I still can't come to terms with a 14kg "short travel" trail bike. Perhaps my old XC weight weenie tendencies will never die, but it's just so puzzling that despite all the advancements in materials and manufacturing technology, mountain bikes just keep getting heavier. Yes, I appreciate that a trail bike of 2025 is vastly superior to one from 2015, but I'm still not buying it. As a point of comparison, my current powder touring skis are roughly 20% lighter than the previous pair they replaced AND they ski better AND they cost roughly the same in inflation adjusted dollars. To continue the analogy, I've observed many "bro brah, I don't care about light skis. I just want to SHRED" folks swap their heavy planks for proper lightweight AT gear after realizing how much hauling 5kg on each foot up a skintrack really sucks. Why aren't (non-electrified) mountain bikers more eager to ride something that is more pleasurable to pedal uphill and on rolling terrain? I recall RC writing an op ed about his ages ago and think he was onto something. Funny how we've just normalized 1200g "trail" tires and 3kg carbon frames instead.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the enduro trend of a few years ago where seemingly everyone suddenly felt it appropriate to ride massive 170 mm-travel machines everywhere. That pendulum has thankfully swung back toward the center, but I think the idea persists that people mostly just endure the uphills so they can enjoy the downhills. If you adopt that philosophy, it's pretty easy to see why bikes are still relatively heavy since the truly lightweight stuff often just can't handle that level of abuse.
My everyday MTB stable consists of two bikes: a Rocky Mountain Element Carbon that I've gotten down to about 11.3 kg (25 lb), and a Pivot Switchblade that's closer to 14.5 kg (32 lb). The Pivot obviously is a better descender, but the reality is my Rocky Mountain can easily tackle nearly all of the trails I ride regularly with just a bit more care and it's certainly way more fun to pedal.
That all said, depending on what your local trails are like, don't knock the 14 kg short-travel trail bike until you've tried it! I've also owned an Evil Following and Pivot Trail 429. Both have just 120 mm of travel out back, but between the more DH-oriented geometry and the burlier frames and tires I ran, both were remarkably capable even out in places like Moab. There's no substitute for travel, but if you at least have the "right" geometry and tires, a little extra skill can go a long way on the way down while still being a lot more manageable on the way up than a truly bigger bike.
Totally fair points, and I think you're right about how the enduro craze shifted people's mindset on bike weight (to wit, many EWS bikes weigh more than world cup DH bikes.) That said, the biggest trickle down to most users was the evolution of geometry, not the stiffness or burliness of the frame and components. A modern XC bike with a 66 HTA and good suspension kinematics rides amazingly well in all but the rowdiest trails, as you point out. I owned a v1 Hightower in circa 2017 that weighed in at ~14kg (with carbon wheels and sensible tires) and found it to be a total dog unless I was absolutely pinned on steep and rough trails. Fun about 5% of the time, but not a great bike to live with. The Intense Sniper Trail (12kg) and then Epic Evo (11kg) that replaced it in the following years arguably have more refined geometry and suspension, but are lively and nimble on the many long climbs and alpine trails I regularly ride. As a corollary, I recall you are a Fiesta ST owner (alas, I sold mine last May...) That car is great because it is light, nimble, rotates like a champ, and won't get you in too much trouble with 200bhp. It seems like today's mountain bikers are riding the equivalent of a 911 Turbo S, but lack the skill or terrain to ever get it out of 3rd gear. I often wonder if these same riders had the chance to ride a modern lightweight bike with good geometry if their preferences might change.
Yep, which is exactly why I bought that Rocky Mountain. It's nearly as light as a pure XC racer, but the geometry lets me ride it like a much bigger bike depending on how I have it outfitted.
I think another issue is people often buy stuff based on how they think they *might* use it someday, not how they're *actually* going to use it day-to-day. It's why we see lifted Broncos and Tacomas and whatnot that almost never see anything but pavement. Those people probably know those vehicles aren't ideally suited for what they do on a daily basis, but they also don't want to be limited on the handful of instances where they might need that additional capability (let's not get into image vs. reality), and good bikes are too expensive for most people to have more than one at any given time.
And great analogy with the cars. Totally with you on that one. Still have my FiST, thankfully!
I run Magura MT7 SLs myself, but I've also liked Shimano XTR (but got tired of the intermittently leaky pistons). On my longer-travel bikes, I prefer Hayes Dominions.
Just got a set of Formula Cura SLs in for test, too, so we'll see how those go.
I own this bike and love it, you nailed it on the pros and cons, I just wish it was lighter especially as I take an XL frame. Was thinking of trying a 50mm stem now you talked me into it
I still can't come to terms with a 14kg "short travel" trail bike. Perhaps my old XC weight weenie tendencies will never die, but it's just so puzzling that despite all the advancements in materials and manufacturing technology, mountain bikes just keep getting heavier. Yes, I appreciate that a trail bike of 2025 is vastly superior to one from 2015, but I'm still not buying it. As a point of comparison, my current powder touring skis are roughly 20% lighter than the previous pair they replaced AND they ski better AND they cost roughly the same in inflation adjusted dollars. To continue the analogy, I've observed many "bro brah, I don't care about light skis. I just want to SHRED" folks swap their heavy planks for proper lightweight AT gear after realizing how much hauling 5kg on each foot up a skintrack really sucks. Why aren't (non-electrified) mountain bikers more eager to ride something that is more pleasurable to pedal uphill and on rolling terrain? I recall RC writing an op ed about his ages ago and think he was onto something. Funny how we've just normalized 1200g "trail" tires and 3kg carbon frames instead.
That is a *great* question.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the enduro trend of a few years ago where seemingly everyone suddenly felt it appropriate to ride massive 170 mm-travel machines everywhere. That pendulum has thankfully swung back toward the center, but I think the idea persists that people mostly just endure the uphills so they can enjoy the downhills. If you adopt that philosophy, it's pretty easy to see why bikes are still relatively heavy since the truly lightweight stuff often just can't handle that level of abuse.
My everyday MTB stable consists of two bikes: a Rocky Mountain Element Carbon that I've gotten down to about 11.3 kg (25 lb), and a Pivot Switchblade that's closer to 14.5 kg (32 lb). The Pivot obviously is a better descender, but the reality is my Rocky Mountain can easily tackle nearly all of the trails I ride regularly with just a bit more care and it's certainly way more fun to pedal.
That all said, depending on what your local trails are like, don't knock the 14 kg short-travel trail bike until you've tried it! I've also owned an Evil Following and Pivot Trail 429. Both have just 120 mm of travel out back, but between the more DH-oriented geometry and the burlier frames and tires I ran, both were remarkably capable even out in places like Moab. There's no substitute for travel, but if you at least have the "right" geometry and tires, a little extra skill can go a long way on the way down while still being a lot more manageable on the way up than a truly bigger bike.
Totally fair points, and I think you're right about how the enduro craze shifted people's mindset on bike weight (to wit, many EWS bikes weigh more than world cup DH bikes.) That said, the biggest trickle down to most users was the evolution of geometry, not the stiffness or burliness of the frame and components. A modern XC bike with a 66 HTA and good suspension kinematics rides amazingly well in all but the rowdiest trails, as you point out. I owned a v1 Hightower in circa 2017 that weighed in at ~14kg (with carbon wheels and sensible tires) and found it to be a total dog unless I was absolutely pinned on steep and rough trails. Fun about 5% of the time, but not a great bike to live with. The Intense Sniper Trail (12kg) and then Epic Evo (11kg) that replaced it in the following years arguably have more refined geometry and suspension, but are lively and nimble on the many long climbs and alpine trails I regularly ride. As a corollary, I recall you are a Fiesta ST owner (alas, I sold mine last May...) That car is great because it is light, nimble, rotates like a champ, and won't get you in too much trouble with 200bhp. It seems like today's mountain bikers are riding the equivalent of a 911 Turbo S, but lack the skill or terrain to ever get it out of 3rd gear. I often wonder if these same riders had the chance to ride a modern lightweight bike with good geometry if their preferences might change.
Yep, which is exactly why I bought that Rocky Mountain. It's nearly as light as a pure XC racer, but the geometry lets me ride it like a much bigger bike depending on how I have it outfitted.
I think another issue is people often buy stuff based on how they think they *might* use it someday, not how they're *actually* going to use it day-to-day. It's why we see lifted Broncos and Tacomas and whatnot that almost never see anything but pavement. Those people probably know those vehicles aren't ideally suited for what they do on a daily basis, but they also don't want to be limited on the handful of instances where they might need that additional capability (let's not get into image vs. reality), and good bikes are too expensive for most people to have more than one at any given time.
And great analogy with the cars. Totally with you on that one. Still have my FiST, thankfully!
Great write up! What is your preferred XC brake since the levels aren’t good?
I run Magura MT7 SLs myself, but I've also liked Shimano XTR (but got tired of the intermittently leaky pistons). On my longer-travel bikes, I prefer Hayes Dominions.
Just got a set of Formula Cura SLs in for test, too, so we'll see how those go.
I own this bike and love it, you nailed it on the pros and cons, I just wish it was lighter especially as I take an XL frame. Was thinking of trying a 50mm stem now you talked me into it
Definitely give it a shot! Thankfully conventional stems like that are easy to swap and relatively inexpensive.