PINKBIKE FIELD TEST
10 Trail and Enduro Bikes Face the Efficiency Test
Gravel roads, power meters, a dose of bro-science, and no lock-outs allowed.
Our ten test bikes were never designed to be cross-country efficient, but their all-around intentions mean that most of them have to be at least halfway decent at turning your watts into forward motion, regardless of if they have 130mm or 180mm of travel. And yeah, most of them have shocks with pedal-assist levers that might be able to take the bike from gooey to get a move on, but there are plenty of situations where the trail doesn't give you time to fiddle with your shock or push buttons on the handlebar. Does that mean you should be okay with your trail or enduro bike's squishy suspension making you feel like you're stuck in mud?
Definitely not, and it isn't just about climbing. If a bike feels slow and inefficient on the way up, there are probably other places where it's not at its best as well, especially on rolling terrain or anytime you accelerate out of a corner. Yes, even on the downhills. So with that in mind, we took our ten test bikes of varying intentions and travel out to my favorite gravel road (Wait, you don't have one of those?) to see if our on-trail feedback matches what the clock says.
To do it, we measured a half-mile course up a gravel road climb, then placed Freelap timing cones at the start and finish points. A set of Garmin Vector power pedals talked to my 1030 head unit, and I set it up to display my normalized, 10-second, and 3-second power numbers, the idea being to have each bike finish the climb with the same normalized, 300-watt power number. While there's some bro-science involved, no doubt there, that should mean that the more efficient bikes will cover the same distance quicker than the less efficient bikes. Probably.
Don't forget that while this was a relatively short climb, the differences in efficiency between them will only be further amplified over a long climb or even longer day in the saddle.
Of course, this isn’t a lab test, and we’re not putting the same wheels on every bike or using supercomputers to tell me the friction coefficient between my ass and chamois before dividing that by how many donuts I had for breakfast. It's also a slightly different climb than we used the last time, so don't bother comparing these times
to the previous Efficiency Test. But we were out there in the real world so, just like the Impossible Climb, there’s certainly something to be learned while we had a good time… Wait, that was a good time?
Efficiency Test Results
1st Giant Trance X (5/5 Live Valve) - 2:45
2nd Specialized Stumpjumper - 2:48
3rd Giant Trance X (1/5 Live Valve) - 2:49
4th Salsa Blackthorn - 2:53
5th Santa Cruz Nomad - 2:54
6th Ibis Mojo - 2:56
7th Propain Spindrift - 3:00
8th Rocky Mountain Altitude - 3:04
9th Trek Slash - 3:10
10th Actofive P-Train - 3:12
11th Norco Shore - 3:28
What'd we learn after way too many trips up the gravel road?
Not surprisingly given its intentions as an efficient, fast bike made to cover a lot of ground, Giant's Trance X had the quickest time at 2:45 with its Live Valve suspension set to its firmest, 5/5 mode. The trout-colored Giant felt more like a 24lb cross-country whip than the 30lb trail bike it actually is, and it was only 4-seconds back with Live Valve turned to its least intrusive (but still very firm feeling) 1/5 mode. Splitting the Giant's two times is the new Stumpjumper at 2:48 - I had
previously talked a lot about how fast and efficient this bike is, so it's nice to see that confirmed by the Efficiency Test.
If you're okay with adding a bunch of wires (and cost), Fox's wild Live Valve suspension can make your chunky trail bike climb like a flyweight.
There are a couple of things to mention, though, including the Nomad surprising us all with a 2:54 that put it in 5th place overall and 6-seconds up on the closest enduro bike, the 180mm Propain Spindrift. Unsurprisingly, the P-Train (the most active feeling trail bike) and Norco Shore (the heaviest enduro bike) brought up the back of the pack, although I suspect that potential owners of those two won't be too fussed about it given that hose bikes aren't about getting to the top quickly.
Sure, the Efficiency Test isn't a German-run lab with airlocks and results to be published in some peer-reviewed paper, but that's not the intention. Instead, it gives us a good idea of the relative efficiency between all ten bikes, and it's also confirmed our on-trail impressions of their climbing performance.
The 2020 Pinkbike Field Test was made possible with support from Dainese apparel & protection, Sierra Nevada refreshments, and Smith eyewear and helmets. Thanks also to Maxxis, Garmin, Freelap, and Toyota Pacific.
I’ve got the same question.
Looking at the results. The Nomad and Spindrift are approximately the same efficiency as the Mojo and Blackthorn (especially considering the trail bikes used faster rolling tires).
But does that mean the spindrift/Nomad pump obstacles the same way as the trail bikes? Or do they feel like they have vastly more travel in every situation?
Pretty broad as that can be 140-180
Sorry, that was poorly worded. I should have said I have a question on the same topic, but kind of from an opposing perspective.
You’re asking if the high pivot makes the short travel act like a longer travel bike when pumping/jumping around. I’m definitely interested in the answer to this.
I’m asking if the more efficient and poppy long travel bikes ride like a shorter travel bike.
They specifically mention in the reviews on the Spindrift and the Nomad how it doesn’t feel like a long travel bike. I’m just curious “how much” less travel they feel like I guess.
I can't get it!
Care to explain in more detail your comment, while I wait for my popcorn?
Thank you!
I mean how much fun it is? LOL
on the road most of your watts go into fighting aero drag, so weight won't matter much.
on a slow climb, most of the watts go into potential energy, so weight has a much larger effect. if 100% goes into potential energy, 10 lbs would be about ~5% slower, so ~9 sec here. in reality it will be less, but it'll still be a big chunk.
1st Giant Trance X (5/5 Live Valve) - 2:45 / 13.9 kg
2nd Specialized Stumpjumper - 2:48 / 12.4 kg
3rd Giant Trance X (1/5 Live Valve) - 2:49 / 13.9 kg
4th Salsa Blackthorn - 2:53 / 14.5 kg
5th Santa Cruz Nomad - 2:54 / 14.8 kg
6th Ibis Mojo - 2:56 / 13 kg
7th Propain Spindrift - 3:00 / 15 kg
8th Rocky Mountain Altitude - 3:04 / 14.2 kg
9th Trek Slash - 3:10 / 14.7 kg
10th Actofive P-Train - 3:12 / 15.5 kg
11th Norco Shore - 3:28 / 17 kg
The 15 kg Spindrift is heavier than the next two bikes.
Does this fit with your explanation?
And all this is being done on a service road. The story could completely change on a proper trail, but good luck trying to control all variables to less than 0.6% on a proper trail.
But, again, why I let it go. It would not be a statistical difference.
The real question is how the new upcoming Canfield Lithium will pair up against the best of the best.
Normal black diamonds and d diamonds are ok for 160-170-180mm bikes. World cup lvl tracks, not so much. That is all that I am saying.
...especially since the trails are less and less hard-core and even bikes with 180mm travel are enough.
I'll go every time for free speed and easier riding in the gnar...and the little invincibility feeling..but, honestly, 99.99% of ppl don't live at a WC lvl trails bike-park's door so.., from every way you would look at it, the DH-bikes for the "general" public are useless.
I wish all of you guys that started mtb-ing some years ago, realize that, in those years, the trail, am, (inexistent)enduro type category at that time, were much, much weaker from a capability point. My 2012 26" 150mm GT Sanction is a joke compared to any current agressive 150mm bike. My 2009 Spez Pitch Pro was is even worse. So yeah, in those years and even earlier, if you wanted to go fast down the hill, you wanted(and needed) a DH bike.
But...we don't live in those times anymore. The current 160-180mm bikes are so capable for 98% of the riding times you really...really don't need 200mm+ bikes. (with the exception of those who live at the front door of hard-core bike-parks or trail-centers...for them, you can (almost)find a justification. For the rest of us...more than a 180mm forked spez enduro or a RM Slayer...well, it is my honest(and logic) opinion that you don't need go go further and that they are enough for whatever trail you'll ride).
160-180mm racing/big enduro bikes vs 200mm dh bikes on a black diamond and a double diamond; multiple runs, all of them timed. If the difference is less than 5%, we should all get over our misconceptions, egos and fantasies from 15-20 years ago and get the proper bikes for the riding we actually do, not for the one that 99% of the time we don't do.
That being said, if I was getting a DH bike for the park, I would choose something like the Furious over the Supreme. I have no need of a race focused bike.
2) Set the suspension nice and stiff
3) Enjoy riding literally anything
You could have found that yourself
I've played around a lot with bar height, and ultimately I don't think higher bars (within reason) affect climbing at all.
Of course what do I know.
Think it is also a bit of a familiarity thing. Nino and others have come through the ranks where road position carried over. They learned to perform in that position marine future generations will come up through MTB specific training and find a faster body position through longer reach and higher front end.
I can say I tried the low position when I was younger and it still feels “racier” when I go a spacer lower on my xc bike during race season.
But more often than not, their bikes are just really, very good.
The 2013 Camber Evo? The 2015 Enduro 29? The current Epic and Epic hardtail?
There is a long list of hits.
I would love to ride one. Remember the old days (last year) when bike shops had bikes to sell, and demo bikes?
Stability = confidence. Confidence = speed.
The bigger concerns with geometry changing in the wrong way, at the wrong time, are the reduction in trail and front-centre.
So yes, at the extreme end, fully compressed is a super tiny amount of time, but you do spend a whole lot of time in the 15%-60% travel range.
Ground force is already above average when the suspension is compressed, so traction is intrinsically high. Forces that compress the suspension usually result in the rider's weight shifting forward, increasing weight on the front wheel and reducing the proportion on the rear.
It is particularly detrimental to have the front-centre shorten during pitch compression, such as hitting a large obstacle or a harsh transition.
If there is any situation in which it is beneficial to have additional weight bias on the front wheel, it's during turn initiation. The suspension is minimally compressed at this time, suggesting a more favourable progression of the front-centre may be to lengthen as the suspension is compressed.
So far, we've discussed only the front- and rear-centre lengths and weight bias. Trail is another important issue and the reduction of trail during pitch compression is also detrimental to handling.
i have spent lots of time on an HP dh rig, and while the steady state cornering prowess was fine, it certainly didn't feel as dynamic as lower pivot platforms. i think that was primarily owing to chainstay growth on corner exit - didn't generate the same pop / harder to manual out. certainly was a chunder pig, though.
In many situations, bikes behave more as two separate halves than one whole. During pitch compression, it doesn't matter a great deal what's happening with the rear, so the total wheelbase and the stability of the wheelbase and weight distribution aren't of great importance. The main thing is the front centre and how close the rider's centre of mass gets to the front contact point. Pitch compression is one of the most serious cases to consider for handling, as it is one of the most common precursors to crashes. It's important to maintain front-centre length, maintain trail, and resist front-end dive as much as practical.
Actually, that's the opposite of how the SCW-1's wheel path arcs.
That said, the low-hanging fruit I see for making this test hold a little more water is:
1) get a moving start before the first cone and continue on past the last cone, that way you're at steady state 300W for the entire timed portion of the test without any influence of acceleration or braking at the ends that might mess with the time averaged power that's displayed on your head unit.
2) carry a small pack with adjusted ballast to even out the weight for all bikes. In this case, it looks like the time lost by the Shore was a higher percentage than just its extra heft, so some of that definitely is suspension kinematics. Or don't. This is supposed to be bro science for fun, carrying ballast feels like it's crossing the line into "things road bikers would do" territory.
I love these videos, please keep making them for us in your comparisons.
wait for it,
short bed.
I suppose that correlates to my experience, on my big heavy enduro bike I like to blame the bike for the climb, but really, I think I'm "missing out" on the flatter bits in-between.
Hypothetically....
Regardless, fun test. Wish it was the same course as with the xc/dc, but still fun data to nerd over! Would you say that the difference in tire spec had a big influence between the categories? So many cool areas you could look into for future tests - what about a XC (or insert category here) control bike ? What about XC tires on a enduro bike or vice versa? How many laps until your legs fall off? So many things..
Would also be a great tool for testing the efficiency of different tires.
But obviously controlling for this many variables costs significant time and money, so I'm thankful for what we get.
Thanks PB!
Why nooene hasn’t designed an idler pulley mounted on a cable actuated lever for this sort of design is beyond me, climbing performance would improve dramatically.
Druid fanbois will disapprove of the obvious
So 2 tests - each bike on same 27.5 wheels (since not all can do 29) and on intended wheel size with normalized weight.
Please redo it while you have the bikes
thanks
The spindrift looks like the clear winner of this test to me: 2nd most efficient enduro climber, 2nd quickest on kaz's test, and best value with fully customizable builds (in eu at least).
Also, was there an unfair advantage if he consumed donuts and beverages after the first few bikes? Some of the bikes had bottles on em while some didn't. What was inside them, or were they all empty?
On another note, I haven't watched the video so I don't know the terrain they tasted on. I assumed it would be some kind of a fire road because doing an efficiency test in more difficult terrain gives you a larger error.
PS: I am just the "straight to the facts" type guy, so I don't really enjoy watching videos that are way longer than reading a short text with relevant information.
Guerrilla G ??
NINER?
CANFIELD?
~~
I'm a bike dork and even I have had enough hearing you bike dorks talk about the shores weight. Listen it's not for you, it shouldn't have even been in this field test to be honest. In a year when all sorts of sick edits come out with guys sending that bike into f*cking outer space that will be the reviews people need for that bike.
~~
Alright, back to coffee.
But that being said, the Spindrift is also a big gravity oriented freeride bike that can take a dual crown fork. There isn't much of a reason to consider them incomparable.