Is there any genuine FS XC ebikes?

Eddy Current

100 mW
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
37
So what about any 100/120 FS xc bikes?

All the FS frames are for enduro and sorry i already got a hardtail and I regret it from the day one

I just that I don’t really need 140-160 suspensions 29ers frames are usually HT or enduro like the new Levo

Like the title says: is any genuine FS XC ebike on the market?

Thanks mates
 
The Scott Spark is a 130/120 bike, but Scott classifies them as "XC." The market for 100mm XC bikes seems to be dwindling. The entire industry is moving towards longer travel bikes. The stumpjumper is a 160/150 bike now, used to be 150/150. Canyon Spectral also bumped specs to 160/150 up from 150/150. Trek's new fuel models are also 120/115, bumped up from 100/100. Modern suspension is so plush and sensitive I don't think it makes much sense to limit bikes to 100mm of travel anymore. Wheels are getting bigger and tires wider as well. The market seems to be demanding more comfort.

The racing scene for e-bikes is very limited right now but growing. As organizers create more events, there may be more development in xc e-bikes. As it stands, there isn't much of a need for a lighter, more efficient bike with a motor attached.

130/120 sounds about right as a floor for travel for mtb e-bikes. These bikes are faster and heavier so having 20-30mm of extra travel makes sense.
 
What do the #'s mean, 130/120, 150/150, 100/100 ?

The entire industry is changing, through axles instead of QR, tapered headsets, 1x's, 12spd's = crazy!

formula101 said:
The Scott Spark is a 130/120 bike, but Scott classifies them as "XC." The market for 100mm XC bikes seems to be dwindling. The entire industry is moving towards longer travel bikes. The stumpjumper is a 160/150 bike now, used to be 150/150. Canyon Spectral also bumped specs to 160/150 up from 150/150. Trek's new fuel models are also 120/115, bumped up from 100/100. Modern suspension is so plush and sensitive I don't think it makes much sense to limit bikes to 100mm of travel anymore. Wheels are getting bigger and tires wider as well. The market seems to be demanding more comfort.

The racing scene for e-bikes is very limited right now but growing. As organizers create more events, there may be more development in xc e-bikes. As it stands, there isn't much of a need for a lighter, more efficient bike with a motor attached.

130/120 sounds about right as a floor for travel for mtb e-bikes. These bikes are faster and heavier so having 20-30mm of extra travel makes sense.
 
Eddy Current said:
So what about any 100/120 FS xc bikes?

All the FS frames are for enduro and sorry i already got a hardtail and I regret it from the day one

I just that I don’t really need 140-160 suspensions 29ers frames are usually HT or enduro like the new Levo

Like the title says: is any genuine FS XC ebike on the market?

I think you have an advanced case of marketing bullshite.

Try using the item known as "bicycle".
 
Why a 29er? older bikes with 26" wheels tend to have short travels like you desire. They also more typically have the right sized/shaped dropouts for using a hub motor with.
 
Front rear suspension travel. As in, 130/120 means 130mm front suspension travel, 120 rear.

100mm travel bikes are rare now. 120 seems to be the default minimum.

markz said:
What do the #'s mean, 130/120, 150/150, 100/100 ?

The entire industry is changing, through axles instead of QR, tapered headsets, 1x's, 12spd's = crazy!

formula101 said:
The Scott Spark is a 130/120 bike, but Scott classifies them as "XC." The market for 100mm XC bikes seems to be dwindling. The entire industry is moving towards longer travel bikes. The stumpjumper is a 160/150 bike now, used to be 150/150. Canyon Spectral also bumped specs to 160/150 up from 150/150. Trek's new fuel models are also 120/115, bumped up from 100/100. Modern suspension is so plush and sensitive I don't think it makes much sense to limit bikes to 100mm of travel anymore. Wheels are getting bigger and tires wider as well. The market seems to be demanding more comfort.

The racing scene for e-bikes is very limited right now but growing. As organizers create more events, there may be more development in xc e-bikes. As it stands, there isn't much of a need for a lighter, more efficient bike with a motor attached.

130/120 sounds about right as a floor for travel for mtb e-bikes. These bikes are faster and heavier so having 20-30mm of extra travel makes sense.
 
Eddy Current said:
Tommm said:
Scott spark ($$), Giant anthem ($)

Not true 29er. It can fit 2.35 maybe and roughly ... 2.6 at least on a ebike

It would probably fit 2.6 fine, but, why do you need 2.6 on an xc bike?
 
formula101 said:
Front rear suspension travel. As in, 130/120 means 130mm front suspension travel, 120 rear.

100mm travel bikes are rare now. 120 seems to be the default minimum.

Zero mm of suspension travel is the default minimum, now as always.

I have shortened fork travel by installing longer bushing spacers in both the suspension forks I have used long term. That was relatively easy. I expect that shortening rear suspension travel is even easier and would only require a different length of shock.

Shortening suspension travel in the simplest ways lowers the ride height and ground clearance of the bike, so that must be taken into account.
 
Tommm said:
Eddy Current said:
Tommm said:
Scott spark ($$), Giant anthem ($)

Not true 29er. It can fit 2.35 maybe and roughly ... 2.6 at least on a ebike

It would probably fit 2.6 fine, but, why do you need 2.6 on an xc bike?

I don’t think it fits but answering your question, whit that kind of torque you need wider tires at least in the rear (wich is where it dont fits)
 
Eddy Current said:
Tommm said:
Eddy Current said:
Tommm said:
Scott spark ($$), Giant anthem ($)

Not true 29er. It can fit 2.35 maybe and roughly ... 2.6 at least on a ebike

It would probably fit 2.6 fine, but, why do you need 2.6 on an xc bike?

I don’t think it fits but answering your question, whit that kind of torque you need wider tires at least in the rear (wich is where it dont fits)

Generally you can fit a much fatter 27.5 rear in a bike designed for 29". Many high end bikes come like that from the shop.
 
Chalo said:
formula101 said:
Front rear suspension travel. As in, 130/120 means 130mm front suspension travel, 120 rear.

100mm travel bikes are rare now. 120 seems to be the default minimum.

Zero mm of suspension travel is the default minimum, now as always.

I have shortened fork travel by installing longer bushing spacers in both the suspension forks I have used long term. That was relatively easy. I expect that shortening rear suspension travel is even easier and would only require a different length of shock.

Shortening suspension travel in the simplest ways lowers the ride height and ground clearance of the bike, so that must be taken into account.

Huh?
 
Tommm said:
Generally you can fit a much fatter 27.5 rear in a bike designed for 29". Many high end bikes come like that from the shop.

Yep but a 27.5x2.8 is almost 3 cms shorter than a 29x2.6. You can wear a 3 that’s still 2 cms less and overkill for a FS XC riding on most the terrains

29x2.6 is enough grip/traction/agility in fact is the standard right now, plus are getting slowly doomed

Like i said genuine XC bikes is something exotic only that Haibike is the one I found

And again ebikes make more sense for enduro than xc but there’s plenty of road ebikes wich is even more “cycling” than XC

I think lighter less powerfull systems like Fazua with time will bring more XC ebikes
 
Back
Top