It wasn't that long ago that mid-travel bikes were pretty mediocre at most things, at least in hindsight and given how capable they are today. Now you can put together a six inch travel bike that easily weighs well under thirty pounds, including a dropper seat post and reliable wheels and tires, and ride it just about everywhere without it feeling like shit. In fact, some of these bikes are so competent that they could replace a lot of riders' downhill bikes without holding them back at all, while there's a handful of other machines that are such impressive all-rounders that I'd likely choose one of them over a lighter, more efficient trail bike rig for all-day epics.
The Xprezo Adhoc and GT's Sanction are absolute monsters when it comes to descending, but the flip side is that they can be a handful when it comes time to earn those hucks. Then you have similar travel machines like Ibis' new Mojo HD3 or Cannondale's Jekyll that can climb above and beyond what's expected of them, although they do give up a bit of ground compared to the previous two examples when things get super hectic on the way back down. Sure, all of those bikes have similar amounts of travel, but the descending and climbing bias between the first and last two examples is about as different you can get. Even when a bike is the Jim Thorpe of its class, it's still going to have a bias to either descending or ascending depending on its intentions. The questions is, then, how do you want your bias?
Two bikes of similar travel but very different personalities. Would you prefer the all-out descending prowess of the pink Adhoc, or the more all-around abilities of the Jekyll?
Let's assume that a six inch bike that's geared 100% towards descending will have very slack geo, a small gear range with a full chain guide, slammed seat, downhill bike-worthy wheels and tires, and a weight-is-no-concern approach to component selection. And let's also suppose that a six inch bike with more all-around intentions sits at 50% and has steeper geometry, lightweight wheels and tires that roll fast, a wider gear range, maybe suspension that you can lock out or adjust on the fly, and a host of mega-light parts. What's below the 50% mark? Things like 100mm stems and standard seat posts, so let's not go there. Where would you like to see your bike fall on the scale?
How Do You Want Your Bias?
I don't mind having the dh trails be a little sketchy. It makes them a bigger challenge, and I'd rather have more fun on the stuff that doesn't eat all my altitude in one bite.
I have a Slash, and i can't push that bike to its limits on the downs.
But, that is why i got the bike, although i know it'd be hard for me to find the limits of a bike like the HD3 i would still prefer a little buffer just to be sure, yeah, it means its a little harder to climb, and that sucks, but i spent a lot of time on an XC/Trail bike and consider my self a relatively good climber, so i can deal with it.
How does this fit into this new marketing classification?
Draper dh was a different story, as I was 30 sec faster on the reign but i have just as much fun with the anthem, plus I dont want to kill myself riding the road back to potato hill.
Unfortunately I have such a small riding window that I have a hard time meeting up with enough people to get efficent shuttle runs going. I usually just end up riding up and down 90% of the time. The best bike for that is an xc rig.
Ended up selling my reign and only miss it on my yearly moab trip and maybe once or twice if I go ride bobsled. Ill just rent a kona process next year in moab.
Front wheel: Maxxis DHF EXO tubeless
Rear wheel: Maxxis High Roller tubeless
But when scoping out new dh spots or new trails or both then its 50-50(110 travel new school trail/am bike).
The real problem with some of these 160mm plus bikes is not so much the climbing but rather keeping their momentum on flat sections of trail between descents.
Then there are those mellower trails where pumping gets you a rediculous amount of free speed and end up being real fun. Too much travel and youre robbed of fun.
Shorter travel all the way, more fun more of the time.
You also do not get anythingfor free. Make a 6" bike good at climbing it is going to get "worse" at going down.
I think that 99% of the riders feel too much difference on the UPHILL as they are not fit enough (I am also one of these)
In fact, proes test bikes :-P
It only pushing or shuttling that can change this percentage, and therefore it just becomes an indication of how often this happens.
Nothing in my wishlist is!
So i think my Mondraker Dune is a pretty perfect deal!
I recently demo's a 6k trek remedy 9 with 140mm in its low and slack setting on harder trails than I would normally ride and I was stunned at the bike's ability to climb. I attribute it to ever-improving tech in the suspension, lighter weight, and shorter front end. I think that bike falls into 60-40%. Haven't tried a longer legged bike like the enduro 29 or wfo9 (I will always stay on 29) but I am curious for how they feel.
My premise is that if a brand can build a super rowdy bike that somehow climbs OK, that's where I'm going because I already kinda suck on climbs anyway.
So while I answered "50% Descending - 50% Climbing", it really is more like "80% - 80%." It's a great time to be a mountain biker!
If you're going to have a 6" travel bike that you're only ever going to push up/shuttle, why not just buy a downhill rig?
I was thinking of these Cannondale bikes that are claimed to sit right in the middle, handling like an XC bike with more travel. Same goes for these older Scott Geniuses.
Help!
Personally, mid travel bike suits most of my riding, but I see what you're saying mike. If I had the money, I'd have a downhill bike too, though I'm sure it wouldn't get ridden all that much. n+1 though
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Thorpe