XC vs Trail

supersonic

It's sort of how I have done my Mongoose - has 65-115mm travel adjustment, 130mm forks, tough build. I only want the rear sus to take the sting out, don't really like longer travel rigs.

Short travel, strong, efficient suspension will become popular, and I think more riders will migrate from 'traditional' AM machines.

tom_howard

Briggo wrote:

See under the proposed categories I certainly wouldn't categorise my Whyte as an XC racer, I would have said its what you're wanting to call a 'mountain bike' i.e. more towards the trail bike area.

As a pro I wouldn't want to use it for racing, I would have classed say the Whyte 19C as a specialised peice of equipment for racing which is what you're wanting to classify as XC no.

Personal opinion strikes again causing havoc in the realms of categorisation.

tbh im not that familiar with the 809, but from your pics and what you have said, its fairly long, fairly low, short travel and fairly light when compared to say, your stumpy (its half the weight of my GT :shock: ) which are the 'look and pick up in a shop' factors of categorisation, so its an xc bike. Throw on a dropper post, 50mm stem, 750mm bars, a 140mm fork, a double and bash and gnarlier tyres then all those little changes make a big difference, thus changing it to what i would call a mountain bike, as it can cope with a bigger range of things than it could in 'xc mode'

tom_howard

Briggo wrote:

Hold on, 160mm up front = all mountaim but 100mm rear = XC? Holy crap where the hell does that one sit at?

I do like the look of that Distortion though

****bangs head against a brick wall******
AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH

its an (all) mountain bike, with 100mm rear travel, single individual features dont define the bike, every other aspect is (all) mountain so that is what defines it. not the one nuance!!!!

You wouldnt call every single chainringed bike a DJ bike would you?

AM I GETTING THROUGH YET?????

Briggo

Calm down, it was a joke.

Lets be honest theres never going to be an agreement on the amount of categories and whats categorised under each one, you sit here shouting out as though you're the lawmaker on the subject.

quartzknight

I will dig out this question. I'm on the verge of buying a more off-road bicycle. Either an XC or a Trail one.

What can I do on Trail I cannot do on an XC bike and the other way round?

I can give an example from my experience with Road and CX bikes:

Road bike:

• Bike: Quick, lightweight, swift, tight, rigid, thin tires
• Terrain: Mostly tarmac
• Riding: long-distance, racy conditions, more aero positions, less body weight balance needed, mostly one position

CX bike:

• Bike: heavier, sturdy, still swift though, slightly more relaxed than a road bike, thicker threaded tires
• Terrain: Mostly off-road, muddy, bumpy, hilly, rocky, rooty tracks, but still in the flatlands
• Riding: More comfort on bumpy surface, more body work balance, more technical on turns, allows for more surfaces, but slower on tarmac. Still be careful over the roots and bigger drops: you might find it hard to control weight distribution due to saddle height (faceplant alert!).

In these terms, how would you compare XC and Trail bikes?

cooldad

XC smaller longer stuff.
Trail bigger shorter stuff.

rockmonkeysc

They're all just mountain bikes. Test ride a few and buy one you like.
The lines are very blurred between categories so they are fairly meaningless.

Thewaylander

cooldad wrote:

XC smaller longer stuff.
Trail bigger shorter stuff.

Trail I'd also put on longer stuff, being more relaxed its far more comfortable on long rides.

cooldad

Define long. Some guys I ride with like 100 mile XC stuff.

I'd be both dead and bored doing that.

Thewaylander

cooldad wrote:

Define long. Some guys I ride with like 100 mile XC stuff.

I'd be both dead and bored doing that.

yup, that's what I'd use a trail bike for, xc bike would wreck my poor back with that position

The Rookie

How things evolve, when my litespeed frame was first produced (2004) it was marketed as a trail to all mountain frame, 100mm fork and rear adjustable for 100 or 120mm travel. Now it's firmly an XC frame.

Thewaylander

The Rookie wrote:

How things evolve, when my litespeed frame was first produced (2004) it was marketed as a trail to all mountain frame, 100mm fork and rear adjustable for 100 or 120mm travel. Now it's firmly an XC frame.

From 2004 the geometry is now probably pretty steep even by current XC standards aswell :P

The Rookie

It would be if it hadn't been slackened off, it's now the same as a current Anthem. Also lowered the BB to the same height as an Anthem.