Forum menu
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 also plenty of new skool 130mm hardtails that are way better to ride than comparable models just a few years ago. My point is that you seem to think that LLS equals sluggish, raked out machines that can only plough in a straight line and that's simply not the case. My latest bike is longer by an inch and a half, has longer stays, a 64.5 degree head angle and is more responsive basically everywhere than my previous shorter bike. That includes manuals and wheelies too.
So I say a mid 200s(sic) 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.
You appeared to be suggesting that everyone in the UK could get by with a 100mm hardtail with old skool geometry - Apologies if I misinterpreted. However, you don't need an mtb at all to ride the New Forest. IME, pretty much everywhere in the UK is better for MTB than the New Forest, and they therefore might want to run something a bit more in keeping with thier needs, depending on where they are.
Moshi, I'm sorry to be the one to say it but these bikes weren't meant for you. You're just becoming old and irrelevant like the rest of us. Look at the kids at the trail centres these days, smashing it down runs I wouldn't have dreamt of at their age. Maybe the uber long low slack bike doesn't suit your style but it suits the young'uns
I rode a 100m hardtail with a 71 degree head angle until a few years ago on the same tracks that I ride now.
Going from this ^ to a Mega I'm not surprised at the revelation on black runs! But I wonder how you would get on with my 2015 Enduro? It's not a bike that I've experienced any of the understandable misery you describe on your hardtail. In fact it always feels rock solid on tough descents, even if the geometry is from yesterday. But the flip side of that geometry is that it's still relatively nimble on tight techy singletrack too.
My point is that you seem to think that LLS equals sluggish, raked out machines that can only plough in a straight line and that’s simply not the case.
I don't actually think quite like that. If you re-read my first post you will see that I quite like LLS bikes up to a point. But there must be a limit right? At some point you are going to be sitting on a bike that is too long, too slack and too low for its own good. Now if I was struggling on the downhills with my 2015 Enduro then I would be fully up for something even more LLS. But f*** me you would have to be charging hard to find the limits of this bike, nevermind something a couple of inches longer again. This was the bike Jared Graves was racing all of 3 years ago, complete with old-skool 750 mm bars, lol!
Is that really not enough bike for some of you guys then? Are you really pushing these even longer "modern" bikes to their limits? Are they really quite as nimble and versatile across a wide range of trails? I suspect not, but that doesn't mean they are not still really nice bikes to ride. I'm just fed up of hearing reviewers talking as if every new trail bike needs to have EWS geometry to be relevant for tooling around uk trail centres.
I reckon you've got your logic in reverse. Jared Graves could ride a shopping trolley faster than me. Does that mean we should all be on supermarket specials?
No. The rest of us plebs need more assistance and bigger safety margins from our equipment than the elites of our sport because our skills are no where near.
Maybe the uber long low slack bike doesn’t suit your style but it suits the young’uns
Well it certainly suits the ones who are actually riding EWS courses at high speed. But that's only a fraction of the overall mtb market and yet pretty much every new mid-travel cooking trail bike has EWS geometry these days, whether you need it or not. It's not really a problem because there is so much choice these days, but I'm just curious how long this LLS "fashion" will last and where the market will go in the future.
I can't help but feel that the marketing influence of EWS has led to some seriously over-blown trail bikes on the current market. That in turn appears to have led to a resurgence of more trail oriented shorter travel bikes to fill the gap. But even some of those bikes are now getting the extreme LLS treatment. It's starting to look a bit silly IMHO, but I can understand the manufacturers following like sheep so that reviewers don't call them "dated" or "conservative".
I reckon you’ve got your logic in reverse. Jared Graves could ride a shopping trolley faster than me. Does that mean we should all be on supermarket specials?
No. The rest of us plebs need more assistance and bigger safety margins from our equipment than the elites of our sport because our skills are no where near.
But he wasn't riding a shopping trolley. I totally get the safety margin thing, which is why I've been riding and Enduro myself for the last 5 years, rather than say a Stumpy or Camber of the same vintage. Not surprisingly, I'm not riding anywhere near as hard as JG. But I was happy to give away a little weight and climbing speed in return. But how much safety margin do you really need? For example I laugh when I see reviews talking about 760 mm bars as being too narrow. Too narrow for what exactly? Seriously I think they have finally gone too far for mainstream trail bikes, but we are drinking the kool-aid as always.
You appeared to be suggesting that everyone in the UK could get by with a 100mm hardtail with old skool geometry – Apologies if I misinterpreted. However, you don’t need an mtb at all to ride the New Forest.
Apology accepted. And yes well aware you don't need an MTB for the New Forest which is why I ride a fixed gear track bike (saying that it does make even the New Forest challenging in places)
However, a lot of people who ride mountain bikes ride in places like the New Forest and the best mountain bike for that is an XC bike with old geometry.
While a 2015 Enduro is a great bike, a 2020 Enduro is far, far better (yes I've ridden both) - and the "finding the limit" of a bike is only half the equation. The other side of it is that for a given amount of skill/risk, a modern bike opens up more speed/stability/scope of riding.
Having done quite a few EWS races over the last few years (and Superenduro for 3 seasons before that), I've been in that "over my head" situation and it's not a pleasant place to be. If there's a trend in bike design that means less people have that scared feeling, enjoy their riding more and get to expand their horizons without being put off or having big smashes, that's a good thing.
I know there are a lot of "leisure" riders who'd be well served by bikes with old school geometry - but I'd also contend that if they're not riding twisty singletrack at speed then slacker longer geometry has no downside and is safer and more enjoyable. Bikes haven't really got any lower - the BB heights went up as suspension travel increased and then down again as we realised that low BBs at bottom out don't matter much.
When you get to what your "enthusiast" MTBers are riding, from what I've seen there seems to be the more XC tribe, the more trail-riding tribe (still pedalling up but doing it mostly for the descents), and then all the smaller niches of enduro racing, DH, freeride and so-on. And when I look at what I'm seeing amongst these enthusiast trail riders, there's far more taking their trail bikes on uplift days, and those trails are gnarlier than at most trail centres. And the natural trails we ride, I think it's becoming more common for non-DHer riders to have a go at the techier stuff that gets built.
I think the dropper post is the reason for a lot of this change - when I restarted MTBing back in 2009 hardly anyone I rode with dropped their saddle for descending but now it's the norm. And steep trails are FAR less scary with your saddle down, so we ride them more.
There's no doubt that bikes are more stable than they used to be but the difference is much less huge than this thread claims - the big change is that when riding the bike you have a much larger space to move within. If you're programmed into making tiny subtle body movements and weight shifts, from years of riding shorter steeper bikes, then you'll find longer slacker bikes more sluggish. But if you move more then they'll respond just as quickly - and they won't get knocked offline as easily, giving you the confidence to ride more positively.
It's definitely a personal thing - my bikes have got longer but the reach numbers aren't all that big for my height, which I prefer because I ride better when I'm a bit more off the back of the bike than some people. My bars are higher because I prefer that body position with my long legs and it gives me the leverage to push and pull a bigger bike around. My bars are wider because my arms are long and my shoulders fairly broad. I like the calmer steering of a 50mm stem compared to a sharper 40 or 35mm stem but when stems go much past 60mm I don't like how it feels like a tiller rather than a direct geared steering wheel. And I like slack head angles, I have a 29" full-sus with a short offset fork at 65 deg HA, and a 27.5" hardtail that's about 65 deg at sag (63.4 static).
When one of the guys in my LBS tried my hardtail out round the block he commented that it felt horrible to him - he rides a 2019 Stumpjumper, which is a fair bit less extreme. I'm just so used to bikes with heavy feeling steering which require you to stand up and RIDE them with attitude. I will admit that my hardtail is a bit of a nightmare if you ever try to ride it on singletrack sitting down - the front tyre is so far away but the rear tyre tucked under you because of the short chainstays, so there's no grip up front. Stand up though and it rails the turns! The full-sus is much more tolerant, far longer chainstays and the battery weight keeping the front wheel gripping.
If I were shopping for one bike to do it all for me now, assuming it didn't have a motor then I'd probably go for a short to mid travel 29er full-sus with a big fork and slack head angle, like an SB130.
I think this article says a lot about the 2015 Enduro: https://dirtmountainbike.com/bike-reviews/trail-enduro-bikes/specialized-enduro-29-six-ways-three-wheels-sizes.html
It was always a good bike but its geometry was a bit behind everything else about it!
One of the reasons for choosing my new bike (2019 Trek Remedy 8) was because the geometry was described as slightly conservative. I'm sure a more LLS bike might be faster when ridden by a better rider but firstly I'm not a good rider and secondly I don't actually want to go that fast. Doing 40mph with my bar tips skimming trees and hitting 75ft doubles just isn't on the cards for me, Windhill red runs is about my threshold and for that sort of use the Remedy should be ideal for me.
Been following this thread with interest as I'm always thinking about where the bike industry is heading.
How Long, how low and certainly how slack are bikes going to get?
It seems like an absolute must for bike companies to take at least a degree or two off of the head angle with every new model.
At the heart of this thread surely lies the industry's hyperactive marketing. Remember when 29ers were the next best thing and your 26" bike was suddenly obsolete? Then it was all 650b and 29ers were too much like barges. At the end of the day, surely (as plenty of others have said before me), the best bike is the one you enjoy riding.
What we all need is a bike for every occasion - a marketing departments dream!
“It seems like an absolute must for bike companies to take at least a degree or two off of the head angle with every new model.”
It feels like geometry starting creeping slacker about 10 years ago but slowly in half degree increments. More recently after the likes of Geometron and Pole make quite a lot noise about ultra long and slack bikes it seems that many more companies have investigated this kind of geometry and then made much bigger leaps. I’ll be surprised if things go beyond about a 63 deg HA as that’s been the DH and MX head angle for quite a while.
moshimonster
Member
I rode a 100m hardtail with a 71 degree head angle until a few years ago on the same tracks that I ride now.
Going from this ^ to a Mega I’m not surprised at the revelation on black runs! But I wonder how you would get on with my 2015 Enduro? It’s not a bike that I’ve experienced any of the understandable misery you describe on your hardtail. In fact it always feels rock solid on tough descents, even if the geometry is from yesterday. But the flip side of that geometry is that it’s still relatively nimble on tight techy singletrack too.
Back when your Enduro was new Dirt Magazine was always harping on about how much better it was with an angleset and offset bushings, so I think the bike was never quite at its full potential back then.
JP
“Back when your Enduro was new Dirt Magazine was always harping on about how much better it was with an angleset and offset bushings, so I think the bike was never quite at its full potential back then.“
Also, I’m sure Jared Graves switched to racing on the Stumpjumper instead of the Enduro. Yes, he did:
https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/jared-graves-stumpjumper-29-differ-normal-one-347072
“The Head angle with a 160mm fork is actually slacker than the enduro, The stumpy frame fits me slightly better, The BB is lower. And the 135mm travel, while not always enough travel for racing on the really rough stuff makes up for it on the smoother pedally sections/stages.”
As someone who is way out in the LLS camp at the moment I would say that it is a bit of an adaptation to get used to the longer and slacker bikes. Sure you can tag along for the ride and it will feel comfy and safe but a bit sluggish, but in order to get response out of the bikes you have to stay forward and actively ride. I also really helps to be strong and in good shape.
Another side to the LLS bikes is how you can tune the suspension, on shorter bikes I tended to run softer and slower suspension to have that margin of error. Now i run much faster and somewhat stiffer setup, which helps in giving a more lively feel to the bike while also giving much better tracking. I did try a friends brand new Enduro (full s-works with AXS!) and that bike is so soft and comfy! But that also made it sluggish until you really pushed it. So oddly enough it was less versatile than my Geometron, even being shorter and steeper.
As far as how slack you can go, I did have my Geometron at 61 degrees. That made the bike too twitchy at low and medium speeds, so now i'm back at 62,5 which seems to be a good compromise.
Back to the original discussion here: if I didn't live in a place with steep and techy riding i don't think i would go for as much travel. But definitely I would stay with a long reach (515mm for my 186 cm) and slack headangle. And i'm saying that as someone who started in the 90's racing XC 🙂
"As far as how slack you can go, I did have my Geometron at 61 degrees. That made the bike too twitchy at low and medium speeds, so now i’m back at 62,5 which seems to be a good compromise."
Interesting, I recall reading about that on the Geometron thread. What wheel size and fork offset do you have on that bike?
29" wheels and 44mm offset at the moment.
At 61 degrees it was a bunch of fun at speed, you could just tip the bike a touch and it would dive into a turn 🙂 At 62,5 it is still maneuverable but a fair bit less twitchy.
Cool! But in a straight line over the rough stuff was 61 deg more stable or did it depend on how fast you were going?
Do you know what percentage sag you run front and rear, and obviously the travel too, because the actual head angle at sag is slacker than static for most full/sus bikes?
Can't say I found it to be all that more stable in a straight line, however it was a bit better when things got properly steep (as in, can't stop even if you want to) and chunky. And it got more stable the faster i went, so the difference in riding characteristics with different settings wasn't all that noticeable when charging. At lower speed awkward stuff the bike is more stable and predictable at 62,5.
I have 160mm fork and 155 mm travel rear with about 15-20% sag front and 25-30% sag rear. So yes, head angle at sag is well slack 🙂 On the other hand it stays nice and slack in the steeps too!
The bike has quite some anti-squat with the 34t chainring, so when on the pedals the rear suspension doesn't sag too much. That helps quite some when riding flatter terrain.
but I’d also contend that if they’re not riding twisty singletrack at speed then slacker longer geometry has no downside and is safer and more enjoyable
Part of my objection is that I do ride a lot of twisty singletrack at speed and I thought my Enduro was already long and slack compared to a proper old-skool bike. I have a mate riding a slightly older SC Blur and although he can't keep up on the faster, rougher, steeper trails he definitely has a significant advantage in the tight twisty sections. I've ridden his bike and it's far more nimble than mine and although I wouldn't want to swap, it does put things in perspective. His bike is way shorter and steeper than mine.
And when I look at what I’m seeing amongst these enthusiast trail riders, there’s far more taking their trail bikes on uplift days, and those trails are gnarlier than at most trail centres
Once you start talking about uplift days then I'm sure current endless LLS makes a lot of sense. But how many people in the UK are really doing a significant number of uplift days? If I was I would have 2 bikes anyway (talking full sussers rather than HTs etc) and wouldn't want to be hauling even a modern super LLS 150 mm "trail" bike around local trails and probably even most UK trail centres. Yet only a couple of years ago those sort of bikes (150 mm "trail" bikes with slightly tamer geometry) were ideal as a quiver killer for the average rider. But now with 2019 geometry they just seem like shorter travel enduro race bikes to me. But we've convinced ourselves that they are miles better for everything else too.
While a 2015 Enduro is a great bike, a 2020 Enduro is far, far better (yes I’ve ridden both)
Maybe for you, but then you are actually racing EWS. So you are clearly not the average trail rider. I have no doubt a 2020 Enduro race rig is quicker than a 2015 equivalent, but does it make it a better all-round trail bike for the average trail rider? And by "average rider" I mean someone who considers mtb as a serious hobby and rides regularly, but isn't racing or pushing the boundaries i.e. most people if they are being honest.
I often wonder if I'm already deluding myself riding around everywhere on a 160 mm 2015 Enduro! It's still a very big bike for 99% of the riding I do. Anyway I have enjoyed the debate and of course there is no right or wrong answer. My next bike will be my first foray for a very long time into shorter travel full sussers, this time with similar geometry to my Enduro i.e. reasonably LLS. I'm expecting good things, but will soon find out!
I think the dropper post is the reason for a lot of this change – when I restarted MTBing back in 2009 hardly anyone I rode with dropped their saddle for descending but now it’s the norm. And steep trails are FAR less scary with your saddle down, so we ride them more.
Without a doubt! Back in the mid 2000s I was lucky enough to be riding with a forward thinking group who were early adopters of dropper posts (the original "gravity dropper" post). For me riding with a dropper was a game-changer, but it also made bikes with steep, short geometry a lot less scary on the steeps. So I'm not sure how droppers tie in with the more recent move toward ever more LLS bikes? If anything they allow you to run a steeper geometry for any given terrain.
Interesting, I think reviews (and therefore the readers of reviews) probably get a bit too hung up on Head angles as well as suspension travel numbers. It's not the only bit of geometry that matters, and it has to work with the rest of the bike...
And while I read all the same stuff I tend to be a bit behind the times in what I actually ride due to buying used bikes.
So I've just started riding a 2nd hand 2014 Stumpjumper Evo 29 (essentially the bike you gave a swerve OP in favour of the Enduro's angles) which has a (claimed) HA of 68 degrees and a shorter Reach than the current 2019 Stumpy and most other modern trail bikes. it does look a bit 'dated' visually, but being honest it's pretty good pointed downhill, I'm not struggling on the steep bits it's not tucking under on corners it's stable over rough stuff, I may try an offset bush and/or longer forks later on but both of those will affect the reach/seat angle for distance pedalling and climbing which it currently does well too, so I'm inclined to leave well enough alone for now...
My Previous 29er HT had a HA about 67 degrees but obviously that would steepen with my weight causing it to sag, where a bouncer will either stay about the same angle wise or (if the rear sag is more) slightly slacken under rider weight and that was OK from a handling Vs pedalling perspective.
Going further back I had several DH bikes through the 00's which were probably similar in terms of static HA to my current stumpy, but most had a shorter reach and sagged way more into their rear travel making them very different bikes to actually ride...
So what's currently on trend for a trail bike HA wise? ~66 degrees? 65? if it gets to 64 or less you're probably going to find it's gone to far for "general trail bike" use and coupled with a longer reach, and more wheelbase is a bit of a barge on your local cheeky trails... So something around 68-67, apparently considered "conservative" geometry isn't actually all that steep and you have to look at it in combination with the rest of the bike's layout, the reach, overall wheelbase and of course how the suspension behaves...
I honestly think seat angle, reach and maybe even chainstay length perhaps matter more on the old geometry chart WRT how a bike works overall than that one Head angle figure...
The thing really is what is the application? lots of people praise slack Head Angles, low BBs and long front ends for the downhill handling benefits, but for a "trail" bike that's not the only environment it's going to be used in, for most people a balance needs to be struck...
The thing really is what is the application? lots of people praise slack Head Angles, low BBs and long front ends for the downhill handling benefits, but for a “trail” bike that’s not the only environment it’s going to be used in, for most people a balance needs to be struck…
Exactly my point. But reading reviews and marketing BS, you would think LLS is the only way to go for everything. I guess they play on our aspirations and self-image.
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?
I can't find my manual to look it up but my 2015 Mega is running 170mm on the front so what's the difference in HA over your newer (longer and slacker)???
Most of the time I find I'm "over-biked for fun".... and end up using my Aeris MK1.5 set at 160/140 and might bother to stick it on 160/150 for revs or BPW as it is just more spritely
This last week I ride
Swinley x2, Once on the Bird @160/140 in M and once on the XC HT @100... lack of dropper on the HT was the only reason I took the bird the 2nd time ...
Windhill x2 Took the M Bird and L Mega but ended up leaving the mega in the car (mainly as its got a 1x10 road cassette on and couldn't be assed pushing up when I can ride)
and Surrey Hills 'trailforks blacks' Think n creamy etc. took the bird
In general it's possible the Mega is faster ... but mostly it soaks up too much for "fun"... I've done drops I know have to be drops and doubles and it felt like there was no drop and the back wheel never left the floor... (which is impossible) ..
Being a middling rider the bike is just more capable than I am... like driving a performance car though central London... its like its begging for stuff that isn't going to happen with me riding in order to be fun ...
Well I got my first ride in on my new 2019 Canyon Neuron CF. A quick loop of Woburn's Longslade trail confirmed my thinking. It was way quicker than my old Enduro uphill (night and day) and felt just as capable on the downs, if a little less plush. Really a very nicely balanced, lightweight fun ride with it's conservative modern geometry. Would I want it to be any longer or slacker? - nope. Would I want it to be any lower? - nope. Would I want a steeper seat angle? - nope. Would I want any more travel? - nope. It's no EWS shredder for sure, but for any UK trails I would ride involving significant pedalling, this is my ideal sort of versatile bike. For once I think I've finally managed not to over-bike myself like I usually do!
When will it go full circle and we start getting slightly shorter front center marketed to improve agility (to the max).
To quote myself (I was half joking earlier), this bike check referrs to a pro choosing the shorter frame to give more "playfull" response on enduro races.
So a couple of things I would like to add:
Trail riding means too many different things depending on your location.
One bike does not do it all though with the current performance of modern bikes you can get it pretty close. I currently have a mk1 nicolai geomatron set up at 170/155 27.5” 63 HA in longer (m) and a sick wulf (that’s a whole another story) set up at 150 29er 64 HA in large (i’m 5.9 and a light person). The hardtail is so capable that I would use it most of the time locally in Essex and Surrey Hills area and trail centres in wales. The nicolai would come out for fod off piste, peaks, dh days or trips abroad (finale Ligure and Spain). I would not want just one bike for all.
The biggest difference between a trail bike and enduro bike isn’t the travel or the geometry, it’s the tyres with the soft or super sold compounds, single ply or double cashing, small fast rolling nobbles or large aggressive nobbles. Most guys would run the same bar, stem, gearset, dropper, and even brake set (fourpots) regardless if it was a trail bike or enduro bike. Wheels like tyres will depend on terrain.
LLS bikes will always weigh more than SSH bikes because of the extra material needed for length and strengthening needed for extra force on head tube. On a climb this would make the bike feel heavy but because of the more stable wheel base the climb itself (on techy ones at least) will be easier.
To ride a LLS bike you have to change your riding stile which you you might not (no body wants to think of themselves as a bad rider or be told they are doing it wrong).
There is a big difference between geometry and travel, I would rather have a short travel bike but with slack angles than a long travel strap angled bike.
A shorter travel back end to a longer travel front is great (still pedals well but can clutter through rough downs).
If I only could have one bike a new stumpjumper evo 29er in a large/s3 would be right up my street.
To quote myself (I was half joking earlier), this bike check referrs to a pro choosing the shorter frame to give more “playfull” response on enduro races.
Interesting comment. I'm not that surprised given how long some of these bikes are getting. I'm more than happy with a sub 1200 mm wheelbase on a size L trail bike. I'm also happy I didn't get caught up in the "going large" trend with every component. I've kind of taken a step back from my previous bikes and really liking it. Faster rolling tyres, lighter forks, lighter wheels etc. It just feels like a better compromise for all the trails I would ride. Climbing in particular has been so much easier and faster on this bike. It is pretty low though (335 mm) and I can't imagine going any lower with all the roots and stumps along my local trails. I'm definitely getting more pedal strikes on this bike, but it's just about acceptable. To be honest I would prefer it 5 mm higher for a bit more safety. But the rest of the geometry seems perfect for blasting along typical red singletrack.
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?
I can’t find my manual to look it up but my 2015 Mega is running 170mm on the front so what’s the difference in HA over your newer (longer and slacker)???
Most of the time I find I’m “over-biked for fun”…. and end up using my Aeris MK1.5 set at 160/140 and might bother to stick it on 160/150 for revs or BPW as it is just more spritely
The quoted head angle on Megas hasn't changed that much, but the actual head angle on 2018 and later bikes is about 1.2 degrees slacker than stated (I've measured this on mine and magazines have reported the same thing). I also run a 180mm Lyrik, which drops the head angle back a bit.
BTW, I'd have taken the Mega out of your two bikes for Wind Hill - I'd rather have a bigger bike for big stuff and it's much easier (and saves energy for the descents) to use the push up rather than grind up the fire road after each run.
JP
I'm still riding the same trails I first rode 25 years ago.
Lakes classics like the borrowdale bash, Garburn pass, Grizedale / Coniston bridleways, high Street etc etc
They were all fun to ride on my 24lb rigid 1994 orange P7
They were great on a 1999 Specialized FSR XC and I found the suspension meant I could ride much further
I'd put the LLSish geometry of my 2018 29ER Marin B17 trail bike up there with the best innovations in MTB like suspension, dropper post, Spd pedals etc
It's just more fun, better up and down.
The difference is that nowadays we ride down Garburn pass towards Kentmere, BITD it was a carry up the other direction as it was impossible to ride down that way.....
Manufacturers - perhaps not Giant or Specialized so much, will push geometry to the limit. If they didn’t, I’d still be riding round on my 91Hardrock. Also, most of what we ride can be ridden on a steep XC rigid but where’s the fun in that? Unless that’s your bag, obvs. Woburn is a good example. Even the more tech stuff is fine on my hardtail but it’s not as comfy, fun and fast as my 160/165 FS. Actually, most climbs are better on the big bike too. Yes, I won’t ever ride “Empire” twisty tight tree festooned trail as fast as I did 6yrs ago when I had 680mm bars, but then for everything else my 780’s are brilliant.
It’s a good phase. Big bikes don’t kill you on the ups Or on bridleways and short travel can take-on steeps and drops without folding in half. My frustration is the cost of stuff; another thread required.
My bike in 2006 vs my bike now, both great fun to ride.
Manufacturers – perhaps not Giant or Specialized so much, will push geometry to the limit. If they didn’t, I’d still be riding round on my 91Hardrock. Also, most of what we ride can be ridden on a steep XC rigid but where’s the fun in that? Unless that’s your bag, obvs. Woburn is a good example. Even the more tech stuff is fine on my hardtail but it’s not as comfy, fun and fast as my 160/165 FS. Actually, most climbs are better on the big bike too. Yes, I won’t ever ride “Empire” twisty tight tree festooned trail as fast as I did 6yrs ago when I had 680mm bars, but then for everything else my 780’s are brilliant.
It’s a good phase. Big bikes don’t kill you on the ups Or on bridleways and short travel can take-on steeps and drops without folding in half. My frustration is the cost of stuff; another thread required.
See Woburn is my local trail and for there I just feel like modern trail bikes (with 140+ travel) are now too much bike. My 2015 Spesh Enduro 29er is about the limit of what I would want to be hauling around trails like Woburn and even that is a bit of a chore on the tight twisty bits with 760 mm bars etc. My brand new 130 mm 29er actually has 770 mm bars and is a fraction longer, yet it's marketed more at the XC end of the trail spectrum.
My only conclusion is that you have to seriously consider going for a shorter travel bike these days unless you really are riding far more aggressive trails than you previously did. I'm finding my 130/130 mm bike is as about as capable on the downs as my 4 year old 160/155 Enduro, but much faster uphill. I would have no hesitation taking this bike on FoD DH runs, so I just can't imagine why I would ever need a bigger trail bike. If I was doing regular Alpine trips or EWS courses then it would make some sense if I could only have one bike.
I wasn't really trying to cover really old school geometry in this thread, only the recent trend toward ever more extreme LLS geometry in mainstream, mid travel trail bikes. Where is the end point in this "progression" or has it already been over-stepped for 95% of the trails that we actually ride on? This was my concern when choosing a new "trail" bike. I certainly don't want a 170 mm stretched out Enduro wagon and even a 150 mm so called "trail" bike is now just massive overkill (typically 800 wide bars, DH tyres, stretched wheelbase, big forks etc) unless you are riding somewhere properly gnarly every day. There doesn't seem to be a lot of choice for the "average" trail rider these days. It's great that longer travel bikes are getting more versatile, but it just seems like an arse-about sort of compromise.
Anwyay I was pleased to see Canyon bucking the trend slightly with their new Neuron CF in simply designing a bike more in line with what probably 95% of riders are really doing out there, rather than just chasing the LLS trend without really giving much thought to ordinary guys riding ordinary trails.
I’d put the LLSish geometry of my 2018 29ER Marin B17 trail bike up there with the best innovations in MTB like suspension, dropper post, Spd pedals etc
Just had a look at that bike. 67 deg HA, 73.4 deg STA, 456 reach 1181 wheelbase in Large. All quite sensible IMO, but would be considered pretty conservative/old fashioned for a "modern" trail bike. This is not really what I'm talking about here. It's the bikes going way beyond this level of LLS that I think may be going too far. I agree with you that LLS bikes in general compared to what we had 10-15 years ago are a huge improvement all round. I certainly don't want to go back to a near 70 deg head angle and super short wheelbase and reach.
What I note looking back through this thread is that some people seem to become "geometry extremists" (hyperbole ahead) either dismissing anything made in the last 15 years as new-fangled, unnecessary marketing BS, or going the other way calling anything more than 24 months old, old-fashioned, and near unrideable... Of course neither position is 'right' newer bikes have different geometry to their predecessors, generally because it brings benefits to the rider.
I think the OP has asked a sensible question, just how different is a bike from ~5 years ago to one bought today? In truth it's not a huge leap; a couple of degrees here and there, an inch or two longer maybe, 5-10mm lower BB? it's noticeable but not enough to make the older bikes seem awful to ride...
I'd happily accept that modern LLS bikes are probably overall "better" both going up and down, but a bike from half a decade ago is probably more of a snapshot of the journey to where modern trail bikes are today, rather than a useless, antiquated heap.
Things like shocks/forks were pretty much as you find them today.
Yes seat/head angles and reach were probably more conservative especially on the more mainstream brands, but then compare them to what was on offer half a decade before that and they probably seem quite different again. a bike from ~2015 will still acquit itself quite well today on a given trail.
The influence of #Enduro is evident to in many of the posts on here, lots of people are buying "Enduro" bikes primarily for "trail" riding, that's not a good or bad thing just an observation.
To me (and perhaps only me?) the distinction between a "Trail bike" and an "Enduro bike" is that a trail bike is more like a general purpose mountain bike (like what they used to be in the olden days), it will spend more time on cheeky local trails and bridal paths and be expected to cover more miles in relatively efficient comfort, but still need to clatter some roots or get it's wheels off the deck now and again.
Where as something labelled as being for Enduro should give more of a nod towards descending and can give a couple of pounds away and perhaps some pedalling efficiency to it's trail cousin in order to work better on the plummet element of winching and plummeting for Enduro Racing. The distinction there might be quite fine, and both bikes can happily be used for either purpose in reality. but there is a distinction.
It's also worth noting that the whole LLS thing isn't really new as such.
I see it as initially coming more from DH (Mondraker were selling a 60*deg HA Summum over a decade ago IIRC) and as Enduro matured as both a sport and a bike marketing subset, elements of DH biased geometry were inevitably adopted. "Trail bikes" pick the same features up at a slower rate, perhaps a little watered down to accommodate the target markets slightly less gnarr aspirations, and after they've been worked through on the DH - Enduro Rigs by a given brand, they become accepted performance benefitting features for "joe average" on a 'lighter duty' trail bike.
I suppose the more interesting question (to me) is just what will "Trail bikes" look like in ~2025? will it just be another half decade of tweaking the LLS formula? or will something else be creeping through the pipeline by then?
t’s the bikes going way beyond this level of LLS that I think may be going too far.
For you, maybe. For me, not at all. Steep HA, horrible slack seat angle, short wheelbase is all I see. But then my large trail bike is 480 reach, 65 degree HA & 77 degree seat tube, and that conservative to my big bike.
I've seen outright XC bikes more progressive than that Marin.
"Woburn is my local trail"
"has it already been over-stepped for 95% of the trails that we actually ride on"
It's been overstepped for 95% of the trails that YOU actually ride on. I like Woburn but it's quite short of rocks or altitude.
What's nice about these new long and slack trail bikes is they go uphill well but can handle trail riding on anything from twisty singletrack to properly gnarly stuff. Yes, the new breed of longer slacker XC bikes will be quicker than these big trail bikes on flatter woodland singletrack but they're not as much fun if you either have gnarly trails nearby or like to visit them and not need a second bigger travel bike.
I think that geometry has been gradually catching up with travel, so amateurs like me have a more confidence inspiring bike for the lower speeds we ride at and pros (and the numerous properly quick amateurs) have a bike with geometry better suited to high speeds.
For you, maybe. For me, not at all. Steep HA, horrible slack seat angle, short wheelbase is all I see. But then my large trail bike is 480 reach, 65 degree HA & 77 degree seat tube, and that conservative to my big bike.
I would agree, but then one of the most fun bikes I ever owned was a Mk1 Trailstar which if you looked at the numbers today would read like a nightmare of steep HA/laid back seat-tube/short reach; twitchy horror, and yet it was (at the time) fantastic fun on trails and could be pedalled up hills well enough (admittedly by a much fitter 20-something me).
I'm not sure what getting back on that bike today would be like, but I still have very positive memories of some quite "Old School" bikes...
So something half as old again seems positively "progressive" to me still.
It's a matter of perspective I guess, if you're getting to ride bang up to the minute bikes all the time maybe that skews your bias towards modern LLS stuff more, but if (like me) you don't get your hands on modern bikes very often then you don't really know what you're missing and it's all good...
I suppose the more interesting question (to me) is just what will “Trail bikes” look like in ~2025? will it just be another half decade of tweaking the LLS formula? or will something else be creeping through the pipeline by then?
Exactly. I'm wondering where this is all going too and LLS must have a limit for any application.
For you, maybe. For me, not at all. Steep HA, horrible slack seat angle, short wheelbase is all I see. But then my large trail bike is 480 reach, 65 degree HA & 77 degree seat tube, and that conservative to my big bike.
I’ve seen outright XC bikes more progressive than that Marin.
But where are you riding with these beasts? What is actually driving you toward these longer slacked out bikes? Are there really no cons?
“Woburn is my local trail”
“has it already been over-stepped for 95% of the trails that we actually ride on”
It’s been overstepped for 95% of the trails that YOU actually ride on. I like Woburn but it’s quite short of rocks or altitude.
What’s nice about these new long and slack trail bikes is they go uphill well but can handle trail riding on anything from twisty singletrack to properly gnarly stuff. Yes, the new breed of longer slacker XC bikes will be quicker than these big trail bikes on flatter woodland singletrack but they’re not as much fun if you either have gnarly trails nearby or like to visit them and not need a second bigger travel bike.
I think that geometry has been gradually catching up with travel, so amateurs like me have a more confidence inspiring bike for the lower speeds we ride at and pros (and the numerous properly quick amateurs) have a bike with geometry better suited to high speeds.
Woburn is not the only place I ride. It's just my local woods. I'm a pretty average rider with about 15 years experience of dedicated mtb riding. I'll ride anything short of full-on DH with reasonable confidence and have always been at the rougher trail riding end of the spectrum vs dedicated XC or DH. Woburn is probably the tightest, most twisty singletrack I know, so it does suit more compact geometry very well and definitely doesn't favour 800 mm bars! I've ridden most trails in mid-southern England and Wales over the last decade and never felt like I needed a bigger bike to tackle anything super gnarly (which would be DH territory anyway) or fast and flowy. FoD DH would be about my limit for trail riding and I've survived that on bikes with far steeper, shorter geometry than anything I've seen in the last half decade or more.
I can see how even more LLS bikes would make the most aggressive of trails a bit more accessible to the average rider, but I'm not convinced they are a great compromise for all-round uk trail riding. It seems more like an aspirational thing to me at this point, where you end up carrying around a load more bike than you really need, while trying to convince yourself it is more fun. My "old" 2015 Enduro is not exactly shy when it comes to taking on the rough stuff, but marketing that kind of geo today as XC/trail has got to be taking the piss surely?
But where are you riding with these beasts? What is actually driving you toward these longer slacked out bikes? Are there really no cons?
I live in the south of England. The aforementioned shorter trail bike is my main ride (SB130). I trail ride on it (or XC, not bridleway level stuff), race enduros, even the odd regional DH race. It does everything well so far.
My big bike (a proper 170mm 29er enduro race bike) does get limited use, due to location but it just got battered round Canada for 3 weeks by comparison. I probably could have taken the 130 and survived, but the bike would have been wrecked. Also wouldnt have fancied my chances on the Whistler EWS to hold on to it for that long.
Things that drive me towards them are trying bikes which are more extreme and finding benefits over older, more traditional geometry. Being 6ft 1, bikes with slack seat angles are nasty to ride now, so I actively avoid them, to compensate, front ends are longer & head angles are slacker for stability, yet not outrageously slack. I like bikes with low BB's as ripping corners to me is more fun than not clipping the odd pedal on a boring, technical climb (or I just pay more attention to the terrain and time my pedal strokes a bit more).
To me, there isn't a downside. Being taller, bikes now fit better, are easier to ride faster, more comfortable, just as playful & generally just better. No downsides.
Have we found the limits yet? No I dont think so, but people have to keep pushing, as until we do, we wont know we have got there. Yes I've still had a great time on my older bikes, but would I have one over something current? No chance.
I live in the south of England. The aforementioned shorter trail bike is my main ride (SB130). I trail ride on it (or XC, not bridleway level stuff), race enduros, even the odd regional DH race. It does everything well so far.
So you're basically saying your SB130 is a mini enduro bike and anything remotely steeper or shorter is nasty to ride? I did seriously think about buying an SB130 but decided it was just too big for nearly everything I ride regularly. I can see why you would choose it for racing enduros and limited DH though. Looks like an interesting blend of relatively short travel and enduro geometry.
So you’re basically saying your SB130 is a mini enduro bike and anything remotely steeper or shorter is nasty to ride? I did seriously think about buying an SB130 but decided it was just too big for nearly everything I ride regularly. I can see why you would choose it for racing enduros and limited DH though. Looks like an interesting blend of relatively short travel and enduro geometry.
Not really, I just see it as a modern trail bike now, with reasonably progressive geometry (for me, there is a limit for this sort of bike, which is around where this one is).
Enduro bikes now are huge compared to the 130. Mine is not exactly 'out there' but it's still 170mm travel, sub 64 degree HA, 1300+ WB and a steep seat angle. After a bit of time on it, the SB feels tiny, twitchy & a little bit loose in comparison. A ride or two later and I'm back into the groove on it.
I could probably if I wanted, live with the SB as my only bike for the riding I do, and accept the compromise, its surprisingly versatile. I'm never going to win an XC race on it, but them I'm never going to enter one either, so it's a moot point. I could probably survive an EWS on it though.