al-onestare":1itflnuo said:
I think we're on the same page, just articulating it differently.
Quite possibly, you're comparing something that could be called a retro XC race bike (as many of them were) with a modern long wheel base trail bike, geared up for mamils (or possibly Middle Aged Men in MX Pajamas) to ride round a trail centre. Whilst actually doing little or nothing more than could easily be achieved on a 20 year old HT.
My evolution of best or race bike has gone from a rigid trek steel in 91 (970 IIRC) via a couple of Raleigh Torus Team bikes (95 and 99), then Scott Scale (2009) and now Canyon Lux 29er, my first XC FS (bought last year) none of them are at all cumbersome or awkward on technical singletrack, as that is what they are built for. None of them were heavy either (for their era anyway) or cumbersome, and gears have barely changed, other than the increasing range at the back, and reducing range at the front (wide range triple, to narrower range triple, to double, single holds no interest for me until they can eliminate the massive ratio steps)
I'm completely uninterested in the marketing drive for everyone to buy long low and slack for "railing the descents", as they are shit at climbing and technical singletrack (unless you have the speed to crash through it), and a pain in the arse to wind up on the fast bits, unless you have gradient on your side.
On the other hand, long low and slack is selling hand over fist. So you are very likely to come across people riding them. Short sharp pointy XC bikes aren't.
