optimum travel for an all round trail bike?

M6TTF

it seems the trend year on year for travel to increase on average 10mm on the latest bikes. 2010 seems to be the year for a minimum of 140mm travel for a 'trail bike' and my fuel ex is now being touted as a 'long travel xc bike' Surely they'll come a point where this trend will stop due to rideability?

just interested in what others think - is it just a marketing ploy to get us all to have the next 'must have' bike...

passout

I'd say 120 to 140mm is ideal, depending on the bike. I used to have 150mm travel bike and found it a bit vague and 'wallowy' for trail riding, especially on the climbs.

cgarossi

Fuel ex is 130 front 120 rear which is more than adequate for anything but the largest of obsticles. Big drop offs, no. Small to medium jumps, yes.

.blitz

In 1996, 50mm travel was pretty 'rad'. There will always be a place for shorter-travel bikes but as suspension travel increases it encourages people to ride bigger and more technical terrain. At the moment there's not much in the UK that actually needs 200mm travel but the time will come.

joshtp

id say 120-140 is perfect, u-turn or similar is a perfect feature. i think longer for HT's, shorter for full sus, so maybee 130-140mm for a HT, 120-130 for a FS

lawman

id say 120-140mm is the opptimum dependant on what you ride. 120 for more xc stuff, 140 if you ride trail centres,all mountain that knda thing. personally though id go 140 anyday haing ridden a few and a think 160 is a tad too much, but 120 is a little limiting. i like the idea of 160mm but for thye uk 140 is much more practical

btw why are there too threads on this :?:

Daz555

100-130mm I'd say.

Chaz.Harding

Oooh, tricky! I'd say 200-250mm is optimal. There's some BIG 6inch kerbs here in Salisbury!

Here's my commuter bike, smaller travel than my XC bike BTW





NOT!

I have a 170mm frame, and 160mm fork. I'd say it's good for me. Maybe a little big, but when I'm out XC-ing, and I spot a sweet drop-off, or super-steep line, I can just go over and do it, and not worry about strength. I must say though, it's my only off-road bike, so i needed something that really does do it all, from DH to XC races.

keeko

You`re never going to get a definative answer mate but thats forums. Magazine move the goalposts every year making you believe your older bike is now `lacking` in some department or now `defunct`. At the end of the day its up to the individual.
An all round trail bike according to most could be anything from an XC hardtail withan 80mm fork to 6 inches front and rear.
My tuppence worth? Whatever you`re happy with. 8)

GHill

Yup, it's all marketing.

I personally believe there's a trend for too much travel, but there's obviously a market for it so what do I know

Naveed

It seems travel goes up each year by 10mm and I'm kind of wondering if we the cycling public are sometimes taken for granted.

Look at the new 2010 stumpy - if you got the 09 model you get the latest suspension design and 120mm of rear travel. For next year, there's not only a brand new suspension redesign but there's 140mm of travel.

That's why I think it's probably better to get an AM bike with 6' travel. That way you kind of negate the differences in travel, as 140mm will soon be 150,160 judging by the way the industry is moving.

A good place to judge the whole travel debate is Downhill legend Nicolas Vouilloz. Nico won 7 DH world championships on a GT bike that had 4 inches of travel, the courses back then may have been more pedaly, but they were every bit as gnarly as the one's you see on Freecaster.

For UK trail riding 140mm of rear bounce is HUGE. 150-160 just gives that incentive to set your bike up for a more DH style and it would also make it a bit more accessible should you wish to go MTB abroad (mega avalanche, Morzine.)

My Giant Trance has got 5' travel and kicks censored . A lot of ride smoothness comes down to technique, not just suspension, just ask Nico.

kitenski

well the 100mm Anthem just won BOTY at What MTB, so maybe the trend is reversing....

Fully

An Orange 5 with adjustable travel forks is all you will ever need in the UK and many other places...

Naveed

Forget your heart, it's your bank i wanna break, it's just yer money i'm after baby...

Chaz.Harding

Naveed wrote:

Forget your heart, it's your bank i wanna break, it's just yer money i'm after baby...

Err... What..? I'm a little confused...

Naveed

Just read a poster's signature and it had me in stitches. Sorry for the confusion.

capoz77

Santa Cruz Heckler and 140'mm all round

llamafarmer

I like to do it with 4 inches!

lawman

better to have 5 or 6 tho, bigger is better

then again i guess it how you use that travel. give peaty a rigid single speed and put you on his v10 and he'd still beat you by miles

Northwind

The thing about travel is that it means you get a lot of changes in geometry... I run my Soul at 130mm mainly for the geometry, not for the travel, but if it dives at all mid-descent- ie, there's a step or obstacle in a steep slope- then it suddenly goes from nicely slack, to a wee bit XC tight. Shorter travel bikes are a bit more stable for that. But, short travel bikes tend to be XC flavoured, meaning lightweight frames and steep angles.

What I want is a short-travel, slacked out, tough as nuts hardtail with a 100mm of very well controlled travel. I think probably the On One Summer Slacker 456 is as close to that as anything out there now but it's not quite right.

joshtp

140 mm is max for uk trail, there is no point in having any more unless you ride DH races or the mega. i recon 120-130mm for a FS, or even a HT for that mater. people often think they need more travel than they do, we all think we are more hardcore than we actually are! most of us would never NEED more than 130mm, i chosse 140mm on my bike, but its a HT so thats OK!

passout

Yeah I agree with the above sentiment.

As somone else said it's as much about geometry as anything else.

I don't think travel will increase much more except for Enduro perhaps and FR & DH. I can't see XC ever going above 130mm on the whole.

We'll probably all be riding SS rigids in 10 years time!

el loco pollo

6 inches or so - you can ride trails all day and still hold your own on uplift days if you want. You only need one bike to do pretty much everything. People who claim this is "too much" for uk riding either need to start riding more difficult trails or ride more aggressively - you can easily get into big trouble on a 6 inch bike in the UK if you push yourself.

I recently went from a 120mm bike to a 160mm and the difference is night and day, new lines have opened up and I can ride faster - sure it's not great on the climbs but climbing sucks anyway Smile I now realise I was artificially limiting my riding by sticking with my 120mm bike, there was some stuff it just could not do.

But if you aren't into that sort of riding there's no point in dragging round the extra weight - if all you're doing is XC and you don't like getting air there's not much point in anything more than 100mm I should think.

I gues the ideal travel amount depends entirely on the rider.

kitenski

el loco pollo wrote:

I now realise I was artificially limiting my riding by sticking with my 120mm bike, there was some stuff it just could not do.

Not having a go at you, but give a world cup downhiller your bike or even a HT and I'm sure they'd do that kinda stuff no problems that you or I would struggle with.

In reality it's a balance between your skill level, what the bike let's you get away with and what you are comfortable with.

Cheers,

Greg

el loco pollo

Sure Kitenski - give Sam Hill a knackered old rigid and he would still beat all of us

When I refer to "artificially limiting" I mean that on my 120mm there was no way I could ever ride any freeride or DH - now I have my 160mm I have ridden Cwmcarn and Gawton already, something the 120mm bike just wasn't set up to do.

So by going bigger I have opened up much more riding!

lawman

el loco pollo, trust me mate you aint limited by the bike, the only limit is yourself. travel helps but at the end of the day its the cofidense the rider has that makes the biggest difference. a 120mm FS bike will do cwncarn easy. no probs and i know this because a) a mate has done and b) ive done it on my hardtail. ive also done alll the dh runs at wharncliffe woods and the fort bill dh course on it. with in reason any bike can do anytrail. its just certain bikes are more suited to terrain than others.

basically i think artificially boosting confidencs with more travel is a load of bollocks. i have much more repsect for guys who do the gnarly stuff on hardtails than prats and 6-7" sussers just because they "need" it. the amount of times ive passed 6"sussers on my hardtail makes me laugh tbh. i understand that if you ride in the alps and alot of uplifts a 6" bike makes a certain amount of sense. but seriously 140mm is great everywhere and when i get my next bike, either a meta or a zesty, one iof my firts trips will be the mega to prove the point

marinman1

like people have already said i think its more about the geometry than the travel, i have 100mm fork but very slack angles on my HT and theres not too much i come across that i wouldnt ride, i sometimes think it would be great to have more travel but in reality i think im just being sold by the image. also i definately think that its down to the rider to make the bike work on the trail not the travel

el loco pollo

lawman wrote:

el loco pollo, trust me mate you aint limited by the bike, the only limit is yourself. travel helps but at the end of the day its the cofidense the rider has that makes the biggest difference. a 120mm FS bike will do cwncarn easy. no probs and i know this because a) a mate has done and b) ive done it on my hardtail. ive also done alll the dh runs at wharncliffe woods and the fort bill dh course on it. with in reason any bike can do anytrail. its just certain bikes are more suited to terrain than others.

basically i think artificially boosting confidencs with more travel is a load of bollocks. i have much more repsect for guys who do the gnarly stuff on hardtails than prats and 6-7" sussers just because they "need" it. the amount of times ive passed 6"sussers on my hardtail makes me laugh tbh. i understand that if you ride in the alps and alot of uplifts a 6" bike makes a certain amount of sense. but seriously 140mm is great everywhere and when i get my next bike, either a meta or a zesty, one iof my firts trips will be the mega to prove the point

My points are valid - you can do more on a bike with more travel.

But congratulations, you've ticked all the cliche boxes with that post. It's the same old story every time with people like you. "I can do everything on my hardtail or whatever, anyone with a bigger (read better) bike than me is a censored "

:roll:

lawman

no thats not my point

my point is i think alot of people out there are overbiked for what the terrain they ride. why carry the extra weight and all the extra travel if you dont need it. and to be fair iwas one of the so called "tossers" who thought they needed a 6" bike. then i rode one and knew instantly that it was too heavy and wallowy for me.

i agree you can do more, but it all depends on what the majority of what you ride is. a dh bike is gonna be no good for xc for example, but its still do able. just like you can do dh courses on a hardtail. its bloody hard but you can do it. i just dont see why so many people are drawn in by marketing censored that says "6" is better than 5". its just a load of bollocks tbh

and thanks for the steroetyped hardtail censored tag. ...... not

lawman

btw i dint mean to cause offence i just feel that too much travel is bad for riders if they dont really need it. it could lead to an over confident, under skilled rider seriously hurting himself just because he knows his bike can take it often he cant

Northwind

The bottom line is, there's no such thing as optimum travel, different people ride different places, different lines, whole different approaches. Some like the bike to make things a little easier, some prefer the bike to make things harder. It's daft to say anything's "too much for the UK" IMO, because if you set your mind to it you can find riding that'll challenge pretty much anything. And at the same time, this idea that some travel is "too little" is also daft, since even short travel bikes can be made to do amazing things in the right hands.

In short, get what you like and what suits you, and who cares what anyone else thinks. If you're happy to drag around 160mm travel, which you'll most likely only use all of very infrequently, more power to you- and if you prefer a 100mm hardtail that makes some descents a nightmare, nothing wrong with that either.