optimum travel for an all round trail bike?

lochussie

I think it's just as important to consider strength. I feel that my 140mm forked hardtail is not stong enough for the stuff I'm starting to do but don't feel especially limited by the travel.

Anonymous

for a regular trail bike, i reckon a relatively slack 120mm bike is about right, tends to be a light build with plenty of strength and enough travel to allow you to tackle rough stuf without being too battered by your bike. mine is under 27lbs but built with a well thought out spec which will allow my 19 odd stone bulk to thump along without any actual skill or ability.

that said, i have a bike with 150mm at the back and 160mm at the front and is very slack indeed but i love to ride it as an xc bike, just feels totally different and although i ride like a coward and it is too much bike for me, (according to the folk who are qualified to decide who can and cant ride what bikes :roll: ) i love it and it makes me very confident. it is more of something i like to own than need to own.

Stuey01

Northwind wrote:

What I want is a short-travel, slacked out, tough as nuts hardtail with a 100mm of very well controlled travel.

Charge Blender?

grantway

I do it mainly in 160

Northwind

Yeah actually, something very like that... Though I think the Blender's size and seat angle pretty much knackers it for me, if they'd make me a 17.5 with a sane seat angle so I didn't end up sitting in a different timezone from the bars, that might just be it. I hadn't thought of the Blender at all.

Hmm. So really what I want is a trail-friendly 4X bike isn't it! That sounds much better than what I said

Whytepeak

The blender ain't that bad with a 400mm post - least I can ride it up to the top lol.

Althouth the seat angle is slack, the top tube is short, so it evens out at an 'almost pedalling height'

Steve_b77

Ive gone form a 160mm front/150mm rear FS that weighed in at around 31lbs to a 130mm front/130mm rear (both adjustable from 90 to 130mm) 27lb FS and to be honest for what & where I ride, Wales, Peaks, Trail centres etc it's way better.

On the other hand my 115mm travel HT rocks for local woods, all dayers, twisty single track etc.

I think the main question here is weight, if you're bike is under 30lbs with a reasonable amount of travel then you're pretty much laffin' and cna ride msot anything you'll come across.

One thing that baffles me is bikes like the Orange ST4, hardly any lighter than the comparable Orange 5, and doesn't feel any different on the ups, just not as good on the downs. why bother?

gezzza

You really do need at least 160mm for riding i can see how you can do it with any less.
Bigger numbers = better its a fact just ask the marketing boys they will tell you.

Suspension is a skills compensator less skill = you need more travel

Unless your at the top of the game matching the pros times you dont need all the travel the marketing boys can sell you.

boogercj

I guess what you need to think about is the old 80/20 rule.

What are you going to be riding 80% of the time? If it's British singletrack, woods, all dayers etc then surely 100mm is ample if you're using you're body to soak any large hits in the right way?

IMO, riding over sketchy stuff with a "short" (I also grew up riding when 85mm travel was pretty radical) travel HT is amazing fun and really good for getting the adrenaline going. Gives you a great sense of achievement and the feeling like you're on the edge of your ability.

Fully rigid anyone? Anyone? 8)

Chaz.Harding

lawman wrote:

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

Feel free to blast me on this, but here goes...

A few of you probably know by now, I ride 7'' full sus, EVERYWHERE. From XC races, to DH races. Yeah, it's overkill for the XC, BUT, I love it. I love having the feeling that I can luanch off a whole host of stuff I wouldn't have been confident enough to do before.

Yeah, that firmly brackets me in the ''over-confident, under-skilled'' rider section. But I don't care. It's enabled me to MASSIVELY push the boundaries of my riding. I now have the confidence, AND skills to do small-ish drops and jumps (up to about 4ft drops, 6-10ft jumps). Nothing massive. But without my current bike, I'd still be scared, taking the 'chicken-runs'.

Giving a poor rider confidence to try more dangerous, more extreme riding, EVEN IF HE'S NOT CAPABLE of completing the move, section etc is GOOD. The bike can bail you out of more errors on your part, enabling you to fine-tune that take-off. Nail that berm-to-jump. Whatever.

Either way, it's opened up whole new, much more exciting avenues in riding that before, I would never have even considered trying. But yes, there is a serious risk of injury... But isn't that present everywhere? Merely riding to the trails could arguably (for some) be considered the most dangerous part of the day, especially you city-based guys. You know, you are more likely to die falling down the stairs putting on trousers, than get struck by lightening? Which is why I'll never let a storm dictate I can't go out riding.

My life is for LIVING. I'm a total adreniline junkie, and I love pushing my limits in everything. From running, to rock-climbing and mountaineering, to MTBing... Everything. So the danger of not-quite being good enough to land that 'knarly' drop, but doing it anyway is what I live for. Yes, my bike often bails me out but I know when it does. So I'll go back and get it right (or even more wrong, and stack (possibly again!)). SO, in my HUMBLE opinion, having bikes that are too 'much', can only be a good thing, if you are willing to push your own limits...!

8)

passout

' I'm a total adreniline junkie, and I love pushing my limits in everything. From running, to rock-climbing and mountaineering, to MTBing... Everything. '

Were you in point break?

Chaz.Harding

passout wrote:

Were you in point break?

Err.... What is point break..? You must remeber, I'm only 21!

boogercj

Haha!

*You gonna jump off or jerk off?*

rhyko7

i think a trail bike is different to a AM bike

i have a 4" trail bike which is perfect for my local south wales Trail centres, however when i ride DH tracks i feel like i could do with another inch or so mostly on the front as the bike feels too twitchy and rough and i cant hit things flat out, i would say that for an all round bike 5-5.5" is best then you can ride pretty much anything on it if you had to have one bike for everything.
i have been considering building up a DH/Free ride bike and lightening my 4" up for XC
i bought a trance and part of me (only a small part) wishes i had gone for the Reign

rhyko7

lawman wrote:

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 crap that says "6" is better than 5". its just a load of bollocks tbh

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

theres riding the dH then theres RIDING THE DH

i have ridden the Cwmcarn DH on a few different bikes, a hard tail, a giant trance 4.2" and a Kona stinky. riding the DH on a hardtail is nothing like riding it on a Stinky.
its like driving a GEE wiz around an F1 track
i dont even bother riding the DH track anymore because after hitting it on the Stinky it just feels slow on my trance-i dont wanna be one of the idiots that dordles down (i wouldnt be dordling compared to most of the captain slow riders that dribble down there tho) but you are not riding the track anywhere near what it is capable of on a HT.
i have more fun on the XC descents than the DH on my trail bike because i feel like im going as quick as is possible or closer to.
basically i think DH is pointless without 5 or more inches of travel because its just so half arsed and cautious. however with that said i think people should learn to ride properly before they jump on high travel bikes on DH courses!
im lucky cos ive been biking since i was 2 lol

lawman

ok maybe ill back down on this point. my opinions are strong and yes you can go faster on a dh track on dh bike than a hardtail but all round you dont need the huge travel. stiffness and geometry maybe an answer. id love to see a 120-140mm fork that weights the same as fox floats, revelations etc but have 34-35mm stanchions and a 15/20mm axle to see if you notice the inch less of travel or the increase in steering precision

i know im probably talking b0llocks but ive had a rough few days so cut me some slack guys :?

grantway

Think your a Law to your own, lawman

lawman

grantway wrote:

Think your a Law to your own, lawman

probably lol im when it comes to bike setup and firmly believe that less is more tbh then again ive done the whole rigid first, then hardtail thing so ive built up the "skills" that supposedly come from it. :shock:

busta gonad

I would say 120-140mm would be optimal for everything in the UK, some say go blast the DH on your 100mm Hardtail this is all fine and dandy, but it is an exercise in survival, getting down in one piece, it's fun and you have a great sense of achievment, but you are not really riding the trail to it's full potential, these guys usually start the conversation, " i have seen attack ships on fire off the constellation of Orion, ridden my Hardtail down Fort William DH "yeah whatever!

lawman

well why not ridde it on a hardtail????? steve peat did in the old days. not sayin im steve peat but it can be done. why is every one so anti-hardtail these days??? a crap rider on a dh bike is not getting the most out of the trail. a good rider on crap bike will get 80-90% out of it.

Anonymous

lawman wrote:

id love to see a 120-140mm fork that weights the same as fox floats, revelations etc but have 34-35mm stanchions and a 15/20mm axle to see if you notice the inch less of travel or the increase in steering precision

What about a Marzovvhi 55 ATA? (you never said anything about reliability, and mine's only exploded once - so far )

busta gonad

Lawman i 'm really not against you with this one believe me, ride whatever you want, i rode the black at Laggan on a hardtail last week, clean on my first run, but boy was i close to the bikes limitations, i'm being pragmatic here, i know it would have been more fun with more travel, on a personal level you know when you have truly "ridden" a trail, rather than been run ragged.

bluechair84

The most rewarding moments you can have on a bike are when you are reaching the absolute limits. I'd say hammering a trail on a cheap Makro bike and finding you've destroyed it by the end is more rewarding than riding a a trail on a DH rig and finding that 'it was rather comfortable'...
Same with a 140mm bike - who ever actually came close to it's limits unless you are a seasoned DHer? I used to have an Intense 5.5 and have gone back to a 140mm HT and I'm not looking back. I pushed the 5.5 sure, but not as much as I push my NS.
The fun isn't in making it easier for yourself, but harder and learning to handle the new challenge.
Still taking 4ft drops by the way.

Anonymous

I have to say that my bike was definitely at it's limits in Chatel, some of the drops were so big, I could feel the frame bending underneath me, so I decided to back it off a bit.
I was also getting bucked around badly at high speed, as the short suspension just couldn't control the beating from the trail.
But I've not found any "trails" in the UK (yet) that actually take it to it's limits.
However, I did learn the ropes, so to speak, on a rigid, and rode pretty much the same trails that I do now, so I learnt to absorb the vast majority of hits with my arms and legs - which probably helps me cope with short travel suspension better than someone who just jumped straight onto a full suss.
I don't mean to belittle anyone here who's never ridden a rigid, please don;t take that previous comment the wrong way, I just think that I probably find any suspension at all a luxury over what I started out with.

bluechair84

yeehaamcgee wrote:

However, I did learn the ropes, so to speak, on a rigid, and rode pretty much the same trails that I do now, so I learnt to absorb the vast majority of hits with my arms and legs

Everyone should start out on a cro-moly cheap as chips bike, it's the bread and butter of our sport - everything, absolutly every advance or evolution is designed to make riding easier for you these days including the incremental '10mm suss uppage'. If you didn't start here you're not a real MBer and probably lack the skills of anyone who does have this background. Get to ASDA, get a crapper, and get practising!

Anonymous

I would't go that far, bluechair

Anonymous

I got two bikes,, one hardtail with 130mm up front, and one full sus with 120mm up front. 1st one is coil, 2nd one is air. I prefer the one with 120mm up front to be honest.

so 100-130mm is probably best, but it depends on what you feel comfortable with.

CycloRos

I don't think it's as simple as defining a travel length as optimal, it's the whole package in my opinion.

It appears to me that the increase in travel is a result of frames and componentry getting lighter over the years, meaning a full suss 120mm from 6 years ago probably weighs about the same as most 160mm bikes these days.

More travel at the end of the day does let the rider get away with more but won't neccessarily make it more fun! So the answer for to the optimal travel question is kind of irrelevant...

bluechair84

I've seen plenty of people who are jumping on the MB bandwagon, buying into the sport. Used to live with a guy who rode a Whyte 46 and he couldn't 'ride' in a manner that befitted a 6" travel bike, but it made him feel good. They lack a lot of the basics and they haven't developed an ability to really use those kind of bikes. As someone else in this thread said, these bikes allow you to do more than you are capable of handling - and watching this guy ride was cringe-worthy. He only survived hurting himself for how slow he rode!
I agree with others who have said that these bikes give you a false sense of achievement which can be dangerous.
That's why I think everyone should start on a crapper - you learn the important stuff here.

yoohoo999

sheepsteeth wrote:

that said, i have a bike with 150mm at the back and 160mm at the front and is very slack indeed

that's exactly the same set up I have on my trail bike.

to be honest, it really does depend on WHERE you are riding and WHAT type of riding style you have.

If I spent most of my time in an up and down, swooping singletrack area where I wanted the feel of all round crusing around, I would probably have gone for something shorter and lighter.

However, the truth is that I spend more time descending, hacking around, trying to hit things too fast and generally looking for the toughest way through things. For this reason, my current steed works well.

That said, the actual suspension giving you this travel has as much to do with it as anything else.

I'm running a Fox RP23 at the rear and Fox 36's up front. I reckon they would easily compete on the uphills with a shorter travel, but lesser specced pairing.

The RP23 is an absolutley amazing piece of kit. 5.5" of fantastically adjustable and responsive travel for about 150 grams. 36's are also amazing. I've ridden a lot of forks over the years but 36's just work.