XC vs Trail/All Mountain

Turbo124

What is the general view on XC vs Trail full sussers? Does it even matter? The more I look into the details of specific bikes, I'm starting to think XC bikes represent better value (around the 2-2.5k mark)... I'm sure the weight saving should be more beneficial than the extra travel.

Yes, it will depend on the type of riding you do, but for the average off road rider who does a bit of everything, will you really miss the extra 10-30mm travel that you seem to get on Trail bikes compared to XC, if you can save around 1kg?

(I've been looking at the Lapierre XR 529 (XC) vs Specialized Camber Comp Carbon (Trail)... both 2013 29ers, both Carbon, similar specs and prices, but the Lapierre is over 1kg lighter while the Specialized has a bit more travel)

supersonic

There is also the geometry to look at - XC bikes tend to be longer, lower and steeper for quicker handling and easier climbing.

Turbo124

Agreed - although each manufacturer seems to publish different measurements which can make comparison tricky. I've compared the head tube angle etc for a few XC and Trail bikes and often there seems to be no difference at all - tempted to think all these classifications of mtb types are 90% a marketing ploy (aside from downhillers)... maybe that's a little cynical though!

lawman

Turbo124 wrote:

Agreed - although each manufacturer seems to publish different measurements which can make comparison tricky. I've compared the head tube angle etc for a few XC and Trail bikes and often there seems to be no difference at all - tempted to think all these classifications of mtb types are 90% a marketing ploy (aside from downhillers)... maybe that's a little cynical though!

There usually is a difference, for example a Whyte m109 has a 69.5 degree headangle, where as the t-129's headangle is 68 degrees. That 1.5 degrees makes a huge difference, so whilst some might look similar on paper they will ride very differently and it depends on your preferences. I like a long, but still light bike with slack angles and a long wheelbase, where as some like Supersonic prefers a shorter, faster reacting bike. You have to spend a long time actually riding the bikes you're looking at to see which you prefer the feel and ride of.

rockmonkeysc

Get some demo rides. Bikes don't always behave as their claimed geometry suggests they should.
I'm quite an aggressive rider and I find 120mm travel enough for XC riding.

The Rookie

Not to mention you can over simplify geo using 1 value...

Example the Carrera Fury and Rockrider 8.1 have the same headtube angle, yet due to the different seatube angle it rides very differently. (Data from recent MBUK test)

concorde

Turbo124 wrote:

Agreed - although each manufacturer seems to publish different measurements which can make comparison tricky. I've compared the head tube angle etc for a few XC and Trail bikes and often there seems to be no difference at all - tempted to think all these classifications of mtb types are 90% a marketing ploy (aside from downhillers)... maybe that's a little cynical though!

I've done the same comparison and there's pretty much ALWAYS a difference!

ilovedirt

supersonic wrote:

There is also the geometry to look at - XC bikes tend to be longer, lower and steeper for quicker handling and easier climbing.

Not really, my Ragley is silly long and low, but very slack.
It's all in the geometry for me, I prefer a bike that has the geometry to inspire confidence on the descents rather than some skinny XC machine for getting up the hills faster.

supersonic

As I said, there is the geometry to look at ;-)

ilovedirt

Yeah, but I wouldn't say XC bikes are longer or lower as a rule. In fact a gravity oriented AM bike will probably be lower and longer than an XC race machine.

thelonegroover

The Ragley Bagger is surely a trail bike, whereas the Piglet would be there take on an XC bike, with the Blue Pig somewhere between.

supersonic

ilovedirt wrote:

Yeah, but I wouldn't say XC bikes are longer or lower as a rule. In fact a gravity oriented AM bike will probably be lower and longer than an XC race machine.

Neither did I lol, just that they tend to be. With shorter forks and usually low rise bars (or none) the front end of an xc bike is low to start with. Couple that with a lengthy reach and you are going to be in a more 'flat back' position on average.