Welcome to Henry's Waffle House. Here, we serve only absolute waffle, each and every one doused in a hubristic sauce and washed down by an accompanying pint of inane babble. Bon appetite.
Listen, when it comes to irrelevance, I know a thing or two. In fact, I consider myself the Lucasian Professor of being one step behind, tied up in knots of unknowing, and so much out of the loop I have circled back. I'm not the only one circling, either. All-mountain bikes are here, cooler than ever, and ready to be bought and unenjoyed by many north, south, east and west. So what the hell is an all-mountain bike?
An all-mountain bike is a very adequate term for a bike you can ride anywhere, and all while being the bike you wish to ride nowhere. Just enough travel to get by when things get rough, just enough weight to feel lethargic when things are smooth. Just lifeless enough not to live, but with enough of a pulse that you can't quite call it dead. I had a border terrier like that once. Hinterlanded. Sandbagged. Beached.
The problem is that all-mountain bikes are actually very good. You’ll buy one, and you’ll love it. Before the big purchase, you’ll peruse the brand’s website. It’ll have images in the copy of athlete’s
shredding in sunglasses / welding masks and Pantone-matched helmets. The photos will have been shot somewhere you dream of one day riding, as photogenic smiles look more like luminous stamps on the faces of the models and are wholly unlike any smile you’ve ever had pushing through shit-slop on a wet Sunday morning at your local. But alas, you could grin that hard, if only you had a bike like
that.
Once the 150mm bike arrives you’ll realize that there are issues. Firstly, it’s not as light as you’d hoped. In fact, for a bike that is carbon fiber, with just about the best of everything, it feels decidedly portly. No bother, for you too shall shred. Plus, weight isn’t important,
remember?
So you’ll go out with your good-for-nothing friends who insist on riding pointless 170mm enduro bikes that you really don’t need, slop, slime, sunshine or otherwise.
After risking life and limb trying to keep up, either going at the same speed as you would on an enduro bike with wide-eyed terror or slower with fewer adrenal flushes, a thought will occur to you that often occurs to me when I ride this style of bike. This bike, this modern wonder is just so capable. Wouldn’t it be better with some bigger brakes? Maybe a longer dropper. Oh, and some heavier tires wouldn’t go amiss, either.
Yes, all-mountain bikes are better than ever but that’s the problem. They’re so good they completely undermine their own purpose because they excel at the things you would be much better served by an enduro bike while doing.
When I was a child, whenever my dad asked me to make him a cup of tea (one of the primary household duties of a child in England) I would always make it slightly cold, and with the cardinal sin of both an unstrained teabag and too much milk. That way he wouldn’t ask again for at least another year. When I was asked to cook I would make sure my family wouldn’t actually get food poisoning, but they’d consider it a real risk when the meal was presented. Tactics. Gamesmanship. Racecraft. The same problem exists for all-mountain bikes that did for my never-quite-fatal shepherd's pie. They’re satisfying their definition, but to truly be enjoyed need some small but required changes. And if those changes happen, suddenly it isn’t my own brand of poison anymore.
The all-mountain bike is undermined by two main things - firstly, the raft of manufacturers that spec the exact same frame, specced with most of the same parts, but with a stroke limiting spacer installed. This is absolute nonsense, and similar results could be achieved by merely pumping up the shock to a higher spring rate. Instead, you’re lugging around the same heavy frame, with maybe a fork that is around 10mm shorter. This isn’t so much bad design as it is a bad joke. And as an authority on bad jokes, I can tell you this one is an absolute doozy.
The second problem is perhaps more specific to your location but I think there are threads of relevance regardless for most riders.
Enduro bikes caught on because you could suddenly have a bike that would be well suited to not only the trails you could ride, but also the trails you hoped to ride. The bike is so capable it has a high ceiling, meaning that any rider, whoever they are, can grow into it and push themselves on trails that they work their way towards. You can then take this exact same bike, in the exact same spec you would have to ride your dream mountain bike destination and ride it around your local woods. Yes, it might not be lively, but it represents sheer value, both in terms of what you have to carry around but also money. No more expensive rentals or the need for a downhill bike. At most, you could change your tires and have something that covers off nearly every base.
With an all-mountain bike, they’re great for when you’re riding alone, riding the trails that you want to enjoy, but most of the time in groups you’ll be outgunned. You’ll take it to the bike park and loosen more bolts than a Boeing 737 Max 9 on takeoff. At the same time, you won’t go faster than anyone on the climbs and you probably won’t do so in any more comfort.
Now, I know what you’re thinking - Henry, you doughnut, I have an all-mountain bike for long rides and not this grind-up-smash-down style of enduro riding that you enjoy. To that I would say, each to their own, but one of the main inhibitors of comfort on big days is excessively steep seat tubes putting too much weight into your hands on flatter terrain and heavy tires. Neither of these problems are negated by the modern all-mountain bike with modern geometry.
Instead, you get a bike that will leave you with three choices - spec it with parts to make it bad at the thing you brought it to do, leave lighter parts on and make it bad for the thing you most likely love doing, or ride alone, so you don’t get very intimate with a tree while going very quickly trying to keep up with your friends on their sensible 170mm bikes that weigh a mere 500 grams more because their forks are 2mm thicker.
I grew up driving trucks... but they are absurdly expensive for zero real world benefit. Only way it makes sense to get one is if you live on rural roads or need it for work.
Yep.
Most of these 4x4 vehicles out of the showroom are pretty capable even on highway AT tires--I've taken this Taco out on a trail that a Raptor couldn't drive (mostly because it was too big/wide of a truck) with barely 500 miles on the odometer.
Every year I've owned a 4x4 vehicle, I always consider not "needing" the ruggedness or capability, but then we always end up using either the 4wd, ground clearance, towing, or cargo capacity at least 4-6 times a year. The cargo part I know I can just rent a van or truck, but on the US West Coast, there are just so many places that you cannot access unless you have a high-clearance/4wd vehicle.
I do carry recovery boards and equipment, but they are neatly stowed away inside a cargo box in the bed of the truck!
Probably closer to the frivolity and unnecessariness of a Range Rover combined with the ubiquity of a VW Transporter.
Does it serve a practical purpose? Nah.
Do I need to justify it to anyone else? Nope. Never.
Do I make fun of it too? Yep absolutely.
You realise that trucks are much more dangerous than a regular car in the event that you have to avoid something since they're so much easier to roll? The idea that trucks are safer is a complete fallacy and there's a ton of data to back that up.
I am much more worried about someone hitting me than me hitting something. I have seen the data and you a right to a point. In a collision, my 8100lb truck beats 4800lb lexus/beamer/land rover. Evasive maneuver.....yeah I'm f'd
Chicken or the egg?
What"s TPS, you ask? Must I repeat myself?! OK. Teensy P__r Syndrome. The P-word describing that little red-topped birdy who takes bugs from under the bark of your trees, and wakes you from a sound sleep by banging on your house at first light.
I'm sorry. I believe in letting people do as they will as long as it doesn't hurt others. However, as previously pointed out in this comment thread, the rise of consumers purchasing pickup trucks does hurt others- environmentally, financially (accelerated infrastructure wear), and physically, as the size of vehicles has increased. These aren't emotionally driven points as well- there is hard data to back this up, that people choose to ignore.
Daily driving a pickup truck is the perfect metaphor for this article. It's an aspirational purchase, hoping and wanting to need a truck regularly when you probably just don't. Most Subarus have better clearance than stock pickups if the extent of your off-roading is overlanding to a marked dispersed camping site.
As someone that normally supports gender-affirming care based on your chosen gender identity, I should support truck purchases just like I support Viagra for the God-chosen men with impotence, but they're such silly purchases for most.
Ever heard of a wagon?
That said - to each his/her/their own (we gotta find an acronym for that BS) desires. Makes for some jolly comedy in the tribe. That & the "ebike" class of motorized vehicles. Pure comedy.
Oh man, don't even get me started on the ebikers shuttling the local trails here in their pavement princess pickup trucks.
Most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.
user name checks out
Kidding aside, this is nothing. Wait 'till the US elections take off and/or when another school mass shooting becomes newsworthy again. By they, you'd wish we'd go back discussing cars. Bikes you say? No one talks about bikes over here.
In terms of developing a vehicle though, if you're going to make something that could carry bulky items, why not just make it be able to carry heavy items AND tow at the same time?
This ties to the point that Henry Q made a while back: Good bikes aren’t more expensive these days, but the best bikes are more expensive, and that’s what people are mad about.
oh and btw, you're describing a pivot switchblade (pivot please hire me I am an engineer)
or you can just get bikes from 2018.
We need more "heavy duty" all-mountain bikes(by that i mean frames which can handle bike park and other abuse). They are practicly the better enduros for the most people. I think most riders dont need 170mm of suspension but would profit from a more efficent and respoinsive shorter travel bike.
I think people often buy enduros because they are sexy and versitily but also boring on flow and other non extreme trails. also i think you can make the case that shorter travel bikes produce better riders(especially if you ar enew to mountainbiking) because the respont harsher ad less forgiving to mistakes.
PS i got a range so im clearly part of the group which most of the time would be better of with a less travel bike
160/150 DH casing, 38mm Fork and cat 5 certified frame that would be what i consider optimum for me (with the knowledge i got at thsi moment)
My 150 bike is completely redundant.
The 120 bike is faster everyplace except where the 170 bike is absolutely required. This part was really eye opening. In moderate rocks at high speeds the 120 bike can be thrown around way more easily which actually makes is faster over these descents. Main difference is the 5 lbs of weight savings. I actually run the same wheels/drivetrain/brakes on both bikes, but different tires, bigger fork/rear shock and much heavier frame layup make up the weight difference.
My 150 bike is as fast as my 170 bike, but has way less margin for error. When I travel I take the 170 bike because I am going to be riding things blind and want that larger envelope.
The fact that an XC bike that I don't own would be faster uphill, and the enduro sled I do own would be faster downhill is completely irrelevant since I don't race. I wouldn't want my enduro bike as my only bike, and I had had no problems with my trail bike being my one bike quiver.
"my carbon ripmo weighs about 34 and that's the lightest I can possibly make it without going to carbon cranks and wheels."
This is a caveat: “without going to carbon cranks and wheels.”
steep dang ratted-out obstacle-riddled challenging singletrack with aplomb. And both will easily take me far beyond the point where my gonads fail me. They're both much more capable than my fears will allow me to be without that long process of learning. I'm replacing a 1st gen TJ (68/73) with a used Stylus (64/76) - partly because it's slack, but mostly because the TJ has been abused & modded for so long that I'm seriously questioning the frame's integrity. Until that nagging worry settled in - it carried me up, down & over anything my sus bikes would - and with it's head held high.
www.specialized.com/us/en/mens-stumpjumper-comp-carbon-29/p/154960?color=253544-154960
I moved to Bellingham, had an Evil Calling (130r/140f) and still rode everything, although it was a little scary. But then I bought a Nomad, put a link, shock, and Boxxer on it (190r/200f), and never looked back lol. Now that I’m super out of shape, I have my 165r/180f eebs and a dh bike.
The thing I learned along the way: 130mm bikes are totally fine, you don’t “need” anything more (although big bikes will always be my happy place).
It's like hunting with a Bazooka, sure it provides for a greater margin of errort, but unless you are hunting tanks you don't really need it. If you dont use your 170+mm of travel, then you didnt really need it.
I'm starting to miss the previous gen Trek Fuel EX, a bike with 130/140 travel designed to literally be capable of racing both XC and Enduro (as a casual racer).
You might not get your KOM on the climb, but it’ll still be fun. And pedaling the big rig around will make you fitter. A before-work ride is the perfect example for when the bike doesn’t matter. Ride what you’ve got, it’ll be over in an hour, it’s all good.
+1 on steep climbs peppered throughout BC. Steep STA is my friend.
Ride a Ripley built for occasional park duty, then a Ripmo with the same build (aside from frame and suspension). They’ll ride almost exactly the same-until you need the extra travel.
Long live the PSW.
I must admit: I've enjoyed riding in Cumberland and Kamloops a lot
Southern BC is coastal, interior, kootenays and rockies. All very different riding.
point of view. bigger bikes are more fun on bigger trails but suck on anything flatter and more mellow. why not have a bike that does everything pretty damn good?
Plenty of lightweight tires work great if you learn to ride light and not smash into stuff and rely on the suspension.
I would say I, on average, have about 5-6 "holy s%&t!" moments per season where, for whatever reason, something doesn't go according to plan. By and large, being over-biked with burly tires means that nearly 90% of these moments do not result in a crash, mechanical failure, or both.
Too me, avoiding injuries is one of the primary reasons I'd choose a big bike over something less capable. I'll happily pay for years' of extra weight and rolling resistance if it means one less broken bone, sprain, or any other injury every few seasons. Being laid up for 6-8 weeks sucks.
As a British rider with a 150mm travel all mountain bike who is frequently beaten both up and down the hill by friends on "stupid" 170mm Enduro bikes I feel this article was written specifically for me.
Blind enduro or double-black bike park trails on your 150AM bike is not much fun though and the aforementioned lighter tires and wheels are probably in extreme danger, as are you and your collarbones.
By all means, intentionally miss bits when mowing the lawn, even the culinary roulette makes sense, but screwing up a cuppa, on purpose?!
I hope the man stays in Canada, and may he be forever stuck on a 130mm travel frame.
I'm aware that I'm in the smaller camp here, and that's why I quite enjoy a good solo ride. Because I'd rather ride at my own pace than somebody else's
As a fellow opinionated Brit, I do enjoy your ramblings. Even if I don’t necessarily agree.
BUT, as I was reading the argument that one of the central pitfalls of all-mountain bikes is that they don't do well on group rides, I couldn't help but be reminded of this gem, which I remembered because it made me feel heard more than any therapist, of which there have been many, ever has. www.pinkbike.com/news/opinion-group-rides-are-the-worst.html.
Sorry @henryquinney. I'm an attorney, so I can't help it. But I hope you'll consider my having to live with my choice of profession to be revenge/punishment enough.
Cheers, and more of this, please.
My Druid is immense on everything i ride. Only time ive thought differently was racing at the Golfie. Which i do once a year....
My son, who likes to ride a fair bit faster, feels differently - to him, the enduro bike feels like his perfect one bike quiver.
Today my "light trail bike" has as much travel, bigger wheels, and better geometry. Trails haven't changed that much, with maybe a tendency towards being "easier".
For me, 150mm of travel with modern geometry seems like an awful lot. I doubt I could effectively use more.
Another classic. Needed that after a long day at the desk, dreaming of a dry trail in the mostly-submerged UK
All mountain has it's place. But then again, I've never found the limits of any bike...the limits are always mine.
Secondly, I love my HT3 (ok, the fork is bumped up to 160mm). I've come to admit I've def got a dad-bod and bike-enthusiast-dad riding skills, all sans offsping (canine version coming soon, though). I entered my first enduro rac...er "timed ride", last summer. There were three of us (I'm guessing) in the 50+ age group, I placed a solid second a few seconds behind a guy on a full enduro rig who has been riding/racing DH and and enduro for as long as I've been riding ('92). I would definitely not want a bike more capable than the HT3, and it's definitely not the bike that is slowing things down on the uphils. I read too many reviews and think way too much about another bike, but every time I ride the HT, I just love riding it.
Why would one ever wan't a N=1 life when they can have a N+1 life....HAHA
I think there is a terrain type where All Mountain excels though, and that's terrain that's relatively rough, but rolling without big climbs and descents. This is where an enduro bike can feel like "too much" because you don't have the extended downhills to get up to speed, but you also want suspension to soak up the bumps.
I can ride that bike anywhere and for any amount of time. However, it's much more sluggish than a hardtail or a XC bike on mellow trails and I certainly can't keep up with my friends on enduro bikes when things become both steep and rough. It feels just right on 90% of what I usually ride though and doesn't need to go mach 10 to feel fun. It's a compromise, but one I made consciously. If I had the option I would buy the same bike but lighter.
only in the past few years has 150/160 been marketed as trail. 5 years ago 160 was enduro.
Also group rides suck, unless the leader is showing you cool hidden trails/features that you didn't know existed.
I was stuck in NoWoMan's land. Stumpy Evo did well but I didn't
Just a marketing guy changed the name 20 years ago and the new generation were not around then!
Remember when Marin had a quick release to change geometry and we changed our the old sketchy 32mm fork for a 160mm talas, ride panaracer fire xc pros for xc to trail and irc kujo and elgato for trail to all mountain (now called enduro). Then the RM switch came along as a burlier bike, the nomad next....
Nothing has changed really.
Ride the right tyres for the right ride and shred hard.
Here is an example: Yeti's entire line up use to run the exact same tires independent of the use application of the bike. The obvious conclusion by reviewers was often that the SB130/ SB150 pedal exactly the same so why bother with the 130? If the SB130 had come with tires more appropriate for a 130mm bike, they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion.
Imagine if Transition had put the same tires on the Spire & the Spur?
1. For shorter riders, extra travel can adversely affect stand over height. Some people don’t care, but personally I do. At 5’6 I find most 170mm rigs simply too big.
2. I get that speed is fun, but risk of serious (think C-spine) injuries increases significantly with speed. A smaller bike might make people be more likely to ride within themselves. While the counter argument would be they have less reserve, overall I still think you will ride a bit slower
3. While I am fortunate enough to afford more than one bike, I prefer to have the least number possible for pragmatic reasons: storage, maintenance, and getting really accustomed to all the idiosyncrasies of how one bike handles, rather than 2 or 3
That way your engine can be fighting to gulp enough air to go down the highway.
Just don’t shut off that engine in that 7’ high water. Unless you have a snorkel for the exhaust..
Hardtail. (pick any variety based on locale)
Dh race bike.
Tailgate pad.
Bye.
That being said, in a perfect world I’d have a long travel bike and a short travel bike. But for most, including myself, only one bike is in the budget.
I've always been a fan of having a bike for each purpose, but with reasonable geometry on an Enduro bike you really only need two sets of tires..or wheels for convenience and you've got a whole lot of terrain covered.
There's enough adjustment in suspension to make a 170+mm bike feel playful, and basically the only other differentiating factor is what you're rolling on.
I've built myself an "all mountain" bike on my cracked and welded frame and parts I had kicking around the shop. It's a 160mm frame with severely progressive suspension and easily as capable as my current 175mm, actually probably the best bike I've ridden..except I've cracked 3 frames, as if it wasn't meant for its daily dose of Poacher The point is, it's an incredibly quick and playful bike, yet it used to be my main do-literally-anything weapon with a Zeb, DH wheels and all. The only difference now is it's got lighter tires and no cushcore, and I'm dead set on it being more fun than a 300 grams lighter bike with 20mm less travel. And easier to pedal than a smaller bike with heavier tires.
Another point is that I never ride that bike. It's fun and I love it, but I still always reach for the bike with DH wheels on it, because after a few rides it may still feel much slower up the hill, but it gets up there and if I decide to ride something stupid on a whim, I've got the best tool for that. So even if I had that lighter wheelset, I doubt it'd see much use. Even my first 100m ever descending in the Chilcotins after climbing for approximately ever and a little, I was really happy I had cushcore when I smoked a rock on a natural gap before my brain even got some oxygen after the climb.
So yeah, moar travel = better.
So if anyone is interessted I'm selling a Norco Fluid A1 in Size S for 1'500$ with XT brakes and 165mm SLX cranks upgraded.
They nag if they aren't riding the absolute perfect bike for the situation, and if they are they will nag about the suspension setup or their tires or their head tube not being slack enough.
Meanwhile me and my friends use our nineties mountain bikes for everything we ride. At the beginning of the winter (a very wet, muddy period here) our tires were bald, but we decided to just keep riding them through winter. And it was fun!
It pushed us to ride with diligence and flow, and the slipping and sliding every now and then was hilarious.
Jeez, just ride what you have and ride it too its limits, instead of 'needing' another bike that might push those limits just a bit further.
If you are tubeless, then 2 sets of wheels might be easier/less messy.
1 set for XC/trail, lighter rims, spokes and tyres.
1 set for enduro/dh/bike park
See loads of folk at Tarland and Glenlivet up here on full on enduro rigs with double down tyres and inserts slugging it out. The trails are way more fun and faster with the likes of a crossmark II out back and lighter casing Minion or Assagai up front.
But hey, if pumping up your one-and-only 170mm enduro bike is THE way to make it nimbler and more trail-worthy for an epic trip, why whine about it?
I’ve been riding 160 +/- of travel for the last 15-20 years, apart from my city slicker I’m a one quiver kind of lad.
Suits all what I do .
Love the debate
Thanks Henry
"This is absolute nonsense, and similar results could be achieved by merely pumping up the shock to a higher spring rate. Instead, you’re lugging around the same heavy frame, with maybe a fork that is around 10mm shorter. This isn’t so much bad design as it is a bad joke."
I love you! Doing the lords work. Sorry about my mad 17 page ramble at you on some other thread about backwards forks. All is forgiven. Not that I unforgave you in the first place.
I am no super shredder and just short of 60 years of age, I find a lot of blue trails really challenging. I probably would be perfectly well off with a 120/130 trail bike, but the All Mountain feels so much plusher and offers some reserves when I need them.
Bought a second pair of wheels for bike parks with dh tires on it, way less expensive than another bike, and no dh bike collecting dust for almost a full year.
im so confused with these comments
I had a tacoma and was always annoyed by how clunky and bloated it felt. Now I have a Maverick and I'm annoyed by how much of a Ford it is. But as a platform, the Mav is money. I'll buy this style of trucklet as long as they make them. It drives so much better than all the BOF trucks. And its an absolute workhorse for the size. And I get immensely better fuel economy than the crappy taco numbers.
Long travel pickups go fast in the desert
Pickups also carry your dirt bikes / mtb bikes
Pickups are rad
These are just facts
\m/
it's all mountain when you need it to be, but trail the rest of the time.
it weighs 33lbs, but it feels more like 29lbsbecause it's so responsive.
I agree with everything you said. Sell me on a Spire as my only bike for 50/50 trail riding / bike park.