Just looking for some experiences from those who’ve gone from several bikes to one

What range of bikes did you replace
What did you replace them with
Any regrets?

Ta

Reckon this is bordering on fiction. You just end up spending hideous amounts of cash to get some carbon wunderbike that’s light enough for trail and climbing, but also strong enough for proper descending. Geometry and suspension is always a messy compromise. And bikes that are more focused will always be better at their intended purpose. IMO 🙂

I’ve had a range of bikes and I’ve had just 1 built for about 6 months.
Do it all is about comprises, my blur ltc was my do it all from xc racing to ensure enduro, it mountain stuff and uplift.
It’s great in the middle and accounts for itself well at either extreme for what it is. However I have a dh bike built up now and just borrowed a 100mm 29r xc race bike for the weekend of xc racing both are better at what they do than the blur. So it depends how well you want it to do all, how much all is and what your willing to change round (wheels/tyres etc.)

Works for me. I went from an XC hardtail (Canondale Flash Alloy 29) and a full suss AM bike (Transition Covert 29) to just the full suss AM bike. I really got to the point where I couldn’t see the point in taking out the HT over the full suss bike under any conditions or any season. The full suss bike is far more fun on any terrain and conditions (even smooth flowing trail centre’s) and the slower climbing doesn’t bother me, which was the only downside for me. Also it simplifies things, reduces the ongoing maintenance costs and means I can channel my spare MTB cash to upgrading one bike to a decent highish end spec. rather than splitting the funds on maintining two average/low spec bikes.

mrblobby – Member
Reckon this is bordering on fiction. You just end up spending hideous amounts of cash to get some carbon wunderbike that’s light enough for trail and climbing, but also strong enough for proper descending. Geometry and suspension is always a messy compromise. And bikes that are more focused will always be better at their intended purpose. IMO

Kind of depends where most of your riding sits, but the current crop of 150/160mm bikes are amazingly good – mor ethan capable on most DH tracks, but pedal well enough for trail/xc use.

I’ll happily pedal my 160 bike on long trial rides, but I still have a 65° HA to take to a bike park. I have purpose built machines for those jobs (hardtail, DH bike) but the 160 bike is the one I’m always tempted to take.

Depends what All is for you!!

Fiction.

Any decent 160mm “Enduro” bike might do most things reasonably but…

Would you be happy to maintain it through the worst of Winter’s slop (when you know that a hardcore hardtail would be fine)?

Would you be satisfied with “surviving” Fort Bill WC DH whilst your mates flew past you on 200mm beasts?

I’d be happy with just a medium travel AM 29er if I had to.

Glad I don’t have to though.

Would you be happy to maintain it through the worst of Winter’s slop (when you know that a hardcore hardtail would be fine)

See the thread a out winter bikes, plenty of people manage just fine, there is a lot of myth and bs to justify a second bike “for winter”

Hmm Ok so what we’re saying is that the do-it-all bike replaced a broadly similar range of what we might call trail bikes?

What kind of compromises are we talking about here

Just trying to get an idea of what one machine could do 😕

See the thread a out winter bikes, plenty of people manage just fine, there is a lot of myth and bs to justify a second bike “for winter”

I wouldn’t try to justify a bike as “for Winter” but I would be more inclined to grab the 140mm hardtail with ‘zochi coils and cheaper wheels (over the fancy multi pivot 160 FS) if I was doing a local nightride in Winter.

If one bike can handle all the riding you do then your definition of all is very slim.

I use one bike for all my off road riding, An Ibis mojo HD with 170mm coil forks, and a ccdb air, Hans dampf 2.35 tubeless tyres.

my offroad riding consists of:-

– Short (10-15 miles) rides round the bridleways of macc forest/peaks.
– The usual trail centres (7 Stanes, cyb etc etc)
– Longer peak district rides (30 milers)
– Uplift days at Antur Stiniog
– Charlift assisted Alps riding
– Van assisted Sierra nevada riding
– Long multiday rides (eg tramuntana mountains end to end)

I dont change any components on the bike at all, it just gets ridden in the same spec regardless of type of ride. It works well for me.

the current crop of 150/160mm bikes are amazingly good – mor ethan capable on most DH tracks, but pedal well enough for trail/xc use.

See (for me) this would be the crux of it.

Amazingly good yes but capable enough to not regret not having a 100mm XC HT or a 200 mm DH FS?

Is this expecting too much?

Just trying to get an idea of what one machine could do

One machine can do anything it’s about how well…
The current range of mid travel trail bikes can do the 50km days out in the wild and the fun bike Park stuff. If you don’t want to race at either end more than for a bit of fun or do heaps more at one end than the other.
As for changes a second wheel set for bigger stuff is always useful, heavier tyres. If you match your hubs up then you can swap easily so long as you manage cassette wear.

Amazingly good yes but capable enough to not regret not having a 100mm XC HT or a 200 mm DH FS?

You’d probably get use to it and think it was good enough. But then when you rode something more specific you’d realise how much better it was and what a compromise your “do it all” bike was.

If one bike can handle all the riding you do then your definition of all is very slim.

He specified MTB, I don’t think it’s that big an ask tbh. Most MTBers just have one bike eh?

scotroutes

If one bike can handle all the riding you do then your definition of all is very slim.

Ecky-Thump – Member
Fiction.

Any decent 160mm “Enduro” bike might do most things reasonably but…

Would you be happy to maintain it through the worst of Winter’s slop (when you know that a hardcore hardtail would be fine)?

Would you be satisfied with “surviving” Fort Bill WC DH whilst your mates flew past you on 200mm beasts?

Don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s not a compromise – of course it is – but it’s not a compromise to the extent that it was in the past. You’re 80% good, even at the extremes

You’re 80% good, even at the extremes

Call it 75% good and I’d be struggling to disagree 😉

Don’t look for it all in the product, just change your expectations and acceptance of compromise. I think there’s a common desire for a ‘mag test 10/10 bike’ in every situation but it’s a fantasy, riding for all of us varies too much.

Personally I cba with having 4 MTBs for different jobs anymore. None of them saw enough use over a couple of years. My main bike now I chose as I like how it rides/handles everywhere, not that it’s logically best suited to everything I do. Where it is a handful or inappropriate I still enjoy the ride and the challenge it offers, so it does make an ideal do it all – for me. I’d need to cobble a hack for an Alpine chairlift holiday these days but that’s all that I wouldn’t do on my current bike.

The middle-ground for most of is the ‘trail’ bike. A great averaging job if done well. If you’re not happy with something in that area as an all-rounder then I expect you’re either a specialist who knows what you want or a rider like me who’s happy on (for ex) a CX bike on a local MTB group ride – inappropriate bike at times means a fun challenge.

If one bike can handle all the riding you do then your definition of all is very slim.

Or you have a good bike, a sense of adaptability and a refreshing lack of consumerist needs.

Not much the average rider wouldn’t be able to do on this.

I don’t think anyone has mentioned this, but for me it’s about how good you are (or aren’t). I’d be quite happy with one MTB because I simply don’t ride at the extremes. I enjoy a bit of downhill action but I know my limits and they are well within my bike’s capabilities. Likewise I enjoy a fast(ish) XC blast but since I’m not racing anyone but myself it matters not that the bike isn’t as fast or responsive as a dedicated XC machine. I like to do a few jumps but recognise that technique is far more important than the bike. etc etc…

I wouldn’t be happy with one bike for off-road and on-road though.

[EDIT] someone at pro level would, I suspect, be extremely frustrated on anything but the right tool for the job in hand.

stilltortoise
I don’t think anyone has mentioned this, but for me it’s about how good you are (or aren’t).I’d be quite happy with one MTB because I simply don’t ride at the extremes.
someone at pro level would, I suspect, be extremely frustrated on anything but the right tool for the job in hand.

Conversely, someone who is extremely talented can do virtually anything on a bike so long as they are comfortable on it.

If I only went for dedicated XC/AM/freeride/whatever rides then surely “focused” bikes would be the way to go, but the thing is that I cover quite a bit of that spectrum on any given single ride and since I won’t be towing a train of bikes with me to cover every section of the trail I want a bike that’s capable to do all of it fairly good. I fear I would spend a lot of the rides wondering whether one of the other rigs would’ve been a better choice if I had a fleet to choose from.

I fear I would spend a lot of the rides wondering whether one of the other rigs would’ve been a better choice if I had a fleet to choose from.

This is why it probably depends on how you define a ‘better ride’. For some a techy descent with the wrong bike is a missed opportunity to nail it, for others it’s a simply techy descent to be ridden on whatever they’re riding.

[EDIT] someone at pro level would, I suspect, be extremely frustrated on anything but the right tool for the job in hand.

I think it might depend what they were doing. In my windsurfing days a semi competent sailor like me ‘needed’ a different sail ever 1/2 square metre in size and carried around a great huge quiver of the damn things. Those that were better than me somehow just managed on far less and were still faster whilst being way better at being more under and over powered than I could ever dream of being. Essentially I doubled the amount of kit I owned to reduce the difference in capability. In mountain biking it’s just the same – the skills compensator effect!

When you see what the XC boys can ride over on a hardtail with a seat jammed up their arse, which ‘normal’ riders would claim was 140mm FS territory, you appreciate how much skill has to do with your ability to cope on the ‘wrong’ bike.

Ecky-Thump – Member

Call it 75% good and I’d be struggling to disagree

I’ll go 78% and that’s my final offer

Yeah, I went from SS, and trail HT (hummer) and a big Nicolai Helius 6″ FS thing for Alps ‘n’ stuff.

First do it all bike was a Chameleon with 140mm thors on it, the theory being that if I wanted to run it SS i could (never did though) It would do for anything I wanted, went to the Alps a couple of times and I wasn’t slower than a lot of the blokes that I rode with, it’s done Peaks, Scotland, Chilterns, Wales. I’m still here

Last year got a PP Shan with 160mm Lyrics, (like a cham on steriods) and again I could convert it to SS if I wanted, but running 1×10 is fine, and again It’ll do anything I want, sometimes wish at the end of a 4 hours chiltern epic that I had a lightweight 29er, but I don’t, so there ain’t much I can do about it.

Chose a HT for the lack of maintenance required, I’ve not noticed a massive compromise in climbing speed, or ability, and going DH I go as fast as I want.

If I wanted to loose 10 mins on my regular 2 hours in Chilts, than a FS 29er would be the perfect choice, and if I really wanted to spanner myself on the descents in Wales and the Lakes, then a 150mm FS would be epic, but for the most part, I’m still laughing, I’m still having fun, and that for me is just as cool.

AS above, a lot depends on what “All” is, and if it includes any racing.

Also the point about pros is good, and applies to normal riders too. It depends to some extent how fit and fast you are. The faster you are the more difference/frustration you notice between different bikes whilst at the same time the less it “matters” in an average group ride situation.

E.g. I find my 140/120 ~30lb enduro 29er frustratingly slow on general flowing singletrack compared to my 100mm 29er hardtail with light wheels etc. But it doesn’t actually matter on most rides. Generally it just means I’m more at the middle of a group than the front, or I just work harder.

On the flip side, on the HT I might be a bit slower on some descents, or I might be just as fast but have to push my self much more and be a bit sketchy.

So I guess I just argued that you can have one bike, but it’ll not be as good as having more than one 🙂

Also I find it easier to keep a couple of bikes maintained to a good standard, as I’m not rushed into getting a bike fixed, it can wait and I’ll ride the other one in the meantime.

Also, I like riding different bikes. Different experiences on the same trails, and that’s fun too.

Conversely, someone who is extremely talented can do virtually anything on a bike so long as they are comfortable on it.

Skill will allow you to “cope” on a bike that isn’t ideally suited to the task in hand. My point was that a pro would not choose to be compromised by anything but the right tool for the job because it can mean the different between 1st and 2nd place. For many of us looking for a one-bike-to-rule-them-all it’s rarely the bike holding us back.

When I had a hardtail and a 160mm full susser, I wasn’t that much slower on the hardtail over rough stuff, but it did take a lot more effort and different line choices to ride the hardtail fast. On long XC rides the full susser, wasn’t really any slower, but it is (a little bit) heaver to lug around.

At the other extreme doing a lap of Cannock on a VP-Free with Boxxers was nowhere near as much hardwork as you’d expect.

For me, it’s not a case of can you do it all on one bike, because if you have the ability you can. It’s more a case of if you only have one bike which compromise serves you better, and that will vary from person to person.

This is why it probably depends on how you define a ‘better ride’. For some a techy descent with the wrong bike is a missed opportunity to nail it, for others it’s a simply techy descent to be ridden on whatever they’re riding.

Point taken. For me, a ride rarely of ever consists of only techy descents or smooth flow lines or what have you, so in a sense I would still be compromising every ride in some way if I had several bikes to choose from, if that makes sense.

^good point IA. I recently rode with a chap who was considerably faster and fitter than me. I was on my “do it all” bike that was arguably more bike than necessary for the terrain. The fact I was struggling to keep up made me wish for a light 29er hardtail. I still wouldn’t have kept up but it might not have been quite so embarrassing 🙂

The problem (if you can call it that) is that people ride their AM/Enduro bike around the local woods and trail centres and never get close to the abilities of said bike, they become lazy and complacent.
They then come to some terrain that can genuinely test an Enduro/AM rig and they either bottle it or fall off and then come to the conclusion that they need more than the 150mm+ of FS they’ve already got.

It’s the MTB equivalent of the school-run Mum in her 4×4….not necessary but makes her feel safe, trouble is it’s a false sense of security and does nothing to improve awareness or skills.

I keep a HT and regularly switch back to that as it takes more effort and concentration to ride it, when I go back to FS I can’t believe how easy it is and I feel like a better rider, when I only had a FS I found myself developing bad habits like sitting down for long sections of the ride just because I could, it was like pedaling an armchair around the trails.

For me the do-it-all bike doesn’t exist, I like to keep a HT and a FS for the reasons above.

. I still wouldn’t have kept up but it might not have been quite so embarrassing

Right, so a different bike offers no practical difference, doesn’t change the “outcome” of the ride (struggling to keep up) but it does change your experience.

Take that as an argument for or against “one bike” as suits your current desire for more bikes or justification for one.

Of course we all know the real answer, don’t we?*

*justify the one superbike to “do it all” then in 6 months get the “winter bike” to save the good one, then the “race bike”, then the commuter…. etc 😉

Ride a 100/120mm FS 29er for everything, climbs like a fiend and can keep up with the 150mm All Mountain boys on the down most of the time.

Only things I’ve found are

1. On those long alpine/welsh descents I do struggle to keep pace and my body takes a battering on long days.
2. On really techy stuff or jumps, I can ride it but the consequences of a mistake are higher due to the geometry/lack of travel.

Probably going to buy a 160mm All Mountain rig next year to deal with the above I reckon.

I’ve a Trance x29er that is brilliant at everything……..

…….Except at being a rigid singlespeed.

andy

The best thing to do would be to buy a bike that suits the majority of your riding and then compromise on the rest.

I have never gone from several bikes to just one, but I have ridden “all” on one bike.

I used to use a decent hardtail, the ones that stood out for me were the Dialled Alpine and the Cotic BFe with some 110mm sus forks. Really good fun for my usual riding which was Grizedale, South lakes, trail centres and a local jump spot. They were ok for tamer downhill tracks like Hamsterley aswell. For proper lift assisted downhill holidays in the Alps, I just fitted a set of 150mm Marzocchis and suffered, but I guess that’s part of the compromise.

Depends on your spread of riding. If you race XC and DH, then no; there really is no do it all bike. If you ride bridleways with the odd TC thrown in or mainly TCs and DH uplifts then yeah, you’ll probably find something which fits the bill.