Forum menu
Having just been through the process of choosing a new trail bike I couldn't help but notice that relatively short travel 2019 XC/trail bikes (120-130 mm) now have pretty much the same geometry as my 2015 Spesh Enduro with 160 mm travel. Actually if anything they are a fraction longer and slacker! I'm not saying it's a bad thing and the reason I chose the Enduro over the Stumpy and Camber back then was because it was a bit longer and slacker and had a much shorter rear centre. I didn't really need the 160 mm travel to be honest. I just preferred the geometry of that bike over it's shorter travel siblings at that time. So it's all good stuff.
What I find funny though is that you get reviewers today talking about these newer trail bikes as if they are a little edgy/XCish when pointed down hill with say a 67.5 deg head and a 1200 mm wheelbase. The exact kind of geometry that was being used to smash down big mountain lines only 4 years ago, albeit with a little more travel.
The geometry on a current 160 mm enduro rig looks frankly ridiculous for riding around 95% of UK trails so this time around I didn't even consider going over 130 mm travel. So it will be interesting to see how capable a modern 130 mm bike with 2015 enduro geometry really is!
PS. it looks like I swung the right way with 29" wheels in 2015 too! At the time there was massive 650B hype and 29 was still considered a bit niche, at least on longer travel bikes.
Lots of us had DH bikes back then, and rode 6-inch bikes for trail use. DH bike now replaced by 6 inch bike, and using 130mm bike for trails
Exactly! I was riding a 6" enduro bike for trails because I liked the longer/slacker feel compared to the shorter travel options of the day. But now a 5" bike should give a very similar geo feel and pedal better with less travel. That's what I'm hoping anyway.
Bikes have changed. Bike reviews have never changed.
I lined my 2017 geometron G13 up to a 26" treck session dh bike last week.
Head angle, bar height exactly the same. Bb height similar. It was just the length of my bike in top tube and rear that was the main difference. That's a 160/ 130mm bike vs 200/200mm.
They were both ace down whistlers black runs.
Part of wonders why I even read bike reviews (I do it to look at bike porn). I have a modern 160mm trail bike that rarely gets ridden as it is more bike than most local trails need (near Malvern) and have found myself looking at a Canyon Lux that has what most reviewers would describe as old school.
On the odd occasion that the monster truck gets ridden I do enjoy the decents though!
With two important caveats:
1) You can afford to buy the best bike / components
and
2) You're not actually taking part in XC races with the aim of winning (or at least doing as well as possible)
then i can't really see the difference between a 160mm bike and a 130mm bike anymore? The days of heavy, wallowly and poorly pedalling 'long travel' bikes is long gone (see caveat about buying good components!), and the weight penalty must be miniscule for a given build strength.. IME, most the any weight or efficiency saving these days is in your choice of tyres (and wheels to some degree)??
then i can’t really see the difference between a 160mm bike and a 130mm bike anymore?
IMHO some of them are getting ridiculously long and slack for the sort of tight twisty forest singletrack I mostly ride. The 130 mm bike I just ordered (Canyon Neuron) is considered pretty conservative (XC side of trail use) by "modern" 130 mm travel trail bike standards and yet even that is slightly longer and has the same head angle as my 2015 Enduro with 160 mm travel. 160 mm bikes I'm seeing now are a good 2" longer in the same size frame and a good 2 deg slacker. With 800 mm bars I'd be hitting every other tree on them!
Part of wonders why I even read bike reviews (I do it to look at bike porn). I have a modern 160mm trail bike that rarely gets ridden as it is more bike than most local trails need (near Malvern) and have found myself looking at a Canyon Lux that has what most reviewers would describe as old school.
I know what you mean. I didn't even consider anything above the Neuron for general trail use
then i can’t really see the difference between a 160mm bike and a 130mm bike anymore? The days of heavy, wallowly and poorly pedalling ‘long travel’ bikes is long gone (see caveat about buying good components!), and the weight penalty must be miniscule for a given build strength.. IME, most the any weight or efficiency saving these days is in your choice of tyres (and wheels to some degree)??
There is a big difference IMO. I have a huge 170mm 29er race bike which weighs ~36lbs with DH tyres on (needed for racing in reality) Vs an SB130 which weighs 29lbs with decent tyres on.
The big bike climbs well for its size, but it is nothing like the lighter one, and that's at the more extreme end of what a trail bike is.
I couldn't have the big bike as my only one, but I could just get away with the smaller one.
There is a big difference IMO
Agreed and every category of bike seems to be getting more and more gnarly with every iteration. At some point there must be a limit to how long and slack the average rider on average trails would want to go and I suspect we've probably already reached or exceeded that limit in some cases. But the marketing and magazine reviews suggest we "need" this kind of geometry.
For example I looked at the Whyte S120, which is really pushing the limits of short travel geometry with a 480 mm reach, 65.5 deg head angle and 1227 mm wheelbase. That is huge compared to my 4 year old 160 mm Enduro, which is already overkill for most uk trail riding.
I'm all for progress, but this is starting to take the piss! Same thing happened to skis. Suddenly a few years back we all apparently needed 120 mm wide rockered clown boards to take on 2" of powder at the side of the piste. You know the sort of freeride skis the likes of Seth Morrison were hucking down 45 deg Alaskan peaks less than a decade earlier. Then gradually a little common sense returned and ski widths settled at more versatile widths and geometries - which were then marketed as the second coming, lol.
So I'm wondering when something similar will happen to bikes. Most of us are not racing XC or Enduro and just want trail bikes perfect for blasting around typical uk singletrack. I know a few of those exist, but the marketing and reviewers do appear to be pushing us toward bikes that are way beyond what is optimal for the trails. Every bike I looked at above 130 mm travel looked more like an EWS rig than something I would want to pedal around the local singletrack. Any trail bike with a head angle above 67 deg is now frowned upon and often declared old-school or conservative. Whereas anything super long and slack is immediately praised for its "progressive" geometry. I guess I'm just not buying into it although I don't want to see a return to the kind of geometry we had 15 years ago either!
I completely see where you’re coming from moshimonster, although most 160mm bikes these days pedal up hills really well. That’s why for me my Reign works brilliantly as a versatile trail bike. It goes up hills fine, then is capable if harder/steeper stuff is on the same ride.
Would never want it to replace my DH bike though, as it’s less capable on certain trails
It is interesting how log / slack things have got - I’ve got a super long slack fs bike and then a more ‘middling’ hardtail.
Fs is 64 degree something headangle, 170f/160r travel, 481mm reach (size M/L), I think 435mm chainstays and quite a long wheelbase. 650b wheels.
My hardtail is 650b, 140mm fork, 66 degree headangle, 425mm chainstays, reasonably modern but not ludicrously long wheelbase. I can’t remember what the reach is but I think 440mm or thereabouts.
I actually think the ht is hilarious to ride - 66 degrees doesn’t feel slack (although I’m assuming that’s a static rather than sagged measurement so in reality it’s a little steeper), the short chainstays mean it manuals and corners amazingly - and it has quite a low bb as it’s deisgned for up to 2.8” tyres but I’m running around a 2.3” ish sort of size.
I think it’s more the long reach and wheelbase on the fs that makes it feel so less lively on more tight and twisty trails than the head angle or the long travel.
Id rather ride the fs on uplift days but also big pedally days out. It remains comfortable for 50k sort of rides and it’s been up/down Snowdon etc. I save the ht for local trail centres rides / smooth uplifts (like 417 blues), pump tracks etc.
It makes you wonder where we will be in another 4 or 5 years? Will the next generation of bikes get even longer, slacker, lower? Or have we finally reached the optimum basic geometry numbers? Or will we start to see some back-pedalling? I did raise an eyebrow at the seat stay length on the latest Spec Enduro.
The geometry on a current 160 mm enduro rig looks frankly ridiculous for riding around 95% of UK trails so this time around I didn’t even consider going over 130 mm travel. So it will be interesting to see how capable a modern 130 mm bike with 2015 enduro geometry really is!
I read this sort of thinking a lot on here, but I don't see how it's true. Almost every trail I ride on a regular basis is much quicker and nicer to ride on a bike with modern geometry (in my case, a Mega with a 63.5 degree head angle). Surely 95% of UK riding can't just be mincing around on blue trails or bridleways?
JP
^^I'm with JP!
My 36lb coil shocked Stumpy Evo is faster up down and along - beating PBs on all my local trails.
You'd be surprised how newer geometry allows you to carry so much more speed because of increased stability (and improved pedalling efficiency due to steeper SA).
I listened to the bikeradar podcast today at work, the subject was geometry and there was 2 opposing views - one rode a pole and loved the long, slack, low nature, he rode lots of steep/rough terrain and liked a bike where the front end didn't tuck on steep tight corners. He gets his adrenalin by going fast on rough stuff. The other guy rides a 2/3 year old bike which is pretty short by todays standards, and like to be on the edge of control, at the edge of the bikes ability, jumping off every root and lip.
It's a good job we're all different, and that there's a canyon spectral or a nukeproof mega, or a YT jeffsy, or any bike with different geometry and handling characteristics.
They were both in agreement that a steeper seat angle is better though!
As for the travel increasing, I think a lot is down to better suspension kinematics - you try pedalling a 5 year old 160mm bike up hill vs a 2019 160mm bike and the differences will be vast. Therefore the regular trail bike is getting loger in travel.
I've just ordered a 150mm/150mm 29er, and will probably at some stage fit a 160mm air shaft in the forks, it was the best climbing bike I've ever ridden, and although it will go to Wales/Lakes/Scotland etc it will also do my local 'red' loop, better than my current 140mm/150mm 27.5 trail bike.
160mm isn't an enduro bike anymore, it's a trail bike. Enduro bikes are now 170/180mm, even with 29ers!
I just like how pretty slack bikes steer, I prefer how they just want to go straight over everything and have to be manhandled into turns but then carve the radius you’ve set. Not crazy slack, around 65 deg at sag. Don’t need super long but around 455mm reach works for 5’10.5” me. I don’t like super short stems, I prefer the steering feel of 50mm, with 770mm bars which hit a good compromise between my ideal width and hitting every tree. High grips too.
I’ve been doing geometry experiments with my own bikes to suss this out since 2014 (changing fork lengths, angle change headsets, adjustable geometry frames and obviously suspension set-up). My 2014 140mm full-sus had a 65.5 deg head angle.
My current 150mm hardtail has a 63.4 deg head angle which sounds crazy until you ride it!
Surely 95% of UK riding can’t just be mincing around on blue trails or bridleways?
It is probably close to that yes. Majority of people don't go to trail centres and just ride around where they live. I see plenty of people riding around on a variety of mountain bikes in the New Forest where I live and the fact that I am happy riding around on track bike tells you how much a modern geometry bike is required.
I would say the majority of people riding mountain bikes would be best on a mid 2000's XC bike but don't tell anyone.
I hear you guys and you raise some interesting counterpoints.
I read this sort of thinking a lot on here, but I don’t see how it’s true. Almost every trail I ride on a regular basis is much quicker and nicer to ride on a bike with modern geometry (in my case, a Mega with a 63.5 degree head angle). Surely 95% of UK riding can’t just be mincing around on blue trails or bridleways?
Maybe we need to define "trail" riding for this discussion. My local trail is Woburn Sands (lots of pedalling, tight, twisty, rooty woodland singletrack, short sharp climbs and a few short steep downs). Also ride Cannock, Swinley, Thetford, Chilterns, North and South Downs, FoD, Aston Hill, Welsh trail centres etc. I wouldn't consider EWS level tracks or Alpine DH runs to count as "trail" riding.
If you guys are riding primarily on EWS worthy terrain, then of course a modern EWS bike with 170 mm travel is going to be the ideal weapon. I can also imagine that such bikes are okay to ride on more tame singletrack as per my definition above. But are they really the best solution or are we just falling for the marketing gnar?
Dialling it back slightly to modern "trail" bikes with say 140-150 mm travel, these clearly represent a better compromise for most ordinary mortals. But they still seem heavily biased toward the gnarly end of the spectrum, with generally more aggressive geometry than full-on enduro bikes of only a handful of years ago. Again I suspect EWS inspired marketing hype here.
Then we have a new generation of 120-130 mm "trail/XC" bikes, that to me seem most interesting as an average trail rider. They typically have geometry very similar to the previous generation of enduro bikes, but are considerably lighter and have an inch or so less travel.
Ultimately there's a great bike for everyone in 2019, but I just can't help thinking how the media seems to be pushing average trail riders more and more toward these slack, long, low EWS bikes.
Thinking about this the other day, am riding a 2016 (i think) xl stumpjumper evo 29, 140 front 135 rear but with 90mm stem. Its quite a bit shorter than my previous bike but am starting to prefer the nimbleness of the shorter front center.
When will it go full circle and we start getting slightly shorter front center marketed to improve agility (to the max).
Edit: For context, comparing loops in the peak, dalby and local flattish woods.
And then there's ppl like me riding a voodoo rigid Wanga with a 71degree head angle that is amazing around my local trails (Ashton court Bristol) .
As for the travel increasing, I think a lot is down to better suspension kinematics – you try pedalling a 5 year old 160mm bike up hill vs a 2019 160mm bike and the differences will be vast. Therefore the regular trail bike is getting loger in travel.
Is travel really increasing though? I know EWS bikes have crept up to 170 mm, but they are being ridden seriously hard on serious terrain. Back in the real world of uk trail riding, I've been riding 5-6" travel trail bikes for at least the last 15 years. So I don't see any significant change in travel. For the last 5 years I've been pedalling a 160/155 mm Enduro up tight, techy singletrack and it works pretty well on the whole. But I can't imagine wanting to move from that to a current 160 mm bike that was way longer and slacker. Conversely, it's the 120-130 mm bikes that now interest me far more. So I will have less travel on my next bike, not more. The kinematics and damper tech can work both ways, with modern shorter travel bikes tending to use their limited travel ever more effectively. I would fully expect a modern 130 mm trail bike to be as good as an older enduro bike on demanding terrain. Not as good as a modern enduro bike of course, but almost certainly a better compromise for all-round trail use for 99% of uk riders.
Is travel really increasing though? I know EWS bikes have crept up to 170 mm, but they are being ridden seriously hard on serious terrain. Back in the real world of uk trail riding, I’ve been riding 5-6″ travel trail bikes for at least the last 15 years. So I don’t see any significant change in travel.
Travel has been gradually increasing, much like geometry getting gradually longer and slacker.
The 2015 canyon spectral was a 130/140mm bike
The 2019 spectral is a 150/160mm bike
Both trail bikes.
When will it go full circle and we start getting slightly shorter front center marketed to improve agility (to the max).
That was my line of thinking too. My 2015 Specialized Enduro now apparently has an unfashionable 445 mm reach (size L). I'm 6'1" and it doesn't feel overly short to me. Actually it feels about right on its stock 60 mm stem. The bike it replaced was considerably shorter again, with a 90 mm stem, and that did feel a little bit twitchy on FoD downhills, especially before I had a dropper fitted!
The Canyon Neuron I've just ordered has a reach of 453 mm, so 8 mm longer than my Enduro and also has a 60 mm stem as standard. Wheelbase is also 7 mm longer than my Enduro. Head and seat angles are exactly the same. But, according to the bike media, the Neuron is a beginner friendly trail bike aimed firmly at the XC end of the spectrum with very conservative geometry. To be fair most reviewers do point out how good an all-rounder it is. But to read some reviews you would think it might struggle a bit on downhill sections of trail with that sort of geometry. Yeah, maybe it would struggle at warp speed on an EWS downhill course, but I'm not expecting any surprises around anything I would ride. It's not like my shorter, taller 2015 Enduro has any issues on terrain at and well beyond the ragged edge of my own personal ability.
This thread is interesting how quite a few posters are recommending enduro rigs for this type of ride, while others are suggesting more balanced options. I'm starting to think most people are well over-biked for much of their trail riding and probably don't even realise it!
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/gnarliest-bike-you-can-ride-xc-on/
I’m starting to think most people are well over-biked for much of their trail riding and probably don’t even realise it!
Welcome to UK mountain biking. 😁
moshimonster
...I’m starting to think most people are well over-biked for much of their trail riding and probably don’t even realise it!...
Ah, you've nailed my problem...
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48110737847_64f4478ff4_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48110737847_64f4478ff4_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
But on a serious note, it's probably better to have a bike with more capabilities than the rider.
Like mine up there... 🙂
This thread is interesting how quite a few posters are recommending enduro rigs for this type of ride, while others are suggesting more balanced options. I’m starting to think most people are well over-biked for much of their trail riding and probably don’t even realise it!
Your views on 'what is needed for trail riding are coloured by your local regular riding'.
It's why I scoff at Kerley from the New forest comments that most riders only 'need' 15 year old geometry XC bikes. Having hailed from the New Forest and ridden/lived in plenty of other area in the UK, I can't see a mid 2000s XC bik with high top tube, steep geometry and 80 to 100mm fork being particularly nice to ride down say, Birkside or Stakes pass in the lakes, Cheddar Gorge/Black rock in Somerset or the beast in the peaks. Sure, it's possible, but there is more fun to be extracted using more appropriate equipment.
Thus the definition of being over biked is entirely subjective and not useful.
Thus the definition of being over biked is entirely subjective and not useful.
That's why I attempted to define what uk "trail" riding actually is. If your local trails were so gnarly that you couldn't physically ride them on anything less than a 150 mm enduro inspired AM bike, then they would be very unlikely to be classified as regular uk "trails". Obviously there is still a pretty wide range of trails to consider, but I get out a fair bit and have ridden in most of the well known uk spots over the last couple of decades. I'm not into full-on DH racing or even modern enduro, but I've certainly been at the rougher, more technical end of trail riding rather than pure XC. So I've always had a preference for 5-6" travel trail bikes over XC whippets. That's why I'm a bit alarmed at how trail bikes in this category have morphed almost overnight into enduro capable machines. But at what expense for the average trail rider like me? Why do I find myself compelled to choose a shorter travel bike all of a sudden? Why can't I have a 150 mm bike with a tighter geometry? I looked and they don't really exist anymore. I'm not talking about something really old school, but definitely not with angles that Sam Hill would prefer on a flat out EWS course! Last time I looked, most uk trails are nowhere near that level of gnar.
I will say though that my local trails are particularly tight and twisty and pedal strikes are a real threat with all the eroded roots. So they do put the modern long, low, slack geo to a fairly harsh test. I already thought my 2015 Enduro was more than plenty long and slack enough, but apparently not.
“That’s why I attempted to define what uk “trail” riding actually is. If your local trails were so gnarly that you couldn’t physically ride them on anything less than a 150 mm enduro inspired AM bike, then they would be very unlikely to be classified as regular uk “trails”.“
I think the phrase “regular UK trails” is the problem. Like “regular UK weather” or “regular UK dirt”. This is two main islands hundreds of miles long with widely varied geology and weather.
Is my 150mm hardtail “overbiked” because its static head angle is the same as most DH bikes?
I disagree, I think it's fairly easy to categorise everyday "trail" riding from "XC", "enduro" or "DH". I'm not saying the actual terrain is the same everywhere, but the difficulty level and type of bike ideal for "trail" riding doesn't vary that much in my experience. I would take my "trail" bike on any piece of uk singletrack that wasn't categorised as an enduro level course or full-on DH track.
As for your 150 mm hardtail, that's kind of outside the scope of my ramblings. I was thinking more about the recent evolution of 150 mm full suss trail bikes, which today tend to be far more aggressive than they were only a few years ago. Hence my feeling that they are now too much bike for the exact same trails we were all riding on back then. It may also be why we are now starting to see riders like myself migrating to shorter travel bikes. They just seem more suited to any uk trail I can think of. I realise there are some seriously tough trails too, but I would categorise those as "enduro" or "DH" as appropriate.
What put it in perspective for me was watching a few vids of people charging down rock-infested US trails on bikes like the SB130 and Ibis Ripley. I suspect these are more than enough bike for uk trails, with very few exceptions.
One advantage i find of being "over biked" is comfort. My 180mm Dune can be set up with lots of sag, with a low air pressure, but a decent amount of damping, and still not blow through the travel into the end stops, so when just wombling around it's magic carpet comfy to ride! And with lock-outs and the like, it can still manage the odd stand-up-and-hoof-the-pedals-round sprint, certainly better than my body can.......
One advantage i find of being “over biked” is comfort
I agree, but that's more a function of travel and damping rather than frame geometry. I like the idea of having 160 mm of efficient travel, but I'm not convinced I want the super long slackness that now inevitably goes with it.
The 2015 canyon spectral was a 130/140mm bike
The 2019 spectral is a 150/160mm bike
Both trail bikes.
I bet the 2019 bike is also longer, lower, slacker. For a similar trail bike feel to the 2015 Spectral you probably now should be looking at modern 130 mm bikes. Bikes seem to be shape-shifting into the next category up, leaving a hole for these newer short travel 29ers below
Edit: Indeed a quick look at the geometry shows that the 2015 Spectral is very close in geometry to a 2019 Neuron, while the latest Spectral is longer (although Canyon seem to have resisted going to extremes).
Why can’t I have a 150 mm bike with a tighter geometry?
Because:
A) Fashion
B) I'm pretty sure new skool LLS geometry is actually better than old school road derived geometry for most types of actual off-road riding - suspension travel and build chunkiness aside.
That fact that you think you need tighter angles for whatever 'standard UK trails' are, (as defined by the international Moshimonster trail categorisation association™), perhaps belies more about your own dogma than the 'industry'.
As said above we're essentially at 2015/16 DH levels of geometry. My 2015 Voltage with boxxers sits at 64 Deg (ish), 1200 wheelbase and 420 reach. I'm only just north of 5' 8" though and just ride bike parks/DH with it so it works for me (re todays specs)
I'd say that first of all, anyone caught using that awful "overbiked" thing (that only seems to occur on this site) needs to be lined up against the wall. It's a limiting belief.
On a more serious note, every category of bike is becoming more capable, to reflect the desire of riders in each category to broaden their horizons and wider riding experiences. A 2019 EWS course is a world apart from a 2013 one. Equally, modern XC is a world tougher than "old" XC, much more like proper mountain biking rather than roadying on mild dirt, which sadly it was for too long.
So I guess the dial is shifting in all areas to greater technical capabilities for riders and bikes - DH tracks of old are now fair game on a trail bike. That's a good thing. Just needs riders to catch up in yes of mentality and what "mountain biking" looks like.
A 2019 EWS course is a world apart from a 2013 one.
I'll take your word for that. That would also explain why enduro bikes are turning into monster trucks. But are we mere mortals actually riding more aggressive trails than we were 5 years ago (assuming we were already grown ups back then)?
That fact that you think you need tighter angles for whatever ‘standard UK trails’ are, (as defined by the international Moshimonster trail categorisation association™), perhaps belies more about your own dogma than the ‘industry’.
You could be right! Maybe I really do need a 1250 mm wheelbase and 800 mm wide bars to ride around Cannock or Woburn trails. I'm not seeing all these super aggressive enduro tracks appearing everywhere. What I am seeing is a stack of enduro inspired monster trail bikes that some people think will make them better riders.
There are still plenty of shorter travel bikes that are available for tight twisty, relatively smooth trails. There just aren't many 140-150mm bikes that are like that any more.
Bikes in each category are getting more and more capable. XC bikes are now pretty capable trail all rounders, and probably perfectly describe what you want. They just don't have 140mm of travel. To replace the XC bikes there are the super hardcore XC race bikes for people who still want a bike built for pure speed.
It would be a pretty small niche for a bike company to make a bike with a lot of travel but with geometry that isn't as suited to it.
But are we mere mortals actually riding more aggressive trails than we were 5 years ago (assuming we were already grown ups back then)?
I can only speak for myself, but I am. I now seek out the steep off-piste stuff at Glentress and the trails at Inners that I considered to be DH-only when riding certainly 10 years ago.
My own bike progression has been this one, from SC Superlight to Yeti SB5c to Yeti SB130, which I think neatly matches the trend we're discussing.
I can't say its exclusively geometry that has made me a MUCH better rider - more effective suspension, better brakes, dropper post, bigger wheels and more experience all must play a part - but I think it's likely it has played SOME part in me riding much more gnar than I'd have contemplated 5-10 years back.
Having hailed from the New Forest and ridden/lived in plenty of other area in the UK, I can’t see a mid 2000s XC bik with high top tube, steep geometry and 80 to 100mm fork being particularly nice to ride down say, Birkside or Stakes pass in the lakes, Cheddar Gorge/Black rock in Somerset or the beast in the peaks.
So I say a mid 200s XC bike is fine for the New Forest and you say it isn't by saying it is not the best choice for loads of places that are not the New Forest, how odd.
My point was that the majority of people riding mountain bikes are using them to ride around places like the New Forest rather the the beast in the peaks. Yes, plenty of people ride that stuff and need the bikes to make it better to ride but that is not the majority of riders.
. What I am seeing is a stack of enduro inspired monster trail bikes that some people think will make them better riders.
Not sure people think a more capable bike makes them a better rider...
Just glad that lesser skilled riders can have a taste of more techy trails and things move forwards.
Its the age old thing though isn't it.
Trails that needed a DH bike back in the 90's are now really tame.
Brilliant how much more stuff is opening up to everyone in my eyes.
EDIT.
Anyone that thinks the new forest has anything to do with mountain biking is deluded.
I rode a 100m hardtail with a 71 degree head angle until a few years ago on the same tracks that I ride now.
At Wind Hill it was miserable on any of the blacks, as the geometry made the bike really skittish and any little mistake was punished severely. When I got my Mega, after a while I went from being nowhere on the Stava segments for the black trails to being in the top 10 for a couple of them and top 5% or thereabouts on all of the trails.
At Bikepark Wales anything tougher than a flow red was a miserable experience on my old bike.
On the natural trails on the Mendips I'm massively faster on everything on the Mega compared to the hardtail.
Ditto at Tidworth and Triscombe.
The only places I've felt over-biked was when I did Blade at Afan - apart from the last descent it just didn't have enough sustained gradient to make it interesting - and on one very wet weekend when the only place that wasn't flooded was Ashton Court, which is similarly lacking in sustained gradient.
I guess if you live somewhere where Swinley or suchlike is you regular terrain then a shorter travel bike might suit you better, but I'm sure this doesn't cover most of the mtbing population. I, for example, don't live somewhere particularly hilly, but there's some pretty decent stuff within 30 minutes. I reckon there are plenty of mtbers like me out there.
JP