Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil K Walk
Not all mountain bikes are oversized and overpriced BMX bikes. The term MTB has splintered into several subcategories that sometimes overlap with "gravel" and "cyclocross" bikes with drop bars.
29ers are "cross country" bikes and unfortunately the industry has made them the entry level standard which the purists look down on. They're built for speed and distance, not "gnar." Yes, they are less maneuverable but on the flip side they allow you to climb like a mountain goat while those waiting to send it on the downhills are pushing their bikes up the mountain.
What the OP probably wants is a "trail bike" with 27.5" fat tires, full suspension (or at least a front air fork with more than 120mm of travel) and a dropper seat post. They come with 27.5" x 2.4"-2.6" tires and a shock for each tire. They also start at $2K so a certain amount of investment is required just to get your feet wet in "technical" riding. They're also heavier and slower on even terrain compared to XC bikes.
Then there are "enduro" bikes that are sort of an in-between and downhill bikes that are basically motocross bikes without motors (though there are ebike variations out there from what I have seen.) For those you typically need a ski lift ticket to ride them at ski resorts during the summer or know a guy with a pickup truck to throw it in the back of for that ride to the top.
Paint me as a Luddite I suppose. I like my 29er over my old 26er that bucked me in my driveway and put me in a sling. It's actually much more stable and I prefer not to "send it" or spook horses and dogs and odd joggers that smell of bug spray and wear earbuds who frequent the local multiuse trails. I also find that the longer wheel base and reach have virtually eliminated that quadrocep burn and knee pain that plagued me on 30+ mile rides on the old pinto.
|
Neil, I feel you’re drawing some pretty hard distinctions here! I’m not sure I agree that XC is the entry level, I feel it’s a bit more of a specialized category which draws racers, those who do big mountain and high altitude rides, and those who favor light weight and climbing prowess over downhill capability. 29ers are indeed the overwhelming choice here, as climbing and long rides are best facilitated by the larger wheels. That said, XC bikes are getting more travel and slacker geo along with everything else, just not as much. I would say XC is made up of bikes in the 100-120 mm rear travel range.
The trail category is to me the entry level, as it covers what most riders want, an all around bike that does everything pretty well. Good climbers, good descenders, easy to handle and remarkably capable. 27.5 and 29 are well represented here, because both work well and folks have preferences, some like smaller and lighter bikes which are easier to whip around, some like the ground covering, climbing, and extra capability in the rough of the 29er. 29ers are more popular at the moment. These are bikes in the 120-150 range, broadly.
Similarly all-mountain and enduro bikes use both wheel sizes, just adding more travel and capability than trail bikes. Therese run in the 140-170 range, broadly. And I can tell you these things climb with incredible efficiency today. I have a 5 year old Evil Following, a 120 / 29 trail bike that was revolutionary the time. It is roundly outclimbed and out descended by my 145 / 29 Santa Cruz Hightower, which weighs more because of bigger shocks front and rear, but climbs better simply because of the new geo. I am so much more forward over the pedals on the new bike, and this makes all the difference. I’m beating climbing times vs the Following with race tires on it by 2-3 mins on a 25 min climb.
I’d love to have a new XC bike and an enduro rig as well, but I can’t justify the spend when the all-mountain Hightower does it all so well. Many riders I know ride bikes across the range, and ride everything from XC to enduro, to lift-served rides, there just aren’t these hard lines except on the fringes. It’s all bikes, and it’s all good!