Bike classifications

[dh1]

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.

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​

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[BT180]

There's definitely bike blurring the lines. Take the Stumpy Evo for example. Long and slack, 63.5 HA but 'only' 140mm travel. Then you have proper 'Enduro' bikes like the new Strive with 'only' a 66 degree HA but it's on 150/170.

Overall geo and measurements need to work as a whole, with the travel, for a balanced and capable bike. 29ers seem to be enabling a lot of models to reduce the travel a bit, in order to get the same performance as a longer travel bike. Stuff trying to categorise them though - i don't think even the manufacturers know!

 

[dh1]

Jealous of the TransNZ records for starters.

Can I get the STA and confirm that the reach is correctly reported on Bike #8 when you get a chance?

For bike 8 the reach in the table is correct, the quoted STA in the table is actually the ‘effective’ angle. I will put it in brackets now.

 

[Flow-Rider]

It's bike manufacturers, they can't agree with each other on how they class categories of bikes but it's like the old question of 'how much is too much travel ?'

 

[Spike-X]

I see it as a spectrum, rather than a bunch of strict classifications.

XC-TRAIL-AM-ENDURO-DOWNHILL

With various bikes falling into various places across the spectrum and bleeding over into each other here and there.

 

[Ezkaton]

I see it as a spectrum, rather than a bunch of strict classifications.

XC-TRAIL-AM-ENDURO-DOWNHILL

With various bikes falling into various places across the spectrum and bleeding over into each other here and there.

These days I'd almost lump Trail and AM in as the same thing!

 

[safreek]

It's bike manufacturers, they can't agree with each other on how they class categories of bikes but it's like the old question of 'how much is too much travel ?'

Probably 12 inches +

 

[foxpuppet]

Jealous of the TransNZ records for starters.

Can I get the STA and confirm that the reach is correctly reported on Bike #8 when you get a chance?

Same, I noted there was only a few aussies on the results list I saw, how on earth do you get in 3 times? Good luck on the bike search though!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stirk]

A bike maybe be categorized by it's geometry but it's ability is largely based on the riders ability which may also be influenced by wheel travel so your table needs to be updated with all the possible larger travel fork options people customize their bikes with and you also forgot dropper post length.

 

[dh1]

These days I'd almost lump Trail and AM in as the same thing!

I would also lump them together.

I see it as a spectrum, rather than a bunch of strict classifications.

XC-TRAIL-AM-ENDURO-DOWNHILL

With various bikes falling into various places across the spectrum and bleeding over into each other here and there.

I agree. And given that the geometry across the spectrum is very similar does that mean it is now suspension travel alone that places one frame in one spectrum instead of another?
I would think so.

A bike maybe be categorized by it's geometry but it's ability is largely based on the riders ability which may also be influenced by wheel travel so your table needs to be updated with all the possible larger travel fork options people customize their bikes with and you also forgot dropper post length.

It’s ability is also based on the riders ability. I didn’t include fork options and dropper posts because this is really more about trying to recngonise what places a particular frame into a particular category.

My idea of the table with the geometry is to show that frames are similar across the board with only travel as the deciding factor as to on what kind of frame it is; trail, enduro, Freeride/Park etc.
This is what I feel and I would be surprised if anyone could say, with getting 75% right, which frames in the table fall into which category, using only the information in the table.

 

[dh1]

Same, I noted there was only a few aussies on the results list I saw, how on earth do you get in 3 times? Good luck on the bike search though!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Every year I have gone there have always been lots of aussies.
Once you get in once it is easy to get selected again, that’s my opinion anyway.

 

[latheboy]

Have you considered having a bike made with your specs?
Mojo seem to build bikes to what you want

 

[beeb]

At a guess the main difference between enduro and bike-park bikes are going to be certain aspects of the linkage design. An enduro bike might have 5mm more travel and a more aggressively angled front-end, but probably has a lot more anti-squat designed into the linkage to keep the thing pedaling efficiently (relatively speaking) compared to a low anti-squat bike-park/downhill bike where the suspension performance would typically have priority over pedaling efficiency. Another variable is a bike park bike might have a more progressive leverage ratio to favour coil shocks, whereas the enduro bike might have a flatter or partially regressive ratio to complement air shocks.

To my mind, travel is not the sole definition of a 'style' or genre of bike - with modern geometry and linkage designs the lines have been blurred. There's some very aggressive short-travel bikes out there (ie: the BTR Pinner), and some very traditional long travel bikes. At least there's plenty of options so you can buy almost anything off the shelf these days, and if that doesn't suffice there's some well established custom builders out there too.

 

[Calvin27]

I'm not really that well versed with goemetry, but man the definition of 'large' looks like it varies a lot!

 

[Paulie_AU]

Geo defines it more for me. Travel is just how quick I toast a back wheel on a DH track. My current hardtail is longer and slacker than my 160mm bike.... and it wrecks back wheels much faster.