Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)
  • Safest bike for technical terrain
  • roverpig
    Full Member

    Reviews of bikes often talk about how much faster bike X is, but faster also means bigger crashes. What if you you are interested in riding ever more challenging terrain but your aim is just to get to the bottom in one piece. What sort of bike should you choose?

    Yes, I know it has more to do with skills than the bike, but I’m interested in whether a bike designed to get down a tricky descent as safely as possible would be the same as for one designed to get down as fast as possible.

    trail_rat
    Free Member

    what an obscure question……

    the fleshy part is the unsafe part.

    watsontony
    Free Member

    hummmm too many variables for a straight answer.

    The one with the best brakes. (you pussy)

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    roverpig
    Full Member

    what an obscure question……

    Thanks. I do what I can 🙂

    Actually it’s just an extension of a previous discussion on travel. Having more travel does allow you to go faster, but leads to larger changes in geometry, which can be harder to control.

    But what about other factors? Do larger wheels, slacker head angles etc make it easier to get down sections of the trail (e.g. can you ride down stuff on a 29er that you couldn’t get down on a 26″ bike), or does it just allow you to ride down the same stuff faster (with bigger consequences when it does go wrong)?

    Rickos
    Free Member

    Something that’s impossible to endo I suppose. Tandems won’t chuck you over the bars. So is a tandem the right answer?

    BrickMan
    Full Member

    Safely? You probably want to avoid the current Yeti carbon full sussers then, they break when you take them out of the box #pureshite

    br
    Free Member

    I can see where you are coming from, as when I bought a 6″ FS my riding buddies thought it would get me into trouble – and a long op and a month off work was the result…

    Too much bike for my skill.

    Ridden a HT since, and I probably cover ground just as quick, but need to take more care on technical stuff.

    roadie_in_denial
    Free Member

    I sort of see what you’re getting at, but I rather think that this is a ‘cart before the horse’ kind of question as the biggest factor in safety on a bike is the rider.

    But that said I also think that if you’re concerned about safety then using the correct bike for the job is probably the best answer. By which I mean, if you’re wanting to ride around Thetford as safely as possible then an XC hardtail (sized for your comfort) is the safest bike as your biggest danger there is fatigue. On the other hand if you’re going to the Alps for a week of freeriding then a DH/Freeride bike will be the safest bike as it’s designed to deal with the terrain and speeds you’ll experience there.

    tpbiker
    Free Member

    if you plan to go at the same speed on bike x and bike y then undoubtably the bike with the most suspension will be the safest…..

    or am I missing the point of this one?

    fourbanger
    Free Member

    Wattbike. Nothing safer IMO.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    OK, let me see if I can have a go at answering my own question. Not that I really have an answer, but at least I know what the question was 🙂

    Bigger wheels ? Yes. A bigger wheel is less likely to be stopped by a bump (throwing you over the bars), so as big as possible I guess.

    Longer travel ? Not necessarily. I mentioned that earlier. It may help you to get over a bump but large changes in geometry are harder to handle.

    Slack head angles? Probably not. Slacker head angles are there to increase trail to provide more stability at speed so not needed here and they have an adverse effect on steering.

    Long front centres? Yes. Having the wheel further in front of you should aid safety and longer front centres are a better way to achieve this than slacker head angles as they don’t have the same negative effect on steering.

    Wider bars and shorter stems? No. These are fitted to offset the negative effect of slacker head angles.

    So, I’m going for a short travel 29er with long front centres a 70 degree HA and a 100mm stem.

    Well, that or a tandem 🙂

    trail_rat
    Free Member

    more travel , slacker angle , longer front center

    all that happens is you find steeper , more technical trails to hurt your self on :d

    Rorschach
    Free Member

    Fat bike.Or a Jones with a fat front (based on a few goes on them).You feel invincible,it’s almost impossible to wash the front end out (with Nates) but you can’t actually go that fast.
    Stopping can be an issue though.

    tymbian
    Free Member

    OP. You can’t just say your going to go for bike x with a 100mm stem and x travel hoping its going to be safe. Mountain-biking is an extreme sport wether you like it or not. If you’re over-reaching for the bars you ain’t gonna be safe. Take a 29er with long stem down a rock garden wthout the proper skills and you’re gonna hurt yerself. Take 6 – 8 inches of travel to a bmx track and you’ll have too much bike.

    If there was the right bike then we would all have one…we don’t! What we do strive to get, or have, s the right bike for me.

    I don’t know what riding experience you have but I’d seriously suggest getting yourself a cheapish second-hand hardtail ( fat-bike would be ok but more expensive ) and learn to read the terrain and pick your lines. Buying ssafety equipment is a must. Knee & shin protection, helmet with peak, decent shoes & gloves at the very least. And sign up for a skill-course.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    I guess a Fat Bike could be a contender. Any bike that slow must be safer right 🙂

    I’m not asking for a safe bike. Of course that is impossible and I’m deliberately choosing to separate the skills of the rider from the bike. If some people think that make the question invalid then that’s fine, but I think there is still something to explore here.

    Bikes tend to be sold based on how fast they are. Part of that comes from the fact that some people like to race. If you can have your bike on the top of the podium at a prestigious race that will boost sales. It will (I suspect) even boost sales to those people who don’t have any interest in racing, which is a little strange.

    I just wonder how (if at all) bike design would change if the objective set for the designers was not to design the fastest bike possible, but the biggest skill compensator possible.

    qwerty
    Free Member

    Stabilizers?

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Stabilizers?

    God no. Hideous things. But a good example of a design that can increase the perception of safety while actually having the opposite effect, which is part of the motivation for the question I guess.

    Rorschach
    Free Member

    There is a theory that states you will look to attain a certain amount of perceived fear in spite of any safety measures applied.You are likely to drive faster in a car with air bags/safety cells/abs etc than you are in a soft top with no seatbelts.
    See-full face helmets and body armour on xc rides (lobs grenade-dives for cover).

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Yeah, brain is too much a factor.

    In terms of hardware- something slack, long and low (as long as it’s not so long and low that it grounds out) is inherently more stable and self-correcting, so that’s got to be beneficial in a lot of circumstances.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Bigger wheels ? Yes. A bigger wheel is less likely to be stopped by a bump (throwing you over the bars), so as big as possible I guess.

    Here you go then:

    hugor
    Free Member

    Trail bikes iMO. They are never seen on podiums but are usually more capable than the terrain their ridden on, which delivers a safety buffer.
    Alternatively you could choose a bike that is so difficult to ride that it produces slower speeds and therefore hopefully less severe injuries ….. Like a rigid fixie 26 singlespeed. 😀

    singlespeedstu
    Full Member

    Rorschach seems to be close to my train of though.

    My Jones and my fatbike are both fantastic on techy stuff.
    That’s why they appeal to me so much.The amount of grip and stability from tyres that size is just fantastic.

    Any bike that slow must be safer right

    They seem to be fast enough to be able to overtake your average mincer with the right rider on board. 😉

    I gave up going propper fast and hurting myself when i stopped riding Enduros*.

    *Propper ones on bikes with engines. 😉

    Jeffus
    Free Member

    Slack , Low BB , long wheel base, 29er with big sticky tyres 😀

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Rorschach – Member

    There is a theory that states you will look to attain a certain amount of perceived fear in spite of any safety measures applied.You are likely to drive faster in a car with air bags/safety cells/abs etc than you are in a soft top with no seatbelts.

    Yup. But nobody believes it’s universal.

    tymbian
    Free Member

    OP..stop trying to look for a single answer. There is no magic here, no fastest bike. Rider x could win on a Giant for example and next year win on a Trek for example. Longest, slackest, lowest will be fine stability wise going down a flat mountain in a straight line. Going up a steep rocky hill at slow speeds its going to suck. As it will on tight switchbacks..it will always be about compromises. Don’t forget the skill of the pilot.

    A F1 car will only ever be good at F1 and no other disciplines.

    roverpig
    Full Member

    Thanks all. I’m not looking for any answer though, just trying to understand mountain bike design a bit better. It’s not about wanting a new bike. It’s not even about trying to avoid crashes. I know that mostly depends on me. It’s about trying to improve my knowledge of why a bike is the way it is.

    I see that a few people have suggested that slack is the way to go. Why is that? I thought slack head angles were all about improving stability at high speed but don’t help much at lower speeds. I can see that you want the front wheel as far forward as practical for safety, but couldn’t you do that just as well with a steeper head angle and longer front centres? OK, you’d need to sweep the bars back so that you could still reach them.

    Hang on, have I just designed a Jones 🙂

    boxelder
    Full Member

    Safest bike is the one that doesn’t encourage you to try things beyond your skills.
    Are you asking about riding a bike or sitting holding onto something as it descends.
    I tested a light, 140mm 29er the other day and while it was a hoot, I knew it would encourage me into painfull trouble.

    tomhoward
    Full Member

    Slow bikes for technical terrain? Trials bike…..

    IMO bike safety isn’t about the bike (where have I heard that before?) it’s the ability of the rider to operate it safely. Talent outweighing ambition, rather than t’other way round.

    buzz-lightyear
    Free Member

    It’s not about the bike. It’s your head and mates that encourage you into high risk situations. This is can be a good thing, but only you can judge what you should ride and how fast, really that decision making is the key skill in any risk/adrenaline sport. Some cycle coaching might be the safest thing to do., and I can honestly say I’ve had fewer incidents and enjoyed my riding much more ever since. And I’m faster.

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)

The topic ‘Safest bike for technical terrain’ is closed to new replies.