Beggars Would Ride
The Compromise Trap
I feel bad for mountain bike engineers and product managers. They spend months, sometimes years, developing what they earnestly believe is the best bike they can for a given kind of riding, and as soon as it is out the door, they’ve already identified the ways that it could be improved and are working on the next version. The consumer doesn’t necessarily know this, but the consumer does, inevitably, think he knows how to “improve” this brand new bike. In this way, the engineer and the consumer are aligned in their thinking, but the engineer has the benefit of actually knowing what the fuck he or she is doing, and the consumer, often, does not.
(Note: I specifically referenced the consumer in this regard as “he”. That may be sexist dinosaur thinking, but given the direction that this article is going to take – namely, how we as consumers manage to spend piles of money making our bikes perform worse than intended – is a predominantly male trait. I have seen men try to hot rod everything from cars to washing machines, usually with less than positive results. Conversely, I do not know any women who are stupid enough to want a cold air intake for Christmas.)
It’s as if we are wired for failure. We cannot help ourselves. We see a thing, and we want to modify it into a different thing that we think will suit our personal needs better. I’m reminded of Nicholas Cage’s quote in Wild At Heart: “Did I ever tell you that this here jacket represents a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom?” That’s fine if we are talking about finding our own special snakeskin jacket. But when it comes to the things we do to our bikes in our quests to make them more “ours”, well, nine times out of ten we are stepping straight into The Compromise Trap.
To identify The Compromise Trap we must first acknowledge that every bicycle is compromised. There is no such thing as the perfect bike, especially when we are talking about mountain biking. The sheer diversity of terrain, of riding conditions, of riding styles, and of riding intent guarantees that there is no way that one bike can do it all, let alone do it perfectly. It may be possible to have a perfect moment, in the right conditions, aboard the right bike, but that perfection will be fleeting. So, aside from the harsh reality that XC bikes are not DH bikes, or any of the many ways that bikes can be categorized in between that are all in some way at odds with one another, there’s the vexing truth that the perfection we are wired to seek is itself elusive in ways that equipment can rarely help satisfy. There is no perfect bike. There never has been a perfect bike, and there never will be one. Ergo, every bike is a compromise. There have been attempts to work around the inevitable compromises; remember Bionicons, or any number of other adjustable travel, adjustable geometry, adjustable adjustability bikes that have darkened the horizon with menacing regularity over the past decades?
Now, if we could accept that inevitable compromise is the hand the universe dealt us, we’d all be a lot happier. But that is not how we are wired. We want to “fix” things. We want to “make things better”. We want to improve the quality of our rides AND express our individuality with these wheeled symbols of personal freedom. Instead, we are seduced by the glittery promise of shiny new bike marketing (cue some Lorax-ian figure shouting from the distant sidelines; “Watch out, that’s fool’s gold!"), and at the same time we are immediately dissatisfied enough with that shiny new thing that we feel the need to modify it.
(Some more clarification is needed here. “We” is a generalization, and does not necessarily imply each and every one of us. It is entirely possible that there are some of you reading this who do not get caught in The Compromise Trap, and who are content to ride whatever you ride and never question performance or design intent. To you, I apologize for the use of such a broad brush.)
...while there were some places where the bike felt like it had more grip, it kind of sucked everywhere else. I had, with one well-intentioned component swap, completely dulled the most enjoyable edge of that bike.
This is The Compromise Trap: New bike, woohoo! Now let’s make it into something different. This whole line of interrogation began playing through my head yesterday when I was wondering how some beefier tires would go on the Yeti ASR I just tested. So I swapped the wheels out for some trail hoops shod with more aggressive rubber and went for a rip, and while there were some places where the bike felt like it had more grip, it kind of sucked everywhere else. I had, with one well-intentioned component swap, completely dulled the most enjoyable edge of that bike. Fortunately all I had to do was swap the brake rotors back to the original wheels and tires and hope that nobody saw me.
Wish I could say this was a new lesson, but it wasn’t. I fell into EXACTLY the same trap with my old Epic EVO as well. I loved that bike. Light, responsive, blazing fast. I put some grippier tires on it, and didn’t hate myself too much. But then I stroked the shock a tiny bit, taking the rear travel from 110mm to about 120mm. And then I put a 130mm fork on it, because I wasn’t racing, so why not make it more “trail friendly.” And I kind of turned the bike into a turd. It got marginally better in the rough, but there were scads of other 120-125mm travel bikes that would flat out eat its lunch in that regard. I sacrificed that crazy fast speedy pedaling edge, and lost the ridiculous corner carving capability that the low bottom bracket had given it. I had taken a very capable race bike and made it less capable. At the same time, I had not made it very much better as a trail bike. I had tried to throw components at what I perceived to be a compromised area of design, only to sink the entire bike into a different set of compromises while negating the very attributes that had made it so awesome in the first place.
Man I loved this bike, right up until I ruined it. Seen here, semi janky. Long stroke shock, 130mm Fox 34 with Grip damper, but attempting to rekindle lost spark with the original light tires. Didn't work. The high bb was the killer for me. The thrill was gone, and it was all my fault.
A few years before that, I went through the same exercise in frustration and limited intellect, but in the opposite direction. In an attempt to back up my words in a column about how trail bikes were becoming too heavy for no good reason, I dumped a small king’s ransom into a 26-ish pound Ibis Ripmo. It was light, that’s for sure. It was also nowhere near as fun or as confidence inspiring as the bog stock 33-pound bike it had originally been.
There are times, I will admit, where some tinkering will yield positive results. New brake pads can transform marginal brakes into something worth keeping. The “just right” width or sweep handlebar can make life a whole lot more pleasant for many of us. Same goes for saddles and grips. There are areas here touch points are highly personal, and “better” is not something anyone but the individual holding the bars is qualified to judge. And yes, tires can be a pretty damn amazing transformation in the right terrain and application. Upgrading dampers or servicing suspension components can make a bike feel like a whole new and thoroughly better beast. But when it comes to so much of the rest of the spectrum of component tinkering that we curious monkeys with tools in our paws are inclined to undertake, sometimes we would better serve our own interests by just letting things be.
Heresy, I know. It is our right to tinker, and our destiny to tinker endlessly. If not for our tool wielding proclivities, nothing would ever improve. And who knows our own needs better than our own damn selves?
Plenty of people, as it turns out. For every backyard overforked monstrosity that now pushes the front and has the stability of a vandalized shopping cart, there are hardworking engineers designing sweet handling bikes who have spent their lives having nightmares about rake, trail and contact patch numbers. For every rock punching, root catching, crank dragging homebuilt mullet or reverse mullet, there are scores of people whose job it is to understand the nuanced relationship between axle and bottom bracket height. For every single orangutan with a hex key who bent his seatpost forward and then slapped an angleset into his head tube to achieve some “modern geo” there are teams of people who think about how every single cockpit component interacts with the others, and who have to constantly revise and update that ever-changing database of fit and need. The bikes that are coming to market may not be exactly what you think you want, but they are, by and large, carefully and painstakingly thought out.
Look, I'm not saying that bike brands are perfect. Everyone has some skeletons in their closet. Case in point. An attempt to build one of the original "one bike quivers" - adjustable travel, adjustable geometry, neither fish nor fowl. This was a weird bike, made during a wild and experimental time. Still doesn't make it right. And the same rules apply today. There is no one bike to do it all. Never was.
And none of them are perfect. They are all compromises. The “one bike quiver” does not exist. It is a fallacy, one that is fueled by our desire to swing wrenches, make chimpanzee noises and recreate that scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey where the monkeys finally figure out that bones can be weapons.
Don’t fall into The Compromise Trap. Those bikes may not be perfect, but they are pretty damn good at whatever they are designed to do. Let them be awesome, just the way they are.
Comments
Dave Smith
1 month, 1 week ago
@Mike - how happy are you that you've found a home for your musings where the audience gets all your Gen-X references?
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
Over the moon, Dave. Over the fucking moon...
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 1 week ago
Not to be confused with "to the moon and back" which is like, you know, obviously a millennial parent expression that can describe the love of a child or just be replaced for "obsessing over these no show socks".
Reply
taprider
1 month, 1 week ago
and for pre GenX "you're going to the moon" as said by Jackie Gleason
Reply
Andy Eunson
1 month, 1 week ago
Often enough, a guy will want to make the bike more capable when in fact it’s the rider that needs to become more capable. Changing things like bar width and stem length for a better fit are totally acceptable and indeed kind of mandatory. And I think bike fit with mountain bikes is still in a state of change.
With geometry I always sense a bit of marketing bafflegab from manufacturers to encourage buying a new bike. Some changes are good, but some changes are not but riders are pretty adaptable. Last new bike has longer reach by 2 cm and a slacker head angle. My first climbs with tight switchbacks kind of stunk. It took about a month to adapt. I’m still not fully adapted to the 78° sa.
I can see getting a 9point8 post with a rear offset head. And the Trek angle set to steepen the ha. I think road race motorcycles have adjustable geometry so why not mountain bikes too?
I watch a lot of cross country and alpine skiing on the YouTube. Ski instructors tend to encourage a very rigid idea of perfect technique. But many World Cup stars have techniques that would be frowned upon by instructors. The better analytical people will look at technique differently. It is accepted by coaches that there is an envelope of individual style that is perfectly acceptable. So with a bike there is an envelope of acceptable change. Go too far out of that envelope can be stupid. A 160 travel 36 on a cross country racing hardtail is clearly too much. But going to a 120 from 100 isn’t.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
Maybe "Envelope of Radness" and/or "Pocket of Diminishing Returns" will be the next column... You (and several others here) are right - there is a lot that can be done to lightly tweak a bike in order to optimize it for personal fit or conditions. But there is definitely a window, and stepping beyond certain parameters is a guaranteed way to turn a good bike shitty. Locating the edges of that envelope, or frame of that window, that's where the ugly trial and error comes into play. Factor in healthy confirmation bias, where most of us earnestly believe that the money we just spent to modify our bikes was money WELL spent, and those edges get even harder to locate...
Reply
Adrian Bostock
1 month, 1 week ago
Reading this I can help but thinking about the kids in high school who spent a lot of effort and money trying to make 1990’s honda civics cool. I mean if you’re going to spend that kind of money why did you not buy a Prelude in or an Integra.
I put a 170mm fork and 203mm roto my hardtail. Fight Me.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
Yeah, but did you also put a cold air intake on your civic?
Reply
93EXCivic
1 month ago
The Civic is lighter then an Integra or Prelude. Signed someone spending way too much money on a 90s Civic.
Reply
Vincent Edwards
1 month ago
I posted a longer comment about the Epic Evo further down. Let me preface it here by humbly acknowledging that I’ve ‘borderline ruined’ or at least ‘paid to downgrade performance’ on many carefully designed bikes over the years. I’ve learned a lot in the process.
There is definitely a window ;) … and I’ve learned to focus on subtle changes that help improve things like fit and comfort. I’ve also learned to take the time to buy the correct bike in the first place.
Reply
Lu Kz
1 month, 1 week ago
"Often enough, a guy will want to make the bike more capable when in fact it’s the rider that needs to become more capable."
They hated Jesus because he told them the truth.
Reply
Cee Cee
1 month, 1 week ago
Modded a downsized 5010.4 from 130/140mm to 150/170mm with a 4-way shock and IRT air spring, 152mm crank. Rider has become better at using negative travel to go over rather than through stuff, option of which is also improved. Would buy again. Dual compound rubber is more important for speed on desert trail than tread. Peru, like the country. Monkeys don't have bad dreams. Apology noted
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 1 week ago
There's always a What the Fuck moment to accompany a Ceecee comment. In this case, two!
Reply
Timer
1 month ago
MTB is often stuck with this idea that normal schmucks should all run the same stuff and that it should be the same as the pro's. In this respect, road biking is far ahead of MTB. They acknowledge that bike fit is a very individual thing and pros are often at very extreme ends of the fit spectrum. Each pro at a different one.
Reply
Skooks
1 month, 1 week ago
Personally I love changing things around on my bike and finding out what works and what doesn't. Do I sometimes end up making the bike worse? Absolutely I do. But I always end up learning something about the bike and about what does/doesn't work *for me*. I typically buy bare frames and spec all the components myself. Sometimes I make good choices and sometimes I don't. To paraphrase Andrew Major, "bike lego is fun!".
Reply
alhoff
1 month ago
Come in Andrew Major...
Reply
taprider
1 month, 1 week ago
Thanks for more thoughtful discussion Mike.
I can see making many modifications, but staying within the original purpose of a bike, being justified.
But what annoys me are the bike reviewers (NSMB reviewers are not the ones I'm talking about) who judge an XC bike from an Enduro/Freeride/DH point of view, and say that before they even ride the bike that they had to put on a shorter stem and wider higher bars, and then immediately wider heavier tires because they have not front end grip. That makes as much sense as a rider/writer with an XC bent, immediately putting lighter tires and lower bars on an Enduro bike being reviewed.
I like that you recommended not putting heavier tires onto the Yeti.
A good XC bike is the most compromised type of bike on the trails. Whatever makes it faster in one section or for one rider/racer makes it slower somewhere or for someone else
Reply
Scott Jamieson
1 month, 1 week ago
See this is why I still do frame only custom builds. ONLY I can be blamed for the resulting chaos! It's something I love about mountain bikes, the personalisation, the little bits (or big bits) that nearly everyone does to their bike. Death to Toyota Camrys. Death to Beige.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
But what about a Toyota Camry with a cold air intake and some zesty flame red Recaro-look seat covers?
Reply
taprider
1 month, 1 week ago
have to have the big coffee can exhaust tip too
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 1 week ago
What's the opposite of a sleeper?
Reply
Velocipedestrian
1 month ago
A Scrub https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrLequ6dUdM
Reply
taprider
1 month ago
For trucks
BroDozer
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bro%20dozer
For Cars
Ricer
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ricer
and the cute exoneration to make it less racist
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ricarius
Reply
Konda
1 month, 1 week ago
Interesting counter point to the "Buy the bike you own" attitude presented by Andrew. Lots of these subtle differences are highly dependant on what a bike company's opinion is, and the opinions differ from company to company. A few tweeks could move a bike from the school of bike company X to school bike company Y.
As I side note, I'd like to mention that a 2deg angle set, and +10mm fork travel brought the Geo of my 8 year old XL size bike to be almost identical to the size L Commencal Tempo. Seat angle and BB height being a smidge different. Bike tinkering is a good thing imo!
Reply
Lu Kz
1 month, 1 week ago
I think Mike is presenting an interesting take, and the "people who are pros know better" argument is sound and valid. However, I'll argue that perhaps then something is lost between the engineer team, working within their set of compromises, hands the project off to the project management team, who then works within _their _ set of compromises. One doesn't have to look past how long it took companies to stop speccing 680-720mm bars and 70mm stems, the appearance resin-only brake rotors on 5k+ bikes, or how single piston brakes keep appearing on apparently gravity leaning bikes into 2024. I've had the opportunity to have discussions with several product managers over my career, and the answer to my questions usually comes down to "we have to make the bike work for the most amount of people" - not to mention hit a certain price point and profit margin. I think this applies in both the engineering stage and the product management stage, and certainly comes into the Bike Company X, Bike Company Y differing philosophies as Konda has discussed.
So if the bike company is working within and making compromises under the philosophy of trying to make a bike appeal to the most amount of people possible (they want to sell lots of bikes, obviously), if undoing some of these multi-level compromises the bike company made for other people makes me a gorilla, then ook ook motherf*cker.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
Extra points for owning your inner primate... Agreed that there is the existing compromise of mass appeal, and the compromise of vendor agreements and price points. And I think there's a pocket where stock can definitely be improved, and I did not do a very good job of articulating that because then I would have blown a couple thousand words and completely taken the wind out of the sails of my initial point. So maybe there's another article in there.
But at the design intent end - where the engineers and product managers at a brand agree upon what they want out of a given bike, then design the geometry, dial in the suspension kinematics, choose frame material, conduct all their FEA, figure out where to put the pivots and what to make them out of, and have those long drawn out arguments about what they personally like and what they are being tasked with building and whether it will appeal to the buying public - when that bike is finalized and built, these days it is probably pretty damn good.
Lots of room to argue that point, please note use of the word "probably". And this is where I think we should sometimes step back from our fidgety consumer end desires to make shit better. For example, much as it is popular, I don't think anglesetting a five year old bike just because everything is slacker now is a great idea, because in my experience, the reach change, the wheelbase change and the fork trail change that also come along for the ride have impacts on ride quality that I generally do not enjoy. Likewise, I don't think that overforking a bike is a good idea because I don't like what it does to the overall front/rear balance of the bike, to say nothing of the seat angle.
I think, and will totally accept that this may just apply to my own princess and the pea tendencies, that many people look at changes they want to make to their bikes from a single fixed point of reference. "Will these tires give me more traction? Yes? Good!" "Will this 2-degree slacker headset make my bike more stable? Yes? Good!" Sure, that modification will theoretically enhance one aspect of the bike, but it might also negatively impact three or four other aspects.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 1 week ago
Mike, another good one, definitely follow up with those other articles expanding on this topic, do like Andrew and try to find some actual bikes that do and don't lend themselves to being modified to either end.
To your premise that the engineers know a lot better than "me", I'm gona have to agree to disagree on that one, they know how to appeal to the marketing BS and I believe that is what drives design, not the other way around. I think maybe it's the road engineers I hate most really, they seem to give no forethought into the person who has to work on this bike and how easy or hard it will be for them to do simple service, like change headset bearings.
To the general premise of the article, I very much agree, but also it's brand/bike dependent, some designers just actually know what they're doing and can design a bike that actually can be pushed or pulled a little either way and still feel/ride good, others, well, let's just leave it at that....... I currently have a 2019 SC HighTower I had to service and the guy had the fork extended 10mm, has the flip chip in the slack setting and it feels HORRIBLE to just pedal about, floppy AF and the STA is so steep it hurts my knees, contrast that to my friends SB 150 that pedals and feels quite decent to just take for a pedal.
As to the Mulleting, if you know what you're doing, it can save/extend the life of a bike or help it tackle stuff better - I mulleted my 2014 Banshee Paradoxs to run 650Bx2.8" in the rear and pair that with a 29x2.5" upfront and have also over-forked them by 20mm and not one person has ever said anything bad about them, love how they handle. STA is a bit slack, but you can slide the saddle forward to compensate and while the Reach is shortened a bit, when you're on an unfamiliar bike in a strange country, having something that's maybe a tad "smaller" than what you're accustomed to is better than having something too big and long.
I also just mulleted my 2018 Kona Unit after riding my Phantom over forked and in the neutral setting, giving a HTA of about 67, so putting the 650B outback on the Unit brought the HTA more inline with what I was accustomed to and feels perfectly normal and natural to me now - _when I first built the bike, this is how I set it up as I transferred all the parts off my 2008 Surly Monkey (that mullet helped slacken the HTA to a more trail friendly 69) and I hated how it felt, so where you are in your riding and what you've tried, plays a big part in what you like._
Reply
Curveball
1 month ago
My enduro bike is designed so that it can easily be set up as a mullet. Given the number of Eliminator to ass-crack incidents that I've had, it looks like a great idea to make the change on my bike. However, I'm kind of opposite what Mike's talking about. I'm very hesitant to make any changes to my bikes unless there's a compelling reason to do so. I'm also pretty cheap about things which makes changing up stuff less appealing.
Reply
BarryW
1 month, 1 week ago
It's like Mike wrote an entire article telling me I'm wrong about my bike.
Maybe the (overforked) coil fork wasn't needed, but damn it feels so much better.
Perhaps the tire inserts are silly. But they might have saved a rim on one injudicious landing.
Likely the up sized and upgraded brake rotors and better pads weren't really required. But my fingers like them.
Possibly the longer 210 dropper is superfluous, but I've yet to smack myself in the tush since I added it.
Probably the coming coil shock is also not needed, but I'm pretty stoked to try it.
Certainly the bike worked pretty damn well out of the box.
Definitely I didn't NEED to change a damn thing.
Absolutely could have spent the money on lesson's.
Dammit Mike.
But keep up the great writing and thinking. Keeps us all on our toes.
Reply
Mike Ferrentino
1 month, 1 week ago
Wait'll you slap a motor on that thing, Barry. It'll really sing then!
Reply
fartymarty
1 month, 1 week ago
But a 140mm hardtail with a 62.5 degree head angle and beefy sticky tyres is soo much fun.
I'm talking about my Solaris Max with -2 headset and Super Gravity ultra soft tyres. It weighs more than most bikes but damn is it a giggle. And when I get bored of lugging big tyres around it'll be a rocket ship with reasonable weight tyres. The anglesets staying put that thing is great.
As long as you can change it back I don't see any harm in mixing things up.
Reply
Curveball
1 month ago
There's a lot to be said for reversible changes.
Reply
shenzhe
1 month, 1 week ago
Overall I'd say I agree, but with some with qualifications.
I'm a fan on buying as few bikes as possible and occasionally that means using a bike that is outside of it's ideal scope. To me there's a couple of ways to do this. 1) accept the compromises of the bike I'm using and just know it's going to be bad at it (say my Mach 4 SL for some enduro-lite stuff) or 2) make some changes that compromise the bike's ideal focus so that it is better at what it's going to be used for (swap tires/brakes on that Mach 4). Will the bike be the right bike for the job? Nope. Will it likely be a better bike for the job than if I left it in it's designed XC state? I believe so.
Given infinite cash and infinite storage space (and probably infinite time) owning all the bikes so that I always have the right-est bike for the situation (acknowledging that a single ride would have sections that are best for different bikes) would be great. I live in a world with finite cash, and finite storage space. Road bike for road rides, gravel bike for comfortable single-track? Nah, gravel bike for both, but road wheels/tires for road rides. It won't be as fast, won't corner as well, but that's ok. It's one less bike, and I don't need to be the best on the road.
I don't ride DH, but I occasionally ride things that are "not appropriate" for my Mach 4. I don't own any bikes that fit the bill for that kind of riding, but it's way easier for me to make some tweaks to the bike I own to make it less bad for that style of riding, and more bad for what I usually ride.
So, I agree that changing a bike from it's original character can be detrimental to it's overall ride, and if you buy an XC bike wishing it was an enduro bike you're not going to fix your problem by swapping out all the parts to make it better at Enduro, you should have just bought an enduro bike. If you buy an XC bike to ride XC trails and sometimes want it to do more, then either rent a bike that does that or just make some changes to your bike acknowledging that you're compromising it's original intent. (giving it a -5 to XC for only a +3 to enduro).
Reply
Alex D
1 month, 1 week ago
The hardest thing is being honest about how and what you actually ride. Trendy bikes are long-travel and super slack, with huge brakes and tires with massive knobs and beefy casings. I'd probably love that on sustained vertical chunk out West, but in the Southeast with undulating terrain and flat turns, they feel like piloting a couch. It takes so much energy to keep the bike rolling and chuck it around. I can't keep the speed up long enough to feel like I'm using the extra capability.
I have a 2020 Trance, a 130/120 bike that'd probably be called downcountry now. It came with 2.3 DHF/DHR. Now it has Ikon 2.6 on i35 rims on both ends. People say front Ikon is ridiculous, but I ride in the dry, it's easy to catch when it breaks away, and two-wheel slides are fun. The big casings float over rocky chuck so I can stay seated longer. They're also stupendously fast-rolling. I tried 2.6 DHF on both ends recently and it felt like I'd replaced the hub grease with molasses. Literally 2 MPH difference in average speed.
It has 180/160 Ashima rotors. They weigh nothing and have the same power as my RT86 and Centerlines. There's no discoloration because I'm not even close to reaching their heat capacity on my trails. The drivetrain is SRAM 11 XX1. It came with 12, but it turns out that when the bike weighs 25 pounds, you're in decent shape, and you don't mind coasting after about 25 MPH, you don't need 12.
In short, I turned a light trail bike into a plush XC bike. And I love it. I'm tempted by a true light-chassis downcountry bike that would shave 2 lbs with a similar build, but it seems like an expensive experiment to discover I'd rather have had the extra 10mm of fork travel and the Giant's superior linkage.
Reply
Lu Kz
1 month, 1 week ago
Alex is over there on the east coast like "this bike feels like piloting a couch, it's terrible!" and we're over here on the west coast shuttle trails like "this bike feels like piloting a couch, it's terrific!"
I will say, I did a significant amount of riding between Quebec and the easternmost trails in Canada in Newfoundland last summer and by the time I was done I sure wished I had brought a bigger bike than my 130/120 trail bike. While I only rode a few trails in the "I miss my couch" territory, there's some serious stuff and I could have gone for a bit more travel and business-minded tires.
Reply
Mark
1 month ago
hahaha - perspective is a beautiful thing
Reply
LeLo
1 month, 1 week ago
Nicely written as always and I totally get your point. I have some thoughts though. First of all I think we all need to loose our pride and admit, that we may think we have all the idea on what we're doing, we can only speak for ourselves.
It reminds me about some discussions I witnessed, on the new Norcos especially the Optic. Everyone seemed unsatisfied and said that the whole High Pivot concept doesn't fit on a small trail bike. Whereas I myself ride a Banshee Phantom, a bike with fantastic linkage design and really well executed tracking but only 115mm of travel on the rear. And I get the design philosophy behind the Optic. It makes sense to me, less travel means you get into the progression quicker, meaning you can manipulate the bike easier and it doesn't feel bogged down as a HP usually does. Still 125mm are enough travel to provide really good tracking over roots and rocks and with the right geo you don't need much travel to ride techy steep stuff (I ride my Phantom everywhere, on loamy Rooty or loose over hard German Hometrails, to the Swiss Alps and Finale Ligure). But still Norco got a big amount of hate, why they would dare change a perfectly fine bike (a bike that basically has an identical twin in their line-up), and I really think the engineers are misunderstood there.
That leads me to another point: Geo. I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to update their old bike from a 67 degree HA to a 65. Further, I don't see anything wrong with altering the HA on modern bikes as well. A 64 HA rides virtually the same uphill or on the flat as a 66 HA. But on the steep stuff it makes a worlds difference in terms of confidence. I have Nordest Downcountry Steel Hardtail with 130mm, which is my gravel/xc/dc fitness bike, I threw a -2 degrees Works Angleset on it, as I want my 64 degree HA, for when im on the trails with it. With my Phantom its the same. I see the pros of a 66 degree HA, it's just not for me. And taking a perfectly fine bike and just altering that one metric is the same as changing tyres to me. But maybe im too deep into the rabbit hole, after all I ride a 115mm bike with a coil shock, enduro tires and a -2 degree Angleset. It just works so well on the Phantom (but then again it was designed that way as a Hardcore Trail Bike with less travel, so maybe I'm inline with the engineers intentions).
What I totally agree with, is that it's nonsense to overtire a bike. There is this German Magazine that also publishes in English (Enduro Mag) and they always criticize when a bike is specced with less den DD tires. That just doesn't make any sense to me, I love my lightweight super grippy Onza tires.
One last note, I really don't want to be that guy, but you had a disclaimer on why you write about guys here. And while I think that its great, that you explain that and that you obviously reflect your writing and thinking, I just want to add, that one of the reasons women don't tinker that much is this kind of socialization, surrounding us all. Girls might not get encouraged enough to tinker and women might not be represented enough in these kind of texts. So they don't get the support and conversely the confidence to change something about their bikes. I agree with your point, that it's not something you usually see, but repeating that stereotype here, even if it's with good intentions, is also reinforcing it. We don't expect women to tinker with their bike, so we won't write about, discuss with or encourage them, so they don't feel confident to tinker with their bikes and so this stereotype manifests in reality. As I said, kudos on reflecting and mentioning it, just my two cents as a fellow rider, who's girlfriend is also riding (far better than me) and is struggling with the bro-culture in mountain biking.
Reply
Todd Hellinga
1 month, 1 week ago
yeah, people are different, but I've actually really enjoyed pushing the limits of steeper head angles, and ikons on my hardtail for the past year. are they as confidence inspiring as meaty treads and slack angles? no, of course not, but that's part of the fun and it actually helps with skill development, bike handling, line selection, all that shit that most people seem to avoid in favour of longer lower slacker beefier cruise ships.
The fattening of bikes has been a unappealing trend, imo.
Reply
LeLo
1 month, 1 week ago
I See your point. But if something has no downsides for me, then I don't see a reason to make life harder. So with the HA, a 64 degree HA has no downsides for me and the set of skills I develop with it, like line choice or switchbacks isn't just better or worse, its different. And as I don't own or ride a steep, short bike, I don't need to develop those skills, as they wouldn't make me a better rider. I also don't own a DH or Enduro Bike with 63 or less HA which would also require a different set of skills to ride.
But don't mistake my HT for an overbuilt Longer, lower slacker shredmashine. Ive specced it with 700-850g tires, 1570g Aluminum-Wheels and it weighs about 13kg, so its not a beefy star destroyer of a bike and it handles really really differently to my banshee. The 64 HA is just something I appreciate as I ride steep trails with both bikes.
Edit: I totally agree with the remark about fatter bikes. I really like an agile bike as well, and as a 70kg guy in Germany, without quick access to bike parks, I don't need a 17kg overbuilt Super-Enduro.
Reply
Todd Hellinga
1 month, 1 week ago
I respect your prespective!
Reply
silverbansheebike
1 month, 1 week ago
I'm happy with the article as it is, and think the disclaimer is a nice but unnecessary thought. Much like bikes, articles may not be perfect for all, but sometimes we just need to let them be awesome just as they are.
Reply
LeLo
1 month, 1 week ago
Yes of course. But just like many people here voice their opinion on the actual topic of the article, I wanted to voice my gratitude that Mike thought about in the first place but also voice my criticism in a hopefully constructive way without hate.
That's the whole point of this comment section, to take the article as is and interact i.e. think about it critically and voice ones views. And in my humble opinion, it is not unnecessary to reflect on how you're writing an article and who your audience is or rather how you would like to address your (potential) audiences. And Mike did just that which is great. As in my 6 years of studying and conducting research in communication science, Ive seen a lot empirical evidence that, how people in media are talking about and with their recipients is also forming the recipients view of themselves and their surroundings. So I wanted to give my more or less educated opinion on this, to maybe encourage someone here to do the same, as Mike did above.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 1 week ago
I'm gona be another to agree article is fine as is without "disclaimer", no need to appologise for obvious things, just like no need to appologise to those who may not reflect Mike's "man" in the article. I like that men and women are different, it's what makes things interesting and works and that's not just in the genitalia dept, it's also in the mindset and thinking. We are supposed to be a Yin/Yang type of system, opposite but that compliments itself. This modern BS that women can do whatever men can, and vice versa is UTTER Horse Shite, without taking the fact that most men of the same height are stronger, faster... than women (mostly, there are outliers in both sexes of course).
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 1 week ago
You were very successful in bringing some comments to bear in constructive ways. Excellent use of your second (or third, or fourth...?) language! Thank you, we'll certainly take it into consideration.
Reply
Lynx .
1 month, 1 week ago
You're being very unfair to a lot of people here bringing that Banshee to this knife fight. I might be a bit biased, but Keith has always been way ahead of most of the industry in his thinking and design and he most definitely designed the Phantom to be a real all mountain, short travel bike that can be over-forked etc., closest thing to a do it all bike once you have a couple sets of wheels with the right variation of tyres mounted. I'm still rocking my V1 Phantom which only has 105mm of travel in back, paired to a 140mm F34 upfront, in the middle position and it's a weapon. Over forking it gives me my preferred STA of <74* so I can enjoy riding this bike all over the place, not spinning like a fvcking hamster in the easiest gear possible and I can feel like I get my full monies worth out of my saddle as I use the entire thing, moving about it as required by gradient etc, like it was designed to be.
Reply
LeLo
1 month, 1 week ago
Yeah, you’re totally right mate. But still this bike has limits, as all bikes have (the limit on my V3 is my skillset) and it’s fun to modify it and push the technical limits in either direction. You’re right though that’s the whole point of the Phantom. And the point Mike made, about a true XC Bike and putting too much tyre on it is still valid. The phantom is more of a unique bike in that regard and within its travel range.
Reply
ackshunW
1 month, 1 week ago
Hahah great article Mike! So true about compromise, but ever since sticking an original Bomber Z2, shorter stem, and riser bars on my 1998 XC racer (got a lot of funny looks at the time!) I’ve always convinced myself I know how to muck it up for mybest!
Reply
Curveball
1 month ago
Oh man, the Bomber Z2 completely transformed my 1997 VooDoo! Having a bike that I could steer where I wanted to go was enlightening.
Reply
Kos
1 month, 1 week ago
Fun stuff, mostly true!
Modified washing machines: brought back memories of a young Tim Allen talking about fitting up a Saab turbo engine to his. Spun the poop stains right out!
Reply
Allen Lloyd
1 month, 1 week ago
I think engineers typically try to hit the broadest part of the market. Then we can adjust to get to our ideal setup.
Tires are a great example of this. Soft tires work great in soft wet conditions but get eaten alive on super abrasive surfaces. As we see more companies do different layups for different sizes I think there is opportunity to do the same with brakes. I weigh 200 pounds and go through 2 piston brakes like water, but 4 piston versions just work. Specking 4 piston on larger bikes makes sense to me.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
1 month, 1 week ago
I think that's too broad a statement. Different bike brands, design briefs, and models call for different amounts of broad appeal. Also, let's be careful to distinguish between the role of the engineer (kinematics, pivot locations & other layouts, tubing, layups, and other design elements) with a product manager, who is responsible for the spec choices among other things (it's definitely not just spec).
Some bikes are meant for a broad part of the market, but it still depends on where that brand sells bikes (Canada? North America? Germany? parts of one or more of those countries and more?) and there are other bikes geared to a more specific niche, like a DH bike, or short travel aggressive trail bike, or XC race hardtail. It's not easy to put those intentions into one box, and from the consumer side it's not always obvious what a brand is trying to do with a certain model.
Reply
Grinder
1 month, 1 week ago
Have you ever put all the stock parts back on a bike to get it ready for selling and thought “wow this was pretty awesome right out of the box” ? 😆
Not always of course, some upgrades are upgrades but most of mine are just changes to try something different.
Reply
Steven Kovalenko
1 month, 1 week ago
Reminds me of the Forbidden Facebook group where the must-have, no compromise accessory for a highly progressive bike like the Dreadnought, no matter your skill level, is an even more progressive Cascade Link and a very tunable, bougie shock.
Reply
Joseph Crabtree
1 month, 1 week ago
Every year I use to get my XC bike ready for Downieville, swap the Sid for a Pike, beefier wheels/tires and raise the handlebars to survive a chunky one-off race and immediately afterwards restore it to the bike it was meant to be.
Reply
silverbansheebike
1 month, 1 week ago
Great article! I'd like to agree with you Mike and use this as justification for my growing collection of slightly different bikes in the 160-200mm travel range, but I would have to go against my own attitude on every bike I've ever owned. I have dialed it back now though, mullet here, +10mm travel there, single speed or 10 speeds, nothing crazy. The tinkering and customization is part of the hobby, and opens up some great affordable options too, like what was shown in Andrew's excellent min-max series.
Now about those hot-rodded washing machines...
Reply
taprider
1 month, 1 week ago
Another thing about modifications, is that too many riders change parts to suit their strengths (Enduro Bros going for the heavier parts that handicap them on the flat and uphill, and hill climbing fiends weight weenie-ing their bikes even though the time gained on the ups is lost on the downs)
The XC races I have won over the years have typically been on the downhill portions, but I still needed a weight weenie low rolling resistance bike to stay in contention on the uphills, and just relied on skill and luck on the downs to make my break
Reply
Todd Hellinga
1 month, 1 week ago
I think the thing that would surprise most is that while you may not have the flat out speed of an enduro/dh sled on the descents, you can still rally hard and really don't give up that much over the course of an entire xc race, and as you know, you more than make up for it everywhere else in efficiency. Sure, you're bike still has to hold up, so there is always a trade off there chasing lightness...
Reply
taprider
1 month, 1 week ago
sometimes you have to go lighter or heavier than what you like or think is more fun
to be faster overall or have the durability to finish
Reply
Andy Eunson
1 month, 1 week ago
Yep. I used to say: "Cross country races are won on the uphill. And lost of the downhill". One spends more time climbing during a race so 10% faster up is more time than 10% slower going down.
Reply
XXX_er
1 month, 1 week ago
back in the freeride era it was common for a bro to change something on the bike just cuz he had an itchy wallet, invariably he would buy something he didnt need so almost right away something else major would break and he is done biking for the rest of the year till he can afford to fix it
I'm running same tires/ chain/ same everything, I just keep replacing shit with the same shit
Reply
Maximum Radness
1 month, 1 week ago
If you were 6ft4inches in the years spanning from 1998-2016 this whole piece is just wrong. Even road bikes didn’t fit, didn’t work, and were sketchy. But I appreciate what Mike is going for here. Multiple times he mentions “nowadays” and I have to agree. I have gone personally for two decades towards making trailbikes into sleds, and these days I’m taking my sleds into lighter spec and it’s really all just shite. Sport climbing is neither. Great shirt. All mountain is both and it’s damned close but I still break rims and burp dh tires and a tweaker is always gonna tweak. Which is one of the best things about mountain bikes: they can be whatever you want. Even if “we” are all wrong …..
Reply
Cr4w
1 month, 1 week ago
I was 6'6" through the timeframe specified and bikes indeed were shit. Every single aspect of the bike was poorly thought out for anyone not a M-L person, let alone more regionally specific things like brakes and bars and tires. I was always at the front of the line for the next thing that might be a little less of a shit sandwich. It took until 2022 for Santa Cruz to build a good well-executed XXL. Specialized still doesn't offer the enduro in S6 and all of their pants exist in the same inseam length because all mountain bikers are a 32" inseam but vary between 27" and 51" in waist.
I now have a proper fitting enduro bike that absolutely smashes and a trail bike that's actually exactly what it needs to be with enough nuts to do some more aggressive riding when pushed. And I have enough self discipline to not endurify the trail bike with bigger tires, more brakes, etc - I'm keeping it fit for its intended purpose. Both bikes live in their worlds with a bit of overlap in the middle.
That's 30 years of bad bikes, each one a little less bad than the one before.
Reply
Lu Kz
1 month, 1 week ago
"I was 6'6" through the timeframe specified "
Damn brother what happened?
Reply
Alex D
1 month, 1 week ago
I have my own special rant about stack height and the way brands assume that all they have to do is make the frames longer without bothering to raise the front end. 4cm stack difference between XS and XL is typical. My inseam is 36", I've got miles of saddle-bar drop on most XL frames. An enduro bike with XC posture? Super, can't go wrong. There's a corollary rant about fixed chainstay lengths and what they do to weight balance when paired with long legs and a slack actual seat tube angle.
Reply
Mark
1 month, 1 week ago
So we come back to the answer being N+1.
That's gotta be a vote for having 3 or so bikes in the $3-4K range than one bike in the $10-12K range. Done judiciously - quality and capability doesn't have to suffer either.
That or we simply realize and be comfortable with the notion that often it's not the bike's capabilities that are limited, but our own.
Reply
Brad Nyenhuis
1 month, 1 week ago
I have mixed feeling about this article. I agree totally with the idea that changing the intended purpose of a bike through componentry is a bad idea and just results in a bike that is far less than the sum of it's parts.
However, as you said, all bikes are compromises. Built for the masses and compromised by marketing and OEM partnerships.
If you truly know what you want your bike to do, you can do better.
Example:
I wanted a Goldilocks trail bike with a DH bent. I chose an Evil Offering frameset with a 1.5 angleset (recommended by Evil). This allows me to keep the flip chip in the high level, keeping the steep seat angle, while slackoning the front end a bit. The 1.5 slacker HT angle also brings the riding height down about 10mm. Overforking it by 10mm brought it back to factory height.
I've never used a fork that has the perfect blend of plush/support as the Manitou Mezzer Pro.
Unlike most, I feel there is no such thing as too much lateral stiffness in a wheelset. The I9 system carbon wheels have spoiled me in this regard.
Shimano XTR 12sp. Perfection. Nothing else comes close. Sorry Transmission.
Hope Tech 4 brakes. Take the power and light touch of XTR, and add incredible progressive "feel".
I've hate, hate, hated every Maxxis tire I've ever tried. They seem to be speced on every factory build. How much marketing did it take to convince us that 6" of initial tire slide is a good thing?! Sort of like convincing us that bitterness in beer is a quality trait.
I'm really impressed with the Kenda HellKat Pro/Nevegal 2 combo.
OneUp carbon bars have a perfect (for me) amount of compliance.
This bike has come as close to perfect (again, for me) as I could ever have imagined. It pedals and handles phenomenally on flat-ish trails. It climbs tech like a mountain goat, and I've raced it in some chunky enduros without feeling outgunned.
My point is, I'm pretty sure there is no one offering a parts spec anything like this, and it's perfect (for me).
Taking a well-thought-out approach can lead to serious improvements.
Reply
Karl Fitzpatrick
1 month, 1 week ago
I didn't know I'd ever read one but this is a bit class half empty, Mike.
Surely the bike you love, whether you put your own spin on it based on what you think is appropriate or you bought it off the peg thanks to the decisions of the engineers and product managers, is the right bike, compromises be damned.
My favourite (and most versatile (and surprisingly capable)) iteration of an 9 year old hardtail I'm not far from replacing was actually as a 69er SS with a rigid fork and and a -2 angle set. No compromises per say, just sillier and funner trail decisions.
I think focusing on compromises is mostly about perspective.
Fun is fun. Compromises, whether they're there or not, are a total bring-down.
It's just bikes bro.
Reply
fartymarty
1 month ago
Agreed. It's about making the bike perfect for you.
Reply
Vincent Edwards
1 month ago
The Epic Evo 7… What a bike :)
I’ve made a few (subtle) tweaks to mine, but have had the exact opposite reaction to [most of] the changes. I much prefer the bike now over the stock version. I think more of my changes have been upgrades to mid-tier components, so keep that in mind.
Context: I live in a very rocky area with lots of 200-300ft ups and downs. I liked the stock bike, but the ground control front tire had a frightening tendency to wash out in loose corners when speeds picked up. So I went for an Eliminator T7 and it’s a lot better in the corners and under hard breaking, without sacrificing much weight (and just a little bit of speed) … It’s not the tire I’d run for an XC race, but it’s a better fit for where and how I ride.
The stock RockShox Deluxe shock was overly harsh in my [very] rocky terrain, so I changed to a 190x42.5 DB Inline.
With just a touch more travel, it still feels very efficient, and the comfort is much improved. It’s very adjustable, and I’ve put time in to tune it to my liking. The bike has better traction than it did with the stock shock on tech climbs, feels a bit more comfortable in rough terrain, but still provides a responsive pedaling platform. I’m besting times I got with the stock setup, so I’m not convinced I’ve lost any efficiency. (Perhaps if my trails were smoother?)
Next I ditched the SID select fork [because it was frankly the worst feeling fork I’ve owned in a long time, even after a rebuild]. I put a Fox34 Fit4 in its place… same weight, much better feel. Right now it’s set to 130mm, and I agree, this is the one place where I think I’m noticing a compromise. It plan to pick up a 120mm air spring… I notice the higher BB and I don’t often use the last 10mm of travel. I’m glad I tried 130mm… there are places where it’s better. But I think I agree that the bike just feels best with 120mm up front.
_
My goal with all of these changes was to create a bike that could better handle ‘trail’ riding, while still being lighter and more efficient than something like a Tallboy. I agree there is an inherent XC quality to the frame, and going too far into the trail realm would not be aligned with the design intent. But for now I’m really happy with my slightly altered Evo… It’s a better all around tool for the terrain I’m riding, and has an urgency and responsiveness that my previous 120 bike [TB4] could never match. On the other hand, the TB4 was head and shoulders better on the descents.
Reply
MTB_THETOWN
1 month ago
This article reminds me of when I put DH casing (26in) DHFs on my Yeti 575 many years ago. I thought I was so clever until I replaced them with something more sane and the bike felt 10x better.
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.