Author Topic: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?  (Read 2867 times)

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #25 on: 13 April, 2015, 01:24:09 pm »
Okay, what are the differences meant to be? Even if they don't really exist outside of marketron world. And your answer (thanks, btw!) suggests that XC bikes are a bit different from the others - how? I really have no idea - the names, apart from downhill which is obvious, say nothing to me.

It's an indication of how extreme the terrain that they're designed to cope with. So starting with Cross Country (XC), through Trail/All Mountain (AM)/Enduro to Downhill you'll see a greater degree of "travel" on the suspension. Cross country will typically have 100mm of travel and generally no rear suspension (and some run a rigid fork) through to Downhill with 180mm+ front and rear.

So there is a difference outside of marketing, generally the better a bike goes up hill the worse it will be downhill but the subtleties of distinction between the middle ground is marketing led.

And of course a good rider on any bike will be better than a poor rider on the "best" bike for the terrain

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #26 on: 13 April, 2015, 01:29:45 pm »
So it's about suspension travel. Thanks! (Talking of travel, it took me a couple of years to realise the + and - on the adjuster on my fork meant more or less travel not, as I'd assumed - perhaps by analogy with motorbikes - more or less damping.  ::-) As you can tell, it's more of a packhorse and leave-outside-the-pub bike than an off-road steed.)
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

interzen

  • Venture Altruist
  • Agent Orange
    • interzen.homeunix.org
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #27 on: 13 April, 2015, 01:33:59 pm »
Wheel sizes:

26" - an accident of history. It's what was available to the Marin county crew (Tom Ritchey, Gary Fisher et.al.) back in the day and it was adopted as a standard as a result. One could say it was born out of necessity.
29" - the result of marketroids pushing the 700c + MTB-width tyre combo. Unusually for a marketing gimmick, it does have its merits IMO.
27.5" - the marketroids attempting to reanimate 650b, which our Gallic cousins had been using for years anyway. Has benefits for smaller riders, but then so does 26" - ultimately, it's another attempt to wring yet more cash out of the punters.

In terms of disciplines, there's 'downhill' and 'everything else' - any further distinctions are, again, a money making exercise first-and-foremost.

Then again, my off-road steed of choice is a fully-rigid, fixed-gear 29er ... in the eyes of marketing I'm thoroughly unhip. This is a state of affairs I'm happy to maintain  ;D

Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #28 on: 13 April, 2015, 01:37:31 pm »
Okay, what are the differences meant to be? Even if they don't really exist outside of marketron world. And your answer (thanks, btw!) suggests that XC bikes are a bit different from the others - how? I really have no idea - the names, apart from downhill which is obvious, say nothing to me.

As a very general guide, and these factors still vary dramatically between models and rider preference:

Cross country - on the whole now run 29er wheels, have steep head tube geometry (70 degrees +), longer stems, longer top tubes, longer cranks, gearing varies but often you will still see double set ups, be very light.  Travel will be 80-100 mm on the front for race bikes, maybe up to 120 mm.  May be full suspension or hardtail.  All but the cheapest tat will be running air shocks. Normally come with fast rolling race tyres. As lightweight as possible.  20-25 lb.

AM/Trail/Enduro - May be running any wheel size, although many of the best riders I know seem to like the bigger wheels when they have actually ridden them.  Have slacker geometry - aroun 67 degrees ish.  Very short stems.  Wider bars.  Average cranks.  Travel will be 140 to 160 with 170 on some of the bigger enduro bikes.  Usually have a lot of settings on the suspension to set up for varying terrain, but with 'brains' or other overrides on the top suspension for those times you forget to turn the lock out off and start descending.  Dropper seat posts tend to come as standard now.  Most people set trail bikes up tubeless.  Run all round style tyres, but normally on the more aggressive side.  Normally 1x10 ot 1x11 set up with a huge range cassette (10-42).  Weight anywhere between 28 and 32 lb - some heavier.  Normally full air suspension now.

DH - Still very much 26 and 27.5 sized wheels atm (industry fear about 29er wheel strength or just marketing? Who knows, the industry has a lot to answer for).  Wide bars, very short  stem, short cranks for ground clearance, very long wheel base, low bb height, slack geometry to 64 degree head angle, normally close range cassette (road race style) single ring up front.  Big travel 180 mm front and back.  Grippy duel ply tyres but, in myexperience rarely set up tubeless due to burping risk as high speed G-Outs (still want to do mine tubeless anyway).  Weight anywhere between 35 and 42 lb. Strong heavy wheels.  Strong everything really.  May still be running coil suspension although air has got amazingly good lately so changing. 
Does not play well with others

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #29 on: 13 April, 2015, 01:44:55 pm »
So it's about suspension travel. Thanks! (Talking of travel, it took me a couple of years to realise the + and - on the adjuster on my fork meant more or less travel not, as I'd assumed - perhaps by analogy with motorbikes - more or less damping.  ::-) As you can tell, it's more of a packhorse and leave-outside-the-pub bike than an off-road steed.)

If it's only got one adjuster, it's probably pre-load.  The idea being to pre-tension the spring according to the gross weight it's bearing, so it can make best use of the available travel.  (Air shocks achieve the same thing by changing the pressure.)  If you turn it right up, it will have the side effect of reducing the travel.

Some forks do have adjustable damping, which it a bit more of a black art to make best use of, but comes into its own on that hardpacked railway ballast type stuff.

And then there are lock-outs, which as the name suggests reduce the travel to zero, so you don't waste energy bouncing the suspension around on smooth surfaces.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #30 on: 13 April, 2015, 02:00:24 pm »
The main thing I take from this is that a DH bike can weigh as much as an Indian 'reinforced double cross bar' tradesman's bike!
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #31 on: 13 April, 2015, 02:02:13 pm »
So it's about suspension travel. Thanks! (Talking of travel, it took me a couple of years to realise the + and - on the adjuster on my fork meant more or less travel not, as I'd assumed - perhaps by analogy with motorbikes - more or less damping.  ::-) As you can tell, it's more of a packhorse and leave-outside-the-pub bike than an off-road steed.)

If it's only got one adjuster, it's probably pre-load.  The idea being to pre-tension the spring according to the gross weight it's bearing, so it can make best use of the available travel.  (Air shocks achieve the same thing by changing the pressure.)  If you turn it right up, it will have the side effect of reducing the travel.

Some forks do have adjustable damping, which it a bit more of a black art to make best use of, but comes into its own on that hardpacked railway ballast type stuff.

And then there are lock-outs, which as the name suggests reduce the travel to zero, so you don't waste energy bouncing the suspension around on smooth surfaces.
Yeah, it's got a lock out too - which spends 99% of its time locked now - but experimentation has shown the forks go up and down more when I twist the adjuster to + and less when its towards - .
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Nelson Longflap

  • Riding a bike is meant to be easy ...
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #32 on: 13 April, 2015, 02:25:46 pm »
In my off-road world of fairly tame trail riding, does wheel size make a difference you can actually feel? I'm not aware of people falling off their 29er saying "I'd have been OK if only I'd been on 26ers"; and does the much vaunted superior rolling ability of the 29er leave 26" wheel riders pedalling to keep up in their wake? I think 29" wheels might make a few seconds difference over the duration of a xc race, but is the difference tangible at a more pootling pace? Somebody somewhere must have measured this ... or is it all really just like party political manifestoes?
The worst thing you can do for your health is NOT ride a bike

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #33 on: 13 April, 2015, 02:37:08 pm »
There's more to how well a bike rides than just the wheel size :) But I've seen a couple of tests where similar designs in the different wheel sizes have been com[pared head to head over a variety of terrain: climbs and descents, twisty vs, straight . Overall the tests were generally inconclusive but with perhaps a suggestion that the larger wheels were a little faster

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #34 on: 13 April, 2015, 03:15:17 pm »
Things certainly get dramatically worse off-road once your start using wheels of less than 26"...

Re: Mtb evolution - have I missed something?
« Reply #35 on: 19 April, 2015, 08:09:56 pm »
Put a deposit down on a Trek Stache 29+ yesterday. Gives me the option of 27.5, 27.5+, 29 and 29+ (up to 29 x 3.4). Can run s/s, belt drive or 1x, but no front mech. Comes with the new boost 148x12 and 110 x 15 axle "standard".

Plan to use it for long distance stuff and bike packing things. Might sell my 26" but I'll probably keep that for messing about on, given i've spent so much upgrading it, I'll get barely any of what it's worth to me back.

Marketing fluff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY446cYT1Hs