>>1803525>>1803533So all MTB marketing is just vague bullshit? What the fuck are you trying to say?
It's gone from normal MTB and DH bikes, and it was obvious which one was which, to XC, trail, enduro and DH. The only thing that seems to happen is they get more "progressive" geometry, which is increasingly bad for anything resembling level, and more travel, like DH bikes but not quite. No one seems to really be able to explain why there are 4 different types of mountain bikes except vaguely describe the kind of racing rules they are meant for.
The question is the fucking question, how much will having an XC bike, what seems closest to a traditional MTB, hold me back compared to whatever the fuck these other categories are?
All I hear is the same fucking non-answer all the bike marketers and idiots say. MORE PROGRESSIVE MORE X-TREEM!!! I'm not racing, I'm not being invited to DH racing. I want to know if an XC bike is really that bad. I don't know why you and the entire bike industry is unable to articulate what the actual differences between MTBs and if they actually make a difference except you have extreme DH bikes optimized for DH racing, and every other kind of bike not really optimized and just some sort of compromise that somehow justifies there being 4 kinds of MTB.
Clearly this is fucking hard because no one seems to actually have an answer for this. All I know is 26" hardtails/rigids are considered inadequate by modern standards and I shouldn't just go buy a used one like I used to have 20+ years ago. It really shouldn't be that fucking hard to explain why XC bikes are noticeably shit and why XYZ MTBs are better for ABC if there's actually some kind of meaningful difference.
