# What is a Trail Bike?



## jethro10 (24 Aug 2011)

I've started to see this a bit more, Trail bikes as opposed to XC bikes.

but what exactly are they? or what is trail riding as such compared to XC.

best I can see is often a bit slacker head angles, and possibly 130mm forks as opposed to 100mm on most XC bikes - mostly hardtail it seems but I could be talking rubbish.

I think I saw a review of one or two in an MTB mag recently, but still made no clear distinction as to what they were? is it just Bol***ks and they are just XC bikes?

Ta
Jeff


----------



## Zoiders (24 Aug 2011)

It's simply not built up like an XC race bike, not many hardtails are these days unless you buy one that is aimed at the race crowd.

Most hardtails started following this format as the XC race scene as a rule has little resemblance to how people actually ride for fun in the UK.


----------



## jethro10 (25 Aug 2011)

But what are the actual differences?


Jeff


----------



## Zoiders (25 Aug 2011)

Top tube length and the bars mostly.

You don't want to be on what is essentially a road bike set up for riding all day off road.


----------



## Cubist (26 Aug 2011)

jethro10 said:


> I've started to see this a bit more, Trail bikes as opposed to XC bikes.
> 
> but what exactly are they? or what is trail riding as such compared to XC.
> 
> ...



No, it's not bollocks. The two types are not particularly similar. There was a similar debate on here a while ago, and someone got very cross when we suggested the two were not completely interchangeable. It is more important that people understand the distinction so that they buy the right bike for the riding they want to do. Buying a 140mm trail bike to ride on bridleways, or take part in local MTB challenges will mean you'll be overbiked. Conversely buying a thoroughbred XC race bike to thrash round the black routes at your local trail centre is not a route to success. 


XC bikes tend to be lighter, with short travel forks, 80 or 100mm. The geometry makes them "arse up, head down" and the setup tends to make them good for fast riding on mixed, but not too technical or demanding terrain. XC bikes tend to have taller gearing and lighter, but often more fragile components. There are 



Trail bikes are a more recent phenomenon. They are more specifically aimed at recreational riding on technical terrain. Slacker head angles and longer travel forks (now typically 140 or even 150mm) means they are more solid or "planted" on descents. They tend to have lower gearing, with 2x10 or even 1x10 making an appearance in some brands. More robust component such as stronger wheelsets, SLX drivetrain and so on distinguish them from the carbon and XTR crowd. 

The distinction between XC and trail isn't restricted to hardtails. Many full suss bikes are still XC specific, and the 140mm trail bike is selling very well to be used at trail centres, very much a growing passtime. I still ride my XC bike at trail centres, loving the technical stuff, but starting to find the limitations of my XC race bike, which is very nervy on some stuff, especially steep rocky bits!


----------



## HebdenBiker (31 Aug 2011)

Cubist said:


> No, it's not bollocks. The two types are not particularly similar. There was a similar debate on here a while ago, and someone got very cross when we suggested the two were not completely interchangeable. It is more important that people understand the distinction so that they buy the right bike for the riding they want to do. Buying a 140mm trail bike to ride on bridleways, or take part in local MTB challenges will mean you'll be overbiked. Conversely buying a thoroughbred XC race bike to thrash round the black routes at your local trail centre is not a route to success.
> 
> 
> XC bikes tend to be lighter, with short travel forks, 80 or 100mm. The geometry makes them "arse up, head down" and the setup tends to make them good for fast riding on mixed, but not too technical or demanding terrain. XC bikes tend to have taller gearing and lighter, but often more fragile components. There are
> ...



I agree with the above. I've built up my Rockhopper to be good on the farm tracks and bridleways of the Pennines: Small frame, 100mm forks, long stem, flat narrow bars, bar ends, lots of seatpost. I guess you'd say it handles like an XC bike, and it climbs beautifully, but it shows its limitations on the red and black trails at trail centres. In particular, I feel I need a slacker head angle and higher front end for descents. In fact, what I need is an Orange 5


----------



## Cubist (31 Aug 2011)

HebdenBiker said:


> I agree with the above. I've built up my Rockhopper to be good on the farm tracks and bridleways of the Pennines: Small frame, 100mm forks, long stem, flat narrow bars, bar ends, lots of seatpost. I guess you'd say it handles like an XC bike, and it climbs beautifully, but it shows its limitations on the red and black trails at trail centres. In particular, I feel I need a slacker head angle and higher front end for descents. *In fact, what I need is an Orange 5*







Not as much as I do.................... and talking of Calderdale loveliness, Ragley full-sus frame



may be with us soon, so put that five on hold for a bit!!!!!!


----------



## HebdenBiker (1 Sep 2011)

Cubist said:


> Not as much as I do.................... and talking of Calderdale loveliness, Ragley full-sus frame
> 
> 
> 
> may be with us soon, so put that five on hold for a bit!!!!!!



Just googled the Ragley FS. Looking nice. I'll reserve judgement pending a full independent write-up, but it'll have to be good to stand out from the crowd at that price point.


----------



## Cubist (2 Sep 2011)

See if this article links. They look a bit better than the prototype pics on STW
http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Nukeproof-and-Ragley-Eurobike-2011.html


----------

