Forum menu
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.
It's all relative of course. After a few rides on my Neuron I find my Enduro feels a bit lazy and slow by comparison and these are both sub 1200 mm length bikes. I just don't have any use for something "bigger". I guess my riding hasn't moved on enough over the last 5 years to warrant moving onto to these more "progressive" trail bikes, never mind the latest enduro rigs. Even an SB130 looks like a huge bike to me for tooling around southern uk trails.
All relative indeed. I find 29 wheels lazy and slow around my typical southern UK single tracks. But I wouldn't dream of telling anyone they're over biked.
All relative indeed. I find 29 wheels lazy and slow around my typical southern UK single tracks. But I wouldn’t dream of telling anyone they’re over biked.
Well firstly I don't tell anyone that they are over-biked when out on the trails. I just think it. It's more a thought process to help choose what bike to ride, everyone is free to ride whatever they prefer.
As for 29" wheels feeling "slow" that certainly hasn't been my experience of them. Quite the contrary for me. I wouldn't even entertain the idea of smaller wheels anymore, but at 6'1" it's an easy decision.
"Well firstly I don’t tell anyone that they are over-biked when out on the trails. I just think it. It’s more a thought process to help choose what bike to ride, everyone is free to ride whatever they prefer."
Maybe you should then rephrase your postings on here. Because your current bike shopping process has basically involved you saying "all of you riding bikes with more long and slack geometry than I've chosen are pointlessly 'overbiked'", which frankly is rather tiresome.
29" wheels do feel "slow" to initiate a turn, in a similar way to slack head angles. If you haven't noticed that, then I'm surprised you consider yourself the supreme arbiter of the line between quick and sluggish bike handling.
It's funny, I was comparing my 2012 Camber Expert geometry to the 2019 Spectral CF 7 in the sale at the moment and the old Camber has a 2 mm longer reach. I was expecting the Spectral to be a good bit longer. I think I must be a bit ape-like as I was really looking forward to having a bit more space on a Spectral.
29 inch wheels are inherently slower to turn in and to accelerate, it's down to inertia and basic physics. They might store energy but in the context of a tight twisty single track, I find them sluggish, even at 6ft. But it's all relative.
Maybe you should then rephrase your postings on here. Because your current bike shopping process has basically involved you saying “all of you riding bikes with more long and slack geometry than I’ve chosen are pointlessly ‘overbiked'”, which frankly is rather tiresome.
29″ wheels do feel “slow” to initiate a turn, in a similar way to slack head angles. If you haven’t noticed that, then I’m surprised you consider yourself the supreme arbiter of the line between quick and sluggish bike handling.
Yeah I do reckon a lot of people get carried away with much bigger bikes than they really need and the marketing encourages it more than ever. It seems to be the complete opposite of what I used to see on this very same forum 15 years ago when rigid singlespeeds were all the rage.
You can disagree if you like and most people who have replied to this thread have had good reason to choose bigger bikes, but most of those guys appear to be racing EWS or DH as well as more mundane trails. Others have kind of agreed that there is some limit to how far you would want to go with the LLS trend. I apologise if I appear to have hit a nerve in questioning why the industry is heading ever further down this path.
“It’s funny, I was comparing my 2012 Camber Expert geometry to the 2019 Spectral CF 7 in the sale at the moment and the old Camber has a 2 mm longer reach.”
Are you comparing different sizes?! 😉
'I’ve ridden most trails in mid-southern England and Wales over the last decade'
Lmfao
“You can disagree if you like and most people who have replied to this thread have had good reason to choose bigger bikes, but most of those guys appear to be racing EWS or DH as well as more mundane trails.”
I think you’d find that loads of us disagreeing with you are not racing DH let alone the EWS, we’re just normal MTBers who appreciate the downhil stability and uphill ability of recent progress in geometry.
How you’ve interpreted the responses and concluded that most riders agree with you (unless they’re riding super fast on super gnarly trails) is a prime example of how bad the human brain is at dealing with data and why most anecdotal evidence is misinterpreted due to the bias of the observer.
In other words, you started a thread because you thought something and you haven’t learnt anything because you’re too convinced that your original hypothesis was actually a credible theory. Slow clap.
Blimey.
I just ducked back into this thread to see where it has moved, to find old stick-in-the-mud Moshi still banging his drum. Poor old fella has trouble viewing the world through anything but his own lense it seems, despite the efforts of the many.
Nevermind. Free world innit.
'FoD DH would be about my limit for trail riding'
Lmfao even more 😂😂😂🤙🏾
There are some many bikes available now that people can buy pretty much whatever bike style they want. The only real limiting factor is if you want something fairly niche but are on a strict budget.
And there's no shame in being influenced by marketing, everyone is to some extent or other. The idea of having a bike that isn't "overbiked" is a marketing concept, and that's fine. I was influenced by it for my latest bike purchase, there's no way I'd have considered it if it wasn't for other people influencing me over the years.
Wow! Some of you guys really do take yourselves seriously. This is the first time I've ever thought mainstream trail bikes were maybe getting a bit silly for the sort of riding most people actually do. But judging by some of these responses you would think I was questioning their manhood or something. But I shouldn't be surprised really. Same thing happens on ski forums if you question why everyone is suddenly riding blue runs on 120 mm wide powder skis. It's pretty much guaranteed to get the "my cock is bigger than yours" response.
I don't think there's much in the way of cock measuring here, only frustration from multiple people at your steadfast refusal/inability to consider/perceive there may be other reasons than your perceptions for people liking new skool geometry.
Still, it seems you DO have form on other forums and didn't get it there either.
I do realise you're pissed off because virtually no one agrees with you, which seems to be what you wanted from this thread, but maybe you're one of those binary guys and just didn't realise it?
It seems that way, you've jumped immediately from 'I'm right', to 'you're only proving how big your cocks are' in one fell swoop.
But why am I bothering, you know best anyway!
How you’ve interpreted the responses and concluded that most riders agree with you
I don't remember making that conclusion. Quite the opposite actually. I think most people buy into the idea that they really do need a bigger, slacker bike.
new skool geometry.
Seriously, do we really have to call it that?
I liked the comparison of old gnarly bike is the new XC bike, I could get on-board with that. However, this topic has gone a bit preachy, sorry Moshi.
I haven’t been taken-in by marketing hype, simply put, my big travel bike rides everything I ride, better than my aggro hardtail, and when I need that travel, it’s there; it’s not a forfeit.
If your latest 130mm bike does everything well but the 160mm isn’t much more of a compromise on the up’s, can be ridden to the trails and have travel to spare, I know where I’d spend my fairly-hard-earned money...
Still, it seems you DO have form on other forums and didn’t get it there either.
Not really. I've just seen how forum debates tend to go whether I started them or not. Basically if anyone dares to question the "trend" of the day then they tend to get ridiculed for it by those who have bought into it the most. I just thought super wide AM skis were a good parallel here and interestingly that fad eventually did take a U-turn back to slightly narrower lighter models.
Ah, the one true Messiah that has seen the light!
All us poor MTB fashion fools just don't know how hoodwinked we truly are by those nasty marketing people.
Or.
The bulk of riders have tried some form of LLS and find it to be preferable, but some people don't like this because it doesn't fit in with their conspiracy theories and confirmation bias about their own bike.
One of those scenarios at least has some evidence base. I know which I find more plausible.
f your latest 130mm bike does everything well but the 160mm isn’t much more of a compromise on the up’s
That's just it though I am finding that my 130 mm bike is actually night and day better on the ups compared to my 160 mm bike. I didn't expect so much of an improvement as I had previously convinced myself that my 160 mm bike was a really decent climber. I was also swayed by reviews at the time.
The bulk of riders have tried some form of LLS and find it to be preferable, but some people don’t like this because it doesn’t fit in with their conspiracy theories and confirmation bias about their own bike.
What's with all the dramatics? I'm simply asking where people think the limit is with LLS for average trail riding? I was fully into it too initially. I'm not trying to justify any bike choice past or present.
Moshimonster, the puzzle I'm struggling to deal with is that four years ago you posted a load of stuff like this when trying to buy a new bike:
"I’m also well on the wrong side of 45 and really don’t want a boneshaker to finish me off! Plus I tend to ride mostly seated both up and down so I’ve never really been a HT fan. But at the same time, I do want something that can climb well and doesn’t feel like a lumbering DH rig pedaling around mostly tame trails and twisty tight singletrack."
So now you're in your 50s, back then you were riding downhill SITTING DOWN. And you were really obsessed with having something nimble but 'plush' presumably due to SITTING DOWN for actual downhill riding:
"Those thoughts keep bringing me back to the Stumpy FSR, which I know will be plush enough, but will it be a bit too slow witted in the tight techy stuff, especially in 29er form?"
More nimble worries:
"Obviously I’ll try to arrange a demo of both if I can, but in the meantime would anyone like to convince me that the 120 mm travel Camber Evo is nice and plush (ridden within its travel limits of course) or that the Stumpy is actually a lot more nimble than the numbers might suggest?"
More worries about liveliness or being overbiked:
"I’m kind of hoping that the Camber Evo will fit the bill, because it would be nice to have something a bit lighter, quicker climbing and more lively, providing the ride is still smooth and not too chattery. I don’t want to be over-biked just for the sake of it. If I couldn’t demo the bikes for whatever reason, I would consider the Stumpy a safe option given my bike history, but would always be wondering whether or not I was missing a trick with the shorter travel Camber."
Then worries about the ride and having enough travel:
"On the other hand if I went for it with the Camber I would be disappointed if the ride was chattery and harsh compared to my previous 6” bikes. I don’t mind it being a bit firmer (obviously it has to be), as long as it’s still smooth and well controlled over the rougher end of the trail spectrum."
Despite: "As a foot note, I’m not a big jumper at all, but do like to pop off very small jumps, steps etc along the trail. So I’m not concerned at all about lack of travel in respect of landing jumps."
Despite all that - you went and bought an Enduro 29, which despite being a bit short, steep and tall was widely considered one of the fastest bikes around if you could handle it, an extremely long travel 29er monster truck. For some reason that approach was THE RIGHT APPROACH (maybe because you bought that bike?)
But this time you've decided to go for a shorter travel XC bike - which is now THE RIGHT APPROACH.
Isn't life simple when you're always right? Although forums are bit pointless, unless you answer all your own posts...
In other words, you started a thread because you thought something and you haven’t learnt anything because you’re too convinced that your original hypothesis was actually a credible theory. Slow clap.
I love the irony in this.
"What’s with all the dramatics? I’m simply asking where people think the limit is with LLS for average trail riding? I was fully into it too initially."
Were you? Were you really? Did you actually RIDE ANY OF THESE BIKES? Or did you just like the idea in the mag? And then you rode them and realised you were too slow?
I bought a Banshee Spitfire in 2014 which was 140mm travel - and had a 65.5 deg head angle - so one of the slackest mid-travel bikes around. And then put a -2 deg angleset in it, making it like a DH bike, 63.5 deg. I did that before the magazines or industry and had a lot of fun riding it!
Go ride your ****ing bike and stop telling us why our bikes are wrong. FFS.
What’s with all the dramatics?
I'm taking the piss. Can you not tell? Jeez. I wasn't even being subtle.
Chiefs composite of some of your riding comments are interesting.
If you do ride DH sat down, there is simply no way you you are reaching speeds where LLS is of any benefit. It's clear to me now why you can't understand LLS riders perspective.
How you’ve interpreted the responses and concluded that most riders agree with you (unless they’re riding super fast on super gnarly trails) is a prime example of how bad the human brain is at dealing with data and why most anecdotal evidence is misinterpreted due to the bias of the observer.
You write this ^ and then proceed to dissect some of my 5 year old posts with the most incredible amount of observer bias you could ever possibly imagine. Like this little gem:-
So now you’re in your 50s, back then you were riding downhill SITTING DOWN. And you were really obsessed with having something nimble but ‘plush’ presumably due to SITTING DOWN for actual downhill riding:
The reality is that like many full suss riders I like to pedal MOSTLY seated whenever I can and I do like a bit of comfort. It doesn't literally mean I ride DH sitting down or never stand on the pedals like you seem to be imagining. So perhaps you should consider your own observer bias when you read into anecdotes purely to serve your own opinion.
As for this:-
Despite all that – you went and bought an Enduro 29, which despite being a bit short, steep and tall was widely considered one of the fastest bikes around if you could handle it, an extremely long travel 29er monster truck. For some reason that approach was THE RIGHT APPROACH (maybe because you bought that bike?)
But this time you’ve decided to go for a shorter travel XC bike – which is now THE RIGHT APPROACH.
This is actually the whole point of this very thread! 5 years ago I decided to choose what was at the time considered to be, in your words, "an extremely long travel 29er monster truck". I was debating at the time between the Camber (shorter travel than I was used to), the stumpy (more in line with my previous bikes) and the Enduro (longer travel with it's more contemporary geometry at the time). So 5 years on I have now chosen a shorter travel "XC bike" which happens to have pretty much the same geometry as my "monster truck" Enduro. Pretty much the only difference is an inch of travel and longer chain stays:-
Head angle 67.5 vs 67.5
Seat angle 75.0 vs 74.5
Reach 445 vs 453
ETT 617 vs 626
Chainstay 430 vs 440
Wheelbase 1183 vs 1190
Front travel 160 vs 130
Rear travel 155 vs 130
So my observation is that in 5 years bikes like my Enduro are now considered by the industry to be "XC bikes" and "trail bikes" (never mind enduro bikes) are now something way more LLS. If we look at the geo for a 2014 Camber Evo it now looks like something off a different planet:-
Head Angle 68.8
Seat Angle 73.3
Reach 432
ETT 617
Chainstay 451
Wheelbase 1161
MBR described this ^ at the time as:-
"120mm travel 29er with aggressive spec and geometry
Evo model is slacker, lower, longer travel and gets wider bars and fatter tyres"
"The perfect blend of handling prowess and mile-munching efficiency
Improved Spec and better looks for less money than last year
Still some of the best rear suspension in the business"
So in reality my kind of bike choice hasn't really changed much at all in 5 years. But the industry is certainly labelling them up quite differently! There were a couple of reasons why I chose to go for a shorter travel bike this time around:-
1. It's hard to find anything with longer travel that really isn't a monster truck these days
2. I was never fully convinced I really needed a 160 mm travel bike and riding the Enduro for 5 years kind of confirmed that. Especially as I'm generally riding less away from home.
3. Shorter travel bikes seem to be getting more capable and are more or less built like 150/160 mm bikes from a few years ago
Now off you go and dissect these comments with your observer bias to show how wrong I am here. I'm genuinely interested to see what you make of it.
I’m taking the piss. Can you not tell? Jeez. I wasn’t even being subtle.
Chiefs composite of some of your riding comments are interesting.
If you do ride DH sat down, there is simply no way you you are reaching speeds where LLS is of any benefit. It’s clear to me now why you can’t understand LLS riders perspective.
Ok that's cool. I probably had a sense of humour failure by that point last night!
No I'm not riding DH sat down, despite Chief's "interpretation" of my riding comments. I do however tend to favour sitting when I can and pedal through stuff. I always thought that was one of the nice features about long travel full sussers over more lively HTs etc. I did also have a Cannondale Scalpel at the other end of the XC spectrum.
I'm an average sort of all-round rider on the whole. I'm neither an XC whippet or DH charger. You could perhaps say I'm the average UK trail rider. Like many people I do prefer descending to climbing, but I enjoy both on the whole. I'm the kind of guy that would normally choose a "trail" bike over an "XC" racer or "Enduro". Yet trail bikes seem suddenly skewed heavily toward the enduro end of the market and that was the reason I started this thread i.e. to get some perspective of the "new skool LLS" market.
What I've learnt so far is that people are pushing their limits a lot more than they were 5 years ago (apparently) and that modern LLS bikes have no real downside over their more XCish siblings (bikes that would have been considered a bit OTT for trail riding a few years ago). As someone mentioned early on in this thread, bikes keep changing but the reviewers churn out the same old comments as they always did.
I guess I really need to ride a modern "LLS trail" bike at this point to see what I'm missing out on.
Basically if anyone dares to question the “trend” of the day then they tend to get ridiculed for it by those who have bought into it the most.
You probably need to stop those silly strawman arguments and projections. Try and look into critical thinking rather than judge others by your own binary thinking standards.
You probably need to stop those silly strawman arguments and projections. Try and look into critical thinking rather than judge others by your own binary thinking standards.
Yeah, I should stop taking the bait! I'll include my own "binary thinking standards" in the bait category too. Cheers.
The main thing is that you have probably managed to justify to yourself that you have made the right choice with a 130mm 29er.
Different people like different things. I think it's massively over biked for your riding, but if it makes you happy, then it's all good.
Different people like different things. I think it’s massively over biked for your riding, but if it makes you happy, then it’s all good.
I honestly don't know why people take offence at the term "over-biked", I've been over-biked for pretty much all my riding over the last 15 years. For me it's just a term to describe having a bike that's bigger than what you might actually need to ride a trail or perhaps something that is slower than optimum (regardless of the fun factor). Technically speaking, I would think most people are over-biked for most of the time, especially if they only use 1 bike for all their riding.
I've tried to use the term here in the context of how over-biked would I really want to go for my riding? At what point would I think this is just pointlessly OTT? As you say, I have no technical reason to go beyond 130 mm travel and could manage with a lot less - possibly be faster too, but I'm not racing and I do value the comfort. From a geometry perspective I can't think of any reason why my bike needs to get any longer, lower or slacker than it already is. It was a different story in the mid 2000s when I felt like my trail bike was too high, too short and nervous on descents. The threat of going OTBs was very real back then, especially before I put a gravity dropper on it, but I've never felt remotely that way about my 2015 Enduro and the Neuron is totally fine too.
If you go back to my original post, I wasn't even trying to justify my own bike choice - I'm quite capable of working out what I like to ride. It was more an observation at how the industry and media have recently escalated trail bikes and LLS geometry beyond anything that was considered sane only 5 years ago. A 2019 XC/Trail bike is now equivalent or even slacker than a 2015 Enduro race bike. My question was actually how far is this trend going to go in future and is it actually benefitting ordinary trail riders who are not actually doing any DH or EWS racing? It looks to me like average trail riders are better served today by shorter travel bikes (I could be wrong), which is fine for now, but what about another 5 years? Will I then have to look at 100 mm travel bikes to find something that isn't super long and slack?
Or will I come to realise (like I'm being told by some people here) that modern LLS "trail" bikes are actually more fun for riding around places like Woburn, Swinley, Cannock etc. I will try to demo some out of curiosity when I get a chance - bikes that really interest me at the moment are the Whyte S120, new Orbea Occam and the Yeti SB130. All of those are significantly more LLS than my new Neuron, so would make a good comparison.
That's a lot of words.
It's grown adults riding bicycles in circles in the woods - I think some people are over thinking it a touch..!
I regularly swap between a modern LLS bike and short steep older bikes and aside the outright speed, the biggest thing I notice is how much more of pain a long bike is to transport and store.
Maybe the limit will be the practicalities of ownership.
I’m quite comfortable on most trails on a 120 front 110 rear Tallboy 3.
Only feel out of my depth on the really steep stuff and big jumps where no amount of travel would put me in my comfort zone.
I've got a 2015 Switchback and here in the dystopian future (2019) it's still brill. What was the question again and do I win £5?