Field Test: 12 Trail & Downcountry Bikes Face the Efficiency Test

Dec 22, 2021 at 14:12
by Henry Quinney  

PINKBIKE FIELD TEST

12 Downcountry and Trail Bikes Face the Efficiency Test

Gravel Riding For Science



Through this field test, we've talked about any number of exciting new concepts. Whether it's downcountry or the famed aggressive-variable-trail-enduro bikes, it's all got a bit exciting. What about, however, something boring and old-fashioned such as efficiency? How much your shock bobs about might not be the top of your concerns, but then again you probably don't care about 120mm bikes that are unaccountably not called trail bikes either, yet here we are.


Raaw Jibb review
The Efficiency Test went up gravel road and isn't totally representative of how a bike rides on chunky technical climbs.


To do it, we measured a 750-meter course up a gravel road climb, then placed timing cones at the start and finish points. A set of Garmin Vector power pedals talked to a 1030 head unit, and we set it up to display normalized, 10-second, and 3-second power numbers; the idea is to have each bike finish the climb with the same normalized, 250-watt power number. This means that at the same power output the more efficient bikes should take less time to complete the course.

The climb is relatively short and, as fire roads go, it wasn't particularly rough. That's not to say it was as smooth as glass, but it was more about seated easy climbing than out of the saddle grunts and bumps.

This is a different climb from any that we've used before so it doesn't hold many comparisons outside of this year's group. However, within that context, it's very telling. It's also worth noting that mechanical efficiency is easy to measure via a power meter. Metabolic efficiency is not only far harder to compare but is also, rather staggeringly, even less interesting.

Efficiency Test Results

Downcountry Bikes

1st Trek Top Fuel - 2:37
2nd Rocky Mountain Element - 2:38
3rd Santa Cruz Blur TR - 2:41
4th Canyon Lux Trail - 2.42
5th Niner Jet - 2:43
5th Giant Trance 29 Advanced (climb mode setting on Live Valve) - 2:43
7th Giant Trance (open mode setting on Live Valve) - 2:45
Trail Bikes

1st Specialized Stumpjumper Evo - 3:10
1st Raaw Jibb - 3:10
3rd Scor 4060 ST - 3:11
4th Starling Murmur - 3:13
5th Propain Hugene - 3:14
6th Ghost Riot - 3:17




What'd we learn after way too many trips up the gravel road?

Not surprisingly, the downcountry bikes were faster, even if the size of the gap did surprise me. The grippy, thicker casing tires no doubt played their part in that. Within each category the gaps were seconds... but when you change tires the results become drastically different. The fastest trail bikes were also metal. Weird. It's almost as if frame material and suspension travel are only two pieces in a larger puzzle, but that can't be it.

photo
Trek's suspension system comes on everything from their 120mm Top Fuel to their long-travel bikes. It's clearly adaptable though as the Top Fuel topped out testing.

Raaw Jibb review
photo
The Jibb and Stumpjumper Evo shared top honours for the trail bikes. Both aluminium, yet faster than everything else.


Let's be real though - our efficiency test is a good indication of a bike but it's not the be all and end all, and it isn't always representative of how fast a bike will be on singletrack. It's interesting but it's not a peer-reviewed science experiment.


The 2021 Fall Field Test is presented by Rapha and Bontrager. Thank you also to Maxxis, Schwalbe, and Garmin for control tires and equipment.



Author Info:
henryquinney avatar

Member since Jun 3, 2014
326 articles
Must Read This Week
Kona Bicycles' Parent Company Appoints New CFO, Intends to Sell Brand
64715 views
Downhill Bikes of Sea Otter - Part 1
47000 views
Brian's Randoms from Sea Otter 2024
44908 views
Randoms Round 3: Dario's Treasures
44643 views
Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in 10 DAYS!
39834 views
Randoms Round 1 - Sea Otter 2024
38281 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Araxá XC World Cup 2024
38181 views
Spotted: Frameworks Racing DH Bike with Electronic Fox Shock & Unreleased Enve Rims
37341 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

109 Comments
  • 68 0
 Would have been interesting to swap tires on the fastest bike from each category to see what kind of difference just tires makes. Maybe another test for another day.
  • 5 11
flag tacklingdummy (Dec 23, 2021 at 8:42) (Below Threshold)
 Also make the weight exactly the same for all bikes. I think the weight can be a factor as well.
  • 3 9
flag Big7 (Dec 23, 2021 at 8:43) (Below Threshold)
 At the very least give us a list of what tires are on what bikes.
  • 14 0
 @Big7: Each category had control tires. The downcountry bikes all had the same Schwalbe Wicked Will's. Then the trail bikes all had 2.5 Assegai 3c maxxgrip exo+ in the front and 2.4 Dhr2 3c maxxgrip doubledown in the rear.
  • 8 0
 Looks like there’s a lot less of a difference within the category. Tires presumably making the most of the difference in efficiency.
  • 1 2
 Also wheel weights
  • 6 4
 @tacklingdummy: when we're talking about a 1-2 lb difference in bikes, weight doesn't really make a giant difference. Is the same bike but 10 lbs heavier going to climb worse? Probably. But a 24 lb bike isn't going to climb better than a 25 lb bike with the same exact setup.
  • 5 1
 Currently running an Assegai up front, very inefficient tire, albeit very grippy. Definitely slowing my bike down.
  • 5 0
 I think tires probably make a bigger difference than weight or wheels. Also a lot easier to swap tires than make your bike 3 lbs lighter. Showing that difference in tire efficiency would have been nice for people debating between a DC or trail bike. Seems like something like the propain with a lighter tire could be a very versatile choice. And then you have some extra travel if you wanna throw heavier tires in.
  • 5 4
 An enduro bike with "downcounty" or XC tyres (and rims) is rad as a downcountry or XC bike. Not quite as good as an old marathon bike at traditional XC but having 2 sets of wheels make sense.

I would bet a DH bike with long post and super light wheels, XC tyres is more "efficient" than a WC race XC bike with DH rims, inserts and DH tyres on.
  • 3 3
 @seraph: In the trail test, the difference in weight between the Specialized Stumpjumper Evo and Ghost Riot is about 4 lbs. That is pretty substantial. However, even 1 to 2lbs makes a difference to me. Some parts you will feel the 1 to 2lb weight much more than in other parts. Try using a 1lb heavier wheelset plus 1lb heavier tires and you will instantly notice a difference. After a couple hour ride with lots of climbing, you will definitely notice the difference.
  • 2 2
 @chamoisbutt:
Sorry to be picky, but that’s a useless generalisation if you’re not adding compound and casing to the tread pattern.
Assegai in Exo+/3C maxterra is a very fast rolling option in my book
  • 1 1
 @tacklingdummy: your argument contradicts itself. This test used control tires and I believe they were even aired up to the same pressure. It’s not like one bike has 350g scary XC race rims and another had 600g dh race rims in these groups.

Bike weight of 4 pounds difference doesn’t matter much when you add in the 150lb+ rider.

Reminder, this test was only a couple minutes long. A light breeze or the difference in qc from one tire to the next would have a larger effect.
  • 1 0
 that would be interesting... On the flip side, unless you were picking out your next marathon race bike, 7-8 seconds between the fastest and slowest bikes is nothing to worry about. Amazing how well all of these bikes grinduro'ed...
  • 1 2
 @DHhack: I'm not talking specifically about this test when talking about 1 to 2 lbs in a bike makes a difference. It was in reference to @seraph general blanket statement (read above) that 1-2 lbs does not make a difference in bikes. 1 to 2lbs in a bike absolutely makes a difference.

Also, you are really arguing that 4lbs doesn't make a difference? Yeah sure. With that logic, all XC racers should not be shaving bike weight and all could riding 30lb trail bikes with same results. Lol.

True, on a short test that like, small difference in some metrics can change the results, however that doesn't mean that weight is insignificant. Still on short climb like that, you can tell the difference in weight on those bikes when riding them. I'm amused at the fierce backlash that weight doesn't matter on bikes. Lol.
  • 1 2
 @tacklingdummy: I didn't say anything specifically about which component would add the weight. I'm speaking generally. I've ridden all sorts of different bikes with different weights, from 20 lb hardtails to 42 lb huckers. With a properly tuned suspension setup, weight actually means little on a climb. Does it affect other aspects of the bike? Definitely. Heavier bikes feel more planted in rough sections on the descent, and lighter bikes tend to feel a little more squirrelly, but pop off of jumps more easily and feel a little more playful. Climbing efficiency has a lot more to do with suspension kinematics and bicycle geometry than it does with overall weight. Remember that we're not talking about every aspect of the bike being affected by weight, only the climbing efficiency.
  • 2 2
 @seraph: Your statement "Climbing efficiency has a lot more to do with suspension kinematics and bicycle geometry than it does with overall weight."

The suspension kinematics on XC hardtails must be some secret next level technology since they are winning so many UCI XCO races. For the life of me, I can't figure out how the suspension kinematics on hardtails work. Wink
  • 2 0
 @betsie: now that's an interesting idea for a video.
  • 2 1
 @tacklingdummy: When was the last time a HT won a WC XCO?
  • 1 0
 @LeDuke: From 2016-2018 here are the hardtails that won WC XCO races. Kross Level: 19 wins, Ghost Lector: 14 wins, Felt Nine: 13 wins, American Eagle Atlanta: 13 wins, Scott Scale: 10 wins, BMC Teamelite: 10 wins.

It is a good sample size and timeframe because the pandemic last couple of years.

www.singletracks.com/mtb-gear/the-winningest-world-cup-xc-mountain-bikes-over-the-past-3-seasons
  • 1 0
 @tacklingdummy: that is impressive... but next to 48-50 wins... not so much
  • 1 0
 @seraph: so I guess you don’t believe in gravity?
  • 38 0
 The accuracy of the times could be improved substantially if you started a couple of 100 meters before the the start timing sensor and settled in to goal wattage output so that as you pass the start sensor you are going an even speed each time. Right now the differences you see in the times from bike to bike likely have more to do with variations in triggering the start timing sensor and variations in acceleration from the standing start, than the actual efficiency of the bikes. This is compounded by the fact that you are using the Freelap timing system that uses a relatively wide magnetic field as a trigger as opposed to a laser beam which is the standard for timing sport events. I really like the idea of this test and it would be really cool to see a more accurate version.
  • 12 5
 You ever watch a goat eat an old soup can? It's pretty crazy.
  • 1 0
 @johnnygolucky: hahah, excellent my brother. I laughed
  • 25 1
 So, the Trailbikes are around 20% slower than the downcountry bikes. since weight doesent play much role within the groups I assume its part of this 20% is very small.
My guess is that the tires make the bike at least 15% more efficient. that could mean that a second Wheelset with light tires is porbalby a better investment than a second bike.
What do you guys think?
  • 2 2
 Most definitely. And no major site is conducting such tests, because it would be against all marketing Wink
My 15kg Enduro bike is as fast uphill as my 12kg hard tail with the same tires & wheels combo. 20mm more travel and a more relaxed geo don’t slow a bike down on a fireroad climb.
  • 16 0
 Why did Giant submit themselves to bad press again going with live valve.
  • 22 0
 Ghost: hold my beer.
  • 2 2
 enough dentists will buy it because of it just because more $
  • 3 1
 Pro's have already been winning races on electronically controlled suspension, so obviously it works. I would like to see a review of Live Valve in a non-fieldtest setting, where they have time to play around with the settings a little more. Not trying to defend the Trance, as I demoed the last version and felt the suspension just blew through what little travel it had.
  • 11 3
 7 seconds in the trail bike time is less than 4% difference. It is neglectable. And at the end of the day the bike that felt the easiest and most comfortable to pedal up will be the one that will take you up the hill the fastest and most efficient. 3 min of uphill is a joke to compare.
For me to believe in this data you need to have more results. Lets say 10 runs with each bike to remove any noise from the time measurement.
  • 4 0
 The phrase you were searching for when dismissing the 4% was 'stastically significant'. Which, how do you know its neglectable? You would have had to done a T-test to determine if it was stastically significant to the results.

Also....they prefaced the whole thing by saying it was a fun test to see if things stood out and it wasn't the end all and certainly wasn't done to the level of a peer reviewed test.
  • 1 2
 4% difference on a 6 hr day is 15 minutes, so depending on the purpose of the bike, it is not negligible. The downcountry segment are fast becoming the go to bikes for marathon distance riders and 4% is a lot in that category.
  • 9 0
 @terrylikesbikes: this 4% could be within the margine of error in a one run test tho.
  • 8 0
 @henryquinney - What I was getting at with my above question about average power versus normalized power is this… average power would work for this application, normalized would not. If you truly use normalized power as the way to standardize output, the test is flawed procedurally from the start. Normalized power gives higher weight in the equation to efforts above threshold; this is why it is useful in comparing the metabolic cost of a steady state effort to a different one that has wildly varying efforts. It’s not used to say one effort was equivalent to another in terms of work done (and therefore speed, all other variables being equal).

I can go into further depth if needed, but if you used normalized power, you can’t say that they were identical efforts as far as power output is concerned. Average power, yes; normalized power, no.
  • 7 0
 Hello there. I just looked at the data, the average power ranged from 247 - 252 watts over the group per run. Cheers
  • 2 0
 @henryquinney: there you go. Good to hear. Sounds like they were very steady efforts if NP and AP were so close; probably the best a human power source could be expected to do as far as consistency goes. As you were, as you Brits might say Smile
  • 1 0
 @henryquinney:
Would be interesting to see which bikes were on which end of that 247-252. Some of the times were close enough that that swing could have changed results.
  • 6 0
 I think we need to admit that the most efficient "feeling" bike might not track to actual efficiency. One example that we understand now is the lower tire pressure is more efficient (world cup XC pros run like 17-20 PSI) despite the fact that super hard and stiff tires give the feeling of more efficiency. High frequency vibrations from hard tires are interpreted by us as speed.

I think the same principle applies to suspension kinematics. It still takes energy from your pedal stroke to extend and stiffen the pedaling platform. On the propane this makes the pedaling platform feel super stiff and efficient but it still takes energy that would otherwise be going to the rear wheel and applies it to extending the rear suspension.
  • 1 0
 True. And the same is true for tires. People are not really able to tell if a set of tires is actually efficient/fast rolling or not.
Any talk about felt rolling resistance is basically worthless.
  • 1 0
 @plustiresaintdead: very correct
@Ttimer: very wrong...get ya mind right
  • 3 0
 Why are my dreams of the Blur TR being "the best" fading and being replaced by the impossible to find Element? Heck, even the Trek?! The Element is supposed to be more descend oriented yet it's handing it to the other DC models on climbs and efficiency. Dreams shattered, sigh.
  • 4 0
 You are not alone. The element possibly takes the win on looks too. I really wanted a Blur.
  • 3 0
 I owned a Blur and a Jet 9 RDO simultaneously for a couple of months. While the Blur is no doubt a great bike, in the end I kept the Niner. According to Strava, I was consistently faster on it on all of my local segments that I have done several times with each bike. The difference was much bigger on the descents as expected, but I was surprised to find myself faster on the climbs as well on the Niner. My Blur was 1.5 lbs lighter than my Niner.

Having said all of that, I would really like to try an Element for myself :-)
  • 1 0
 When I first got my Blur it had a 34T chainring, swapped it out for a 30T (run a 9-46) and the antisquat improved quite a bit. Felt "firmer" pedaling but haven't gotten any real timing data as yet.
  • 3 0
 Funny when you buy a new bike it feels so fast on first ride, then by then time you get used to it, does not feel that special any more?
I recon you would lose more than 30 seconds on this test just by riding the bike with a dirty chain?
  • 2 0
 Weight as a function of rider size/power output plays a huge part in how much fun a bike is to ride. I feel sorry for small riders/women (60kg) who have been sold a bullshit bill of goods that weight doesn't matter and they are stuck riding 30+ pound bikes with DH tires when they absolutely don't need that much bike to ride the same trails as a 80kg person.
  • 2 0
 @henryquinney
I admire all the effort you guys put into these field tests, but I have to mention that the efficiency test setup is inherently wrong.
Let me try to explain.
You are measuring the power on the pedals, which means after the rider has already overcome suspension inefficiency. Imagine if there would be a spring between a shoe and a pedal. The rider would have to compress the spring first and then apply force to the pedals, which means in order to produce, let's say, 250w on the pedals, the rider would have to push harder than in the case spring is not there.
I just want to give one more example here. Imagine you are trying to measure whether the seat height affects the efficiency. In the first batch of runs, the set is at the appropriate height, while in the second batch of tests the seat is lowered by 20 cm. In both cases, you are trying to maintain 250w at the pedals. The times would be very close, maybe even identical, but the rider's effort would be very different.

This explains why a lot of lockout tests (the one published on PB included) show marginal benefits of using lockout.
The time differences seen in this test are very small and since only one run for each of the bikes has been done, they are not statistically significant. The majority of them could probably be attributed to errors in measuring, line choices, weight, state of the drivetrain, etc.

More details could be found in this video youtu.be/zGO2pu0JX_8 done by Peak Torque.

I apologize if I sound rude or arrogant, that is not my intent. I am not a native English speaker, so my words might sound differently than I wanted.
  • 2 0
 Unfortunatelly you are fundamentaly wrong with in assumptions. E.g. the spring. "Imagine if there would be a spring between a shoe and a pedal. The rider would have to compress the spring first and then apply force to the pedals, which means in order to produce, let's say, 250w on the pedals, the rider would have to push harder than in the case spring is not there. "

-NOPE ...if a spring compresses and then expands back to it's original position (no damping), the work done equals zero. It would just feel different, but real work done is the same.

"Imagine you are trying to measure whether the seat height affects the efficiency. In the first batch of runs, the set is at the appropriate height, while in the second batch of tests the seat is lowered by 20 cm. In both cases, you are trying to maintain 250w at the pedals. The times would be very close, maybe even identical, but the rider's effort would be very different."

-NOPE ...rider work done would be the same. What you are comparing by this is the effect of bike setup on biomechanmical efficiency. I assume that for the test, all the bikes had very similar bike geometry setups. This point would be true if the bikes had very different geometry that would affect biomechanics. For instance: one would have very long cranks and the other one short, or very low long stem vs short high etc. I don't think that is the case.
  • 3 0
 @Loshmi24 Hello there. Thanks for the breakdown. I too watched that video by Peak Torque and we discussed it in a recent podcast. I feel like whilst it's very good at breaking down the ideas of metabolic inefficiency it perhaps has opened a can of worms in regards to how people are interpreting it. To be honest, I didn't interpret it in the same way that you have. Lots of people have sent me this video. It's interesting etc. but I don't think it's wholly surprising or some massive revelation. I always kind of assumed it was the case, to be honest. Although that said, he does a far better job at articulating it than I ever could and he's clearly far more knowledgable than I'll ever be.

Either way, it doesn't really change the way I feel about the efficiency test. It's a fun test to do but take it with a pinch of salt. Cheers
  • 4 0
 I am impressed that, despite being 1 second slower, the Propain actually ranked higher than the Starling
  • 1 0
 That's fixed now.
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott: tremendous. Have you looked at the weights to see if some bikes outperformed expectations (based on your earlier work about the impact it has on climbing times)?
  • 5 0
 @twonsarelli: No, but the Raaw and the Speciailzed are both over a kilo heavier than the Scor and the Propain, which illustrates that weight isn't the only thing that matters when climbing.
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott: yeah i was thinking they'd get bonus points for overcoming that weight penalty, suggesting that the engineering is even more impressive given that 'disadvantage'
  • 1 0
 @twonsarelli: within a given category of bike (especially as we have control tyres and pedals), extra weight is either going to be beneficial to the frame and suspension design - more pivots etc.
Or it’s a financial choice. Whether that’s in the frame construction or components.
  • 2 0
 @henryquinney - just so I understand (and I know you'll consider this question boring), did you use normalized power (NP) of 150 watts, or average power (AP) of 250 watts as the standardized output?
  • 1 0
 Edit: NP of 250 watts. Mistyped.
  • 4 0
 Man, if only that truck had a long space where you could fit bicycles. That would be awesome.
  • 2 0
 I would suggest a slow roll into the start as it would be more consistent. The Rocky for instance, you mashed on the pedals pretty hard at the start compared to others. Still fun to watch though.
  • 1 0
 Very interesting that the efficiency does not necessarily align with climbing ability in the previous tests. I thought they would be much closer. In the climbs, the trail and downcountry bikes were very close to the fact that the categories were pretty mixed. Here the down country are clearly more efficient by more than I though they would have been. I just always correlated the two much closer, if the bike was efficient, it could climb better. Too many factors in all this science.
  • 1 0
 What would have been interesting is if you swapped the wheel sets between the top bike of each category. (swap the trek wheel set on the stumpjumper) and run the test again with just these 2 bikes. My nerd brain really wants to know how much tyres were influencing the result!
  • 1 0
 As someone who gets paid to design, execute and analyze scientific experiments, I would say that is there is a clear and scientifically valid conclusion from this experiment.
That conclusion is that we need Pinkbike to do tire efficiency tests. @henryquinny, @seb-stott are you listening?
  • 4 0
 now seb should normalize these against their weights and see what's what
  • 4 3
 I am loving the aluminum bikes. Question to all the actual engineers out there: can bike frames be made cheaply in America from recycled aluminum? And whatever your answer, why? Thank you
  • 1 0
 It depends (That's the answer you'll get from an actual engineer 95% of the times). Assuming you mean the aluminium is recycled in USA, the first thing you need is a company drawing the tubes in USA or surrounding countries. I guess there should be still someone doing that, perhaps not specifically for bicycles. For fancier / variable cross sections you'll need hydroforming too.

Then welding would be needed, but that's the easier part of the equation from the investment point of view. TIg welding machines, heat treatment ovens, allignment rigs are cheaper than drawing /hydorforming equipment and most likely are actually readily availbale even if not specifically dedicated to bicycle frames.

I seem to remember Spook made aluminium frames in USA and had bought the old Cannondale equipment?
  • 1 0
 @Vindiu: The fabrication on my made in USA Turner Burner sure looked top notch.
  • 1 0
 Does tire compound and tread effect the “efficiency” or times? I’m assuming the “down country” bikes have less aggressive treads than the “trail” bikes. I’m “interested”
  • 2 0
 Of course they do - as does bike weight, and total system weight (bike + rider).
  • 2 0
 I think that tire tread and compound has the biggest effect of any of the variables. Yes the DC bikes had different tires.
  • 2 0
 This was basically a tire test. DHRIIs are surprisingly draggy but somehow still regarded as a viable option for trailbikes.
  • 2 0
 I once owned a Yeti SB115 which came with a Minion DHF 2.5 in the front and Aggressor 2.3 in the back. It was like night and day once I switched to Racing Ray / Racing Ralph; my average speeds on my local trails were about 5-10% faster for the same effort. Keep in mind my favorite local trails are flowy and the grip from aggressive trail tires is totally overkill. I would feel differently if I was riding in the wet PNW.
  • 3 0
 I really want to know what the laundry bill was after all these tests. Did it ever stop raining!!!
  • 3 0
 2023…this is my flat bar, up country, down gravel boost mullet high pivot ebike
  • 4 0
 Is someone going to compare the element with the spur?
  • 1 0
 It is shocking how much the downcountries climb way better than the trail bikes on fire roads. Also, I really enjoyed the music, especially the dramatic stuff at the beginning.
  • 6 0
 Tyres! It would have been VERY interesting, what the difference would be with similar tyres on trail bikes and dc bikes.
  • 1 1
 @FloImSchnee: "It would have been VERY interesting, what the difference would be with similar tyres on trail bikes and dc bikes."

Cannot agree more here, but the results of such test might ruin some marketing trends)
  • 1 0
 Levy playing hooky. Caught. Back to back meetings, eh? Make him install a bunch of Cushcore inserts as punishment. Lol. Good humor.
  • 3 1
 Forgot the OG Downcountry bike in your review -- the Intense Sniper T
  • 1 0
 Clearly more clipboards and white lab coats are needed to make this more scientifically rigorous
  • 1 0
 Who's helmet was Henry borrowing in the intro spiel? its all sideways on his head haha
  • 1 0
 Not shocked on the stump evo. I liked climbing on it more than my epic evo. The geo is perfect for long seated climbs.
  • 1 0
 Maki Kazimier during podcast:just do not drive stupidly expensive cars
PB field test: New Toyota Tundra TRD
  • 1 0
 I'm running DD MaxxGrip Shorty front and DhrII rear on my Stumpy Evo and confirm they are slow AF on sustained climbs.
  • 2 0
 when do we ge tthe Element v Spur comparison? I'll wait.
  • 1 0
 Yea thats all we want to know, a head to head on uphill, downhill, Efficiency, timed dh, etc
  • 1 0
 What bike rack is that? I need to buy a new rack for the spring and summer.
  • 2 0
 Amazing conclusions.
  • 1 0
 WTFC how fast a MTB bike goes up a gravel road?
  • 1 0
 Should have thrown a gravel bike in there, too.
  • 1 1
 Interesting but unsurprising that the 27.5 bikes were the most efficient.
  • 2 0
 Which bikes were 27.5? I thought they were all 29?
  • 1 1
 @AndrewFleming: Not all bikes are 29, just the ones in this test.
  • 1 0
 @hbar314: Yes, I know. But why do you think the 27.5 bikes are the most efficient? You'd think there would be a few more at races then.
  • 1 2
 @AndrewFleming: I don't know that races are the litmus test of that as much as what needs to be sold by sponsors. The right way to approach the problem is to actually run some testing.
The timing tests that are often thrown around show things to not be that far off. The video from Steve Peat running his 26" against his 29" showed a 2% difference on the downs.

I'd really just like some rigorous testing put together but I have a hunch that no bike company benefits from that and as such won't get the support that it would need.
  • 3 0
 @hbar314: When podiums, titles and medals are on the line, racers are going to chose what's most efficient to help them win. If the entire field was on 29s but somebody knew that they were more efficient on a 27.5, that's what they would race on. But there's so few 27.5 racers now, it's getting hard to argue that they are more efficient.

Why do you think 27.5s are most efficient? If you want to say that 27.5s are more fun, I won't argue there. Fun is the most important thing when you're not a a pro racer.
  • 1 0
 @AndrewFleming: Are asking about when i was pointing out no 27.5s in the test?

I assumed racers ran sponser parts to be honest. Which is why i thought they typically are on what makers are trying to sell at the moment. Can sponser riders run what ever they want?

Do you think 29s are most effecient? Do you mind linking to that data?
Articles I've seen are usually just some random runs down a hill and they proclaim 29s are faster. Like the Steve Peat showing a 2% change from 26 to 29. But seems like a lot of weight to drag around. Any math on the subject is usually hand waved and from a company wanting to sell things based on that "math".
  • 1 0
 @hbar314: Sponsored racers can and do ride whatever they will be fastest on as long as it’s offered by their sponsor. Brands have been offering fewer and fewer 27.5s because they haven’t been selling as well as their 29s, especially towards race-orientated/related segments of the market. I THINK that 29s are more efficient based on what I’m seeing as selected bikes where efficiency matters like endurance events and races. Mountain Bike Action did plenty of 29 vs 27.5 shootouts over the years and 29s were always marginally faster. I THINK it’s now a forgone conclusion that 29s are generally more efficient and 27.5s have their place for specific riders that choose them because they are snappier, more playful and fit smaller riders better. The weight difference between 27.5 and 29s is negligible which is another reason 29s are chosen for races.
  • 1 1
 Hmmm, so weight does matter after all?
  • 4 6
 Downcountry, really?! I thought that was a joke.
  • 2 0
 You missed the joke then. Companies throwing around additional marking terms to try and sell more bikes but confusing consumers in the process is the real issue. Downcountry was created to poke at that issue.
  • 3 0
 Wait till the new Upcountry category bikes are released in 2022; they'll go up hills faster than they can go down them.
  • 3 0
 @pipm1: otherwise known as ebikes
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.029304
Mobile Version of Website