# Trail vs XC



## Cyclist33 (20 Nov 2010)

What is the difference between trail and xc riding?

Cheers
Stu


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2010)

As many definitions as you will get responses and then some.

For me XC riding in the UK is about riding about our countryside on real life/historic/old rights-of-way (Bridleways, BOATS RUPPS, white roads) which were not purpose built for cycling whilst trail riding is about riding on purpose built or purposely upgraded routes designed for cycling typically within a defined area like a trail centre or on a specific route like the SDW. 

For me a typical XC bike will be light, fairly short travel fork, no rear sus, relatively narrow tyres and comfortable enough that you can ride it all day, including riding it to and from the start of your off road ride on tarmac. A trail bike will be beefier, longer travel, rear sus is more appropriate,and designed to take bigger hits and be ridden for a few hours at a stretch usually travelling to the trail in or on a car.

But it is only my opinion....


----------



## lukesdad (20 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1249319"]
Hmmm, Greg has a point!

To me tr*ai*l and xc riding would be the same! Tr*ia*ls riding and downhill are very different though, oh and different from each other.

That is only my opinion though 
[/quote]

I agree with this, shall we throw in freeride as well ?


----------



## maurice (21 Nov 2010)

Trail is a marketing term for XC, essentially they are the same.


----------



## Panter (21 Nov 2010)

I'd agree with all the above. XC, for me, means plotting your own route etc but it seems that most trail centres are regarded as XC now!


----------



## Cubist (21 Nov 2010)

maurice said:


> Trail is a marketing term for XC, essentially they are the same.


No, sorry, I have to disagree.

There are a few new genres of bike being developed and marketed, each becoming more and more specialised in terms of kit, componentry, geometry, suspension travel and so on. 
Essentially a XC bike is designed for speed over roughish terrain. Nowadays you find more and more sub 10kg XC bikes, out and out racers with a head down-arse up geometry. They will typically have light alloy or carbon frames, and will have short travel usually air sprung suspension forks, 80mm to 120mm, but most typically 100mm. Search for World Cup XC footage, watch Mountain Biking progs on satellite TV and you'll see exactly what I mean. These are featherweight machines for lycra-clad whippets, narrow flat bars with XCR drivetrains. You will also see these riders facing technical sections where they tend to fall off, carry their bikes, or a mixture of both. 

Trail bikes are designed to hit UK trail centres. Technical singletrack is an absolute joy to ride, but it will quickly kill an XC bike. These trails have evolved to include ever increasing technical sections, with drop-offs, rock gardens, slabs, steps and jumps. All these things will break purist XC race bike. Which came first will be subject of debate, but the full-suss XC bike started to get longer travel, 120mm, then 140mm, then 160mm etc, as the centres got more and more adventurous, and riders wanted to ride faster and more gnarly technical stuff. 

As the bikes became more robust they also developed different frame geometry. The rider position went further back, the bars widened, borrowing technology from Downhillers etc and the stem rose so that the rider was no longer perched precariously over a tight narrow front end when looking down a terrifying descent. 

Trail specific bikes evolved from this, all with 120mm plus suspension, and you can see the sort of thing that was developed specifically for it in hardtail, Giant Talon, or Orange Crush, and full suss, Orange Five, and Trek Fuel being specific examples.

So, what about the current market? Manufacturers will add features to what was a compromise MTB in order to appeal to fashion, current market forces and their own target market. Many bikes are now being sold with wide bars and short high stems where the same model two years ago had 580mm bars and bar ends! Others are throwing new models into the melting pot such as GT's superb AM Fury. This looks, to all intents andpurposes to be a standard generic hardtail bike, and will sell to people who want a "mountainbike" but don't necessarily know what they are getting it for, otehr than a vague idea that they may want to commute along the towpath occasionally, when in fact they are buying an awesome value for money biggish hit trail bike with its raked front end and wide bars.

European market is different. A lot of their off road riding is done on what we would classify as green and blue routes. Widish, a bit rough, but no jumps, bumps etc. The Euro centric designs such as Cube tend to pitch their kit at this sort of thing, and you won't find wide bars on their hardtails, but you will find rack eyes! These bikes tend to favour trekking (the bridleway hiking on bikes sort of thing. ) and the whippet standard XC stuff as described in my firest paragraph. 

No means exhaustive, but I hope this answers the OPs original question!


----------



## Panter (21 Nov 2010)

Can't agree entirely with that.
Trail centres may be rough on a very lightweight XC race bike, but a more robust XC bike will be absolutely fine.
I think the distinction there is XC or XC race.


----------



## Cyclist33 (21 Nov 2010)

Thanks peeps. Cubist's reply seems to explain it better than any other! I ask because my mtb came with wide riser bars and isn't phenomenally light, but it does have a 100mm fork geometry and so I wondered where it is designed to excel. Thus far I have done the kind of canal paths, Trans Pennine Trail and veering off into uncharted woods and riverside meadows riding. My guess is that qualifies as XC though certainly not racing!

Cheers
Stu


----------



## Cubist (21 Nov 2010)

Panter said:


> Can't agree entirely with that.
> Trail centres may be rough on a very lightweight XC race bike, but a more robust XC bike will be absolutely fine.
> I think the distinction there is XC or XC race.


What i forgot to conclude, was that the current market is tending to merge the two, but the PURIST bikes tend to be purpose specific. Would you want to lug around 14 or 15 kg of trail bouncer on a weekend XC challenge?
The majority of non-specialised bikes tend to fit around both, but doing neither really well. All rounder anyone?


----------



## Cubist (21 Nov 2010)

Cyclist33 said:


> Thanks peeps. Cubist's reply seems to explain it better than any other! I ask because my mtb came with wide riser bars and isn't phenomenally light, but it does have a 100mm fork geometry and so I wondered where it is designed to excel. Thus far I have done the kind of canal paths, Trans Pennine Trail and veering off into uncharted woods and riverside meadows riding. My guess is that qualifies as XC though certainly not racing!
> 
> Cheers
> Stu


Go to a trail centre and thrash it, it's asking for it, ands will do anyhting you want within your capability and experience! Then ride some bridleways at weekends. It will do best what you most enjoy riding.


----------



## maurice (21 Nov 2010)

Cubist said:


> Essentially a XC bike is designed for speed over roughish terrain. Nowadays you find more and more sub 10kg XC bikes, out and out racers with a head down-arse up geometry. They will typically have light alloy or carbon frames, and will have short travel usually air sprung suspension forks, 80mm to 120mm, but most typically 100mm.




So now 120mm is classed as short travel! Sub 10kg? I always thought my 23lbs Stumpjumper was light! Barely any standard XC bikes are sub 10kg - that's the reserve of weightweenies forum.






Cubist said:


> Trail bikes are designed to hit UK trail centres. Technical singletrack is an absolute joy to ride, but it will quickly kill an XC bike.



That's complete rubbish, known to many, many 'short travel' XC riders, and a myth perpetuated by the marketing man. You realise they run XC races at these UK trail centres? Technical singletrack is even more of a joy to ride on an XC bike as you're using your skills rather than relying on excess suspension travel to sort things out.




I haven't got time to dissect the whole post, but to expand on my original statement, essentially 'Trail' was invented as a term so that riders who thought lycra-wearing xc-whippets were 'uncool' could differentiate themselves by wearing baggy shorts, walking up tough climbs, being over-biked with far too much suspension travel, and generally ride slower. And it worked, the 'trail bike' took off.

Magazines (MBR springs to mind) convey this myth that you need a minimum of 6 inches of travel to ride off a curb. Anyone remember the issue last year they took a 150mm travel Specialized Enduro on a canal towpath ride? It's great for business though as the more you read the more you can justify a £3k bike for riding around the local trail centre on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2010)

a point about Trail Centre (TC) versus what I call XC.

at a TC I ride the same piece of terrain over and over, taking each obstacle faster and faster meaning increasing more kinetic energy."bigger hits"

On a XC ride I ride more conservatively because the odds are I'm only going to encounter that obstacle once that day (or maybe twice; on the way up and on the way down) so "smaller hits".

Both my mtb's are out and out XC bikes and handle technical singletrack beautifully. They might not handle it as quickly as some full boinger (abilitiy compensator anyone?) or an all mountian / free ride bike design but the constraint is usually my ability, bravery (lack thereof) and the width of my shoulders rather than anything bike related.

But then I've ridden a touring bike complete with mudguards at a trail centre (for a bet) to prove the point that, if ridden carefully, a rigid bike works off road perfectly well. I sometimes think we have forgotten our roots. John Tomac won world championships on drops, Joe Murray raced on rigid forks etc., etc..


----------



## Cubist (21 Nov 2010)

maurice said:


> So now 120mm is classed as short travel! Sub 10kg? I always thought my 23lbs Stumpjumper was light! Barely any standard XC bikes are sub 10kg - that's the reserve of weightweenies forum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm describing the purist definition. The OP asked what is the difference, not "what can each type of bike do|?" I acknowledge that a short travel XC bike can handle trail centre style singletrack by riding my 100mm travel Cube Ltd at trail centres. I do not own a full susser, nor will I enter into arguments about martketing ploys.

What I will say however is that you are arguing your point from a "I have a short travel hardtail XC bike, and have decided to take a "purist standpoint" arguing that a XC bike is great for all that I wish to ride." That's great, but by aggressivley asserting that the two are the same will blow up in your face when someone buys an Orange 5 to ride in XC races. 

You pour scorn on full suss bikes and the marketing that puts them into the hands of riders. What a fantastic worls it is we live in where we can all choose to ride what we want, how we want, and subscribe to whatever magazines we want without feeling that certain people are watching our every move, ready to criticise and argue with our choices!

I agree entirely that the genres are pushed by clever marketeers, but I will assert once again that the OP asked what the difference was! 
You say yourself that you have not had time to dissect all of my post, and that is obvious, as you have not read all of it either! Nor have you read my later post about riding what feels good.....


----------



## lukesdad (21 Nov 2010)

The OP as I read it was about type of riding I.e the going or terrain, not essentialy the bike required....but of course I could be wrong. Sub 10 kg for an XC bike is not unusual either. Generaly the lighter and more skillful the rider less is more for outright speed, the more aids though will make the ride easier and less fatiguing. In IMO


----------



## maurice (21 Nov 2010)

Cubist said:


> What I will say however is that you are arguing your point from a "I have a short travel hardtail XC bike, and have decided to take a "purist standpoint" arguing that a XC bike is great for all that I wish to ride." That's great, but by aggressivley asserting that the two are the same will blow up in your face when someone buys an Orange 5 to ride in XC races.






Whatever. I also own a 5" full suspension xc bike. I've raced it in XC races and enduros. I see it's now considered short travel these days, so will probably fall apart at the sight of a trail centre.


----------



## Cubist (21 Nov 2010)

maurice said:


> Whatever. I also own a 5" full suspension xc bike. I've raced it in XC races and enduros. I see it's now considered short travel these days, so will probably fall apart at the sight of a trail centre.




My post was an attempt to answer the OP's question, but you have managed to make it look like a full blown row, and as I cannot stand arguing online I wish I hadn't started. I apologise profusely if anything I posted has been in any way personally insulting to you. 

Ride what you want, how you want, where you want, spend as much as you want, enjoy it all as much as you can. Read what you want, have your own personal opinions and be prepared to share them if it may help others. Don't take differences of opinion personally, I was merely offering a potential comparison in order to help the OP. 

Please don't pick fights with me, that's not my style.


----------



## Patombr (31 Dec 2010)

Just a few simples point north Yorkshire moors ok, dallby, Ae, mabie in Scotland (heaven).


----------

