Mountain bikes come in all shapes and sizes, with models designed to roll over everything from the smoothest hardpack to the roughest, steepest rock lines. Over time brands and consumers alike have latched onto designations like trail and enduro as a way to convey a bike’s intentions. But shorthand descriptors leave important details unstated, and in some cases, can lead buyers astray.
Bonus question for commenters: What is a better standardized way we could categorize or describe mountain bikes without resorting to a full geo and spec sheet?
Share This:
I look at suspension travel. Here in Florida, you don’t need anything more than 140mm of travel at most. That’s how I narrow down my choices.
I feel they can be very confusing especially if you are new to the sport. I recommend going to a good shop specific to the riding you are getting into. My hardtail ,first shop got me on is pretty much spot on and just love the bike. Second bike( a mid travel trail, full sus ) I bought through a different shop also put me spot on and love that bike as well. Getting to test ride both was also good. I was looking at YT and Whyte bikes but couldn’t bring myself to buy without a ride. So many good and different bikes and styles it certainly can get confusing.Hardtail, short travel ,mid travel, long travel, super long travel ,trail, mountain , enduro , xc , downhill, downcountry, e-bike, 27.5, 29, mullet Im sure I’m forgetting some but man thats a lot to choose from and not to mention geometry!!!
So I’m old, but when I started mountain biking, a mountain bike was a not-a-road-bike bike. You ride on pavement, you get a road bike. You ride off pavement, you get a mountain bike. All this other word stuff (upcountry, downcountry, trail, all-mountain, enduro, free-ride, downhill, plus the non-mountain-bike BMX stuff that gets lumped in – urban, slopestyle, dirt jump, etc.) is not helpful when referring to bikes rather than styles of riding. If there were clearly defined categories and standards, bike categories could be useful. But there are no standards for these “categories.” Is a bike with 130mm of travel up front a short travel enduro bike, or a long travel cross country bike, or a mid travel trail bike? This answer will be different depending on the brand, the geometry, the person you’re talking to, and the flavor of the year. Unless there is a set standard, I would suggest they’re all mountain bikes, and you need to shop for the appropriate geometry and amount of travel for where you do most of your riding. Wheel size is an acceptable “category” because 26, 27.5, 29, etc. are set standards with clear definitions. No matter the year, or the brand, or the bike shop, or the style of riding you prefer, a 26″ wheel is a 26″ wheel. The other categories are mostly meaningless for trying to define bikes. They are only useful in describing a style of riding. Now get off my lawn.
At either end of the spectrum they are pretty clear, XC and DH, but everything in between is confusing, and it’s compounded by what I perceive as a lack of definition on how a trail is classified.
When does an ‘XC trail’ become a ‘trail’ and how far into ‘trail’ does a trail need to be before a ‘trail bike’ becomes the preferred weapon of choice. Then how much of a ‘trail bike’ do you need? A short-travel trail bike (Giant Trance 29 130/115) or a long-travel trail bike (Giant Trance X 29 150/135), or could a ‘down-country’ bike be what you need?
There’s something of a chicken and egg scenario going one between the component manufacturers and the bike companies, with Fox and RockShox slowly increasing their product lines, and tire companies offering more and more options for slightly different terrains you can have a bike like the Orbea Oiz TR (120/120) fitted with a Fox 34 StepCast and Maxxis Forekasters which is a ‘down country’ bike, but a bike with a regular 120mm Fox 34 and Maxxis Dissectors or similar would be classed as a ‘short travel trail bike’.
It’s not exactly unique though, just look at how Merc/Audi/BMW have expanded their model ranges over the last decade. The 3 series coupe became the 4 series, but now you can get a 4 door 4 series which is surely a 3 series, and then the X 3/4/5/6/7 and the GT (hatch) version of the sedans….
Interesting questions Jeff. I don’t feel that the current category descriptions are very helpful at all and are, in many ways, confusing. Take XC for example. I know what XC used to mean but if you’ve watched the recent XC championships over the last few years they are so much more technical than what an average rider would be able to handle on a typical XC bike. I have come to think of off-road cycling as falling into 3 general categories: Downhill (defined by suspension & geo, i.e. not designed for climbing), Gravel (defined by rim width & drop bars) and Trail (everything else meant to be ridden up and down with the subcategories being defined by suspension & geo).
Much is marketing jargon to make folks think there is more there than is…
Frankly, I require the geo and further information on a bike that conjecture like fluff.
At this point in the game, I am looking more at custom frames based on my DWG files for the fits like a glove option, seeing as some makes are priced above full custom Ti as it is for something that fits a crash test dummy that doesn’t ride like I do. Plastic need not apply!
They are all bikes…. all basically the same…. they look the same; they ride the same; and regardless of what our erstwhile reviewers say, they really are the same…. some have a bit more travel than others, or a few more gears…. so what? This is all marketing bull and absolutely meaningless in defining exactly how the bike is built or rides.
I think the differences between bikes is really over hyped. Modern bikes are so capable in every condition and I feel the marketing wants you to believe the opposite and that you need a different bike for every ride.
Downhill, XC and dirt jump make sense as those disciplines pretty much require a specific type of bike for the terrain. Everything else is a “trail” bike of some sort