@@bikeradar The bikes seem about right for the new style of courses. Crazy rock gardens and big drops require wider tires and more suspension. I’m a much older rider started on fully rigid 26” wheels and have ridden everything new since the mid eighties. Now I’m back on fully rigid Ti with carbon fork and 29”. I no longer do difficult trails that would require more bike.
PFP apparently prefers manual operation of her suspension..."She likes to decide when she wants to stop the suspension while Tom is used to this electronic system and he likes it a lot." Pinkbike Sarah Moore: Tom Pidcock & Pinarello's MTB Product Team on Developing a Pure XC Race Bike & More.
And its great riders have the choice! Even with something like Flight Attendant though, riders can have completely manual control if they want it, just like a cable lock out
@@bikeradar Are the FA modules repairable if they become faulty or is a direct replacement required? Suntour's Tact system is interesting because they do not require a power meter...but it is very expensive.
I hate having a cable which wont work for a month. In harsh conditions. Constant need to go to the mechanic. Is worse than paying 800 for a rear derailler
Actually pros are complaining about being forced to ride 120mm bikes. Go listen to the Pinkbike interview will Pinarello. Pidcock and PFP said you only need 90mm to win races. The 120mm claim is so the bike industry can sell more bikes to the public. More welcoming to a average riders
@@the.communist But XC bikes today are already as much travel and more capable than trail bikes from 20 years ago, so the entire sport is evolving to longer travel/bigger hit, not just XC.
The other day I saw a concept from arc'teryx with powered pants that help you move your legs. Apparently they boost your legs by 40% and stabilize your knee when walking down hill. Give this like 20-30 years and it could be a game changer for people with disabilities or for older people
I like that the XC courses are more reflective of an average trail riding situation. It requires more than a good set of legs to win a race. What about wireless brakes? I thought the concept was considered a while ago?
The courses have been great in the world cups this year, even if the olympics course didn't match up in terms of technicality. It provided some good racing though! Wireless brakes have been tried, but don't think they'll be mainstream any time soon!
In regard to electronics I don’t mind one bit seeing them being used on race bikes in actual races. It seems like overkill for the avg joe like me and countless others. Electronic shifting does seem to be the future though as you can get into SRAMs for not much more than their mechanical.
Love how all drool over electronics and yet Shimano with their long not updated mechanical XTR has proportionally to use *incomparably* more wins, and how Shimano is the choice of virtually all pros that have the choice of picking their own drivetrain (the rest are team sponsored by SRAM). Also love how Olympic gold was won using Suntour, neither Fox nor Rockshox. Sure it's mostly about the rider but it does raise a good point when it comes to component choice. Also it just shows that 120mm travel and 2.4 tires mean virtually nothing, and are just recent trends that on average to their use (so proportionally, since most use 2.4 now) do NOT win more races. Again, yes it's about the riders, but also some of these riders including Pidcock, intentionally choose 2.2 tires, 100/90mm travel stiff aggro bikes, like it was the case before.
I don't think we can really say one is better than the other on race results and rider/team choices, the riders themselves have a much bigger bearing on who wins. Pidcock has thrown the cat amongst the pidgeons over the last few seasons for sure with his bike setup and of course XTR is still a very very capable drivetrain. Some would possibly argue Tom could have won by more if he'd run more suspension travel and bigger tyre, because he might have a gotten a flat. Maybe Loana Lecomte wouldn't have crashed on the bike she's raced all year rather than a hardtail? The only thing we can definitively say is the riders are incredible athletes and will be fast on whatever bike you put them on!
At 2:16 when saying "the Swedish brand" he was of course referring to Öhlins suspension, and them being Swedish wich is correct. Not BMC. The whole section was about suspension, also mentioning Loïc Bruni being on Öhlins.
Yes, I was referring to Ohlins being Swedish, not BMC, who are indeed based in Switzerland, I've done enough videos on their Twostroke hardtail to know where they come from 😉 And lets keep sweeping generalisations about certain nations supposed intelligence where they belong, to yourself 🙏
I am officially DONE with XC tires. I have lost count of how many Rekons and Aspens I have destroyed on the most mundane of trails. Using Specialized Eliminators, they climb better (yes), they descend better and I'm yet to puncture one.
Looking at this year's amazingly demanding XCO courses, I thought that it might be time to split up XC alltogether in two categories. One that's more on the rough and challenging side, with really challenging technical climbs as well - I'd call it "Trail racing". And a faster, less dangerous category, with allover easier courses. Focusing more on pure endurance and power.
The reality with doing some kind of medium between Enduro and XC is you're never going to have a real balance. The amount of time that can be made on the climbs far exceeds what you can gain on the downhills. If you took a typical EWS event and added just ten minutes of climbing to the event over all stages combined (to say 25% of finish time is climbing), I guarantee the podium riders would all be XC background. When Enduro was first starting and finding its roots, some of the courses actually had brief 60-90 second uphill sections per stage (at least the national races here in USA). The XC background guys cleaned up. Then everyone decided it should be timed gravity only, so they could lure more gravity riders and not XC riders.
Then notion of "trail racing" feels quite accurate. XC is almost beginning to look like early downhill or enduro. Today, the Megavalanche is considered enduro. Incredible, really.
Every product now needs to have microchip so you not be able to fix it or replace it. Tesla started this trend and almost every company is going this direction. In 5 years even tent or sleeping bag will be electronic with app connectivity
@@herculesrockefeller8969 write a letter then.😊 Or ride an unsuspended 26" MTB. 😌 This is the way that vehicules are build today. More complex stuff to make the new stuff look new. Like 1x12 drivetrains. Just cheaper to build bicycles with. And wireless: even cheaper and easier. Also: new stuff does not need to be bought.😉 So: that's the relevance. Everyone can have a opinion. Even you.👋
They could but longer travel = more material which may mean more weight. Cross country can be quite conservative to new trends, so maybe we'll see it in years to come, who knows!
100% BS on XC bikes needing more travel for World Cups. The more travel is so the bike industry can SELL more bikes to average riders Go listen to the Pinkbike interview with Pinarello. Pros are complaining about being forced to ride 120mm bikes They pros don’t need trail bikes
Lmao. As if any of the sponsored XC riders would agree at all with your title if they were to confess in privacy. As long as (mechanical or electronic) parts of whichever brand are minimally reliable and durable, it is solely up to rider to perform. Pidcock and PFP, the Thomus-Maxon riders (Flueckgfinger, Keller) etc with purely mechanical drivetrain beat s**t of other riders almost most of the times. If brands want to sell their products, the best way to convince the market is by doing promotion via influencers who are non-pro riders who benefit from the convenience, not performance of the products in their day to day ride. Don't use athletic performance to convince the market.
Of course, the bikes are a very small part of the equation and the riders will make the biggest difference, as skilled as both Tom and Pauline are, should it be a surprise that two riders who have road-cycling experience won gold on the Paris course? The riders will always be the difference, but there are trends that will be widely adopted for pros and normal riders a like. By the same token, a professional riders needs and/or desires for their bikes are likely very different to the general public, so its swings and roundabouts. Do the brands have the money and resource to make bikes just for the pros?
Funny isn't it? Think of a 100mm x.c. from the early days. Toe straps, canti brakes, skinny bars, steep geometry and elastomer forks. Probably way less capable than a gravel bike of today. Of course 'new' sells. But if the price of these bikes means beginners are put off, the bottom will fall out of the market. Of course, competition organisers could he really brave. Let's have hardtail 'analogue only' race categories...forcing the hands of manufacturers to see what a 100-120mm hardtail is really capable of.
Those were the good old days, or is that just wistful thinking? I don't think beginners will be put off by the cost of high-end bikes, entry level bikes are still very attainable for a lot of people
