ufff pa ti ces se onda ponoviti pravo a ovo gore sam se zezao za promjenu frejma,nemam ti ja love za to a vec vozim dream bike ja malo drakchetu vadim mast
Thank you for the answer. It is couple years now that I am still thinking of choosing between two radical bikes: a trail bike and a downhill bike, and one being a mix of it. I ride downhill and trail, but these all mix so I chose dh bike and use it along trails too. The biggest problem in using dh bike is pedalling efficiency especially in uphills. It is not even the gear ration but overall effort needed to move it, so now I looking at full suspension bikes that are close to dh and still lighter. Yours is a good example. Thinking more I am calculating what would be the weight difference and it seems that dh part are offered so light lately that the difference is closely neglidgible.
Good for both, but still climbing on an enduro bike is a sort of a torture. It's very difficult comparing to a xc bike. Then is the compromise in descending too. Dh bike is always better in descending. So I am still searching for the answer if it's worth having one universal bike full of compromises, or several. If you go biking there is no way to have a dh bike with you in a backpack and no way to descent with a xc bike. Mtb consists in climbing and descending so there is the need to have a bike to do both, but why should we accept compromises. I would like to have a bike which climbs like an xc bike and descends like dh bike.
This is the problem I've been thinking for couple years now and I managed to state that this is the matter of weight, gears, geometry basicly. If you look at new parts for downhill they weigh like parts for xc of 10 years ago. Rock shox SID was the xc ultimate fork and it weighed in coil version almost like present doble crown forks. 1x10 gear ration is even too much for both, and there is the geometry which I still wait for it be adjustable during riding e.g just before hitting the hill top.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb10567796/p5pb10567796.jpg