170 mm enduro bike vs 130 mm trail bike - and the power meter is the judge! We rode a test loop with two very different bikes (YT Capra and YT Izzo) to figure out where each one excels, which one is fastest, and maybe answer the question of which one you should get for the kind of riding you do. This wasn't meant to be a comparison of just the frames, but rather the complete bikes with the appropriate build for each intended intended use case, to put some numbers to the trade-offs you make when speccing tires, suspension components, etc. So while the bikes are running the same make and model of tires for example, the enduro bike has DH casings with the stickiest compound front and rear, while the short travel bike gets trail casings and a faster model and compound in the rear. Check out our findings as we crunch some numbers below, and chime in with your own thoughts and observations on how to pick the best tool for the job at hand.
Do it with the same rotating weight and it might say something!
It'd be really nice if you could set up that test with control wheels, tires, and drivetrain.
To see the impact of just the frame geo + suspension you mean?
pretty good test and finally control tyres not being used upsetting bike category.
trail tyres for trail bike and dh tyres for big bike.
however, swapping them wouldve been interesting aswell.
Without VO2 and measuring the metabolic work any comparison is just bro science vibes.
Yes, exactly. It'd be a very valid test because for people who are only going to have one bike, it will tell them what they're sacrificing for that extra travel. They probably won't be using DH tires on their long-travel trail bike if that's the only bike they have and they pedal up. Lots of people over-bike because they like the extra squish. My 170/165 is built up mostly the same as my 160/145, and not very different in spec than my 160 hardtail.
This was pretty cool. Thanks for putting the time in to put this together.
Why? To see what happens when you put heavy wheels on a light bike? I think it was a good test/experiment. It took two bikes from the same brand that are both popular and tested on the same trail to see which was physically more taxing to ride and which one was faster.
Would be cool to see how both compare over 3 rides on each when the ride is a 3+ hour loop. See if that extra travel helps you stay in control when your tired. How much longer it takes on the big bike. This would be a multi week test but the results would be good to see.
That seems extremely redundant
And some of us ride Dh tires on hardtails, Dh bikes, and trail bikes. (Front is Dh casing on Dh only).
Going by the results it seems buy the bike that makes sense for your riding. Cause the efficiency is not drastic enough to really warrant extra mechanicals or having to ride with some extra caution.
This is why I ride a spire Xc bike . Becasue after 3 hours, I can still smash recklessly and survive
Stupid trails here out a bike park dh at the end of an alpine climb . And man, do I need more travel when I’m that tired !!
Fab test. Would love to see it on the same tyres to answer: if I can only buy 1 bike, but switch tyres depending on where I am riding, which should it be?
Actually, scrap that, N+1
Good test!
What i also would like to see, is how rough does a trail need to be to make a bigger bike faster/better.
Say you have bikes with about 120mm, 140mm and 160mm travel, and 3-4 trails thats are smooth to really rough.
And then you time each bike in each trail to see when the bikes reach their limit, and the difference between bikes on different terrain.
Enduro and Trail bikes have almost identical pedal efficiency, until you stand up 🤣 then the enduro bike loses out
Enduro bike vs trail bike with same wheels and tires = same effort. The extra squish and slight weight increase costs you nothing
We might be measuring sag "wrong", but as long as we're measuring the same "wrong" every, time, that's a good start, but also are the bike designers measuring it the same "wrong" as us? Or when they say "use 28% sag", if they know it's 28% sag at the o-ring (even if it's designed for something else at the wheel), then it's daft measuring it any other way than the way we've all been doing it
Agreed.
To me, setting sag is not about "getting the right number" it's more about "getting to a repeatable reference point that leads us to the result we want."
30% (or whatever) isn't some magic number. On my bike, for my riding, 28% works better even though their starting recommendation is 30%. I remember hearing about a frame whose designers recommend a little closer to 33% (I THINK it was a Forbidden frame but I can't remember).
...but I think you meant for this to be in a different thread.
https://www.vitalmtb.com/forums/hub/have-we-been-measuring-sag-wrong-and-how-fix-it
Yah I think if this happened there wouldn't not be as great a difference as people think there would be.
So this past 2 yr or so I went from a 165mm build then moved all my parts to a 138mm frame (Similiar weight too). Since then I have moved back to the 165mm frame (same parts) then lightened up said 165mm build this spring mainly in rotational weight.
My take away was with a burly build the drop from a 165mm frame to a 138mm frame wasn't worth it to me. It didn't pop or pedal so much better that the capability and comfort lost was worth it at all. When I went back to the 165mm frame again with the same build I didnt really feel like I lost any pedal capability at all.
Now then, same 165 build, I lightened up a rear rim, went to a way lighter cassette, took an insert out of a front wheel, and am running a very light insert out back. Both front and rear are now on very light exo / exo + ish weight tire casings. That weight shed (plus a new wider gear range) made way more difference in pedaling then the shorter travel frame ever did.
Anyway wheel weight and tire compound / tread pattern make a bigger difference I think in my opinion.
@iceman2058 I'm afraid this is a partially flawed test!
Once you measure power at the crank, not much happens further down the power delivery line.
As engineer/ youTuber (www.youtube.com/peaktorque) suggested to pinkbike after their version of this test: It would be much more telling to measure vital functions of the rider - tax he has to pay on a particular bike chassis to produce those Watts.
Test mainly measures differences in friction, rolling resistance, and mass acceleration in the drivetrain/wheel.
Subjective feel might actually be more telling in case of comparing the frames.
With all that, you did caveat that this is a test of wheels/tires as well. And that's something I use myself a lot. I have 150/130 trailbike with enduro set of wheels/tires (2050g, EXO+ & DD, maxxterra) and a XC set (1650g, EXO, terra & speed). The difference it makes to the character, especially cruising and climbing performance, is very easily felt.
EN set (2050g, DHR II, EXO+ & DD, maxxterra)
XC set (1650g, Rekon & Ardent race, EXO, maxxterra & speed)
Always get the Nomad.
All the people commenting about the tires needing to be the same is missing the point. I don't want to put a rekon exo tire on a 170mm bike unless I want to fix a flat every ride. I purchase an enduro bike to push it descending in technical terrain, the tires need to keep up to that task.
I personally run an aggressive tread Enduro front / DH rear casing on my big bike and slightly faster tread Trail / Enduro casing on my little bike, because I don't like fixing flats.
Another thing that is tough to measure in a test, but something to consider between these two bike styles is that while the enduro bike may be slower in sections of trails, it provides a greater margin for error. So less skilled riders may prefer a more capable bike with lighter tires to progress, but still climb fast enough. Or a more skilled rider may choose to overbike to do dumber shit and get away with it, even though it could be slower. I've also found that in some cases I can clean more technical climbs on my big bike due to the additional traction from both the suspension and more aggressive tires. Its not always about the clock.
For me this test is valid, and great.
I agree the test is valid. It's a typical Enduro build versus a Trail build, can't argue with that.
People (me included) now want to answer the next question that is from all the differences between the two bikes, which had the greatest effect.
I used to run a Pivot Firebird, coil both ends, FR1950, short cranks, so as burley as it can be built. I put Exo tyres on it for the Surrey hills, and ran the suspension stiff to make it responsive. Then I fitted DH tyres for more gnarly riding. I only had room for this or a trail bike, Stumpy evo was the contender. My Firebird was an enduro bike setup to feel like a trail bike. Was this a huge mistake, would I have been better off overall with a trail bike? That's why this video caught my attention because it provides insight into the purchasing decisions that bikers have to make, but it's a tease because it answers the headline question but now we're all intrigued about component choice and understanding where the differences come from.
Post a reply to: Enduro vs. Trail Bike - Pedaling Efficiency Measured