[Closed] Those new fangled long and slack enduro bikes

The bike industry pushes all of its bikes on us - not just enduro ones.

however its a million miles away from the type of riding that me, and I suspect most people do.

I dunno.  In the hilly parts of the country there are plenty of people riding up hills and throwing themselves down the steep bits.  Our woods are full of tyre tracks disappearing into the trees and heading downwards.

I've got an old school equivalent of an enduro bike, and to be fair I go on stuff I could manage on any of my bikes, but it's a whole lot more fun on the long travel one.

No doubt people are being sold them inappropriately, but then those are the kind of people who always want the biggest and the most of all their kit, regardless of their skill level. Always been people like that, not just in MTBing.

Plus, there's enough stuff out there now to pick and choose (providing you know what you want, or are willing/able to play around to find what you want without the pressure of needing race results).

I have an 'enduro' bike that's a couple of years 'out of date' (and has just been superceded by a newer, longer, slacker, version). It's slack-ish and long-ish but by no means at the extremes of those characteristics. In a quest for fun, something that fits better, for the love of tinkering, or just to be different, I've gone 26+ with the wheels, gone super short on the stem, have moved the saddle right forward (making the reach unfashionably 20mm shorter) and will probably go 2 degrees slacker soon. It might all work amazingly or be a total frankenbike dog, but the point is, the bikes and kit available now are versatile enough to let me try all this out to get something that suits me and where and what I ride.

Sure, I'm as susceptible as anyone to some marketing crap (especially when it comes from my 'chosen' brand) but I think I manage to resist the big mass market pressures fairly well (although I do admit to being drawn towards trends slightly on the edges of the mainstream).

Well it's definitely more fun riding techie stuff on a big bike no doubt. Mine is a giant trance from 2015 with 160 forks, off set bushes, wide bars, 50 mm stem etc so it's by no means obsolete.

But most of the time it's used on trails well within its capability. It might not bulldoze through everything, but it's nimble and well suited to most of the stuff I ride, which isn't particularly steep. Sure modern geo may be better on 15% of my descents but I'm not convinced it would be advantageous on the rest of them.

That said.. I've never riddance bike with a huge reach.. Maybe I'm missing out

the bikes the industry is pushing on us

Are they?

No one is forcing you to buy anything you don't like.

But most of the time it’s used on trails well within its capability.

Sounds like a good excuse to get out more to places with more challenging riding.

These EWS races are fun to watch and I guess they push innovation ahead with these races. The professional race bikers don't use extremely "long" nor extremely "slack" bikes in EWS as far as I understand.

I'am a trail biker and totally happy with 140/140 or 150/150 full suspension or 130 mm hardtails. Companies which build nice Enduro bikes often build All Moutain bikes and trail bikes as well. If customers don't inform themselves and end up over-biked...- not really the fault of the companies.

Enduro is made for racing. Don't have a problem with that. I'am not in racing but I like to be informed what's going on in EWS and admire the Enduro race-bikers. Hell - they have the best time of their life ending up in such a team!

Long and slack: agree a bit. This formula is way too simple. Takes much more to build a fun bike or a fast Enduro bike. A short bike with bit "older" geo can be so much fun....and quite often these bikes are fast as well - needs only modern tyres, rims, forks and shocks...

Trail bikes: guess very difficult to find a bad trail bike when going out for shopping. The mountain bike companies all ended up with very nice bikes right now. No matter if "long and slack" or not. Long and slack is a bit of a marketing tool. Like "Enduro" was in the recent years.

No problem for me so. If "Enduro" helps mountain bikes to improve - fine for me.

I like the EWS stuff. And I'am no believer in simple formulas like "long and slack".

No one is forcing you to buy anything you don't like

Well obviously not.. But if I was reasonably new to biking and rocked up at my lbs with a wedge of cash for a new bike to take to the local trail centre with my mates, I'd no doubt end up with a something with that is inspired by the latest trends around geometry.

And to be honest if I wanted to upgrade or replace in future there aren't that many bikes out there that don't conform to longer lower slacker is better

Sounds like a good excuse to get out more to places with more challenging riding.

Well in an ideal world yes, but not everyone has the time nor the skills to tackle the kind of terrain that they are designed for. Don't get me wrong I occasionally ride stuff they would be amazing on, but not very often.

The professional race bikers don’t use extremely “long” nor extremely “slack” bikes in EWS as far as I understand.

Aye, no Geometrons ridden. 😉

So, are you looking to buy a new bike? If you are, do you want it be the same ride as your current bike, or would you want a change of some kind? A change that might help you progress your riding? If all your want is what you've got, then what's the issue?

I don't particularly have an issue with it given I'm not in market for a new bike just yet. Just thought it was an interesting observation and wanted to see if others agreed.. Clearly not!

@Larry_Lamb:

haha. Exactly!

Early 1980 mountain bikes were strange machines with very strange geo. And all newer trail mountain bikes don't look like those strange bikes any more- they are indeed all longer and slacker - there was an evolution into this direction.

But today: fine tuning! Getting the suspension geo better, getting the whole package match better. Getting the center of gravity right. Make the bike going uphill and downhill and and and.

Today: the "long and slack" formula "plus huge travel" is not the route to happyness any more. It's history. Modern mountain bikes are too complex to use such an formula to describe them. Sales people love such of course...

I larglyl agree. The thing with MTB is that on lots of "average" teraint it's possible to buy morecspeed dh quite easily.

The guy who won putting almost a minute into his next competitor this weekend doesn't ride a long bike.

He rides a Medium Nukeproof Mega
with:

Not overly slack 65deg H/A
Not overly long 435mm reach
Not overly long 435mm chainstays
Not overly long 1187mm wheelbase
Not low in the slightest 10mm BB drop

That's pretty close to the geometry of his DH bike from 2005 so certainly nothing new in a gravity assisted off road time trial .

I deliberately sought out a 2017 version of my bike partly because I wanted a reach around 455mm than 475mm. I know big lads 6foot plus who have bought bikes this year and gone for a medium rather than large. It wouldnt suprise me to see reach figures go back the other way a bit in the next couple of years

Thing is, how many folks actually race enduro, or regularly ride the kind of terrain these bikes excel on

how many roadies race the TDF?  Nothing wrong with people being slightly “overbiked” not in my opinion anyway.  For me a mid/long travel 29er with 36’s 160mm travel front and burley build means I can just have the one bike for several disciplines trail riding, Enduro racing and no need for a separate downhill bike!

No offence to the OP, but it sounds as though you are saying that all the changes that happened to bikes before you bought yours made things better, but all the changes after then are a waste of time. Maybe you're right. In which case you've got the best bike possible. But maybe these new bikes really are better.

I notice the Giant team are using Trances this year, rather than Reigns. The Trance being naturally shorter and steeper than the Reign. I've often wondered what my Trance would be capable of if I stuck a 160mm fork on it (I run a 150mm Revelation on it at the moment).

All the giant ews boys have been on reigns for both rounds so far?

The geo doesn’t just help on the steep trails but on the fast flow stuff too.

Odd! I read they were using Trances. Nevermind. Ignore me.

But if I was reasonably new to biking and rocked up at my lbs with a wedge of cash for a new bike to take to the local trail centre with my mates, I’d no doubt end up with a something with that is inspired by the latest trends around geometry.

We'd try to ascertain what sort of riding you want to do on what sort of terrain & recommend a bike of the right size to fit. No forcing of geometries or styles. All this big bad bike industry water boarding riders into a particular bike is rubbish

I'm thinking about a new frame, have been for a few years

(I like to think) I independently came to a decision that it was too short (it's a L TranceX from 2011, 60mm stem and I'm a bit over 6 foot).  What made me think it's too short though is the climbing rather than descending - I've gone a bit roadie over the last few years and I like a bit of a stretch.

All I need to do is test ride one to see if that's really what I want

Coming soon, a series of half-arsed uninformed test-ride reports.  Keep 'em peeled !

type of riding that me, and I suspect most people do.

The largest percentage of MTBers I know ride this kind of stuff, even though there ain't a huge amount of it locally, and as such have these types of bikes too. I don't feel as if the bike industry is pushing anything on me, even the brand the whiningmincers love to hate - Santa Cruz - have quite a few models for the more sedate riding, in fact I'm struggling to think of many brands that only sell long slack bikes, and don't cater for everyone.

Tbh, I think these bikes have been great for my locale, people who have always made the drive to Tweed valley, Ae, Dunkeld etc have been involved in building similar stuff locally, to ride at evenings and shorter days.

Win win for me.

I'm currently selling my Orange 5 2017 sort of for this reason (see the classifieds:)).  I've just gone back to shorter, steeper Stumpy 29 - maybe its my body shape but I'm just not into the long, low, slack thing.

Edit: maybe the Orange 4 would have been a better original purchase for me

Thing is, how many folks actually race enduro, or regularly ride the kind of terrain these bikes excel on.

I like to ride that kind of terrain, but I also like to ride swoopy singletrack.

So I have more than one MTB. The reach is the same but the enduro bike has a longer rear, more travel and is a degree or so slacker in the head angle.

The trail bike is going to get much more use this year I reckon, just because it's so much more fun most of the time, but the enduro bike definitely has its moments.

TLDR: Horses for courses, N+1

I know big lads 6foot plus who have bought bikes this year and gone for a medium rather than large.

That could be a sign that new bikes are too long, but it could just be that your mates are a bit conservative. It's natural when you are spending a wedge of cash and probably explains why manufacturers prefer to change things in tiny increments. If you have a bike with a reach of X that you get on well with then a new bike with a reach that's 25mm longer can look a bit risky. It's only an inch and the manufacturer has presumably tested it and thinks it works better, but there is still this fear of moving away from what you know works, which is fair enough.

Personally, I'm LLS agnostic. I'm in the market for a new trail bike and am tempted, but I think it's something I'd need to spend a fair bit of time on before I could really say whether it is better or worse. I'm sure my crappy front wheel lift techniques wouldn't work as well, for example, but whether I'd adapt and be no more crap than I am now after a few months is hard to say.

I deliberately sought out a 2017 version of my bike partly because I wanted a reach around

Was that from your LBS!? That's certainly one aspect of service you don't get from the direct online retailers!

If I walked into any bike shop in the last 10 years the staff would always try to sell me a size large bike. I have always preferred mediums. (I like a mtb to have a reach of between 400-420mm) in the last year or two almost all manufacturers have lengthened their frames by at least an inch. This actually means I'm happier now on many brands size small frames. But no. bike shop staff know best and still want to sell me a large. ie. want me to ride a frame 2" longer than I actually want it to be. This isn't fantasy. it happens in every high end bike shop.

Guessing by your reply rOcKeTdOg. you must work in a shop? I'm 5'11". If I walked into your shop looking for a 160mm enduro bike. Tell me honestly what size bike you'd try to sell me?

Guessing by your reply rOcKeTdOg. you must work in a shop? I’m 5’11”. If I walked into your shop looking for a 160mm enduro bike. Tell me honestly what size bike you’d try to sell me?

I'd hazard a guess that they'd put you on bikes and see what suited you best in terms of bike position. The fact you prefer a bike which in every likelyhood is actually too small is not for them to know really, unless they do bike fit and mind reading as well... 🙂

What a person 'wants' does evolve though. What was once the perfect riding position can start to feel wrong if you ride other newer bikes.

I kept my old race bike, which I previously raved about being perfect, for long enough that it's narrow bars, long stem and tiny light wheels felt awful. But I didn't ride it often. So if you are buying a bike for the first time in a decade a LLS would feel odd as hell at first. But if you were to stick with it you might get the benefits that the designers envisaged.

Similarly big wheels felt bizarre at first when building up my first 29er but I learned what worked and now I love it. Bikes are a learning process.

Sounds like you're just buying the wrong bike. Like a lot of people on long travel single crown bikes I'd imagine they have them because they look cooler where a 100 or 120mm lighter, steeper bike will probably suit their riding a lot more.

I've got a 160mm sc bike and I've ragged the hell out of it. I don't feel things have moved on much since the last Capra in terms of beneficial geometry but I would like to throw a leg over a pole or a mojo just for a laugh but I doubt I'd own one.

my Starling Murmur is the longest slackset bike bike I've ever owned , its chuffin brilliant .

I've ridden  a g16 and that was even more brilliant , in fact it was brilliant ×2 .

Have I been tricked by the bike industry ?

You know the ones, the bikes the industry is pushing on us. I watched the highlights of the first round of the ews and for sure I can see the benefits of a bike like that for the type of riding they were doing, however its a million miles away from the type of riding that me, and I suspect most people do.

Last time I checked, the big manufacturers sold a range of bikes, with shorter travel XC bikes (e.g. Giant Anthem), mid-travel trail bikes (e.g. Trance), longer travel enduro bikes (Reign), and DH bikes (Glory), plus of course hardtails and cheaper entry-level bikes. On top of that, there are lots of smaller manufacturers that sell niche products. The bike industry seems to be pushing a really diverse range of bikes for all different types of riding from what I can see.

“If I walked into any bike shop in the last 10 years the staff would always try to sell me a size large bike. I have always preferred mediums... ...in the last year or two almost all manufacturers have lengthened their frames by at least an inch. This actually means I’m happier now on many brands size small frames.”

I seem to be happiest on about 430mm reach at the same height, so a similar issue here. I have a Cotic testride booked to suss out if I want a small or medium BFe, despite being at the top end of medium according to size charts.

I don’t think height is a reliable way of sizing MTBs nowadays - too much depends on both proportions and riding style.

In the last few years I’ve learnt that I ride best on bikes that are pretty damned slack but not too long in reach or low in BB height. Too long a reach and I don’t weight them right or move right, too low and I get distracted by pedal clearance issues (though that’s not a problem when it’s steep or trail centre).

Looking at the progression over time, I’d say I suit 2016 reach and BB height and 2020 head angle.

Yeah Chief. I'm no beginner at this. I find it fascinating that consumer preferences are so easily swayed by whatever's currently pushed by the mtb industry, fashion and marketting.  Sorry. But I base my preferred bike geometry and sizing on something more solid than that. Years and years of experience. Even then It's all a compromise and balance thing though.

My particular riding style doesn't suit the last few years fashionably lengthening reach. (I tried longer bikes way before it became the "thing" and reverted back fairly quickly) I have actually been riding sub 64deg H/A bikes since the 90s. and properly low BB heights for even longer. and have been riding the sort of technical/steep tracks that have now become fashionable/mainstream with the advent of enduro racing since the early 90s. (This was pretty much my introduction to "mountainbiking" and back then we rode rigid completely unsuitable bikes). Now not all my bikes are slack and not all are especially low. I still ride BMX and dirt jump bikes aswell and for those a slack H/A and an overly low BB would actually detrimental to handling. but those angles doesn't mean I won't still take a dirt jump bike down a steep slippy technical descent or ride it as fast as my bones will allow down a DH track. It's all just riding bikes in the woods init? So whatever's fun for you is fine. We've discussed BB heights before and I seem to remember taking suspension heights into account my lowest bikes are a good inch lower than yours but I've gotten so used to this I don't really ever clip pedals. I have once however grounded both out (with my cranks level) in a deep rut on a poorly maintained DH track in Wales ripping my soles open at the toes on both shoes similtaniously 😀

I do find it interesting you've chosen to look at a Cotic. In my mind one of the worst companies for heralding each years slight advancement in ideas/geometry/design as their idea. and also the best idea ever. only to contradict themselves 18mths or so later to fit with current trends. I suppose some might call that evolution. Hmmm.. I'd like to hope I'm never that naive.

I find it fascinating that consumer preferences are so easily swayed by whatever’s currently pushed by the mtb industry, fashion and marketting.

Why should they stay the same?  Preferences for something so subjective vary all the time.  I used to read different genres of book, watch different TV and eat different clothes.  I used to do different sports, and I used to different riding.  I wouldn't want to keep doing the same stuff my whole life.

Also remember that most keen MTBers own multiple bikes now, which wasn't the case back in the day.  There's no way I'd choose an enduro bike for my only bike, but I'd still like one.

I have actually been riding sub 64deg H/A bikes since the 90s.

Surely a 64 HA bike in the 90s was a very different bike to a 64 HA bike now...?

er... no molgrips. not really

64deg was still the same angle 20 years ago. bikes still had 2 wheels etc.

For that matter the UKs hills haven't really changed in that 20 years and yes I owned multiple bikes back then too.

Two things strike me:

1) People ARE riding more extreme terrain today than ever before, whether at Trail Centres or out in the wilds. Modern, light, efficient bikes mean you can ride more and push/carry less.

2) Given that a quality bike is typically multiple thousands of pounds, i'd suggest doing a suitable amount of homework yourself and not "just getting sold something by your LBS".  It's easier than ever to get test-rides and demo's so make the most of those to help you work out what suits your particular needs

Guessing by your reply rOcKeTdOg. you must work in a shop? I’m 5’11”. If I walked into your shop looking for a 160mm enduro bike. Tell me honestly what size bike you’d try to sell me?

what i'd do is let you ride the medium & large versions, that type of bike takes at least one demo ride.

Yup, and where as some riders (including myself) might have sized up to the Large in the past to get more reach, some may now size down to a Medium to get reduced reach.

> shrugs <

No one just rocks up to their LBS with a pile of cash and no idea, nowadays.  People talk to mates and look online first, and they might even demo a bike or two.  Manufacturers all make a range of bikes, so there's no excuse for buying the wrong the bike unless you chose badly yourself, didn't do your research or weren't honest with yourself about your riding etc etc.

I own a 2015 Whyte t-130 & have just bought a new Soul. I've not ridden the Whyte since, & am a little concerned about getting back on it in-case it feels too short & the head angle too steep...

The exact same thing happened when I bought my Whyte & I struggled to ride my Dialled Bikes Prince Albert...

I've been through the whole N+1 thing, it was great, but I've came full circle again back to one bike, My Bronson. There is no form of MTBing that it doesn't do.

Do tell us more about the 64deg head angle trail bikes you were riding 20 years ago.

Please no, we are already aware just how awesome geex is.... 🙂

@geex:

"The guy who won putting almost a minute into his next competitor this weekend doesn’t ride a long bike.

He rides a Medium Nukeproof Mega
with:

Not overly slack 65deg H/A
Not overly long 435mm reach
Not overly long 435mm chainstays
Not overly long 1187mm wheelbase
Not low in the slightest 10mm BB drop

That’s pretty close to the geometry of his DH bike from 2005 so certainly nothing new in a gravity assisted off road time trial ...."

Correct!

EWS Enduro races are great for bike development.

"Long and slack" discussion: professional bikers are faster with bikes which fit them perfectly. Too long and too slack turns an Enduro into a too big ship...

Yes - very long and very slack Enduro might be fun and stable and it might "feel fast". And that's o.k..

But EWS shows: fast is what matches the biker in an perfect manner. And professional Enduro bikers avoid bikes which are too stable...

Aerobatic pilots fly very unstable machines. Formula 1 racing cars are pretty unstable as well...

No one just rocks up to their LBS with a pile of cash and no idea, nowadays.

You base that statement on what exactly? When I got back into biking about 6 years ago that's exactly what I did, as did my mates. I'm sure plenty of folks still do.

It's easy to say you only have yourself to blame if you get the wrong bike, but if you were a beginner who went online tomorrow to do some research  you could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that something with 425 mm of reach is going to be detrimental to your riding..

@tpbiker:

Yes. Best approach to the sport maybe to join a local club.

The huge LBS shops with 200 mountain bikes: guess difficult for them to quickly find out which bike the customer really needs. For beginners I feel sorry when they go to the LBS and end up with an totally wrong bike.

All these different bikes: XC, XC racing, trail, all mountain, freeride and and and Enduro.... - there is a good reason for those. Difficult for the LBS to recommend the correct bike, difficult for the beginner. Whom to blame?

@chakaping I was talking to the Chief but if you're genuinely interested rather than being facetious one of those sub 64° bikes was a 100mm Taiwanese factory Alu XC hardtail with a 100mm fork (a lucky find) the others were all DH bikes (some with longer forks, altered linkages etc.). The term "trail bike" was yet to be coined by the cycle industries marketing people (well stolen from the motorcyle guys much like enduro) but yes they rode what people now call trails. to me "trails" referred to sets of dirt jumps back then.

@rOcKeTdOg For most 160mm 2018/19 bikes. small would be my preferred choice for size.  Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

Sam Hill didn’t use to ride his iron horse up hill though. I’m not sure it’s all to do with enduro style riding either , cotic have done the longer top tube thing on the new flare max and soul and they sit on the trail end of their range , the downtime podcast with cy from cotic is worth a listen for the theory behind it . There is a bit more to it than just adding an inch on to the top tube to make it all work together .

Ironhorse Sundays actually ride uphill surprisingly well with a long enough seatpost.
Use exo tyres and you could easily build one to 34lb

I built up my old skool Kona Bear which was once considered cutting edge gnarpoon in its day

cramped, twitchy & steep,

Ill go stick to my trendy long, low n slack enduro beast, thanks !

Ha ha. A Kona bear was never considered cutting edge. Horrible high, steep heavy things. Sure you didn't mishear someone call it "cut n shut"?

goes off to dig out mbuk from 2002............

prepare to eat your words geex

http://www.mtbr.com/product/older-categories-bikes/2002-full-suspension/kona/bear.html

*cough 🙂

LOL at some of the reviews:

Solidly built!!!! 4x4 suspention, bulletproof frame
fantastic geometry

Solid bike! Incredibly versitle. You can take this bike anywhere. Up steep hills and down nasty hills this bike holds its own and maintain perfect control.

Weakness:None that I can think of

This bike is solid. Upgraded from a hard tail and my bombs down hills have improved dramatically. You pick up so much speed and don't realize how fast you are going. I recently beefed up my front end with the Marzocchi Z1 Drop Off fork with Truvativ riser bar and stem. THis bike is really good bomb material, but it also climbs up the hills like a hard tail.

Sounds like a modern enduro/trail bike...

Although a 70 degree HA and 100mm travel front and rear was pretty much cutting edge back then...

@rOcKeTdOg For most 160mm 2018/19 bikes. small would be my preferred choice for size.  Thanks for confirming my thoughts

5ft 11 on a small trail bike? The only thing confirmed is that you're on the wrong size bike if it's to be used for "trail"

2002 you say?

How about 130mm front 115mm rear suspension travel. 65° H/A 12.6" BB height. 430mm stays, 1140mm wheelbase, 420mm reach?

Yeah. The seat tube angle was completely whack and the shock leverage ratio was huge but still. Those things were made to go flat out, rail turns, and jump everything in sight. Oh hold on that's not really like your average UK Enduro event goer at all is it? 😉

(not my one btw)

Where's your shop rOcKeTdOg? for obvious reasons

The seat tube angle was completely whack

As I've found, my Patriot is reasonably close to a modern Enduro bike in most respects except the seat angle, which is not that bad but still not great.  Now wish I had a large though 🙂

However, I now realise it was pretty grim until I fitted a dropper - or started dropping the seat on every singletrack or descent.  That much travel really needs you to get low.

I still miss my enduro sx. It was an awesome bike but definitely didn’t like climbing.

Chainstays were a bit snappy too.

My mates 2002 Enduro looked like this

And it was steeper & heavier than my bear!

Haha.

Sounds like the PO touched some good issues to get the bike people going.

Neat discussion!

For me always amazing: a mountain bike seems to be such a simple machine...

And then you find out: it's not!

And ... love my trail bikes. These new forks. These new rims and tyres. And don't need a modern long travel Enduro at all. And at the same time: believe that these Enduros are partly the reason why my trail bikes are so good right now...

One of my trail bikes is a 1 k Bossnut V2...

(And to make things more complex: the "old geo" hardtails with new forks and good tyres are also "fun"....? How is this possible?)

...and just take a look at the new santacruz Blur and highball.  xc is back in fashion ...and probably suits many for ‘mountain biking’ for lots of us here...

2002 you say?

How about 130mm front 115mm rear suspension travel. 65° H/A 12.6″ BB height. 430mm stays, 1140mm wheelbase, 420mm reach?

Yeah. The seat tube angle was completely whack and the shock leverage ratio was huge but still. Those things were made to go flat out, rail turns, and jump everything in sight. Oh hold on that’s not really like your average UK Enduro event goer at all is it?

(not my one btw)

That's a four-cross style bike, am I right?

Basically a mini DH bike (hence the 'may as well not be there' seat post angle) designed to go flat out downhill, rail turns, jump everything in sight, and win races.

But not be pedaled up hill.:)

2002 seemed to be the early days of four-cross, so I presume they took a DH bike, made it lighter, less travel, same HA etc.

If Enduro races had no transfers between stages with long uphill rides all the racers would be riding full on 200mm bikes.

That's the crucial difference - yes current enduro and trail bikes have the same HA and are as long or longer than as DH bikes from 10-15 years ago, which means they're as good or better downhill, but they can also ride uphill extremely competently.

For me personally, due to the type of riding I'll be doing a mega-enduro 170mm gnarpoon feels slow and sluggish on the tight, slow, flat/up/down singletrack I ride, which means I prefer bikes with 66-67 HA, 140-150mm travel max and long but not excessive reach (I am 6ft 3 so need something proportionate to my size!) 😀

Nothing wroing with proper slack and long bikes though, I'd love a pole evolink in my garage at some point - it would be far from ideal for my local trails but for those days when you want to go really fast down and climb like a mountain goat up... 🙂

If Enduro races had no transfers between stages with long uphill rides all the racers would be riding full on 200mm bikes.

No they wouldn't.

I tried to go more progressive on reach and BB height with my modded Zero AM but it really didn’t work for me - I’ve wound it back to the stock set up and it’s good but not quite right. It’s still better than my very tall and rather short Cotic Soul was with a 140mm fork and when I’m riding at my best it’s hard to fault but it’s a bit intolerant of less good riding days - I’d rather the BB was a bit higher, the head and seat angles a bit slacker, the chain stays a bit longer and the reach shorter (partly so i could use a 50mm rather than 35mm stem).

My Spitfire has been tweaked in various directions, ending 2 degrees slacker, 10mm shorter chain stays and a bit lower and longer than when I first got it. Whenever I get on it it feels right.

“I do find it interesting you’ve chosen to look at a Cotic. In my mind one of the worst companies for heralding each years slight advancement in ideas/geometry/design as their idea. and also the best idea ever. only to contradict themselves 18mths or so later to fit with current trends.”

I know what you mean about some of their stuff. But even if they’re not always the most original designs they tend to be very well executed, and the customer service is outstanding. I did badger Cy with quite a few emails suggesting an updated BFe design and then one turned up - which seems to tick all the boxes geometrically, just a question of checking if my idea of riding a small with a 50mm stem rather than a medium with a 35, at 5’11, is a crazy idea. With a reach of 427mm on the small, same as my medium Spitfire, I suspect not!

For me, slacker than 66deg feels too slack. Just doesn't work - great for ploughing through the faster stuff but feels a bit sluggish everywhere else.

I love that the mtb manufacturers are trying new setups, wheel sizes, ergonomics and everything in between though ... but you definitely need to try before you buy, and as someone said before, be honest about the riding you do, and your overall level of gnardom.

No they wouldn’t.

Why not? If you take out the un-timed uphill transfers all you're left with is the timed downhill stages, it would basically be a multi-stage downhill race. If riders don't have to ride/push their bikes back up the hill then they're free to focus their bikes on going as fast as possible down each stage. Enduro bikes are already 170mm travel so another 20-30mm won't hurt especially if they don't have to be pedaled anywhere.

Take a current enduro bike, make it 200mm front and rear, make the seat angle reasonable for the odd pedally sections, make it slack and long... job done 😀

Of course, take out the uphill transfers and it's no longer an endurance event, it's a downhill race.

The guy who won putting almost a minute into his next competitor this weekend doesn’t ride a long bike.

He rides a Medium Nukeproof Mega,,,,,,

That’s pretty close to the geometry of his DH bike from 2005 so certainly nothing new in a gravity assisted off road time trial .

Guy who rode mid-2000 DH bikes bloody fast rides enduro bikes with similar geometry bloody fast too....... shocker!

A mate who has raced DH at a decent level since mid 90's and came from a BMX back ground so has a riding style developed on short bikes loves his Capra. It feels familiar and suits his very ingrained riding style.

Me on the other hand coming into 'serious' mountain biking more recently with less (ie no) developed or pre-learnt style I'm more than happy to take the extra feeling of confidence I get riding a LLS bike. I did demo a few bikes with differing geometries and bought the one I felt most confident on / enjoyed riding the most which happened to be LLS, though not extremely LLS.

Seb Stott's piece on adding weight to the bike, ie Chris Porter's theory, raises some good points about it enabling slightly less confident/able riders to go that little bit quicker yet doing nothing for the really good riders who would ride out any jitteriness for example. Could it be a similar thing for LLS.

In short, people are different and have different preferences, riding styles, riding ability, etc. And some folk are just bloody fast whatever you put them on.

“Why not? If you take out the un-timed uphill transfers all you’re left with is the timed downhill stages, it would basically be a multi-stage downhill race. If riders don’t have to ride/push their bikes back up the hill then they’re free to focus their bikes on going as fast as possible down each stage. Enduro bikes are already 170mm travel so another 20-30mm won’t hurt especially if they don’t have to be pedaled anywhere.”

DH travel and geometry is only quickest on wide, fast, rough and steep tracks. As soon as things get tighter and flatter bikes that turn more easily, pump more efficiently and pedal better have an advantage.

As it is some enduro pros swap between 150-170mm bikes and 130-140mm bikes, depending on the course (though with 160mm+ forks). They don’t choose the shorter travel bikes to make the transfers easier.

The SX I posted a pic of above was sort of designed for dual slalom racing (more popular in the US and Europe) and messing about on. The frame actually derived from the original spesh enduro that kimbers posted a pic of above. a 125mm travel XC (or had they coined "All-mountain" by then?) bike. oh.. and they were lighter than Kona bears. 😉 Specialized basically took the rear stays from that. beefed them up a tiny bit and mated them to a lower slacker stronger front end, changed the linkage slightly and made it adjustable (which is why they had such low BBs) and sold them with either coil or air rear shocks. They didn't really work too well with a coil as they were very high leverage ratio but not hugely progressive.
Not many people used them for 4x as the nature of the sport meant 9 times out of 10 the first rider to the first corner won. and a hardtail is simply a lot faster out the gate. slalom was actually a more aggressive riding style as it was raced in separate lanes and against the clock as well as your competitor.
Specialized actually still made the short travel SX up until only a few years ago.  a different design to the original but still a fun/strong little short travel bike.

 People ARE riding more extreme terrain today than ever before, whether at Trail Centres or out in the wilds. Modern, light, efficient bikes mean you can ride more and push/carry less.

I dunno, some of the old Northshore trails around Vancouver were pretty mental. There's also old decommissioned trails up down that area which would be hard by todays standards never mind when they were built.

As for the EWS, it's horses for courses. The Rocky Mountain guys had Slayers and Altitudes last year and most often rode the altitude (though I think it was beefed up a tad in travel) and this year have both of those plus the BC edition Instinct. I think both Jesse and Remy are on the 29er this year, but it really depends what you're looking for what where you're riding.

Why not? If you take out the un-timed uphill transfers all you’re left with is the timed downhill stages, it would basically be a multi-stage downhill race

I'd have a look at some of the lengths of stages and profile, there is no way anyone would be quicker on a dh bike, which is effectively what a 200mm bike is.

It's a common misconception that it's a mini dh race, it ain't. CGG is spot on, lots of the guys ride 140mm bikes, and 160 or thereabouts at the likes of finale.

I am intruiged as to what bike in the early 90s you still ride amd excuse my ignorance, but I am curious.

I have actually been riding sub 64deg H/A bikes since the 90s. and properly low BB heights for even longer.

In the early 90s if you had...

But if I was reasonably new to biking and rocked up at my lbs with a wedge of cash for a new bike to take to the local trail centre with my mates, I’d no doubt end up with a something with that is inspired by the latest trends around geometry.

Surely you would've come out with a something akin to a double diamond steel XC frame with a 71/73 head/seat angle?

Such a good discussion! Like the thread. Different opinions, different bikers which love biking and know what they are talking about. Great!

And even some bike manufacturers learn that EWS is not "long travel" plus "very long" plus "very slack". Best example maybe: YT.

Downhill YT with the Tues and Aaron Gwin the #1 in UCI downhill.

EWS: YT had an professional EWS team in 2017 (no idea about this year). Maybe they were out of luck, only had flat tyres or whatever. But the Capra wasn't the bike for EWS. Around 30 company teams and YT finished with the Capra- overall 2017 - on one of the worst rankings...

The Capra is in my opinion a neat bike. Long and slack and (too much?) travel. The customers love the bike. The reviewers. But 2017 in EWS Enduro racing a total failure.

So ... EWS is not "pushing" for long and slack and super long travel. A downhill-like bike won't win on EWS Enduro race tracks!

Small (and good) companies like cotic try to push into a market niche with long and slack. Fine. No problem with that. The Cotic owners are more than happy with their bikes.

But when they build Enduro bikes and when they ever try EWS thy will learn that this formula is not the solution for fast professional Enduro race bikers?

Maybe great for hobby bikers which love these stabel bikes.

Two points:

1. The top riders would win or podium on any other team’s bikes - or indeed most enduro bikes on the market. Put Sam Hill on a Capra and he’d do similarly well.

2. Cotic do race enduro in the UK, often podium and their riders were racing their low low slack longshot bikes last season, before they were released.

Cotic do race enduro in the UK, often podium and their riders were racing their low low slack longshot bikes last season, before they were released.

I'm not sure they are any lower than the previous version though. Well the FlareMax doesn't seem to be, not looked at the Rocket.

Cotic bikes: great bikes.

If they are fast they should try:

http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/event_news/uk-ews-qualifiers-370445

Sam Hill: I'am not talking about Sam Hill. More interesting rank #5 to #15 or so.

Capra 2017, YT team, EWS, Capra: they were one of the worst teams, worse than Fuji team...

Yes - no chance to get in the range of a Sam Hill. But the Capra was extremely slow 2017...

And at the same time: this doesn't say anything about the fun level of the bike. Capra bikers are a happy bunch. But EWS is nice to check if an Enduro bike is fast as well. And if there are professional teams (like YT 2017) and they end up way at the end - ranking #25 or so - they were out of luck or the bike was slow...

Rank #1 ... #5 is reserved for the top bikers. Agree.

But the team ranking gives an indication of the bike quality as well. Worse than #20 are the "slow bikes" for me.

Note: I'am a trail biker. Bike a Calibe Bossnut V2 and only interested in EWS. Don't have an Enduro bike and judge "fun" as more important than "speed".