Define XC,Trail,AM
DR1V3R
Posts: 79
Since getting back into mountain biking after a 10 year break I am intrigued by these terms which seem to have appeared. It seems that now people on forums seem to have very definate ideas about which bikes/parts are suitable for each particular type of riding i.e "dont use those forks they are for cross country not riding trails" etc. etc.
This is causing me a lot of confusion! When I was last into biking I used to race downhill on a Marin b17 which had STX cranks and RST Hi 5 forks if I was going to use this bike now it would not be suitable(I know that dowhilling has changed a lot over the last ten years but that is not the point)
This gets even more confusion when you go to the RockShox website for example, some of their forks are in the trail section and the XC section. Surely a XC fork can handle a bit of speed and a few jumps?
So back to my original question, what is XC, Trail, AM?
Cheers
DR1V3R
This is causing me a lot of confusion! When I was last into biking I used to race downhill on a Marin b17 which had STX cranks and RST Hi 5 forks if I was going to use this bike now it would not be suitable(I know that dowhilling has changed a lot over the last ten years but that is not the point)
This gets even more confusion when you go to the RockShox website for example, some of their forks are in the trail section and the XC section. Surely a XC fork can handle a bit of speed and a few jumps?
So back to my original question, what is XC, Trail, AM?
Cheers
DR1V3R
0
Comments
-
It's along the lines of:
XC: 80-100mm travel, lightweight, steeper angles.
Trail: 120-140mm travel light enough to ride XC, but slacker angles and built to take some bigger hits. The all rounder.
AM: 160mm+ travel, pretty heavy, tough and more downhill biased, but can still climb a bit too.0 -
In simple terms:
If it's all very lightweight, narrow tyred and with 4" of travel or a hardtails and flat bars it's XC. The roadies of the MTB world, Lycra’d up and very fit.
If it's got 2.1 Tyres slightly more robust and more comfortable with 5"s it's a Trail bike, which 90% of people in Britain need. Climbs well and better at jumps/drops than an XC bike.
If it's got 2.3 tyres, two rings up front, burly frame and 6" of travel it's all-mountain. Technically the most extreme you can go whilst still maintaining some climbing prowess. it's what 90% of British riders want (hence why some of the latest 6" bikes actually ride like a 5" bike from a few years back - progress, I think not). They're great fun at trail centres but a little over-biked anywhere else.
Same as above with a coil shock and even slacker sturdier 7” frame it's Freeride.
8" plus with super strong bits, super slack head angle and triple clamps it's DH.
These are the marketing terms anyway. Loads of exceptions that prove the rule and aside from the extremes you can ride pretty much what you like, where you like. It's a case of how well you want to climb and how fast you want to come back down again0 -
^^^^^ I'd agree with that, Trail and XC parts are generally interchange-able, but they can both climb well. The trail will descend a bit better than the XC, and the All-Mountain will descend even better.
I would say that AM would have 150mm+ travel though, although some bikes...Like the Scott Genius will overlap!
92% of teenagers have turned to rap. If your one of the 8% that still listens to real music put this in your sig
Walk (Ride) softly and carry a big fish
Yay, 100 hundred posts :-)0 -
Howabout frame sizes?? for xc, trail and am?
If you go up a few inches in suspension do you go down a frame size?? just a thought as i have a 17" xc bike whick fits perfectly, while my new toy is the same frame size but has 140mm travel and its massive when sat next to my xc bike.0 -
lm_trek wrote:Howabout frame sizes?? for xc, trail and am?
If you go up a few inches in suspension do you go down a frame size?? just a thought as i have a 17" xc bike whick fits perfectly, while my new toy is the same frame size but has 140mm travel and its massive when sat next to my xc bike.
Nah, it's all the same.
Some people will go down a size for FR or DH just to make it easier to throw about.
Most companies list sizes in XS, S, M, L, XL nowadays anyway.0 -
Well no, the geometry does change. XC bikes will have longer top tubes, for instance. But that does depend on what frame you're getting. And manufacturers will recommend getting smaller sizes as you go from xc to trail to am to fr to dh etc.0
-
interestingly, I took out both of my bikes for 2 separate rides on Saturday and Sunday.
As can be seen from my signature, one is an 6"ish AM bike which has been built up to be abused, but completely capable of long climbs as well as rough downs.
The other is an 8" FR/DH bike (I can still use the term freeride because I've got a dual ring up front
).
I wanted to compare the time it took me to complete a circular route that I ride often on my AM bike.
The route is pretty tight and technical in many places, with a fair bit of climbing and descending, buckets full of roots, rocks and mud. There aren't many flowing sections, but there are lots of very technical sections and a couple of lung busting climbs and flat out descents.
My AM bike weighs 31lbs and by FR/DH weighs 39lbs.
Given that I've got an RP23 on my AM which can be adjusted on the fly to help with climbs, and the FR/DH has no lock out at all, I expected that the AM bike would be much faster.
My average time on the AM is around 25 minutes.
It took me about 26 minutes on the FR/DH! I couldn't believe it!
I really felt the weight and extra effort of the bigger bike on the climbs, and obviously the 8" of bounce didn't help with the lung busters!
However, every time the trail evened out or pointed back down, the FR/DH must have made up a silly amount of time. I was able to blast through routes that I would normally have picked carefully on my AM bike, and carry speed much easier.
It was my intention to build up the FR/DH bike so that it could be used most places my AM bike can be, but with a bit more effort on the ups, but I was blown away by how capable it actually was as an all round bike.
After that, I've decided I'm not selling it anymore! It's bloody brilliant!0 -
If it's got 2.3 tyres, two rings up front, burly frame and 6" of travel it's all-mountain. Technically the most extreme you can go whilst still maintaining some climbing prowess. it's what 90% of British riders want (hence why some of the latest 6" bikes actually ride like a 5" bike from a few years back - progress, I think not). They're great fun at trail centres but a little over-biked anywhere else.
I think the opposite of this is true.
All-mountain bikes like my Pitch are fantastic for going fast down really rocky stuff in the Lakes or Alps, and can handle a DH course, but for normal trail centres they are probably overkill as the surface is generally groomed and doesn't require all that suspension.0 -
grumsta wrote:but for normal trail centres they are probably overkill as the surface is generally groomed and doesn't require all that suspension.
Yeah I was thinking that too.
yoohoo999, sure you weren't just warmed up after the first lap on the AM bike? Also, for a 25 minute lap, you might not notice the fatigue from having to haul the FR/DH bike up climbs and such.0 -
[quote="RealMan
yoohoo999, sure you weren't just warmed up after the first lap on the AM bike? Also, for a 25 minute lap, you might not notice the fatigue from having to haul the FR/DH bike up climbs and such.[/quote]
Quite - do three laps of the same route on each bike and take that time, you may begin to notice some differences!
I did a loop on my Heckler which is probably around the 30lb mark which I have previously done on my hardtail (say 26lb) - I was slower on the heckler but not by a huge amount, maybe 10 mins or so for a 18-20 mile loop that takes hour and half on hardtail - but I could feel the effects in my legs far more than I would have on the hardtail - on the plus side I couldn't feel it in my back!Closet jockey wheel pimp whore.0 -
no, the runs I did were on completely separate days and were the first runs of the day. Both in the morning too, with similar conditions.
Yes, I was more knackered after the 26 minute run on the Shore One, but for every climb that really took it out of me I was able to be much more loose and relaxed on the way down.
I do agree that 3 hours doing the same type of riding would be more hard going on the Shore One, but then again, I wouldn't take it out intending to do 3 hours of riding which involved lots of climbing.....I would take the Pitch!
It's just interesting to see that it was able to keep up with my AM bike on what is effectively a technical XC route.
Later on the Sunday I was out with some mates, one on a hardtail, one on my Pitch and me on the Shore One. I was never last to the top of a climb (although they aren probably less fit than me, which isn't saying much!) and I bombed away on the gravity assisted sections. In addition, I tended to blaze through some of the rock garden/root covered areas without a care.
It's nowhere near as restrictive or hard work as I thought it would be. Very pleasantly surprised. Although admittedly, I did find some more energy on the climbs when I jumped back on my Pitch for the last couple of runs of the day! (but at the same time, found myself easing off on the descents, really noticed a difference in my confidence)0 -
There is a lot of overlap.
Sizes - whatever fits best! Try them out.0
