|   Best XC short travel out there... | kb
Aug 29, 2001 10:37 AM | | Give me your top 5 xc bikes, short travel, under $2500.
KB |
| | Mossy
Aug 29, 2001 12:12 PM | | #1) Klein Adept -- mostly cause I have one, and it rocks!
#2) Sugar/Fuel -- almost as efficient as the Klein, but without the razor-sharp handling
#3) Giant NRS -- Full 4 inches of travel, with efficient climbing
4) Specialized FSR XC -- the first, probably the most versatile
5) SantaCruz SL -- a nice compromise between XC racing performance and all-purpose trailbike. Kinda flexy, though |
| re: Best XC short travel out there... | a day
Aug 29, 2001 1:30 PM | | I don't think that a "full" suspension bike is ever going to rival a hardtail as far as power transfer efficiency or weight go. A softail (pivotless rear suspension) gives you an "in between" for XC riding. That is my opinion at least.
If you have to take is easy on your arse, I would go with an Ibis Ripley Softail as my #1 choice. You can check it out at ibiscycles.com. It is the only high end softail I know of that you could build for around $2500.00.
If you are stuck on more travel than the 1.75in. that the Ripley offers, The niftiest full bouncer I have tried for XC riding is the Intense Tracer. A built up Tracer will probably run over your $2500.00 by a little bit, but it would be worth it. |
| How "efficient" is bouncing all over the trail? | CMC
Aug 30, 2001 6:29 AM | | I don't understand the argument that a hardtail is more efficient. Diehard ridgidrears always talk about the benefits of more power transfer. I think they are full of sheet and just don't want to change with the times. With my full suspension, I can have a much smoother pedal stroke and my rear tire stays on the ground for more traction. It would seem to me that this would be more efficient. A hardtail is however more efficient at transferring every hit to shake your kidneys. |
| How "efficient" is bouncing all over the trail? | Broeli
Aug 30, 2001 10:00 AM | | The best for the money is the Specialized Stumpjumper FSR-XC. The basic linkage design is copied by many, plus you can get a REAL nice and lightweight Stumpjumper for under 2500. |
| I think you are getting a little off topic... | a day
Aug 30, 2001 12:13 PM | | If I am not mistaken, KB was looking for opinions on which short travel FS bikes are good for XC riding.
This would be a good topic for the passion board. |
| Of course... | CMC
Aug 30, 2001 12:18 PM | | I was just trying to stir up some interesting conversation. Some other day I guess... |
| I've got to agree with you! | Quattro
Aug 30, 2001 4:38 PM | | Hardtails offer that instant power only under certain conditions.
I ride both and like my HT for its lightweight simplicity.As far
as overall traction, control and speed,my FS is my choice.By the
way, interesting conversation is always welcome. |
| How "efficient" is bouncing all over the trail? | Roland Green
Aug 30, 2001 12:21 PM | | ya, that's why Roland picked a hartail to win the MTB world championships, I never been to Mount Ste Anne, According to your argument FS would of been a better choice because he can choose between 3 bikes. Then according to your arugument Mte Ste anne must be very hard packed and not very difficult at all. My question is why did he pick the 9.8 to win the worlds and not his fuel? |
| Amen, brother | a day
Aug 31, 2001 5:40 AM | | OK fine, I will get in to it.
Both FS and HT have their benefits, and I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to an opinion in that regard. Downhill, dual slalom, and mountain cross riding would not be what they are today without FS bikes.
I happen to lean toward the HT, because of the type of riding I do. I briefly owned a specialized FSR-XC, and went back to a HT Stumpjumper for XC riding (especially racing) because I felt less "connected" to the trail with the full suspension rig. I couldn't hold a line with as much precision, I could not climb as fast, and the bike weighed more.
The real moral of the story though, was that I turned in slower lap times with the FS bike.
I definitely agree that the FS bike was more comfortable on the kidneys, especially on long rides, but there is no free lunch. The comfort comes at a price. No one type of bike is the best for every single type of riding out there.
That is why you don't see very many world cup XC riders on full suspension bikes. |
| Okay so a masochistic racer is your idol... | CMC
Aug 31, 2001 11:50 AM | | So what. In pro racing, the object of the game is to win no matter the cost. If Roland wants to pound his kidneys into hamburger, more power to him. I'm sure most of these top racers would ride rigid forks if they weren't getting paid big money to ride suspension. What does that prove? That they are amazing athletes and obsessed masochists. That's it. My question was to the effectiveness of bouncing all over the trails with reduced traction which you did not address. |
| Correct technique.... | Frank
Sep 4, 2001 9:34 AM | | and\or tubeless tires dims the rear wheel "bouncing" of a hartail... |
| How "efficient" is bouncing all over the trail? | cmoore
Aug 31, 2001 1:18 PM | | I think I heard him say that he used his HT because he felt that he would be running with his bike a lot during the race and he could run much faster carrying a lighter bike. |
| just my 2 cents... | Pirate
Sep 2, 2001 7:49 AM | | I own both a HT and a FS. On hard packed surfaces my HT probably outperforms my dually. However, in my area of the East Coast the local trails are rooty and rocky, and my FS bike climbs better because it smooths out the rough stuff, allowing me to stay seated (for the most part) and spin smoothly. The tires stay in contact with the ground more effectively and less energy is lost. My times are faster on my FS, and I believe that my legs are fresher after a long ride (but that could be psychological, I'll admit). In a nutshell, I suppose it depends on the type of terrain you are riding as to which bike can offer better performance. My HT is getting kinda dusty. |
| I was at Mt Ste Anne | Frank
Sep 4, 2001 9:31 AM | | ..and it was mostly hardpack, I even choose semi slicks. |
| CMC has physics on his side | Steve from JH
Sep 3, 2001 6:22 AM | | Every time you pedal an unsuspended rear wheel over a bump the direction of travel of your center of mass is changed more than with a suspended wheel. The better the suspension system the more this is true.
Changing the direction of the center of mass is an acceleration and requires energy. The energy comes from the rider.
On the other hand FS bikes waste some energy in some gears through chain torque. And of course they weigh more. The terrain does not have to be very rough before the advantages of suspension exceed the disadvantages. |
| |
