# Difference between xc and trail FS bikes?



## akaHector (Apr 30, 2012)

Hey, guys and gals! Got a question that I haven't found a really good answer to. Trying to narrow down the options for a new bike but with all the different types of bikes/riding, I feel like I'm a bit lost!

So, what makes up the main differences between xc bikes and trail/am bikes? For instance, a giant anthem and trance, or trek superfly and rumblefish? Also, how do these riding types differ? 

I feel like this is such a noob question, so please go easy on me! The riding I do is for fun and on any local trails I can find, so I don't even know what kind of riding I do!

Thanks all!!!


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Think of XC as a race bike and trail bike is for recreational riding. It's not all like that but close. 

XC bike geometry usually put the rider in a more stretch out, flat back position which is great for climbing. Usually xc also have lower bottom bracket clearance, another great thing for cornering less technical stuffs. They are lighter weight and have shorter travel nowadays about 4". Time has certainly change, I remember my Do-It-All bike a few years back has 4" travel, now the trend and technology has allow the companies to produce bikes that's has longer travel and more comfortable with longer travel. Which bring us to the next category

Trail bikes are usually 5-6" travel a bit heavier and more relax and upright position. They have higher ground clearance. You can descend with more control because slacker head angle slow down the steering and not to sketchy.

The next step up would be freeride and downhill bikes. Which is pretty much pushing the descending attributes further. 

This is pretty much different discipline in the nutshell. Like everything else there are companies or models that promote specific feature that cross between the general category. 

If you are a noob looking for the first FS bike, I recommend going with trail bikes. Trance x 26 or 29 are by far the best bang for your bucks. 


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

akaHector said:


> Hey, guys and gals! Got a question that I haven't found a really good answer to. Trying to narrow down the options for a new bike but with all the different types of bikes/riding, I feel like I'm a bit lost!
> 
> So, what makes up the main differences between xc bikes and trail/am bikes? For instance, a giant anthem and trance, or trek superfly and rumblefish? Also, how do these riding types differ?
> 
> ...


The two biggest things are travel and head angle. Travel is pretty obvious. Head angle is the angle of the head tube. It can either be steep, wheel is close in or slack, wheel is pushed forward like a chopper. The slacker the head angle the easier it is to descend, but the more difficult it makes climbing. Steering is also slower with a slacker head angle. The differences are slight. A XC HA might be 70-71 degrees, trail might be 68-69, all mountaing, 67-68 and downhill less than 67. There are no precise definitions.

A trail bike is great on somewhat technical downhills, like if you have a lot of chunky rock. If you are mostly riding groomed trails, then a XC bike is probably better.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

The best way to really know what you like is to test ride. It also depends on what you are doing because obviously you wouldn't want a DH bike for flat terrain, or an XC bike for aggressive DH. 

I like XC because it tends to be aggressive and fun. I've been on some bikes that felt like a bore, and i've been on some bikes that have a really nice blend of trail and XC, or just really aggressive XC (S-Works Carbon Stumpy HT). 

My 29er XC bike is a nice blend of aggressive and trail with its short chainstays, aggressive position, and 69.5 HT angle.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

akaHector said:


> Hey, guys and gals! Got a question that I haven't found a really good answer to. Trying to narrow down the options for a new bike but with all the different types of bikes/riding, I feel like I'm a bit lost!
> 
> So, what makes up the main differences between xc bikes and trail/am bikes? For instance, a giant anthem and trance, or trek superfly and rumblefish? Also, how do these riding types differ?
> 
> ...


There is a simple answer. XC bike will have less travel and steeper head angle. Trail will tend to have more travel (10mm ro so) and 1 degree slacker head tube.

Now given that what does this mean on the trails? XC bike ares supposed to be faster, climb better and turn quicker. Trail bikes give up some responsiveness for improved down hill stability and durability. In practice I don't know if it really make any difference at all. I ride hardtail 26" that I guess would be an "XC" bike, but I ride it everywhere. I will take it on smooth trails, tight twisty trails, rocky trails, big climbs, big descents and very techy chunk. About the only thing I don't do with it is take big jumps and drops offs. (2 feet is about my limit).

So what does that mean for a new rider? I believe all these definitions XC, Trail, AM are too detailed. You can ride any bike just about any place.

Here is a good way to think about.

XC Race = bike built for racing - fastest climbs and on flats money is no object and weight must be lowered. Comfort not a concern.
XC = Ride the flats and climbs hard and fast and then ride the descents. 
Trail = Ride the flats and climbs strong, take breather and enjoy the descents.
All Mtn = Take it easy on the flats and climbs so you can get to the good stuff (Rip on the descents) or gnarly chunky tech lines. 
DH = Look for shuttle/chair lift and let gravity and 8" of suspension travel allow you run 40 mph down the mtn. The pedals are there to get to 40 mph if grade gets a little shallow.

In my estimation most people would do fine on XC or Trail bike. XC Race or AM bike are best suited for those you really seek the extra capability these bikes offer and don't mine the drawbacks.


----------



## akaHector (Apr 30, 2012)

Thanks for the input! I definitely plan on demoing some bikes before I buy to get a chance to experience the differences firsthand. 

I wouldn't consider myself a racer dude at all, although I plan on doing a few with friends at some point. I am inclined to a trail bike at this point because I think the 'fun' factor could be missing on an xc oriented FS. But maybe I'm mistaken because I have loads if fun on my rockhopper 26er which is definitely an xc bike?

I know this is a very broad question, but can a trail bike do everything an xc bike does, plus add a bit more fun?

Oh, mimi, thanks for the recommendation on the trance! Sweet bike!


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

akaHector said:


> Thanks for the input! I definitely plan on demoing some bikes before I buy to get a chance to experience the differences firsthand.
> 
> I wouldn't consider myself a racer dude at all, although I plan on doing a few with friends at some point. I am inclined to a trail bike at this point because I think the 'fun' factor could be missing on an xc oriented FS. But maybe I'm mistaken because I have loads if fun on my rockhopper 26er which is definitely an xc bike?
> 
> ...


Define fun?

Really and XC bike and Trail bike will do the same thing and run on the same trails. The "XC" bike might climb a little faster and descent a little slower. However I doubt you would really notice unless you rode them back to back on the same trails.

If you are talking about fun then you may not have any more fun than on the 26" rockhopper. I have 26" KHS HT with 100 mm fork and v-brakes. I still have a blast on this bike. A new bike might be faster on parts or all of the trail, but I am not sure if it would be any more fun. While I have completed a mtn bike race I don't ride to race. I ride for fun.


----------



## akaHector (Apr 30, 2012)

JoPAz, fun for me is being out on a trail and riding all of it without feeling like the bike is hampering the experience of the trail. One downer to my rockhopper is tackling rougher descents and climbs with rocks strewn across the trail.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

akaHector said:


> I know this is a very broad question, but can a trail bike do everything an xc bike does, plus add a bit more fun?
> 
> Oh, mimi, thanks for the recommendation on the trance! Sweet bike!





akaHector said:


> JoPAz, fun for me is being out on a trail and riding all of it without feeling like the bike is hampering the experience of the trail. One downer to my rockhopper is tackling rougher descents and climbs with rocks strewn across the trail.


Trail bikes like Trance X can do anything XC bike can do. It's the balance thing at the end of the day, too slack HA would make you fight the climb but easier time on the descend, vice versa. You already have an XC bike so get the next one up. There's no one bike that can do "everything" well.

When I'm invited to ride on a new trail, I usually take my trail bike or my go-to bike but never an XC bike. However when I do Noobs' ride I usually take the most challenging XC bike, like my YBB singlespeed or 29er HT because I can really have fun with those bikes. I'd take the same line at similar speed as my trail bikes, make the ride more challenging.

29er are great but don't drink the Kool-aid, they are not the answer to all prayers, if you are looking for fun, stick with the 26er. It takes a lot of effort not to be a lazy rider on a 29er, when it comes naturally on the 26er. Stick around to the sport soon enough you'd become like me with a few bikes in the stable


----------



## Max24 (Jan 31, 2013)

The way I see it is that trail bikes are more for fun, but I am no expert..


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Fun is relative. I find FS bikes frustrating.

OP, you already have a XC bike. If you want to race it, go race it. If you're going to buy another bike, make it count - buy something different.

Since you already have a mountain bike, you also have plenty of time to demo and figure out what you want. So, do that. My guess is that you either go for a trail (or even longer-travel, wtf not) bike or you bag the whole project. Hop on some hardtail 29ers too before you spend money on anything.


----------



## Koppuh Klyde (Jul 13, 2010)

The way I look at it is that trail bikes are more a beginner bike sacrificing weight for durability and costs. An XC bike would be lighter for sure and with what I would call, "try to keep your wheels on the ground" geometry. Like high end carbon HTs. I would consider the Rockhopper a trail bike albeit on the nicer end (compared to a Hardrock.) I figure the Stumpjumper line would definitely be XC, no? The geometry is close, but like mimi1885 said," XC bike geometry usually put the rider in a more stretch out, flat back position which is great for climbing." So trailbike geo. would just be a little more comfy.

This is just my take on it and I am more than happy to do a bit of learnin' here.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I dont think beating beat up on the trail, or being sketched out on downhills is fun at all. I think its down right unenjoyable. 

XC bikes are made to go as fast as possible up non technical flat terrain. I also think thats kinda boring. 

Trail bikes these days ride very well on flat uphills, and will do even better than xc bikes up technical climbs. They'll descend with more confidence without that twitchy sketchy feeling. Sure you wont win any fireroad uphill races... but eh. 

The stumpjumper is in no way a XC bike. Its a long travel trail bike.


----------



## Koppuh Klyde (Jul 13, 2010)

One Pivot said:


> Snip snip................
> 
> The stumpjumper is in no way a XC bike. Its a long travel trail bike.


So 90-100mm is long travel these days? Now Im more confused.

Specialized Bicycle Components

Edit- heres a quote from the above linky,"In pursuit of pure speed, these XC riders and racers demand the fastest, lightest, and most technologically advanced cross-country hardtails available"


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Stumpjumper also comes in 150/150mm travel. I forgot they even made that short travel thing :lol:


----------



## Koppuh Klyde (Jul 13, 2010)

Yeah, I was just skimming the Specialized site since thats the example that was given. I think the 150mm travel is the FSR version. This whole thing reminds me of the whole music label BS. In the end its either a two wheeler or its not (snot?)


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

I actually found aggressive XC bikes like the S-Works Stumpjumper Carbon hardtail, the Carve Expert, and Scott Scale much more "fun" and exciting to ride than bikes with more relaxed geometry. The aggressiveness and quickness of the bikes was just energizing, it made me want to attack the trails and I did. 

That is all my personal preference and you will have to demo different bikes to feel what you like. I will state that an aggressive XC bike though is definitely not boring.


----------



## kikoraa (Jul 25, 2011)

I just wanna chime in and say all you posters saying a trail bike is a "beginner" bike can suck it!


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

akaHector said:


> JoPAz, fun for me is being out on a trail and riding all of it without feeling like the bike is hampering the experience of the trail. One downer to my rockhopper is tackling rougher descents and climbs with rocks strewn across the trail.


Seems like a "trail" bike might be right for you, but really you need to ride a number of bikes to see what you really like. People can go on an on all day about bikes, but nobody rides your terrain and trails they way you do. We can't without actually riding with you really gauge what could be the best bike for you. We can only at best describe the intent of each type of bike. In the end you will need to just ride some to figure out what works for you.

BTW..rougher descents and climbs with rocks across the trail sounds like most the Arizona trails. I try to avoid fireroad when ever possible yet I am happy on a "XC" 26 hardtail, but then again we a different riders with different goals, fitness levels and technical experience.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

One Pivot said:


> I dont think beating beat up on the trail, or being sketched out on downhills is fun at all. I think its down right unenjoyable.
> 
> XC bikes are made to go as fast as possible up non technical flat terrain. I also think thats kinda boring.
> 
> ...





Koppuh Klyde said:


> So 90-100mm is long travel these days? Now Im more confused.
> 
> Specialized Bicycle Components
> 
> Edit- heres a quote from the above linky,"In pursuit of pure speed, these XC riders and racers demand the fastest, lightest, and most technologically advanced cross-country hardtails available"


One Pivot is actually correct, however the bike he is referring to is the Stumpjumper FSR which is a slacker, long wheelbase, 140mm of travel trail bike.

What you are referring to is the Stumpjumper HT which is an aggressive XC race machine.

Yes, the fact that there are two totally different bikes in different categories sharing the same name "Stumpjumper" is a little odd.

I've rode both of those bikes and they are completely different machines. I prefer the Carbon Stumpjumper HT.

EDIT: sorry this post is a little late


----------



## bob13bob (Jun 22, 2009)

rephrase your question. XC vs trail is less difference than hardtail vs FS, which is what you are really asking. Do a search on mtbr for it, lots of posts on the difference.

One major difference is price, you can get a good hardtail for $1200 new, a good FS is around $1700.


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

I went from an old 80mm travel rockhopper to a 100mm fs epic. The epic is considered xc, but compared to the old rockhopper it was so much more comfortable and can hammer through big rock gardens, great for small drops etc. So much more confident on it.  If you're use to a HT you'll see a big diff on going FS even if its a xc bike.   I've tried my mates longer travel bikes, but for me they are too chunky, harder to flick around etc and they hate my epic. Each to their own. Ignore all the marketing bs and test ride a few. Any bike can pretty much do anything. Its the rider that makes the difference. Just look up Martyn Ashton doing back flips out a bunker on a Pinarello road bike 
Sent from my HTC6990LVW using Board Express


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

akaHector said:


> Thanks for the input! I definitely plan on demoing some bikes before I buy to get a chance to experience the differences firsthand.
> 
> I wouldn't consider myself a racer dude at all, although I plan on doing a few with friends at some point. I am inclined to a trail bike at this point because I think the 'fun' factor could be missing on an xc oriented FS. But maybe I'm mistaken because I have loads if fun on my rockhopper 26er which is definitely an xc bike?
> 
> ...


The steeper head angle of a XC bike means you are a bit more likely to endo on downhill chunk. But climbs are easier. I went with the trail bike because I wanted to feel a bit safer on downhill (we have a lot of rocky downhill descents) and was willing to give up climbing efficiency and handling. If your area doesnt have chunky rocky descents and has more groomed smooth trails, the XC would probably be better. In austin our trails are mostly on limestone hills so there is a ton of rock. It sucks to hit a rock at high speed and not roll over it. Most people around here are riding XC bikes though and they do great.


----------



## Foster55 (Feb 19, 2013)

So, from a Noob: Is a Giant '06(or so) Trance 2 FS bike a XC or a Trail??

When I ride it, I feel like I'm too much on the front, or like I could go over the bars.


----------



## kikoraa (Jul 25, 2011)

That year I think they had the Trance, AND the Trance X. They no longer make just the "trance" (without the x) The trance x is considered a "trail" bike at roughly 5" travel (a hair under but still)

The trance was considered an XC bike at 100mm travel (4")

I don't see an 06 in their archives. Might want to double check.

Either way, if there is no "x" after trance then you're probably on their old XC bike.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Foster55 said:


> So, from a Noob: Is a Giant '06(or so) Trance 2 FS bike a XC or a Trail??
> 
> When I ride it, I feel like I'm too much on the front, or like I could go over the bars.


It's a 4" travel trail bike, back then Giant offer Trance 4" and Trance X 5", the geometry were a bit XCish but not as bad/good as the Anthem


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

Foster55 said:


> So, from a Noob: Is a Giant '06(or so) Trance 2 FS bike a XC or a Trail??
> 
> When I ride it, I feel like I'm too much on the front, or like I could go over the bars.


Some of this can be due your fit on the bike and some if it due to experience. When I started riding in 1998 all we had were "XC" bikes and so we learned to rely on body position to prevent over the bar action. On flat level ground all bikes should be stable and when descending there is a differnce between what you mind thinks will happen and what will happen. Experince will help teach you when are likely to go over and when not. Most over the bar stuff occurs when the front wheel stops moving. I when over the bars on a steep technical up hill once where I mis-timed my front wheel pop-up to get over a ledge. I ended up doing a superman over the bars since the front wheel got stopped on the ledge. Not the bike's fault... Simple rider error.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

What are your thoughts on the Giant xtc composite 29er? I bought it last summer, I love the bike!

Here's the bike: XTC Composite 29er 3 (2013) - Bikes | Giant Bicycles | United States

I'm replacing the 100mm fork that came with it, to a 120mm talas ctd.


----------



## elcaro1101 (Sep 1, 2011)

The XTC models are meant for XC racing. Also, there are some recent discussions regarding putting a fork onto a frame that is designed for less travel. I would look those up and read through them before making your mind up on fork model/travel.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

elcaro1101 said:


> The XTC models are meant for XC racing. Also, there are some recent discussions regarding putting a fork onto a frame that is designed for less travel. I would look those up and read through them before making your mind up on fork model/travel.


I understand the handling will be altered, but not much. Plus if the bike came with a 100mm fork, why would I go -20mm from a 100m fork.


----------



## elcaro1101 (Sep 1, 2011)

You are planning to install a 120mm fork onto a frame designed for a 100mm fork. That is not -20mm it is adding 20mm.

That 20mm increased travel will cause some alteration to the handling, but that might not be the only issue. It could also cause stress on the frame that it was not designed to handle, and on carbon I would think it could be a pretty catastrophic failure. Again, I recommend that you find the threads here on MTBR that discuss your exact issue. There are opinions that it is not something to do, and others that think it is alright. You should make your own choice after educating yourself a bit.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

elcaro1101 said:


> You are planning to install a 120mm fork onto a frame designed for a 100mm fork. That is not -20mm it is adding 20mm.
> 
> That 20mm increased travel will cause some alteration to the handling, but that might not be the only issue. It could also cause stress on the frame that it was not designed to handle, and on carbon I would think it could be a pretty catastrophic failure. Again, I recommend that you find the threads here on MTBR that discuss your exact issue. There are opinions that it is not something to do, and others that think it is alright. You should make your own choice after educating yourself a bit.


Well I spoke to Giant through facebook last year in May regarding my issue. Yes I know my bike is a XC style bike, but no I don't wear those tight clothing, nor do I race. Reason for me buying the bike in the first place was because it's light, hardtail, and it had what I wanted in a bike. I would assume adding +20mm wouldn't kill the frame especially if I'm not doing 5ft drops and landing hard. Here in Toronto, we have the Don Valley trails, and it's mostly designed for trail riding with minimal drops maybe 2 ft high or less depending...

Recently I tried to contact Giant through facebook, and it seems they keep dodging my question. I called up a Giant dealer, asked them questions. Just to test it out, I called 1 day asked a question. The reply I got back the guy over the phone said it's perfectly fine to get an extra 20mm, it won't void warranty but handling will be altered. I called again 2 days later to get someone new on the phone. The reply was totally different. He goes oh no don't do that, it'll void warranty blah blah blah. Then I was upset and said look, "look I've been getting mixed replies and I don't know what to believe." I showed him the conversation I had with Giant and he said from Giant's reply, it seems your frame is okay with 120mm. It's very frustrating to be honest. Anyways, I'm sticking to what they said to me last year and hold it against them if anything happens. Here is what they said to me back in May.


----------



## bob13bob (Jun 22, 2009)

XC vs AM is a different question than FS vs HT. Lots of threads can be found on here discussing this if you're looking for more info than teh responses you already have.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

If you can't read what it says, basically they responded with 

"To answer your question, yes it is possible to run a 120mm fork on that bike, it may affect the handling though as the geometry will be altered. The frame is designed to take both sizes, as long as you don’t go over that you shouldn’t have any problems with regard to your frame. 
Cheers!"


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

cabralkev said:


> If you can't read what it says, basically they responded with
> 
> "To answer your question, yes it is possible to run a 120mm fork on that bike, it may affect the handling though as the geometry will be altered. The frame is designed to take both sizes, as long as you don't go over that you shouldn't have any problems with regard to your frame.
> Cheers!"


So you can put that fork on the bike; let's ask why you want to. What are you trying to get this bike to do that it isn't currently doing? Do you understand what everyone means when they say that the "geometry will be altered"?

How did this thread end up with questions about putting a longer fork on an XTC?


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

zebrahum said:


> So you can put that fork on the bike; let's ask why you want to. What are you trying to get this bike to do that it isn't currently doing? Do you understand what everyone means when they say that the "geometry will be altered"?
> 
> How did this thread end up with questions about putting a longer fork on an XTC?


Well I want a softer suspension. The Recon gold Tk 100mm that came with the bike, I was not happy with. So I saw the 120 talas ctd and after hearing some good reviews... I then wanted it to replace my recon. The trails I was riding last year are cross country based with very small drops maybe 1-2ft high. Anything higher I chicken out and find another way around haha... The 1-2ft drop the bike handles fine. My 100mm fork almost bottomed out which I'm sure is good but I wanted something better. So I was thinking the extra 20mm wouldn't harm the bike and give me a little more headroom. Also like I said I heard the fork is good so I figured to pay a bit more and get 20mm on a better fork.

Reason for me contacting giant again was just to confirm once more so I feel confident about the new 120mm fork. They have been dodging me through Facebook and their dealers tell me different answers each time. One day I call they said its totally fine it won't void warranty... Another time I call someone else says it will void warranty don't do it blah blah... So i even took a screenshot of the conversation I had with giant as I did here and sent it to the dudes cell phone and his answer changed. Saying it seems my frame can handle the extra 20mm and it seems it won't void warranty from how giant responded. Even though they never said it will or won't void warranty but they seem to hint that I'll be okay and won't void warranty. As you read, they did say last year to me... My xtc frame is designed for 100-120mm fork. Like who do I believe you know? Its very frustrating.

Anyways... This will be the first and last time I'll buy a giant bike. Not happy with their customer service.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

Also I suppose I understand what you guys mean by racer geometry and how it will be altered. Care to explain? It could help. 

Thank you


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I have been putting longer-than-stock travel forks on my bikes regularly for better than 20 years now. I like the extra travel and the slightly slacker geometry that results from the change. I've broken probably a dozen frames in that time; zero have been even remotely associated with the fork changes. 

Also, just because someone got a job as a product manager somewhere, doesn't mean they know more about how I want my bike to ride than I do. It's wildly common for people who know what they want from bikes to change these sort of things. I could never understand why anybody would have any sort of issue with it whatsover; it's really not overly different than changing your handlebars or tires. 

For my money, if a frame can't take an extra inch of travel without being compromised, it's likely too frail for real world use and should have come with a warning sticker regarding jumping, rough trails and rider weight limit, as all of those variables stand a much higher chance of putting greater forces on it than the fork change.


----------



## ASiameseCat (Aug 21, 2011)

Maybe you should look into hardtails that are made for what you want to do such as Trek Stache, Kona Honza, Transition TransAM.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

ASiameseCat said:


> Maybe you should look into hardtails that are made for what you want to do such as Trek Stache, Kona Honza, Transition TransAM.


Well that's a little late for that now. It's not like I can trade my bike in like 'Pokemon'. I'll keep the bike for a few years and see how I feel on buying a new bike. I can't afford another $2,000 on a real nice 'trail' bike right now. Plus 150mm travel is overkill for me and what I ride.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I have been putting longer-than-stock travel forks on my bikes regularly for better than 20 years now. I like the extra travel and the slightly slacker geometry that results from the change. I've broken probably a dozen frames in that time; zero have been even remotely associated with the fork changes.
> 
> Also, just because someone got a job as a product manager somewhere, doesn't mean they know more about how I want my bike to ride than I do. It's wildly common for people who know what they want from bikes to change these sort of things. I could never understand why anybody would have any sort of issue with it whatsover; it's really not overly different than changing your handlebars or tires.
> 
> For my money, if a frame can't take an extra inch of travel without being compromised, it's likely too frail for real world use and should have come with a warning sticker regarding jumping, rough trails and rider weight limit, as all of those variables stand a much higher chance of putting greater forces on it than the fork change.


You sir are a wise soul. It's very true! All these categories bikes are being placed in confused me when I first bought my xtc bike. When I saw the bike... I was like, "hey it's a hard tail bike with a nice carbon frame." So I bought it. Did I think oh it's an xc style bike... Both wheels have to be on the floor or the frame will snap. I ride the bike as a trail ride... I don't race nor do I want to. There was no warning telling me to not be doing heavy jumps on the bike and landing hard. But it's common sense, its a HT not FS bike so large jumps and hard landings will hurt the frame. The highest jump I gone off was 1-2ft high. Even the dude at the shop was like oh it's a carbon frame its perfect! You can upgrade it from there. Oh and check out the Santa Cruz carbon test. He told me that so its like he encouraged the fact the bike can handle a little abuse. Then I go on this online forum and everyone seem to baby their xc bikes as they are gonna snap jumping off 1ft or less sidewalk curb. Anyways... I'm looking forward in having my talas 120mm installed!


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

Oh and also... I couldn't see how my frame wasn't able to handle just 20mm travel increase. The headtube of the frame is fat and thick. Also having my frame being carbon I'm sure it helps. I don't mind the racer geometry to my xtc bike but if adding 20mm gives it a slacker relaxed feel... I'm cool with that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I've always found it made my bikes just a little more fun for my riding style. 

Now about that whole carbon thing...


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I've always found it made my bikes just a little more fun for my riding style.
> 
> Now about that whole carbon thing...


What about it? Isn't carbon stronger than alloy? At least if the carbon fails and breaks you know. Now with alloy where it weakens and weakens then eventually snaps and impales you lol


----------



## ASiameseCat (Aug 21, 2011)

cabralkev said:


> What about it? Isn't carbon stronger than alloy? At least if the carbon fails and breaks you know. Now with alloy where it weakens and weakens then eventually snaps and impales you lol


 Check out Busted Carbon. I'm not hating on carbon and would like to own a carbon frame in the future but its fun to look at that site.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

I had a 2010 XTC 29er 1 for a couple months (to test) back in late 2009. I recall lowering the stem (by putting spacers on top of the stem) and how it noticeably improved the cornering on that bike for me. The head tube area on those XTC 29 frames is pretty beefy/stiff compared to the rest of the bike. Personally, I would be more concerned about the change in handling characteristics than about whether or not that frame could handle a 120mm travel fork. 

The bikes that I have tried that experiment on didn't particularly change for the better from my perspective. Between slacking the seat tube angle and raising the bottom bracket, as well as the front end of the bike, the front end tended to wander on steep climbs, and the cornering prowess slid noticeably toward the 'dump truck' end of the spectrum. 

I didn't particularly feel that the increased travel on the front of the bike was worth the tradeoff, but admittedly other opinions may differ from my own for various reasons. How and where you ride could make a difference too.

If you're going to run a 120 TALAS CTD, at least you could lower the front end when you want to, and/or you could run sag in the 30% to 35% range to make the net change in A-2-C less than it would be if running 25% sag.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I have been putting longer-than-stock travel forks on my bikes regularly for better than 20 years now. I like the extra travel and the slightly slacker geometry that results from the change. I've broken probably a dozen frames in that time; zero have been even remotely associated with the fork changes.
> 
> Also, just because someone got a job as a product manager somewhere, doesn't mean they know more about how I want my bike to ride than I do. It's wildly common for people who know what they want from bikes to change these sort of things. I could never understand why anybody would have any sort of issue with it whatsover; it's really not overly different than changing your handlebars or tires.
> 
> For my money, if a frame can't take an extra inch of travel without being compromised, it's likely too frail for real world use and should have come with a warning sticker regarding jumping, rough trails and rider weight limit, as all of those variables stand a much higher chance of putting greater forces on it than the fork change.


I would agree, a frame should be able to handle another 20mm, if not then that frame is questionable in its strength.

For me I got lucky when I went from 100 to 120mm fork as the new fork was only 10mm longer on A2C.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeffj said:


> The bikes that I have tried that experiment on didn't particularly change for the better from my perspective. Between slacking the seat tube angle and raising the bottom bracket, as well as the front end of the bike, the front end tended to wander on steep climbs, and the cornering prowess slid noticeably toward the 'dump truck' end of the spectrum.
> 
> I didn't particularly feel that the increased travel on the front of the bike was worth the tradeoff, but admittedly other opinions may differ from my own for various reasons. How and where you ride could make a difference too.


Agree, it's totally a personal preference thing. I'm sure a lot of people would feel like they're riding a chopper on some of my bikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cabralkev said:


> What about it? Isn't carbon stronger than alloy? At least if the carbon fails and breaks you know. Now with alloy where it weakens and weakens then eventually snaps and impales you lol


Oh, you'll know all right. 
Of course a frame of any material can break, but carbon is trickier to get right, and can be compromised a lot more easily by typical bumps and bangs. It's also more lkely to fail catastrophically when it goes. I've seen carbon frames fail for things that would steel or aluminum would've shrugged off a number of times, and I've also see it fail for no discernible reason at all. Not my cup of tea personally, but YMMV; plenty of people riding it w/o problem.


----------



## ser jameson (Jun 24, 2012)

cabralkev said:


> What about it? Isn't carbon stronger than alloy? At least if the carbon fails and breaks you know. Now with alloy where it weakens and weakens then eventually snaps and impales you lol


 Thing with carbon is that it is stronger, stronger for it's *intended use*. It would suck to destroy a frame, because it fell over while you were putting air in your tire.
However, I have no problem with carbon frames. You just need to take care of them. Any frame can break.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

cabralkev said:


> Oh and also... I couldn't see how my frame wasn't able to handle just 20mm travel increase. The headtube of the frame is fat and thick. Also having my frame being carbon I'm sure it helps. I don't mind the racer geometry to my xtc bike but if adding 20mm gives it a slacker relaxed feel... I'm cool with that.


It is very common that putting a longer travel fork on a bike will void the warranty. Sometimes the frame may be perfectly capable of handling 20mm and sometimes not. Unless you're the frame designer it's impossible to know.



cabralkev said:


> Well I want a softer suspension. The Recon gold Tk 100mm that came with the bike, I was not happy with. So I saw the 120 talas ctd and after hearing some good reviews... I then wanted it to replace my recon. The trails I was riding last year are cross country based with very small drops maybe 1-2ft high. Anything higher I chicken out and find another way around haha... The 1-2ft drop the bike handles fine. My 100mm fork almost bottomed out which I'm sure is good but I wanted something better. So I was thinking the extra 20mm wouldn't harm the bike and give me a little more headroom. Also like I said I heard the fork is good so I figured to pay a bit more and get 20mm on a better fork.
> 
> Reason for me contacting giant again was just to confirm once more so I feel confident about the new 120mm fork. They have been dodging me through Facebook and their dealers tell me different answers each time. One day I call they said its totally fine it won't void warranty... Another time I call someone else says it will void warranty don't do it blah blah... So i even took a screenshot of the conversation I had with giant as I did here and sent it to the dudes cell phone and his answer changed. Saying it seems my frame can handle the extra 20mm and it seems it won't void warranty from how giant responded. Even though they never said it will or won't void warranty but they seem to hint that I'll be okay and won't void warranty. As you read, they did say last year to me... My xtc frame is designed for 100-120mm fork. Like who do I believe you know? Its very frustrating.
> 
> Anyways... This will be the first and last time I'll buy a giant bike. Not happy with their customer service.


You should use all of your travel in your typical ride, otherwise why would you pay for having a longer travel fork? It's much easier to adjust an air fork, but you'll still want to set it up so you use all the travel.

It's interesting that you kept asking people until you got the answer you were looking for. Not sure if this is really a customer support issue. I don't, in any circumstance, think that not receiving an answer to a Facebook wall post should indite any company's customer service policy. Did you read the bike's manual before you contacted them? Sounds to me like this would likely exclude your warranty:

• Bicycles serviced by other than an Authorized Giant dealer. 
• Modifications from the original condition.

But it doesn't really matter because it's only a 1 year warranty anyway. The only thing that matters is whether or not your LBS will process a claim for you; they make the real decision on whether or not to send it on so you should always field warranty claim questions though your LBS.



cabralkev said:


> What about it? Isn't carbon stronger than alloy? At least if the carbon fails and breaks you know. Now with alloy where it weakens and weakens then eventually snaps and impales you lol





slapheadmofo said:


> Oh, you'll know all right.
> Of course a frame of any material can break, but carbon is trickier to get right, and can be compromised a lot more easily by typical bumps and bangs. It's also more lkely to fail catastrophically when it goes. I've seen carbon frames fail for things that would steel or aluminum would've shrugged off a number of times, and I've also see it fail for no discernible reason at all. Not my cup of tea personally, but YMMV; plenty of people riding it w/o problem.


... this again

Actually, that Busted Carbon site is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. Here's two of the first three captions I saw:


> From Jeff:
> after incident with a car at 35mph my bike is in pieces an I have multiple broken bones as result
> Ouch.





> From Juho:
> 
> Vodka bottle got jammed somehow between the blades or something while I was driving fast as I could from liquer store to home here in Finland. Carrying the bottle in some sag while driving from lower position. Note to self: Don't ever do that again. Somewho I survived with only 4 stitches on chin.


Awesome stuff right there. Anyway we live in a time where carbon fiber is an absolutely viable material choice for nearly anything you want to do. Do you think F1 cars would feature carbon fiber safety cells if they were prone to unannounced accidental catastrophic failure? Would they spin up 75 meter wind turbine blades if they didn't understand failure modes and design criteria? This isn't the 90's when they would glue carbon tubes that were UV sensitive to aluminum lugs and hope for the best; each manufacturer (I'm going to limit this statement later) has teams of engineers well versed in composite design and designs are very throughly tested.

Obligatory: 





Carbon fiber, especially in bike frames, is more damage tolerant than aluminum. If you ever get a chance, cut up a carbon down tube and an aluminum down tube into a 6" segment; then hit each of them with a hammer and try standing on them. Then tell me about which material you'd rather have your frame made out of.

Carbon fiber does not typically fail catastrophically; aluminum fails catastrophically. CF fails by failing individual fibers and fiber bundles, it's more like unzipping the material. I saw a CF frame (Schwinn Homegrown, I believe) break in half once, pretty uneventful except for the sound of a thousand boxes of spaghetti being broken. Aluminum however breaks sharply and suddenly.

The result of a failure, no matter the material, is bad. Both can impale, both can cause much bodily damage. The good thing is that failures are so rare. Manufacturing of all frame materials is tight, quality requirements are in place, and testing is done on everything. However, beware the off-brand, rebranded, and straight off the slow boat stuff. Some of it is good, possibly out of the same factory as the major stuff and some of it is hastily put together with questionable materials.

If you're afraid of something of good quality made from carbon failing then you should absolutely be afraid of that same part made from aluminum failing. They're not so different anymore.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

zebrahum said:


> It's interesting that you kept asking people until you got the answer you were looking for. Not sure if this is really a customer support issue. I don't, in any circumstance, think that not receiving an answer to a Facebook wall post should indite any company's customer service policy. Did you read the bike's manual before you contacted them? Sounds to me like this would likely exclude your warranty


It has nothing to do with getting the 'answer I want'. What annoys me is how people make xc bikes look like toys where they can't do this or that. Or both wheels MUST stay on the ground or it'll fall apart on landing. It gets very frustrating to even be told that and spend large amounts of money on a bike where you can't even do a small bunny hop or the bike will fall apart.

After looking at this video: 



Most people that say xc bikes can't be lifted off the floor is full of **** in my opinion. If this dude in that video can do what he does with a god forsaken road bike and nothing broke. What does that mean for the other bikes? What this guy does makes trail bikes and everything else look like a joke. Again, if this road bike which I am sure is almost 100% carbon can take the abuse, I'm sure any xtc bike can do the same. It's the rider not the bike.


----------



## bob13bob (Jun 22, 2009)

> Most people that say xc bikes can't be lifted off the floor is full of **** in my opinion. If this dude in that video can do what he does with a god forsaken road bike and nothing broke


When they does these road trials stunts, it's not uncommon for them to go through several pairs of wheelsets, and a couple of frames. Also those road parts are not designed for it. Doing it once is different then repeated used on trails.

Manufacturer's will usually not warranty XC parts when used for greater than XC purposes.

carbon parts are not more damage tolerant than aluminum. Thats their worst attribute.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

zebrahum said:


> Carbon fiber, especially in bike frames, is more damage tolerant than aluminum.


Then why is it that putting a slight scratch in a set of carbon handlebars signals the end of their useful life? I'd go through a set a week, sometimes two.

I have never had an aluminum bike frame whose life was ended by simply falling over on a rock. Can't say the same for my buddies very new and very pricey Niner. Or another's Mojo (a few times). Or another's Enduro. I don't want to baby my bikes; I want to be able to ride them hard, sometimes on rough terrain on which I plan to crash on a regular basis. Carbon has it's place I suppose, but that place is not on any load-bearing parts of any bike I'd pay to own.


----------



## Dirt_Shirt (Mar 15, 2014)

XC bikes are built light as possible for racing and trail bikes are heavier, more tough, do it all bashers. All mountain or "trail riding" is the original MT biking style.

My preference is an AM hardtail.

An hard core, AM trail rider would most likely kill a dedicated XC bike if they took it for a spin on am trails. However an XC bike and rider might kill the AM bike on a nice single track, fast cruise.


----------



## ASiameseCat (Aug 21, 2011)

zebrahum said:


> Do you think F1 cars would feature carbon fiber safety cells if they were prone to unannounced accidental catastrophic failure?


Reminds me of this carbon suspension failure,


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

Again, it seems mixed opinions regarding xc and carbon. I'll ride my xtc with the 120mm fork I'm installing tomorrow till both wheels fall off. Then I'll purchase a AM bike. I can't afford $2,000 right now for another good bike.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> Then why is it that putting a slight scratch in a set of carbon handlebars signals the end of their useful life? I'd go through a set a week, sometimes two.
> 
> I have never had an aluminum bike frame whose life was ended by simply falling over on a rock. Can't say the same for my buddies very new and very pricey Niner. Or another's Mojo (a few times). Or another's Enduro. I don't want to baby my bikes; I want to be able to ride them hard, sometimes on rough terrain on which I plan to crash on a regular basis. Carbon has it's place I suppose, but that place is not on any load-bearing parts of any bike I'd pay to own.


I did that with my Mojo, not because it's carbon frame because my first carbon frame was the Cannondale Raven, but because it's sooo shinny I feel bad to put the first scratch on it. After I got my second Mojo then I started to ride hell out of it. I'm a big clutz too, I crashed a few times and they hold up great no cracks no problems, Still going strong. I usually don't do that with Alu bikes after a few rides.



cabralkev said:


> Again, it seems mixed opinions regarding xc and carbon. I'll ride my xtc with the 120mm fork I'm installing tomorrow till both wheels fall off. Then I'll purchase a AM bike. I can't afford $2,000 right now for another good bike.


No you won't, you'll get your AM bike(s) way before that, many have made the same bold claim and many failed


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cabralkev said:


> Again, it seems mixed opinions regarding xc and carbon. I'll ride my xtc with the 120mm fork I'm installing tomorrow till both wheels fall off. Then I'll purchase a AM bike. I can't afford $2,000 right now for another good bike.


Odds are you'll never have a problem with your frame, carbon or not. Most people don't. Ride the hell out of it. If it breaks, it breaks. They all will sooner or later if you ride them enough. Part of the game is seeing how many you can wear out.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> No you won't, you'll get your AM bike(s) way before that, many have made the same bold claim and many failed


Why are you so certain? lol I put at least maybe $1,500 to the bike already and I'm done with it. Why would I get my AM bike sooner than I think? lol


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Odds are you'll never have a problem with your frame, carbon or not. Most people don't. Ride the hell out of it. If it breaks, it breaks. They all will sooner or later if you ride them enough. Part of the game is seeing how many you can wear out.


Well I hope this bike can last me at least 2 years... if longer great! Just until I get at least $2,000 to spend on a nice FS AM bike.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

What's your thoughts on this bike: 2013 Enduro EVO

Looks interesting to me. Might get this in a year or 2 if anything. Depends on my money situation haha.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

cabralkev said:


> Why are you so certain? lol I put at least maybe $1,500 to the bike already and I'm done with it. Why would I get my AM bike sooner than I think? lol


You barely getting a new fork install in your hardtail and already you are talking about AM bike. I have not seen or know anyone who rides the wheels of a bike "then" buy a new one, unless he/she forgot to put the skewers on the wheel.

My first decked out bike, I said to my brother while we were building it up, this is it, finally I have a decked out bike, it would be the last bike I'll ever need. That's probably '05 or '06 the next 3 years we went thru about a dozen bike a year

Mark this thread, review it at least once a year and you'll know how right on Zebrahum was about his post, as well as many others.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> You barely getting a new fork install in your hardtail and already you are talking about AM bike. I have not seen or know anyone who rides the wheels of a bike "then" buy a new one, unless he/she forgot to put the skewers on the wheel.
> 
> My first decked out bike, I said to my brother while we were building it up, this is it, finally I have a decked out bike, it would be the last bike I'll ever need. That's probably '05 or '06 the next 3 years we went thru about a dozen bike a year
> 
> Mark this thread, review it at least once a year and you'll know how right on Zebrahum was about his post, as well as many others.


Haha you think my xtc bike won't last eh?  Well I'm thinking about my next bike being a AM bike so I can start putting money aside and do research. This time around I want something I don't have to baby too much, or worry about it too much. If anything I'll keep the xtc for light trails and technical trails... then use the AM bike to hammer through trails lol. I'm sure I'll like the bike with the new 120mm fork I'll be installing. Doesn't mean I can't think about the near future right? haha


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

cabralkev said:


> Haha you think my xtc bike won't last eh?


No, I'm saying you won't be able to ride the XTC til the wheels falls off before you buy a new/another bike


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

mimi1885 said:


> No, I'm saying you won't be able to ride the XTC til the wheels falls off before you buy a new/another bike


Hahaha true . Well I guess this year I'll see how my bike reacts to the new 120mm fork on the trails I usually ride. Hopefully the screws and bolts stay intact lmao.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

So Giant responded back to me today finally. Stating that going over the spec fork travel which mine is 100mm, will void warranty. I don't know what drugs the he/she was on last year to say it was totally fine and my frame was designed for 20mm extra travel. Anyways, I responded back with a smart remark saying, "So you are saying my xtc frame will snap from 20mm extra travel? Wow."

Like I said before, this is the first time buying a Giant bike, and the last. Not satisfied with their service as a company. If it did void warranty, they could of been straight forward with me last year. Anyways, I'll wait till the bike breaks like I said above and then go with a specialized or something.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

cabralkev said:


> So Giant responded back to me today finally. Stating that going over the spec fork travel which mine is 100mm, will void warranty. I don't know what drugs the he/she was on last year to say it was totally fine and my frame was designed for 20mm extra travel. Anyways, I responded back with a smart remark saying, "So you are saying my xtc frame will snap from 20mm extra travel? Wow."
> 
> Let I said before, this is the first time buying a Giant bike, and the last. Not satisfied with their service as a company. If it did void warranty, they could of been straight forward with me last year. Anyways, I'll wait till the bike breaks like I said above and then go with a specialized or something.


How old is your bike?


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

zebrahum said:


> How old is your bike?


It's the 2013 model. It'll make 1 year of me owning it on April 18. I bought it on my birthday haha


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

The headtube says 'Overdrive'. The headtube is thick and beefy.


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

Just keep the old fork around... if ya have to take it in cuz the head tube snapped off, put the old fork back in and get the frame replaced. Maybe they'll be like OMG and make the frame stronger to handle 20 more mm of A2C.


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

zephxiii said:


> Just keep the old fork around... if ya have to take it in cuz the head tube snapped off, put the old fork back in and get the frame replaced. Maybe they'll be like OMG and make the frame stronger to handle 20 more mm of A2C.


LOL! I never thought of that haha.


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

cabralkev said:


> It's the 2013 model. It'll make 1 year of me owning it on April 18. I bought it on my birthday haha


So you have like 3 weeks of your warranty left and you won't stop bashing Giant for something you could have read for yourself in their published available warranty. Things are getting kind of silly here...


----------



## cabralkev (Apr 25, 2013)

zebrahum said:


> So you have like 3 weeks of your warranty left and you won't stop bashing Giant for something you could have read for yourself in their published available warranty. Things are getting kind of silly here...


I'm not bashing at all. I just find if they value their customers as I'm sure they say they do... They could of been straight forward with me last year when I was wanting to upgrade the fork. No they chose to tell me one thing, then change their response this time around. I'm a stresser so things like this worry me. Now it has come to a point where I don't care. If it breaks it breaks, I'll strip the parts sell it and buy a bike from a different company. Yes I could of... would of... read the manual yes. If I can get a quick reply regarding my situation, why not? Yet they gave me a false answer than and now they choose to reply properly? Not bashing Giant what so ever like I said, frankly I really like their bikes. Just the service they offer with my experience was terrible.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

zebrahum said:


> So you have like 3 weeks of your warranty left


Yeah, at that point, it really doesn't matter what they would've covered or not.
I'm surprised they only do a 1 year warranty - it's been a long time since I bought a bike from a shop, but I remember when companies like Specialized would do lifetime on frames (though they did go down to 5 years at one point as I recall). I bought an FSR new in '99 and they gave me 4 complete frames and I don't know how many chain and seatstays over the following 5 years or so. All of them were ridden hard with longer than stock forks, though none cracked up at the headtube.


----------



## Iamrockandroll13 (Feb 10, 2013)

Giant does do a lifetime on frames, components are 1 year.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Oh cool. Good to know, and a lot more reasonable. A 1 year warrantee would make me think the manufacturer doesn't have much confidence in their frame.


----------

