# XC vs "Trail" what's the difference?



## ericzamora (Dec 14, 2017)

I'm still learning but one question about bikes... what's the difference between a "trail" bike and a "XC" bike?

thanks!

eric
fresno, ca.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

The rider's clothing.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

this is covered pretty well all over the place.

Simply put, the distinctions between the various terms used to classify bikes (and riding styles) are fuzzy. XC most certainly includes racing, since that's a type of race format. There's not really a "trail" race format, so racing isn't really going to be what determines what a trail bike looks like. Enduro is a race format, and we're seeing bikes designed around that race format. Downhill is also a race format, and bikes get designed around that, too. Someone at some point will create a new term somewhere down the line to subclassify racing, or a type of bike and it will overlap some with bikes in other categories.

"Trail" bikes just cover general off-road riding. What will a trail bike look like? That depends on where you ride, but generally speaking, a trail bike will have a little more travel than an xc bike, and be a bit more confident descending than an xc bike. It's still meant to be ridden up the hill, though it may not be as fast or as efficient in doing so as an xc bike. The burlier and more rugged your local trails (or the trails you like the most, at any rate), the burlier of a bike you might consider a "trail" bike.


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> The rider's clothing.


Didn't Fumic race XC all last year in baggies? I mean....he, and everyone else, never won a world cup, but ya know... Could it have been the shorts?


----------



## roadkill401 (Mar 14, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> The rider's clothing.


And here I was thinking it was 15% markup


----------



## ericzamora (Dec 14, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> The rider's clothing.


ha ha


----------



## ericzamora (Dec 14, 2017)

Harold said:


> this is covered pretty well all over the place...


I've done a ton of reading forums, and watching youtube videos. even those titled "what's the difference between.." but they're usually GMBN-produced, and they talk funny. maybe it would be clearer if Seth or Bobo did a video on it (just kidding). i get most of everything else that pertains to my immediate needs, and i see there's some overlap at times, but i guess this one distinction escapes me. I have gathered that a "trail" bike may be more beefier than a typical XC.

Just thought i'd ask. Not shopping for a bike; i just bought a Norco Fluid hardtail. Thanks!

eric
fresno, ca.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

The head tube angle (XC generally is steeper) and the amount of travel are pretty obvious differences but there's also overlap and no rules. The other issue is a lot of bikes are labeled XC but they're not actually race bikes. Hardtails often get labeled XC even though they may be designed more for trail riding (slacker headtube, beefier frame).


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

https://intensecycles.com/collections/intense-sniper
Here's a new bike offered in both versions. You can look over all the properties and compare them.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

It's all bollocks. The full-sus bike I have was marketed as a cross-county bike. The next year they marketed it as a trail bike. Trail bike sounds cooler, that's it.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jeremy3220 said:


> The head tube angle (XC generally is steeper) and the amount of travel are pretty obvious differences but there's also overlap and no rules.


This is exactly true. What one manufacturer calls "xc" or "trail" is going to be different from how another uses those same labels.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

What if we just built up from typical suspension travel:

CX -> XC -> Trail -> AM -> DH

(OP can look up all the extra acronyms I added, including "OP".)


----------



## Sparkman999 (Dec 19, 2017)

And then there's the RM Thunderbolt, which is marketed as a XC/Trail bike.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Who cares? Last year's "Trail" will be next year's "XC" anyway. Just get the bike that'll do what you want.


----------



## ericzamora (Dec 14, 2017)

phlegm said:


> (OP can look up all the extra acronyms I added, including "OP".)


outdoor pursuits????? seriously, i've been online for awhile. why would i not know original poster? :rockon:

-eric


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

XC can & often does incorporate roads....

Not to say, I don't - occasionally ride my Trail/AM/Enduro bikes to the trails via the road...

XC predominantly includes Hard Tail bikes...

Although, I occasionally take my All Mountain Hard Tail down some DH trails...

XC has a lot of climbing ^^

But... I have climbed a significant amount on my 160mm travel Enduro rig...

???

Phek'd if I know!!

'We'll all make it to the top... Some of us, might not make it to the bottom'


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

GMBN guys talk funny lol. Someone lives under a rock . Seriously though they have a lot of good info. 

Xc vs trail difference is easy really. XC has less travel, more efficient pedaling, lighter weight. Trail is for the guys that ride purely for fun and not about beating everyone to the top of the hill. But one persons fun is another persons " i got better things to do".

Thats my experience with the difference. If your not going to try and podium XC race series, trail bikes are just more fun.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

targnik said:


> XC can & often does incorporate roads....


Roads? Maybe occasionally some old double track, is that what you mean?

Not so sure about the predominately hardtail either. Though hardtails are certainly fine for XC, just seems like a lot of riders are on full suspension, at least around here.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Guess you missed the Cape Epic...??.

Looked like they were riding on roads to me

'We'll all make it to the top... Some of us, might not make it to the bottom'


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

noapathy said:


> Last year's "Trail" will be next year's "XC" anyway.


No, last year's 'XC' is this years 'Trail' will be next years...who knows, 'Cross-ride' or whatever other bull name they dream up to make them sound more exiting.


----------



## Jumba (Mar 27, 2018)

Mr Pig said:


> The rider's clothing.


haha this guy

Since I'm new to mountain biking its nice to read peoples thoughts on this. I didn't realize I had a XC bike until a year after I bought my bike and started doing a little research.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

phlegm said:


> What if we just built up from typical suspension travel:
> 
> CX -> XC -> Trail -> AM -> DH
> 
> ..


CX < XC < Trail < AM < DH


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

I ride my Krampus on trails across the country....So it is both a trail bike and a XC bike to me. I did not ever need or see a distinction...

I also eide it at skateparks, so it is also a BMX....


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

sXeXBMXer said:


> I also eide it at skateparks, so it is also a BMX....


I think you mean skateboard


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

jeremy3220 said:


> I think you mean skateboard


I guess it could probably even ride like a skateboard...it is super versatile!


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> No, last year's 'XC' is this years 'Trail' will be next years...who knows, 'Cross-ride' or whatever other bull name they dream up to make them sound more exiting.


I just meant the categories we have now seem to drift. Adding new ones just makes it worse, so of course they do it. #endurobro


----------



## RonSonic (Jan 8, 2005)

Mr Pig said:


> No, last year's 'XC' is this years 'Trail' will be next years...who knows, 'Cross-ride' or whatever other bull name they dream up to make them sound more exiting.


My bike was originally designed as an XC Marathon bike. As those bikes got lighter and more carbony they kept making this one because the people who bought and rode them thought they were cool light trail bikes.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lone Rager said:


> CX < XC < Trail < AM < DH


I think mine still works.

Blammo.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Harold said:


> this is covered pretty well all over the place.
> 
> Simply put, the distinctions between the various terms used to classify bikes (and riding styles) are fuzzy. XC most certainly includes racing, since that's a type of race format. There's not really a "trail" race format, so racing isn't really going to be what determines what a trail bike looks like. Enduro is a race format, and we're seeing bikes designed around that race format. Downhill is also a race format, and bikes get designed around that, too. Someone at some point will create a new term somewhere down the line to subclassify racing, or a type of bike and it will overlap some with bikes in other categories.
> 
> "Trail" bikes just cover general off-road riding. What will a trail bike look like? That depends on where you ride, but generally speaking, a trail bike will have a little more travel than an xc bike, and be a bit more confident descending than an xc bike. It's still meant to be ridden up the hill, though it may not be as fast or as efficient in doing so as an xc bike. The burlier and more rugged your local trails (or the trails you like the most, at any rate), the burlier of a bike you might consider a "trail" bike.


When you say trail forks have a little more travel, can you make that a bit less fuzzy? What is the consensus of when an XC fork ends and a trail fork begins? Travis Bickle criticized my poll on this, but he didn't offer any definitions himself of what size forks are XC, trail, and AM. Some constructive criticism would be nicer than "You are wrong" without explaining how and why. Is the 'best fit' overlap XC 80-120mm, trail 120-140mm, and AM 130mm up? That seems like the best generalization, based on air vs. coil and pricing factored into the definition. If you don't like those divisions above please elaborate...constructively lol.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> The rider's clothing.


LOL

Are you trying to say that XC riders have all the bling on them, like road bikers offroading, and the trail bikers are normally dressed with a normal t-shirt? Or the other way around? And maybe England is different than the US anyway for this topic.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

By definition, the distinctions are fuzzy. There are no neat divisions because the divisions are made up in the first place. It is not like all the manufacturers sat down and agreed together on what the distinctions would be, and what criteria would separate them before mtbs were developed. 

XC used to mean anything except downhill. Current use of the term is generally more restrictive. 100mm forks used to be considered downhill. They most certainly are not now. Some people would put xc at up to 140mm nowadays considering how light and efficient suspension is currently. I have noticed lately that some bike mfrs who make longish travel bikes in both 29er and 27.5 put different models with roughly the same amount of travel (within 5mm or so) in different categories because they have different wheel sizes and slightly different geometries. So suspension travel is not the only distinguishing characteristic, either.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

XC, trail, AM are really just labels put on bikes to help put in them in the idea where they are designed to be ridden. You can in fact ride any bike any place, but some more ideal than others. 

So you can take 22lbs XC bike to lift assisted downhill park. You probably won't die, but it not ideal by any means. 
You can take 35lbs DH bike to an XC race. You won't die and probably won't win, but it is not idea by any means. 


In between there are shades of transition from one to the other. 

"XC" bikes are designed for racing and/or for fast handling, fast climbing and enough technical ability to get down trails fast. They can be cheap or expensive light or heavy. You can race these bikes, or just ride trails on these bikes. They are good if you like climbing fast and don't mind giving up a little downhill stability/comfort for responsiveness and climbing efficiency 

"Trail" bike are designed to be more capable downhill at the expense of some weight and some climbing ablity/responsiveness. You can race these in cross county, but they will not be a sharp as proper XC bike. The should be faster downhill, but probably not enough make up for the loss on the way up. Travel increases head angles get slacker. Parts are "stronger" and heavier to handle more abuse. 

"AM/Enduro" All mountain bikes/Enduro are designed for descending first. The idea behind more Mfg in this segment is the bikes MUST be fast stable platform for all kinds of downhil antics. Steep rocky trails, fast flowing trails, Jump lines, etc. Climbing is just the means to the end which is the downhill. However they realize the bikes will be climbing and care is taking to to make that stink too bad. Slacker angles and more travel and stronger parts. 

"DH" downhill is about all out downhill speed. Climbing? That is what the chairlift and shuttle are for duh! Most travel, most slack head angles. very strong parts to bash into things. 


Now having explained all that which bike should you buy? Well depends on what you want to ride. Where will you ride and what do you consider fun? I like climbing fast and riding fast so I have 2 XC bikes and 1 trail/AM Enduro bike. The XC bikes are light nimble and fast. I ride them everywhere and they are fun. My "trail" bike is heavier, but is only 130mm front and 125 mm rear travel. Rather small, but I have this bike for downhills. Very chunky/nasty terrain, but it climbs well enough to not annoy me and still allow me to enjoy climbing. I once had 7" travel bike that climbed like a pig. Took alot of fun our of riding so it is long gone. 

I would stay off the stuff I ride only 10% or less is stuff I ride on my 130/125 bike that I would not also on my XC bikes. In most cases pointed DH the 130/125 bike is hard to beat, but the difference in small in speed, but noticeable in comfort. On the climbs the two XC bikes are clearly faster. The trail bike will climb it, but takes more work to do it or just takes longer.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> Are you trying to say that XC riders have all the bling on them, like road bikers offroading, and the trail bikers are normally dressed with a normal t-shirt?


It's something like that. There is a definite difference. You don't need to look at the bike. You can look at what a guy is wearing and know what he's into. A strava-slave does not wear the same clothes as a dirt-bunny.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> It's something like that. There is a definite difference. You don't need to look at the bike. You can look at what a guy is wearing and know what he's into. A strava-slave does not wear the same clothes as a dirt-bunny.


It's really hard for me in fashion-conscious Southern California to know these things; most of the mountain bikers wear what looks to me like road bike stuff. It's hard to say but my impression is that the more road bike stuff they wear, the less friendly they are but it's such a slight difference that I'm not sure. Some guys are really laid back and cool, a lot are insecure. Let's just say that when they see me in normal shorts and T-shirt down here that screams beginner. A couple of weeks ago I was climbing a hill past a couple of guys walking their much more expensive bikes up, one of them said "Wow, climbing the hill, good job", I'm thinking WTF I'm the beginner why isn't HE climbing the hill too? You know what else is funny, in the last few months I've caught three guys almost crashing downhill, and then they see me coming up and straighten out like the near-crash never happened. They give me this look like "You didn't see that". lol


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> It's all bollocks. The full-sus bike I have was marketed as a cross-county bike. The next year they marketed it as a trail bike. Trail bike sounds cooler, that's it.


One thing that's annoyingly apparent is rear-wheel space on an XC bike. My 27.5" can only fit 2.35 inches in back; my 26" can only fit 2.25 inches, and even that is just ever so slightly rubbing on the chain in the lowest ring/gear. So I'm going to try a 26+ tire on the 27.5" to see if that fits (I can't do anything about the 26" bike, and 24+ rims/tires would start getting too crazy). Like Harold said it's not necessarily all about fork size; a lot of these + bikes are calling themselves trail bikes, so maybe max tire width in back is another variable in the XC/trail definition. I'm jealous of people that can fit 2.8 inch tires in back. That just doesn't 'sound' like an XC frame.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Roads? Maybe occasionally some old double track, is that what you mean?
> 
> Not so sure about the predominately hardtail either. Though hardtails are certainly fine for XC, just seems like a lot of riders are on full suspension, at least around here.


I don't see a lot of 'real' full suspension bikes with under 140mm in back. That's not XC, I think we can all agree on that. And I learned to stay away from the cheap full suspension years ago. So, conversely, most XC's are by definition hardtail because real full suspension is usually over 130mm in back. Correct?


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> A couple of weeks ago I was climbing a hill past a couple of guys walking their much more expensive bikes up, one of them said "Wow, climbing the hill, good job", I'm thinking WTF I'm the beginner why isn't HE climbing the hill too?


So someone throws you a compliment and the first thoughts that come to your mind are derisive?


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> It's really hard for me in fashion-conscious Southern California to know these things; most of the mountain bikers wear what looks to me like road bike stuff. It's hard to say but my impression is that the more road bike stuff they wear, the less friendly they are but it's such a slight difference that I'm not sure. Some guys are really laid back and cool, a lot are insecure.


Man, you will assume I'm not friendly! "Roadie" stuff is just more comfortable to me, so you will see me in chamois and a road jersey. All the baggie stuff just gets on my way. When I'm out riding, I'm not watching other people's gear though.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> So, conversely, most XC's are by definition hardtail because real full suspension is usually over 130mm in back. Correct?


No.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> I don't see a lot of 'real' full suspension bikes with under 140mm in back. That's not XC, I think we can all agree on that. And I learned to stay away from the cheap full suspension years ago. So, conversely, most XC's are by definition hardtail because real full suspension is usually over 130mm in back. Correct?


https://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/best-xc-bikes-51194/

https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/best-cross-country-bikes

It used to be true that most XC racers raced on hardtails due to the weight savings and inefficiency of rear suspensions at that time. But now the added grip that good suspension design provides has pretty much outweighed those concerns. And, as noted, the courses have gotten more technical.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

And here's an article on the red bull site that breaks down dh, endure, trail and xc:

https://www.redbull.com/us-en/which-mtb-should-you-buy


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

chazpat said:


> https://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/article/best-xc-bikes-51194/
> 
> https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/best-cross-country-bikes
> 
> It used to be true that most XC racers raced on hardtails due to the weight savings and inefficiency of rear suspensions at that time. But now the added grip that good suspension design provides has pretty much outweighed those concerns. And, as noted, the courses have gotten more technical.


Last point was the biggest:

XC has gotten more technical. Here you see rigid and 80mm travel old hard tails along side new, top of the line carbon FS XC race bikes. Some trails we have are more the XC trail types that are widely understood then we have one set weve used that skinny tires and low travel your taking alt lines while the longer travel XC and more "trail bikes" blast through like nothing.

Our opening race next weekend is being done at trails that just re-opened after years of being closed. No drops or anything but so rough even my b+ HT with 130mm travel I feel it. FS is becoming almost a need for Racing around this area now too.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

BCSD!?

The more travel you have... the more you're over compensating for lack of something!?

Drops mic & heads out on his rigid, single speed ;-)

'We'll all make it to the top... Some of us, might not make it to the bottom'


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> It's hard to say but my impression is that the more road bike stuff they wear, the less friendly they are...


This is a universal truth that applies the world over! ;0) Heck, actual roadies often won't talk to you at all.



richj8990 said:


> One thing that's annoyingly apparent is rear-wheel space on an XC bike... I'm jealous of people that can fit 2.8 inch tires in back.


Yeah, but are you really sure you want those tyres? I know it's the cool new trend but man, a huge tyre, especially on the back, is hard work. If you ride on bogs or sand all day maybe I get it but on actual ground, I prefer being able to pedal the bike.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

net wurker said:


> One time I met up with my riding buddies for an XC ride.
> 
> But I accidentally brought my Trail bike.
> 
> You can imagine how embarrassed I was.


Couldn't let this go to waste


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> This is a universal truth that applies the world over! ;0) Heck, actual roadies often won't talk to you at all.


PRO TIP: If the guy on the road bike has fuzzy legs, he's a mountain biker getting in some road miles. If the lady on the road bike has fuzzy legs, don't mess with her.


----------



## Humpy (Jun 7, 2015)

I'm no fool. I've beaten the system by buying one or two of each kind of bike.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

jcd46 said:


> Man, you will assume I'm not friendly! "Roadie" stuff is just more comfortable to me, so you will see me in chamois and a road jersey. All the baggie stuff just gets on my way. When I'm out riding, I'm not watching other people's gear though.


I know you are friendly. A lot of guys are friendly, I met four today. I think it's when they are in groups of say 5 or more and all piling into a Chain Reaction Cycles van that I stay away. I like one on one or two conversations but not group stuff; the more people the more problems if you ask me. I feel really conflicted because I know we are all one big fraternity but I hate fraternities lol.

I kind of felt bad today because something came out wrong to one guy in his 50's or 60's while we were speaking. He had a full-suspension, his younger friend had a hardtail. He says wow you are also doing this on a hardtail? The area is extremely rocky. I made the mistake of telling him how I really felt about full-suspension. I said maybe when I'm older and a bit more frail I may get full suspension. That's the truth but sometimes it's best to hold back if it's potentially offensive. He seemed cool w/it though.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

chazpat said:


> PRO TIP: If the guy on the road bike has fuzzy legs, he's a mountain biker getting in some road miles. If the lady on the road bike has fuzzy legs, don't mess with her.


I don't know how it is in Florida, but 100% of of the bad neighborhoods here have girls that look tougher than the guys. I mean like really tough. I dunno about fuzzy legs but you do not mess with them. I got invited to a ghetto party about 12 years ago, you should have seen the girls there. Or maybe not. Most of them outdrank the guys, outswore the guys, they were the masculine ones. The guys were having a problem downing the beer bong, my friend's 17 year-old sister comes up, says let me show you how it's done. Drinks about 60 ounces of beer in 30 seconds, doesn't even flinch, burp, anything. Just finished it and walks away. We all dropped our jaws about 3 inches. I didn't go back to that house...


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> Yeah, but are you really sure you want those tyres? I know it's the cool new trend but man, a huge tyre, especially on the back, is hard work. If you ride on bogs or sand all day maybe I get it but on actual ground, I prefer being able to pedal the bike.


YES. I'm not out there to win races, I'm out there to climb and then go down the hill. Maybe I'll find out what's too wide but for now wider is better; I'm really excited about all of the tire sizes over standard. It really is a great time to be mountain biking! In fact I have a new harebrained scheme to slip a wider tire in back by simply not using first gear and thus it can clear the chain in the first chainring/2nd gear (it clears the frame by maybe 1/8 inch each side). That gives another 1/4 inch or so of tire to slip in. Pretty crazy eh? There is a Sunrace 11-40t cassette that's 8 or 9 speed, and I don't need the 40t so I'll just use the 2nd gear & above, and that way I can cheat the wider rear tire in.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

richj8990 said:


> One thing that's annoyingly apparent is rear-wheel space on an XC bike. My 27.5" can only fit 2.35 inches in back; my 26" can only fit 2.25 inches, and even that is just ever so slightly rubbing on the chain in the lowest ring/gear. So I'm going to try a 26+ tire on the 27.5" to see if that fits (I can't do anything about the 26" bike, and 24+ rims/tires would start getting too crazy). Like Harold said it's not necessarily all about fork size; a lot of these + bikes are calling themselves trail bikes, so maybe max tire width in back is another variable in the XC/trail definition. I'm jealous of people that can fit 2.8 inch tires in back. That just doesn't 'sound' like an XC frame.


Fwiw, my San Diego riding is better around 2.3 on the rear. We have so much hard pack, and a lot of fire roads if you do long rides from trail to trail, that the big rubber is a big energy drag.

So you may not be missing much. But, I'm also on a FS xc bike.

I hear my Lycra cause I started as a roadie, so it's comfortable, and I don't want to pay cash money for a whole new wardrobe. I am generally friendly even with my nut hugging kit on 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## ericzamora (Dec 14, 2017)

This is great. I'm enjoying all of the information and banter to my original question. Thanks!

As i mentioned, I'm new to this, and have a... let's just call it a hardtail. With 27.5+ 2.8 tires. I'm really enjoying it, even on the little pavement/road i need to ride to reach the dirt. I've joked about racing it. Next year maybe, just to try it out. I've also joked about racing a short crit with my 1980s Bianchi. All would be just for fun of course. Riding bikes is fun.

eric
fresno, ca.


----------



## weeksy950 (Jan 11, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> I don't know how it is in Florida, but 100% of of the bad neighborhoods here have girls that look tougher than the guys. I mean like really tough. I dunno about fuzzy legs but you do not mess with them. I got invited to a ghetto party about 12 years ago, you should have seen the girls there. Or maybe not. Most of them outdrank the guys, outswore the guys, they were the masculine ones. The guys were having a problem downing the beer bong, my friend's 17 year-old sister comes up, says let me show you how it's done. Drinks about 60 ounces of beer in 30 seconds, doesn't even flinch, burp, anything. Just finished it and walks away. We all dropped our jaws about 3 inches. I didn't go back to that house...


You married her though, right?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> It clears the frame by maybe 1/8 inch each side.


That's not enough. Your wheel flexes under load and it will rub the frame.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> I don't know how it is in Florida, but 100% of of the bad neighborhoods here have girls that look tougher than the guys. I mean like really tough. I dunno about fuzzy legs but you do not mess with them. I got invited to a ghetto party about 12 years ago, you should have seen the girls there. Or maybe not. Most of them outdrank the guys, outswore the guys, they were the masculine ones. The guys were having a problem downing the beer bong, my friend's 17 year-old sister comes up, says let me show you how it's done. Drinks about 60 ounces of beer in 30 seconds, doesn't even flinch, burp, anything. Just finished it and walks away. We all dropped our jaws about 3 inches. I didn't go back to that house...


I don't know how it is in Florida, either; I live in north Georgia.


----------



## Slyvest (Apr 15, 2018)

Lmao you people are funny af


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Slyvest said:


> Lmao you people are funny


Funny how?


----------



## Slyvest (Apr 15, 2018)

With the ghetto women comments lol. 
Dance spider!


----------



## ericzamora (Dec 14, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> Funny how?


----------



## goyo46 (Feb 19, 2010)

Concerning the clothing differences...
I had some baggy shorts that I really liked. They weren’t super heavy like some I’ve seen, they breathed really well which is important here in the Southwest. The chamois was decent for 3 hr rides. Sometimes I even wore them on road rides, despite years of cycling fashion consciousness. 
Last year I was climbing a super steep techy rocky section and stalled out, as will happen. While trying to jump off the back of the saddle, the baggy crotch caught on the nose of the saddle, legs flailing in the air while I fell sideways into the rocks. Real mountain biking. If you’re not crashing once in a while, you’re not riding hard enough. 
Result was a big gouge in one of my fork stantions. Baggies in the trash. I’ll stick with Lycra, easier to move around on the bike, definitely more breathable.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

goyo46 said:


> While trying to jump off the back of the saddle, the baggy crotch caught on the nose of the saddle, legs flailing in the air while I fell sideways into the rocks.


To be fair, I've had that happen with lycra too but I agree with your point. I don't wear shorts that are baggy at the crotch for the same reason.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Mr Pig said:


> To be fair, I've had that happen with lycra too but I agree with your point. I don't wear shorts that are baggy at the crotch for the same reason.


Yeah, me too.

I've had terrible baggies that snagged on everything. I've had lycra shorts catch on my saddle. I have also figured out the sort of fit that I want from a baggy short that balances the kinds of performance I want from my shorts. I've got shorts from a couple different brands that fulfill those requirements in different ways.

Another thing that helps with the baggies snagging on stuff is a dropper post. But that's probably going to be a sacrilege for most of the lycra crowd.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> No.


So most XC's are NOT a hardtail?

Lumping everything under All-Mountain into 'XC' is just plain lazy. A $150 45 lb Walmart bike and a $10,000 17 lb racing mountain bike are both under the same label. Because no one wants to make the effort to distinguish the two.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Harold said:


> Another thing that helps with the baggies snagging on stuff is a dropper post.


If you're climbing it'll be up though. I'm not that fast on the button! ;0)

Most of the time I wear non-cycling-specific shorts as they are not as baggy as cycling ones. You don't have to wear cycling specific clothes if normal stuff is better.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> So most XC's are NOT a hardtail?
> 
> Lumping everything under All-Mountain into 'XC' is just plain lazy. A $150 45 lb Walmart bike and a $10,000 17 lb racing mountain bike are both under the same label. Because no one wants to make the effort to distinguish the two.


You worry about this way too much.

A lot of us have been riding since the days of two choices: xc or downhill. If it wasn't true downhill, it was xc.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

You have a pretty limited selection of cycling specific baggies. I have some that fit way better for riding than non specific shorts, and are notably less baggy.

I have a pair of Kitsbow shorts that are my favorites, but they are not the only ones. There are quite a few companies making cycling specific "baggies" that really aren't all that baggy, especially in the crotch where snagging happens.


Mr Pig said:


> If you're climbing it'll be up though. I'm not that fast on the button! ;0)
> 
> Most of the time I wear non-cycling-specific shorts as they are not as baggy as cycling ones. You don't have to wear cycling specific clothes if normal stuff is better.


Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lmfao. So you would set categories where?



richj8990 said:


> So most XC's are NOT a hardtail?
> 
> Lumping everything under All-Mountain into 'XC' is just plain lazy. A $150 45 lb Walmart bike and a $10,000 17 lb racing mountain bike are both under the same label. Because no one wants to make the effort to distinguish the two.


Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> So most XC's are NOT a hardtail?


Check out the start lines of xc races, the ones I've seen are majority fs.


----------



## phlegm (Jul 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Check out the start lines of xc races, the ones I've seen are majority fs.


I think that depends on the track. A couple of seasons ago, at the Pan Am Games, only 2 entrants out of a field of 30-ish, had FS, the others were hardtails.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

phlegm said:


> I think that depends on the track.


Yeah, that's why I qualified my statement. The races I've been in and seen around here are mostly fs, and all the WC races I watch are majority fs too, at least the mens races.

Anyway, just saying that Rich's comment "most xc bikes are by definition hardtail" is incorrect.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> A lot of us have been riding since the days of two choices: xc or downhill. If it wasn't true downhill, it was xc.


Still how it is unless you're racing: if you only ride down and not up, you're downhilling. 
Everything else is cross country (unless it trialsin).



The rest is marketing BS.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

j.b. Weld said:


> anyway, just saying that rich's comment is always incorrect.


fify


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

chazpat said:


> You worry about this way too much.
> 
> A lot of us have been riding since the days of two choices: xc or downhill. If it wasn't true downhill, it was xc.





slapheadmofo said:


> Still how it is unless you're racing: if you only ride down and not up, you're downhilling.
> Everything else is cross country (unless it trialsin).
> 
> 
> ...


I have always felt this way as well...if you were not on paved trails or roads, you were cross country...regardless of whether you were going up or down.

Later on I considered cross country longer riding...like bike packing or touring


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

chazpat said:


> You worry about this way too much.
> 
> A lot of us have been riding since the days of two choices: xc or downhill. If it wasn't true downhill, it was xc.


Definitely this ^. And except for a very few, the vast majority of dedicated xc racers that only have the one bike, do run FS. I ride a rigid SS, but if by some chance, I were to get the time, money and motivation to train, something like a SC Tallboy would end up in my garage.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BrianU said:


> the vast majority of dedicated xc racers that only have the one bike, do run FS


regionally variable.

I've lived in places where hardtails were the rule rather than the exception for xc racers. Even where I live now, in WNC, there are a LOT of folks on hardtails and even fully rigid SS bikes doing xc races, even though they may not be the majority.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Still how it is unless you're racing: if you only ride down and not up, you're downhilling.
> Everything else is cross country (unless it trialsin).
> 
> 
> ...


That explains why at a local small jump line, the guys in lycra seem to be rolling down it just so they can pedal back up again.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jeremy3220 said:


> That explains why at a local small jump line, the guys in lycra seem to be rolling down it just so they can pedal back up again.


I wish they'd do that at my pumptrack.
They always seem to just tend to try to ride across roll-ins and balance along the top of berms and all sorts of other weird, awkward **** instead of just riding things the way they were obviously meant to be ridden. 25 BMXers can ride there all day and the place looks better when they leave than when they showed up; 2 MTBers dork around for 10 minutes and tear the place to shreds.

:madman:


----------



## BrianU (Feb 4, 2004)

Harold said:


> regionally variable.
> 
> I've lived in places where hardtails were the rule rather than the exception for xc racers. Even where I live now, in WNC, there are a LOT of folks on hardtails and even fully rigid SS bikes doing xc races, even though they may not be the majority.


Good point. I should have been a little more specific about what I stated.


----------



## Jay930 (Sep 19, 2017)

Trek has the whole bike finder page that asks questions and tries to lead you to the right bike for you.. I’m not sure if it still exists but there was a video in there about trail vs XC that showed the xcal and the Roscoe and the type of riding each was meant for. The idea is the Roscoe is a trail bike and more fun.. it was a fun and simple way to entertain and be informative at the same time I guess.. it made me want the Roscoe!!


----------



## Vtbikologist (Feb 1, 2016)

All these categories... it's a gradient and what you want for a bike depends on what you ride and how you ride.


----------

