Bikes for Enduro... The restart

[Headshot]

If the suspension is really as effective as they make it out to be, then perhaps. But unfortunately there is little available trails locally that really warrants 170mm of travel. 

I think its not usually the travel that's the issue but rather the overall package. My 170mm bike now has a 180 fork and it is great, especially if you want to ride jumps and steeps every now and then. It gives me a margin for error which i desperately need. Overall the package is rather heavy but it pedals well and if I'm fit isn't a problem on longer rides.

 

The Ransom takes things to a new level of efficiency and light weight, so I reckon it would be ideal for around here if you like to do a bit of DH and enduroing. 

[MarcBurger]

Was seriously considering the Canyon Torque until the Ransom came along. Apparently the Torque is a bit of a potato on the climbs, which was the expected norm until the Ransom hype and reviews.

[Headshot]

Was seriously considering the Canyon Torque until the Ransom came along. Apparently the Torque is a bit of a potato on the climbs, which was the expected norm until the Ransom hype and reviews.

The Torque should be quite a bit cheaper  - the Ransom top tier build must be pretty pricey. 

[PhilipV]

you know, I really despise that attitude of "too much travel" for local trails. If a bike pedals properly, and behaves nicely, there's no such thing. It's just a different taste thing. Buy what works for you, and ride the fecking thing. Don't say that there's little available that warrants a certain type of bike. For YOU, maybe. For others?

 

In Jonkers, you have all those trails. Iron Monkey. Armageddon. Status Quo. You have Steilte, Table Mountain (which has some PROPERLY tech stuff) and then Vuurberg. If you're talking Tygerberm trails, then yeah sure cos only a small portion of the trails could "warrant" a 170mm bike. Tokai? Some of the stuff, yes.

 

Could you do it all on a 120mm bike? Yeah, sure. But you'd be a helluva lot more comfortable on something bigger, which could switch to something smaller when the trails "warrant" it.

 

As for it behaving like they say it does? Well, if you restrict the volume of the shock significantly so that the progression limits how much travel you've got, and it alters the BB height (whilst seated) and HA & ST angle (due to the higher BB) then it's doing what it says on the tin, right?

I don't know hey, go ride a decent pedaling 130mm bike and a decent pedaling 170mm bike and you'll notice the difference.

The bigger bike will be heavier, the handlebars will be higher, the slacker HA will need more weight on the front to keep it pinned down. And if you use that same bike for multi-day rides or big days out, then you'll understand.

It is for that reason that I have two bikes, a big bike and a longish travel hardtail. If I only had one bike, it would be something like the new Trance29.

 

But where the difference comes in, is with rider skill, a longer travel bike will be better for the less skilled, ham-fisted, plow through everything Neanderthal. A good rider will have as much fun on the 130mm bike, and probably be faster as he isn't wallowing midway in the travel when mashing on the pedals.

Case in point: Matt Lombardi chose a Trance and a Stumpjumper over a Reign or Enduro. Dan Dobinson rides the wheels of everyone on a 120mm bike, and did the same last year on a Camber.

 

The additional travel is a safety factor, or comfort blanky for those who need it.

It's like having a big raised jeep that goes mall crawling, and goes on a 4x4 trail or overland trip every 6-12months. Yes, it does everything, and probably reasonably well, but at the cost of efficiency.

[Capricorn]

I don't know hey, go ride a decent pedaling 130mm bike and a decent pedaling 170mm bike and you'll notice the difference.

The bigger bike will be heavier, the handlebars will be higher, the slacker HA will need more weight on the front to keep it pinned down. And if you use that same bike for multi-day rides or big days out, then you'll understand.

It is for that reason that I have two bikes, a big bike and a longish travel hardtail. If I only had one bike, it would be something like the new Trance29.

 

But where the difference comes in, is with rider skill, a longer travel bike will be better for the less skilled, ham-fisted, plow through everything Neanderthal. A good rider will have as much fun on the 130mm bike, and probably be faster as he isn't wallowing midway in the travel when mashing on the pedals.

Case in point: Matt Lombardi chose a Trance and a Stumpjumper over a Reign or Enduro. Dan Dobinson rides the wheels of everyone on a 120mm bike, and did the same last year on a Camber.

 

The additional travel is a safety factor, or comfort blanky for those who need it.

It's like having a big raised jeep that goes mall crawling, and goes on a 4x4 trail or overland trip every 6-12months. Yes, it does everything, and probably reasonably well, but at the cost of efficiency.

oo shots fired. how shall the Neanderthals respond.

[PhilipV]

oo shots fired. how shall the Neanderthals respond.

Ja that came over a bit strong,

I will admit freely to using my safety blanket frequently, and I know I need to apply more fairy, and less Neanderthal.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

I don't know hey, go ride a decent pedaling 130mm bike and a decent pedaling 170mm bike and you'll notice the difference.

The bigger bike will be heavier, the handlebars will be higher, the slacker HA will need more weight on the front to keep it pinned down. And if you use that same bike for multi-day rides or big days out, then you'll understand.

It is for that reason that I have two bikes, a big bike and a longish travel hardtail. If I only had one bike, it would be something like the new Trance29.

 

But where the difference comes in, is with rider skill, a longer travel bike will be better for the less skilled, ham-fisted, plow through everything Neanderthal. A good rider will have as much fun on the 130mm bike, and probably be faster as he isn't wallowing midway in the travel when mashing on the pedals.

Case in point: Matt Lombardi chose a Trance and a Stumpjumper over a Reign or Enduro. Dan Dobinson rides the wheels of everyone on a 120mm bike, and did the same last year on a Camber.

 

The additional travel is a safety factor, or comfort blanky for those who need it.

It's like having a big raised jeep that goes mall crawling, and goes on a 4x4 trail or overland trip every 6-12months. Yes, it does everything, and probably reasonably well, but at the cost of efficiency.

Yes, which is why the Scott makes sense to me. Super progressive @120mm and then a plough at 170. Just for Neanderthals like me.

 

And 100% - I wouldn't like to do Ezel on a 120mm machine, and I like the safety blanket. That's why I said it's a personal choice thing rather than a "doesn't warrant the travel" thing. Some people like bulldozers, others like whippets.

 

As for the rock crawler analogy, I mostly (try to) ride gnarly trails like TM and such. Klipberg was wonderful but even over my comfort level in areas (dingles) but not once did I wish for less travel.

 

If all I rode was tygerberm, though, I'd 100% agree with the Stef.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Cptmayhem

[Headshot]

Ja that came over a bit strong,

I will admit freely to using my safety blanket frequently, and I know I need to apply more fairy, and less Neanderthal.

That safety blanket also allows you to try stuff and progress a bit more easily than on a shorter bike. My HT also makes me appreciate all that travel when I compare the same trails on the two different bikes....

[Nofearnofun]

I don't know hey, go ride a decent pedaling 130mm bike and a decent pedaling 170mm bike and you'll notice the difference.

The bigger bike will be heavier, the handlebars will be higher, the slacker HA will need more weight on the front to keep it pinned down. And if you use that same bike for multi-day rides or big days out, then you'll understand.

It is for that reason that I have two bikes, a big bike and a longish travel hardtail. If I only had one bike, it would be something like the new Trance29.

 

But where the difference comes in, is with rider skill, a longer travel bike will be better for the less skilled, ham-fisted, plow through everything Neanderthal. A good rider will have as much fun on the 130mm bike, and probably be faster as he isn't wallowing midway in the travel when mashing on the pedals.

Case in point: Matt Lombardi chose a Trance and a Stumpjumper over a Reign or Enduro. Dan Dobinson rides the wheels of everyone on a 120mm bike, and did the same last year on a Camber.

 

The additional travel is a safety factor, or comfort blanky for those who need it.

It's like having a big raised jeep that goes mall crawling, and goes on a 4x4 trail or overland trip every 6-12months. Yes, it does everything, and probably reasonably well, but at the cost of efficiency.

 

This sums up riding my old 165mm travel 29er in rocky Gp.

 

 

and I loved every second. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Nofearnofun

[stefmeister]

you know, I really despise that attitude of "too much travel" for local trails. If a bike pedals properly, and behaves nicely, there's no such thing. It's just a different taste thing. Buy what works for you, and ride the fecking thing. Don't say that there's little available that warrants a certain type of bike. For YOU, maybe. For others? 

 

In Jonkers, you have all those trails. Iron Monkey. Armageddon. Status Quo. You have Steilte, Table Mountain (which has some PROPERLY tech stuff) and then Vuurberg. If you're talking Tygerberm trails, then yeah sure cos only a small portion of the trails could "warrant" a 170mm bike. Tokai? Some of the stuff, yes. 

 

Could you do it all on a 120mm bike? Yeah, sure. But you'd be a helluva lot more comfortable on something bigger, which could switch to something smaller when the trails "warrant" it. 

 

As for it behaving like they say it does? Well, if you restrict the volume of the shock significantly so that the progression limits how much travel you've got, and it alters the BB height (whilst seated) and HA & ST angle (due to the higher BB) then it's doing what it says on the tin, right?

Calm yer mammaries man.

It all about personal preferences and I'm not prescribing to anyone. And while these bikes are cool and we all would like to think we need all the travel available, I'm pretty sure mid travel bikes will actually do just fine.

I'm riding an Enduro 29er, which is a very capable bike in many respects, but it really just comes into its own on trails the like of Jonkers and Steilte.

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Calm yer mammaries man.

It all about personal preferences and I'm not prescribing to anyone. And while these bikes are cool and we all would like to think we need all the travel available, I'm pretty sure mid travel bikes will actually do just fine.

I'm riding an Enduro 29er, which is a very capable bike in many respects, but it really just comes into its own on trails the like of Jonkers and Steilte.

So we do have trails that warrant a 170mm bike, then?

 

Re the heat. I just hear that argument from quite a few people who have boggerall idea how much of a hoot a big bike is to ride. And it's borne of ignorance, in my opinion. Much like those who have never felt what it's like to pilot a long travel hardtail and experience the utter joy and terror, at the same time.

 

As you say (and as I said in my response to you) it's all about preference and the rider's desired qualities.

 

Statements like the one in your initial post serve no purpose as they're just statements with no context and / or reasoning behind them, given as fact. If it's your opinion, SAY it's your opinion.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Cptmayhem

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

But anyway. This is the "bikes for Enduro" thread, and the Scott ticks all the boxes. Good for climbing thanks to that twinloc wizardry and then beast mode on the downs.

[stefmeister]

So we do have trails that warrant a 170mm bike then?

Let's take Jonkers for example. Only dbl Black/Plumber really, and only sections of that. So of the total trail network there it's a minor percentage. Canaries, Firehut and Bennets are all rideable (meaning you'll still have plenty fun) even on a xc bikes. 

Just my opinion, but if you're going to spend 3 hours riding all the trails there and only 2-3 mins are spent on "gnarly" sections - is it really worth it? 

 

To come back to the Ransom - like a said, if the suspension is all its cracked up to be then maybe, possibly for n=1, definitely for n+1

Edited September 4, 2018 by stefmeister

[Sparky and the Warden]

I'll just leave this here... she grew a coil. Too much travel? What is this blasphemy

[Hairy]

Yes, which is why the Scott makes sense to me. Super progressive @120mm and then a plough at 170. Just for Neanderthals like me.

 

And 100% - I wouldn't like to do Ezel on a 120mm machine, and I like the safety blanket. That's why I said it's a personal choice thing rather than a "doesn't warrant the travel" thing. Some people like bulldozers, others like whippets.

 

As for the rock crawler analogy, I mostly (try to) ride gnarly trails like TM and such. Klipberg was wonderful but even over my comfort level in areas (dingles) but not once did I wish for less travel.

 

If all I rode was tygerberm, though, I'd 100% agree with the Stef.

damn man, you sounding more and more like a #Pinner!!

[Duane_Bosch]

oo shots fired. how shall the Neanderthals respond.

You called?