Mountain Biking - Trail Bikes = SUVs

OK so here is a thought that popped into my head when I was reading a mountain bike magazine. Its seems like I'm seeing a constant flow of new 5 inch 6 inch trail bikes, and it seems like they are getting down to the weight of a good hard tail.

These bikes are great because they are good for most anything, they can climb, descend, huck, whatever.

So whats wrong with that, nothing except, they cost alot, the cheap ones are like 2000 dollars, and I have this sneaking suspicion that alot of people who are buying these are getting them to just go out and ride trails.

My SUV analogy follows that SUVs are the most lucrative vehicles for the manufacturerers to sale, they are also the least effecient and most of the time alot more vehicle then the owner needs.

OK I was bored, but does it make sense.

Well if the trailbikes were heavy and unnefficient, then they could be compared to suvs. But that isn't the case.

So what's wrong with using a trail bike to ride trails?

Well if the trailbikes were heavy and unnefficient, then they could be compared to suvs. But that isn't the case.

Compared to road bikes, yes, they are. The point of having a mountain bike is not to be efficient, its to have more fun. People buy SUVs for a similar reason.

Like I said nothing is wrong with buying a trail bike and riding trails, but my point is that manufacturers are marketing these 2000 3000 dollar bikes as trail bikes when the average rider would probably be better served with a 3 inch bike or a hard tail because they don't need 6 inches of suspension travel to just go ride trails.

Compared to road bikes, yes, they are. The point of having a mountain bike is not to be efficient, its to have more fun. People buy SUVs for a similar reason.
Comparing road bikes to mountain bikes is like apples to oranges.

. . . the average rider would probably be better served with a 3 inch bike or a hard tail because they don't need 6 inches of suspension travel to just go ride trails.Sayeth who? Who's appointed themselves the gatekeeper of "acceptable" travel? I'd say the rider is best served by as much travel as they're willing to pedal around.

The analogy to SUVs does not hold water either. In a gas-guzzling SUV, people are using finite resources that affect the rest of the populace. With a bigger bike, the engine is the rider, so any extra energy expended is only affecting the rider and their stored energy.

Like I said nothing is wrong with buying a trail bike and riding trails, but my point is that manufacturers are marketing these 2000 3000 dollar bikes as trail bikes when the average rider would probably be better served with a 3 inch bike or a hard tail because they don't need 6 inches of suspension travel to just go ride trails.

Could you clarify your point? Are you saying that product manufacturers market things in order to get people to buy their products? Or that people frequently buy things they don't need?

Either way, it's not really any sort of revelation.

The analogy to SUVs does not hold water either. In a gas-guzzling SUV, people are using finite resources that affect the rest of the populace. With a bigger bike, the engine is the rider, so any extra energy expended is only affecting the rider and their stored energy.

I think you missed the point of the comparison. He was alluding to the fact that most SUV's will never leave the pavement, hence are never used to their real abilities. A long travel bike on a trail is not being used to it's abilities either.

I think you missed the point of the comparison. He was alluding to the fact that most SUV's will never leave the pavement, hence are never used to their real abilities. A long travel bike on a trail is not being used to it's abilities either.
So long 5-6 inch trail bikes aren't being used to their abilities on trails? that doesn't even make sense. How would anyone know that.

A long travel bike on a trail is not being used to it's abilities either.

If a LT bike would not be used to it's potential in a trail, when where would it be able to?

The whole "trail bike" name kills me. Aren't all mountain bikes made for trails anyway? XC trails are just a bit smoother while downhill trails are steep and manky, but they're all still trails.

I think you missed the point of the comparison . . .Actually, I did; or I skirted it anyway. I was picking up on his contention that long-travel bikes are inefficient. I guess my point is that a particular bike's inefficiencies only affect the user, so why worry about what the other people on the trail are riding?

OK so here is a thought that popped into my head when I was reading a mountain bike magazine. Its seems like I'm seeing a constant flow of new 5 inch 6 inch trail bikes, and it seems like they are getting down to the weight of a good hard tail.

These bikes are great because they are good for most anything, they can climb, descend, huck, whatever.

So whats wrong with that, nothing except, they cost alot, the cheap ones are like 2000 dollars, and I have this sneaking suspicion that alot of people who are buying these are getting them to just go out and ride trails.

My SUV analogy follows that SUVs are the most lucrative vehicles for the manufacturerers to sale, they are also the least effecient and most of the time alot more vehicle then the owner needs.

OK I was bored, but does it make sense.
i bought my trail bike at the end of the '03 season. got it for about half of the cost you mention here for the "cheap ones". of course, my upgrades have since raised that amount to $2500 (and rising). i use my bike for pretty much everything: xc, fr, dh (whenever i have the chance), and i dj with it as well.

Like I said nothing is wrong with buying a trail bike and riding trails, but my point is that manufacturers are marketing these 2000 3000 dollar bikes as trail bikes when the average rider would probably be better served with a 3 inch bike or a hard tail because they don't need 6 inches of suspension travel to just go ride trails.

Your definition and my definition of "trail" may differ significantly. Are you talking about actual "trails" or something like paved pathways? I ride several "trails" where additional travel is a big asset and results in significantly more speed on the "trail".

Sayeth who? Who's appointed themselves the gatekeeper of "acceptable" travel? I'd say the rider is best served by as much travel as they're willing to pedal around.

<snip>
I agree, I think people should ride trails on a whatever travel bike they wish to do so, if you ride a trail with a 6" front and rear bike then you'll most likely enjoy the downhills more, maybe suffer on the climbs but it's worth it (it would be for me).

to each there own, if a guy wants to ride an XC trail on a 10" travel DH rig, so be it. He's entitled to his right to ride a DH rig on an XC trail. Not the smartest choice but it's what he wants

I was riding with a guy last week who was on a $2500 stumpy fsr. He was slow, he pretty much sucked. But really nice guy and although its way too much bike for him right now....he'll grow into it, where as ill be looking for a duel squishy of my own eventually.

Whos dumber? The guy who bought an economical hardtail and uses all the travel already? Or the guy who bought the expensive fsr and uses barely half of its travel, but will grow into the bike? You could make a solid case against me.

Whos dumber? The guy who bought an economical hardtail and uses all the travel already? Or the guy who bought the expensive fsr and uses barely half of its travel, but will grow into the bike? You could make a solid case against me.

I say the guy who gets to get another new bike is the smart one. :D

But seriously, I would be willing to bet that the guy on the hardtail would learn proper skills at a much faster rate and would ultimately be the better rider. Personally I love my hardtails and with the full squishes that I've ridden, i can't see my self ever getting one. Heck, I even DJ on a full rigid and love it.

An SUV, when compared to a normal car, is pretty efficient when used in the element for which it was designed. ;)

But seriously, I would be willing to bet that the guy on the hardtail would learn proper skills at a much faster rate and would ultimately be the better rider.

I get so tired of hearing these comments. Who say's Joe Blow $$$ wants to be a "better" rider with "proper" skills? Who is going to say he's doing it wrong? Maybe he's doing it the way he wants to do it. Maybe he wants to have more fun. Who say's cutting 20 seconds off your lap time is more productive than sucking up 4" of root with 6" of travel? Which one smiles more...the one with the Stumpy FSR that just glided through a rock garden or the one on the hardtail racer that is working so hard to ride 4x as fast as the guy on the FSR just to prove a point all the while frowning b/c he is in such pain? Which one is having a good time?

I've had it with this place...I'm out!!!

:mad:






...umm, I was just kidding. I just build my "Trail Bike" a couple months ago and there have been times when I would have rather had a 3" travel racer. Most of the time though, I'm happy with it. I have a hardtail for racing and a trailbike for...trailing (hehehe) 'cause that's what I usually do...trail behind the racers.

I would say that I use every bit of my 130mm of travel, even if it's on the street. I like to drop off stuff and make the most of the trail. I love the cushy ride! The SUV analogy is on par with SUV's vs. cars / Trailbikes vs. Racerboy's. I just wish I could afford one of each.

I have a 140/150mm travel bike and a bike with 80mm of front travel...I parted out my 80mm travel bike because the other one is so much more fun to ride.

And I don't know about a full suspension bike limiting your ability to learn proper skills, you just learn different skills.

I mean, this is an accurate observation for one reason: the bike industry is capitalistic just like any other industry. They make products which give them the highest profit--if that's a 6 inch bike, so be it. Look at the p.3/chase/dirtjumping trend that's kind of sweeping through the industry. How many people are actually serious about dirtjumping? Probably fewer than the number of bikes sold would indicate.

How many people need or want a hardcore lightweight racing road bike instead of a comfortable touring bike? I know I converted from a racing bike to a steel 'cross bike with room for fenders/etc, because I realized I was making big sacrifices for racing--something I don't do.

You don't need carbon record derailleurs, gossamer tubes, and a double butted scandium frame. If you're like most people, your needs are more than met with a crisp-shifting 600 dollar mountain bike, or a tiagra road bike with a carbon fork.

Bottom line: trendy bikes are cool. They're pretty, they're fun, and they make people envy you. If that's what someone buys, fine. The more people who are biking, the better. It's better to let the marketing hype get you into biking than get you into a Hummer.

Please don't get upset

anyway I own a 5 inch trail bike, and the reason I made this post is that I was thinking that I really don't need that much bike, and that I might be happier with a lighter more effiecient hardtail. I'll soon find out since I should be getting a Leader hardtail frame in the mail monday.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with SUVs except for when people buy them and use them as if they were a car. I think nate said exactly what I was thinking. I think a direct response to what I am thinking about here is the single speed revolution or whatever, which is now just another way for the manufacturers to sell you one more bike.

As for the price of bikes I was wrong, its not just trailbikes, they are all expensive. Its just astronomical what they can price these machines for, of course they hardly ever bring retail.

I don't own an SUV, but how can you say it's wrong to drive one on the street? That's like saying you can't buy a Viper unless you're going to race, or you can't buy a truck unless you're going to haul something. "You can't buy a truck b/c they make bike racks to go on your car." C'mon, don't be foolish.

If I could afford a nice Durango, I'd buy it. I have kids, I have a minivan. It works, but I'd rather have an SUV. The van was just waaaay cheaper. I can see a good place for SUV's on the road in the winter...it's kinda hard to drive a car with screamin' kids in a foot of snow and ice.

Even if it's dry all the time and paved all the time...why is it wrong to drive what you want where you want? Kinda communistic if you ask me.

If you want to ride a Nomad on your local paved trail...props. If you want to ride a Cyclocrosser on a DH course, good on ya. You're in my prayers.

As a guy who road rides to work on a 8" travel bike, I fail to see your point.

Gattm I think I understand where you are coming from. and in some cases I would agree. Suspension bikes under the body of someone who will never use it to its potential (6in travel trail bike that never sees dirt) definately resemble those similar types of suv owners. As with all weekend warrior types of things you have that one crowd that needs to own the one toy his buddies don't have. Regardless of use.

At least thats the direction I think you were going.

Regular suv's are one thing, but there is a guy in town who has a hummer h2.. fully decked out in safari gear.. bash guards, roof rack, winches, lights..etc. That thing goes back and forth from home to work every day. I've never seen a speck of dirt on it. I've got a worn out, plain-jane, toyota 4x4 pickup, that has actually seen plenty of fireroads, and trails and will go anywhere, plus I can haul firewood or lumber or whatever.
As for minivans vs suv's for hauling kids.. we have a station wagon, and plan to buy another. It has all the room, far safer than either minivan or suv, better gas mileage, plus it doesn't look totally stupid like a minivan.

I don't own an SUV, but how can you say it's wrong to drive one on the street? That's like saying you can't buy a Viper unless you're going to race, or you can't buy a truck unless you're going to haul something. "You can't buy a truck b/c they make bike racks to go on your car." C'mon, don't be foolish.

If I could afford a nice Durango, I'd buy it. I have kids, I have a minivan. It works, but I'd rather have an SUV. The van was just waaaay cheaper. I can see a good place for SUV's on the road in the winter...it's kinda hard to drive a car with screamin' kids in a foot of snow and ice.

Even if it's dry all the time and paved all the time...why is it wrong to drive what you want where you want? Kinda communistic if you ask me.

If you want to ride a Nomad on your local paved trail...props. If you want to ride a Cyclocrosser on a DH course, good on ya. You're in my prayers.


Its not wrong to drive one on the street, I never said it was wrong, I said it was ineffiecient when someone buys one and it never sees dirt. When I was recently shopping for a new car it was hard, I wanted a truck, but I drive 60 miles a day round trip to work, I got a monte carlo since it got 30 some miles per gallon and was comfortable and I liked it. Right now with gas 3 dollars a gallon I wish I had sacraficed comfort and got a smaller even more effiecient car to drive to work.

Anyway going back and thinking about what i was trying to say I thought of this. Trail bikes are marketed as the "have it all" of mtn bikes, just as SUVs are the "have it all" of automobiles. IF you go back and read my posts you'll see I'm not telling people to do anything, I'm just making an observation. I'll take it further, XC rides are like rally cars, FRides are like monster trucks, DH rides are like Stadium trucks, Single speed ridgeds are like a VW thing?

Oh ghettocruiser I think your ride to work would be much better on a bike that has no suspension travel, of course your roads may be worse then mine?

Oh ghettocruiser I think your ride to work would be much better on a bike that has no suspension travel, of course your roads may be worse then mine?

It depends on how the bike is ridden. I don't have a dedicated commuter bike. I split it between my two main bikes. One is a pure road bike and the other a full-suspension MTB. Some days, the ride to work is much nicer with the roadbike because I can go fast. Other days it's much better with the MTB because there are certain parts of my commute that get extremely backed up with cars and the roads have no shoulders. During those days, I make my own shortcuts which can range from hopping the ditch and riding across the grass/dirt/rocks/whatnot or cutting across staircases to an alternate route. At the very least, I'm much more comfortable riding right up against the curb on my MTB and all the hazards because I don't have to worry about things like sewer grates swallowing my tyre. And the area I live in has quite a number of singletrack and doubletrack trails that can be used as bypasses for the main roads.

we have a station wagon, and plan to buy another. It has all the room, far safer than either minivan or suv, better gas mileage, plus it doesn't look totally stupid like a minivan.

That's funny, I was going to say that I'm satisfied with my minivan b/c it doesn't look totally stupid like a station wagon, but I thought I might offend some station wagon owner.:D

I think the safety ratings on the vans and SUV's are funny. Everyone say's they roll over easily. Don't take the corner so fast nimrod!:o Ahh what a world.

Dang it...got off topic again, sorry.

For me, it came down to what Specialized hangs on their frames. I bought the Stumpy FSR because the FSRxc was not spec'd to my desires. They hang the good stuff on the Stumpys, not the lesser bikes. To get that component level, I probably would have to spend more than the Stumpy cost. And that's just plain stupid.

I may never hit the bottom on my 5"er, but these 40 year old bones are pretty darn OK with that. Plus, as I recall, the xc was heavier than my Stumpy. I've got a bike that will likely last me until I give up the mountains. Until then, my Stumpy is giving me the ride of my life. Well, not right now. I had back surgery to correct a ruptured disc a few weeks ago. Yet another reason to go with maximum squish. Beats the pants off my '91 GT Avalanche HT. What the heck did I wait for so long?

Trading my 05 Legacy Turbo wagon in tomorrow for a Acura MDx SUV. It burns more gas and weighs a lot more, but a kinda large station wagon only holds two kids in booster seats. The SUV is the same length and holds 7 total in three rows. The less off road capable the better. I'll use the bike for that. The SUV won't be as much fun to drive, but it will be a staging vehicle for the family to live out of on frequent ski trips and excursions. Wish you could get a Diesel/ lightweight SUV.

i guess the only solution to having a bigger travel bike than you need is to go bigger on the riding :) learn the skills and grow with the bike.

In all seriousness it depends what a *better* ride is. I can say that my FR bike is almost exactly half as fast as my road bike on level roads, slower still on climbs. If I'm actually trying to go fast on the road on that thing it's a very punishing experience. But my commute to work is not very far, and a 5-minute sprint on a road bike hardly feels like a real bike ride. Having the big bike at work gives me a lot more ways to amuse myself with urban riding on the way home.

About the larger issue, overkill with bikes really isn't like overkill with cars. They don't burn more gas or give meaningfully more impact to an accident. They do burn more calories per distance travelled. That's hardly a problem.

I've been told that a bike like the VPfree is *overkill* for the local trails that I ride. But when I ride the same trails on my XC race bike, I zip through in less than half the time, get bumped around a lot more and look and feel a lot less smooth, and never experiment with new lines or manuvers over the man-made stunts and obstacles, stuff that I always do on the big freeride bike.

In short, the full-on race bike just gets the trail ride over with somewhat nervously and way too fast... it feels like THAT is the bike that's *overkill*.

Just a thought.

I've been told that a bike like the VPfree is *overkill* for the local trails that I ride. But when I ride the same trails on my XC race bike, I zip through in less than half the time, get bumped around a lot more and look and feel a lot less smooth, and never experiment with new lines or manuvers over the man-made stunts and obstacles, stuff that I always do on the big freeride bike.
if all the guys who ride the don (mostly xc type trails) on their "big" bikes traded those in for weight weenie xc racers, i don't think the don would be as fun a place to ride in. even though my bike isn't as big as yours, i always smile when i see the big bikes out on the trails. my last time out, which was over a week ago (due to a crash where i injured my left elbow/forearm/wrist) i saw a guy out on a MC 9.5 with an avalance DC up front. all i could think to myself was that he must be having a blast.

Gattm I think I understand where you are coming from.


Well I think I understand where he is coming from also. It's like being a jedi master. you choose a weapon like a light saber, not a blaster

if all the guys who ride the don (mostly xc type trails) on their "big" bikes traded those in for weight weenie xc racers, i don't think the don would be as fun a place to ride in.


While I am in the rationalizing mood, I'll mention that DH-type bikes, with big low-pressure tires, 8" hydros, low seats, and tall front ends can STOP a lot faster than XC bikes as well. This has paid off a few times in the Don around those blind curves when I met oncoming traffic.

Mind you, we probably go down hills fast enough to more than offset this advantage, but on the flats I think I'm less likely to have a head-on for a given speed. And in the Don Valley on a Wednesday night, this can be a significant hazard.

Compared to cars, the stopping distance on SUVs is generally longer, especially since people with 4WD often skip snow tires in the winter. 4 wheel drive and no-wheel stop. :>