I ride a canyon spectral with lyrik/superdeluxe and my buddy rides a fezzari signal peak with sid/sid, we ride XC terrain with some roots, rocks, nothing particularly crazy.
Is there a way to tune the XC bike to feel like a buttery trail bike? I don’t use all 160/150mm of travel except on the occasional bigger drop, usually I’m using 60-80mm of actual travel plus about 40mm sag so 120-ish mm in total. The spectral feels great and pedals extremely well even with the shock wide open but it’s a lot of bike so it’s got me wondering if you can have the best of both worlds…lighter weight and a little bit snappier handling in the twisty stuff AND marshmallow soft suspension sucking up everything in sight.
Agreed. It’s a progression through fork styles: a Pike or a Fox 34 would be closest to what you’re asking for (possible to tune pretty soft while being a bit lighter and lower travel than the Lyrik).
OK so let me ask a followup…if you want the soft cushy ride but ride XC is your option a big bike and just live with a little extra weight? We’ve done some testing and even though the squishy bike feels slower it runs just as fast as the firm XC bike.
A lot of it is also about the suspension kinematics of the bike, so it’s not just the suspension tune. XC bikes usually have a lot of anti-squat, meaning a cushy ride will be hard to come by if you’re pedaling.
For “cushy XC” a short travel trail bike with less anti-squat and something like a Fox DPS or Manitou Mara shock with a light tune would be my pick. Pair it with a 130mm Fox 34 and you’ve got close to best of both worlds.
Funny enough I have a bike like this (old Signal Peak before it became a true XC frame) but I’ll probably sell it. It’s nice to have a cushy short travel bike, but since I can have two bikes I’m sticking with a more race-ready bike and a bigger bike for steep and rough terrain.
Well that’s sorta another thing, the signal peak has a fairly large amount of pedal bob, way more than I thought it would have given it’s “super fast XC” oriented ad copy. The spectral, that thing just doesn’t move when pedaling even with the shock wide open. Until you hit something that is….then it just sucks up everything. I get a lot of wallow in the fork out of the saddle but for pedaling….I know this doesn’t make sense…but the spectral seems far superior.
Yeah the new one. We’re both 190-200#’s and in order to limit the sag to 25% the little Sid shock needs a whopping 300psi. It is incredibly cute though.
And yeah the spectral is working super well but it’s quite a bit more travel than I’m using. It makes me wonder…who uses all of that travel? How insanely hard are they hitting stuff?
No, because both forks and dampers are made for different purposes. Like others have said, bike geometry also plays an important role here. In short, what you want doesn’t exist, and doesn’t exist for good reason.
You can get something like a downcountry bike with 120 mm, perhaps 130 mm of travel or a trail bike with 130 mm of travel, which would sit in between the two bikes. They strike different compromises: a downcountry bike is an XC bike with slightly more travel, sometimes a slacker geometry and a beefier fork (e. g. a Fox 34 instead of a Fox 32). A trail bike with “little” travel (at least relatively speaking) approaches this from the trail bike end of things.
Because any design is about managing trade-offs. You cannot have a single car that is a fast, light-weight sports car with sharp handling in some circumstances, a comfortable S-class in others and a pickup truck when you need to. Things like additional sound insulation, massaging seats and a 14-speaker sound system are heavy. A comfortable suspension might be too soft when you really give your car the beans.
Coming back to mountain bikes, among other things, XC forks are optimized for maximizing traction and minimal weight. However, in order to be able to take larger impacts, you want a stiffer fork, which means e. g. wider stanchions. That’s why Fox has several different lines, 32, 34, 36, etc. With an XC bike you also want to maximize pedaling efficiency and create a light design. That is why many of the top-end XC race bikes have only one pivot point and rely on the flex in the frame. Is that as good a suspension as a design with more pivot points? Depends. It is true that XC bikes have become more capable dealing with rough terrain, but they are still “quite harsh” by design. Because that makes them better bikes for their intended task.
Likewise, a trail or enduro bike has beefier brakes to cope with long, sustained descents as well as stronger components. Weight is less important than sturdiness. Indeed, I remember seeing a guy who took his XC pride and joy with a SID carbon to a feature called “The Bomb Crater” in Munich. He broke his fork.
When I read your post, my impression is that your XC mountain bike is too harsh for you and doesn’t provide enough comfort. On the other hand, you don’t want a bike that is too heavy. I’d look into downcountry or light trail bikes (with about 130 mm of travel). Both should be much more versatile than e. g. a thoroughbred race-orientated XC mountain bike or a plush 170 mm trail/enduro bike.
And the news is good: on a trip to Chile a few years ago, I rented a fully decked out Pivot trail bike with 130 mm travel. That thing was spectacularly good. It was better in every respect than my (much older) XC fully. Ok, it was also triple the price I am sure, but still.
Supposedly the Vorsprung Luftkappe and (sort of) the DSD Runt are designed to provide this in a roundabout kind of way.
You’ll never make the XC bike feel the same, but you can change the initial suppleness and play with the mid stroke support to try and find what works best for you.
