It needs to be mentioned that to measure suspension efficiency you need to measure body exertion, like heart rate and oxygen, and not crank power. If you're measuring/maintaining your power output at the cranks, you could potentially be using more/less energy to generate the same crank power with an inefficient/efficient suspension design, Peak Torque covered this pretty well.
Well.. me living in the netherlands, I did a couple of timed lapes on Michelin wild enduros 27.5x2.4 vs vittoria barzo's 27.5x2.6. On average flat terrain, say 20 ish kilometers, the vittoria's saved me about 15 mins. around an hour for the enduro tires, and45 mins for the agressive xc tires. same bike, propain tyee.
@@kevinbindervoet3872 ya I imagine the difference is quite drastic, having raced xc and enduro, going back to my enduro tires felt like riding with a boat anchor
Top Fuel rides on XR4 2.4 … do you consider that knobby or not. I would certainly not call those xc tires. Tires are part of the total package. Of course you can swap them out for faster rolling or more grippy tires but at the end of the day there is little point in putting xc tires on downhill focussed bikes or vv.
95% tires, 2% weight of bike, 2% rider induced variation (gearing/cadence, line choice, posture/aero drag, luck, coincidence, error), 1% bike make and model, 0% price of bike. All DC rides were within +/- 2.5% of each other, trail within +/- 1.8% of each other. Trail tires 20% slower than DC tires.
This is one of the few occasions that relative tests have shown the power meters throwing our conclusions off. The power you get to read at the bottom of your feet / on the pedal is not linearly related to your physical exertion ontop. E.g. with just the powermeter you can deduct that open or locked air shock, or even an open coil makes no difference when pedalling uphill, because pedals "read" say 250W on all cases, but you struggle differently achieve those 250W on every case. At a minimum you need to ad heart rate readings, and I would bet the more active suspension platforms would lead to a higher HR for the same wattage, i.e. the body would actually work harder for the same output @ pedals.
This isn't the fault of the power meters. This is the fault of different tires between the DC bikes and the trail bikes. Aside from that, the test is properly controlled, and fixed power at the pedals is the appropriate way to control the test, and the results of the test contradict your criticism, with the Giant indeed expressing a difference in efficiency between the climb and trail damper settings. If the methodology was flawed, you should expect a different result (no difference or opposite difference) for that test. I'm sure that subtlely, the differences in riding position between the different bikes *might* make the controlled power output "feel" easier or harder, but at the end of the day, you're expending the same energy output, and since we *do* get differentiation across the bikes in ways that align with our intuition about how the bikes should stratify based on the qualitative descriptions in the reviews, I don't see a reason to doubt the accuracy of the results.
@@thatspsychotic I don't disagree that the tires play a huge role and some having "Race XC tires" and others "Minions" will definitely make a difference. Not 20 sec over a 160 sec course, but would make a notable one. And if those were indeed hardtail bikes with control tires, I would not scrutinize it much, but since there are the aforementioned tests, both from a "lab" study referenced in Dylan's YT channel and tried - for proof of concept - by Peak Torque in real-world and are more elaborate than that PinkBike performed (control (same) tires, way more repetitions etc), I would not trust pinkbike's specific test - or your opinion - over the more elaborate findings. Also, on the Giant with and w/o LiveValve, they timed 163 sec with and 165 sec without. This is 0.98% difference for those counting, and for a real-world, loosely controlled course test, probably well within the expected deviation. I doubt you would get less than 2sec spread consistently running the same bike up and down ten times without changing any settings. Thus you do MANY repetitions and you iron out/normalize results in tests that want to hold to the most basic scrutiny. Would not make the best bikes in this PB test challenge the results of the slower ones, but differences of a few seconds up or down are negligible IMHO. Yes, the power meters don't lie, but if you read my initial comment, I never claimed the opposite. I also see no validity in the thinking "I will test everything with open shock, even tho some bikes come with remote lockout lever in the cockpit". You are clearly tailoring the test to favor some bikes, by using others outside what their design and marketing aimed for. I am not calling for a "double blind" test, but please, that is just too basic. In the past, they did at least have control tires, now it seems they don't even try. This was the least informative video of this series IMHO. At least in the others, they were recognizing their subjectivity. Here, trying to imply being objective, is what "ruins" it.
Bingo! This is the correct answer, and why they kept feeling like "a bike should be faster, but clock is the clock". Power at the pedal is half the story.
Thanks for the generous serving of dry humour in the wet season. Kudos also to the production team behind the scenes. Henry has hit his stride as a presenter. He could run an entertaining comparison of the speeds various paints require to dry.
I'm guessing that for the trail bikes, the sticky MaxxGrip Assegai/DHRII tires are the reason for the (much) slower times. They are great tires for the PNW wet roots and stuff (I'm in the Seattle area) but boy, they are slow rolling tires compared to even the MaxxTerra versions, much less a Schwalbe or a Maxxis Rekon.
I believe that there are far too many variables involved (components, line choice, ect.)to make a viable conclusion but still very interesting to watch!!!!🤓🤘
This has got to be significantly implicated by the difference in tires between the DC bikes and the trail bikes. Perhaps the efficiency test should use the same control tires even across all genres, since the ideal behind the control tires is to eliminate the impact of tire choice for comparative purposes.
I think this is the first Pinkbike video where they praised a Trek. Usually when a Trek is on the list they just say “it rides like a Trek but it’s not a Santa Cruz”.
Would be interesting to see the results if you alternated between the two types. Can't help to wonder if there was some unintentional bias by lumping them together. Also, wish you would have done the Blur locked out... since I own one ;)
Bike weight would also be a factor. Downcountry would generally be reckoned to be lighter. Maybe as much as 3kg depending on the model. The wheels and tyres alone are 1.1kg heavier on my Trail bike compared to my Downcountry despite them both being carbon.
I wonder how much Henrys "line choice" up the climb adds up. It would be impossible to ride the exact same line on a 15' wide road every time. I imagine that could add up to a a second here and there.
I think the only thing that might add to differential is chain ring count front and back, gear selection, types of chain rings (different types of metal hardness) and chain mfr model and lube, length of the crank arms, how tight the spokes are. Consider if everything was made of elastic cords and you put down 250w's of power and all it did was snap back in place. if we were talking about trucks, the truck with the lowest gear ratio will go faster with less hp than any other truck at the same hp with a taller gear ratio if being taxed (proportionally worked) to the point the results will show so.
Was the Top Fuel a 9.7, 9.8, or 9.9? Isn't there like a 5lb difference between the 9.7 and 9.9. Probably some tire differences too. Likewise, was the Rocky Mountain a C50, C70, or C90?
Take the fastest from each category and swap the tyres, schwalbe on trail bike and maxxis on down county!!! With each category being grouped together so closely I'd assume it's more about tyres than weight/geo/travel???
Important question that really could affect the times with margins as small as this.. Were all drivetrains cleaned and lubed up with the same kind of chainlube?
Why wasn't the IBIS EXIE tested alongside these bikes? On the podcast Mike mentioned that people were complaining about missing "the" IBIS and then said there was no new IBIS to review and something about the Ripley being the only option? Was the EXIE completely forgotten about? When I bought my new Blur it was between that and the EXIE for me. Would be interesting to hear opinions on the new bike, new US based manufacturing, etc.....
I wonder about the time distribution if you did this 50 times on the same bike. There are so many uncontrolled factors at play here that a few seconds can be caused by basically anything.
That was a lot of effort to show that lighter bikes will climb faster than heavier bikes. As for each category, all the times were within a margin of error.
First, the bike might be heavier. It may also force a more upright position, which leads to aerodynamic losses. Better pedalling feel is usually code for “minimal suspension bob”, but that doesn’t tell you much other than the suspension isn’t squashing under pedalling forces. Weight and aerodynamics are likely to dominate the actual times.
In the value bike field test, the Ripley won the efficiency test, which agrees with the sporty pedal feel reported. But the pedal-bob Polygon scored a second behind. In the end I can’t tell what the advice is. It undermines the case for expensive and sophisticated suspension.
@@sivanm2130 in some ways, but the complexity of the suspension is about how you want the bike to ride. How well it climbs on a gravel road is one aspect, but how well it goes up and down technical sections is another. We saw that the Element was the only one from that group to make it up the impossible climb, so how much do we care that it wasn’t the “most efficient” up this one? Even with simple designs, there’s a lot of ways to get them right or wrong. I’ve been riding single-pivot and 4-bar suspensions for a long time, and they’re better now despite having the same fundamental designs as in the past.
Seems a bit silly to not use lockouts (but to use electronic suspension) when both are designed entirely with efficiency in mind and come with the bikes as sold.
Everything functions properly th-cam.com/users/postUgkxHL1v1R3NE5x4KiYfyt8dnQmyNYz7qi5L Nothing was damaged in the box aside from a decal on the fork. The decal was missing a piece of a corner but I ended up peeling them off anyways. Assembly is easy BUT make sure you tune up the derailleurs. Both the front and rear need adjusting. I'd advise going to a bike shop but I opted out and put in 10+ hours with the help of TH-cam. Ended up fraying a shifter cable but all in all I learned from the experience. The Brakes work well but the front caliper needs adjusting or at least mine did because the rotor was rubbing against the pads. Make sure you swap out the seat, grips, and pedals. For the short run you'll be fine though. I've read that this bike isn't built yet for hard trails but I just need it for the city. PA has some of the worst roads and being in a mountain this was a great choice. Worth the investment!
With the same power on the cranks you'll get the same time over the same course. The time differences are consequences of the uneven power from your legs, because you can't be 100 % accurate on the power output. Must say it is very pointless test. You should measure the heart rate at the same power output. And even this is not the proper efficiency test.... It a bit more complicated.
They measure the amount of watts measured with a computer to accurately test the bikes efficiency... They also have the same suspension settings with the same sag, so they should have a pretty accurate test for the bikes.
It's between a verticality and cross-mountain bike. Like what used to be called an all-track bike but with geo more like a rock-county/sender frame. Personally I don't see any advantage over a good old rough-course rig with 150/140mm travel front/rear, otherwise you might as well just step up to the free-duro class. Having said that, there is a we bit of overlap in these categories and you could probably cover every style of mountain biking with just seven or so different bikes.
With trail bikes, the difference between the extremes is 7 seconds. 7 seconds over 190 seconds, giving the Ghost 103,7 % of the time the Raaw achieved. With downcountry bikes, it's 6 seconds (closed livevalve) between the Trek and Giant over 157 seconds, giving the Giant 103,8 % of the Trek's time. What is the accuracy of the pedals? Do you have the average power achieved over the run (was it _THE_ _SAME_ on all bikes?)? Are the brakes aligned properly on all of them? What is the drivetrain like, freshly (equally lubricated)? What happens, if you do multiple runs on each bike? Etc. etc. Are we sure these differences aren't just measuring mistakes?
@@theguy1633 so downhill is the opposite of xc, but down country is pretty much the same as xc? Perhaps we should start boycotting the brands that keep introducing all these BS marketing terms.
A 6th grader could tell you these times are meaningless without doing at least 3 repetitions on each bike, to determine the error bars. I’d guess the differences between bikes would be statistically insignificant (maybe not the ghost).
Disliked the video. Just because the test itself is very flawed. It produces data that is misleading. As already pointed out by other comments - you use different metabolic rate, even if the pedal power is the same. Also not using same control tires for all bikes? At least have like a control bike with both tires.
Henry is quickly becoming my favorite presenter out of all of the MTB media
hard not to love Henry!
Because he's a normal man and not a 1-dimensional industry bro.
Pinkbike looks the right place for him. He looks happy there way more than at Gmbn. I also watch more Pinkbike than Gmbn.
He was my stand out favourite at GMBN I was gutted when he left
@@finroddd nah, he looked just as happy over there.
It needs to be mentioned that to measure suspension efficiency you need to measure body exertion, like heart rate and oxygen, and not crank power. If you're measuring/maintaining your power output at the cranks, you could potentially be using more/less energy to generate the same crank power with an inefficient/efficient suspension design, Peak Torque covered this pretty well.
I would be interested to know how much the knobby tires on the trail bikes affected the times when compared to the DC bikes
Well.. me living in the netherlands, I did a couple of timed lapes on Michelin wild enduros 27.5x2.4 vs vittoria barzo's 27.5x2.6. On average flat terrain, say 20 ish kilometers, the vittoria's saved me about 15 mins. around an hour for the enduro tires, and45 mins for the agressive xc tires. same bike, propain tyee.
@@kevinbindervoet3872 ya I imagine the difference is quite drastic, having raced xc and enduro, going back to my enduro tires felt like riding with a boat anchor
You asked THE good question ! This video is useless 🥳
Top Fuel rides on XR4 2.4 … do you consider that knobby or not. I would certainly not call those xc tires. Tires are part of the total package. Of course you can swap them out for faster rolling or more grippy tires but at the end of the day there is little point in putting xc tires on downhill focussed bikes or vv.
95% tires, 2% weight of bike, 2% rider induced variation (gearing/cadence, line choice, posture/aero drag, luck, coincidence, error), 1% bike make and model, 0% price of bike.
All DC rides were within +/- 2.5% of each other, trail within +/- 1.8% of each other.
Trail tires 20% slower than DC tires.
This is one of the few occasions that relative tests have shown the power meters throwing our conclusions off. The power you get to read at the bottom of your feet / on the pedal is not linearly related to your physical exertion ontop. E.g. with just the powermeter you can deduct that open or locked air shock, or even an open coil makes no difference when pedalling uphill, because pedals "read" say 250W on all cases, but you struggle differently achieve those 250W on every case. At a minimum you need to ad heart rate readings, and I would bet the more active suspension platforms would lead to a higher HR for the same wattage, i.e. the body would actually work harder for the same output @ pedals.
Someone else that watches the Peak Torque and coach Dylan channels. :D
@@VincentJGoh Not just these, but of course =)
This isn't the fault of the power meters. This is the fault of different tires between the DC bikes and the trail bikes. Aside from that, the test is properly controlled, and fixed power at the pedals is the appropriate way to control the test, and the results of the test contradict your criticism, with the Giant indeed expressing a difference in efficiency between the climb and trail damper settings. If the methodology was flawed, you should expect a different result (no difference or opposite difference) for that test. I'm sure that subtlely, the differences in riding position between the different bikes *might* make the controlled power output "feel" easier or harder, but at the end of the day, you're expending the same energy output, and since we *do* get differentiation across the bikes in ways that align with our intuition about how the bikes should stratify based on the qualitative descriptions in the reviews, I don't see a reason to doubt the accuracy of the results.
@@thatspsychotic I don't disagree that the tires play a huge role and some having "Race XC tires" and others "Minions" will definitely make a difference. Not 20 sec over a 160 sec course, but would make a notable one.
And if those were indeed hardtail bikes with control tires, I would not scrutinize it much, but since there are the aforementioned tests, both from a "lab" study referenced in Dylan's YT channel and tried - for proof of concept - by Peak Torque in real-world and are more elaborate than that PinkBike performed (control (same) tires, way more repetitions etc), I would not trust pinkbike's specific test - or your opinion - over the more elaborate findings.
Also, on the Giant with and w/o LiveValve, they timed 163 sec with and 165 sec without. This is 0.98% difference for those counting, and for a real-world, loosely controlled course test, probably well within the expected deviation. I doubt you would get less than 2sec spread consistently running the same bike up and down ten times without changing any settings. Thus you do MANY repetitions and you iron out/normalize results in tests that want to hold to the most basic scrutiny.
Would not make the best bikes in this PB test challenge the results of the slower ones, but differences of a few seconds up or down are negligible IMHO.
Yes, the power meters don't lie, but if you read my initial comment, I never claimed the opposite.
I also see no validity in the thinking "I will test everything with open shock, even tho some bikes come with remote lockout lever in the cockpit". You are clearly tailoring the test to favor some bikes, by using others outside what their design and marketing aimed for. I am not calling for a "double blind" test, but please, that is just too basic. In the past, they did at least have control tires, now it seems they don't even try. This was the least informative video of this series IMHO. At least in the others, they were recognizing their subjectivity. Here, trying to imply being objective, is what "ruins" it.
Bingo! This is the correct answer, and why they kept feeling like "a bike should be faster, but clock is the clock". Power at the pedal is half the story.
Thanks for the generous serving of dry humour in the wet season. Kudos also to the production team behind the scenes. Henry has hit his stride as a presenter. He could run an entertaining comparison of the speeds various paints require to dry.
I am loving Henry’s sarcasm. He’s an awesome addition to the pinkbike team.
I'm guessing that for the trail bikes, the sticky MaxxGrip Assegai/DHRII tires are the reason for the (much) slower times. They are great tires for the PNW wet roots and stuff (I'm in the Seattle area) but boy, they are slow rolling tires compared to even the MaxxTerra versions, much less a Schwalbe or a Maxxis Rekon.
they roll pretty good. lol u need mud tires
I believe that there are far too many variables involved (components, line choice, ect.)to make a viable conclusion but still very interesting to watch!!!!🤓🤘
Thanks guys, really helpful and fun to see your videos 🤙🏾
Would have loved to see the fuel ex in the trail bike to compare to the top fuel
Y’all should do an efficiency test on one bike with different tire pressures
I love to see xc a hardtaill and xc full suspension field test
This has got to be significantly implicated by the difference in tires between the DC bikes and the trail bikes. Perhaps the efficiency test should use the same control tires even across all genres, since the ideal behind the control tires is to eliminate the impact of tire choice for comparative purposes.
I think this is the first Pinkbike video where they praised a Trek. Usually when a Trek is on the list they just say “it rides like a Trek but it’s not a Santa Cruz”.
Is Henry the best Pinkbike presenter? Yes, yes he is.
Would be interesting to see the results if you alternated between the two types. Can't help to wonder if there was some unintentional bias by lumping them together. Also, wish you would have done the Blur locked out... since I own one ;)
Damn good cinematography for a vid on gravel road climbs.
Def thought the blur would be most efficient, but not too surprised about the Trek
Massive difference between the categories - down to tyres alone?
That’s a huge part of it. Especially the MaxxGrip compound.
Bike weight would also be a factor. Downcountry would generally be reckoned to be lighter. Maybe as much as 3kg depending on the model. The wheels and tyres alone are 1.1kg heavier on my Trail bike compared to my Downcountry despite them both being carbon.
About 90% is the tire. And then for each 1% of lower system weight (bike+rider) you get 1% faster climbing speed.
I wonder how much Henrys "line choice" up the climb adds up. It would be impossible to ride the exact same line on a 15' wide road every time. I imagine that could add up to a a second here and there.
Can’t imagine giant would be to happy with this series of tests !
That bike is absurd. People will ride anything if they think it makes them faster.
@@sapinva you think the bike is absurd or the live valve?I think it will be a great bike without it
@@lee.j7077 Yes the valve. I'm sure the bike is just fine.
Why don't you ever invite the Scott brand to the party ? Interested in seeing them perform in your testing
I'd like to see the Intense Sniper T included in the test.
I think the only thing that might add to differential is chain ring count front and back, gear selection, types of chain rings (different types of metal hardness) and chain mfr model and lube, length of the crank arms, how tight the spokes are. Consider if everything was made of elastic cords and you put down 250w's of power and all it did was snap back in place. if we were talking about trucks, the truck with the lowest gear ratio will go faster with less hp than any other truck at the same hp with a taller gear ratio if being taxed (proportionally worked) to the point the results will show so.
Was the Top Fuel a 9.7, 9.8, or 9.9? Isn't there like a 5lb difference between the 9.7 and 9.9. Probably some tire differences too. Likewise, was the Rocky Mountain a C50, C70, or C90?
Seeing the thumbnail for this video, you guys should do a comparison test of Vehicle BIKE RACKS! Would love to see that.
Take the fastest from each category and swap the tyres, schwalbe on trail bike and maxxis on down county!!! With each category being grouped together so closely I'd assume it's more about tyres than weight/geo/travel???
Important question that really could affect the times with margins as small as this.. Were all drivetrains cleaned and lubed up with the same kind of chainlube?
Can you test the Pivot Switchblade, the Pivot 429, and trek Fuel EX in the same way?
Mike is clearly attending those meetings remotely.
Song at 7:00?
What bike rack do You use for the truck?
Are some/all of those brakes squeaking?
Why wasn't the IBIS EXIE tested alongside these bikes? On the podcast Mike mentioned that people were complaining about missing "the" IBIS and then said there was no new IBIS to review and something about the Ripley being the only option? Was the EXIE completely forgotten about? When I bought my new Blur it was between that and the EXIE for me. Would be interesting to hear opinions on the new bike, new US based manufacturing, etc.....
Nicely conceived and executed test. Thank you.
lol
i would like to have seen the transition spur in this test?
How does the SCOR feel slow but still be a second off the fastest time?
i wonder the same thing...
It'd also be cool to see a trail hardtail vs downcountry hardtail. See how much the lack of rear suspension makes a difference
Was this the 2022 top fuel?
So downcountry bikes are meant just for gravel roads?
Why not Scott Spark and Scott Genius??
I thought the Ibis Exie was going to win. Wait, it’s more of an XC bike not a down country, right?
What about the Transition Spur??
where’s the bike rack from
Tyres tyres tyres!
(9:32) Mike collecting his bag of excuses as to why he won't give Trek any credit on this challenge as well.
I can’t believe there’s that much difference between xc and trail bike efficiency. Crazy.
You mean between xc and trail tire efficiency. With same tires all bikes would have much smaller differences.
Outro mundo!
Devia tanto ir para a America e viver este mundo!
I Tawt I Taw a Mike Levy. I did, I did taw a Mike Levy.
Do you realize there is about $35,000 dollars, if not more, worth of bikes on the back of that truck? Crazy.
I'd say around 20,000$, but thats still possibly as much as the truck itself!
PIVOT TRAIL 429 Enduro? Non Enduro?
Surprised there is that much difference. Should do a control test with a hard tail. I'd expect another 10 seconds faster.
Why didn't you list actual bike weights as part of the data for consideration???
Yeah, I'd like to spend my weekends sitting-n-spinning' gravel roads, too.😝
I've seen Henry Everest, this should be a breeze for him.
I wonder about the time distribution if you did this 50 times on the same bike. There are so many uncontrolled factors at play here that a few seconds can be caused by basically anything.
No DW Link bikes_
That was a lot of effort to show that lighter bikes will climb faster than heavier bikes. As for each category, all the times were within a margin of error.
How is it possible that bikes feeling great for pedaling are slower?
First, the bike might be heavier. It may also force a more upright position, which leads to aerodynamic losses. Better pedalling feel is usually code for “minimal suspension bob”, but that doesn’t tell you much other than the suspension isn’t squashing under pedalling forces. Weight and aerodynamics are likely to dominate the actual times.
In the value bike field test, the Ripley won the efficiency test, which agrees with the sporty pedal feel reported. But the pedal-bob Polygon scored a second behind. In the end I can’t tell what the advice is. It undermines the case for expensive and sophisticated suspension.
@@sivanm2130 in some ways, but the complexity of the suspension is about how you want the bike to ride. How well it climbs on a gravel road is one aspect, but how well it goes up and down technical sections is another. We saw that the Element was the only one from that group to make it up the impossible climb, so how much do we care that it wasn’t the “most efficient” up this one? Even with simple designs, there’s a lot of ways to get them right or wrong. I’ve been riding single-pivot and 4-bar suspensions for a long time, and they’re better now despite having the same fundamental designs as in the past.
I would be interested
RE: Trek v Rocky-I'm not a statistician, but I played one once in a play; I doubt one second is statistically significant.
Beautiful bikes!!
Why not do it on a completely smooth paved road?
Great fun! Yep I'd also rather be picking up dog 💩 in the rain than be in meetings all day.
So just pick the one you think looks best. I mean, the difference could be explained by going around different puddles each time.
Scott spark 2022 cccc.......!!!??!?!?
Tires and wheels must be the same for any comparison
But surly you have less energy for the last few bikes tested and thus slower time. Interesting test but hard to tell which is the most efficient
If you're putting out the same power, it doesn't matter how tired you are (albeit maybe some other physiological losses like others have mentioned).
Seems a bit silly to not use lockouts (but to use electronic suspension) when both are designed entirely with efficiency in mind and come with the bikes as sold.
@Lala Indeed
So glad I bought a stumpy
Why do so many channels make their intro music and sometimes background music louder than the spoken audio? Please don't do that!
Everything functions properly th-cam.com/users/postUgkxHL1v1R3NE5x4KiYfyt8dnQmyNYz7qi5L Nothing was damaged in the box aside from a decal on the fork. The decal was missing a piece of a corner but I ended up peeling them off anyways. Assembly is easy BUT make sure you tune up the derailleurs. Both the front and rear need adjusting. I'd advise going to a bike shop but I opted out and put in 10+ hours with the help of TH-cam. Ended up fraying a shifter cable but all in all I learned from the experience. The Brakes work well but the front caliper needs adjusting or at least mine did because the rotor was rubbing against the pads. Make sure you swap out the seat, grips, and pedals. For the short run you'll be fine though. I've read that this bike isn't built yet for hard trails but I just need it for the city. PA has some of the worst roads and being in a mountain this was a great choice. Worth the investment!
I didn't realize the difference would be so dramatic in time between the downcountry & trail! interesting
the tires, it makes an insane difference
@@ostankovalex1176 this is the correct answer, don't be fooled by this test.
Did anyone realize there were only 2 carbon bikes in the mix
Downcountry 😂🤣😅😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
With the same power on the cranks you'll get the same time over the same course. The time differences are consequences of the uneven power from your legs, because you can't be 100 % accurate on the power output.
Must say it is very pointless test. You should measure the heart rate at the same power output. And even this is not the proper efficiency test.... It a bit more complicated.
These tests make no sense..Due to fatigue of the person riding and, suspension tuning for each frame..you need a computer/machine to do these tests.
They measure the amount of watts measured with a computer to accurately test the bikes efficiency... They also have the same suspension settings with the same sag, so they should have a pretty accurate test for the bikes.
Probably cause you got tired towards the end of the tests lol
What the hell is a downcountry bike? You all just need to stop
It's between a verticality and cross-mountain bike. Like what used to be called an all-track bike but with geo more like a rock-county/sender frame. Personally I don't see any advantage over a good old rough-course rig with 150/140mm travel front/rear, otherwise you might as well just step up to the free-duro class. Having said that, there is a we bit of overlap in these categories and you could probably cover every style of mountain biking with just seven or so different bikes.
@@2bfrank657 all of my bikes are rigid single speeds. I guess this is just beyond me.
With trail bikes, the difference between the extremes is 7 seconds. 7 seconds over 190 seconds, giving the Ghost 103,7 % of the time the Raaw achieved. With downcountry bikes, it's 6 seconds (closed livevalve) between the Trek and Giant over 157 seconds, giving the Giant 103,8 % of the Trek's time.
What is the accuracy of the pedals? Do you have the average power achieved over the run (was it _THE_ _SAME_ on all bikes?)? Are the brakes aligned properly on all of them? What is the drivetrain like, freshly (equally lubricated)? What happens, if you do multiple runs on each bike? Etc. etc.
Are we sure these differences aren't just measuring mistakes?
That just killed it. Trek sucks!
The Trek Top Fuel, is the surprise of the bunch. Too bad it's super expensive to get a good spec.
L in Levy means Lazy.
Sponsored by Bontrager/Trek, LOL
tires
up country bikes...lol.
Rambling complaining...Hi dog!! My man!! LOL
I don’t understand, how are the trail bikes slower on climbs than DOWNcountry bikes!?
Because downcountry bikes are designed as a XC with an extra for downhill stuff, hence the the name
Downcountry is basically XC
@@theguy1633 so downhill is the opposite of xc, but down country is pretty much the same as xc? Perhaps we should start boycotting the brands that keep introducing all these BS marketing terms.
@@2bfrank657 Downcountry is basically just aggressive XC. Doesn't deserve its own name imo which us what I just call it XC or "Agressive XC"
A 6th grader could tell you these times are meaningless without doing at least 3 repetitions on each bike, to determine the error bars. I’d guess the differences between bikes would be statistically insignificant (maybe not the ghost).
Crap test
series idea: Tuesday Terrible Cases
Disliked the video. Just because the test itself is very flawed. It produces data that is misleading. As already pointed out by other comments - you use different metabolic rate, even if the pedal power is the same.
Also not using same control tires for all bikes? At least have like a control bike with both tires.