“”ĢżĀ of this article originally appeared onĀ Pinkbike.Ģż

It’s easy to become part of an echo chamber. Pinkbike often gets lost in the finer points of mountain bike technology, from suspension platforms to frame flex. But what kind of questions are people asking about mountain biking outside the platform? For one, what are the best mountain bikes for beginners? Below, Pinkbike’s editors offer concise answers to the ten most common mountain bike-related questions on search engines, social media, and online forums.

1. What Is the Best Mountain Bike for Beginners?

One you can afford. Don’t let the average mountain biker’s obsession with technology make you think you need all the latest features to have fun.

If you’re new to the sport, getting advice and after-sales support from a local shop can be invaluable. On the other hand, if you’re happy to take more risk and willing to do your own research, second-hand or direct sales bikes offer less daunting prices.

You may hear that you simply have to start mountain biking on a hardtail because it teaches you better skills. The truth is it teaches different skills. Hardtails are the way to go for those on a tight budget (under around $1,500 if buying new) as the cheapest full-suspension bikes are usually too compromised to be worth recommending.

If you’ve got a bigger budget, a solid trail bike with 130-160 millimeters of suspension travel and modern geometry should help build confidence (and with it, skill) faster and more painlessly than the sketchy hardtails many of us learned to ride on. Get a bike that’s appropriate for the trails you want to ride most often, but has the potential to tackle more challenging terrain as your skills improve.

2. How Much Does a Good Mountain Bike Cost?

You certainly don’t need to splash out for a top-end bike to get something that performs just as well. For a bare-bones entry-level hardtail, budget around $1,500 for one that will allow you to get stuck into some serious riding. But if you want a full-suspension bike that’s going to satisfy a keen mountain biker, the best bang-for-buck is usually around $3,000 if buying new. The more you can afford up to that amount, the better the bike you can get, but above that, the benefits soon start to plateau.

The good news is that it’s a buyer’s market right now so there are lots of good deals if you shop around.

3. How Do I Maintain my Mountain Bike?

1. Wash it when it’s dirty.
2. Clean and lubricate the chain after every ride. After washing the bike, run it through a rag to wipe off dirt and water, then lubricate it with mountain-bike-specific chain lube.
3. Check the tire pressures before every ride (see question eight).
4. Regularly do an “M-check,” inspecting for loose bolts, play, or worn parts. Starting at the rear wheel, check the brake, tire, axle and derailleur, then move on to the saddle and seatpost, then the cranks, bottom bracket and pedals, then the cockpit and headset, and finally the front wheel and brake. These five locations make a capital “M” shape, which makes it easy to remember.
5. Have the suspension serviced and brakes bled at least once per year.

4. What Are the Benefits of Full Suspension Versus a Hardtail?

The obvious benefit to a full suspension bike is that it cushions the impacts on rough terrain, making it easier to ride fast without getting bounced off-line or having your teeth rattled loose. They also offer more grip because the wheels are more consistently pressed into the ground. Most serious riders and racers use full-suspension bikes for every discipline these days, from downhill to cross country. Even gravel bikes sometimes have suspension now.

On the other hand, hardtails are usually much less expensiveā€”or offer better parts and frame quality for the same priceā€”making them the go-to option for those on a tight budget. There’s less to go wrong and no pivots or rear shock to service, too. Apples-to-apples, hardtails are usually lighter and transmit slightly more of your pedal power to the ground, making them fractionally faster on smooth climbs (this is why hardtails still get used occasionally for smoother cross-country courses). Also, some (strange) people just prefer the challenge of riding without rear suspension.

5. How Do You Choose the Right Frame Size?

These days, most manufacturers provide a size guide on the geometry tab of their website; this is a reliable indicator for most people. There’s often a range of rider heights that overlap between two sizes. In this case, size down if you want more agile handling or size up if you want more stability for fast terrain.

For more on this, see our guide to modern bike sizing. If possible, try and arrange a test ride or talk to the manufacturer for a personalised recommendation.

6. What Are the Best Upgrades for My Mountain Bike?

It depends on what components your bike has, but common upgrades that make a big difference without costing the earth include comfy grips and a saddle that fit your body better; tubeless tires that are appropriate to the riding you usually do, and a dropper post if you don’t already have one. Better brakes can massively improve confidence too, but you don’t always have to spring for a whole set – bigger rotors (larger diameter or thicker) and fresh brake pads (sintered for wet weather) can boost power and consistency.

7. Whatā€™s the Difference Between Cross-Country, Trail, Enduro, and Downhill Bikes?

Cross country (XC) races are usually won or lost on the climbs, so XC bikes are designed to excel when going uphill, with minimum weight and efficient suspension. Modern examples have 100-120 millimeters of suspension travel and can weigh as little as 24 pounds. Descending is still important, especially in modern cross country, so XC bikes often have dropper posts and slack head angles, but the geometry is still less confidence-inspiring than trail bikes. Also, the handlebars are typically much lower. Almost all modern XC bikes have 29-inch wheels.

“Trail” isn’t a racing discipline, so trail bikes are designed to be fun. They should be light enough to enjoy rather than endure climbs but usually with a stronger emphasis on descending capability. They typically have 130-150 millimeters of suspension travel which makes them pretty capable when the trail gets hectic but not so much that they feel lethargic in flowy terrain. Most have 29-inch wheels, though recently many have a 27.5-inch wheel at the back or the option to run either.

Enduro bikes may look like trail bikes, but they’re designed with much more bias towards descending. In enduro racing, it’s only the descents that are timed, so climbing performance takes a back seat (although some enduro bikes climb surprisingly well). They have 160-180 millimeters of travel, tough tires, big brakes and burly components. Many enduro bikes weigh well over of 35 pounds. Some have 29-inch wheels front and rear and some have a 27.5-inch wheel at the back. Many can accept either rear wheel size.

Downhill bikes are not designed to be pedaled uphill at all. They have 200 millimeters of suspension travel or more, stiff dual-crown forks, and close-ratio gearing. Because they do not need a dropper post or wide-range cassette, they are often no heavier than enduro bikes. In recent years, most have moved to mixed wheels (29-inch front, 27.5-inch rear) though some can still accept 29-inch wheels at both ends.

Mountain bike disciplines are more of a spectrum than distinct categories; it’s perfectly possible to take your trail bike on a cross-country ride and visa-versa. There are also tongue-in-cheek sub-categories that seek to split the difference even further, such as “downcountry” (a compromise between trail and XC) or “all-mountain,” which fits in between trail and enduro.

8. What Tire Pressure Should I Run on My Mountain Bike?

This varies depending on rider weight, tire construction, terrain, and riding style. But a good place to start is to ignore the pressures printed on the tire sidewallā€”they’re usually a maximum rather than a recommendation. Most riders should start at pressures between 20 psi and 30 psi. Go towards the lower end of that range if you’re lighter, less confident, or riding slippy terrain. Go higher if you’re heavier, riding hard, or the trails are rocky. It’s usually a good idea to run about 3 psi more pressure in the back tire than the front, as it takes more weight.

Use a pressure gauge to measure tire pressures before each ride and experiment to find what works for you. It doesn’t have to be a fancy gauge, but ideally, it should be the same one every time. Usually, you’re looking for the lowest pressure you can get away with before the tire starts to collapse in corners or when you start to feel the tire hitting the rim when riding over rocks.

Tubeless repair plugs can be surprisingly effective. (Photo: Richard Cunningham)

9. How Do I Repair a Puncture on a Trail?

Option 1: If it’s a tubeless tire, find the hole and push a puncture repair plug into it. Afterwards, trim the excess. When you get home, you may want to stick a puncture repair patch to the inside of the tire. This will help long term, but just be sure to do so after cleaning the tire.

Option 2: If option 1 fails or the tire isn’t tubeless, insert an inner tube to get you home. When you get home you can patch the tire or the tube with a puncture repair kit.

Option 3: If you haven’t got a spare tube, remove the tube and locate the puncture. You can do this by inflating the tube with a pump. Fix the puncture with a patch kit.

Option 4: Borrow an inner tube from a friend in exchange for future beers.

Option 5: Give up. Cry. Walk home. Get back late. Cry more.

10. How Do I Improve My Technical Mountain-Biking Skills?

• Ride more.
• Book a coaching course.
• Regularly practice a short section of trail several times.
• Get your friends to film your riding so you can see where to improve.
• Watch Pinkbike’s .
• Ride more.

The post The Internetā€™s Most Common Mountain-Bike Tech Questions Answered appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

“”Ģż of this article, “What Exactly Is ‘Outdated’ Mountain Bike Geometry?” originally appeared on Pinkbike.Ģż

If you’re in the market for a secondhand bike that’s been around for a few years, you might ask yourself if a modern mountain bike really handles better than an older one. A mountain bike’s geometry (the shape, angles, and size of its frame) defines how it rides more fundamentally than any other aspect of its design, and mountain bike geometry has transformed over recent years. So what exactly counts as “outdated” versus “new-school” geometry these days? And do older mountain bikes necessarily ride worse than new ones?

First off, let’s be specific about the differences between modern and “old school” geometry. The reach, head angle (HA), wheelbase (WB), and effective seat angle (SA)ā€”demonstrated belowā€”are the key measurements that have changed over the years.

The reach, head angle (HA), wheelbase (WB) and effective seat angle (SA) are the key measurements that have changed over the years. (Photo: Devinci Django Geometry)

• Longer Reach: Modern bikes feature a longer reach (the horizontal distance between the bottom bracket and the top of the head tube), providing more room to maneuver and making the bike feel more stable at high speeds and in technical terrain. This is usually teamed with shorter stems (40-50 millimeters) that keep the cockpit from feeling too stretched out, while also making the steering more predictable and direct. Modern trail and enduro bikes typically have a reach figure of around 450-460 millimeters in a size medium and over 500 millimeters in the largest size. Ten years ago, typical reach numbers were around 30-50 millimeters shorter.
• Slacker Head Angle: The angle of the steering axis and fork has become much less steep. Modern trail and enduro bikes have head angles around 63-65 degrees. Ten years ago, it was more like 66-69 degrees. This makes the bike more stable on descents, as it positions the front wheel further out in front and makes the steering less twitchy, reducing the risk of the front wheel “jackknifing” (turning suddenly away from straight ahead) in technical sections. The downside is it’s lazier and heavier steering at low speeds.
• Longer Wheelbase: A longer wheelbase contributes to greater stability at high speeds and over rough terrain, making the bike more confidence-inspiring and less prone to pitching. The downside is more steering input is required to negotiate tight turns.
• Steeper (effective) Seat Angle: The effective seat tube angle (the slope of a line connecting the bottom bracket to the top of the seat post) is much steeper in modern bikes. Typical angles have gone from 73-75 degrees ten years ago to 76-80 degrees today. This positions the rider more forward, improving pedaling efficiency for climbing, while making it easier to keep enough weight on the front tire to steer and balance. Such seat angles were not practical when reach figures were shorter, because they would place the rider’s hips too close to the handlebar.

How Modern Geometry Translates on the Trail

Modern bikes are designed to excel at higher speeds and on more demanding terrain than their predecessors. Their geometry makes them more stable and confidence-inspiring when tackling the kind of terrain usually reserved for downhill bikes back in the day: steep chutes, big rocks, and big air. This may come at the expense of maneuverability at slow speeds and shallow gradients, but thanks to steeper seat tube angles, modern trail bikes are more capable when pointed uphill as well as down. Overall, it’s not controversial to say that modern bikes ride better than those of ten years agoā€”mostly thanks to their geometry. But what about a bike from just four or five years ago?

The truth is that mountain bike geometry is still evolving. There never will come a time when bike designers say, “Yep, that’s itā€”these are the numbers bikes should have from now on. Let’s all go home.” But geometry trends that were going gangbusters in the 2010s have certainly slowed down lately. The ($4,000) above hasn’t been updated in almost half a decade, but they don’t look out of place today.

If you’re in the market for a bike that’s much older than 2020, it will generally have noticeably different geometry and handling compared to a new equivalent, and the further back you go, the bigger the gap will be. There are exceptions, such as the Ģż“Ē°łĢż, which had similar geometry to today’s bikes (and in some ways more extreme) back in 2015. Mondraker was another pioneer, with modern reach numbers byĀ .

Can You Modernize an Old Mountain Bikeā€™s Geometry?

Just because a bike has been around a while, that doesn’t mean it needs to be replaced to experience up-to-date handling. Take my other half’s 2015 Mondraker Foxy. With a 160-millimeter fork (up from the 140-millimeter stock fork), a -2 degree headset and the saddle slammed fully forward on the seatpost, its key numbers (reach, head angle, wheelbase, effective seat angle) aren’t far off what you’d find new in 2024. Sure, it still has non-Boost axles, a pair of 27.5-inch wheels and abominable cable routing. But as far as handling goes, it’s solid. Throw in an upgraded shock, tires, and brakes, and it still very much does the business.

So if you’re sitting on an older bike or considering buying one, bear in mind that you can learn from the latest crop of bikes without having to fork out for a brand new one.

The post What Exactly Is ā€œOutdatedā€ Mountain-Bike Geometry? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

“”Ģż of this article originally appeared on Pinkbike.Ģż

What do you look for in a helmet? Price, style, weight, ventilation and comfort are all important considerations, but the main purpose of a helmet is to keep your head safe when it hits the dirt. One piece of advice you’ll often hear is to buy the best one you can afford. But are more expensive options any safer? And do anti-rotation inserts like MIPS reduce the risk of concussion? Do mountain bike helmets protect your head better than road helmets?

If you want to know how good a helmet is at cushioning your brain, it’s not a good idea to experiment on yourself. Fortunately, the engineering department atĀ Ā has a state-of-the-art, independent helmet testing lab. They’ve been testing all sorts of sports helmets since 2011 and have put 235 cycling helmets including 73 mountain bike lids through their repeatable but realistic testing protocol.

How are they tested?

Virginia Tech has developed a test that’s specific to cycling helmets. You can read the full detailsĀ  but the basic version is that each tester is fitted onto a standard dummy “head” complete with acceleration and rotation sensors. The helmet is then dropped onto a hard surface such that it strikes it at six different impact locations around it. This is done at two different impact speeds (4.8 and 7.3 meters per second, or 17.3 and 26.3 kph). The lower speed is designed to replicate the most common impact speeds seen in the real world and the second is the most likely speed that results in concussionā€”these numbers are derived from helmets that had been recovered from real-world crashes.

This is repeated twice, resulting in 24 test impacts for each model. For each test, the linear acceleration and rotational velocity of the dummy head are measured, and an algorithm is used to convert these numbers into an overall score. The scoring system uses the rotation and acceleration measurements to estimate the risk of concussion for each impact, then these results are weighted depending on how common each type of impact occurs during real-world cycling. This produces a single score that is proportional to the overall risk of concussion during cycling.

The lower the score, the lower the chance of concussion.

Any score below 14 gets a five-star rating. A model has to score below 19 to get four stars and be considered recommendable by Virginia Tech.

Are More Expensive Mountain-Bike Helmets Safer?

Sort of.

Of the four helmets costing $50 or less, none got close to a five-star rating (a score below 14); of the sixteen models costing $200 or more, all but one got five stars. All of the helmets that cost more than $100 received at least four stars (scored below 19), making them at least worthy of consideration according to Virginia Tech.

More expensive options tend to be safer on average, but there’s a lot of variation and many outliers as you can see in the scatter chart.

So the old maxim that you should spring for the best helmet you can afford isn’t a bad rule of thumb, but if you start with the data from Virginia Tech you can pick a very safe model without spending too much.

Which Helmets Stand Out?

The safest mountain-bike helmet tested so far is the , a three-quarter style version which scored 8.41 and costs $270. But the biggest outlier on the price-to-safety spectrum is the , which scored 8.55 and costs just $110. Based on Virginia Tech’s testing, that’s the model I’d suggest if the style and fit suit your needs.

Are Mountain-Bike Helmets Safer than Road Options?

Not really.

Some of the best (lowest scoring) models tested by Virginia Tech are road helmets, as are some of the worst, which could reflect the fact that more road versions have been tested. Looking at the scatter chart above, there is an even weaker relationship between cost and safety in the road world, perhaps because high-end road helmets are chasing aerodynamics more than impact absorption.

Impressively, three road models costing $80 or less scored below a 10. Chapeau to Giant, Lazer and Specialized for those.

Are MIPS Helmets Safer?

According to this data, yes.

The lowest-scoring (safest) mountain-bike helmet without MIPS is the beautifully named 6D ATB-2T, which scored 10.03, putting it in 12th place for mountain bikes. It has a conceptually similar technology called Omni-Directional Suspension (ODS). The next best is the POC Tectal Race SPIN, which ranked 29th and scored 11.67. It too has a similar technology called SPIN (Shearing Pad Inside), which POC has sinceĀ  in favour of MIPS.

So, the 11 best-scoring mountain-bike helmets all have MIPS; only two of the best thirty don’t have MIPS, and both of them have something similar.

However, the vast majority of the models on test have MIPS, especially the more expensive ones, so this isn’t as surprising as it sounds. Even so, the nine poorest-performing mountain-bike helmets all lack MIPS, and five of those cost $99 or more.

Also, the Troy Lee A1 Classic MIPS scored a respectable 11.65, while the MIPS-free Troy Lee A1 Drone scored a damning 19.35.

Some have suggested that the benefit of a MIPS liner may diminished in the real world because the rider’s hair (for those who have it) creates its own slip plane which does a similar job. But even if a thick head of hair can allow the helmet to rotate relative to the skull, that’s not to say it works as well as a MIPS liner, especially inĀ combination with hair. According to MIPS, hair isn’t as slippery as you think once the G-forces are pressing your head into your helmet during a crash, whereas MIPS liners are designed to slide even under these huge compressive loads.

Besides, even if all that MIPS achieved was to improve outcomes for the bald, it would still be worth helmet manufacturers using it.

Are Full-Face Options Safer?

It’s not clear.

Virginia Tech isn’t testing face-on (chin bar) impacts, where full-face helmets obviously have an advantage. If you’re likely to land on your face, best to wear a full-face helmet. But when tested in the same way as open-face helmets, using the same six impact locations, the full-face helmets don’t score better. This is perhaps surprising given they are designed for downhill and enduro use, including racing.

Virginia Tech has only tested four full-face helmets so far, which isn’t enough to make broad conclusions, but they don’t stand out as you might expectā€”the best full-face helmet (Bluegrass Vanguard) ranks 15th among mountain-bike helmets. Having said that, all four received five stars (scored less than 14), and the average score was 12.2, slightly better than open-face mountain-bike helmets, which averaged 13.3. We would need more data to know if full-face helmets generally do better or worse on Virginia Tech’s test procedure, but the four tested so far are merely midpack.

So while full-faces offer better coverage, they’re not necessarily offering better protection when tested on the same impact locations.

Limitations and Conclusions

It’s worth underlining that Virginia Tech haven’t tested every helmet on the market and some on their database are older than others, so it’s probably not fair to make general comparisons between brands or to say that the best they’ve tested is the best there is.

As with any laboratory test, there is a tradeoff between repeatability and realism. Virginia Tech can’t simulate every type of crash, impact speed or head shape. A different test with different variables might come up with different rankings, but Virginia Tech’s is probably the best independent data that’s publicly available. How a helmet fits your unique head is important for safety as well as comfort so it’s a good idea to try a few helmets on in a real-life bike shop, then pick one that scores well and fits well.

The post How to Pick a Safer Helmet, According to Science appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

The goal of an might seem straightforward: to go downhill fast and with style without sacrificing all your pedaling efficiency. But slightly different geometry and new tech can dramatically change how each bike achieves that goal. Our five favorite bikes in the category this year are all insanely fun in their own unique ways.

Be sure to also check out our guides to the best trail bikes, value bikes, and our many other bike guides.

At a Glance

• Editorā€™s Choice:
• Most Forgiving Enduro Bike:
• Best All-Rounder:
• Best Park Bike:
• Most Versatile Racer:
• Most Energetic Racer:
• Best Enduro Frame:
• How We Test
• Meet Our Lead Testers
• How to Choose an Enduro Bike

All gear in this guide was tested by multiple reviewers. If you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission. This supports our mission to get more people active and outside. Learn more.

Editorā€™s Choice

Trek Slash

Tested Build: 9.9 XO AXS T-Type Gen 6
Weight: 34.4 lbs (size M)
Sizing available: S, M, M/L, L and XL

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Excellent geometry and balanced ride
āŠ• Predictable suspension
āŠ• Climbs well for such a downhill-focused bike
āŠ— May be too stiff for some riders
āŠ— Noisy until we put STFU tape on the chainslap

Trekā€™s engineers typically have a careful approach to bike development, rarely taking things too far. With this year’s Slash, they pushed the envelope a bit further than they usually do to make the ideal pedal-access, descent-focused bike. It certainly is a far departure from prior models, now featuring a high pivot layout, meaning the bikeā€™s main pivot is placed above the top of the chainring and the rear wheel axle. But in many ways, it still has the classic Trek ethos.

There’s a broad assumption that the bump-eating gains of a high pivot bike come at the cost of maneuverability and pep in less steep terrain. There are a few exceptions to this claim, and chief among them is the new Slash. This bike can happily mow through chunky sections of trail but is equally capable when things get tight and slow, thanks to the carefully-considered geometry and very predictable suspension feel.

That predictability is key to the overall versatility of the bike, as you can push into the suspension in more flowing terrain without feeling like you’re losing too much energy to the rear end. This support ramps up nicely in the middle of the stroke, meaning the bike has excellent small bump performance and grip. With 27 millimeters of bottom bracket drop, the center of gravity is quite planted on the Slash, adding to the cornering stability.

With 170 millimeters of travel in the front and rear, it’s safe to assume that climbing the Slash would be a bit of a bear, but the product team went to great lengths to ensure that itā€™s not a major chore to go uphill. The Slash climbs comfortably and consistently, offering enough support to ride high, while still absorbing bumps along the way. One Bellingham-based tester spent some long pedal days on the Slash, and never found himself hating the experienceā€”it was more than happy to motor along on logging road climbs as it was excited to rally up technical bits of trail.

Jumping feels natural and intuitive on the Slash, managing to feel fun and energetic on smaller side hits and natural doubles. It does feel like its penchant for speed dictates some of the terrain you’ll want to point it down, as it truly comes alive when you’re pushing hard on seriously challenging trails. The Slash proved to be a very quiet bike, save for some very persistent chainslap noise. This was fixed using aftermarket STFU tape, resulting in a silent ride.

Overall, the new Slash is incredibly versatile, with many ways to adjust the geometry. Press-in headset cups allow the rider to slack out or steepen the head tube by one degree in either direction, a replaceable lower shock mount accommodates either a 29- or 27.5-inch rear wheel, and it has a flip chip to switch between high and low shock progression modes. Both the carbon and aluminum models have ample in-frame storage and some top tube bottle bosses, so you have plenty of room for tools, water, and snacks on longer rides.

As a whole package, the Slash is a stiff and precise-feeling bike, perhaps too much so for some who want a more forgiving ride. If youā€™re looking for an advanced bike that wants to go downhill fast but can handle the uphill when you need it to, the Slash is your new best friend. ā€”Dario DiGiulio

Most Forgiving Enduro Bike

Scott Ransom

Tested Build: 900 RC
Weight: 34.2 lb (XL)
Sizing available: S-XL

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Long-travel yet well-controlled suspension
āŠ• Stable but balanced geometry
āŠ• Shock is protected from mud and debris
āŠ— Six-bar suspension and headset cable routing difficult to work on
āŠ— Pricey

Is the Ransom 900 RC worth ten thousand dollars? Of course notā€”it’s a bike. But it does manage to pull off the elusive trick of giving you loads of travel for descending without paying for it on the climbs. It’s stable and forgiving without becoming lethargic. It’s a bike that can flatter you in a wide range of situations, from trail rides to bike park laps to enduro racing. Even the cheaper builds are not the best value, but the Ransom is among the most capable and versatile enduro bikes you can buy right now.

The big (if unsurprising) story is the move to an internal shock inside the downtube. This keeps the shock protected from debris, dust, and mudā€”after several wet rides and bike washes, the shock stanchion still had a coating of factory oil on it instead of the usual muddy slurry. This change is combined with a new six-bar suspension system that drives the shock with a short link that rotates around the bottom bracket. The shock can be adjusted on the fly with Scott’s “TracLoc” system, which increases progression and/or adds compression damping for climbing. The old Ransom has always been known as one of the lightest enduro bikes, but the six-bar layout adds some bulk compared to its predecessor.

I’ve been riding the Ransom in Spain as well as on my home trails in the Tweed Valley. For me, the old Ransom missed the mark, feeling compromised on the climbs and the descents. But the 2024 iteration nails the brief of combining long-travel descending capability with uncompromised climbing composure.

While Scott says they aimed to maintain the climbing composure of the old bike, I think the new Ransom is much better when pointed uphill. The seat angle is steep enough to feel comfortable when riding all day or on steep climbs, as the suspension stays on top of its travel nicely. Thankfully, it doesn’t rely on the TracLoc function to maintain climbing geometry or resist pedal bobā€”if you never used it, the Ransom would still be a good climber. It’s remarkably stable under power, which is even more impressive considering the 170 millimeters of travel on tap. At the same time, the suspension still manages to move up and over bumps under power to maintain a smooth ride. Overall,iIf an epic pedaling mission was in the cards, I’d happily take the Ransom.

On the downhill, this bike shines when you let it run through fast, rocky sections of terrain. The suspension and geometry create a balanced and forgiving feel without being overly soft or unwieldy. The suspension tracks the ground nicely while remaining composed and predictable, and the ride is impressively quiet in the rough, with no obvious cable or drivetrain rattle. Some high-pivot bikes may take the sting out of square-edged hits a little better and offer a more cloud-like ride, but none of them climb this well. Despite the travel on offer, it never bogs down or becomes lethargic when you want to ride dynamically; there’s a good balance of sensitivity and support, and it’s relatively easy to manual through tight sections. ā€”Seb Stott

Best All-Rounder

Reeb Steezl

Tested Build: GX AXS Transmission Air
Weight: 35 lbs (XL)
Sizing available: S-XXL

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Extremely quiet
āŠ• Excellent in a wide variety of terrain
āŠ— More aggressive riders may want deeper-feeling suspension

Reeb Cycles has been making an eclectic lineup of bikes for some time now, garnering quite a bit of attention with their trail bike, proving yet again that steel is a perfectly viable material for high-performance mountain bikes. Following the SST came the Steezl, a 140- or 155-millimeter all-mountain bike, designed around 160- or 170-millimeter forks.

The front triangle is made of steel and the rear of aluminum. You can run the Steezl with 29-inch wheels, or with a 27.5-inch wheel in the back to make it a mullet bike. The 64-degree head angle and 77-degree seat angle are typical of most all-mountain bikes now.

While the material selection and straight lines of the Steezlā€™s frame construction may look simplistic and traditional, the manufacturing methods are anything but. All of the cleverly machined, laser cut, and 3D-printed frame details are made and assembled in the United States, which is a huge point of pride for the team at Reeb.

In a world of increasingly chunky bike profiles, the Steezl really stands out. But it’s not just the streamlined layout and color that set this bike apartā€”it also offers a ride quality that matches the craftsmanship. There’s no one distinct element of the Steezl that defines the ride quality to me, it’s just a nicely rounded package. Itā€™s an easy bike to feel comfortable on, but also a good bike to challenge yourself if you so desire. Itā€™s fun, quiet, and super capable.

This is the bike I brought with me to Crankworx Whistler this year, so it saw about two weeks of park laps and nasty pedal trails in addition to all the more typical riding around home in Bellingham, Washington. ā€”Dario DiGiulio

Best Park Bike

Devinci Chainsaw

Tested Build: GX 12s
Weight: 37 lbs (size M)
Sizing: S-XL

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Eats bumps without feeling glued to the ground
āŠ• Excellent value
āŠ• Versatile configurations
āŠ— Climbing is a choreā€”no lockout on shock
āŠ— G2 RE brakes hold back descending capabilities

When Devinici set out to build their fresh new gravity bike, they honored Canadian downhill legend, the late Steve Smith, by using his nickname, the ā€œChainsaw.ā€ The brand built the bike to ride the middle ground between an enduro weapon and a downhill race sledā€”all without breaking the bank.

The Canadian-made alloy frame begins at a reasonable $3,599 with a 29er build fit for pedaling up and then charging down. Thereā€™s also a dual-crown version with a 27.5-inch rear wheel to cater to the freeride crowd and aspiring downhill racers.

Featuring the same bump-erasing, high-pivot suspension design as the Spartan HP model, the Chainsaw squeezes out 170 millimeters of rear wheel travel. That can be boosted to 180 millimeters by removing an internal travel spacer, which would best suit the downhill configuration. Need more suspension options? The Chainsaw is designed to accommodate a coil or air shock, too.

By just looking at the geometry table, you might guess that the Chainsaw GX is ready for the gnarliest lines with a 62.9-degree head tube angle. If thatā€™s too much to handle for your regular lunch lap, an offset chip on the frame can be flipped to the ā€œHIā€ setting to speed up those steering traits. In addition, that flip chip can be used to correct the geometry, should you wish to run a 27.5-inch rear wheel instead of the 29-inch.

Between all the fork, shock, and wheel configurations, the possibilities are endless with the Chainsaw. Itā€™s certainly a bike that prioritizes descending with comfort and confidence. However, riders concerned with climbing efficiency may be turned off by the increased chain friction from its high-pivot design and the lack of a climb switch on the Enduro models.

Most Versatile Racer

We Are One Arrival 170

Tested Build: XO
Weight: 32.2 lbs (size L)
Sizing available: M-XL

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Craftsmanship is just as good as premium brands
āŠ• Energetic for a 170-millimeter-travel bike
āŠ• Incredibly versatile
āŠ— Requires more focus to descend steep, rough tracks
āŠ— Limited frame sizes

If youā€™re looking for a truly do-it-all machine this could be the one. Thanks to crafty engineering, the Arrivalā€™s frame can transform into three distinct bikes by only changing the rear shock and rocker links. When paired with similar-length forks it can become a 130-millimeter trail bike and a 150- or 170-millimeter enduro bike.

When you need it to, it pedals like a short travel bike, which is why we had no trouble choosing to take it along for all-day backcountry tours where the terrain changed at a momentā€™s notice.

The Arrival 170 is hands down the best climbing long-travel bike Iā€™ve ridden yet. I could be fooled on the uphills if you told me it only had 150 millimeters of rear travel. The comfortable seat tube angle is neither too relaxed nor too steep, making climbing a dream. In fact, the Arrival came with me on multiple backcountry days in Squamish where Iā€™d normally grab a 120-millimeter-travel bike. Its efficiency made me question, why not have the safety of more travel on these types of rides when youā€™re absolutely bagged by the time you get to the downhill segments?

After spending a good chunk of the late summer on the new Arrival, I can confidently say that itā€™s best suited to enduro racing, and less so to freeriding. Sure, the travel, angles, and sturdiness are there, but it requires a little more poise and control at high speeds and in steeper zones. If you’re looking for a long-travel bike that has nearly all corners covered, the Arrival 170 should be at the top of your list. ā€”Matt Beer

Most Energetic Racer

Ibis HD6

Tested Build: XX Eagle T-Type AXS
Weight: 30.66 lbs (size M)
Sizing available: 1-5 (SM-XXL)

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Can charge rough trails yet remains alive on flatter terrain
āŠ• Quiet and efficient rear suspension
āŠ— Low stack height and greater fork sag gave us pause on steeper trails

The all-new HD6 was developed for enduro racing, making it the most aggressive bike in the Ibis catalog. With 165 millimeters of rear wheel travel and a whopping 180 millimeters in the fork, it isnā€™t afraid to handle technical trails. Deferring from the recognizable looks of past Ibis models, the HD6ā€™s compact carbon frame rides on a 29-inch front wheel and a nimble 27.5-inch wheel out back, helping it accelerate out of corners and generate speed in the blink of an eye.

Like all Ibis full suspension bikes, the highly efficient nature of a DW-Link platform works to calm down bumps of all sizes without feeling like a wet noodle when you need to stomp on the pedals.

Being a high performance machine with a focus on enduro racing, its lightweight component package doesnā€™t come cheaply. Our XX test model costs nearly $12,000, although the GX build is half that number and retains that Factory level suspension. But itā€™s hard to find fault with the components on the highest-end package. The top-level kit weighs just 30.6 pounds and leaves little to be desired. SRAMā€™s premium XX AXS Transmission delivers the latest in drivetrain technologyā€”wirelessly at thatā€”and Fox takes care of the suspension with its highly favored Factory 38 fork and X2 shock.

Moving against industry trends, the chainstays never deviate from a 435-millimeter length, meaning the riderā€™s balance may not be the most stable at the upper end of the size spectrum. In addition, the single-size rear wheel option and the inability to change the geometry without aftermarket components make it less than versatile. Furthermore, we found a peculiarity in the handling, notably on severely steep trails. An already low front-end height had a way of making the steering twitchier than expected as the lengthy fork eagerly pushed through the travel.

The HD6 is all about getting up to speed in the blink of an eye, snapping around tight corners, and providing a comfortable ride on long descents; characteristics of an ideal enduro race. For riders less concerned with clocking their times, it also wonā€™t be a burden on less demanding trails either. ā€”Matt Beer

Best Enduro Frame

Raaw Madonna V3

Tested Build: Custom
Weight: 35.8 lbs (size L)
Sizing available: S-XXL

Pros and Cons
āŠ• Beautiful handling on the descent
āŠ• Robust construction and excellent weather sealing
āŠ— Not the lightest
āŠ— Expensive for an aluminum frame

The Raaw Madonna V3 frame is for riders looking for a fast and reliable option that puts function before fashion. While there have been numerous updates from the previous version, the overarching ethos of the Raaw Madonna remains the same. I’d call this a mountain biker’s mountain bikeā€”it’s not some carbon eye candy that works best when itā€™s hanging off the back of a Sprinter van.

The aluminum frame has big bearings that are double-sealed against the elements, the cables are all externally routed, and the straight head tube, chainstay flip chips, and swappable lower shock mounts allow for plenty of geometry adjustments.

The geometry is dialed in its stock configurationā€”the chainstays are fairly long, the bottom bracket is low, and the stack height is fairly high, which creates the ideal position for attacking steep terrain. For riders that love going fast, the Madonna is an absolute riot. It corners like its on rails, and has gobs of grip for maintaining traction when things get slippery.

It’s quiet and composed without feeling too muted or dull, and it can smash down a rough trail with the best of them, especially when it’s set up with a coil shock rather than an air shock. ā€”Mike Kazimer

How to Choose an Enduro Bike

Yes, all enduro bikes are aiming at getting you downhill, fast. But itā€™s important to consider climbing performance as well, assuming you wonā€™t be using your enduro bike solely at bike parks. Also, keep in mind the type of terrain youā€™ll be ridingā€”is it going to be steeper? More technical? Do you need a bike that focuses on excellent traction? Will you have to deal with lots of flat sections and mellower trails as well? Are you planning on hitting jumps and being playful, or will you be racing? Would a mullet bike serve you?

Answering these questions will help inform if youā€™d do better with a bike that has longer versus shorter travel, various head and seat angles, or a heavier versus lighter bike. Itā€™s also a good idea to look around at what locals are on in the area youā€™ll be primarily riding.

Once youā€™ve nailed down these key factors, the field will have significantly narrowed down. See if you can get on a few test rides before you commit to anything, and ask your friends or your local bike shop gear nerds what theyā€™ve been liking these days. Enduro bikes are so good now that chances are you wonā€™t go wrong, as long as you get your basics down.

You must take a bike at least for a spin around the block before you pull the trigger. You might find that youā€™re uncomfortable on a bike with a certain geometry that youā€™re not used toā€”and although sometimes it does take some more time on the bikeā€”youā€™ll know if youā€™re just not sitting right. Taking it for a spin will also help the shop determine which size is best for you.

How We Test

• Number of Testers: 5
• Number of Products Tested: 18
• Number of Crashes Sustained: Countless

PinkBike leads our mountain bike testing and just like in previous years, the team took out as many trail bikes as they could over the whole year. They tested trail bikes in Bellingham, Washington, and Squamish, BC, in a wide range of conditions that included everything from muddy, rainy days to ones with blue skies and perfect dirt. Testing was lead by Mike Kazimer, the managing tech editor for PinkBike, who is based in Bellingham, Washington and manages all mountain bike gear coverage.

We tested most of the enduro bikes at the 2023 Enduro Bike Field Test last year in Whistler, British Columbia, and you can Of all the enduro bikes we tested, rear travel amounts ranged from 158 to 180 millimeters, with carbon, aluminum, and steel frames. We tested bikes on lift-serviced trails and we pedaled them uphill to experience them to their fullest extent.

Meet the Lead Testers

is the managing tech editor for Pinkbike and has been entrenched in the mountain bike world for well over 20 years. From crushing cardboard boxes as a shop grom to his current role as Pinkbike, he’s long been fascinated with the elegant simplicity of human powered machines. Based in Bellingham, Washington, Kazimer’s no stranger to wet weather, and his favorite rides tend to be long, technical forays deep into the forest.

Tech editor for Pinkbike, also based in Bellingham.

Tech editor for Pinkbike based in Squamish, British Columbia, and a former World Cup Downhill racer.

The post Get Up to Go Down with Our Favorite Enduro Bikes appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

A of this article appeared originally appeared on Pinkbike.Ģż

For most mountain bikers, those slender metal limbs known as crank arms, which transfer the power from your legs to the bike’s chain, don’t receive much thought. They typically measure between 165 millimeters and 175 millimeters in length, most commonly 170. But what if we told you that these standard sizes are longer than ideal for almost all mountain bikers? Let’s delve into the science behind crank length and why shorter crank arms could be better for the majority of riders.

have examined cyclists’ power output, pedalling efficiency, and style across a broad range of crank lengths. Surprisingly, these studies show that unless you venture to extremes, like 120 millimeters or 220 millimeters, crank length appears to have no significant impact on power output or efficiency, even when comparing crank lengths as far apart as 145 millimeters and 190 millimeters. It turns out that when using a smaller crank, cyclists naturally pedal at a faster cadence (spinning their legs at a higher RPM) and this cancels out the reduced leverage in terms of power output.

Moreover, three out of these seven studies suggest potential advantages of shorter crank lengths. One found that shorter cranks reduced the time required to increase power output during a sprint. Another concluded that shorter cranks could help reduce fatigue when pedaling out of the saddle, while a third suggested that they could reduce strain on the hip and knee joints. Combine these findings with the fact that shorter cranks can minimize the risk of pedal strikes on uneven terrain, a common cause of crashes and stalls, and it makes a very compelling case for adopting shorter cranks for mountain biking, at least for most riders.

What About Shorter Crank Arms for Tall Riders?

One study looked into how much power cyclists could generate as a function of crank-length to leg-length ratio. Essentially, they found that the optimum crank length was somewhere around 20 percent of the rider’s leg length, but crucially, riders’ power outputs weren’t significantly compromised when using any crank between 15 and 25 percent of their leg length.

This means that for someone of average male height (five foot, nine inches, according to the ), the ideal crank length would be around 161 millimeters, or 150 millimeters for the average female (five foot, four inches tall, according to the ). This already makes a case that the standard 170 millimeter arms are unnecessarily long for most riders.Ģż In the wake of this study, we saw it suggested that very tall riders should be using longer-than-standard cranks for maximum power output, but looking at the data more closely suggests that even for someone as tall as two meters (six foot, seven inches) riding a crank as short as 145 millimeters wouldn’t significantly compromise their power production.

Testing Shorter Crank Arms

I wondered if a tall rider like me (six foot, three inches/191 centimeters) would find some compromises with short cranks, or if I could derive any real benefit.

I experimented with shorter crank arms, moving from the standard 170 to 155 millimeter cranks. I used a 32-tooth chainring with the 170 millimeter arms and a 30-tooth chainring with the smaller crank, to compensate for the reduced leverage and higher cadence with the latter. The science suggests this shouldn’t compromise my power output much, if at all, but I wanted to find out for myself.

The difference was immediately noticeable while pedalingā€”I had a narrower stance and a smaller pedal circle. But, after adjusting the saddle height upwards by 15 millimeters to maintain proper leg extension, I found no significant downsides to the shorter cranks. Climbing steep, technical terrain, pedaling out of the saddle, and navigating crux moves all felt at least as comfortable with the shorter cranks. Moreover, thigh burn on long descents was reduced, and quicker pedal strokes along with improved ground clearance made it easier to maintain or regain momentum on technical terrain.

How to Experiment

In conclusion, if you worry about clipping your pedals on the ground when pedaling over choppy ground, if you’re below average height, or if you suffer from knee or hip pain while cycling, shorter crank arms might be worth considering. (It’s worth checking with a professional bike fitter too, especially if you suffer from joint pain in the saddle.) Any one of those reasons could be enough to consider shorter cranks. Personally, I’m well above average height and have never had an issue with standard cranks, but I still benefitted from the improved ground clearance and reduced leg ache when using shorter cranks.

However, keep in mind that complementary adjustments, like a smaller chainring and higher saddle height, may be necessary, and some bikes might not accommodate these changes easily. While the standard 170 millimeter crank may be acceptable for many people, they’re probably longer than ideal for most people, especially those who ride challenging terrain frequently. The point of this article isn’t that everyone should rush out to buy the shortest cranks they can find, but to challenge the idea that 170 millimeter cranks should be the standard size for mountain bikes.

The post Should You Be Using Shorter Crank Arms on Your Mountain Bike? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

Picking the right frame size is one of the most important decisions you’ll make when buying a new bike. The frame size affects the comfort, agility, stability, and all-around handling of the rigā€”arguably more so than the differences between two comparable models from competing brands. Here’s some advice that’s been repeated a thousand times, because it’s true: don’t be tempted by a great deal on a bike that’s not the ideal size.

Check the Size Charts

So how do you pick the right size? Luckily, these days it’s usually incredibly straightforward. Go to the website of the bike you’re looking to buy, click on the geometry/sizing section and check which size the manufacturer recommends for your height. That’s it. It may sound too easy, but manufacturers are at the point where these sizing recommendations are a good guide for most people.

But there are two potential problems with this: what if you’re on the border between two size recommendations on the manufacturer’s chart? And what about older, secondhand bikes?

What to Do If You’re Between Sizes

If your height puts you in between two sizes, there’s a judgment call to be made. You should be able to ride either without any problems, but in general, sizing down will give you a more lively ride that will suit tighter terrain, lower speeds, and a more playful riding style; sizing up will offer more stability, with less chance of pitching forwards when braking or riding over bumps, which suits faster, rougher terrain or a “to the point” riding style.

In the video above, I compare two sizes of the same bike in terms of ride feel and speed against the clock. For me, there was no real difference in how fast I could ride. It’s surprisingly easy to adapt to either, but one thing I noticed is that the bigger size felt better once I knew the track and was up to speed. So if you usually ride trails that you know well, that may tip the balance towards sizing up, whereas if you’re often exploring new trails, the agility of a smaller size might make more sense.

Ultimately, the best solution is to try out both sizes and see which you prefer. If that’s not possible, then trying out a range of similar bikes can help. When you find a bike that fits you nicely, make a note of the reach numberā€”that’s the horizontal distance between the top of the head tube and an imaginary vertical line drawn through the bottom bracketā€”which is usually found on the manufacturer’s website. While not perfect, it’s the best single number for gauging how long a bike will feel when riding. Once you get a feel for how much reach you like, you can apply this knowledge to your bike of choice.

Note that reach is purely a measurement of the frameā€”it doesn’t take into account the length of the stem, the rise of the handlebars, or the number of spacers under the stem. All of these will affect how big the bike feels to ride, so make sure the bikes you’re riding have the same stem length as what you would run on the bike you’re intending to buy, as well as a that’s appropriate for you.

How to Choose Sizes on Older Bikes

If you’re shopping for an older bikeā€”by which I mean one made before about 2015ā€”the advice above doesn’t necessarily apply.

In the early days of mountain biking, sizing was almost entirely based on the seat tube length, or the distance from the bottom bracket to the top of the seat clamp (usually measured in inches). Taller riders needed a taller frame in order to get their saddle high enough and shorter riders needed a shorter frame in order to get the seat low enough, but the horizontal length of the bike (which is critical for stability and handling) was almost an afterthought and barely changed between the smallest and largest sizes.

Throughout the history of mountain biking, this gradually shifted to the point where now, long- and travel-adjustable dropper seatposts make it possible for most riders to fit on a range of sizes without worrying about the seat tube length at all. But if you’re looking at buying an older bike, most experts would now agree that the reach and wheelbase are going to be on the short side (especially for taller riders), making for handling that would be more fairly described as “sketchy” or “terrifying” rather than “agile” or “fun.”

So in this case, it’s usually worth sizing up if you can. For example, at 191 centimeters or six-foot, three inches tall, I’m choosing an XL or large with modern bikes, but with bikes from a few years ago I’d be looking for an XL or XXL. The limiting factor for sizing up is usually the seat tube lengthā€”this is because older bikes have long seat tubes and short reach numbers. A long seat tube can make it difficult to install a dropper post that goes down far enough to be effective.

To work out if the seat tube is too long, use a bike where the saddle height is at the right height for pedaling, then measure the distance from the saddle rails to the center of the bottom bracket. If you don’t know what your ideal saddle height should be, a visit to your local bike shop may be in order. In general, though, the goal is to have your knee slightly bent at the bottom of the pedal stroke, when the pedals are at the 6 and 12 o’clock positions.

Once you know your ideal seat height, subtract the seat tube length of the bike you’re thinking of getting; the number you’re left with is the “collar-to-saddle rails distance”, which is the room that’s left for a dropper post. You can then plug this number into to find out what’s the longest dropper post that will fit.

These days, dropper posts are considered a must-have for mountain biking – they make it easy to get the saddle out of the way for descending without needing to dismount and lower the seat manually. How much drop you need will vary depending on a bike’s geometry and the rider’s height, but in general, on older bikes you’ll want to be able to fit a post with 125 mm of travel at the bare minimum; 150 mm or more will be even better, especially for taller riders, if the seat tube length will allow it.

Every spring there is an influx of riders keen to get into mountain biking, and at Pinkbike and ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų, we know that these newcomers are often overwhelmed with information and opinions. So, weā€™re launching a seven-part series called MTB Explained, where we help new riders navigate some of the basics of our sport. If youā€™re new, welcome to the best damn sport in the world, and if youā€™re a long-time rider letā€™s welcome these folks to the club.

The post How to Choose the Right Size Mountain Bike in 2023 appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

If you want one bike to do everything, how much travel should it have? All bikes have to find a compromise between climbing and descending performance, and suspension travel is usually seen as a good indicator of where a bike sits on that spectrum.

But recently, short-travel trail bikes are a lot more capable, while long-travel bikes are much better at climbing. So how much slower is a modern long-travel bike uphill? And what are the differences downhill?

Caught up in all this is the question of tire choice. How much of the difference in climbing speed between an enduro bike and a trail bike comes down to the tires? Can fast-rolling tires close the gap? And can sticky tires make a short-travel bike descend as well as a long-travel one? Let’s find out.

The Bikes

Nukeproof Reactor

ā€¢ 130 / 150 mm travel
ā€¢ Weight as tested: 14.4 Kg / 31.7 lbs (“trail” tires, 200 mm rotors)
ā€¢ Size tested: XL
ā€¢ Price: $7,062

 

Nukeproof Giga

ā€¢ 170 / 180 mm travel
ā€¢ Weight as tested: 15.2 Kg / 33.5 lbs (“trail” tires, air shock)
ā€¢ Size tested: XXL
ā€¢ Price: $7,415

To make things as comparable as possible, I got hold of a Nukeprof Reactor RS and a Nukeproof Giga RS. The Reactor has 130 millimeters of rear travel and 150 millimeters up front, while Giga serves up 170 millimeters (rear) and 180 millimeters (front). These models have identical brakes, drivetrains, and cockpits. With the same wheels and tires fitted, only the frame and fork are different. Both use full-carbon frames and RockShox Ultimate-level suspension. The Reactor has a Lyrik fork to the Giga’s Zeb, but the difference in chassis diameter is appropriate to the travel offered in each case.

Although the photos used here were taken with a coil shock fitted to the Giga, the testing was carried out with a RockShox Super Deluxe air shock to match the shock on the Reactor. I upgraded the rear rotor size on the Reactor to 200 millimeters so both bikes could accept the same wheels for comparative testing.

I set both bikes up with 30 percent shock sag and suspension settings as I would normally have them.

For the most part, I used the wheels that came stock on the Reactor for both bikes to remove the variable of tire choice. These tires were a Maxxis Dissector, EXO+ casing, MaxTerrra compound (rear) with a Maxxis Assegai, EXO casing, MaxxTerra compound (front). For brevity, I’ll call these the “trail” tires from now on. Fitting these tires and the air shock to the Giga dropped its weight to a respectable 15.2 kilograms – only 800 grams (1.8 pounds) more than the Reactor with the same wheels.

I also tested with a stickier pair of tires (fitted to another alloy wheelset for easier wheel swaps). These were a Maxxis Assegai in DoubleDown casing, MaxxGrip compound on the rear, with a Schwalbe Magic Mary, SuperGravity casing, Soft compound, on the front. We’ll call these the “enduro” tires. These wheels/tires weighed 600 grams more than the trail wheels/tires.

Climbing

For the climbing test, I used a pair of SRM power meter pedals to control my effort, which I kept at a steady 250 watts. I rode both bikes up the same gentle and smooth fire road climb. I used a short climb so I could do five laps on each bike in quick succession and take an average. If I only did one or two longer climbs on each bike, there would be no way of knowing if any difference in times was down to the bike or just a fluke.

I did this first with the trail tires at my usual riding pressures (23 and 26 psi) then I re-tested the Reactor with the enduro tires. Here are the times:

As you might expect, the Giga was slower on average than the Reactor, but the average time was only 0.8 percent slower. Because the Reactor wasn’t consistently quicker, and the average difference between the bikes was so small, we can’t be sure from these numbers if the difference between the bikes is real or just a fluke. In science terms, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.

But even if we take the 0.8 percent difference at face value, that’s about between the two bikes alone, suggesting the travel per se (i.e. the pedaling efficiency) wasn’t having any effect.

In contrast, with the enduro tires fitted, the Reactor went 4.1 percent slower, or 3.4 percent slower than the Giga with the trail tires. In both cases, these are statistically significant differences, because the Reactor with Enduro tires was consistently slowest. To give that some context, over a half-hour climb, the enduro tires would add about one minute and fourteen seconds to the Reactor’s time. Or to go at the same pace, you’d need to produce about 260 watts instead of 250 watts; if you’re already working hard, that could be very noticeable.

The added of the heavier tires would only be expected to slow things down by at most 0.6 percent, so most of that difference is down to rolling resistance. This added drag will make covering ground slower on the flat and even downhills too (so long as traction and braking aren’t what’s limiting speed).

Subjectively, you can feel a little pedal bob from either bike, but there isn’t dramatically more with the Giga. The position is quite different due to the Reactor’s lower stack height and slacker seat tube angle (74.5 degrees vs. 78 degrees); this stretches out the spine which feels much less comfortable to me, especially on long climbs. Doing timed testing over technical climbs is virtually impossible because the time can vary so much from one run to the next depending on line choice, technique and luck, but when riding over bumpy terrain the Giga is noticeably smoother. The softer suspension obviously helps here but having your weight further in front of the rear axle also reduces how much your weight lifts when the rear wheel moves over a bump. Though I can’t put a number on it, I much preferred the Giga for technical climbs.

Descending

To see how they compare for descending, I chose a short local trail I know well with a good mix of roots, rocks, steep twisty sections and flat fast sections. It’s not the most technical trail in the world and it’s definitely not the roughest, but on the day of testing (which was a couple of days before taking these photographs), it was wet and slippery, making it a good challenge. To level the playing field and keep things simple, I stuck with the trail tires on the Giga and the enduro tires on the Reactor.

The Giga went first, and despite doing two laps to get up to speed on the course before getting the timer out, I shaved 2-3 seconds off my time from one run to the next. This is always a problem with timed testing. My first time on the Reactor (my fourth timed run of the day) matched the first run on the Giga. It improved from there but levelled out at one minute and sixteen seconds.

I did one more run on the Reactor with the trail tires and matched my fastest times, suggesting the stickier tires weren’t much of an advantage on this course anyway. I’m sure that on a more treacherous courseā€”or in the hands of a rider who is better at finding the limit of gripā€”the enduro tires would become a significant advantage.

Subjectively, the enduro tires felt much more damped and surefooted and I was locking up less on the steep sections, but this didn’t seem to translate into more speed for me. Even with the sticky tires on the Reactor, the Giga felt much smoother, calmer, and more stable. The higher bar and slacker head angle combined with suspension that feels more settled “in the travel” makes going faster feel more within my comfort zone. I also felt like there was more time left on the table with the Giga, whereas the last two runs on the Reactor would be hard for me to improve on.

Because there are so many variables at play when descending, I wouldn’t read much into the times themselves. But they reveal that, although I felt closer to the edge on the Reactor, I was in fact going slower.

Closing Thoughts

The biggest takeaway for me is just how much difference tire choice makes for climbing speed. Sure, the enduro tires I tested are pretty draggy, but they’re not DH tires or mud spikes, and the trail tires (with an Assegai up front) are far from the fastest you can get. In fact, they held their own even on slippery descents.

I’m sure plenty of people don’t care about going slightly faster or feeling more comfortable on steep descents; in fact, I often hear people say they find it more fun to have a sketchier ride at slower speeds. But if that’s the case, why not fit slicker tires which will offer a real boost in climbing speed as a bonus? You could always use the lockout or run 10 percent sag if you want your enduro bike to feel sketchier! Personally, I have more fun on a long travel bike as it gives me the confidence to try new lines or ride them with more commitment.

The other surprise was that the Giga was barely slower uphill than the Reactor with the same tires, and if you want to close the efficiency gap even more you could always use the lockout.

One caveat here is that a power meter may not be the best way to measure and control effort in an efficiency test when comparing suspension efficiency. I discuss this with Mike Levy in , but the bottom line is that I think the power meter method is valid for measuring efficiency when pedalling sitting down (as in this test), but it doesn’t work for out-of-the-saddle sprinting, and that’s where the extra travel is more likely to be a disadvantage.

It’s also fair to say the Reactor isn’t the fastest-climbing short-travel bike out there. But the Giga probably isn’t the most efficient among 170 millimeter+ bikes either. It’s based on a downhill bike and it’s designed to be even more gravity-focussed than Nukeproof’s Mega enduro bike. More to the point, it doesn’t have a huge amount of , and higher anti-squat levels would probably make it climb even better. In one of , the 170 millimeter-travel Santa Cruz Nomad (which has quite a lot of anti-squat) was faster than the 130 millimeter Ibis Mojo (despite having slower tires), suggesting a long-travel bike with generous anti-squat can be as just as efficient as a shorter travel one.

The bottom line is that ample suspension travel needn’t be a hindrance uphill, but grippy tires will slow you down a lot. So if you want one bike to do everything, it might make sense to pick a long-travel bike with a spare set of fast-rolling tires for mellower rides.

This article first appeared on our sister site, .

The post Short or Long Travel: Which Is the Best All-Around Mountain Bike? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

You may have noticed that a lot of have their cables routed through the upper headset bearing. Let’s just say this move has proven a little controversial among commenters. One obvious downside is that replacing that upper bearing is going to involve detaching the brake hoses and the dropper and shifter cables.

So I got in touch with all the bike brands I can think of who have gone down this route to ask them why it makes sense for them. Most didn’t reply. Here are the responses of those who did.

(Photo: Merida/PaulBox)

Merida

“We are convinced of headset cable routing for several reasons:

First of all, cable routing is made easy because the opening on the head tube is much larger than a small opening on the side of the headtube/downtube. The cables on our headset cable routing can therefore simply be pushed upwards and no pick or magnet is needed. Especially with aluminum frames, where no liners can be used inside the frame, routing and replacing cables becomes much easier and faster. In addition, thanks to the large opening at the head tube, a foam tube can be pulled over the hoses on aluminum frames, which minimizes noise.

As the cable entry is very close to the rotation centre, the cables do not have to make a big loop. Instead, the cables move with the handlebar movement. This reduces the elongation of the cables and prevents them from rubbing against the head tube. Rattling when touching the various cables is also reduced. The frame construction can also be optimized by headset cable routing, as the critical area around the headtube/downtube is not weakened by extra holes.

Of course, we are also aware of the disadvantages:

Replacing and re-greasing your bearings is a little bit more tricky than with a standard headset, because you need to manage your cables and the fork. When the headset is not well designed it can be frustrating during maintenance work, which we have had experience with in the past. That’s why we worked with ACROS to develop a new headset based on their ICR system.

The durability did not cause any problems in our endurance tests either. Thanks to our Acros system with small entry holes in the cover and 3 additional seals, both bearings lasted longer as conventional headsets, even without special care. Some other brands want to save money when it comes to the details, especially when it comes to adding the additional sealing. But that was not our approach.

Of course our bearings also need to be re-greased or replaced from time to time. However, the upper bearing, through which the hoses run, is much less stressed than the lower bearing and therefore needs to be replaced less frequently.

But if it does it needs to be replaced every 2-3 years, we believe this happens as part of a major winter service and the 15 minutes of extra work to remove the fork and bleed the brake is acceptable.

Finally, of course, the clean look also matters for many consumers as well. Particularly in view of the brakes that might be introduced soon, which will route the cables much closer to the handlebars, we expect that headset cable routing will become more common among brands.”

Scott

“By not routing cables through the headtube, weā€™re able to make the frame structure lighter and more efficient by not needing to reinforce cable entry points on the frame. If we take a previous generation Spark, and the one we launched last year, we save nearly 60 grams through this ā€“ which for an XC World Cup level bike is substantial. There is a lot we are able to do with 60g of high modulus carbon fiber.

Once youā€™ve learned the process for cable routing with this system, we actually find it to be easier than with our previous approach. Fewer rubber bits and fewer individual cable routing parts throughout the frame make things relatively straightforward, especially with our large shock access door in the down tube.

We can also tuck cables in more nicely, theyā€™re less exposed in the event of a crash. They have less room to waggle around, and help us have a system that is nice and quiet (this generation of bikes is by far the quietest we have ever engineered). Cables »å“Ē²Ōā€™t have to be as long, saving further weight that we can then re-integrate into making a better frame. Frankly, it looks very good as well.

As for downsides, you have to re-learn in a sense the best way to work on the bike, so there is a bit of a learning curve. Once youā€™ve done that, though ā€“ youā€™re off and running.”

Focus

“Since that topic creates hot discussions all the time it’s impossible for us to make a statement in 1 or 2 sentences.

The decision to go for integrated cable routing is nothing we at Focus decided from one day to the other. We see the parallels between other segments like road where external routing is not an option anymore and integrated routing is state of the art meanwhile.

We are doing the integrated routing because of the clean look, less cable rub and less cable rattling. The market feedback from our customers and dealer shows clearly that the clean look is super important and plays a huge role when the customer is deciding on a bike.

Especially e-bikes with additional cables are looking significantly cleaner compared to traditional routing. We did some intense testing in real life as well as in our test facilities to avoid any cable rub and create the same reliability as regular cable routing. We also spec additional seals to increase the lifetime of the bearings. What we often hear as an argument: Frame makers get rid of the cable routing to save costs. Simply not true, the frame construction costs basically the same.

Changing a derailleur or dropper cable is, depending on the solution, the same effort as internal routing. Changing the upper bearing is more effort, but that’s not something you do once a month. For FOCUS, Integrated routing is here to stay. One way or the other. ”

Unno

“We decided to take that direction to tidy up the cockpit area a bit and avoid cables possibly rubbing on the frame. Also, no holes in the carbon over that area. In our case, we developed custom parts to make sure cables can enter quite straight and avoid damaging the hoses, as could happen with other systems out there. No hose damage, no need to replace them because of that.

We are moving to full-on AXS transmissions for Unno. This means one less cable to go through – the one that needs certain maintenance to keep transmission smooth and could be affected by a little extra work because of this.

If you make the frame ready for mechanical in case someone wants to go mechanical, then you need to leave an extra hole in the carbon – not very nice aesthetics when you »å“Ē²Ōā€™t need it.

In the end, if nothing major happens like breaking your brake line in a crash and you need to replace it, we »å“Ē²Ōā€™t see any work needed that will be affected by any extra work because of headset routing (with AXS transmission that is what our bikes come with stock).”

Final Thoughts

It seems to me that headset cable routing isn’t as bad an idea as it first appears. By moving the cable port close to the steering axis, it minimises the cable movement in front of the bars, which might reduce cable rattle, and allows for shorter cables. It may also allow brands to create a slightly lighter frame. When building a bike from scratch, there’s actually a larger port to aim for with your cables, so it could make the initial setup easier. I’ve also noticed that when swapping a brake hose from the right to the left side there are no issues with the hose becoming the wrong length and bending awkwardly.

But it’s clear that a major factor in deciding to route cables through the headset is that it looks neater. That’s obviously subjective, but if everyone really cared about servicing over aesthetics, we wouldn’t have any internal routing at all. Personally, that would suit me just fine, but if the hoses are going through the frame I don’t see the route through the headset being all that much harder to live with – upper headset bearings usually last for years. I have seen concerns that the bearing might not last as long with this design due to water ingress, but the bearing is larger and the conventional ports are eliminated, so I’m not sure that’s true (Merida claim the opposite).

As for the cables going through the spacers and the stem, that’s a step too far in my book.

The post Why Are So Many Bike Manufacturers Putting Cables Through the Headset? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

This post originally appeared on Pinkbike.com

I’ve already complained that some of the Ā cooked up by the bike industry could add more complexity than theyā€™re worth. But itā€™s not all bad news. There are also some good ideas out there that make bikes both simpler and better.

In contrast to overly complicated suspension designs or added electronics, sometimes good design is about asking what youĀ »å“Ē²Ōā€™t need. At its best, simplicity means making a bike lighter, quieter, cheaper, easier to maintain and more reliable. But it can be more than that. Thereā€™s something elegant and ingenious about a simpler solution that performs just as well.

Here are a few examples of where less is more.

Flex Pivots

 

Thereā€™s a reason virtually every XC bike now has a ā€œflex pivotā€ instead of a conventional pivot with bearings or bushings. Flex pivots are lighter, they eliminate a number of small parts (bearings, bolts, washers) and maintenance.

While bearings have to be replaced about once every season, a well-designed flex pivot will last the lifetime of the frame. The pivot at the rear of the frame, whether on the seatstay or chainstay, usually only sees a few degrees of rotation through the suspensionā€™s travel. That means bearings can become pitted and wear out faster because the force is always acting on the same point, whereas a flexible frame member made from carbon, , or even , can accommodate that range of motion without fatiguing. Theyā€™re most often seen on bikes with 120 millimeters of travel or less right now, but just launched a 170 millimeter flex pivot bike and I suspect weā€™ll see more long-travel versions pop up as manufacturing techniques improve.

 

---

Single-Ring DrivetrainsĀ 

To keen mountain bikers, the benefits of one-by may be so obvious that it almost goes without saying. They have allowed us to do away with a front shifter, front derailleur, cable, and (usually) a chain guide too, while still providing a wide range of gears. But to a novice rider, the simplicity of the single shifter is even more beneficial. Theyā€™re not just simpler to install and maintain, theyā€™re simpler to ride because you only have one shifter and a continuous spread of sequential gears to think about.

And although theyā€™re not exactly new, you can now buy an entry-level bike with a decent single-ring drivetrain. For those who are just getting started in the sport, thatā€™s a very good thing.

Tech editor Mike Levy enjoying a Kona Process 134, despite its lonely pivot.

(Good) Single-Pivot Suspension

Iā€™m sure that defending single pivots is going to draw a lot of flak, but here we go. Two criticisms are levelled at single pivot bikes. The first has to do with braking and applies to linkage-driven single-pivot bikes (like you’d find on a Kona or Commencal) as well as true single pivots (as used by Orange and Starling).

The main reason to use a Horst-link layout (which is the most common design these days) over a linkage-driven single pivot is to reduce and tweak the anti-rise characteristic, which is how the brake force acts on the suspension. This is claimed to allow the suspension to move more freely over bumps while braking. But in reality, this just isnā€™t much of an issue. In fact, high anti-rise values typical of single pivots help them to resist brake dive, making them more stable under braking, and I think this effect is far more noticeable. For what itā€™s worth, a lot of World Cup and EWS races have been won on linkage-driven single-pivot bikes over the years, from the likes of Commencal, Kona, Nukeproof, Cannondale, Honda and Saracen.

The second criticism only applies to true single-pivot bikes, where the shock is mounted directly to the swingarm. They generally lack progression from the frame, which means any progression or ā€˜ramp upā€™ in the suspension forces has to come from the shock. And with a progressive linkage, the damping forces also increase toward the end of the travel, further helping to prevent bottom-out.

First off, itā€™s worth pointing out that some multi-pivot designs, such as Specializedā€™s , don’t offer more progression (drop in leverage ratio) than could be achieved with a single pivot.

Besides, air shocks make tuning the progression of the spring with volume spacers easy, while the latest air springs with added negative volume or progressive coil springs mean modern shocks suit a linear leverage curve much better than they used to, diminishing the benefit of a progressive linkage.

Sure, with a progressive linkage the damping forces increase throughout the travel as well as the spring rate, and this is harder to replicate with the shock. But not everyone agrees the travel-dependent damping rates which come with progressive linkages are a good thing. Thatā€™s why Ā built a downhill bike with a progressive link to drive the (coil) spring and a linear one to drive the damper.

Despite all this, I do think that progressive linkages have advantages from a performance standpoint, at least with many of the shocks that are available today. But with the right shock, single pivots can work very well indeed. Where I live, I know people who swap frame bearings multiple times a year; for them, the benefits of a single pivot could greatly outstrip the downsides.

Sometimes (maybe even usually) the answer is more boing. (Photo: Eric Mickelson)

More Travel

There are a lot of complicated ways of trying to optimize suspension performance: fancy linkages, expensive shocks, idlers. But thereā€™s only one surefire way to help a bike smooth out the bumps: give it more suspension travel.

Increasing travel doesnā€™t necessarily increase weight, cost or complexity, but it fundamentally changes how effectively the bike can absorb impacts. And while not everybody wants a well-cushioned ride, you can run a long-travel bike as firm as you like by running less sag, using a lockout or adding volume spacers, but you canā€™t run a short-travel bike as soft as you like, or it will bottom out.

Iā€™m not saying that everybody should ride a downhill bike, but giving a trail bike 10 millimeters more travel might be a simpler and more effective way of improving tracking, grip, and comfort than a more complicated suspension design.

SRAM’s H2 rotors are available in 220 millimeter diameter and two millimeters thick.

Big Rotors

Similarly, there are a lot of complicated ways of improving braking performance like two-piece rotors, finned brake pads and lever cams. Most of these add cost, and sometimes issues too. Finned pads often rattle, and lever cams amplify inconsistency or sponginess in the hydraulic system.

In contrast, bigger rotors improve power, cooling, and consistency without adding complexity. A 220 millimeter rotor will boost power by about 10 percent when compared to a 200 millimeter rotor, while also providing more surface area to dissipate heat. Sure, they weigh more, but the disc is only about 25 grams heavier in the case of SRAMā€™s HS2 rotors, and the extra weight is a positive for absorbing heat during heavy braking. To make things even simpler, you could try 220 millimeter rotors with two-pot brakes instead of 200 millimeter rotors with four-pots; two-piston brakes are easier to maintain, and the weight and power should be comparable.

Okay that’s taking simplicity a bit far. (Photo: Erick Gonzalez)

Bottom Line

I »å“Ē²Ōā€™t want to come across as a Luddite. I like technology that makes bikes perform better, even by only a small amount. Iā€™m a big fan of innovations like long-travel dropper posts, 12-speed cassettes and adjustable geometry because they offer a tangible benefit, at least sometimes. But in the cases where a design with fewer parts performs just as well in the real world, Iā€™d rather take the simpler approach every time. Remember that bike brands want to stand out from the crowd and convince you their bike has an edge over its rivals. It’s much easier to do that by asking what they can add than what they could take away.

The post Mountain Bikes Donā€™t Need to Be Complicated: 5 Places Where Less Is More appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.

This article was shared by our partners from Pinkbike.Ģż

Innovation is a tricky business. Many of the technologies that have made mountain biking as good as it is today (suspension, dropper posts, disc brakes…) were once considered unnecessary and over-complicated by some. But on the other hand, if you look back at a magazine from a few years ago you’ll see no shortage of “game-changing” innovations that never amounted to much.

Neither Kazimer nor I were impressed with the $1,975 Trust Shout.

A tube in a tube in a tube in a tube, what could possibly go wrong?

To name a few, how about linkage forks, pull shocks, , or the that adjusted the saddle tilt as it dropped… Some of these were good ideas in many ways, but the fact they failed to take off suggests they weren’t as much of a game-changer as their inventors hoped, or perhaps were too complicated to be worth the effort.

Looking back in time, it seems easy to sort the revolutionary innovations from the duds. But hindsight is 20/20. Spotting what’s going to move the sport along in future (and what’s not) is much trickier.

So which of the current crop of tech trends are worth having? I’m going to play the role of the bad guy in Gladiator and sort those that deserve to live from those we could probably live without.

Bear in mind, this is just my current opinion and I’m both willing and likely to change my mind about some of these ideas. It isn’t meant to rain on anyone’s parade and I certainly don’t want to discourage innovation; it’s just a finger-in-the-wind take on which ideas I think we’re likely to see more of in future. Who knows? Looking back on this list in ten years’ time I might have got it all wrong.

Six-bar suspension

To recap, a four-bar linkage is one where the rear axle is mounted on a frame member which is not directly connected to the mainframe, but moves on two other links – these could be a pair of short links (like VPP) or a rocker link and a chainstay (Horst-link). That makes four frame members: the mainframe, lower link/chainstay, rear triangle/seatstay, and upper link.

A six-bar linkage adds two more frame members and three or four more pivot points. This adds weight and cost, along with more parts to service. I haven’t seen a satisfyingly specific justification from any six-bar proponents, but the claimed advantage usually has to do with fine-tuning the axle path and therefore the anti-squat curve in a way that isn’t possible with a four-bar design. But whether that makes the bike ride appreciably better is highly questionable. After all, there’s little agreement on what any of these curves should ideally look like anyway.

What’s more, according to Pinkbike’s kinematics expert, Dan Roberts, some of these designs are extremely sensitive to pivot placement, to the point where manufacturing tolerances could (potentially) create a meaningful change in those highly-refined kinematics.

Verdict: Unnecessary complication

Long-travel droppers

Like many people, there was a time when I had just about convinced myself a 125mm dropper was all you needed. Sure, the saddle got in the way sometimes (actually quite often) but that probably just meant I wasn’t hanging far enough off the back of the bike, right? Then every time I tried a longer post – first 150mm, then 175mm, then 200mm and more – it felt great to have a bit more room to move around and allow the bike to come towards me when pumping. When I returned to a shorter seatpost, the saddle always seemed to be in the way more often than I noticed before.

Some people blame steep seat tubes for the need for more drop, but I think the move to longer front-centre lengths is a better explanation because you can’t hang your weight behind an over-extended saddle if you want the front wheel to grip. Really though, long-travel droppers were always a great idea – judging by the wear marks on the last fixed seatpost I ever owned, I was dropping it by about 200 mm by preference. It just took time to make a reliable dropper that long.

Verdict: Useful innovation

Through-stem cable routing

When it comes to regular internal cable routing, most manufacturers have managed to eliminate the rattle and make it relatively easy to change a cable. But recently launched a concept for a brake with cables running through the handlebar, then Focus launched several new bikes with cables running through the headset, spacers and the stem.

I hardly need to tell you the drawbacks of this. Swapping a cable means taking the stem apart and changing stem length involves taking the brake apart and re-bleeding it. Even dropping the bar height requires a different (round) spacer above the stem, which means different parts and a less-than-clean look, which sort of destroys the point. Having a few cables crossing in front of the frame is fine.

Verdict: Unnecessary complication

Tire inserts

Inserts aren’t for everyone. Regular tires offer enough protection for most people and if you’re worried about pinch punctures or rim damage you could just increase pressures slightly. But if you’re after the best possible grip, they have real benefits. Not only do they add some protection for your tires and rims, allowing lower pressures, they also increase the damping of the tire, making it less bouncy, more stuck to the ground.

You could achieve much of this with a thicker-casing tire, and doing so might have a similar weight penalty to adding an insert. But here’s the thing: thicker tire casings dramatically increase rolling resistance, which has a much bigger effect on rolling or climbing speed than the extra weight does. But with an insert, you can have the protection and damping benefits without the slower rolling speeds.

Verdict: Useful innovation

High pivot trail bikes

I’m sure this will be controversial. I get that high pivot bikes have advantages – they’re better at absorbing large bumps and have better sensitivity while pedalling. If you’re looking to get down a World Cup track as fast as possible, they make a lot of sense. But even then, it’s not as if low-pivot bikes aren’t still winning races and when comparable high and low-pivot bikes in a really impressive batch of back-to-back testing, there wasn’t much in it. It even sounded like he was leaning towards the low pivot bike.

I’m not saying high pivot bikes aren’t better for descending (for a given amount of travel, I think they are); I just don’t think the benefit is worth it for anything other than a downhill race bike. Manuals and bunnyhops are slightly harder work, the idler adds a measurable amount of , it adds weight and complexity, plus you’ll usually need a longer-than-stock chain and a lower roller guide to keep the chain growth in check.

Are these downsides the end of the world? Absolutely not. But the upsides aren’t going to change your life either, so I’m not convinced it’s worth it for a bike you pedal under your own steam. If you’ve already got 200mm+ of suspension travel then fair enough, but otherwise it might be simpler, more efficient and more effective to just increase the travel in order to improve big-hit absorption.

Verdict: Unnecessary complication

High-volume air springs

While coil springs have the same stiffness throughout the travel, traditional air springs are much stiffer at the start of the travel than in the middle, which can make them feel harsh, unpredictable and unstable. But by increasing the volume in the positive and negative air chambers, it’s possible to reduce this mid-travel dip in stiffness, making them perform more like coil springs, with the associated traction and support.

When companies advertise this “coil-like feel”, people often ask “Why not just use coil springs”? Well, they’re heavier, usually aren’t progressive at the end of the travel, and most of all, changing the spring rate is incremental, expensive and time-consuming. And from a brand’s perspective, getting all their customers set up with the right spring rates is a logistical headache. That’s why air will continue to be the default option, especially as air springs continue to improve.

Verdict: Useful innovation

Electronically controlled suspension

Last year saw the release of RockShox Flight Attendant. Though not the first, it’s the latest and greatest automatic suspension mode selector yet. It improved on Fox Live Valve and Lapierre’s ei system by making it wireless, pedal sensitive, and offering an intermediate compression damping mode as well as open and closed.

The idea, of course, is to allow you to have a firm and efficient bike when climbing, a supple bike for descending, and something in-between when you’re pedalling through rough terrain. And according to , it basically does what it sets out to do.

But even the original Fox Live Valve worked exactly as intended most of the time. My issue with automatic lockouts in general is that, with modern bikes, having the suspension locked out is only a minor benefit unless you’re out of the saddle sprinting – less than 1% faster according to . And for the longer climbs where that kind of percentage could add up to a few seconds, what’s wrong with using the lockout manually?

Don’t get me wrong, the technology is impressive. But given the marginal benefits (especially when compared to a cheap remote lockout), I struggle to see the appeal unless the price, weight and charging requirements come down considerably.

Verdict: Unnecessary complication

Wide range cassettes

I realize the comments section is full of world-class athletes who can ride a singlespeed all day long up 25% inclines. Many of you might think that a 52-tooth bottom gear is totally unnecessary, but science says otherwise.

Let’s imagine you’re a 70 kg rider with a 15 kg bike and you want to ride up a 20% gradient (which is steep but not unheard of). Let’s say you can sustain 360 W of power, which at that bodyweight . On a 20% gradient in ideal conditions, .

When working hard, most cyclists like to pedal with a cadence of about 90 RPM. With a 32-tooth chainring and a 29″ wheel, sprocket to achieve that cadence at 7 kph.

The point is, even very fit cyclists can benefit from large sprockets if the gradients are steep. It’s not that riding hills that steep is impossible with a smaller cassette – I used to run an 11-36t cassette and got up (almost) all the same hills I do now – it’s just that you’ll have to use a less efficient cadence which is more tiring and harder on your body. Besides, gears shouldn’t be designed for the fittest riders in optimum conditions, but to accommodate most riders in most conditions. If you think a 52-tooth sprocket is unnecessary, you’re either not riding very steep climbs or you’re putting up with a less-than-ideal cadence.

Verdict: Useful innovation

The post Opinion: Which MTB Innovations Do We Actually Need? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ³Ō¹ĻĶų Online.