Wide bars

allthegearnoidea

Yup, I'm with above, I Really don't like going Up! Its a necessary evil! I'd much rather have Downwards performance than Up!
I Never make an effort to go upwards!

lawman

supersonic wrote:

You can't really have it both ways - you design a bike with slacker geo to be stable (especially on the downs) and it suffers on the ups - at least with the way I ride. Sure recent trends have steepened the seat angle to get weight forward, but longer forks with slacker head angles have longer front centres and seem to stutter on more technical climbs, and feel vague on tight twisty single track. Is each to their own, but I value climbing and flat performance over descending and much prefer a bike designed to do so. And I am a hell of a lot faster on such a bike, even around Wharncliffe XC route. And with 635mm bars ;-). of course the light weight helps too, but some people do prefer XC based set ups, even for more 'technical riding'.

It's each to their own I for one wouldn't ride a steep narrow barred bike if someone paid me, for me such a bike takes the fun out of a trail. I've found for technical climbing a simple change in body position, moving your weight further forward alleviates the light feeling front end on all bu the steepest climbs, we have a short, sharp, steep climb on my local ride, littered with rocks and roots and I've only cleared it on the HD and 456, never did it on my old maxlight, which had a crazy steep head angle and you would argue was designed for climbing such a trail. I was probably abit fitter when I had that too. If you alter your technique to compensate for any potential short falls, you'll end up with a quicker descending bike that climbs as well, if not better in some cases. It's all down to personal preference, I can see why people like the old school steep/narrow, but for me it just takes the enjoyment out of a trail.

BlueAdvocate

allthegearnoidea wrote:

Yup, I'm with above, I Really don't like going Up! Its a necessary evil! I'd much rather have Downwards performance than Up!
I Never make an effort to go upwards!

Agreed; as I've mentioned in another post the the greatest improvements to climbing I could make is getting fitter and losing weight.
Its about the downhill for me.

supersonic

Fun is subjective, as we all know. There are plenty of people who think that blasting downhill with loads of travel takes away an element of fun!

There is no doubt that in the 20 years I have been riding that people are riding harder, and bikes have got more stable with more travel. Even XC bikes. Possibly as I was brought up with the 'old school' bikes I have got used to the way they handle and this is what I now prefer. It is, of course, all about finding your sweet spot. You could argue that if I like bikes steep and fast handling why don't I ride a Cyclocross bike? Equally you could argue why aren't the slackers (!) all riding 8 inch travel bikes everywhere, as, after all, you say you can compensate on the ups and just get fitter?

My general riding involves a mix of trails. I am not the fittest anymore due to health reasons, so lightweight allows me to go further, climb easier and get round more quickly. I actually find the downs exhilarating as it takes more input to get the bike where you want. Some find this fun! But I don't go stupidly light, there is an eye on durability, and I have more than my 63mm of travel of old.

Of course I have more than one bike, and sometimes a change in itself breathes new life into trails. But for all round trail riding, the fast and nimble zaskar team has the perfect blend of qualities I need.

bennett_346

I'm certainly a "less is more" man when it comes to travels. And i prefer how steep angles feel in corners etc. Used to have a long slack bike with lots of travel and it sapped the fun and skill out of trails, and tbh felt crap on steep stuff because it washed out when you tried to steer because there was no weight over the front.

Also, i like being able to reach the top with minimal effort so i have more energy for the down!