Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9

    TR-250 overlap with an AM bike?

    I am currently overseas and will be picking up a Slash 9 upon my return to the front range of Colorado as my do-it-all bike. 6.3"/36 TALAS and ~30ish lbs I feel is workable in my current state of fitness and skill level. I wont be fast but i'll be comfy (uphills @ 5000' kick my @ no matter what bike). I am currently on an '07 Fuel EX-9.
    I am also finally in/near the land if the magical lift, parks are only a couple hours away. Aside from a significaltly less slack seat tube the geo of the Slash is quite adept at pointing it's nose downhill. I'd love to hear from riders with both a nicely spec'd AM bike and a mini dh bike in the stable. Is there too much overlap? The TR-250 as my do-it-all is a no-go as i have no problem admitting my need for a 2x10 setup in the hills around here. Therein lies my delima, I want a grab-and-go park bike and not to have to continuously swap out parts between weekday trail rides and weekends in the park.
    I am 100% convinced of the build and ride quality of the 250 but am constantly thinking that there is a whole lot of overlapping capability between it and a Trek Slash 9. If you live in similar terrain and have experience, might I be better served with a 5" all around bike (newer Fuel EX)? I'm leanign more towards the slash based on mysubscription to the theory that going up sucks, why make going down suck as well.
    Owners, convince me otherwise. Thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ruppguts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    449
    I can't speak to the Trek, but I think that depending on your riding style, there's definitely not too much overlap. If you run the 250 with full coil, 7" mode, low and slack, and you charge hard and like to catch air, then I'd say it's worth it for the angles, suspension, and durability. Having had a covert and tr250, I know I could ride the covert at whistler and be fine, but there's no way I'd want to over the 250. Coil vs. air alone would be worth it for me.
    Binary Transition Bikes Demon Dirt

  3. #3
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,451
    Here's a reason or two that the 250 isn't an overlap with a Slash 9 (or Covert, etc.).

    1. It can't run a dual chainring...this is essentially a gravity-only bike regardless what anyone tells you.
    2. The headangle is pretty slack for most trail riding.
    3. The seattube is pretty slack, so even if you could run a long seatpost, it'd put you way back on the bike.
    4. while the 250 shaves some weight off the 450, it's no featherweight either.

    As for how a 250 and Slash would fit into your quiver vs. getting a trek fuel ex....that's really up to you. Do you feel like the Fuel wouldn't be enough bike for the stuff you'd plan to climb and descend?

    If you have flattish and smooth climbs (or don't mind pushing) and want to put a smaller chainring and a wider geared cassette, then it would make the 250 more versatile, but really that bike is truly a mini-DH bike. I guess if you were really looking to totally avoid overlap, you could go with the Slash and the 450.

    I've got a Chilcotin and a 450 (and trans am 29'er) and there's very little overlap between those two. My Chilcotin can descend pretty much everything, but at 33 lbs., it's really designed to be an all-arounder. Of course, it could do some bike park and shuttle stuff, but that's why I've got a big bike!

    Good luck....sounds like some serious first world problems you've got!

    Cheers,
    EB

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    9
    I am looking at picking up 2 bikes regardless, believe me using the TR-250 as an AM bike never even crossed my mind. A 30lb trailbike at 5000' is enough self-flagellation for me, thanks. I posed a similar question on another site's general downhill section that got much more traffic and basically the response I got was ~30lb 6" trailbike and ~38lb 8x8" "big" dh bike was pretty much money here on the front range of CO.
    One of the primary reasons I posted here in the transition only forum is that I have a good understanding that a lot of times it's not a matter of simply travel amount, more a matter of travel type. Obviously trek designed their AM bikes to be capable of climbing whereas Transition is a purely gravity fed bike. I have a very shallow experience pool of riding gravity fed bikes and was wondering more if that difference in travel TYPE was noticeable enough to justify the relative lack of difference in travel AMOUNT.
    Also a couple questions to the 450 owners:
    -Have you ever felt that the added confidence that a big bike gives you "dumbs down" resort style trails?
    -How difficult is it to set up a 450 to retain a very lively and communicative feel?

  5. #5
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,451
    Quote Originally Posted by andor View Post
    Obviously trek designed their AM bikes to be capable of climbing whereas Transition is a purely gravity fed bike.
    Also a couple questions to the 450 owners:
    -Have you ever felt that the added confidence that a big bike gives you "dumbs down" resort style trails?
    -How difficult is it to set up a 450 to retain a very lively and communicative feel?
    Well, the reality is the Slash 9 would more closely compare to the Covert which is a 6" travel AM bike. Fuel Ex would likely compare with the Bandit.

    A big bike is designed to give you more confidence in the nasty stuff. It allows you to pick up speed and monster truck the hell out of chunder, descend stuff that you'd otherwise think not possible and basically extends your riding in a different direction. While some stuff gets "dumbed down", I like that it allows me to do other stuff like double up sections you never even thought possible. For strictly machine built jump trails, they can definitely be overkill, but not in a bad way.

    if you're looking for more poppy/lively, then the 250 would be the better choice. Probably throw a 180mm 36 or a Totem on it if you want to throw X ups. Even though the 450 can be set up as such, the reality is it's designed to do one thing well. Shred the hell out of gnar.

    Cheers,
    EB

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    37
    There certainly can be some overlap, but it's all in how you setup the bike. I have a 160mm AM bike that I had purchased with the intention of riding rougher trails, as well as doing some shuttling (Bootleg Canyon, NV). I set it up with coil suspension front and rear, heavy ass, knobby tires, and a super short stem. It was fun for shuttling the tamer downhill trails, and the enduro trails with some pedaling. Sadly I was undergunned for the gnarlier downhill trails. And setup like it was the bike was a DOG for pedaling. Anytime we were doing any riding with significant uphill riding, out came my XC bike.

    I decided that having a compromise bike was a fail in both categories, so I got a mini DH bike (Morewood Kalula) and put my AM bike on a diet. Air suspension on both ends, 70mm stem, and some Maxxis Ardent tires that were better for weight and rolling resistance. And guess what...I'm in love with my AM bike again!! I can keep up with my XC buddies going uphill and still shred the downs! And even though there's only a 20mm difference in travel between the two bikes, the QUALITY of the suspension on the Morewood is a night and day difference. There's something to be said for a suspension design that doesn't have to make compromises for climbing ability. This bike is only made to go in one direction. DOWN!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •