What if I told you about a type of bike that's easier to ride faster in many (but not all) settings, allows you to cover more ground, maybe even have more fun while doing it,
and all with less effort required than what you might be riding now. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Would you believe such a thing exists, or does that sound like a pitch line from an out of touch marketing department?
It's not a sham, I swear, and there aren't even any motors involved, either. What it is, however, is an emerging category of mountain bike that's a strange, hard to define fusion of cross-country, trail, and possibly even the all-mountain segments.
For lack of a better term, and because I like names that are easy to remember, I've been calling them 'down-country' or 'fun-country' bikes with the aim of making things as confusing as possible. My other option was the obvious 'black-diamond cross-country,' but I don't think the sarcasm shines through quite as well with that one. As dumb as it sounds, the tongue in cheek down-country tag also does a pretty decent job of explaining the intentions of these rolling contradictions.
Looks like fun, right? No, probably not, but the bikes these guys are on can be turned into properly capable, fun machines.
So, what exactly is a down-country bike?
It's not a downhill bike with a full-length seat tube that some goober has bolted a 100mm stem onto, but rather a bike that approaches riding from the opposing point of view. They're short-travel, quick handling rigs with a large majority of their DNA coming from the cross-country family but with a clever component spec that adds to their descending and technical abilities without also adding too much weight. A doped-up cross-country bike? Sure. The idea is to create a package that, while sporting a minimal amount of travel, quick handling, and maybe even race-day intentions, is still far more capable than what the classic view of cross-country-ing would have anyone guessing.
This is not a new concept, of course - clever people have been piecing together such things on their own for many years - but it's only in the last few seasons that we've seen big-time brands look at cross-country in the same light as these forward-thinking riders.
If you've read any of my drivel before, you might already know
that I'm a huge proponent of all-around short-travel bikes that are built to cover ground quickly while also being able to take some abuse, which is exactly what I'm getting at with this whole down-country spiel. I'm fully aware that I'm an ass for suggesting that we need another category of bike, but keep an open mind for just a few more minutes while I try to make my case here, and then you're more than welcome to call me names in the comment section.
If we're talking hard to define short-travel bikes, we can't go any further without giving credit where credit's due.
There's always been a small handful of forward-thinking 'little bikes' to choose from over the years, but
Kona's genre-smashing Process 111 (pictured at right) is a somewhat recent example of a bike that made a lot of people sit up and take notice.
The stout 111 wasn't perfect (it was heavy-ish, there was no bottle mount inside the front triangle, and the seat tube was actually too short for some riders), but it was an eye-opener for a lot of riders who had assumed that more suspension equals more capabilities, a fallacy that's easy to go along with.
With a long (for the day) reach of 460mm for a large-sized 111, but a relatively slack (for the travel) 68-degree head angle, a short seat tube, and more standover clearance than a Razor scooter, Kona's under-sized 111 was capable of some very up-sized riding. There were other companies who used the same basic recipe before Kona, no doubt, but Kona was among the first to use the right ingredients, at the right time, to offer an off-the-shelf short-travel rig with the now de rigueur progressive geometry.
The 111 outclassed its travel and outperformed expectations, but it was also a hard bike to pin down in 2013. I mean, what the hell was it? With cross-country travel, angles from an all-mountain bike of the day, and a porker of a frame and build kit, the 111 was difficult to categorize. Then again, that's partly what made it so special at the time - it was a niche bike that didn't neatly fit into any particular section of Kona's catalog. When other riders asked me what it was at the time, I called it a down-country or fun-country bike, shrugged my shoulders while looking just as confused as they did, and then went off to do a bunch of skids and manuals on it.
Sure, the 111's frame was about as cross-country as an e-bike is a real mountain bike, but it's an important benchmark because it underscored the fact that travel doesn't need to define intentions, and that unruly intentions don't require a bunch of travel. And now, in 2018, we have off-the-shelf bikes that have cross-country race intentions (and weight) but with angles and sturdiness that allows us to be as unruly as we dare.
A light, racy bike no longer has to be sketchy on the descents. It's never been easier to earn those turns.
It's hard to believe that the 111 debuted five years ago, but many riders have seen the light since then and pieced together their own oddball down-country bikes by choosing parts that make the most sense and hanging them on a cross-country frame. That's exactly what many in my 'hood have been doing for years now. If you were to show up for one of our local rides, you'd see what looks like a herd of pure cross-country race rigs under a confusing mix of Lycra, baggy shorts, platform pedals, and maybe even some goggles. Take a closer look, however, and you'd see that our steeds are anything but flimsy, lightweight off-road road bikes with deathwish semi-slick rubber, high posts, and stems so long that they're bordering on assisted suicide.
Picture a Specialized Epic, Trek Top Fuel, Rocky Mountain Element, or Cannondale Scalpel; all bikes would be at home toeing the line of a cross-country race. And now picture them with wide handlebars, 50mm stems, long-stroke party posts, and big rubber inflated to maybe 20psi on relatively wide rims. In other words, capable cross-country instead of cross-country chintzy. The result of that admittedly irresponsible blending is a bike that you'd still be happy to hammer out a new PR aboard up your local monster climb, but it'll also be just fine absolutely railing the descent, taking all the silly lines, and just being a hoodlum in general.
If you've ever spent any time on a lightweight cross-country bike, you already know that their low weight and sharp steering can make them unbelievably agile in the right hands, and their capacity for tomfoolery only increases when you choose your components wisely.
You decide: Did I ruin a perfectly good cross-country bike, or does it actually makes sense?
The
irresponsibly modified Rocky Mountain Element that I featured in my Staff Rides article last summer is a good example. While designed as a 100mm-travel cross-country race bike, the addition of a set of relatively wide rims, burly tires, and a cockpit that you'd usually see on an enduro bike created a machine that's ready for whatever you might want to do on it, within reason, of course. One needs to be smart when it comes to suspension - the less travel you have, the better it has to be set up, and this type of bike definitely requires a much firmer spring rate all around if you're riding it above and beyond what it's intended to see. Sag? No, not much. Or any.
And that brings us to one tiny issue: less suspension and steeper (than a true enduro bike) angles means that there isn't a lot of bike under you to save your ass when you make a dumb decision. The line between getting away with something dumb and getting scorpion'd so hard that your shoes come off is thinner than a North Shore skinny, and a rider has to be smart and precise when it comes to his lines. It's a matter of constantly micro-managing the bike; while an enduro rig can be left to do its thing beneath you while you plan well ahead, a down-country bike requires much more awareness. Factor in some rowdy terrain or low traction conditions and things can get dicey. But it can also get really, really rewarding when you do make it look easy or, depending on what you're doing, simply just survive.
A win is a win, but it can feel like an upset victory for the championship when you pull it off while over-confident and under-gunned. And when you do get tossed, at least you can use your silly monstrosity of a ''cross-country bike'' as an excuse; it's a win-win!
Santa Cruz's Blur is new-school cross-country bike that can do far more than your typical cross-country riding.
Of course, it'd be careless of me not to mention that fact that most companies don't intend their purebred cross-country race frames to be home to the components required to turn them into down-country bikes, and especially not the type of riding that big rubber, a longer-travel fork, and the obligatory enduro-style cockpit allows. At least not yet, anyway. I'm picturing more than one product manager cringing while reading this, and warranty departments everywhere shaking their heads while using words like ''irresponsible,'' ''reckless,'' and ''Levy is a f*cking idiot.'' Hey, I won't disagree with them, either.
Bike companies are catching on, though.
Santa Cruz's new, 100mm-travel Blur is just one example of a cross-country whippet sporting longer, more relaxed geometry that's able to shrug off abuse that might have killed a flimsy race bike from a few years ago. Scott's Spark is also a decent specimen of an off-the-shelf short-travel rig with geo that makes sense for a hooligan who wants a sporty bike that won't kill him on a rowdy trail, as is
the just-released Yeti SB100. Again, this is far from a new phenomenon, as riders have been building their own fun-country atrocities for many years, but it's only recently that we're seeing stock bikes become a real option.
I have Yeti's new SB100 in for a long-term review, but the handful of rides I've put on it so far can be summed up like this: Small travel, real tires, and much fun.
I propose the silly down-country label only to mock how two-wheeled world tries to be neatly classified, but I do believe that we are seeing the emergence of a new type of bike. Maybe it's brands finally applying what they've learned from developing their all-mountain and enduro designs over the last few years. Maybe they're simply responding to the ever-evolving skill sets of riders. Maybe this is just the evolution of the trail bike, minus 4lb and with a whole lot more sportiness. Whatever it is, it's clear that a cross-country bike doesn't have to only be a cross-country race bike anymore.
Truth is, I'm mostly just taking the piss with these down-country and fun-country labels - the last thing any of us want is another slogan or catchword - but I do believe that there really is something to these souped-up cross-country bikes. Call them whatever you want, but I think I'll just call them fun as hell.
I've heard they are a new thing, boasting 28.2 wheels, lower slacker steeper higher angles, appropriate for no helmet, but full body armour, one flat and one clipless pedal...
Sounds like a real POS if you ask me
#newtrends
Of course, it may gather dust as I play on my new Ripmo for a bit, especially as the Ripmo climbs better than expected. But that thing is still dang fun and makes easier trails a little more dicey and challenging than an Enduro bike and will make one hell of a gravel bike for easier spin days.
+1 for "Cross-Bro"
My concern with the trailification of XC bikes is that we'll be left with 2-3 true XC race bikes left to choose from. Right now that Yeti and Blur are a bit porky to race when compared to the Epic, Top Fuel, Spark RC, & Scalpel.
Oh yeah and Long Live Gripshift
I'm looking forward to when the bike you described isn't a competitive option in an XC race. Bring On The Gnar.
On a 2017 process 111 now with fork raised to 140mm and it feels perfect. Ridden everything from dirt merchant to schleyer to xc on it. Hoons all around.
Seems like lots of folks are still stuck in the 160/160 27.5 'trail-duro' phase... I was in that rut for a long time.
It's all about having a quiver of bikes. Then you can pick and choose what bike to ride depending on the trail and mood.
I've taken my 29'er hardtail down our burliest DH trail and taken my DH bike on the in-town XC trail. It's fun to mix it up.
Short travel/hardtail bikes are fun and challenging. Long travel bikes let you mob over everything. Variety is the spice of life.
My problem is I ride my bikes till they have no resell value and I end up keeping them.
So "down country" and short travel trail bikes are essentially the same.
I recently got my first "enduro" bike (160f, 155r) and still have a ton of fun on the subset of my local trails that tend to be "easier". Having a shorter travel and lighter XC-ish bike would not make my experience any more enjoyable
An overbuilt xc is fun, but I'm not responsible enough to keep myself out of trouble - there's too many options to be "bad", relative to the small bike and ultimately I'd be worried about destroying it. For me, the hardtail I built up fills the shoes of the "downcountry" bike, and is slowly becoming my go-to bike.
Seems to me like the sorts of bikes you're talking about are the sorts of things people would ride for those multi-day epics. Bikes efficient enough to cover huge distances, nimble enough to get through tight stuff, burly enough not to get you killed when it's a little steep.
.
.
.
.
"never go full"
In my opinion, most riders (including myself) far underutilize the bikes they have. Lots of people buying Nomads to take off 2ft. drops out there.
I've ridden the heck out of the TB3 and enjoyed every minute of it. Then along came a Hightower LT into my bike stable. Hmm, pedals just as well as the TB3, is much smoother on choppy trails and weighs only 1 lb more. So I don't reach for the TB3 anymore because the HTLT is as good, or better in all situations. Now I have my eyes on a new Blur to complement the HTLT.
I guess my point is that a jazzed up XC bike may be a decent do-it-all machine, there are bikes with a bit more travel that do it better.
You have been warned!
but some of us can.... moohahahaha!
it's the only bike i have and i bought it used, but that doesn't stop me from having fun
also whenever i meet other mountain bikers, especially the Dentists on their $9000 bikes, they keep telling me that it's the best bike ever and that they regret selling their SX trail (happened to me 3 times, must be a universal fact)
Not everything descended from the Blur 4X, Waki.
Other claimed descendants according to Waki (fake news):
-Carbon Jack
-new Ripmo
-DUB 28.99
-giant overdrive
-super b 157
-2.8 minions
-Geometron
Progress is reserved to those who work on progressing their skill and fitness. That’s it. Introducing a handicap is a good method of improvement if you do it with a particular purpose/ practice in mind. Otherwise it’s a myth.
@makripper why are you talking to me as if I said Nomad or any other Enduro bike can replace a DH bike for a whole season in Whistler? I talked about taking it to a bike park occasionally. It will do damn well. If you go to Whistler often then you would be much better off having a DH bike.
What people do is they sell their 2-4yr old Enduro rig, and instead of buying a nee better one they go: oh a modern 120 trail bike has as aggressive geo as my old enduro. So they ride it on local trails and it’s quite fine, especially when riding alone. Then they go for a trip to a bike park with the boys on enduros. You go for first warm up laps and think, hmm I am still on their backs. Wow. Now as the day continues you go on gnarlier and gnarlier stuff your trail bike bounces off tops of obstacles nicely. And then you go: I’ll open the gas now! All fine, bam bam bam, one mistake, you get off the line and get gang raped by rocks wtching your friends riding away.
Totally agree with your argumentation. But the same can be applied to Enduro bike vs DH bike. A 200mm bike can save you when you do mistakes that would throw you off on a 160 bike whatever the marketing says. So the optimum is to have a short travel trail bike and a DH if you do more than 10 days of lift assisted riding per season.
It is however beyond me, how people from BC or Alps, Scottish Highlands, possibly even Wales, can justify 120 bike as their main bike due to big differences in altitude, most trails being gravity fed, while climbs are mainly fireroad. Climbing on a singletrack is a utopia, since in proper mountains they vary so much and many of them will have unclimbable sections that are too steep or too techy for too long. I can climb the techiest, steepest stuff in Gbg, there are no more than 5 climbs I didn't pull, but they are 30-80m long and peak my heart rate to max in some instances. Try that for 500 vertical meters. Everytime someone tells me they go for 2000 vertical meters on a singletrack I roll my eyes because that means they have hit the bullseye with location. Such singletracks happen rarely, very rarely. In my hometown in Poland with mountains at 500-1200m I know maybe 2 fully climbable ones over a rather giant area. And once I do them I'm freaking done for the day and want to take the fireroad down.
It isn't any different to what you see in road cycling. Not everyone goes for the fastest sharpest handling bike. Quite a few go for these "Roubaix" type bikes. Not because they prefer riding cobbles. It is just that they like the comfort and control. And even though it won't be as fast as a true racer, it will still feel quite quick compared to the commuter bike they ride the rest of the week.
I get what you're saying. One other approach is to use that same bike in more challenging terrain. See, there will always be a limit to your skill in relation to the material you're using. If the "DC" bike feels to easy on a WC XC trail, you may take it towards something more challenging until you enter the zone again where you want to be. Push it too far there and, well, you'll find out. It is what comes with exploring and expanding your limits. There are limits to a DH bike too. Not everyone can ride one of these down the Hardline.
@WAKIdesigns Yes fair enough rear suspension helps with traction and obstacles on the climbs, even I noticed that. But it also depends on what goals you set. To many it appears the climbs are merely a goal to an end. To ride the descends, to complete an epic ride before sunset, or just as part of a race. Call me silly (or well, let me do that myself just to get it out of the way) but if I can ride a climb on the fully but not yet on the hardtail, I want to work on that. Sure it would be cool to descend like Wade Simmons, but more than anything I would love to be able to climb like Ryan Leech or Chris Akrigg. Sure I may never get there, but it is a goal to strive for. Just pedaling hoping for the rear suspension to suck it up doesn't sound exciting to me. Now the other day I joined a couple of XC riders on a training ride on my "DC" bike (apparently). 25 minutes, straight climb up, gravely descend. I must have been the only one who did that standing with a low saddle. Until I wrecked the rear mech on a climb (broken pulley and broken cage). I'm not going to fix that (new frame in few weeks) so until then I'm on the fully again. Feedback I've had is I'm way too aggressive over the front end, which is apparently why the rear end doesn't stay put. So that's what I should work on apparently, be less aggressive over the front. Riding with more travel definitely doesn't make it easier for everyone.
My point: Bikes are tools for the job. The job might be a DH Run. The job might be a neighborhood XC loop that's fast and flows.
Own a lightweight hardtail, own an AM Rig, and if you live in the steep mountains own a DH Rig too if you so desire.
Choose the right tool for the job.
Quit trying to make a bike that's a "Jack of all trades, master of none". Those types of bikes just simply... suck at everything... all at once.
Now you have to throw in Down-Country?
Its obvious bikes are going to go this way. You can only add travel and kick out the front end for so many years before you hit the end of what's feasible. We've been there for a while now. New bikes need to feel different compared to what everyone has to drive sales. Simple. Nothing new.
Sure I have a 170mm 29" Enduro monster but I recently put a short travel Pike, wide bars , wide-ish rims with decent meat and a short stem on a cross country hardtail frame. What a frigging blast!
I've since upgraded the frame to a Canfield EPO because I was scared of snapping the XC frame.
For many, many trails this set up is more fun and FASTER than my enduro sled.
When you do jump on the big bike in some serious terrain it somehow feels just a tad easier once you get more squish.
If I had the $$'s I'd likely spring for that new Blur.
It's set up with some real rims, big Magic Mary/Hans Dampf tires, came with a dropper, short stem, wide bars...fits the category exactly.
Now if only the prices would come down to what they used to be in the early days...
Next thing you know we're all on mid-travel bikes with balloon tyres and phrases like "climbs like and enduro bike, descends like an enduro bike" and spending stupid amounts of money on things that have steep head-angles and EWS-approved geometry.
And what if I told you that if you put Minions on Process 111 it will climb as “badly” and cover as little distance as process 153
If my name were Mike Levy and you told me that "you can install meaty knobs and thick sidewalls and do almost anything what dh bikes can do? All in one bike?" then I'd ask how many times you've ridden a DH bike and on what courses. 'Cos....that's nonsense.
Stupidly, especially from an engineering and safety standpoint, my friend and I through his 140mm Fox 34 on for a few hours. That was the most fun I’ve had on this bike in a long time.
But to me this "trend" is just stupid. Pick a 22lbs race bike,add 3 or 4 lbs of trail bike equipment,just to have a short travel trail bike. I get that many people are waking up from being "overbiked",but doesn't the market offer real trail bikes? Or are all the 120-130mm bikes these days trying to be short-travel enduro more than long-legged XC?
On the other hand I definitely feel like less travel is limiting top speed in really rocky dh sections (like upper Black Mountain in Pisgah). I suspect a bike like the nomad or process 153 might be more fun on flow trails with bigger doubles etc.
I wonder if rider weight and riding style are big factors for this preference?... any 200+ lb riders loving ‘down country’?
At 150lbs, with a big red volume spacer installed I seldom bottom out my TB3, even on 4-5ft drops to flat (though I do currently stay away from the 7ft+ drops).
Thoughts?
Great article
I have been toying with buying a new FS bike for a few years but it is hard to justify (the expense) because it doesn't add anything extra to the riding experience - in fact it probably makes the trails a little easy. If and when I do get another bike it will probably be a short travel 29FS. Most of the guys I ride with are on short / mid travel 29FS bikes so it probably works with the local terrain.
Maybe this would change if my local trails were different.
Where would the SC Superlight fall?
I have equal amounts of fun riding my 111 as I do my Bucksaw, but on my 111 I have a 140 Pike that I really appreciate when things get a little hairy.
How would you define FS fatties? Party-rigs? Party Pigs?
Also the OG: Element 970 RSL BC Edition, www.bikes.com/en/bikes/element/2013
The pitfall with these XC based short travel bikes for rowdy riding is that they won't hold up to the abuse. I tend to go the other way around and built an Intense Tazer VP (long TT frame) with a 120 mm fork, dropper post and light-ish parts. Still a bit porky, but if you come by some dirt jumps on a trail ride you can hit them w/o having to worry that you might have to push your broken bike home.
Where as a Big Bike that's light enough to pedal all day is an "enduro bike"
Both of these two could be used to describe a "proper mountain bike". ie: Never going to win any races XC or DH, but will serve the owner brilliantly across the widest range of terrain, both types allowing big XC days one day, and local DH tracks the next.
Ive always been a fan of Giants, and generally consider their range to be a sliding scale of the same bike: as the travel goes up the bike gets slacker and heavier.
Choose your travel point between 80mm and 200mm in 20mm increments.
Only being able to have one bike means I have to compromise a bit. My aluminum frame '14 Trek Remedy 27.5 seems to be the best middle ground for me. I have it built up pretty burly with a 150mm Fox 36, Flow Ex wheels, Minon DHF and an Aggressor for tires, wide bars and all. There isn't a carbon part on the bike and it surprisingly weighs just a hair over 30lbs. I could probably shave some weight lower the rolling resistance by going to less aggressive tires. With 140mm rear and 150mm front I have never felt the bike to be under-gunned. I run out of skill and ability before the bike does. It is probably a little too much bike for most of my local riding but it also never really feels like I'm pushing too much bike around either. I think for those of us who like to push our bikes hard but also don't frequent bike parks most of us would be best served with today's crop of 130-140mm travel bikes if we can only have one bike (Obviously folks who ride in the steepest and the roughest or flattest and smoothest would be looking elsewhere) but I know that wasn't exactly the point of this article.
TL;DR These bikes seem cool but I don't think they could be most riders only bike. The 130-140mm bikes seem to fit that bill better.
Previous to that I had an old Dekerf/Marzocchi Z-1 bike set up the same way!
Funniest line I've ever read on this website, I'm lying here unable to sleep, trying to stifle my out loud laughter so I don't wake my girlfriend.
Great writing, keep it up!
Cross country fs= cross country fs
“Down country”= aggressive cross country
Trail= trail
Long travel trail= enduro
Long travel enduro= freeride (debatable)
Downhill= downhill
DJ/slope= dirt jumper
Fatbikes= fatbikes
E-bikes= unwelcome
THIS IS HOW WE’RE GONNA DO THINGS FROM NOW ON, OK?!?
We’ve been referring to this category for over 10 years at EB! Lol
Some people got it, some didn’t. We’ve even got reference to it up on some old photos in the shop!
It’s a great category but prob only makes sense to seasoned riders.
DB@EB
reviews.mtbr.com/jamis-bikes-releases-new-3vo-suspension-platform
And i still ride my 2010 Xprezo super D with 26`` wheels...
This type of bike has around for years let’s not try and give it a flash new name please.
24/7
I am all on board with Levy
That sounds interesting!
dirtmountainbike.com/gear/bike-reviews/bike-test-cannondale-rush
Change out the wheels, changes the category.