Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Would an enduro bike that is 1 pound lighter than a trail bike be easier to pedal just because of the weight? Is weight the only thing that makes different types of bikes harder or easier to pedal? I can get an enduro bike that is 33.5 lbs or a trail bike that is 34.5 lbs for the same price. I think my riding style terrain is more of a trail bike but the enduro bike is lighter and has better parts. The bikes are Trek Fuel EX 5 or Commencal Meta AM 29.
 

· always licking the glass
Joined
·
4,428 Posts
Would an enduro bike that is 1 pound lighter than a trail bike be easier to pedal just because of the weight? Is weight the only thing that makes different types of bikes harder or easier to pedal? I can get an enduro bike that is 33.5 lbs or a trail bike that is 34.5 lbs for the same price. I think my riding style terrain is more of a trail bike but the enduro bike is lighter and has better parts. The bikes are Trek Fuel EX 5 or Commencal Meta AM 29.
Didn't you ask this question on another thread?
 

· change is good
Switchblade with a 38, 29+ rigid WaltWorks
Joined
·
4,252 Posts
There are many factors regarding pedaling efficiency. Suspension setup, suspension design, travel, tread pattern, wheel weight, frame stiffness, etc. Ditto - Buy the bike that is most fun 90% of the time. Also, customer support is important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

· Keep on Rockin...
Joined
·
6,674 Posts
My highly opinionated thoughts...

Enduro bikes make lousy trail bikes regardless of weight.

Enduro bikes make lousy DH bikes when you have a lift available.

Having an Enduro bike probably sounds way cooler than the reality of having one.

Short of a unique set of circumstances there are almost always better choices than an Enduro bike.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,287 Posts
My highly opinionated thoughts...

Enduro bikes make lousy trail bikes regardless of weight.

Enduro bikes make lousy DH bikes when you have a lift available.

Having an Enduro bike probably sounds way cooler than the reality of having one.

Short of a unique set of circumstances there are almost always better choices than an Enduro bike.
QFT.

That said, my OG Slash is a great rough and rugged trail bike. So smooth. "High" geo position helps.

I rode the new version, and not so much. Astounding for actual enduro racing, I'm sure.
 

· change is good
Switchblade with a 38, 29+ rigid WaltWorks
Joined
·
4,252 Posts
If I was a more aggressive, stronger rider, I would use a enduro bike as a trail bike in certain parts of the country. Living to seek out double blacks, stunts, and long technical downs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 

· Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
41,092 Posts
My highly opinionated thoughts...

Enduro bikes make lousy trail bikes regardless of weight.

Enduro bikes make lousy DH bikes when you have a lift available.

Having an Enduro bike probably sounds way cooler than the reality of having one.

Short of a unique set of circumstances there are almost always better choices than an Enduro bike.
I disagreee. Being only one category off, these differences may not be huge. An enduro bike, with 160-175mm of travel, will generally not suck at a park if it's equipped properly as an enduro bike, however, a DH bike would be better. The further you get from DH, the more out of place you'll be. Same thing with XC. A trail bike wouldn't be very far off, but an enduro bike would start to get there. Now, if one is calling their150mm travel bike with air shocks and dinky little brakes/rotors an "enduro bike", then that might be part of the problem as far as usage at a park.

A lot of the usual justifications just don't do it IMO. If you used the "90% rule" in the PNW, you'd be on XC race bikes, since you spend most of the time climbing up....to bomb down super fun descents where you do want an enduro bike. For any ride with serious vertical, it can be far better to have something closer to an enduro bike, if you can climb it. It's more the flatter terrain without big climbs/descents where it really starts to suck IME. But to some extent, it's fun to ride a bike because you can and take full advantage of the descents/obstacles/terrain.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
The Commencal is a lot of bike. I doubt you have a way to test ride it? The Commencal has a steep seat tube angle, suggesting the front wheel will stay planted and climb reasonably well, but the head tube angle is 63.5 so it will be much less agile than the Trek in tight switch backs. I would lean more toward the trail bike if that's what you're riding terrain is like.

Is there a reason you are not looking at the Commencal TR trail bike?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
There are many different flavors of enduro bike, some of which pedal nearly as well as any trail bike. Take Ibis Ripmo or Santa Cruz nomad for example.

I've heard commencal bikes are more about downhill and don't pedal as well as shorter travel trail bikes, so that is something to consider. But the reality is you'll have fun on whatever you get because you'll get used to it and it will become your normal (unless you acquire n+1).
 

· Keep on Rockin...
Joined
·
6,674 Posts
I disagreee. Being only one category off, these differences may not be huge. An enduro bike, with 160-175mm of travel, will generally not suck at a park if it's equipped properly as an enduro bike, however, a DH bike would be better. The further you get from DH, the more out of place you'll be. Same thing with XC. A trail bike wouldn't be very far off, but an enduro bike would start to get there. Now, if one is calling their150mm travel bike with air shocks and dinky little brakes/rotors an "enduro bike", then that might be part of the problem as far as usage at a park.

A lot of the usual justifications just don't do it IMO. If you used the "90% rule" in the PNW, you'd be on XC race bikes, since you spend most of the time climbing up....to bomb down super fun descents where you do want an enduro bike. For any ride with serious vertical, it can be far better to have something closer to an enduro bike, if you can climb it. It's more the flatter terrain without big climbs/descents where it really starts to suck IME. But to some extent, it's fun to ride a bike because you can and take full advantage of the descents/obstacles/terrain.
Yeah, I will admit that I rode with some friends on enduro bikes at a dh scene and they did well and had fun. At least on most of the trails. Seems more and more trails at dh parks no longer demand a full dh rig. In my head I'm still thinking of the old school, steep, blown out, chunk style trails that required a dh rig.
 

· Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
41,092 Posts
Yeah, I will admit that I rode with some friends on enduro bikes at a dh scene and they did well and had fun. At least on most of the trails. Seems more and more trails at dh parks no longer demand a full dh rig. In my head I'm still thinking of the old school, steep, blown out, chunk style trails that required a dh rig.
The enduro bikes have gotten a LOT more capable at DH, now putting 38mm forks up front (ok, we were here before with the Totem, but now it's not just an outlier).

Remember the real heavy-duty freeride bikes that were out there for a while? The idea was that you pedal up, but still huck and ride down, except these were kind of abominations on the downhill AND most people didn't push them hard enough to justify lugging around 12lb frames and 12lb forks. I also remember that even the lighter-duty bikes of that era with a decent amount of front travel would try to take off like the space-shuttle on any steep climb and you'd be at least figuratively looping backwards in your attempt to keep the front end on the ground on the climb. Luckily that genre dried up and it was replaced with "enduro".

You can still over-do it, making it something that just isn't practical to ride uphill with crazy draggy tires/wheels, 180mm of travel or more, etc., but by and large you are able to strike a pretty good balance these days for a bike that can do some double duty here. You still have to be smart about it though and realize that it's going to stress some parts more and the wear items like bearings, shock bushings, brake rotors and other items should probably be checked and changed more often.

I don't think the parks really changed, but the bikes have become more capable overall. A 27.5 enduro bike with 7 or close to 7" of travel vs. a 26" DH bike with 8. The biggest thing going for the old DH bike is the DC fork, but the new enduro bike has a lot more going for it overall, HTA, BB height/placement, reach, modern brakes, wheel roll-over, etc. Parks are hard to keep up though, erosion constantly wears through parts and they have to be re-routed, fixed or fortified, so they are kind of in a constant state of flux IME, some years they are harder, some years easier. But a modern DH bike turns it up a bit and allows you to ride the same terrain even more securely and faster. If anything, features have gotten bigger, but parks are pretty good IME at still keeping it fairly reasonable for most riders, as in the 60 foot road-gaps and red-bull-level stuff is not very common and usually well segregated. It seems more that their goal is to have a tech section that has a "correct line" that can be ridden, vs. just something all whacked out that no one can figure out without going to the hospital a few times.

I rode our local "XC" trails tonight on my XC bike. Man, it would have sucked to bring my longer travel rig there.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
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