I've never had a stem shorter than 100mm on an MTB, never really felt the need.

If I'm ever in Sweden I'll look you up GEDA, happily give that a punt. As I said previously I think the difference with an XC bike is that you can put in a really hard couple of pedal strokes and the bike will leap forward, which is often enough to get you over some tough obstacles. A longer travel bike will just bog down when you do that, so you end up with tonnes of traction, but sod all momentum!

Not wanting to wave willies (we've done so well to avoid it!), but I can only think of one climb I've not cleaned which I have seen cleaned by anyone else, and it isn't technical, just very steep, and I'm happy to admit that the person who did clean it is a far better rider than me.

It amuses me that whilst bemoaning the “Doddy-isation” (agreed he is a toss bag with undue influence) of modern MTBs into stupid travel comedy machines for plebs

Why is he a 'toss bag'? You sound like a bit of a snob tbh

you all seem to see HT’s as somehow having become un-ridable for any serious up or downhill use, dare I say technology has made a fair few people lazy?

Er… have you seen the number of hardtails on here? Cotic, On-one etc etc etc

15 years ago a 4” travel suspension bike was a DH bike and any “serious” MTB rider wouldn’t entertain such an inefficient sponge soaking up all their energy on the climbs,

15 years ago a 4" travel suspension bike probably rode like a dog uphill – now you can get 6" bikes that aren't too heavy that you can pedal around just fine.

I do agree that it seems now lots of people think they need a £2000 'all-mountain' full suspension bike as their first mtb, but that doesn't make them shit.

cookeaa…. agree with you completely.

grumm…. re. your second point. i think he means that in the mags they write you need 'X' travel for each given riding style. not here on stw.

The point of riding is to go downhill. Even my race bike I chose because it'd be quicker downhill and in technical sections because that's my strengths and I can still drag myself up hills fine. My big hardtail is just fine at serious downhill, thanks.

Downhills=fun climbs= the challenge to get tehre, but not the main point of the ride.

100mm stem on my race bike, 50mm on my others.

A race is won on the climbs and lost on the descents… or something. Whilst a good descender can get so far in an XC race, fitness is more important. Why have a race bike which you've set up for descending, why not just ride a 'trail' bike (serious question)?

you all seem to see HT’s as somehow having become un-ridable for any serious up or downhill use

Not at all. Riding my FS has a higher free-wheeling and pedal-cruising top speed, esp. cornering, because of the added stability from the rear-sus. But the HT it's a bit sharper climbing, at slow-speed steering and accelerating

What are you looking for in a review then. A technical break down of how well a bike climbs and how much faster it will make you?

Plus how technical are we talking here when you mention this need to have trials like skills to get up some trails?

My hardtail climbs pretty badly but it makes it for it when going down. I demo'd a spec enduro last year and it climbed amazingly when compared to my ht but going downhill the longer stem and steep head angle made it feel much worse.

My favourite ride so far was on a Cove Hustler, climbed nice, felt just like my hardtail going down (though a bit nicer due to rear suss) and was also lighter.

Look at his photo

I have a similar problem with ski mags being too freeride oriented these days. Yes, I board off-piste when the opportunity and lowish-risk level is there, but it's not the mainstay of my boarding so I find the mags boring. Freeride/DH is not the mainstay of my bike riding either.

What are you looking for in a review

Well I think I agree with the OP. It's not specifically about bike reviews. More about the impressions from turning the pages of bike mags.

I have a similar problem with ski mags being too freeride oriented these days.

Isn't it just that freeride is more exciting/interesting than other aspects of skiing (or biking) though? I mean obviously it can get dull, but to me pictures of someone gapping a huge river on a bike or riding some crazy mountain face on a board is a bit more interesting than 'man skis down piste at moderate speed'.

Seen the photo, i'm sure that's do-able on a light/mid weight bike with enough rider skill and fitness (not saying by me though).

Can't really comment too much on magazines as I only really read Dirt and their mainstay is DH/Freeride and a bit of DJ so the ads and reviews work just fine.

geda, i forgot you were in sweden. that makes everything clear! i think you're down in skane? when i've been out wandering about around stockholm (without bike, all the family fishes) i've often thought about the tricky, rooty, rocky nature of a lot of the tracks, esp as i've never seen anyone riding them which in itself might be a clue!

that said i'm used to riding this type of terrain where i am and, most of the time get along with it, usually on my xc ht but these days i'm succumbing to the darkside that is fs. tyres are an issue for sure but not as big as rider style. i ride with what my regular riding partner describes as 'ridiculous pressures' but i ride on the road a lot so low pressures just seems un-natural! he, on the other hand, rides v low pressure and tubeless and while he may be slower on the straight uphill on the technical section he gets to show off just how much better he is in the skills department.

i've always had light xc bikes, never felt the need for anything else as my manly girth is enough weight to carry. what the magazines say? who cares! there's a bike out there for everyone

The contents of magazine is all about selling magazines and hence advertising space, it doesn't necessarily reflect what actually goes on at the grassroots of the sport.

Sorry Grumm what I was trying to say was that the tone of this thread suggested the only bike worth owning was a 4" full bouncer, obviously STW as a whole is full of die hard SS, Rigid, HT riders…

As for my Doddy comment, Nope I stand by it, he is a toss bag, I finally stopped reading Future's various comics years ago, about the time he reared his annoying bean shaped head; can't stand the fella, seems his best trick is jumping on whatever cycling bandwagon is going, has very little of use to offer yet another worthless member of the cycling fashionista..
Am I a snob? probably, but like all snobs I like to think it's taste and judgement 😉

The term "Over-biked" seems to be chucked about more these days, I see plenty of people on expensive bikes grabbing fistfulls of brake wearing harrased and flushed faces on the simplest of descents, most don't seem to have their mood enhanced by having some goon on a HT worth a quarter of their own bike zip past, the same riders don't look to be enjoying the climbs either, I can't really see the fun in it if they are this misserable when riding…

Isn't it just that freeride is more exciting/interesting than other aspects of skiing (or biking)

Quite possibly. But what they are doing is so far removed from my experience that I lose interest 🙁

I should stop reading mags and ride more (except ST obviously)

Njee- I've struck a fine balance between DH and tech capability and lightweight. A trail bike would be too heavy and bobby up hills, you know how it is. Also, it doesn't have that rangy top tube length. However, when I'm racing, I excel on the techy bits so prefer a bike that panders to that.

Still, got the results to back up the fact that I can ride up hills last weekend, when I thought I was undertrained and overweight, so I must be doing something right 😉

@buzz-lightyear – Most mags are like that for me too.

Give XXC a try. It's well removed from my own experience, but it's inspirational rather than 'Why?'.