Negative effects of longer travel??

JGTR

Looking at new bikes (always looking :roll: ) and seen a few brands I like but they all have long travel and mid travel versions of the same bikes - what negative effects would the longer travel have?

Bikes

Whyte T130 v G160
Commencal Meta TR v AM
Bird Aeris 120 v 145

I want a good handling trail bike

Thanks
Jay

The Rookie

Longer travel means more weight (all else being equal), it also will lose some degree of 'connection' to the trail (again all else being equal), additionally most longer travel bikes you would expect to have geometry attuned to that so slacker head and seat tube angles for example which will impact the balance of how it feels climbing versus decending.

JGTR

Thanks, I'm never going to do enduro or ride hard enough to need the longer travel but the long travel bikes seem to be quite popular these days, not sure if it's more fashionable or I'm just not a good enough rider, I want good handling on the trails, not overly fussed about climbing but obviously helps so will probably go for mid travel variants.

Would the BB or centre of gravity be higher on a long travel bike or are the frames designed to accommodate the longer travel?

The Rookie

You can't really generalise on BB height, you just have to look at the ones you're interested in.

lawman

The rash of longer travel bikes is mostly due to a) marketing hype b) perceived good value from brands like Canyon/YT etc. The Capra is a prime example, the amount of people I see on (well with) them walking up hill because they're too heavy, inefficient and/or have upwards of near 1KG of super tacky almost DH worthy rubber on them is comical, especially when said folk are not exactly tearing the trail pieces going back down again. 95% of people with this bikes would be better on well designed short travel bikes that are more suitable for their riding. It genuinely amazes me that people would rather save a few hundred quid buying something completely inappropriate for them rather than getting something that actually suits them. Consider me baffled!

poah

weight difference between a 130mm pike and a 160 is the difference of the air shaft. There isn't that much difference in weight between a patrol and a scout and I certainly don't notice any difference between my suppressor with the coil V monarch in terms of weight.

I'd be just as slow on a scout going up. the other thing about longer travel is that you don't have the same ramp up/damping compared to short travel forks/shocks which I don't like at all.

I have one bike so has to do everything so while I don't use all my travel riding around with lewis, I do if I do an uplift. I'd not get the geo I have on a short travel bike either.

it doesn't matter what bike you have so long as it makes you happy.

swod1

doesn't it also depend where you ride most of the time to whether you need loads of travel?

A mate of mine has recently got a new santa cruz nomad and he reckons you need 160mm travel but I seemed to ride fine on my mega tr with only 140mm front travel when we were at stainburn forest recently, my mega tr coped fine with shorter travel over the rock garden sections just could have done with a better rear shock.

I've been looking at bikes recently and similar scout or patrol and think sod it just get the patrol.

cooldad

Friend of mine has a Nomad and a 5010. The smaller bike gets used 90% of the time, except for Alps and uplifts. And even then I think he'd be as quick on the 5010, being a bit of a pussy.

In the interest of fairness, he's quicker and less of a pussy than me.

rockmonkeysc

POAH wrote:

There isn't that much difference in weight between a patrol and a scout

Not much in terms of weight but the Scout definitely climbs and jumps better. The only time the Patrol is better is when you're riding down a black trail like your arse is on fire.
The Scout is so good that the Transition UK endure team use them instead of Patrols. I've only got a Patrol now because my local trails are a freeride park.