Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26

    Long days on a long travel bike

    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.

  2. #2
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,829
    I take my 34 lb enduro bikes on quite a few of those rides a year. As long as you have a nice efficient pedaling suspension then you will get used to the weight. I have found plus of minus 3lbs on a bike I really cannot feel the difference in weight. I feel slower rolling tires and less pedal friendly suspension set ups to have WAY more effect than a few pounds on a bike. Loose 5lbs off my butt is more important than the weight of the bike. Your body adapts and you just get stronger.

  3. #3
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,613
    The lighter the bike and the faster the tires the better off you will be on long rides. Getting something with a very good pedaling suspension is key too.
    If this is going to be a big part of your riding it might make sense to get something in the 145 range like a Ripmo, Hightower LT or an Offering.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  4. #4
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,437
    IME, the 29er wheels magnify the heavy-ness and detract from all-day ride-ability. I had an Enduro 29er. I did rides like you mention, but it was always more of a chore and I don't think I got any benefit out of it. The 29er is amazing at rolling over stuff and avoiding "wheel catchers", but a slack 27.5 with good damping isn't bad either. When you use the kind of rubber that a hard-ridden 29er really deserves, the weight shoots up a bit and all day it takes more of a toll IME. I find they aren't as easy to get off the ground, you can't "pop" as many little features. You can absolutely jump them, it's just that you have to accelerate more to get to speed, so you find yourself not jumping quite as many little things or struggling a bit more to get it up to the "required" speed for a certain obstacle.

    I know this sounds all negative, I have a few other things I didn't like too, but IME, unless you are smashing big descents constantly without having to ride all the way up every single time, there are better choices. Stepping down to 27.5 gave me a more rideable rig for those big all-day rides and it didn't give up anything at the bike park.

    I found myself trying to pare the weight down on the 29er to make it better for those bigger rides, while at the same time it was significantly decreasing it's ability.

    The RFX I ride isn't the most slack, or the shortest chainstay, or the lowest BB, but it's a great bike to be on all day and it still rips the DHs. That's what I like about it, sure, you can get a little more optimized for DH, but slight improvements there are going to cause you to take big hits in the all-day 40-mile stuff.

    If I could only have one bike, it'd probably be a 29er in the 130-ish travel class. That'll still rip decent, but be light enough and pedal well enough to not drag me down on an all-day ride. I have very rarely, if ever, seen anyone that rides very fast on a big long travel 29er, it takes more out of you on the climbs and on the descents the travel difference usually isn't enough to make you go much faster AND if you are already more tired you may not even be able to push that fast anyway.

    I use a 29er FS for my XC races, including ones over 100 miles. I feel the 29er wheel is better in that application.

    I had a buddy with a commencal and he had bad frame hardware issues, eventually had to sell the warranty replacement just not wanting to deal with it, got a SC. They stand behind their stuff well.

    Damn, this sounds like I hate the 29er Enduro bikes. I think it's great there are viable choices in this class now.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.
    I am not very experienced on these types of bikes, but I did ride a Giant Reign for a day over the summer. It was fine for anything flat or downhill, but I personally hated it whenever things pointed even remotely uphill. But, I'm also used to much more XC-oriented bikes and I am not the person to fully take advantage of the bigger bike, even on the downhills.

    I think this comes down purely to your fitness and what you are looking for out of riding. If you have the fitness to chug up the climbs on a bigger, heavier, slacker bike and you feel that the extra effort is worth it for the downhill experience, then go for it. I really think these are questions that only you can answer.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    430
    Hmm 35 pd is heavy. I'd be looking at similar travel and lighter weight.

    I'm rolling 165/180mm 27.5 Slayer at 28.9 pd. It can handle crazy rig worthy chunk and pedal for hours on end like a 140mm trailer bike.

  7. #7
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,587
    I've done two 100 mile races with around 12,500' of elevation gain (SM100) on a Trek Remedy - first in 2016 on the 2016 model with 140 mm, then in 2017 on the 2017 model with 150 mm. In 2015 I did it on a Fuel with 120mm. 2016 was my best year, because my training mattered WAY more than the bike. I certainly didn't shatter any records, but I had a fun day and enjoyed the descents (and passed more people on descents) than a lot of riders on XC rigs.

    I've been riding Remedys for four years now and big days in the backcountry are fairly regular occurrences for me. I may not be the fastest up the climbs, but I very, very rarely walk something others are riding even when they're on XC rigs.

    If you like to descend and want the bike that makes that the most fun, don't hesitate. Your fitness will acclimate to the new bike and it'll just feel normal. Hell, I'm running DH tires on mine now and still do 2k-3k' days every weekend.

  8. #8
    Demon Cleaner
    Reputation: Structure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    586
    I have a 34 lb long travel that I do big rides with and a 28 lb mid-travel (both 29). I can definitely feel the extra weight of the heavier bike on the climbs but for most rides, even really ling climby ones, Iíll choose the bigger bike. The only time I choose the lighter bike is for less chunky trails where the weight and travel of the big bike is overkill.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Bicycling is politics by other means.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    The lighter the bike and the faster the tires the better off you will be on long rides. Getting something with a very good pedaling suspension is key too.
    If this is going to be a big part of your riding it might make sense to get something in the 145 range like a Ripmo, Hightower LT or an Offering.
    What this guy says. For those sort of miles focus on weight/ pedaling efficiency/ decent rolling tires. With those kind of miles it REALLY adds up.

    I keep singing the praises of my off the radar bike, a Mondraker Foxy 29, but it's worth mentioning cause it pedals amazing, is light, and shreds downhill like a DH bike. The efficiency and weight are due to the bike/ build, but also I got away from my Minions (which I loved) to get a significant improvement in RR and that part you can do on any bike.

    There is no way in Hell I'd own a heavish poor pedaling Sentinel or an Enduro-29, for instance for your specific goals.

    Good luck.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    12,345
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.
    In theory this is not a problem. All my recent FS bikes have been between 150-160mm up front and 130-160mm in the rear. Weights were between 29-35lbs. I do all my riding with these bikes and big days are no issues.

    That said really slow rolling tires or really poorly pedaling suspension designs can suck the life out of you on a long ride. A few pounds doesn't bother me, but bad tires or poor suspension drives me crazy. The good news is there are a lot of good choices out there so you shouldn't have a problem.

    I don't know anything about the Commencal so I'm not saying it will be a good option. I'm just saying big days on a AM/eduro bike are not a problem. Read a wide range of reviews [both professional and owner reviews] and you should get a decent handle on how it pedals. Tires can always be swapped so I wouldn't worry about what the stock bike comes with too much.

    Bikes I have/do owned that fit the bill:

    - SC Nomad Mk2
    - Pivot Mach 6 Mk1
    - Knolly Endorphin [still own]
    - Guerrilla Gravity Smash [still own]
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,869
    I settled on a 160f 140r bike, but it's around 28lb, and I use a fast rear tire. Its just as easy to ride all day as my first FS xc bike I bought in 08.

    I think the tires will determine a ton.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.
    First thing is do you need a long travel bike. 40 mile rides and 25 mile ride with lots of elevation gain can be brutal on big heavy soft bike unless you are rewarded with a DH that could take advantage of it. So consider your rides and for how many miles of you 40 or 25 mile rides do you need or can take advantage of lots of travel? If you are at like 10% of the miles then maybe you are better with a smaller bike. You might give up a little on the way down, but will arrive at the descent less tired and more ready for fun rather than being exhausted from dragging a big bike around.

    Big long travel bikes might be better than ever, but that also means mid travel bikes are better than ever and even XC bikes are better than ever. If you want to get big miles in you should really look at how much travel you need vs want. Just because you can drag a 35lbs 170mm travel 29er over 40 miles does not mean you should.

    BTW... I have the luxury of 3 bikes and pick the bike based on what I plan to ride, who I am riding with and what I want my experience to be on the trails. If I had to have just one bike I know what it would be given what I ride most frequently vs less frequently. Invariably some rides will not have the best bike on either end of my riding spectrum, but I would have the best bike for what I ride most of the time.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", Vassago Verhauen SS 29", '13 Santa Cruz Solo 27.5", XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  13. #13
    Thinking about riding.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by JoePAz View Post
    Just because you can drag a (insert big bike here) over 40 miles does not mean you should.
    This about sums it up. If you need/want the extra travel for the riding on that 40 mile loop then you'll suck it up just fine... But if it's not necessary or even desireable (smooth tracks) then what's the point?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,896
    Peddle efficiency and tires are the most important then comes weight. Also the longer the bike the more effort it takes to movr around. I find a 140/150 29er with custom tuned suspension trumps a lot of the bigger 29ers.

  15. #15
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    12,547
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.

    It'll be fine. Totally fine. Humans can do a lot more than they think they can, they just need to give themselves the chance.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: David R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,116
    I agree with the suggestion to look at the "shorter end of long travel" options like the Ripmo or Offering as they [in my mind, at least] seem to strike a really good balance between the sorts of riding you're talking about. You maight lose a second or two on the gnarliest enduro stages compared to a 160/170mm full-on enduro-smasher (you may also gain a second or two on more pedally stages) but your all day back-country epics will be more comfortable and enjoyable.

    And, IMO again, not all weight is equal, especially with the bigger wheels. I'd gladly take a 32lb bike with a good quality light set of wheels and heavier component spec than a similar or even slightly lighter weight bike with cheap heavy wheels.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,739
    Got this 2 days ago... & she's a biggin...

    Probably 33 lbs & change o_0

    Weight is definitely in the frame design around shock & big, burly, bomb proof wheels (& heavy cassette).

    But, I PR'd a very familiar climb on it's first ride - NB, only a 40 minute-er... So hardly a long day.

    The pedaling efficiency is surprising i.e. for a 160mm travel enduro 29er.

    'Born to ride!'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  18. #18
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    IME, the 29er wheels magnify the heavy-ness and detract from all-day ride-ability... When you use the kind of rubber that a hard-ridden 29er really deserves, the weight shoots up a bit and all day it takes more of a toll IME. I find they aren't as easy to get off the ground, you can't "pop" as many little features. You can absolutely jump them, it's just that you have to accelerate more to get to speed, so you find yourself not jumping quite as many little things or struggling a bit more to get it up to the "required" speed for a certain obstacle.
    Much wisdom in that.

    Unless you've got the right trails, burly built 29ers do not make good all-rounders, nor do they work well for long, pedally days in the saddle.

    Really long days in the saddle, where you still want to have fun (that is, not simply plod along), are best done on a short/medium travel 29er with a "trail-build".

    I know all the rage is riding stable, plow bikes, but my personal favorite is still a snappy, nimble trail bike. If I want to "bash the gnar" give me the DH rig.

    A burly build and 275 wheels go better together, for me.


    Too often I've seen guys plodding and pushing long travel rigs with burly tires around on trail rides because "they can". I'd much rather have fun "dancing" on the trail with my nimble bike, and save the plodding and pushing suffer-fest for the squat rack. No matter how you slice it, you are spending way more time on the uphills and flats over the downhill. Might was well have fun all the time.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,238
    My main ride is a Turner RFX, 170f/ 160 rear, 29 lbs. I gave up my 24lb FS XC bike for the Turner. While the lighter XC bike was faster on the climbs, I still prefer the Turner.
    My rides typically are 20-40 miles in length and 2000'-6000' of climbing.
    I've found that I just have more fun on the descents than I do on the climbs, so I feel that I give up some climbing speed for more DH ability and speed was a worthy trade off.
    Last edited by Hurricane Jeff; 2 Weeks Ago at 10:21 AM.
    EXODUX Jeff

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,896
    My Riot is 33-35lbs coil front and rear. Depending on the tires and Cushcore. The heavy tires with cushcore can get a little draggy on long climbs. But lighter tires and wheels i can go all day.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cookieMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.
    What you need to evaluate is what percentage of those rides will you really be taking full advantage of/needing all that travel and bulk. 150mm and especially 170mm is really a LOT of travel for a 29er. 35 pounds is also really heavy for a modern bike. While it doesn't sound like you'll be doing those huge rides all that often, I think you'd find yourself overbiked in those situations. How much elevation gain are we talking?

    I've done some genuinely stupid rides in my day, some of them on my 36 pound SX Trail. 40+ miles with 4k+ of climbing. It can be done, and I enjoyed myself -- but at the end of the day I think I would have enjoyed the *overall* ride more on a 30 pound bike with less travel and lighter, more efficient tires. I was getting pretty tanked by the end of it. The thing to remember is at those distances, you're also going to need to carry a lot of water, food, and probably extra clothing if you're getting way out in the backcountry. It all adds up.

    Conversely, I did a 65 mile ride once on my hardtail that featured 5500 feet of climbing in the first 20 miles, and I was beat to shit after that ride. A little suspension would have helped a lot. I think for epic rides, there are much better choices than a full enduro bike -- in the "trail" category. You may not be able to absolutely pin-it on the descents, but you'll save valuable energy everywhere else. I'd look at 130mm 29ers if I were you.
    Bikes belong in Wilderness areas.

  22. #22
    always licking the glass
    Reputation: stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,550

    Long days on a long travel bike

    I have two trail bikes: a plus 650 hardtail and a megatrail (170mm front, 150 or 165mm rear). I can ride them both on 7-8 mile climbs. Iím not fast no matter which one I ride

    While Iím not doing 40 miles in the saddle, Iím doing long climbs (for me).

    If there isnít much of a payoff on the DH, Iíll take the hardtail any day. If there is Iíll definitely take the megatrail.

    If itís really technical (most of Moab for example) Iím taking the megatrail.

    I do have my megatrail set up with a rear tire I feel comfortable pedaling uphill (rekon 2.6). I might try the aggressor later on, but the right tires definitely help even with a big bike. I canít do it running DHFs front and rear. Great on the downs, but exhausting on the ups.

    If I was thinking of doing the type of rides youíre talking about Iíd look for a trail bike rather than an enduro. Just too much to pedal. Or if your mind is made up, definitely put an xc tire on the back.
    Guerrilla Gravity BAMF, Colorado Front Range

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    430
    I agree with others, Tyre combo makes a huge impact. Also if you have more suspension you can reduce tire size and still get good traction and rolling resistance. I'm rolling minion 3c exo DHR2 and DHF 2.3's they roll well and can handle pretty much any dh you can throw at them other than mega rooty, rocky offcamber where more casing thickness and size would be better.

    I've ridden some buddies bikes with 2.6's and i can feel the additional slowness. Those buddies typically have 15-20mm less travel than me. They are not faster on the descents with more tyre less suspension. But they sure as hell are slower uphill or have to work harder to go the same pace.

  24. #24
    always licking the glass
    Reputation: stripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    I agree with others, Tyre combo makes a huge impact. Also if you have more suspension you can reduce tire size and still get good traction and rolling resistance. I'm rolling minion 3c exo DHR2 and DHF 2.3's they roll well and can handle pretty much any dh you can throw at them other than mega rooty, rocky offcamber where more casing thickness and size would be better.

    I've ridden some buddies bikes with 2.6's and i can feel the additional slowness. Those buddies typically have 15-20mm less travel than me. They are not faster on the descents with more tyre less suspension. But they sure as hell are slower uphill or have to work harder to go the same pace.
    The DHF 2.6s are really slow. Iím running DHR2 2.8 in the front and rekon 2.6 in the back, and itís a much faster rolling combos.

    That makes a big difference on how long and what I can ride. For me Iím faster on that than the DHF/DHR combo.
    Guerrilla Gravity BAMF, Colorado Front Range

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,072
    Well I ride a E29 with DHF tires and I ride big weekend in the mountains almost every weekend 6 months of the year. AVerage Saturday is 5-6 hours and often a lot more. Not a pokey pace either, and regularly ride on trails that use 160mm to my advantage. I try to get as many people to come out as I can so I've ridden big days with lots of people. On the kinds of rides I like I often find its the guys on smaller bikes that suffer more after a few hours.
    I do use top end gear so I'm at 31lbs, and have an Avy tuned shock so damping is good (note I never take it out of open mode either).

    Anyway these kinds of posts always end up sounding like some kind of brag, I just wanted to add a data point that a well setup big travel 29'er for where I ride (Washington and BC) is not just acceptable but ideal .....IMO of course !

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.
    Can you demo a couple of the bikes you are looking at and go try them out on some of your bigger rides? Seeing for yourself will be far more ideal than trying to sift through a bunch of opinions on the internet.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    26
    Thanks for all the replies! It seems like those big rides will be possible on a 35 pound bike, but I would have more fun on a smaller bike unless Iím really taking advantage of all the travel, and probably more fun on the uphills. This edges me away from the Commencal Meta am 29, and closer to like an Ibis Ripmo which is still longish travel but supposed to be a lot better as an all rounder. This is also the only bike I am considering that I would be able to demo, but I could demo something like the specialized enduro to get a feel for what a bigger bike is like. The meta isnít out of the question, as itís exactly what I want for the downhills, but Iíll probably be more likely to look at less burly bikes unless I decide I can deal with 35 pounds for the uphills.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    257
    I am waiting to Santa Cruz to revamp the Hightower LT and use the suspension design that the Nomad and Bronson have. Seems like that with a slacker HT angle and steeper seat tube angle than the HTLT currently has would make for a very well rounded 29er. At least another option to look at anyway.

    Edit: Guess I should add that I have no idea if SC has any plans of that so it may just be a pipe dream but it seems like a logical direction for them to go.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: cookieMonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    Thanks for all the replies! It seems like those big rides will be possible on a 35 pound bike, but I would have more fun on a smaller bike unless Iím really taking advantage of all the travel, and probably more fun on the uphills. This edges me away from the Commencal Meta am 29, and closer to like an Ibis Ripmo which is still longish travel but supposed to be a lot better as an all rounder. This is also the only bike I am considering that I would be able to demo, but I could demo something like the specialized enduro to get a feel for what a bigger bike is like. The meta isnít out of the question, as itís exactly what I want for the downhills, but Iíll probably be more likely to look at less burly bikes unless I decide I can deal with 35 pounds for the uphills.
    This is just my experience, and this may sound a little odd, but I don't mind my 35 pound bike on steep climbs with a lot of vert. I regularly do 2k+, 4-5 mile ascents on my enduro/light DH bike.

    Where I start to feel the effects of that extra beef are when the distances start to exceed 12 miles before a descent. Part of it is probably mental, but when you're doing a long, moderate pitch climb on a heavy bike with big, aggressive tires, knowing full-well that a lighter, more XCish bike would be cruising up the trail with a lot less effort, you start to question the need for such an aggressive bike.

    For me, the enduro bike makes sense for shorter rides with a lot of climbing and a great payoff at the end. A lighter, less aggressive "trail" setup makes a lot more sense when a lot of the climb is spaced out over 12-20 miles or so, and/or there's a lot of up and down. As distances exceed 30 miles, the heavier the bike, the more fatigued you're going to get.
    Bikes belong in Wilderness areas.

  30. #30
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    I am waiting to Santa Cruz to revamp the Hightower LT and use the suspension design that the Nomad and Bronson have. Seems like that with a slacker HT angle and steeper seat tube angle than the HTLT currently has would make for a very well rounded 29er. At least another option to look at anyway.

    Edit: Guess I should add that I have no idea if SC has any plans of that so it may just be a pipe dream but it seems like a logical direction for them to go.
    The new Hightower LT is not the bike you think it's going to be. Just like the nomad went from trail/enduro to enduro/DH the new Hightower will too. It's going to need speed and be too supple for 95% of trail riding.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  31. #31
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    Thanks for all the replies! It seems like those big rides will be possible on a 35 pound bike, but I would have more fun on a smaller bike unless Iím really taking advantage of all the travel, and probably more fun on the uphills. This edges me away from the Commencal Meta am 29, and closer to like an Ibis Ripmo which is still longish travel but supposed to be a lot better as an all rounder. This is also the only bike I am considering that I would be able to demo, but I could demo something like the specialized enduro to get a feel for what a bigger bike is like. The meta isnít out of the question, as itís exactly what I want for the downhills, but Iíll probably be more likely to look at less burly bikes unless I decide I can deal with 35 pounds for the uphills.
    I have an XL Ibis Ripmo with DHF 2.6/DHR 2.4 tires, a 200mm dropper, and 203mm rotors at 29.5lb.
    It climbs better than my tallboy 3. It descends, jumps and turns better than any bike I've ever ridden.
    It's simply the best trail bike made.
    Nothing has nailed the geometry better for all around riding. Only at truly warp speeds does a slightly longer bike like an SB150 feel better, but the ibis is noticeably better everywhere else.
    Making shit harder than it needs to be isn't awesome, it's just...harder.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: clintj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    77
    My typical rides are 10 to 25 miles, usually from 2k to 3k+ feet of climbing. There's also a good amount of variety in terrain, from buff singletrack to some nasty, loose, rocky sections in downhills. I ride a 140/130 travel 29er.

    I do lose a little time on uphills, but frankly it's because I carry a heavy hydration pack and a few extra pounds of gut around wherever I ride. The bike (a Norco) is well designed enough that I don't feel like the suspension wastes much energy. That amount of travel is enough to handle lighter bike park stuff, or heavier stuff if I Jeep crawl through instead of bombing it. Heck, it's enough travel for me to thoroughly enjoy places like Moab's Porcupine Rim trail.

    That other 10% is where I wish I had a bigger bike like an enduro type. Black Diamond and above on Teton Pass and Grand Targhee Resort, big rock gardens where few locals ride, etc. But, those kinds of rides are probably best enjoyed on a DH rig with a shuttle or some hike a bike time anyway.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bluegill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by plummet View Post
    Hmm 35 pd is heavy. I'd be looking at similar travel and lighter weight.

    I'm rolling 165/180mm 27.5 Slayer at 28.9 pd. It can handle crazy rig worthy chunk and pedal for hours on end like a 140mm trailer bike.
    That's a great weight....do you have any idea what the Slayer frame weighs?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    430
    Why not go for big travel and less weight? A lighter build on a bigger hitting frame.
    Thats what im rolling and it is fantastic. You have the travel/geo for the big sections and the light weight for longer pedalling missions

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    I'm thinking about getting a 150-170mm 29" enduro bike. The most extreme bike I'm looking at is a Commencal meta am 29. It's a 35 pound bike. I like to go on big 40 mile rides every three or four months, and 25ish mile rides maybe twice a month, all with a lot of elevation. Other than that I know the bikes would be good for my riding, but I'm wondering how out of the question those bigger rides would be on something like the commencal or big enduro bikes in general.
    I have a tallboy 3 that is set up for XC (25 lbs) and a Enduro bike (35 lbs). Obviously a lighter bike is easier to climb assuming same speed as the enduro. If you are not in a hurry and have the gears, the bigger bikes climb just for most moderate stuff. Enduro bikes typically have higher bars which can be a bit of a bear on super steep pitches though.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by cald162 View Post
    Thanks for all the replies! It seems like those big rides will be possible on a 35 pound bike, but I would have more fun on a smaller bike unless Iím really taking advantage of all the travel, and probably more fun on the uphills. This edges me away from the Commencal Meta am 29, and closer to like an Ibis Ripmo which is still longish travel but supposed to be a lot better as an all rounder. This is also the only bike I am considering that I would be able to demo, but I could demo something like the specialized enduro to get a feel for what a bigger bike is like. The meta isnít out of the question, as itís exactly what I want for the downhills, but Iíll probably be more likely to look at less burly bikes unless I decide I can deal with 35 pounds for the uphills.
    I have been looking for something similar. I was looking at the Ripmo, Fezzari La Sal Peak, and the Enduro as well. I wanted something with a slightly shorter wheelbase that didn't need to be pushed all the time or ridden down steep stuff all the time to perform well. I ended up with the La Sal Peak and just received it two days ago. Taking it for the first time today. It and the Ripmo have really similar geometries. Bikemag listed the weight of the large Elite model at 30.8 lbs.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Similar Threads

  1. What is a short travel/long travel bike?
    By drew15a in forum Beginner's Corner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-27-2016, 02:22 PM
  2. Good Days Versus Indifferent Days - Inconsistent Performances
    By WR304 in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-26-2015, 07:08 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-03-2014, 05:25 PM
  4. Riding Days vs. Running Days for Spartan style race?
    By SLOCanucker in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 07:51 PM
  5. Core and strength training on rest days or riding days?
    By Evan55 in forum XC Racing and Training
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 01:53 PM

Members who have read this thread: 261

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.