Weight versus travel - Help please

Wacky Racer

Hi all. I decided to start a new topic as my original questions have moved on a little.

I currently ride a Kona Blast Hardtail, which is great for general easier trail riding and my local bridle paths, robust, never breaks down, great brakes and decent forks, and has got me back into the game. However, to tackle some of the harder trails I feel the need to go full-suss.

I want something which is as good going up as going down, so not too heavy. I am not really into bigger jumps or throwing myself off mountains. I had looked at the 07/08 models as the spec isn't much different to 09 models but I can get more for my money. £1K doesn't buy much of an 09 bike, but I can get the equivalent of a £1.5K bike if I buy last years model. I do like the Iron Horse range, but have no experience of the DW link, so would be interested to hear from anyone who has, although every review seems good.

I have looked at Iron Horse MKIII Sport - Mk3 - 2007 which has 140mm front forks, and the 08 model has 130mm. I love the look and spec of the 6 point 4, which has 160mm, but seems heavy compared to the rest which may hamper my climbs (or am I wrong?). The 08 Azure expert on the other hand is much lighter and well specced but only has 100mm front forks.

I guess my dilemna is weight versus travel, which is probably where I am looking for advice. Do I need more travel and sod the weight, or should I keep the bike light and make do with less travel? Or is there a happy medium?

.blitz

Wacky Racer wrote:

Do I need more travel and sod the weight, or should I keep the bike light and make do with less travel? Or is there a happy medium?

My Proflex 856 has 50mm of travel (on a good day) and weighs about 23 lb; my Cannondale Rize has 130mm of travel and weighs loads more.

The Rize feels much more stable and composed, and carries very little intertia. It's definitely slower on the climbs than the Proflex but it can climb for longer and further. And of course it buries the Proflex on descents and on rough terrain.

I'd say don't get hung up on weight; unless you're racing, a decent trail/AM bike has a lot to offer.

Daz555

It is always a compromise. You sacrifice climbing and snappy trail performance for strength and downhill poise. If you are not into big hits then there is no need to go over 130mm travel in my opinion.

There is also the other 'problem' when it comes to choosing the right bike:

LIGHT, STRONG, CHEAP - pick two.

BoardinBob

You should be aware the Iron Horse is in administration therefore warranty issues will be a problem if they're not rescued by someone else.

If you're not into "bigger jumps or throwing myself off mountains." then 160mm is overkill. In fact 140mm may very well be overkill too.

grumsta

You need to arrange some proper tests of some full suss bikes with a range of different travel.

Personally I found the Pitch a good compromise for the kind of riding I like, sounds like you might want something a little lighter with a bit less travel, but who knows until you try some out.

Phonk7

for that amount of money you could get a giant anthem 2.0 off pauls, not sure if you want that sort of bike though so perhaps this
http://paulscycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b4s1p1741
giant trance 2 2008 for £929 pretty good deal and heres the review for a 2007 version of the trance 2
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... 2-07-11697

Phonk7

dang forgot you will be quite alot taller than me so that bike wont fit you sorry =(