect. Basically avoid the trek’s, and look at other bikes in the 130-140 travel bracket.

I also owned a fuel with a similar, slightly more travel set up than you, and I found the experience to be the same. I’m not sure why tho.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 20:10 Quote
A cross-country bike makes a terrible all-mountain bike, while an all-mountain bike makes an acceptable cross-country bike. In other words, caution on the side of "more bike".

Stable geometry doesn't slow you down. It usually comes packaged with a burly frame, heavy components, lots of travel, and slow tires, but imagine it didn't; imagine a cross-country race bike with enduro geometry. Unless the course has crazy tight switchbacks, the geometry won't slow you down. A bike with modest travel and aggressive geometry can strike a good balance to cover a wide spectrum of uses.

Below is a list of bikes to consider. I filtered my database on the following criteria:

• Rear wheel: 29"
• Rear travel: 110 mm - 131 mm
• Anti-squat (using my standard sprocket combination, F&R sag position, and rider centre of mass): ≥ 100%
• "Aggressiveness index", which is a combination of handling parameters and travel: [the actual number is meaningless to anyone other than me, so let's just call it "high"]

Results:

Banshee Phantom
Bird Aether 9 A
Bird Aether 9 C
Carbon Wasp Truffle
Cotic FlareMAX v2
Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol
Ibis Ripley AF
Kingdom Vendetta XFS29
Marin Rift Zone
Norco Optic
Orange Stage Evo
Pole Evolink 110
Pole Evolink 131
Santa Cruz Tallboy
Saracen Ariel 30
Specialized Epic Evo
Spot Mayhem 130
flag MB3
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 21:42 Quote
I’ve seen the Specialized Epic Evo and the latest Trek Top Fuel (with 115mm rear travel) referred to as downcountry bikes, rather than pure XC bikes. Just how all-around capable does that make them? And what’s the real difference, other than 15-20mm extra travel? An extra degree or two of head and seat tube angle?

Given I’m coming from a background of riding on vintage stock hardtails and resto-modded ones, I’m certain even a modern XC full suspension bike would probably take some getting used to, but I’m concerned that if I don’t fully commit to the 21st century standards and geo, I’ll regret it after a few years of riding and trying out more challenging trails and features.

That’s why I was kind of leaning towards the idea of a bike that that could allow me to try different things, perhaps with the occasional wheel and tire swap, and perhaps some flip chip style feature to adjust angles a bit.

Speaking of which, how much difference can those flip chips / Mino links make, really?

Some great suggestions here, by the way. I have to admit that I’m fairly unfamiliar with many of the bikes and brands mentioned, so I may have my work cut out for me in terms of research.
flag kwtoxman
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 21:43 Quote
mtbtrekracer wrote:
What are you talking about? the fuel EX is nowhere near an Enduro bike? its more of a modern middle between xc and trail... exactly like hes wanting... it's not even classed as all-mountain

for trek bikes:
XC - top fuel, none or up to 120mm suspension.
trail: Fuel EX, 130 rear and 140mm front suspension
All-Mountain: Remedy: 150 rear and 160 front
Enduro: slash, 160 rear and 170 front.

Jasonbourne wrote:
This.

Trek Canada literally classes the Fuel EX as an all mountain bike, lol. https://www.trekbikes.com/ca/en_CA/bikes/mountain-bikes/trail-mountain-bikes/all-mountain-bikes/c/B515/

At least the Fuel EX isn't on 150mm of fork travel, but 140mm fork travel (and 130mm rear) is a little more than I'd recommend or would want to go bike-wise when doing much XC / long rides (w/ age factors too). 125mm suspension and slightly less slack frame geometry will be better and it's still ~5 inches of travel (full sus XC bikes have long focused on ~100mm of travel). I think it's more than reasonable and there's merit to suggest the Top Fuel over the Fuel EX to the OP with his wants and XC history. It checks out to me... nor do I see a raging controversy if one disagrees.

MB3 wrote:
I’ve seen the Specialized Epic Evo and the latest Trek Top Fuel (with 115mm rear travel) referred to as downcountry bikes, rather than pure XC bikes. Just how all-around capable does that make them? And what’s the real difference, other than 15-20mm extra travel? An extra degree or two of head and seat tube angle?

Given I’m coming from a background of riding on vintage stock hardtails and resto-modded ones, I’m certain even a modern XC full suspension bike would probably take some getting used to, but I’m concerned that if I don’t fully commit to the 21st century standards and geo, I’ll regret it after a few years of riding and trying out more challenging trails and features.

That’s why I was kind of leaning towards the idea of a bike that that could allow me to try different things, perhaps with the occasional wheel and tire swap, and perhaps some flip chip style feature to adjust angles a bit.

Speaking of which, how much difference can those flip chips / Mino links make, really?

Some great suggestions here, by the way. I have to admit that I’m fairly unfamiliar with many of the bikes and brands mentioned, so I may have my work cut out for me in terms of research.
Those downcountry bikes will be pretty capable. There's lots of good YT videos showing people tearing up mountain trails and descents very nicely with trail-aggressive 120mm front/rear suspension bikes. Going to longer stroke suspension like 140mm and typically slacker frames eats up some peddling and XC efficiency, which adds up on long rides and distances. So it depends on what you want to prioritize and live with. More XC and long ride efficiency or more trail-AM descent prowess. There are some great MTB options from other manufacturers that fit in between strong 100mm XC-based bikes and current 140mm bikes such as the Trek EX, the Trek Fuel is just one. It's worth looking in that range and see what's appealing. I'd be looking light weight too... I enjoy the rides in the "Sub 29 lb AM/Enduro with scale shot" thread.

See what appeals to you. Good luck.
flag mtbtrekracer
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 22:01 Quote
kwtoxman wrote:

Jasonbourne wrote:
This.

Trek Canada literally classes the Fuel EX as an all mountain bike, lol. https://www.trekbikes.com/ca/en_CA/bikes/mountain-bikes/trail-mountain-bikes/all-mountain-bikes/c/B515/

At least the Fuel EX isn't on 150mm of fork travel, but 140mm fork travel (and 130mm rear) is a little more than I'd recommend or would want to go bike-wise when doing a fair amount of XC and long rides (age factors too). 125mm suspension (or less, and the geometry differences) will be better at the sacrifice of some DH capability. Plus, the slacker geometry of the Fuel EX leans more enduro than what I'd prefer or suggest for significant XC and AM use. I think it's more than reasonable and there's merit to suggest the Top Fuel over the Fuel EX to the OP with his wants and XC history. It checks out to me... nor do I see a raging controversy if one disagrees.

Im not sure anyone would consider a Fuel EX as an all mountain bike, its too steep and not aggressive enough.
Remember we are in 2021 here man, for exactly what hes wanting the Fuel ex would suit but theres much better options than trek for this instance.

Im not certain you know your bikes here though ? The fuel Ex has a 66deg head angle, its quite a short bike, far less travel and has little stack - Everything pointing it towards trail numbers...
So unless we are missing something here and that its a magical machine....but it's not.. it rides like a underwhelming trail bike... than needs an update for it to even be close to a modern trail bike.

Again... see below for how the trek lineup is...

XC - top fuel, none or up to 120mm suspension.
trail: Fuel EX, 130 rear and 140mm front suspension
All-Mountain: Remedy: 150 rear and 160 front
Enduro: slash, 160 rear and 170 front.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 22:29 Quote
MB3 wrote:
I’ve seen the Specialized Epic Evo and the latest Trek Top Fuel (with 115mm rear travel) referred to as downcountry bikes, rather than pure XC bikes. Just how all-around capable does that make them? And what’s the real difference, other than 15-20mm extra travel? An extra degree or two of head and seat tube angle?

Marketing departments can call a bike whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true.

First, let's establish the roles of geometry and travel. Broadly speaking, for a given level of rider skill, geometry sets the limit for the type of terrain you can ride, and travel sets the speed limit.

The 66.5° head-tube angle on the Epic Evo is slack for a bike with so little travel. There's a mismatch between the geometry, the travel, and the robustness of the frame, fork, and components; as a ride partner of mine often puts it, that head-tube angle is writing cheques the rest of the bike can't cash. Still, a slack head-tube angle doesn't weigh any extra and doesn't reduce pedaling efficiency, so there's no harm in putting a slack head-tube angle on a cross-country race bike. It's still going to feel like a cross-country race bike, though, just with less sketchy geometry - and maybe that's what you want. I suspect you'll be happiest with a slightly more balanced package.


MB3 wrote:
a modern XC full suspension bike would probably take some getting used to

Yep.


MB3 wrote:
but I’m concerned that if I don’t fully commit to the 21st century standards and geo, I’ll regret it after a few years of riding and trying out more challenging trails and features.

Yep - but more like " ... after a few weeks ... ". It doesn't take long to adapt to things that work properly.


MB3 wrote:
Speaking of which, how much difference can those flip chips / Mino links make, really?

They make as much difference as the change in geometry. They don't add travel (well, some do, but most don't), they don't make the frame or fork stiffer, and they don't make your brakes stronger, and they don't make your tires stickier. They make your geometry about 0.5° - 0.8° slacker and your BB a bit lower. Better than nothing, but only slightly.


MB3 wrote:
Some great suggestions here, by the way. I have to admit that I’m fairly unfamiliar with many of the bikes and brands mentioned, so I may have my work cut out for me in terms of research.

Start with the Bird Aethers, Norco Optic, and Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol. Guerrilla Gravity bikes have the unique option of being able to morph one model into another by changing various frame elements and the shock. This is mostly for their benefit, to reduce the number of front triangle molds, but some owners have taken advantage of the option. It's a fair bit of hassle, though, and can leave the fork feeling unbalanced. By the time you swap out the wheels, frame elements, shock, and maybe the fork, it's nearly the price of a second bike and a lot more hassle. It could provide some insurance against your tastes "outgrowing" the bike.


kwtoxman wrote:
Trek Canada literally classes the Fuel EX as an all mountain bike, lol.

Again, marketing departments can call a bike whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true. By modern standards, it's solidly in the "trail" category, but nothing beyond that. It's a decent bike and would meet the needs of MB3, though I think MB3 might do even better with a touch less travel and/or more aggressive geometry to optimize the balance of XC race bike with competent geometry.
flag kwtoxman
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 23:18 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
Again, marketing departments can call a bike whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true. By modern standards, it's solidly in the "trail" category, but nothing beyond that. It's a decent bike and would meet the needs of MB3, though I think MB3 might do even better with a touch less travel and/or more aggressive geometry to make the most of the balance of XC race bike with competent geometry.

Sure. My point was the same about MB3 considering a bike with a little less travel and/or a little more aggressive geometry based on his history and wants. In doing that originally, I also tried to say that I find the Fuel EX (even if it isn't AM) better suited towards doing some AM riding than doing some XC riding (considering the age range). Especially MB3's XC experience fwiw. I went back and fixed some earlier language to help that come across better.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Apr 11, 2021 at 23:45 Quote
That's reasonable and we're all going to have a different take on it. For me, the previous generation Fuel EX felt on the XC side of Trail; the new version looks to be a little stiffer and slacker, but the whole industry has also moved in that direction, so it's still on the XC side of trail, albeit within a different landscape.

The continued march toward higher weight, more stable geometry, and general burliness across all categories suggests we're still recovering from the light and sketchy bikes from the formative years of mountain biking, and maybe it's reasonable for someone in MB3's position to veer toward the "more capable" end of the spectrum.
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.009907
Mobile Version of Website