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...

kitenski

well the Giant Anthem won BOTY from What mountain bike mag, that's short travel....

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

ExeterSimon

MBR now consider 120mm short travel....when I bought the bike in 2007 that was considered mid travel.

120mm is fine for what I do...trail centres, AM, XC....it's done me well for a couple of years.

I think it's more about how well you ride a bike than how much travel you have.

_Ferret_

150mm is the new 130mm
160mm is the new 140mm

I got my Zesty thinking it might be too much for what I need, now the industry is trying to make me think it's too little...

lm_trek

My Trek fuel ex is only 100mm travel and tbh i have no problems at trail centers or when i go off route! it all depends on the rider, i rode an on-one the other week with 130mm travel and noticed the difference, but i prefer to ride my regular bike!

Don't let the mags bully you into more travel there is no need!!