Hi Burners,
So I have just completed my 3rd Trans NZ enduro and whilst my spitfire really didn't let me down at all I am looking at purchasing something even more capable on the descents and maybe even consolidating my bikes.
I have looked at the geometry of a lot of bikes that are on the market and popular at the moment, I'm pretty sure on the geometry I like and to be honest there aren't many frames out there that have the numbers I'm looking for.
Now once upon on time it was my understanding that two key design parameters, geometry and suspension travel, decided what type of bike it was; XC, trail/am, Enduro, freeride, DH, now we also have super-enduro and park. But these days I would say it is only suspension travel that defines what category the bike fits into, even then it is blurred between manufactures.
The frame that I do like the look of geometry wise and also aesthetically is not marketed in the category of frame I am looking for but to me this is only because of the suspension travel (it has 175mm). It is marketed as a bike park/freeride frame. This makes me wonder if I should even be looking at it but then it has only 5mm more travel then other frames that are marketed as Enduro and those frames also have more aggressive geometry. Confusion, confusion.....
Looking at the Geometry figures below of the popular bikes (trek, specialised, nukeproof, mondraker,Santa Cruz, Yeti, etc..) there isn't a massive amount of difference other than the amount of suspension travel they have.
What's my point in all this - given that suspension systems these days generally have good pedalling platform, tech in shocks is super sweet now and there is 12 speed, does suspension travel matter as much as it used to? Are bike companies just offering so much more choice in suspension travel that we don't need? If looking at Enduro, where is the limit and is it better to have more or less?
I left out the suspension travel data from the table and thought that if anyone is bored it would be interesting to see if they can categorise the bikes correctly based only off the info in the table.
Categories are:
a) Trail/am
b) Enduro
c) Freeride/super-enduro/ park
All frames are large and I have used only the low/slack figures for frames with geometry adjustment.
So I have just completed my 3rd Trans NZ enduro and whilst my spitfire really didn't let me down at all I am looking at purchasing something even more capable on the descents and maybe even consolidating my bikes.
I have looked at the geometry of a lot of bikes that are on the market and popular at the moment, I'm pretty sure on the geometry I like and to be honest there aren't many frames out there that have the numbers I'm looking for.
Now once upon on time it was my understanding that two key design parameters, geometry and suspension travel, decided what type of bike it was; XC, trail/am, Enduro, freeride, DH, now we also have super-enduro and park. But these days I would say it is only suspension travel that defines what category the bike fits into, even then it is blurred between manufactures.
The frame that I do like the look of geometry wise and also aesthetically is not marketed in the category of frame I am looking for but to me this is only because of the suspension travel (it has 175mm). It is marketed as a bike park/freeride frame. This makes me wonder if I should even be looking at it but then it has only 5mm more travel then other frames that are marketed as Enduro and those frames also have more aggressive geometry. Confusion, confusion.....
Looking at the Geometry figures below of the popular bikes (trek, specialised, nukeproof, mondraker,Santa Cruz, Yeti, etc..) there isn't a massive amount of difference other than the amount of suspension travel they have.
What's my point in all this - given that suspension systems these days generally have good pedalling platform, tech in shocks is super sweet now and there is 12 speed, does suspension travel matter as much as it used to? Are bike companies just offering so much more choice in suspension travel that we don't need? If looking at Enduro, where is the limit and is it better to have more or less?
I left out the suspension travel data from the table and thought that if anyone is bored it would be interesting to see if they can categorise the bikes correctly based only off the info in the table.
Categories are:
a) Trail/am
b) Enduro
c) Freeride/super-enduro/ park
All frames are large and I have used only the low/slack figures for frames with geometry adjustment.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | |
Wheel size | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 29 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 29 | 27.5 | 29 | 27.5 | 29 | 27.5 | 29 | 29 |
Seat tube length | 470 | 467 | 455 | 450 | 435 | 470 | 470 | 470 | 455 | 440 | 450 | 430 | 450 | 458 | 450 | 470 | 450 | 464 | 460 | 470 | 465 | 468 | |
Actual seat tube angle (effective STA) | -74.1 | 76.6 | 74.6 | 75 | 76.5 | 70.5 (75) | 68.5 (74.5) | 75.5 | 73.5 | 74 | 76.6 | 75 | 75.3 | 74.5 | 75.5 | 76.9 | 75 | 76.9 | 72.5 | 73.9 | 68 (74ish) | 76.5 | 64.3 (74ish) |
Head angle | 65 | 65 | 65.5 | 65 | 65.5 | 66 | 65.5 | 64.5 | 66 | 65 | 64 | 65 | 65.4 | 65 | 65 | 65.5 | 64.5 | 64.5 | 64.5 | 65.5 | 65.5 | 65.5 | 65.6 |
Head tube length | 120 | 120 | 140 | 120 | 130 | 115 | 120 | 120 | 115 | 135 | 120 | 130 | 130 | 120 | 115 | 110.2 | 115 | 107.7 | 115 | 127 | 110 | 115 | 110 |
Effective top tube | 627 | 612 | 627 | 617 | 613 | 654 | 659 | 603 | 642 | 611 | 632 | 621 | 619 | 622 | 625.5 | 634.7 | 625.6 | 657 | 647 | 625 | 619 | 635 | |
Bottom bracket height | 342 | 342.5 | 336 | 350 | 344 | 350 | 347 | 352.25 | 340 | 334.25 | 340 | 335 | 344 | 344 | 344 | 337.7 | 353.5 | 347.9 | 347 | 339 | 349 | 348 | 345 |
Wheelbase | 1215 | 1225 | 1212 | 1219 | 1215 | 1236 | 1240 | 1227 | 1189 | 1219.3 | 1238 | 1218 | 1215 | 1216 | 1226.12 | 1230.2 | 1249.2 | 1248 | 1236 | 1208 | 1206 | 1222 | 1219 |
Chainstay length | 435 | 433 | 432 | 427 | 432 | 435 | 434 | 445 | 441 | 428 | 430 | 425 | 430 | 430 | 435 | 433 | 437.9 | 433 | 435 | 430 | 435 | 432 | 434 |
Front centre | 781 | 792 | 780 | 792 | 783 | 801 | 806 | 782 | 748 | 791.3 | 808 | 793 | 785 | 786 | 791.12 | 797.2 | 811.3 | 815 | 801 | 778 | 771 | 790 | 785 |
Reach | 452 | 466 | 455 | 455 | 462 | 490 | 490 | 445 | 452 | 460 | 475 | 475 | 459 | 460 | 470 | 480.2 | 466.5 | 480.2 | 469 | 452 | 455 | 460 | 445 |
Stack | 612 | 613 | 623 | 617 | 617 | 628 | 603 | 611 | 590 | 636 | 614 | 617 | 611 | 611 | 599.59 | 624.8 | 627.6 | 624.8 | 599 | 648 | 601 | 633.5 | 628 |
Stand over height | 782 | 772 | 758 | - | - | 760 | 695 | 695 | 721 | 726 | - | 729.2 | 760.9 | 740.8 | 741.3 | 752 | 758 | 750 | 772 |