Would I notice the difference??

Kitz

So I am new to this. Not new to bikes, been a roadie for a while, so I know about groupsets, components, frame materials/geometry etc, and it all seems to swap fairly well between the areas.

My question is, as a new rider I am already considering a new bike. I have a 2015 Saracen Kili flyer 121 with reverb post. All the reviews put me off it a bit, and they seem accurate. Nice and confident on the downs, but heavy to climb. I got it mainly as I wanted something that would give me a good idea of if I was in it for the long haul without breaking the bank. Got this bike ex demo for a steal! Already been offered more in part ex than I paid for it!

The bike I'm looking at is the Santa Cruz Bronson Carbon C. Full carbon, 150mm instead of 120. 1x11 instead of 2x10. Lighter, better spec etc.

From an experienced riders perspective, would I notice enough difference between them to make it worth the purchase?

Thanks!

kyle17290

What about a santa cruz 5010???? Mate has one and he and i both find it a great allrounder. Cant comment on the bronson never ridden one.

Kitz

Yeah looked at the 5010. Nice bike!

Reason for looking at the Bronson is the longer travel on the front and rear suspension. May come in useful if I decide to do a few uplift days which I quite like the idea of if I learn to jump!

The lifetime frame warrantee on the Santa Cruz's is what got me looking at that make seriously!

RockmonkeySC

Jumps are easier with less suspension, not more. I do bigger stuff on my 120mm trail bike than my 200mm downhill bike. Suspension soaks up the kick off the lip of jumps.
It's all about quality of suspension and frame geometry rather than amount of suspension travel.
I was on my 120 rear /140mm front travel Transition Scout yesterday, blasting out laps of 50 Shades of Black and loosing out nothing to mates on bigger bikes, if anything I was making less effort to clear gaps.

Kitz

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Jumps are easier with less suspension, not more. I do bigger stuff on my 120mm trail bike than my 200mm downhill bike. Suspension soaks up the kick off the lip of jumps.
It's all about quality of suspension and frame geometry rather than amount of suspension travel.
I was on my 120 rear /140mm front travel Transition Scout yesterday, blasting out laps of 50 Shades of Black and loosing out nothing to mates on bigger bikes, if anything I was making less effort to clear gaps.

Fair point, hadn't thought of it that way.

So would you say stick with 120mm for a trail/jump bike then, rather than going for a 150?

Or... Keep the Kili for trails and spend the difference on a hard tail! NO, stop it! One bike!

kickaxe

I'd not go over about 140-150mm for a fun all rounder, but up to that point most are really fun bikes

Kitz

Kickaxe wrote:

I'd not go over about 140-150mm for a fun all rounder, but up to that point most are really fun bikes

Great stuff, cheers! So a 150 Bronson is within that range. Just!

Kitz

Kickaxe wrote:

I'd not go over about 140-150mm for a fun all rounder, but up to that point most are really fun bikes

Great stuff, cheers! So a 150 Bronson is within that range. Just!

kickaxe

Kitz wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

I'd not go over about 140-150mm for a fun all rounder, but up to that point most are really fun bikes

Great stuff, cheers! So a 150 Bronson is within that range. Just!

It's not a definite line, and how a bike feels has way more to do with geometry than travel, but from what I have heard a Bronson is a pretty versatile bike. There's a guy in my area that I see riding once in a while who is a bit over biked on his SC Nomad (165mm), he just isn't quite as dynamic as others.

RockmonkeySC

More suspension is worse for jumping.
The aluminium Bronson is going to be a lot more hard work than your Saracen and the VPP rear suspension really sucks up the kick from jumps meaning you really have to boost it to clear jumps.

Kitz

RockmonkeySC wrote:

More suspension is worse for jumping.
The aluminium Bronson is going to be a lot more hard work than your Saracen and the VPP rear suspension really sucks up the kick from jumps meaning you really have to boost it to clear jumps.

The Bronson is full carbon. Are we talking about the same bike?

Kitz

RockmonkeySC wrote:

More suspension is worse for jumping.
The aluminium Bronson is going to be a lot more hard work than your Saracen and the VPP rear suspension really sucks up the kick from jumps meaning you really have to boost it to clear jumps.

http://www.thetrailhead.co.uk/2016-sant ... 5216-p.asp

This is the one. Lockable rear shock too, so hardtail (ish) for the jumps?

kickaxe

Locking it out for jumps isn't the greatest idea either...

Kitz

Kickaxe wrote:

Locking it out for jumps isn't the greatest idea either...

Out of interest, why is that? Seems logical if he suspension makes it harder to jump to stick it on the climb/lockout setting for jumping. In need of educating on this clearly!

kickaxe

Well it depends on the jump. When it's really smooth and the landings are shaped perfectly, it shouldn't be a problem, but once those two factors go towards rocky and wild, it's a really good idea to have some suspension to 1. Absorb the impact 2. Absorb all the bumps and rocks after the jump.

If you are on a smooth dirt jump park you don't need suspension, but if you are on trails you will want some simply because of the sections of trail between the jumps.

Kitz

Kickaxe wrote:

Well it depends on the jump. When it's really smooth and the landings are shaped perfectly, it shouldn't be a problem, but once those two factors go towards rocky and wild, it's a really good idea to have some suspension to 1. Absorb the impact 2. Absorb all the bumps and rocks after the jump.

If you are on a smooth dirt jump park you don't need suspension, but if you are on trails you will want some simply because of the sections of trail between the jumps.

Yeah that would make sense. Mine spends most of its time in the "trail" setting anyway as the "descend" setting feels very bouncy. I have used it for a long grassy bumpy rutted decent and it's very good at absorbing that.

kyle17290

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

kickaxe

kyle17290 wrote:

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

That's just for really big impacts when locked out, as said above if you want small bump compliance you are going the wrong way.

kyle17290

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

That's just for really big impacts when locked out, as said above if you want small bump compliance you are going the wrong way.

Yeah i know but i just meant regards jumps. I personally wouldnt lock out my fork or shock specifically for a jump.

kickaxe

kyle17290 wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

That's just for really big impacts when locked out, as said above if you want small bump compliance you are going the wrong way.

Yeah i know but i just meant regards jumps. I personally wouldnt lock out my fork or shock specifically for a jump.

Then I don't really know what you are asking...

kyle17290

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

That's just for really big impacts when locked out, as said above if you want small bump compliance you are going the wrong way.

Yeah i know but i just meant regards jumps. I personally wouldnt lock out my fork or shock specifically for a jump.

Then I don't really know what you are asking...

I just meant if he was specifically using his bike for say a day of sessioning jumps, locking it out wouldnt matter as on landing the force generated would overide the fork lockout. Basically what you said by not needing suspension, wasnt having a go or anything.

kickaxe

kyle17290 wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

That's just for really big impacts when locked out, as said above if you want small bump compliance you are going the wrong way.

Yeah i know but i just meant regards jumps. I personally wouldnt lock out my fork or shock specifically for a jump.

Then I don't really know what you are asking...

I just meant if he was specifically using his bike for say a day of sessioning jumps, locking it out wouldnt matter as on landing the force generated would overide the fork lockout. Basically what you said by not needing suspension, wasnt having a go or anything.

Depends in the jump really, if it's a perfectly angled landing it might not go. Even if it did on landings as far as I know it goes back to the locked state after the impact, and as suspension only hinders jumping during takeoff, it still makes sense in a way.

It's complicated, I'd in general rather have a bike that is enjoyable everywhere without gimmicks like dual position frame/fork and lockout.

kyle17290

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

Kickaxe wrote:

kyle17290 wrote:

I thought most shocks had blow off valves so it wouldnt matter???

That's just for really big impacts when locked out, as said above if you want small bump compliance you are going the wrong way.

Yeah i know but i just meant regards jumps. I personally wouldnt lock out my fork or shock specifically for a jump.

Then I don't really know what you are asking...

I just meant if he was specifically using his bike for say a day of sessioning jumps, locking it out wouldnt matter as on landing the force generated would overide the fork lockout. Basically what you said by not needing suspension, wasnt having a go or anything.

Depends in the jump really, if it's a perfectly angled landing it might not go. Even if it did on landings as far as I know it goes back to the locked state after the impact, and as suspension only hinders jumping during takeoff, it still makes sense in a way.

It's complicated, I'd in general rather have a bike that is enjoyable everywhere without gimmicks like dual position frame/fork and lockout.

Im with you on that i like to keep it simple, no gimmicks. I dont even use the climb switch or lock out on my shock.

kickaxe

kyle17290 wrote:

Im with you on that i like to keep it simple, no gimmicks. I dont even use the climb switch or lock out on my shock.

Same.

chrisdouglas

Truthfully only you'll really know when you need to upgrade. I've had my Kona for 3 years now as a first bike has a mere 100mm of travel front and rear (it's an xc bike truth be told). At this point in time i'm hitting my usual trails with a lot more speed and I've started to see a lot of faults in the basic suspension and I bottom the suspension out a lot, I'm looking at upgrading now, but I'm not intending to go any higher than 140mm travel because that's what I believe would be ideal for me. Others that ride the same trails want 160mm travel but personally I think that's a bit OTT, it'll be a preference to say the least and only you will know when you should upgrade and what you should try out.

EDIT: If the weight is a problem, is there anything you can simply upgrade to improve that? You mentioned the 1x11 drivetrain, why not upgrade and ditch the front derailleur and lose a front ring.

RockmonkeySC

Amount of suspension travel does not define how a bike will ride and it's suitability for a purpose.
Some of the latest short travel, super slack trail bikes might only have 120mm suspension but are as capable as most 160mm enduro bikes and better over jumps.

chrisdouglas

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Amount of suspension travel does not define how a bike will ride and it's suitability for a purpose.
Some of the latest short travel, super slack trail bikes might only have 120mm suspension but are as capable as most 160mm enduro bikes and better over jumps.

Without a doubt, apologies if that was how my comment came across.

What I am suggesting though is that you know in yourself if you need more travel or if you need a slacker head angle etc. People can argue back and forth over that kind of thing all day but there's no definitive answer.