Posts
40
Joined
12/23/2019
Location
AO
Edited Date/Time
4/14/2020 2:39am
So I designed this thing, a 205-220mm travel (currently at 215mm) Downhill bike. I've been riding it almost everyday since I was able to tune the suspension to my liking (ditched the harsh EXT for an X2). It performs very nicely as a downhill bike going down yet still climbs like any other efficient enduro bike can.
Sure, enduro bikes have become more capable and are creeping up to downhill travel numbers but why don't bike companies just go all the way. They keep teasing us with slight increments every year.
There must be a market for such bikes, I'm enjoying mine so much.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/community/Lan,51029/setup,40252
While I'm the first to suggest "more travel" for the less-than-real pros out there, I do feel 200mm+ is a bridge too far, at least in North America.
What you gain in forgiveness and your ability to take the straight line just about anywhere, you give up in finding speed through pumping terrain features. Plus, with that much travel, doubling certain features can be a challenge. Out of saddle sprinting efforts, too, are penalized.
All that said, depending on your style it may just be the ticket! As I've blabbered about in the past, for us less-than-real-pro riders looking to have fun racing the more burly events, more travel makes a lot of sense. We aren't going to get a contract from some pro race team, so staying off the ground and having fun is really the end goal. A bike with more travel gives a rider more margin for error and is easier to ride at the end of a 14 minute stage (or similar).
Regardless, rad bike!
In order to realize a 200 mm enduro bike, I think suspension technology would have to advance to the point where, forks/ shocks could change suspension travel 30-40 mm, on the fly, without effecting frame geometry or spring rate.
Adjustable suspension in the past had to suck down through travel to achieve lower travel (when desired) which changes frame geo and fork/ shock spring rate.
Enduro races just don't have the same amplitude of trail obstacles as they tend to be relatively less sculpted
I would definitively something with a bit more negative travel then some good support to keep it playfull then some bottomless plushness when going big.
Having more travel/sag is a much better option than the marginal gain in traction a spring might have over air.
The hard truth is that it is more difficult to squeeze more travel in an efficient pedal platform.
Most 29er designs are stuck at 140mm of travel unless they move their pivot way higher like in this example.
What do you see Enduro tires as? Are you optimizing the chassis around it? No point in calling it Enduro, if you feel like the tires are being overwhelmed and you instead run DH tires; people say the same about XC tires on gravel bikes, that there's no point in the frame you change the tires.
This is the perspective I see others having, when they say this is "too much" to be called Enduro. They're seeing trail bikes that can be ridden on DH tracks, while perhaps others are seeing pedal-able DH bikes that don't need shuttles/lifts. Still, gotta be optimized for a 1/4 HP human motor, else you start wandering into pedal-assist territory, which is its own ethical minefield.
That being said I do actually like this new crop of "super enduro" (Spesh Enduro, Slayer, Superfoxy, ect) bikes popping up, because they help it make sense for someone like me (2hrs from a bike park, not many shuttle options) to own a big travel monster. I'm not racing dh, I want a dh bike with 12 speed and a dropper. Totally think theres a market for that, except....enter E-Bikes
E-bikes are gonna distract everyone from this (including me, my next bike will have a motor) and we're gonna go for "short" travel (~150mm) again in order to get the poppyness out of the extra weight. I'm experiencing this deciding between the 165mm 27.5 Decoy an d the 145mm 29er Decoy. Spent a good bit of time on the longer travel and spoiler alert, its planted, and thats it. (not saying thats a bad thing for riders that want it)
Not interested in getting in an E-Bike debate here. It makes a ton of sense for someone like me with tons of backcountry trails that have little to no shuttle options and riders.
I think the 29er rear wheels negates the need for another 25mm of travel.
Its basically the bike i wished existed for the last 20 years. Id rather have a high quality 175 rather than a "good" 200.
My bike started with a Fox X2 and it was way harsh.
I changed to EXT Storia and it's easily the plushest shock of the last 20 years - by miles
It sounds like you really want "freeride" bikes to make a comeback, no? I feel fairly confident when I say you are an outlier in that regard. Those bikes really disappeared because nobody wanted them. They were too portly to really go ride up a hill or pedal for long periods of time. DH bikes also got a lot lighter, so if that's what you wanted, you might as well go that way.
I see more choice in the market now, than ever. To the point I sometimes am unsure what direction to point someone. I am not aware of one company using the same molds for various models, either.
You are focusing on a fork test that I don't think is a representation of the market. Most people aren't hucking to flat. That isn't what they are asking for out of their suspension. They are looking for the suspension to ultimately help control the bike. I am positive my Lyrik or 36 far outperforms with respect to this task compared to the Totem of yesteryear. As far as the uber pros using their travel at speed in the gnar, well...isn't that the point? Isn't the idea to use the travel when things get rough and gnarly? Why have it, otherwise?
Outside of racing, I think most people are realizing they are actually *over biked*. Most trails don't require 160mm+. Most people have more fun on a 130mm bike. Most people like to find transition and like to be as smooth as possible.
Two suggestions...
1) The poster's bike would work really well as a freeride bike.
2) Go watch a BMX video if you want to see what is really possible with *no* suspension
TRAVEL NUMBERS DICTATE MORE THAN JUST PEDALING EFFICIENCY AND BUMP ABSORPTION.
Even if a long-travel bike is light and feels "efficient" pedaling up a gravel fire road, it's going to ride like shit on a flattish pumpy trail. Long travel bikes are built to carry speed. Big travel absorbs forces and creates traction. Those qualities are great on a steep downhill track, but horrible on a flatter trail where you have to generate speed constantly. The squishy travel absorbs bumps, but it also absorbs your body inputs to generate speed.
One of the local trail spots in Portland is Sandy Ridge. There's a long, smooth asphalt climb to the top, followed by a bunch of IMBA spec trails cut into a rocky PNW hillside with litte patches of dirt on the way down. The descents are kinda rough and rocky, but they're really flat and, even worse, the geniuses who built the place covered every smooth section of trail with abrupt, speed-killing "pump" bumps. You know, for "flow." There are a million switchbacks, all of the berms are too tight, and you carry no speed out of them. I hate riding there, but I do all the time because... I'm an idiot.
To ride Sandy Ridge fast, you have to pump like crazy. It feels like I'm rowing a boat when I ride there. Even if my long travel bike pedals up the paved road "efficiently," it stills feels like I'm dying a long death riding down Sandy on my big bike because it bogs down on every pump bump and mutes every opportunity to build speed. The bike absorbs all my effort. By contrast, a short travel bike pumps up to speed quickly and helps me motor across all the flat bullshit. A bike like a Tallboy or an Optic would be perfect out there: meaty tires that won't flat, geometry that can go fast, but short travel that I can pump up to speed like a dual slalom bike.
This is the reason we happily "fork up" with 140 forks on 120mm bikes. Long travel rear ends significantly rob speed on mellow terrain, but longer travel forks don't. This is also the reason you see every enduro pro landing in the 150-160mm rear travel number and not riding 170-180mm bikes even when they're available. Apparently the pros have concluded that the trails in the EWS are mixed enough (steep mixed with flat, smooth mixed with rough) that the tradeoff for more travel is too great.
I'm pretty sure all of the RMB Enduro riders will be on Slayers this year. (170/170).
So my original thought was especially because there’s sooo many 160mm+ travel Enduro bikes out there and a lighter duty 15mm axle dual crown would be the perfect park bike tool.
Fox shock from 10 y ago is the most tunable, not the most advanced shock
Back to the topic, I'm not saying everyone should be riding 200mm Enduro bikes or that they are suitable to most trails. Heck it's probably too much bike for an intermediate hack like me.
They do have some merits I think.
For one with some trails even if they are perfectly rideable on current enduro bikes you just go faster and get less fatigued on a full on downhill rig.
Only want one bike, ride park a lot but do enjoy the occasional mellower group ride? Here's your bike.
For beginners and intermediates with plenty of power to make use of the extra weight of the bike it's a viable option to grow in to. The bike has significantly decreased comfort braking for me and I'm hitting bigger and bigger stuff. Granted it might be more psychological than anything but the extra margin of error instills confidence.
Maybe another way of looking at it is that for some of us we want a downhill bike but the lack of gearing, inefficient seated pedaling position, lack of bottle cage is putting us off getting one. Maybe make DH bikes "enduro" and suddenly sales will boom?
Oh, and when I say my bike climbs efficiently I meant medium tech climbs and not just fire road ones. The steep seat angle and high bb seems to work well for that. Not the quickest but easily keeps up with 150/160 travel bikes.
Also wheelbase vs amount of suspension travel, Lately im thinking’s wheelbase > amount of travel for everything without massive hucks in it...
I ride what I call a downduro bike: nickname: Francenvinci Wilsonstein.
2012 Devinct Wilson aluminum frame 26" run mullet 27.5 > 26
Boxxer team 27.5 with AVY damper
Cassette: 11-34 10 speed
Chainring: 28 tooth Absolute Black oval
Dropper post: Reverb 125mm (need more mm but wont work with interrupted seat tube)
Tires: MM SG 2.35 x 27.5 and MM DH 2. x 26 (CC f&r)
Everything else is pretty standard mid 2010's DH stuff
The bike is slow, but it can be ridden without a CARE IN THE WORLD
You could just go across the street and ride your big bike too.
To my memory it covered enduro bike in the 170/180mm and 180/180mm enduro bikes ?
I do believe my own AluTech Fanes 5.0 with 170/180mm falls into that category.
And unless the trail is continuously steep downhill tracks i must agree with other here i see no benefit in going for the big travel bikes.
if on the fly travel adjustment with out compromising all the other aspects of the bike was possible to such an extent that you could go from 150-200 front and rear in an instant yes it would be beneficial other than that i really think the cons of a big travel bike results in more lost seconds that what can be gained from the pros of such travel
it also has a 212mm Vecnum Nivo Dropper, 32:9-46t cassette on 150mm hub.
I have had it set up with 27.5 front and rear with a Fox 40, but it was a bit heavy for wheel lifts, and the front wheel felt small after having some mullet bike setups. So now i am running it happily with 180mm 29" fork and 29" front wheel.
The seat angle is about 74deg, and i can get my post low enough to buzz the rear tire on the seatback at bottom out, and high enough to pedal up steep roads; i find this to be a major crux for most bikes.
It pedaled ok with a 34t ring but suspnesion pedaling kinemnatics works better with 32t, and is more useful gear range.
I have a dhx 5.0 coil shock on it with propedal, which is a digressive LSC valve, the knob is easily in reach and lubed up so it spins easily on the fly near the top or bottom of the trail. i only use it when i have a ways to go, it doesnt pedal badly anyways, if i get a good cadence going it is quite smooth and negligable, it just isnt as peppy when mashed on as a dw link bike.
The bike weighs 36 lbs, i can climb, decent, huck almost anything. i regularly jump into rough landings and case, it is really nice to have that extra 50mm of travel compared to an "enduro" bike. with the right kinematics setup and form travel does not have a bearing on how a bike pedals, it has everything to do with dynamic springrate and kinematics.
Axle to crown length of forks is fairly fixed. Longer axle to crown forks have a clear disadvantage. By shortening headtube, headset, slimming the toptube and going to dual crown forks we can shorten the stack height without limiting fork travel, but we cannot keep making big wheel bikes with long travel singlecrown forks and keep reasonable stackheights. When it comes to rear travel there is not the same limitus on stack height, cause it doesnt really exist.. if you were to make a similar contraiint it would be seat/seattube interfereance with rear tire. bikes with short chainstays have problems in this regard, if you are willing to realize the benifits of longer chainstays or move the lower saddle position forward this can be worked around, problem is most bikes are just copying specialized enduro still so thinking outside the box is hard and scary apparently, and the industry and media lackeys dont encourage it.
Post a reply to: Why are there still no 200mm+ Enduro bikes?