Now do the same test in reverse order and present the averages of both days...so you're not comparing your tired run on a slower climber to a fresh run on the fast climber....otherwise the data mainly shows fatigue in time.
Why should he? If you understand the data and what he said, in terms of efficiency the full sus was nearly exactly the same as the ht. Its just a bit more heavy. What do you expect in your test? The full sus magically get lighter?
I would agree more if the difference between the bikes was bigger and the videos conclusion was that enduro bikes still suck for climbs. If he did the video with a propper rest and control tyres, it would likely only prove the same point but with two or three seconds taken off, which is not worth it for an overly commercialised channel like GMBN where this video was likely just subliminal marketing for a sponsor anyway.
Interesting stuff. Lately the difference in climb times between bikes seems to come down to the tires. Love to see the 170mm Canyon in control test with different tires.
I ride a carbon Transition Patrol, 170mm up front, 160mm rear with a coil shock. I never bother using the lock out and I don’t worry too much about how quickly I can climb. The Patrol pedals well, and as a steady climber, I’m happy to stick it in a comfortable gear and just spin my way up the hill. All about the fun of descents for me, with some chilled pedalling in between.
Fantastic video! Honestly wish I saw this before getting my second hardtail. I do some road to get to the trails, so I went hardtail for the efficiency. Turns out I'm not gaining much of that, while also losing the comfort and traction that comes with full sus. Lesson learned!
I find that " Rough fire road" really smooth It would be interesting comparing them in a more technical climb, with steps, big inclination slopes, roots, wet... Places where traction and smooth power transmission are important.
I have to say long travel bikes plus how long they sit at a slack point really makes them harder to point around flat corners - I’ve found I can go fast on my short travel bikes in certain spots cause of how much energy it takes to get around obstacles on the extra long bikes / the shorter travel just snaps through corners like a champ - yes they’re efficient but I think the sweet spot is 140-150 to keep that snappy feel if you go any higher you better hit the big stuff!
I guess be fun, advised 150 or 160 rear travel and 150 to 170 front forks but wanted to get 180 so unsure if drop to just 170 instead, but in future was planning to take on london to brighton
If the bikes weighed the same, had the same tires and drivetrains, the position was set the same, he would achieve exactly same times regardless of suspension settings as long as he kept the same power output. The difference comes with the suspension open (suspecting the lockout stiffens in totally), as that in that moment you are putting your energy not only to the pedals, but also to the compression of the suspension. That results in higher precieved exertion (and with that usually higher heart rate) and therefore you are either not able to hold the same power or you can't hold it for the same time. But even with the suspension open, at the same power output he would get the same time.
It'd be interesting to see how much is suspension and how much is weight by weighting down the hardtail. I'd also like to see a technical climb. On a lot of tech climbs I'll actually open up my shock. Letting the bike absorb the bumps is less work than doing it with my body
Not sure what youre trying to prove if you dont keep the power consistent? The thing you really need for this test is gas analysis, because output power on the bike doesn't measure the input cost on your body.
I did a 40 miler last summer on my 180/170mm Evil Insurgent with coil. On a long ride like that the weight does catch up with you, the XC bikes and even lighter enduro bikes pulled way ahead with similarly fit riders. There is a reason XC racers aren't all on big enduro/freeride bikes. ;)
My engineer friends keep yelling me that the carcass of the tires makes a lot of difference. I’m thinking about getting another pair of tires for the long rides.
I know someone with Trek marlin 7 hard tail that is 13.4kg about and I'm looking to build an enduro next year so not limited where ride and looks sub 12kg but not calculated it fully yet
@@olafkuhnke1202 This is truth, I was running DHF/DHRII and certainly having to turn all that rotating mass didn't help. Had I PLANNED on that 40 miler instead of being talked into it I'd have probably put something lighter on there.
I tought I will keep my upgraded budget hardtail for more climbing intense sessions, then when I recently invested in a full sus, I was amazed how much better I can climb with the new bike, so long story short: waiting for the season to kick in to sell my HT for a better price. My theory is a HT is only measurably efficient when sprinting or when standing up, thats when the shock absorbs your effort the most. But I'm not a pro racer (yet), I do not sprint to the finish line, I usually do my climbing seated. Even then a remote lock/climb mode for the shock would be my choice. And when some rocks are introduced to the wheels the more traction of the full sus is usually more efficient.
Agree: as long as you're seated, modern rear suspension only makes a marginal efficiency difference. However, one thing I like about a hardtail is that it actually encourages making an effort, putting in sprints and trials-ing up technical hurdles. A full-sus encourages staying in the saddle, the climbs are slow and _feel_ even slower, and when you do get out of the saddle then it really does seep power.
Nice work! But more of a casual comparison with some stats involved, then real science ;) Interesting though. Thanks for the upload! :) I run my BMC TE01 (hardtail) for max efficiency on xc type surface/distance, and my Santacruz 5010 for technical stuff (up AND down). Used to do it all on the BMC before i had the SC though; also crazy fun, maybe even a bit more adrenalin (= less confidence/comfort?) on the same 'downhills'! :D
If he were on the same tires, the bikes were the same weight, had the same drivetrains, same CdA etc., he would get absolutely same times regardless of what bike he's riding or what suspension mode he's on had he ridden at the same power. If the lockout totally stiffens the suspension and his riding position was set exactly the same on both bikes, there would be no difference between a hardtail and any full sus. The efficiency difference would first be seen with the suspension open (the run he threw away) - then the precieved exertion (and with that also heart rate) would be higher depending on how effective is the power transfer of that particular bike as part of your effort is put towards compressing the shock, therefore he would either not be able to put down the same power or hold it for the same time. There have been already some experiments done on this topic, if you're interested check out for example Dylan Jawnson here on UA-cam.
The full suspension bike is a mullet. Was the hardball as well? If not he travel rotation circumference difference might explain the quicker time, etc. What say you?
The GCN team did a similar experiment where they matched the same power range across different bikes to show the difference in weight /performance has on output speed. This would be interestring to see against hardtail, short travel bikes and longer travel bikes.
I've got a scott ransom , I ride it everywhere my stumpys become a shed ornament. The ransom just as quick and it makes me trample shit I avoid on the stumpy. Big suss big wheels great for confidence. I ain't into times anymore I'm just riding for fun
I mean, if we're talking about bike parks and that kind of riding they're quite capable, if we're talking about 8h rides with thousands of feet in elevation and a lot of Km to ride, that bike is obviously not going to be as capable and will drag you down quite a lot
Of course you can go back and forth in the video but putting all the numbers next to each other in a tabular format would help a lot. Not just in this comparison but all GMBN is doing.
It can't really be argued that compressing the shocks with every pedal stroke isn't losing efficiency but this could be balanced out by improved traction on rough surfaces in certain situations. Ultimately, like most things, it's a compromise
It's not the travel that matters, but how you use it. Had awful climbers with 100mm, been schooled by 170 agressive hardtails, currently quite happy with 150 fully without ever using lockout
Thinking about getting a new bike. I'm a bit undecided between something like the Spectral (Trail/All Mountain'ish) vs the Torque (enduro'ish). I want it just for having fun, which is a bit relative, so I don't really care about pedaling efficient, but I also suck and I'm not getting any younger, and getting the Torque is defenitely overbiking a bit... Not sure if I still should go for it just because, or if it will be too bad at more mellow stuff... Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
I would like to see the same test done, but! To be fair, add weight to the hardtail so it weighs the same as the full suspension bike, that would eliminate the advantage of a lighter bike, and then focus in on evenly matched weight bikes, one full suspension, one hardtail, which one climbs better.
what does the travel on the suspension to do with how good it is at climbing? it is just suspension, if you have done the sag then it should climb as good as a mtb with less suspension travel, it is the geo and design of the frame/chassis that decides how well a bike climbs and the suspension is there to swallow the terrain.
Last time I started building a bike with "less travel for more XC" I ended up with a 180/178mm Nomad :O The shortest travel bike I own is a 160/140 Shuttle ... and a 150/150 Bronson... Well, the shuttle is an e-bike ... but the Bronson doesn't climb any worse or better than the 170-180mm travel bikes. That said, I climb sitting down and barely stand up. I never use the lock-out and climb in super-granny gears. I have 28t oval paired with a 52t eagle on the rear ... slow but climbs anything ...
The less pedal strokes con the canyon might also be the shorter cranks that canyon usually provides. Don't quote me on that though because I'm unsure, it's just a theory.
I've been hoping we'd see Fox Live Valve on the 38 this year. I think that tech is the possible future with the geo changes and technology I bet in a few years its going to get harder and harder to pick a modern geo trail bike over an enduro trail bike. I'm really find that right now in the emtb area.
@Zangief ☭ I agree entirely, but I should finish my sentence Still love my HT though…for the excuses it provides -why are you slow? Hardtail -why didn’t you do that section? Hardtail -why are you going home early? Hardtail hurts the legs Etc
What tires are on the bikes. I’ve learnt that the carcasses on enduro tires really are slowing you down. I’m not sure how strong that effect is on the way up since you’re quiet slow, but I’m sure there is an influence.
I think the camera might have had an effect in the 2nd run. It would restrict the breathing a little bit compared to no camera. May have saved a couple seconds in the second run without it.
It is interesting. My 2019 capra has 180mm travel and it climbs ok seated but the front end wanders and you certainly lose more effort when standing. Compared to a nukeproof scout it felt way less efficient but i dont know if it was wheel size, 5mm shorter cranks or the fact that it was hardtail. I think the big travel bikes are phasing out the middle ground 150mm travel bikes leave lower travel xc and 150 to 180 "all mountain"
climbing with a set power that could have been repeatable (around 150W) would have provided some clarity. using your perceived effort as the common denominator just created a lot of gray areas. noteworthy that the KJ totals were opposite from what you might expect. total work on the hardtail was 20KJ more than the last run with damper wide open?
Does the nukeproof have 140mm of travel? Plus has a fairly slack headtube angle. Think doing this compared to an xc hardtail would have been a better comparison as they really do fly up hills and it does make a difference what bike you have if you compared full sus to an XC racer like the Cannondale fsi carbon
"science" In my opinion it would have been better if you tried the same avg. Watts in all Runs + made the hardtail as heavy as the torque. Would be a better comparison
I think my FS is faster at climbing than my hardtail, but on your test the climb looked very smooth. After getting used to the FS, the hardtail just feels so rough lol. Still love the hardtail but man you feel every little imperfection.
@@stephangauthier911 100%. I still love my hardtail. I rode that hardtail for years before ever even trying a FS and it felt excellent. Not the best geometry but super capable. After getting a FS though, the hardtail has just never felt the same. The FS is just so buttery smooth, even on the road the hardtail feels rough.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Plus there’s the psychodynamics of a group ride where everyone wants to be at the front of the group, much easier to stand up and sprint on a more efficient bike.
Yeah but his timings were on an uphill stretch so unless you're doing a 6 hour ride up Mt Everest the too don't correlate....oh and during a typical mtb ride you'd also have to figure in the downhill whick in most instances will be faster on a long travel bike.
Im owning a cheap 27,5 emtb hardtail which ive upgraded some parts. Its an awesome bike to ride to work, ride back through the woods. Since im living in the Blackforest, Germany uphills are horrific, so an emtb is dope
Interesting. Making me re-evaluate my choice of a 150mm travel trail bike -- maybe I'll go enduro instead, if the difference in climbing isn't significant and I get that much more travel for gnarly stuff...
the flip side to that is that a 150 traillie is a VERY capable bike. think it comes down to how techy favorite trails are and how much you like distance vs tech. no wrong anwers with 150+ travel!
@@StacyODell gotcha! where i live in the bay area (sf) there's lots of cimbiing and not nearly so many rocks...so i would always opt for less travel, but it sounds like you'd probably wanna opt for more
My 170/150 GT Force 29 Alloy sucks on climbs. Not because of the travel, but because of the weight. That being said it has endless amounts of traction.
The long travel you are pushing higher watts, lower cadences which is gonna fatigue you a lot quicker. Still pretty respectable though, the long travel is probably suited to more people overall.
I'm willing to bet that there is a bike company out there that has built a robot that measures this exact thing. You could then take out all variables and put so many myths to rest. I feel like math would show that if you put the same power into the pedals, you would have the same output for the BIKE. Then you'd have to go through each additional change (tires, drivetrain, suspension, lock out, weight, rolling resistance etc) to see what is causing the real difference.
theoretically the suspension travel would have zero effect to the climbing ability past the 20-50mm that the fork may bob when you pedal, if you have 200mm and 100mm but its only using 40mm of each the only difference is other things like weight and position.
Smaller wheels accelerate faster which will get you up climbs faster, plus lower weight also increases acceleration. The most time spent riding a bike is uphill therefore makes more sense to use 26 wheels. Am i right?
You are ignoring the meaning of the words you are using. Acceleration is change in velocity, or in this case, a change in rotational velocity. A smaller wheel with a lower moment of inertia does indeed accelerate faster when spun. However, it also deccelerates faster. When you hit an obstacle, your wheel will slow down more easily. There is no free energy to be had here. On the other hand, a smaller wheel loses energy through rolling resistance over chunky terrain. Imagine riding a bike over a curb with a wheel that has a radius of double the curb's height. The curb will strike the tyre at 1/4 of its full height, which corresponds to about a 45 degree angle of contact. This means that half the force of the impact will work to slow the bike down, while the other half will work to raise the tyre above the curb. Now imagine you halve the size of the wheel so that the curb reaches halfway up the tyre. Now, it's a head-on collision between two faces. 100% of the force goes into resisting the forward motion of the bike. This is based on trigonometry and vectors, but it's pretty simple to intuitively see and test, and it corresponds strongly with the efficiency of rolling. So no, you're not right. Acceleration has nothing to do with efficiency over an extended period of climbing. It is surely beneficial to have light wheels for their benefits: lower unsprung mass gives improved handling and suspension behavior, and being able to quickly accelerate is useful on technical climbs.
What a test! Seems legit! I think Neil's conclusion is very accurate. Based on a fireroad climb which only lasts 10 minutes. I'm 100% sure the 'results' are transferable to say...big day epics! Thinking about selling my 130mm hardtail for a Torque! Almost as efficient going up en way better down. Sweet.
Wow there’s not much in it to be honest just shows how well Big travel enduro bikes can climb. nowadays can you do this again but with a DH Vs Enduro bike maybe after Christmas you’ve got to work off that turkey Somehow lol
Who buys a big travel long slack bike just for the climbs anyway. We buy them for pure downhill madness & not for the pain & suffering of a climb. My Megatower isn't the fastest up the mountain, but once you get it pointed downhill, it's a different ballgame & if you don't mind waiting for me at the top of the mountain, I don't mind waiting for you at the bottom of the mountain.
They are both long travel bikes as far as the fork is concerned... Try comparing the full suss with 170mm travel to a full suss with 100m (or 120mm) and then you can compare apples to apples.
@@jeffreydzialo I have both and still like full suspension by far for what I usually do.. I only use hard tail for really light trail and riding on the road or in town .
And your comparison is like comparing oranges with mandarins :) The point of this comparison was to see how big the difference is, not to see if there is a difference. D'oh...
#AskGMBN So now go and try pushing the bike up the steepest track to the top vs riding the rideable way up and give us the result. I am extremely Mediocre (hence mediocre videos) and on my local track it takes just over an hour to ride my 18kg bike, 3kg pack and 80 kg bod to the top. The other day I was so exhausted I rode 1/2 the way then pushed up the barely rideable firebreak to the top... stopping a couple of times to overcome the odd stroke... I made it to the top in 50 minutes... better than even when I was (lets not say fit, lets say... less unfit).
Am I the only one who sees the flaw in the logic here? How does pitting a full sus with 170mm travel against a hardtail tell you anything other than the difference between a full sus with 170mm travel.. And a hardtail! Those apples look nothing like those oranges.
This is a terribly done test tbh. You should ideally use the same tires and pedal at the exact same watts. Even better would be to add be to also add weight to the hardtail to make it comparable
As much as I love the channel I do feel you guys are rather brand loyal and also brand disrespect- Scott make fantastic bikes with systems that allow the suspension to be modified on the fly which greatly improves both efficiency and the riding experience yet these bikes are almost never reviewed. I have a Scott strike eride 930 and it’s a great all round bike for my riding needs
What are you talking about? They are not reviewing bikes. They have sponsors and they are proving a point, it shows you have no idea what GMBN is all about 🤦🏽♂️
The funny thing about scott bikes, they are not very efficient even with the lock outs. Scott bikes generally ride like rubbish and the new "genius" is better but still lacks alot of things and they keep ruining their bikes with integration. Scott is not a brand you consider when you want a "proper mtb"
for crying out loud you guys.... PUT THE DATA BESIDE SO WE CAN COMPARE! do you want me to take a freaking picture so i can compare numbers, neil dose not even go into enough detail to get a proper comparison, just lists a bunch off. you always do this and makes these comparisons frustrating to watch.
Now do the same test in reverse order and present the averages of both days...so you're not comparing your tired run on a slower climber to a fresh run on the fast climber....otherwise the data mainly shows fatigue in time.
Nah that’s too much work for him. He’s to busy making excuses for the slower runs.. I disregarded this video and all his opinions.l
Why should he? If you understand the data and what he said, in terms of efficiency the full sus was nearly exactly the same as the ht. Its just a bit more heavy. What do you expect in your test? The full sus magically get lighter?
@@AverageReviewsYT exactly...pointless test shows nothing.
@@gesundheitstips2197 to make the data accurate...not something you'd understand as your brain is happy with a meaningless test.
I would agree more if the difference between the bikes was bigger and the videos conclusion was that enduro bikes still suck for climbs. If he did the video with a propper rest and control tyres, it would likely only prove the same point but with two or three seconds taken off, which is not worth it for an overly commercialised channel like GMBN where this video was likely just subliminal marketing for a sponsor anyway.
Interesting stuff. Lately the difference in climb times between bikes seems to come down to the tires. Love to see the 170mm Canyon in control test with different tires.
Thanks, Glenn! It was so interesting to see how the stats compared between the bikes! 👍
I ride a carbon Transition Patrol, 170mm up front, 160mm rear with a coil shock. I never bother using the lock out and I don’t worry too much about how quickly I can climb. The Patrol pedals well, and as a steady climber, I’m happy to stick it in a comfortable gear and just spin my way up the hill. All about the fun of descents for me, with some chilled pedalling in between.
I like how my Slash climbes too, but the idea is that you will not win an xc race with it.
Fantastic video! Honestly wish I saw this before getting my second hardtail. I do some road to get to the trails, so I went hardtail for the efficiency. Turns out I'm not gaining much of that, while also losing the comfort and traction that comes with full sus. Lesson learned!
I find that " Rough fire road" really smooth
It would be interesting comparing them in a more technical climb, with steps, big inclination slopes, roots, wet... Places where traction and smooth power transmission are important.
agreed, we need a pedal up some tech test short vs long travel !
yeah I came here to say that, like who climbs fire roads on their MTB rides? This is park laps basically
I have to say long travel bikes plus how long they sit at a slack point really makes them harder to point around flat corners - I’ve found I can go fast on my short travel bikes in certain spots cause of how much energy it takes to get around obstacles on the extra long bikes / the shorter travel just snaps through corners like a champ - yes they’re efficient but I think the sweet spot is 140-150 to keep that snappy feel if you go any higher you better hit the big stuff!
I guess be fun, advised 150 or 160 rear travel and 150 to 170 front forks but wanted to get 180 so unsure if drop to just 170 instead, but in future was planning to take on london to brighton
170 is plenty for DH and Enduro I like an even platform so I would stick with the 160 in the back @@mlee6050
If the bikes weighed the same, had the same tires and drivetrains, the position was set the same, he would achieve exactly same times regardless of suspension settings as long as he kept the same power output. The difference comes with the suspension open (suspecting the lockout stiffens in totally), as that in that moment you are putting your energy not only to the pedals, but also to the compression of the suspension. That results in higher precieved exertion (and with that usually higher heart rate) and therefore you are either not able to hold the same power or you can't hold it for the same time. But even with the suspension open, at the same power output he would get the same time.
It'd be interesting to see how much is suspension and how much is weight by weighting down the hardtail. I'd also like to see a technical climb. On a lot of tech climbs I'll actually open up my shock. Letting the bike absorb the bumps is less work than doing it with my body
Us too! It would be interesting to see how they stack up against each other on steep climbs!
Not sure what youre trying to prove if you dont keep the power consistent? The thing you really need for this test is gas analysis, because output power on the bike doesn't measure the input cost on your body.
I did a 40 miler last summer on my 180/170mm Evil Insurgent with coil. On a long ride like that the weight does catch up with you, the XC bikes and even lighter enduro bikes pulled way ahead with similarly fit riders. There is a reason XC racers aren't all on big enduro/freeride bikes. ;)
My engineer friends keep yelling me that the carcass of the tires makes a lot of difference. I’m thinking about getting another pair of tires for the long rides.
I know someone with Trek marlin 7 hard tail that is 13.4kg about and I'm looking to build an enduro next year so not limited where ride and looks sub 12kg but not calculated it fully yet
@@olafkuhnke1202 This is truth, I was running DHF/DHRII and certainly having to turn all that rotating mass didn't help. Had I PLANNED on that 40 miler instead of being talked into it I'd have probably put something lighter on there.
I tought I will keep my upgraded budget hardtail for more climbing intense sessions, then when I recently invested in a full sus, I was amazed how much better I can climb with the new bike, so long story short: waiting for the season to kick in to sell my HT for a better price.
My theory is a HT is only measurably efficient when sprinting or when standing up, thats when the shock absorbs your effort the most.
But I'm not a pro racer (yet), I do not sprint to the finish line, I usually do my climbing seated. Even then a remote lock/climb mode for the shock would be my choice.
And when some rocks are introduced to the wheels the more traction of the full sus is usually more efficient.
Agree: as long as you're seated, modern rear suspension only makes a marginal efficiency difference.
However, one thing I like about a hardtail is that it actually encourages making an effort, putting in sprints and trials-ing up technical hurdles. A full-sus encourages staying in the saddle, the climbs are slow and _feel_ even slower, and when you do get out of the saddle then it really does seep power.
Nice work! But more of a casual comparison with some stats involved, then real science ;)
Interesting though. Thanks for the upload! :)
I run my BMC TE01 (hardtail) for max efficiency on xc type surface/distance, and my Santacruz 5010 for technical stuff (up AND down). Used to do it all on the BMC before i had the SC though; also crazy fun, maybe even a bit more adrenalin (= less confidence/comfort?) on the same 'downhills'! :D
You should do this again, using the same wheel/tire combo. Just for science sake.
If he were on the same tires, the bikes were the same weight, had the same drivetrains, same CdA etc., he would get absolutely same times regardless of what bike he's riding or what suspension mode he's on had he ridden at the same power. If the lockout totally stiffens the suspension and his riding position was set exactly the same on both bikes, there would be no difference between a hardtail and any full sus. The efficiency difference would first be seen with the suspension open (the run he threw away) - then the precieved exertion (and with that also heart rate) would be higher depending on how effective is the power transfer of that particular bike as part of your effort is put towards compressing the shock, therefore he would either not be able to put down the same power or hold it for the same time. There have been already some experiments done on this topic, if you're interested check out for example Dylan Jawnson here on UA-cam.
The full suspension bike is a mullet. Was the hardball as well? If not he travel rotation circumference difference might explain the quicker time, etc. What say you?
Very interesting topic! It would have been more comparable with both 29er and air shock. I hope that you will do it in the future
The distance travels between 27.5" & 29" wheels with same pedal strokes is 406.4435508333 feet.
The GCN team did a similar experiment where they matched the same power range across different bikes to show the difference in weight /performance has on output speed. This would be interestring to see against hardtail, short travel bikes and longer travel bikes.
It's true, current gen enduros are insane. I can climb my 170mm Transition Spire easily enough, not as different as I expected vs a trail-bike.
I've got a scott ransom , I ride it everywhere my stumpys become a shed ornament. The ransom just as quick and it makes me trample shit I avoid on the stumpy. Big suss big wheels great for confidence. I ain't into times anymore I'm just riding for fun
I mean, if we're talking about bike parks and that kind of riding they're quite capable, if we're talking about 8h rides with thousands of feet in elevation and a lot of Km to ride, that bike is obviously not going to be as capable and will drag you down quite a lot
Installation was quick and easy. It doesn't make a whole lot of noise, and it's worth every cent.
i got 150 front and back and rockshox allows you to go lower or higher (max 160mm) by changing the debon air...well worth 25 usd !!!
That's why i like full suspension with lock out system, when you climb if you lock it you climb easy.
super interesting video, i also think that the legs power is what cause the main difference in performance between the riders 😁
Of course you can go back and forth in the video but putting all the numbers next to each other in a tabular format would help a lot. Not just in this comparison but all GMBN is doing.
It can't really be argued that compressing the shocks with every pedal stroke isn't losing efficiency but this could be balanced out by improved traction on rough surfaces in certain situations. Ultimately, like most things, it's a compromise
It's not the travel that matters, but how you use it.
Had awful climbers with 100mm, been schooled by 170 agressive hardtails, currently quite happy with 150 fully without ever using lockout
This is what the ladies tell me.
@@HavokTheorem shouldn't it be what you tell the ladies? Anyway, never judge a lady by her travel
Thinking about getting a new bike. I'm a bit undecided between something like the Spectral (Trail/All Mountain'ish) vs the Torque (enduro'ish). I want it just for having fun, which is a bit relative, so I don't really care about pedaling efficient, but I also suck and I'm not getting any younger, and getting the Torque is defenitely overbiking a bit... Not sure if I still should go for it just because, or if it will be too bad at more mellow stuff... Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Great info Don. Thanks. So, no more trail bike excuses for me on the climbs. 😬
Thanks for watching, Will! Yeah, you can't use that classic anymore! 😂
My carbon Vitus Sommet climbs anything! 🤘
I would like to see the same test done, but! To be fair, add weight to the hardtail so it weighs the same as the full suspension bike, that would eliminate the advantage of a lighter bike, and then focus in on evenly matched weight bikes, one full suspension, one hardtail, which one climbs better.
what does the travel on the suspension to do with how good it is at climbing? it is just suspension, if you have done the sag then it should climb as good as a mtb with less suspension travel, it is the geo and design of the frame/chassis that decides how well a bike climbs and the suspension is there to swallow the terrain.
Pedal bob in the suspension, soaking up power? Doesn’t matter to me either way. I love my longer travel. Rarely hit the lockouts either. Haha
@@jbw5485 bobbing is there on shorter travel suspension either way.
@@Pillokun yeah true. But it’s definitely less. Especially on a hard tail.
Last time I started building a bike with "less travel for more XC" I ended up with a 180/178mm Nomad :O
The shortest travel bike I own is a 160/140 Shuttle ... and a 150/150 Bronson... Well, the shuttle is an e-bike ... but the Bronson doesn't climb any worse or better than the 170-180mm travel bikes.
That said, I climb sitting down and barely stand up.
I never use the lock-out and climb in super-granny gears. I have 28t oval paired with a 52t eagle on the rear ... slow but climbs anything ...
The less pedal strokes con the canyon might also be the shorter cranks that canyon usually provides. Don't quote me on that though because I'm unsure, it's just a theory.
I've been hoping we'd see Fox Live Valve on the 38 this year. I think that tech is the possible future with the geo changes and technology I bet in a few years its going to get harder and harder to pick a modern geo trail bike over an enduro trail bike. I'm really find that right now in the emtb area.
Question
If u riding a dual sus its advisable to lock the rear shock when doing climbs as thats my main struggle
I appreciate the efforts you’re going through to prove that hardtails aren’t all that special.
Still love my HT though
@Zangief ☭ I agree entirely, but I should finish my sentence
Still love my HT though…for the excuses it provides
-why are you slow? Hardtail
-why didn’t you do that section? Hardtail
-why are you going home early? Hardtail hurts the legs
Etc
What tires are on the bikes. I’ve learnt that the carcasses on enduro tires really are slowing you down. I’m not sure how strong that effect is on the way up since you’re quiet slow, but I’m sure there is an influence.
I think the camera might have had an effect in the 2nd run. It would restrict the breathing a little bit compared to no camera. May have saved a couple seconds in the second run without it.
Unless you have COPD, breathing capacity is not a restrictor of cardiovascular performance.
It is interesting. My 2019 capra has 180mm travel and it climbs ok seated but the front end wanders and you certainly lose more effort when standing. Compared to a nukeproof scout it felt way less efficient but i dont know if it was wheel size, 5mm shorter cranks or the fact that it was hardtail. I think the big travel bikes are phasing out the middle ground 150mm travel bikes leave lower travel xc and 150 to 180 "all mountain"
Hi Don, what brand are the knee pads you are using? Regards from Mexico!
I think humanity has hit the pinnacle of absurdly large sunglasses.....
😂😂
climbing with a set power that could have been repeatable (around 150W) would have provided some clarity. using your perceived effort as the common denominator just created a lot of gray areas. noteworthy that the KJ totals were opposite from what you might expect. total work on the hardtail was 20KJ more than the last run with damper wide open?
Does the nukeproof have 140mm of travel? Plus has a fairly slack headtube angle. Think doing this compared to an xc hardtail would have been a better comparison as they really do fly up hills and it does make a difference what bike you have if you compared full sus to an XC racer like the Cannondale fsi carbon
"science"
In my opinion it would have been better if you tried the same avg. Watts in all Runs + made the hardtail as heavy as the torque.
Would be a better comparison
I think my FS is faster at climbing than my hardtail, but on your test the climb looked very smooth. After getting used to the FS, the hardtail just feels so rough lol. Still love the hardtail but man you feel every little imperfection.
I really enjoy how fast and direct a HT is but like you said....oh man when it gets rough it's hard on the body.
@@stephangauthier911 100%. I still love my hardtail. I rode that hardtail for years before ever even trying a FS and it felt excellent. Not the best geometry but super capable. After getting a FS though, the hardtail has just never felt the same. The FS is just so buttery smooth, even on the road the hardtail feels rough.
Great info
Glad it was helpful!
so on a 6 hour ride thats half an hour slower. quite a lot!
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Plus there’s the psychodynamics of a group ride where everyone wants to be at the front of the group, much easier to stand up and sprint on a more efficient bike.
Yeah but his timings were on an uphill stretch so unless you're doing a 6 hour ride up Mt Everest the too don't correlate....oh and during a typical mtb ride you'd also have to figure in the downhill whick in most instances will be faster on a long travel bike.
Yeah cause buying a 170mm suspension bike for six hour uphill rides makes a lot of sense 😑😑
Gareths the kind of guy that rides for six hours uphill....
@@clubdevoiture1618 I did ride up Super Bagneres, Les Arcs etc. On a Proflex 955.
Ibis Ripmo v2 will change your mind. Super efficient
Is the suspension adjustable?
Im owning a cheap 27,5 emtb hardtail which ive upgraded some parts. Its an awesome bike to ride to work, ride back through the woods. Since im living in the Blackforest, Germany uphills are horrific, so an emtb is dope
Great video 😃
Thank you, Anita! 😀
Interesting. Making me re-evaluate my choice of a 150mm travel trail bike -- maybe I'll go enduro instead, if the difference in climbing isn't significant and I get that much more travel for gnarly stuff...
the flip side to that is that a 150 traillie is a VERY capable bike. think it comes down to how techy favorite trails are and how much you like distance vs tech. no wrong anwers with 150+ travel!
@@roonietunes7 I live and ride near Phoenix so between there and Sedona the rides are fairly technical
@@StacyODell gotcha! where i live in the bay area (sf) there's lots of cimbiing and not nearly so many rocks...so i would always opt for less travel, but it sounds like you'd probably wanna opt for more
My 170/150 GT Force 29 Alloy sucks on climbs. Not because of the travel, but because of the weight. That being said it has endless amounts of traction.
The long travel you are pushing higher watts, lower cadences which is gonna fatigue you a lot quicker.
Still pretty respectable though, the long travel is probably suited to more people overall.
Ya it be that way
It is not just about data it’s how you feel on the bike one run on each try 10 runs on each through the day
I'm willing to bet that there is a bike company out there that has built a robot that measures this exact thing. You could then take out all variables and put so many myths to rest. I feel like math would show that if you put the same power into the pedals, you would have the same output for the BIKE. Then you'd have to go through each additional change (tires, drivetrain, suspension, lock out, weight, rolling resistance etc) to see what is causing the real difference.
It doesn't depend on the travel, it depends on the brand. Canyon is rubbish, I still regret the day I ordered one. NEVER EVER CANYON AGAIN
@@zangief1329 try if you are the first person to strangle yourself with your bare hands, then you would at least have some use for science
theoretically the suspension travel would have zero effect to the climbing ability past the 20-50mm that the fork may bob when you pedal, if you have 200mm and 100mm but its only using 40mm of each the only difference is other things like weight and position.
Great video but you need to train more uphill! Those numbers are quite low!
Modern bikes with lockouts it comes down to weight and tires really.
As long as your shock is lockable, no reason to not ride a long travel uphill with the appropriate gearing
Maybe the test cold be repeated adding two kgs on the hardtail
It's not much compared to a 70kg rider.
Actually, it's 175mm rear :)
I wonder what a "watt per mph" average number would look like
Smaller wheels accelerate faster which will get you up climbs faster, plus lower weight also increases acceleration. The most time spent riding a bike is uphill therefore makes more sense to use 26 wheels. Am i right?
Old schools always the winner
Must be the reason why all xc racers ride 26".
Thats why I always get overtaken by BMXers and we both leave the 29" riders behind
You are ignoring the meaning of the words you are using.
Acceleration is change in velocity, or in this case, a change in rotational velocity.
A smaller wheel with a lower moment of inertia does indeed accelerate faster when spun.
However, it also deccelerates faster. When you hit an obstacle, your wheel will slow down more easily.
There is no free energy to be had here.
On the other hand, a smaller wheel loses energy through rolling resistance over chunky terrain.
Imagine riding a bike over a curb with a wheel that has a radius of double the curb's height.
The curb will strike the tyre at 1/4 of its full height, which corresponds to about a 45 degree angle of contact. This means that half the force of the impact will work to slow the bike down, while the other half will work to raise the tyre above the curb.
Now imagine you halve the size of the wheel so that the curb reaches halfway up the tyre. Now, it's a head-on collision between two faces. 100% of the force goes into resisting the forward motion of the bike.
This is based on trigonometry and vectors, but it's pretty simple to intuitively see and test, and it corresponds strongly with the efficiency of rolling.
So no, you're not right. Acceleration has nothing to do with efficiency over an extended period of climbing. It is surely beneficial to have light wheels for their benefits: lower unsprung mass gives improved handling and suspension behavior, and being able to quickly accelerate is useful on technical climbs.
No you are just wrong!
Sadly, you can't measure muscle fatigue. Also air ambience are fresher earliest of the day.
What a test! Seems legit! I think Neil's conclusion is very accurate. Based on a fireroad climb which only lasts 10 minutes. I'm 100% sure the 'results' are transferable to say...big day epics! Thinking about selling my 130mm hardtail for a Torque! Almost as efficient going up en way better down. Sweet.
Wow there’s not much in it to be honest just shows how well Big travel enduro bikes can climb. nowadays can you do this again but with a DH Vs Enduro bike maybe after Christmas you’ve got to work off that turkey Somehow lol
Who buys a big travel long slack bike just for the climbs anyway. We buy them for pure downhill madness & not for the pain & suffering of a climb. My Megatower isn't the fastest up the mountain, but once you get it pointed downhill, it's a different ballgame & if you don't mind waiting for me at the top of the mountain, I don't mind waiting for you at the bottom of the mountain.
E=MC2
I feel like the only way to do this test accurately would be to do the test between a couple of days. He’s obviously gassed after that first climb.
Get elliot heap on a vintage dh bike
Love this data
They are both long travel bikes as far as the fork is concerned... Try comparing the full suss with 170mm travel to a full suss with 100m (or 120mm) and then you can compare apples to apples.
Why not compare a short travel canyon that's similar. I don't see how this is a comparison...
I owned a 150mm bike, and sold it because it felt like an absolute slug to use on the trails I ride 90% of the time.
Yeah, sometimes even 150mm can feel too much depending on the sort of trails you ride. 👍
Long travel ebike
Fast up and fast down
Another series and no new episode for previous series. 😢
You need to fix or control for at least one variable…
Hardtail 4life. I ain't wasting my energy. I commute too much
True they are awesome for commuting then hitting the trails on the way home.
Did you watch the video before coming to that conclusion?
Personal preference for my journeys. Not science
@@HavokTheorem have you tried a modern hardtail, before making this comment?
@@jeffreydzialo I have both and still like full suspension by far for what I usually do.. I only use hard tail for really light trail and riding on the road or in town .
Big travel, bad climber? Nah not for me, if you don't make excuses and get on with it. It gets done. 😅
Its like comparing apples and oranges, would have been better comparing a long travel fs vs 120/130 travel fs
And your comparison is like comparing oranges with mandarins :) The point of this comparison was to see how big the difference is, not to see if there is a difference. D'oh...
#AskGMBN So now go and try pushing the bike up the steepest track to the top vs riding the rideable way up and give us the result.
I am extremely Mediocre (hence mediocre videos) and on my local track it takes just over an hour to ride my 18kg bike, 3kg pack and 80 kg bod to the top.
The other day I was so exhausted I rode 1/2 the way then pushed up the barely rideable firebreak to the top... stopping a couple of times to overcome the odd stroke...
I made it to the top in 50 minutes... better than even when I was (lets not say fit, lets say... less unfit).
Am I the only one who sees the flaw in the logic here? How does pitting a full sus with 170mm travel against a hardtail tell you anything other than the difference between a full sus with 170mm travel..
And a hardtail!
Those apples look nothing like those oranges.
Its interesting in it's self especially that they were so close given the difference but not very scientific at all.
Науку подвезли! 😊
Кто с канала Сержа Раскладного перешёл для поддержания оригинального видео - палец вверх.
What 180mm travel,i have a 80mm travel
This is a terribly done test tbh. You should ideally use the same tires and pedal at the exact same watts. Even better would be to add be to also add weight to the hardtail to make it comparable
As much as I love the channel I do feel you guys are rather brand loyal and also brand disrespect- Scott make fantastic bikes with systems that allow the suspension to be modified on the fly which greatly improves both efficiency and the riding experience yet these bikes are almost never reviewed.
I have a Scott strike eride 930 and it’s a great all round bike for my riding needs
GMBN isn’t really a bike review channel? Bike Radar, Guy Kesteven are more about reviews.
You must have zero idea how business works. They are not doing this for charity.
What are you talking about? They are not reviewing bikes. They have sponsors and they are proving a point, it shows you have no idea what GMBN is all about 🤦🏽♂️
The funny thing about scott bikes, they are not very efficient even with the lock outs.
Scott bikes generally ride like rubbish and the new "genius" is better but still lacks alot of things and they keep ruining their bikes with integration.
Scott is not a brand you consider when you want a "proper mtb"
@@MrSupermugen that’s odd as when you look at rider and bikes who have been winning championships Scott bikes are topping lists
Its not efficient...i have a liteville 601 witn 180 mm front...its verry dificult to climb big hills
LOL 😂… slow mo climbing
We prefer going downhill! 😅
for crying out loud you guys.... PUT THE DATA BESIDE SO WE CAN COMPARE! do you want me to take a freaking picture so i can compare numbers, neil dose not even go into enough detail to get a proper comparison, just lists a bunch off. you always do this and makes these comparisons frustrating to watch.
If you like bikes and biking... data and all bs is whatever to me. Go and ride. Old dude talk.