How much travel?

Shaggy_Dog

It does depend largely on the rider, someone with mustard bike handling skills will tackle any trail on a 100mm hardtail with the saddle up and still be fast, I think for most intermediate riders a 120mm bike balances a longish wheelbase with a steep enough head angle to really attack on the climbs. I haven't found a trail that my HiFi or Paragon couldn't handle, although I must admit I occasionally yearn for my old Enduro with Fox 36's but I just remind myself of how much of a b*stard it was on the climbs

richg1979

you really need to try some bikes

some longer travel bikes are a lot faster and efficient than some shorter travel bikes.

my nomad with 160/170 travel is a lot faster and more efficent than my bros marin wolf ridge with 140mm travel for example.

i think wheel and tyres weights make a lot more diffrence to speed than travel.

race bikes mainly have less travel to keep the center of gravity low not because longer travel bike are inefficient.

i would go light weight 120-140mm travel bike like a mojo or a yeti 5.

J.A.YSUPERNORMAL08

i know that ideally i need to test ride first, and i will, but due to difficulty in access to shops that will allow demoing id ratehr decide on things like this now before hand.
at the moment im still looking but mondraker have caught my eyes. so i was just wondering, their foxy RR weighs in at 11.9kg which sounds plenty reasonable for a 140mm travel bike.
But would you say that would suit me or maybe their factor?
Cheers
Josh

J.A.YSUPERNORMAL08

Also, the yeti and mojos are most definatly nice bikes and would love to own one, but with them goes a high pricetag for just the frames, so for now im leaving them out of the equation.
Josh

bike-a-swan

I would've said something like a Trek Fuel EX. I know a few who ride them, long rides (SDW in a day, for example), tough rides (plenty of time in wales) and swear by them. And they're bike of the year...

Pudseyp

Yep they are great, but "tests" are subjective...there is a thred on this on here that some bikes in the test in their reviews only had 2 starts out of 5 and high scoring bikes some were omitted..if this is for consideration the Orange 5 and Marin Mount Vision should be included as they have two each....

Best advice that has been said hundreds of times, short list, demo and purchase...

Northwind

I think an awful lot of these recommendations would be ****-all use for a 12-hour endurance race. They'll do it but they'll be bad at it. If you want to race at all seriously that's going to put a bit of a limiter on what you look at here.

I'd start from an Anthem X. Yes it's steeper than most of the bikes talked about in here but still incredibly competent, I'm not sure how it works but it does. A mate of ours had his with us in France, most others were on big bikes- lots of Hemlocks, a Mojo, a Heckler, a couple of 575s and that Trek thing with the Lyriks. I think his was the only bike with less than 5 inches at either end, apart from a ti 456 with 150mm forks. He still arrived at the bottom of every daft descent ahead of most of the big bikes. 9/10 people who think they need a big bike would be fine on an Anthem I reckon.

J.A.YSUPERNORMAL08

Pudseyp that advice is great, but thats why im here, to do the first part and shortlist
Cheers all for the help shall have to think about it a bit more and maybe have a few words with an uncle-he has an orange 5.
Josh

Shaggy_Dog

richg1979 wrote:

race bikes mainly have less travel to keep the center of gravity low not because longer travel bike are inefficient.

No bike I have ever ridden has completely neutral suspension. LCOG is important in all aspects of cycling, not just XC race. The reason XC race bikes have less suspension travel is because it is more efficient and lighter but most importantly allows the frame designer to retain a racy riding position, something often overlooked by most riders, the position your body is in drastically effects how much power you can put into the pedals and for how long. Ask any serious road rider what improved his racing more, a light bike or a proper bike fit. If you have a long travel bike it pitches backwards as you climb so you have to incorporate a steep seat angle to compensate. Similarly, the head angle has to be slack to stop it from going twitchy when on the brakes or tackling steep, rough terrain (since that's what they're intended for). Add these two together and you end up with a very short cockpit, of course, you could run a longer top tube but that would make the wheelbase huge, making cornering difficult, or whack on a long stem but we all know that's just wrong on a long travel bike.

On another note, slack geometry makes the bike feel sluggish, even if it has very efficient suspension or low overall weight, sure, it's faster downhill but it'll never feel fast uphill. This is the great compromise of bike design, no bike can ever be perfect at both descending and climbing, but I think a lot of the 120-140mm bikes do a good job of everything bar the gnarliest DH tracks or World Cup XC racing. As you stated in the original post, your main target is 12 hour solo racing, I'd be looking at the 100-120mm area, the Specialized Epic has always been my 26 wheeled choice for such purposes

Smiler15

Going back to the scott genius, if you can only have one bike I think it's an excellent choice. Gets good reviews every year for it's overal good performance and versitality. Adjustable travel on front from 110-130-150 and 90-150 on the back. Twinloc system means you can remotely lock out the fork and the rear shock for smooth climbs and it's incredibly light too, especially in carbon. What's not to like?

Last years for 2100
http://www.langsettcycles.co.uk/product ... 6607&rs=gb

This years for 3000
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/sco ... gn=froogle

ollie51

What about a spesh epic evo, as far as I know it's a 120mm bike with XC geometry and a dropper seat post. It's intended to be an all day trail bike which you can race I think, perhaps you should take a look at it. I would definitely take a test ride to see what it's like because it certainly seems a little bit strange but in essence a good idea.

richg1979

a race bike and a all day trail bike are two totally diffrent bikes so you just need to decide what you want.

i do like the anthem its a very fast bike but i wouldnt fancy a very long ride on one unless it was in competition as the geo can get quite tiresom, very streached out with a very low front end.

twiggllett

if you only have 1 bike, it makes sense to have the bike suited best at what you do most. if its mostly racing then go for something shorter, but if its only 10% racing then compromise that for more performance in what you do most.

Also until you try the bike its hard to say exactly what would suit you - maybe 20mm travel more would make you more confident in the tech sections, and hence faster overall even if its slightly heavier or 'less racey' than a more established 'race bike'.

FYI - the pitch frame has always been 150mm travel, for 2011 just the fork has been increased from 140mm.

Mccraque

I pondered the same dilemma when switching bikes. I owned an old Epic which was lo slung and racy. But felt it lacking for the slightly rougher stuff and upgraded to a Zesty 514. My initial worries were that the 140mm was going to be way too much for around the south of England and the odd welsh trail centre.

I am suprised at just how efficient a pedalling platform it provides. I would say it's as efficient and zippy as the Epic - certainly over the rougher XC terrain. It climbs well for a 140mm - Not too light a front end and when the trail opens up, it really shines. Granted it won't race as well as a weight weeny HT or do downhill as well as a specialist bike...but if you want a good mix of everything, then I wouldn't worry too much about the suspension on this bike being overkill.

If you're still undecided....why not get hold of one for a play. Or, an alternative which would be a good compromise - 2 of my mates own Cannondale Rush's with 120mm and both are very happy (although one hankers for more travel!)