Forum menu
did not slam modern bikes, it just said how wonderful konas they were in the right conditions
Yes - it's fun to bike those old designs for some days and then bike modern stuff ... and back.
Some of these old bikes are very low weight and climb really good. And downhill - yes, these old bikes are slower.
But also fun!
Those very capable (downhill) LLS aluminium bikes with those great forks and fantastic 2.6 inch tyres (or so) are neat designs.
But they are very, very heavy.
Example: the new Calibre Sentry. Yes - LLS. Most likely great downhill machine. But heavy like a tank!
Is this the reason why there is this move in the Enduro world to move to Carbon?
It's just a way of The Man selling everyone gnarly bikes that they then find are completely over the top for most of their regular trails so they then have to drive to ride Bike Parks or buy an additional "Gravel Bike" which is very similar to the old MTB they got rid of to get the Long Slack bike, only Gravel bikes have terrible handlebars.
No, it's not - LLS bikes have a real purpose, if the buying public buys the wrong thing that's their problem.
it just said how wonderful konas they were in the right conditions.
So.. the awful roadie based geometry is good in some situations then?
Which particular brand of "The Man" doesn't also offer less slack less travel more lively bikes in their range? Riders have loads of choice these days… if you choose to buy a super capable enduro bike, rather than a lively trail bike, to ride your local trails… that's your choice.
What if I were to tell you you can have a super lively super capable and properly low Enduro bike and ride your local trails on it kelvin?
I'd agree with you. My comment was aimed at those that think "The Man" is only trying to sell "everyone" a particular kind of bike. It's clearly nonsense. Why would bike brands bother to have a range of different bikes if that was the case? Plenty of choice out there.
Riders have loads of choice these days… if you choose to buy a super capable enduro bike, rather than a lively trail bike, to ride your local trails… that’s your choice.
Yes.
Tons of options out there. And that's great.
LLS bikes have a real purpose
Yes.
That's why there are XC, trail, all mountain, enduro, super-enduro and downhill bikes are around I guess.
Maxtorque, I can't say i'd agree with you about people riding much harder terrain at faster speeds. It's extremely rare I see one of the enduro sleds (increasingly they seem to be of the Santa Cruz brand?) that seem to dominate local trails being ridden even remotely fast. If you could take a modern LLS bike back in time and race against Tomac on his rigid he would still be riding much faster than 99% of us. In the past 5 years the average skill level has plummeted but the amount of people biking and the average earnings of said people has dramatically increased, which is why bikes have become so obscenely expensive.
With regards to LLS I think it's good and bad. it's been crazy that for some people to get a bike long enough for them it's been a compromise of too large a seat tube and fits have in many ways changed for the better but some companies have gone way too far on this and just straight into marketing nonsense. There is a limit and it feels like certain brands are just pushing it to get into the magazines. 10ft long 45 degree head angled bikes wont work. in bike sizing (and in all things) there is a compromise. Longer is more stable, but then it's also less manoeuvrable. slacker head angles are great for steep descents, but then they can be vague and a bit "flip floppy" on climbs and even flat. Low enhances stability with a lower CoG, but low also lowers your clearance and greatly reduces chance of pedal strikes.
Everything is a trade off and LLS is no different. It's not better. It's better at certain things.
To the OP, I would say carefully consider your real life riding. If your real life riding is smashing very steep and bumpy straights and then slowly winching back up for another go and you feel your current bike is holding you back then a LLS bike may be for you. If you have a more broad mixture of riding then maybe it isn't. Demo time!
As a slight side note some of these LLS bikes can be very fast on particular descents, the pros use them for a reason and the stopwatch doesn't lie BUT, doing that descent faster doesn't always equal having more fun doing it.
John
My comment was aimed at those that think “The Man” is only trying to sell “everyone” a particular kind of bike. It’s clearly nonsense.
Clearly. "the man" isn't stupid. He wants to talk "everyone" into buying ALL his shit!
😉
Most of "The man"'s market audience are in reality riding nothing that couldn't be ridden on that 1992 Kona but they're now older and have more disposable income. hence more genres/niches 😉
Genius really.
That’s why there are XC, trail, all mountain, enduro, super-enduro and downhill bikes are around I guess.
Good. Apart from the confusing names its good to have choice. Some people seem to think there is 3 catergories - xc race, "middle" and DH. (corresponding to the 3 popular race disciplines i guess.)
Unfortunately every "middle" bike from trail to super enduro is judged against a race winning super enduro sled - so people want every new bike to be another step towards ridiculousness. Why does each new bike need to be a quarter degree slacker than the rival brands of a month ago?
New bronson was slammed for not being a 29er (?), and then the Megatower (29er nomad) is "not progressive enough". What?
I may be behind the times as I considered the bronson to be the epitome of enduro (and also Peaslake posing) bike but
I use now on my Bronson (which I certainly wouldn’t class as LLS by any means)
The Revelations I used to have on my Heckler were decent enough forks
Revelations didn't come out until about 2005 or 2006 IIRC. Try some trailbike forks from the turn of the century like 80mm Dukes or Judys. A set of 130 mm Revs is night and day in comparison.
everyone speaks about choice, but apart from the odd small company and maybe xc bikes all serious bikes seem to have the new geometry and probably would not sell without this. So then people buy gravel bikes for tamer bridleway riding as said above. I am sure LLS is good but not all riding requires this and it must take the fun out of alot of riding the average person does.
Try some trailbike forks from the turn of the century like 80mm Dukes or Judys. A set of 130 mm Revs is night and day in comparison.
I'd happily ride '99 100mm hydracoil Judys now.
I still favour 100mm on my hardtails (DJ/4X)
2005 QR Revs at 100mm weren't really any better
2005 QR Revs at 100mm weren’t really any better
Nonsense. Rebas and Revelations were a massive improvement over their predecessors.
"In the past 5 years the average skill level has plummeted..."
Has it? Has it really? Pretty much everyone I know is as good a or better rider than they were 5 years ago.
but what about the older marzocchis. Or the older pikes. What's probably changed is the level of performance for a level of fork. Entry level Rockshox are now probably just as good as older high end marzocchis and pikes. No doubt equally high end modern forks are now much better.
The lower skillset of riders is probably about those new to the sport buying say a santa cruz fs as their first bike without riding a hardtail or lower end steeper bikes first. This must be a good thing as it keeps the industry alive and means technology trickles down to all levels so cheaper bikes are better in the future. Experienced riders on high end bikes are much better riders as well with all the new innovations. Attracting new riders to the sport is a good thing.
but what about the older marzocchis. Or the older pikes.
The Zocchis performed much better than the RS forks such as the Duke as I recall, but were heavy beasts. The first Pikes were basically just beefed up Rebas. The Reba came out first as an XC trail fork to replace Dukes, the Revelation was a longer travel version that replaced Psylos (a longer travel Duke), and the Pike was a beefed up version of the same basic design. Sids back then were terrifying things, all the rigidity of wet noodles.
OP- Your Whyte is more than capable and has fairly modern geometry so is it just an itch for a new bike that needs satisfying? It's not forward like the Cotic but it's fine.
But yeah - slacker, longer and lower tends to be more stable going down as well as put you in a good body position. Obviously theres a middle ground as too slack will be an issue.
I'm not sure how it's taken so long to get this geometry. Even 10 years ago dh bikes weren't as slack as they are and were riding similar tracks (maybe harder). You would think some manufacturer would have done some testing at opposite ends of the spectrum and find an optimum balance instead its always been incremental changes. maybe so they can create product life and have something for the next model.
We've never had it so good - I struggle to see where we go tbh
My question should be - are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?
Has it? Has it really? Pretty much everyone I know is as good a or better rider than they were 5 years ago.
Aye, pretty much impossible to quantify such a silly statement.
Chief, obviously the individual hasn't got worse over the past 5 years but as the biking community has exploded over the past few years the average skill level has decreased with that. When I started my job 8 years ago I knew of 2 other people at work who biked. It's wasn't common. Now however, everyone is apparently a biker! In my team of say 25 people over half now are into mountain biking. Also to a certain extent cycling is the new golf to a particular demographic so lot's more money floating around and as a consequence, prices have adjusted to make the most out of that. This growth of biking is part of the reason why so many things have changed I think. New standards every 5 seconds, it's because there is so much money in it and so many more people to buy into it.
John
Also, the old Marzocchis were awesome, a bit weighty but I don't see that modern forks are that far ahead. Although I must be wrong as it seems every new fork is a bloody "game changer". Infact everything seems to be a "game changer" these days.
My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?
depends - South Downs way is a bridleway, as is Jacobs ladder.
Nonsense. Rebas and Revelations were a massive improvement over their predecessors.
No they weren't mate.
I have a set of those old hydracoil '99 judys here on an old bike still in use and going strong and also have a set of 2017 100mm Rebas here on my 4X bike.
Performance is actually pretty similar but the Judy has better small bump compliance and slightly less firm damping (Damping on both is pretty similar when run the way I like a fork to preform)
the Reba is quite a bit lighter and not noticeably any stiffer because of it despite having a 15mm axle and tapered steerer.
I have a knackered 2005 Rev here too. similar story when they were working (seals shat and stanchions worn out)
I have a working set of Revs on a bike here too but they're 2017s and 150mm so a completely different chassis so not directly comparable.
I'm guessing you haven't even ridden the 100mm hydracoil Judy I'm talking about, nevermind a well set up one?
Now ride a Cotic Solaris Max Longshot (long low slack etc) bought mainly because I wanted to try a Cotic and it was brand spanking new out (and the JPS gold sparkle paintjob...)
Just rebuilt my old workhorse, 2001 Superlight as The Boy is now big enough. I cannot believe I rode that thing for 10 Years, it just feels wrong .. too small, too short, too steep...
Fooling myself? maybe. But riding them back to back I'd take the Cotic every day.
My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?
FWIW yes, although I wonder sometimes if the geo hasn't just compensated for the move to 29 wheels in terms of 'feel' - I had a Tinbred 26" that felt very like the Cotic does, only smaller wheels ..
Long rides on tame terrain are perfectly OK on Longshot, except you might wheely a bit more just because. If it were a regular thing, I think I'd cut the bars down from 800 though.
I’m guessing you haven’t even ridden the 100mm hydracoil Judy I’m talking about
A friend had some way back in the day. They were definitely better than the Indys I had back then. His bike got stolen and his new one had Zocchis, which were just amazing back then. My next forks were U-Turn Psylos, which were more versatile than the Zocchis but nowhere near as good on rough stuff. I replaced the Psylos with U-Turn Rebas and then with U-Turn Revelations, both of which I still have on different bikes. The Rebas and Revs were noticeably stiffer than the Psylos (all 9mm QR). I think a modern equivalent to the Judys and Psylos would be a 35 mm Revelation.
If you could take a modern LLS bike back in time and race against Tomac on his rigid he would still be riding much faster than 99% of us.
I bet he wouldn't, on a typical modern DH home-made woodsy trail. But the trails they raced DH on were much tamer than today's trails.
My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?
I haven't ridden one, but I can say that XC bikes are so much more capable that they overlap with trail bikes from 10-15 years ago. I have a Trek FS 29er which is pretty much XC through and through, but I can ride the local tech as well as I could on my 5 from years back. Having a dropper is a big part of that, along with big wheels and a wide bar making up most of the rest. But since it's also an XC bike it's great for covering distance as well.
So then people buy gravel bikes for tamer bridleway riding as said above.
And you will notice they are now getting longer and slacker (but not lower). I ride a 74 degree bike on gravel and can see no reason why I need it to be slacker for riding in straight lines over hard packed surfaces but there seems to be a market for it...
Also, the old Marzocchis were awesome, a bit weighty but I don’t see that modern forks are that far ahead. Although I must be wrong as it seems every new fork is a bloody “game changer”. Infact everything seems to be a “game changer” these days.
I was running Z1 Bams 'till about 2013 when the 1999 Cinder cone they were on cracked, fine forks, a bit flexy even with the blackspire brace.
Also was running 2004 bombers on a hardtail until about 6 months ago and a set of 66 SL's on my 1999 Turner RFX up to 2015 when I snapped it. That bike was tall short and steep but still fun at silly speeds in the Alps.
My question should be – are modern trail bikes good fun for the more normal bridleway riding too?
It's all personal preference, but for me, yes, absolutely. It's one of the things that surprised me with my longshot FlareMax. Yes it gives huge level of confidence on the descents, compensates for my lack of skill and encourages stupid speeds, but I expected that. What surprised me was just how much I enjoy riding it everywhere. Up, across, down, tame forest tracks, fire roads. Heck I even enjoy spinning along on the road some days. It may just be because at 6' tall this is the first mountain bike I've had that actually feels like it fits me.
I have 66 SL ATAs on my Patriot. No matter how fast I go, they keep soaking up bumps really well. I have never tried an equivalent modern bike, so I have no experience, but I'd expect modern forks to be a bit better. Probably more support in the mid stroke with better small bump compliance. That would make them better for climbing and riding flat, but I don't see how anything could improve much on fast rocky rough descents.
I too had a set of 66 RC2X from I think 2006? They were coil jobbies and they were amazingly good, just ate stuff up and also massively stiff, like stiffer than anything else I've ever tried but they did weigh a whopping 3kg so I guess that's to be expected.
John
I've definitely got worse over the last 5 years, not doubt about it. Agreed absolutely nothing wrong with my current bike but a new bike would be nice and the Cotic is definitely making me interested in a new bike.
I don't need a new bike, I don't ride hard enough for a new bike, I'm not fit enough for a new bike but it would be nice (although saying that, I can't afford a new bike so it would need saved for). With that daft idea, I was having a nosey and didn't think I understood LLS, so I asked.
I have 66 SL ATAs on my Patriot. No matter how fast I go, they keep soaking up bumps really well. I have never tried an equivalent modern bike, so I have no experience, but I’d expect modern forks to be a bit better. Probably more support in the mid stroke with better small bump compliance. That would make them better for climbing and riding flat, but I don’t see how anything could improve much on fast rocky rough descents.
I know they're not really the same type of fork and a Lyrik might be a better comparison but I was underwhelmed when I went to a 2015 Pike from a 66SL (2.5 KG).
OH had some coil 32mm Pike 454s on his bike a while ago, they were ****ing shit. Like properly [i]properly[/i] ****ing dangerously flexy point-in-a-random-direction shit. We punted them on and stuck some 35mm Suntours on it instead.
OH had some coil 32mm Pike 454s on his bike a while ago, they were * shit. Like properly properly * dangerously flexy point-in-a-random-direction shit.
Come on - they were decent forks. 20mm bolt through, 32mm stanchions. Many, many sets of pikes were ragged all over the world on decent technical terrain. 34/35/36mm stanchion forks are stiffer, but I'd never describe a pike 454 as pointing in a random direction... I've got a 9mm QR revelation on my DJ bike set at 100mm, run very firm. On a bmx gate there is a fair bit of flex in it (mainly due to my shit gate technique), but it is fine on trails.
Some real nonsense on here. I've been riding mtbs since the late 80s and the bikes now are better than anything from previous eras, and it's mainly due to the geometry.
I can't see how anyone thinks the trails haven't changed in this time. There's loads of stuff you wouldn't have even considered riding on anything other than a downhill bike from that era that we regularly ride now, yet are able to pedal back to the top. Go and ride Fifty Shades at BPW or something similar, on a 90s bike and tell me you wouldn't rather be riding a modern enduro bike.
If you're an STW pootler who rides bridleways and a bit of road in between then modern slack bikes are not for you. If you think that a bike with modern geometry takes away the fun then you're not riding it fast enough or on the right type of trails.
As an aside the whole slack head angle makes it climb badly notion is just not true - as long as the seat angle is steep then climbs are fine on a slack bike. My Mega with a 63.5 degree head angle climbs just as well as my 70 degree XC bike in terms of the body language needed.
JP
JP
I can’t see how anyone thinks the trails haven’t changed in this time. There’s loads of stuff you wouldn’t have even considered riding on anything other than a downhill bike from that era that we regularly ride now, yet are able to pedal back to the top. Go and ride Fifty Shades at BPW or something similar, on a 90s bike and tell me you wouldn’t rather be riding a modern enduro bike.
I've no idea what "fifty shades" is but y'know what? back in the 90s I was a DHer. Pretty much lived for it. Rode DH every weekend and dug and rode (a mix of road, BMX, HT and DH) midweek. but come winter I'd ride a 100mm hardtail. On the same DH tracks. Those included Scottish and Welsh DH tracks incl. Gethin. (now re-branded as BPW), innerleithen and the Golfie but a lot of lesser known (hidden/shady) handbuilt super technical short DH as well.
I chose to ride a hardtail as it was easier to push/ride up in shit conditions but also I believed it would improve/sharpen my handling skills as well as being less maintenance. (DH bikes back then could be a ballache for maintenance and spares)
Despite now owning a 170mm enduro bikes, a 120/140mm lightweight slopestyle bike, a 170mm E-Enduro bike and 2 DH bikes I still do enjoy riding a 100mm hardtail (4X bike) at places like Inners and the golfie and many other Scottish enduro haunts. It adds to the challenge and means there's very few dull moments.
There are definitely more trails being built and a lot of the handbuilt trails are to a high technical/skills standard. but only if you're comparing them to XC or trail centre tracks.
I honestly don't believe UK tracks have gotten any steeper or rougher or more technical than the stuff I rode back then but what I do believe has actually changed with the popularity of enduro and the phenomenon of spods in gogs everywhere riding massively capable modern bikes? The death of drops and gaps. Pretty much every UK Enduro track is devoid of a decent jump or drop so punters can skid down safely. I know there are bike parks now that cater to jumpers but that's really not what we're talking about. Most of these folk wouldn't hit a big jump line no matter what bike you gave them.
I do actually agree the standard of rider has risen in all cycling disciplines. (road, CX, XC, DJ, BMX, DH and Enduro) but I'm not talking about the mainly middle aged users with nice bikes here who've now had a skills course but the 15-30yr olds bracket who are out riding all the time and loving it (on any bike).
Quick question; Do you actually do any technical climbing on your Mega? or like most Endurbros is it mainly trail centre/fireroad climbing to access the terain it was designed for?
Ps. @Molgrips. Go and find a mid 90s DH WC track and try and ride it (fast). I think you'd be very surprised at both the technicality, speed and roughness. Even Ft William (it wasn't a WC track until 04 but it existed pre-'00) is manacured TF and tweaked to "look" good compared to the ropey old '97-99 track.
Tomac was also an XC World champ so even if you can fire up your time machine I really don't think some middle aged tool from the future off STW on a modern Nukeproof mega would have troubled him too much in flat twisty woods on his rigid bike.
I honestly don’t believe UK tracks have gotten any steeper or rougher or more technical than the stuff I rode back then
Maybe not DH courses - but the local woods are filling up with steep techie home-made trails, and it's these that are being ridden. Which means that the average recreational rider (i.e. not DHer) is riding more difficult tech than they were. Which stands to reason because there is more of it and the bikes make it easier.
Tomac was also an XC World champ so even if you can fire up your time machine I really don’t think some middle aged tool from the future off STW on a modern Nukeproof mega would have troubled him too much in flat twisty woods on his rigid bike.
I know, I was talking specifically about DH.
Even Ft William (it wasn’t a WC track until 04 but it existed pre-’00) is manacured TF and tweaked to “look” good compared to the ropey old ’97-99 track.
Ha, I remember riding that after the first World Cup there 2001?. Can’t remember all the bikes we had but one was a full suss Carrera with the steepest head angle in the world and no damping, a couple of XC hard tails and a 222 or Patriot?
I was fortunate enough to have a Santa Cruz Bullit.
As an aside the whole slack head angle makes it climb badly notion is just not true – as long as the seat angle is steep then climbs are fine on a slack bike. My Mega with a 63.5 degree head angle climbs just as well as my 70 degree XC bike in terms of the body language needed.
nonsense.
Does LLS suit bikes that are aimed at taking on descents with ease, rather than operating better as general all rounders (from pootling around with the family/kids and bridleway bashing through to XC and maybe a bit more)?
Referencing the comment from Cy at Cotic re the original Solaris working quite well with rigid forks but the longshot version being very much a hardtail (and also looking a bit odd with a rigid fork)
Maybe not DH courses – but the local woods are filling up with steep techie home-made trails, and it’s these that are being ridden.
Where do you think UK DHers have always gone to practice?
They simply weren't publicised way back
Ha, I remember riding that after the first World Cup there 2001?.
Think you might be right. 2001 or 2002. I was getting my dates confused with the Kovarik domination in 04. (the track had already gone under loads of alterations/work by then.)
The first BIG race there was the avalanche cup in 99/00 and that's pretty much the prereqisite for what put it on the map for the WC.