For sure, the climb was a fair chunk longer than the descent, and still the more capable bike came out on top. If the descent was longer, or the climb shorter, it could have been even more clear
The lighter bike was definitely more fatiguing to ride, it was bouncing around more up and downhill and needed a lot more focus to stay on line. It is a very fast bike, just not a particularly comfy or relaxing one!
I commend you for honesty in reporting the comparison times. However, to draw any significant performance benefits, particularly inferring substantial improvements , based on a -2 second differential with a sample size of 1 run per setup is not realistic.
Its a fair comment, and I would have loved to have done multiple runs, but in the end we had to go for singles due to the conditions and time constraints.
It's a fair comparison, then you usually don't think about is: with more capable bike you can push harder on the descents, so in a "unfair" test it probally save a lot more time.
Its a 120mm Sid, so the geometry will be slightly different, with more sag though, it is minimal. The difference in stiffness was noticable, the slacker geometry wasn't.
Another crazy niche bike comparison nobody needs. And then you get so many people whinging about the (admittedly ridiculous) cost of new bikes and the industry experts going on about how the bike industry is doomed. Join the dots people ….😅
Cross Country bikes need to start paying attention to aerodynamics as this can increase their average speed over the entire race which can mean making the podium or not making the podium.
Aerodynamics only really come into play at around 40km/h speeds. That rarely happens even in pro XCO races. But more aero design is certainly a selling feature for the masses who are looking for marginal gains while ignoring obvious gains (like losing that beer belly).
I must say i was disapointed with this test is it just me cause that course did not look tech at all and your riding slower than my grandma now wonder xc has such a lame following cyclo cross is more hardcore .
What do you think is the ideal weight for a cross-country bike?
As I don't race XC I ride XC weight isn't that important to me... ;-) But those trails look amazing!!!😍
normally the climb is two times longer than the descent - so the lighter bike has an advantage
Good point and fatigue is a factor too, but not sure if that works in favor of the lighter (efficient) or heavier (relaxing) bike.
For sure, the climb was a fair chunk longer than the descent, and still the more capable bike came out on top. If the descent was longer, or the climb shorter, it could have been even more clear
The lighter bike was definitely more fatiguing to ride, it was bouncing around more up and downhill and needed a lot more focus to stay on line.
It is a very fast bike, just not a particularly comfy or relaxing one!
I commend you for honesty in reporting the comparison times.
However, to draw any significant performance benefits, particularly inferring substantial improvements , based on a -2 second differential with a sample size of 1 run per setup is not realistic.
Its a fair comment, and I would have loved to have done multiple runs, but in the end we had to go for singles due to the conditions and time constraints.
More capable Bmc is almost identical to mine , decided to make mine more trail oriented and I am happy
The frame suits the stiffer fork and wider tyres for sure and it was crying out for a dropper!
It's a fair comparison, then you usually don't think about is: with more capable bike you can push harder on the descents, so in a "unfair" test it probally save a lot more time.
10 kg for full sus and a little under 9kg for hard tail realistically
Not many XC bikes of either description at those weights available at any price
@@shaun1900 My old 26” Scott Spark 10 full suspension bike weighs around 8,1-8,2 kg with the lock pedals.
@@jannep6772 sure it did.
They'd be very light then! Doable for sure, but as said, would cost $$$
@@bikeradar name a 9kg xc dual suspension bike, I can’t think of any
What size S-Works Fastrack did you originally have, 2.2” or 2.35”?
2.2, we wanted to go as list as possible originally!
The Sid was 100 or 120mm? Changeing it doesn't change the geometry of the bike? Or it is the same?
Its a 120mm Sid, so the geometry will be slightly different, with more sag though, it is minimal. The difference in stiffness was noticable, the slacker geometry wasn't.
I'm sure both Loana Lecomte & PFP will ride a Hardtail in the Olympic MTB race......
Be interesting to see!
🔥
The sound of that rear hub was unbearable to listen
It is incredibly loud! We do wish it was a little quieter
Another crazy niche bike comparison nobody needs. And then you get so many people whinging about the (admittedly ridiculous) cost of new bikes and the industry experts going on about how the bike industry is doomed. Join the dots people ….😅
honestly this video was exactly what i was looking for and can help people in choosing of fork for their build porject for instance
Cross Country bikes need to start paying attention to aerodynamics as this can increase their average speed over the entire race which can mean making the podium or not making the podium.
Dont give the bike companies ideas. They dont need many excuses to make bikes even more expensive.
Aerodynamics only really come into play at around 40km/h speeds. That rarely happens even in pro XCO races. But more aero design is certainly a selling feature for the masses who are looking for marginal gains while ignoring obvious gains (like losing that beer belly).
No thanks - leave that nonsense for roadies.....If there is any aero benefit in XC racing, then there's an issue with the course layout.
@newttella1043 .... That's ridiculous any speed over 15kph and a substantial portion of your power out is going to over coming drag.
Nah
I must say i was disapointed with this test is it just me cause that course did not look tech at all and your riding slower than my grandma now wonder xc has such a lame following cyclo cross is more hardcore .