Issue link: http://trailridermagazine.uberflip.com/i/215244
slow. However, if you can wring out the XC-F and keep it in the mid-range and beyond, you're going to love it. The transmission on the XC-F has a seemingly tall second gear, but a gearing change to 13/51 alleviated that. What the 13/51 didn't do was provide the bottom end pull I was looking for. It was an improvement but still wasn't what I wanted, and I try to avoid 13/52 gearing on a close ratio transmission. Conversely, the 13/52 works well on the W and is further complimented by different mapping and a weightier flywheel and of course, teh wide ratio transmission. The sum of the parts works extremely well here. I rode my '13 XC-F in a couple of technical rides and races and never felt like I got the most out of it; the terrain was just too technical to ride it in the mid-range. I hardly ever got out of the bottom of the RPM range and struggled to ride the bike effectively. By contrast, I rode it in the faster, open trails of the Hammer Run in New Jersey and had a fantastic time! Similarly, it was outstanding in a grand prix setting. There, I could keep the bike in the mid-range and wring it out, which made both of us happy. We also rode the '14 XC-F 350 after it was re-mapped and fitted with an FMF exhaust system. And while there was an across-the-board improvement in the power, the gains off the bottom weren't as pronounced as I was hoping for. If you can't keep the XC-F wrung out and are forced to live in the bottom of the RPM range, consider the XCF-W with its snappy bottom and torquey motor. An obvious tradeoff is that the XC-F is quicker than the W. Both bikes need to be wrung out to go fast, but the XC-F will always win a corner to corner race with neither one suffering from excessive wheel spin. The new 4CS forks on the XC-F are noticeably stiffer than the closed cartridge ones that preceded them and significantly stiffer than the open cartridge forks on the XCF-W. I wasn't sure if I would be able to ride the new 4CS forks in the rocks without a revalve. We'll find out more next month when we test the new 2014 XC 250. I am an avid fan of the closed cartridge forks and felt like they were very effective in variety of settings in stock trim. I rode them stock at a local rock run to 6th overall and thought they were equally good at the starkly different Hammer Run in South Jersey. For the technical terrain, the open cartridge forks on the W will be the obvious winner now, whereas before the lines were much more blurred. Both shocks work well and were non-issues. Where the XC-F really has the W beat is in agility. The XCF is lighter and its handling is quicker—noticeably quicker. I never once complained about the weight of the XC-F. If I had to spend the day threading the W through tight trees, it would wear me out. There isn't a huge difference in actual weight, but the gyrating mass of W seems a little more pronounced and lends a heavier feel. The XC-F was also a little sharper in the corners. The plusher forks of the W can wallow if you push them hard into corners. They do a fine job soaking up the trail junk though, especially the minor hits. I like the fact that the two 350's are so different, with each one filling a niche. Historically the XC-F was the more versatile bike as it had a better all-around motor. Now the lines are much more clearly defined. Of course, with the new motors on both machines, it would be cool to blur them again. Can you imagine a machine that has the bottom end of the W and the mid range of a XC-F? I sure can—it's called a 300 two-stroke, but that's a whole other can of worms. November 2013 29