Travel vs category of bike, gone mad or what?

Ryan Jones

I've recently become aware that between my two phases of bikes, that things have progressed a lot, however one thing that really struck me is that some mainstream bikes seem to have extraordinary amounts of travel for the category they are supposed to be filling.

For example a work-mate has a Specialized Stumpjumper FSR which seems to be marketed as a trail bike, yet has a whopping 140mm of travel. Then i read that the Scott Genius MC series are now at 150mm travel, and the latest "all mountain" Genius LT's will be 180mm of travel, just 20mm short of a full on DH Norco :shock:

Now whats the crack with this, bikes now are supposed to be stronger then ever before (ignoring Lapierre's), probably have better suspension technologies than motorbikes, have supposedly tougher parts than ever, yet suddenly we now "need" these huge amounts of travel, why?

ratty2k

Why not?

stubs

I have an mp3 player that can store 13,000 tracks. Doesnt make it a bad mp3 player if I only have about 1,500 tracks which I only really listen to about half.

Chunkers1980

If 1 track = 1 gram then you might think about how many you'd carry - 13 kg or 1.5kgs

supersonic

Marketeers like to appeal to the 'more is better' paradigm, and in many cases it can be - especially when bikes are being produced that are just as light as before. But maybe the same travel could have been made even lighter...

The RS SID is an example of this. Started life as a 60mm fork, is now available double that with bolt through axles available. It makes it look 'better' than before. Most seem to creep up every year

But the short travel bike will not die out, and these things tend to happen in phases. I don't like 6 inch of travel for normal trail work, due to dynamic angle changes.

bennett_346

Chunkers1980 wrote:

If 1 track = 1 gram then you might think about how many you'd carry - 13 kg or 1.5kgs

The difference isnt that extreme in mtb.

These days advances in technology mean you can have longer travel bikes with less weight than short travel bikes from a few years ago. For me, the advantages for outweight the negatives.

Having said that i dont think id ever utilise more than 150mm for my type or riding. Some long travel forks even have travel adjustment, like the TALAS system, meaning they can be suited to more then the intended application.

Chunkers1980

I know was just adding to stubs comment.....

Lighter weight for the same strength and function all other things being equal = more ££££

supersonic

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I know was just adding to stubs comment.....

Lighter weight for the same strength and function all other things being equal = more ££££

I'm not sure that is always the case. I remember the price of forks back in the 90s: and my Zaskar LE retailed at £2600! I suppose it depends on how you look it. I think things naturally get 'better' (in some ways every year) for about the same price. However last few years have seen big increases.

Chunkers1980

SS all things equal i.e. year

It's my micro economics brain working there

ilovedirt

140mm is nice for all round trail riding, all mountain, cross country, bit of light freeride etc. However, i do think the new 180mm genius LT is ridiculous for an 'all mountain' bike. Seems to me more like a freeride/downhill machine, i certainly wouldn't want to be pedalling that beast up a hill. I don't care how adjustable the suspension is, it will still weigh a ton.

bennett_346

ilovedirt wrote:

140mm is nice for all round trail riding, all mountain, cross country, bit of light freeride etc. However, i do think the new 180mm genius LT is ridiculous for an 'all mountain' bike. Seems to me more like a freeride/downhill machine, i certainly wouldn't want to be pedalling that beast up a hill. I don't care how adjustable the suspension is, it will still weigh a ton.

28lbs is pretty lightweight for a freeride/dh bike, so id say it does fit into the all mountain category. Its the geometry that will be affected.

Anonymous

it is odd that bikes are getting longer without gaining weight, i find it hard to believe these bikes are as strong as they are supposed to be. but, i suppose as technology gets better, anything is possible.

i think now more than ever, bikes cant really be pigeon-holed by their travel but more by their whole design.

i like all mountain bikes for xc riding, they are "over kill" as i dont use all of the travel 99% of the time im on it but, i love the way it goes (lets ignore im looking for a possible replacement) and even on smooth trails, i love the angles, the way bike feels sat back and due to my expert building ability and set-up know how, it pedals dead good too.

i have nothing against a shorter travel bike, i just find them a bit steep feeling.

what i would love is a 100mm travel bike with a slack head angle, if only somethign like that was available, im almost certain i would buy it.

cat_with_no_tail

bennett_346 wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

If 1 track = 1 gram then you might think about how many you'd carry - 13 kg or 1.5kgs

The difference isnt that extreme in mtb.

These days advances in technology mean you can have longer travel bikes with less weight than short travel bikes from a few years ago. For me, the advantages for outweight the negatives.

Having said that i dont think id ever utilise more than 150mm for my type or riding. Some long travel forks even have travel adjustment, like the TALAS system, meaning they can be suited to more then the intended application.

The development of travel adjust stsyems is (imho) something that's really driving this increase in travel. It's easier climbing with a 100mm fork, and It's easier descending with a 180mm fork. If you can have both on the same bike (assuming they can get the rear travel working properly for both) why not. Especially as new technology helps to keep the weight down at the same time.

Paul 8v

I personally think anything over 100mm for trail riding where I live would be overkill, I very rarely use the full travel of the fork, maybe thats because I rode around for years on some 50mm travel elastomer forks though
I do like the way tecnology is moving with the one bike to do it all approach (Kind of like the first mountain bikes where no-one knew any different) I think it's easy to get caught up in all the marketing bull though

xtreem

If we look at the bright side, 200mm is the limit.
And more travel for minimal or almost zero weight increase is always welcome here.
But if the travel ain't adjustable then I doubt that anything steeper is ridable.

Oh, and what's the fuss with those ridiculous head angles. Attention 59deg head angle.
Check out the wheelbase. :shock:

jay12

travel adjustable forks are so amazing. if you have one bike and ride in many different places the idea to be able to adjust the travel for the trail is really good. and now you don't have to have a super strong, super heavy dh bike to ride dh courses as most bikes can handle a bit of dh here and there. anyway these days some dh race bikes weigh just over 30lb :shock: but are still as strong as they have ever been.

also as SS said short tavel will not die out for sure and i think soon we will be seeing 300mm forks like the marzocchi super monsters

ddraver

I'm agree with Nic...derm...SS

There is near nothing other than full on dh tracks in North Wales I can't ride - and I'm nothing special believe me!!

I'd like a Trek Fuel EX for the o 24hr race an Snowdon but anymore than that would just make stuff boring - I despair for the people riing Llandegla on 160mm bikes - they must be so bored!!

Paul 8v

With 300mm you could run over a house and not notice, there's people ride trails around essex on 140mm lapierres, they must be pretty bored, the majority of trails can be ridden on a cyclocross bike if the rider is skilled enough!

ride_whenever

Believe me, the genius LT is an engineering masterpiece...

I think it is mainly because they can. Not to mention the genius is actually 185mm at full travel which is more than the voltage FR. It is however designed to be ridable up hills! It is truly amazing, but it isn't really billed at the uk at all, more things like the mega.

Anonymous

i know that people think a long travel bike is wasted on smooth routes, but some people like long travel bikes because they feel different to short bikes, no other reason, surely there's nowt wrong with that?

i like the angles associated with longer travel bikes, even though i only ride with my wheels on the ground at all times. its dificult to really express why i prefer bigger bikes, i just do.

i dont find riding it boring in the slightest.

Anonymous

ddraver wrote:

I'm agree with Nic...derm...SS

There is near nothing other than full on dh tracks in North Wales I can't ride

It's not about being "able" to ride them. It's about how well you can cover that ground. I used to ride a rigid around many of the same trails as I do now, but with full suss I can go faster, for longer, and am in more control most of the time.

Penylope

sheepsteeth wrote:

i know that people think a long travel bike is wasted on smooth routes, but some people like long travel bikes because they feel different to short bikes, no other reason, surely there's nowt wrong with that?

i like the angles associated with longer travel bikes, even though i only ride with my wheels on the ground at all times. its dificult to really express why i prefer bigger bikes, i just do.

i dont find riding it boring in the slightest.

+ Poe tay toe!

Some people think its wrong to like 'riding big' but it just feels so right, i dont care what they say any more :oops:

meesterbond

Why would riding a longer travel bike suddenly make it boring? Why should you have to have the minimum amount of travel for the route at all times? Perhaps those poor deluded fools on their Lapierres riding round Essex only have the one bike and spend their other weekends in the Peak District the Lakes?

I've been looking about recently as I'm thinking of changing my hardtail for another 'trail' bike (whatever that means now) and whilst the travel has got longer in the main, it's the angles that seem to be getting slacker and slacker... I reckon my 5" travel bike from 2005 has a 68/69 degree headtube, now it seems that they're down in the 66/67 range... a definite benefit downhill, but climbing and through the really twisty stuff that's got to be a disadvantage?

Thewaylander

Sometimes the the slacker can make climbing harder.

but lets face it most of us are not interested in race times, we are interested in having as much fun as we can, so with the slack angles we can still pedal to the top comfortably(maybe not as fast but still quicly) but then decsend alot quicker which is for me where i get my fun.

The big travel bikes make total snese to me, I can ride what ever i want, the bike is stiff so isn't like a pinball machine of rocky descents (and no a nornal 5" and below isnt as stiff with out the bolt throughs it's a massive difference)

CycloRos

In my experience the amount of travel is only part of the picture that determines a bikes category. The frame, it's geometry, wheels/tyres and drivetrain components play just as big a part.

For your average joe trail rider though alu full sussers around 100-140 seem to be the norm these days, and if you're after one bike to do everything on then they do make a strong case.

shm_uk

Horses for courses, isn't it.

Once we've laid out the pro's and con's of suspension travel, nobody will be any the wiser.

There's no absolute answer.

Everybody rides what gives them the most fun.
Whether it's technically the 'right' bike for the terrain is mostly irrelevant...

Northwind

meesterbond wrote:

Why would riding a longer travel bike suddenly make it boring?

By making it easier. I can think of plenty of trails round here that are challenging on a rigid, just about fun on a short travel bike, and no more exciting than tarmac on a big bike. Course not everyone would agree, but I reckon a lot of the time there's such a thing as too much travel. It's not about having the minimum amount "needed" though, just not about having such a capable bike that it makes things too simple.

JonKula

Northwind wrote:

meesterbond wrote:

Why would riding a longer travel bike suddenly make it boring?

By making it easier. I can think of plenty of trails round here that are challenging on a rigid, just about fun on a short travel bike, and no more exciting than tarmac on a big bike. Course not everyone would agree, but I reckon a lot of the time there's such a thing as too much travel. It's not about having the minimum amount "needed" though, just not about having such a capable bike that it makes things too simple.

I see what you're saying, and agree in some respects. I've riden my hardtail round trail centres in Wales and had an awesome time. However, most people will have one bike and will want to do all of their riding on it.

MTB has come a long way since the 90s. Progress is a good thing

ride_whenever

sheepsteeth wrote:

i know that people think a long travel bike is wasted on smooth routes, but some people like long travel bikes because they feel different to short bikes, no other reason, surely there's nowt wrong with that?

i like the angles associated with longer travel bikes, even though i only ride with my wheels on the ground at all times. its dificult to really express why i prefer bigger bikes, i just do.

i dont find riding it boring in the slightest.

Have you tried slack short travel hardcore bikes?

andyrm

I love riding my big travel bike - I have a singlespeed hardtail too and it's noticeable even on local trails in Bristol just how much faster I am on the big bike. It's not just about bumps - things like traction come into as well and the extra speed that comes with the confidence of a hooligan-style rig.

Don't get me wrong, I can ride all the same things on my SS but I just don't have as much grin factor with it........

.blitz

More travel makes things easier when you are riding unfamiliar terrain. Most people could tear up their local loop on a rigid but a FS bike helps when things start to get tricky.

I would love a Genius LT, it's the way forward.