For those of you that remember last year's Val di Sole XC course preview, I was a touch harsh. I still think it was not unfounded, but others did not agree. Either way, I am pleased to say the course which I berated last year for being too tame has been much improved. The terrain they have here in Val di Sole has been well utilized this year. There are new fresh cut technical sections, baby heads to catch riders out and loam for lines to be burnt into. Effort put in, praise given. Simple as that. Sure, much of the grass side around the start loop remains the same but what they did everywhere else is what matters. Val di Sole just became a proper XC course. Well done!
On the other side of the spectrum: I would love to see Mathieu van der Poel try enduro. It would fit his bill of being excellent in any cycling discipline. The dude dominated CX, is a major contender in XC and (wth!) won the Dutch *road* cycling championships last weekend, amongst a lot of guys in Tour de France prep form.
If an advantage could be gained I would expect one of the brands to have gone for it - maybe it just works for the top people?
I do agree that current XC geo sucks for 'normal' riders but then so would the geometry on a Yamaha R1 race bike.
That’s not how it works. The XC / XC Marathon segment is possibly bigger than all other segments of MTB combined. I mean alu bike on deore level, not ATB which is even bigger. Most of these people are completely clueless, they have other things to do in life. Fair enough. That means they focus on what closest friends and pros ride. It is rather irrelevant what you give to them, the important thing is that it does not differ much from their previous bike or from what other people ride. Hence the segment is extremely conservative. However if companies released their 9.9, S-Works, race models in more aggro geos, the general populace would adopt it as a norm in a matter of 2 years. The Down country segment has gone bananas with geometries in only last few years and it’s not some trend. Enduro had free hand to chose most suitable geometries and trail/ doen country followed. Now you have a big gap between Top Fuel and Fuel EX or Epic and Stumpy. Those bikes simply handle better. Please keep in mind that it took XC bikes over 4 years to adopt steep 73-75 seat angles while the performance benefit on climbs was obvious. They are still resistant to droppers for no other reason than weight. They just go with: it worked in the past without, why wouldn’t it work now? Oh Everyone crashes sometimes. What if you have a much lower chance to crash or puncture? And you recover better during the descent?
It’s conservatist ideology driven game not performance thing. After all pros are so damn good they adapt to anything. Amateurs? Not so much.
The average customer won't pour over geometry charts and pictures / race reports so wouldn't know if say Scott used race bikes with geometry different to their deore level HT.
What you describe just doesn't make sense, it's a bit tin foil hat.
Slack will be more stable but no faster .(in skilled hands )
Hard for gravity riders \ testers to get there heads round
@justanotherusername - you assume it has to do with performance but it has to do with catering to the market. Current Scott Spark has geometry of the first SC 5010. Then you get intense and UNNO. People think that there is value in 69-70 head angle for climbs. There isn't. XC bike is about lightest possible tyres and wheels, then about positioning of pedals grips. Then we can talk BB height (for Joeys place it high) and rear axle so that wheel patch doesn't end up too far back so you start losing pressure on it. Front tyre location for climbing? pfff. It's a problem if you sit upright like uou'd have a few locked up vertebraes (like most Joeys sit) as soon as you bend your arms in elbows and put your position forward (as you freaking should) there's no problem up till around 67. Below you need to stand up on steepest stuff but then there is no point in going below that for an XC bike because XC tyres won't be able to cope with speeds that this geo will allow you to ride at.
I can ride a short and steep DJ bike on gnarliest stuff around, is it effective and necessary? no. Would high seat help me to ride faster? that was the claim of mr Marco Fontana - XCers need high seat to control the bike, pffffff... ride a DJ bike on gnarly trail and then ride XC bike with seat up and come back to me that you want to stay with high saddle.
How come road bikes stayed with unchanged geos for so long? performance? really? then why Tri TT bikes are now going through renaissance with various tweaks in that department? Because there are no stupid elitist rules stopping the development. You have gravel bikes now, who in their right mind wouldn't ride a CX bike with road tyres instead of fkng dreadful road bike with race geo? Well many wouldn't because pros ride uncomfortable bikes. It took the "invention" of gravel bike to make many people take the finger out of their bum and get a fkng good bike. How long were roadies using fkng 23cm tyres and now they switch between 28 and 32. Who saw that coming 5 years ago? Not the uptight elitists, that's for sure. Not to mention all those a*sholes who are against disc brakes which is cycling worlds version of flat Earth theory..
Xc racers don't know proper bime geometries and are nothing but dirt roadies oh noes!
Angle headsets, different stem and bar types, custom geometry etc are easy to come by for pro riders and time testing would be easy yet none of these riders choose to ride anything that deviates from the 'usual' stuff. To me it means one thing - they know what is fastest at the sharpest end of the sport of XC racing that's just it a
That or Waki should be running a UCI WC XC team.