Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Downcountry?

  • Makes me angry

    Votes: 13 13.1%
  • Makes me laugh

    Votes: 58 58.6%
  • Is great, how about a new sub forum

    Votes: 28 28.3%

Downcountry Poll

11K views 204 replies 61 participants last post by  str8edgMTBMXer 
I think "Downcountry" is for those that think they are tool cool for "XC" since they think XC is all about racer weenies. I will say Mike Levy is using the term in a mocking fashion so he is the exception. I don't think he cares what you call it, but he likes a light snappy bike.
Agreed on all points. It absolutely is XC for people who are 'too cool' for XC. Spoiler alert; if they were actually that cool they'd huck something once in a while and be AM. :)
 
I'm new to the sport of mountain biking, even though I've been cycling in some form or another for most of my life. So my perspective reflects the fact that "downcountry" was a term I was already reading as I was researching what first proper mountain bike to buy, so I'm probably biased because of that.

That said, I have no problem with the term "downcountry". I think its really quite clear honestly. I can get why some people hate that "another term" is being introduced, but I think its natural/normal. Sometimes segments just change over time, and need a new term. Happens in most other industries as well (crossover vs CUV vs SUV, laptop vs convertible laptop, etc), so I guess maybe thats why it doesn't seem to bother me.

It basically describes an overforked full suspension XC bike with a dropper, and tires and other components that prioritize fun/no flats over the lowest weight possible. But thats a lot more of a mouthful than "downcountry".

Or, I guess I personally see it as how a casual/fun rider would spec/build a pedally bike. Or as another poster suggested, its what you'd ride in baggies :p.

I think that at present, the range for "downcountry", is solidly in the 100-120mm rear travel realm. Anything past that and you're getting into trail bike category (~130-150mm travel "ish"), and past that, into enduro (~160-180mm travel "ish"), and then downhill (180mm +).

I'm just waiting for the terms "Trailduro" (like my kona process 153?) and "downduro" to catch on, as I don't feel we've hit peak marketing terminology quite yet, and I need some more terms to throw around when talking about bikes with my friends to feel like I know something :p.
Stick around in the sport a little longer and you'll realize very few of the terms you just threw out mean the same thing to two people.

Personally, I think three categories cover things just fine - XC race bike, trail bike, downhill bike. Anything in between those three gets too subjective to be meaningful in any distinct way. Sure, that leaves a wide range in the trail category - but that makes sense given the wide range of 'trail riding.' Is it really such a big deal to say 'it's a long travel trail bike' or 'it's a lightweight trail bike?'
 
But I mean, if a segment has a huge range, doesn't it also make sense that it could be segmented into smaller, but still distinct categories? That way you wouldn't have to say "its a sporty, efficient pedaling short travel trail bike" or a "longer travel trail bike that I race enduros with". You could just say "its an enduro bike", or similar.
The problem is there are no hard and fast distinctions within trail. I can tell you definitively whether or not a bike is an XC race bike, trail bike or downhill bike. I cannot definitively tell you whether a bike is an all-mountain bike, enduro bike (drives me crazy, there are no enduro bikes and no enduro trails - only bikes and trails that are suited to enduro racing) or downcountry bike - no one can, it's just not a definitive term. As someone who sells bikes I'd much rather a customer ask me for long travel, burly trail bike than an 'enduro' bike. I know what to suggest with the first, the second I have to ask a bunch more questions.
 
Sure, I can get some of that. I agree that an XC bike is easy to spot in a showroom, same with a true DH bike, and because of that, anything else you can say is likely in the trail category somewhere.
I'm not talking about the showroom floor, I'm talking about when looking at a specs sheet... Where does trail stop and AM start? Where does AM stop and enduro start? Why are so many people racing enduro on trail and AM bikes? There are not solid answers to those questions, which to me is a sign that the terms are BS.

I do think that the term "enduro" bike is likely to stick at this point though. Mostly, because in many different sports (this one included), if you have a racing/competitive series based on it, the bikes/cars/motorcycles/whatever that rule that racing series tend to be defined by that name (motocross bikes, enduro motorcycles, cyclocross bikes, time trials bikes, drag racing, etc, etc, etc)
I would be more inclined to accept the term enduro if it were applied better. For most it means the longest travel (170ish) end of trail bikes, but that's not a very good indicator of whether or not a bike will be good for enduro. It'd be much more accurate if it applied to burly trail bikes with weight-conscious builds designed for racing - drivetrain and the rest of the build matter just as much, if not more, than suspension travel.

That's actually where this downcountry thing comes from - recognizing that not all short travel bikes are designed for racing. In that way I think downcountry is actually more useful than enduro as a bike category.
 
Somebody on here claimed that a cyclocross bike doesn't exist as type of bike unless you race it because "cyclocross" describes a race and not a bike (or something to that effect). Therefore, do enduro bikes exist if the owner doesn't sign up for enduro events?
I'd argue that cyclocross bikes are so specifically designed for cyclocross racing (very different from gravel bikes even) that they actually do deserve their own category. Enduro on the other hand can be raced on literally any trail bike with no issue, so I don't think it's distinct enough to warrant its own category regardless of whether or not the owner races.

Also, there wasn't an existing category for cyclocross bikes before they started calling them that. They are a new category that has developed for those types of races. Trail bikes are literally the oldest and most common category and need no modifications to be enduro ready.
 
The average guy riding a trail bike on average trails has little in common with a AM/Enduro guy basically riding DH trails on a bike that can climb.
I disagree... Because I ride both interchangeably, often on the same ride. Start with a gravel climb, ride XC trails for an hour or so, finish with a true DH trail descent (as in you're more likely to see a shuttled DH bike than a pedalled trail bike type of trails.) That's how most of my friends ride.

While I agree with your post, cyclocross isn't new, it predates mountain biking as we know it by a long shot.
Well aware, thought I had worded it to allow for that. I just think it's a good comparison because cyclocross bike is actually descriptive, enduro bike is not - as you said.

From a bike perspective they are mostly the same thing. From a riding perspective. AM is style of riding. Pace can be fast or casual. Enduro is a race format. There is starting to be new type of "enduro" bikes that are super long. Great for blasting down steeps fast, but have to be ridden hard to turn. SB150 comes to mind. Ride these more casually and they lose their feel a bit. Subtle difference, but a case of racing driving the design more than the average rider. Not saying this is bad, but just something to understand.
'AM' bikes aren't super long? Far as I can tell both enduro and AM bikes, if such a distinction even exists which I'd argue it doesn't, are both getting longer.
 
It was a term generated by someone (Bike mag?) for what the Canadians were doing up in BC in the early 2000s that was quickly appropriated by the various bike brand's marketing departments until Cannondale licensed it. I wonder if they'll license "down-country" next?
Oh ok, I'd heard that story (hence the 'fro-riders') but thought you meant it had somehow started as a tongue-in-cheek type thing. I don't think that was the case.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top