Help a Roadie understand MTB things

[Jase619]

Thanks for the multitudes of advice so far, really appreciate it. Was looking at the Spez Stumpjumper Alloy, with 140mm travel upfront, so more or less seems to fit within the advice given so far. . . If you stretch the recommended 120mm to 140mm that is. But Can't really see if i would ever sit back after a ride and wish I had 20mm less travel. . .

The biggest problem as mentioned is stock, but that is befalling all brands as i can see it at the moment. Will take a look at the Scott and Merida as well, helps to be pointed in the right direction in terms of model within a brand.

Any issues with a Momsen Vipa other than the ridiculous name haha????

[TNT1]

2 hours ago, MTBeer said:

 and definitely a dropper seat post.

Definitely don't buy into that hype. It's not something you need for 90% of general riding.

[DieselnDust]

21 minutes ago, Jase619 said:

Thanks for the multitudes of advice so far, really appreciate it. Was looking at the Spez Stumpjumper Alloy, with 140mm travel upfront, so more or less seems to fit within the advice given so far. . . If you stretch the recommended 120mm to 140mm that is. But Can't really see if i would ever sit back after a ride and wish I had 20mm less travel. . .

The biggest problem as mentioned is stock, but that is befalling all brands as i can see it at the moment. Will take a look at the Scott and Merida as well, helps to be pointed in the right direction in terms of model within a brand.

Any issues with a Momsen Vipa other than the ridiculous name haha????

Vipa is a XC bike. So won't get the bikehub stamp of approval (which carries more weight than the UCI approval)

[Spafsack]

As OP initially said: 'We are looking to ride on weekends around our local trails, which in the Free State means flat and dusty, but we would also like to be able to take our bikes with us on holidays and ride trails there, whether it be in the Western Cape or KZN. Also looking at doing some stage races just for the experience, and obviously to test ourselves, like Sani2C, Wines2Whales and the like.'

Bloem is my old home town, born and raised there, its flat, its XC. The worst feeling when starting out is spending a bunch of money on a bike which weighs 14kg and you struggle on long uphills due to the weight, slack angles, cant really put your power down. Stage races as he mentions are also XC. Knowone is saying get a XC Weapon, but i think you will do just fine with them, new or secondhand.

RE, Dropper posts, you will see how handy this comes in, how much safer you feel, more in control, just on long decents, technical stuff, not hectic, makes a huge difference.

[Mountain Bru]

2 hours ago, Jase619 said:

To that point, what is the real marked difference between a trail bike and a XC bike?

Would I regret buying one over the other? Most locals I have asked have referred to the trail bikes being slightly heavier and having more travel. But does more travel really equal Bad?

 Got told by a local bike shop this weekend that the trail bike we were looking at was "Too Much" bike for us and our local area. . .

In case you missed something in the acronyms and jargon, there's a few things to look for (assuming you've settled on a 29r, which you should):

Travel - Around 100mm is usually a XC bike, more than that is usually a trail bike, and around 150mm would probably be an enduro bike. It might seem like more would be better, but apart from the weight differences, there's also a pedaling efficiency compromise. On a smooth tar road, a rigid hardtail will be the fastest (0mm travel, like a road bike), and a long travel downhill bike the slowest, even if you're doing the same watts, and everything else is on the spectrum in between. Soft suspension is nice, but it comes at a cost, and that cost is that it takes energy to move that suspension, and that energy usually comes from your legs (assuming a smooth flat road). 

Head Tube Angle (HTA) - The steeper the HTA is, the more sensitive and twitchy the bike will be. The slacker it is, the more stable and controlled. But again, compromise. Steeper head angles make bike more nimble and have quicker steering. Slacker head tubes won't steer as quickly, but will be stable and feel planted on rough stuff.  

My advice: Look at what 90% of the trails you ride are gonna look like, and buy the bike that's gonna make that the most fun for you. Maybe you don't care about speed and just want to be comfortable - get a trail bike. Maybe you want to go as fast as you can and smash a race now and then - get and XC bike. Maybe all you're ever gonna ride is a jeep track - a hardtail is probably good enough, but a dual sus will be kinder to your bum. Each bike is perfectly suited to a terrain and riding style, and is going to be a compromise on everything else. An XC race machine is exactly that - a race machine. So short travel for efficient pedaling, and steeper head angles for quick steering. An enduro bike is great for gnarly terrain where you don't mind compromising a bit to have a softer ride and more stable handling. A trail bike I guess is somewhere in between. 

I made the switch from being a roadie to  mountain biking in December. Got myself an Epic, and put a dropper post on it (which I would highly recommend). For me, it's the perfect bike. Living in Pretoria, a lot of the riding I do is gravel roads, jeep track, and non-super technical single track, and the 100mm travel is perfect for that. On more technical stuff, I use the dropper, and try to pick good lines. 
 

[Stefan Cremer]

Whether you go 100, 120 or 140mm will ultimately depend on what opinions you value the most. 

Whatever bike you get though, do yourself a favour and get proper skills training - it is guaranteed to open a new world for you (especially considering a roadie background). 

[Headshot]

21 minutes ago, DieselnDust said:

Vipa is a XC bike. So won't get the bikehub stamp of approval (which carries more weight than the UCI approval)

Damn right!

[Mountain Bru]

49 minutes ago, Jase619 said:

Thanks for the multitudes of advice so far, really appreciate it. Was looking at the Spez Stumpjumper Alloy, with 140mm travel upfront, so more or less seems to fit within the advice given so far. . . If you stretch the recommended 120mm to 140mm that is. But Can't really see if i would ever sit back after a ride and wish I had 20mm less travel. . .

In my opinion, a stumpjumper is the wrong bike for the kind of riding you've described. From what you've described (flat and not technical), it almost sounds like a hardtail is sufficient. 

[TNT1]

35 minutes ago, Spafsack said:

 

RE, Dropper posts, you will see how handy this comes in, how much safer you feel, more in control, just on long decents, technical stuff, not hectic, makes a huge difference.

In my, admittedly very far from mainstream, opinion, it would serve you far better to invest in proper skills before trying to buy your way out of a technical challenge.

[MTBeer]

44 minutes ago, TNT1 said:

Definitely don't buy into that hype. It's not something you need for 90% of general riding.

believe what you want. I use my dropper even when I have the misfortune of finding myself on a tar road descent. It make every corner just some much more comfortable.

[MTBeer]

1 minute ago, TNT1 said:

In my, admittedly very far from mainstream, opinion, it would serve you far better to invest in proper skills before trying to buy your way out of a technical challenge.

it's not either/or. You should do both.

[TNT1]

2 minutes ago, MTBeer said:

it's not either/or. You should do both.

Fair enough.

[DieselnDust]

24 minutes ago, TNT1 said:

In my, admittedly very far from mainstream, opinion, it would serve you far better to invest in proper skills before trying to buy your way out of a technical challenge.

Most of my falls have been in front of the coffee shops while track standing and transitioning to dismount. So I got a dropper to get the seat of the way and sling my leg over on the dismount more comfortably.

This was a huge technical challenge that had to be overcome

[MudLark]

1 hour ago, Jase619 said:

But can't really see if I would ever sit back after a ride and wish I had 20mm less travel. . .

You would be surprised. A trail bike is more versatile in terms of the terrain it can cover. But on long, fast flowing tracks, it doesn't keep up with the cross-country bike. Let me try and explain it this way: My cycling partner and I do both road and mountain bike. On road, he has a somewhat older road bike than I do but usually beats me to the finish line. When it comes to mountain biking, he struggles to keep up. The reason for that is he has a bike that is more trail orientated and I have a cross-country bike. My cross-country bike is a pretty fast one as these things go. On something like Race to the Sun, he really struggles to keep up – even when he is drafting behind me. That difference is attributable solely to the difference between the two bikes, mainly geometry and what it is designed to do. I'm not a better cyclist, I just have a better piece of kit. And we do not find that he has any advantage either with his trail bike around a place like Northern Farm. I am faster than him there as well. In fact, I have two cross-country bikes. The one has a slightly slacker head angle and a slightly higher stance; it is a bit more trail orientated. The other one is more "pure cross-country race bike". The speed difference between the two is quite remarkable. Purely a function of geometry and design. But I am far more comfortable jumping the trail orientated one and crossing obstacles with it than I am with the pure cross-country bike. So I pick a bike according to what I am going to do that day. Et cetera.

[Super Sywurm]

In live in the flat NC and I ride a 100mm travel hardtail XC machine.  I did most of the Durbanville trails earlier this year on my bike and not once did I feel I need anything 'better'.  I never felt that I needed more travel or that I need a dual susp bike.  I could see where a dropper would be nice, but I never needed one.

[Super Sywurm]

2 minutes ago, MudLark said:

You would be surprised. A trail bike is more versatile in terms of the terrain it can cover. But on long, fast flowing tracks, it doesn't keep up with the cross-country bike. Let me try and explain it this way: My cycling partner and I do both road and mountain bike. On road, he has a somewhat older road bike than I do but usually beats me to the finish line. When it comes to mountain biking, he struggles to keep up. The reason for that is he has a bike that is more trail orientated and I have a cross-country bike. My cross-country bike is a pretty fast one as these things go. On something like Race to the Sun, he really struggles to keep up – even when he is drafting behind me. That difference is attributable solely to the difference between the two bikes, mainly geometry and what it is designed to do. I'm not a better cyclist, I just have a better piece of kit. And we do not find that he has any advantage either with his trail bike around a place like Northern Farm. I am faster than him there as well. In fact, I have two cross-country bikes. The one has a slightly slacker head angle and a slightly higher stance; it is a bit more trail orientated. The other one is more "pure cross-country race bike". The speed difference between the two is quite remarkable. Purely a function of geometry and design. But I am far more comfortable jumping the trail orientated one and crossing obstacles with it than I am with the pure cross-country bike. So I pick a bike according to what I am going to do that day. Et cetera. 

My partner kicks my ass on anything flat and I am struggling to keep up.  I ride a hardtail and he rides a dual susp bike.  But on technical terrain and most climbs I beat him.  Keep in mind our weight difference.  I weigh around 75kg and he around 90-100kg.  My bike is Merida Big.Nine and he rides one of the carbon Cannondales.