When it comes to increasing the strength of the bike, stiffness _is_ the answer. Materials can only withstand so much stress before they yield and no longer return to their original form. The problem is determining how much stiffness is appropriate, as too much leads to a poor experience.
The holy grail is holistic design. A complete bike designed as a system which is optimized for a certain rider, riding style, and terrain. Ideally, riders wouldn't feel a desire to change big things out. If stiffness was properly tuned as a whole, a rider shouldn't consider swapping a Fox Float 34 with a 36, citing that the flexy fork is holding back the stiff frame. The opposite shouldn't be felt either, going weight weenie since some parts feel like overkill and make the bike feel sluggish.
Categorizing bikes based on travel, geo, and/or other simple parameters should be eliminated. One clyde's XC bike for forest riding could be considered one lightweight guy's aggressive trail bike for hard rocky terrain. Maybe they just have to advertise this relative stiffness, or its duty level (between heavy duty or light duty), between bike models. One bike might be a moderate duty 160mm long legged all-rounder bike (e.g. Marin Wolf Ridge), while another bike could be a heavy duty 140mm hard hitting speed demon 29er Enduro race machine (e.g. SB55); categorizing doesn't show the bikes for what they are individually. People don't have time/attention span to read wordy reviews, and these end up being bunched into the same category at first glance and prematurely judged based on narrow-minded bias (e.g. believing 160mm travel is overkill or that 160mm bikes demand to be ridden like FR/DH bikes). The closer I examine the bikes, the harder it should be to group bikes together--I can't say a Radon Swoop fits into the same category as a Marin Wolf Ridge just by looking at it on paper (inc. reviews and linkage analysis). I can only confirm it if I ride them back to back, but I can make a solid prediction if I had more context such as riding many other Radon bikes, a Polygon with the same susp as the Marin, and bikes with the same spec.
Having shoot-outs between bikes optimized for different things is quite a demand. Between an all-rounder Orbea Rallon vs gravity-oriented Evil Wreckoning, the bike that wins is the one that suits the rider, their riding style, and terrain best. A beginner looking to overcome their DH fears, someone with all-around skills looking to replace a quiver, a DH junkie that wants to session local trails... we all know this, but how do we get a personalized answer? Should we expect a bike shop salesman to figure this out, instead of trying to move what's in stock?
Feb. 23, 2018, 1:51 p.m. - Dan V
When it comes to increasing the strength of the bike, stiffness _is_ the answer. Materials can only withstand so much stress before they yield and no longer return to their original form. The problem is determining how much stiffness is appropriate, as too much leads to a poor experience. The holy grail is holistic design. A complete bike designed as a system which is optimized for a certain rider, riding style, and terrain. Ideally, riders wouldn't feel a desire to change big things out. If stiffness was properly tuned as a whole, a rider shouldn't consider swapping a Fox Float 34 with a 36, citing that the flexy fork is holding back the stiff frame. The opposite shouldn't be felt either, going weight weenie since some parts feel like overkill and make the bike feel sluggish. Categorizing bikes based on travel, geo, and/or other simple parameters should be eliminated. One clyde's XC bike for forest riding could be considered one lightweight guy's aggressive trail bike for hard rocky terrain. Maybe they just have to advertise this relative stiffness, or its duty level (between heavy duty or light duty), between bike models. One bike might be a moderate duty 160mm long legged all-rounder bike (e.g. Marin Wolf Ridge), while another bike could be a heavy duty 140mm hard hitting speed demon 29er Enduro race machine (e.g. SB55); categorizing doesn't show the bikes for what they are individually. People don't have time/attention span to read wordy reviews, and these end up being bunched into the same category at first glance and prematurely judged based on narrow-minded bias (e.g. believing 160mm travel is overkill or that 160mm bikes demand to be ridden like FR/DH bikes). The closer I examine the bikes, the harder it should be to group bikes together--I can't say a Radon Swoop fits into the same category as a Marin Wolf Ridge just by looking at it on paper (inc. reviews and linkage analysis). I can only confirm it if I ride them back to back, but I can make a solid prediction if I had more context such as riding many other Radon bikes, a Polygon with the same susp as the Marin, and bikes with the same spec. Having shoot-outs between bikes optimized for different things is quite a demand. Between an all-rounder Orbea Rallon vs gravity-oriented Evil Wreckoning, the bike that wins is the one that suits the rider, their riding style, and terrain best. A beginner looking to overcome their DH fears, someone with all-around skills looking to replace a quiver, a DH junkie that wants to session local trails... we all know this, but how do we get a personalized answer? Should we expect a bike shop salesman to figure this out, instead of trying to move what's in stock?