# Older riders on long travel bikes?



## fiveo (Apr 26, 2006)

Hitting the big 50 this week. I have been riding for about 20 years now. I use to ride a 5” 26” bike back when we measured travel in inches. A few years ago I went to a 120mm 29er Niner Jet. Very similar to a Ripley or 429T. I set it up with a 140mm fork and 2.6 tire to be a “do all” bike. It has served me well for all day endurance XC rides to Sedona, Moab, Colorado trips. 

But lately the 120 just isn’t enough. I think some of it is my age and some of it is riding over the bikes limits. 

So for a milestone bday I ordered a Pivot 29 Firebird. 162/170mm with a Fox 38. I don’t plan on doing enduros. I plan to make this my big trail bike. I still like to ride chuncky trails is Phnx, Sedona, Moab etc. 

Most guys don’t need all that travel, but I’m hoping it will allow me to keep riding with more of a safety buffer. I went with the DPX2 over the X2 to keep the bike more trail oriented. 

Any other older guys riding big bikes?


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Yes, I'm 71, used to ride an Enduro 170 front and rear till two years ago, now on a haibike 180/180



Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

50 aint nothin. Get back to us when you're around 65 or so. You'll know it because of all the medicare ads that start stuffing you're mailbox.


----------



## fiveo (Apr 26, 2006)

Ha. Nice to be the rookie again.


----------



## jabrabu (Aug 2, 2010)

I ride a short travel 29er, 130f/110r (Santa Cruz Tallboy 3). I'm 59 and not real fast or aggressive, and don't do big drops or jumps, and this bike works well for most of the trails I ride. However, there are some new trails in my area with long, rocky downhills, and big rock features. I can get down these on my bike, but it feels overwhelmed at the higher speeds. I think I could go faster and feel more confident on a longer-travel bike on these trails, but I might have to sacrifice in other areas like climbing and the slow-speed technical stuff. Ideally I'd own the short-travel bike and an enduro-style bike, but that's not in the budget.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*Also 71*

I ride well over 100 days a season in chunky, rocky, slippery NE conditions.

Sometimes I borrow my son's 160 mm FS. Sometimes I ride the same trails on my 26" 100 mm hardtail. Usually I ride my 130mm/120mm 29" bike.

Honestly, it makes little to no difference to me what I ride. Give yourself a few hundred yards and you will adjust to whatever you are on IMHO if you are a competent rider.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*Agreed.*

Fifty ain't sh!t in bike years.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

I turned 50 a couple of weeks ago. Last year I picked up 140/130mm bike to replace my 120/100mm bike, just to take the edge off a bit. We don't really have the terrain to require more travel, but if we did, I would absolutely ride a longer travel bike.

@Lone Rager - on my 50th birthday, I got something from AARP in the mail..... I was like NOOOOOO.... that's just mean.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I went the other way, shorter travel to improve agility and efficiency.

To me, drops under five feet don't require more travel, though they may require line choice and better technique.

I'm still riding a 140mm bike, so not short to some folks.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

I stopped riding full suspension bikes and went back to hardtails about 4 years ago when I turned 50. I was finding that FS allowed me to get complacent with line choice and exceed my comfort level while my hardtails keep me more focused on descents.


----------



## marathon marke (Sep 26, 2012)

Now THAT'S an interesting perspective!
I just got back into mtn biking 8 months ago, after a 30 year hiatus (ultramarathon road cyclist since 1980). I am 62.

So I bought myself a 100mm hardtail, and I've been having a blast...ricks, roots, tight steep climbs...but no real crazy stuff. Lately, I've been researching full suspension Fuel EX suspension trail bikes, with at least 130mm travel. One reason is I feel it would be easier on my body, not getting best up so much from the rocks. But another reason is because a new friend of mine who's been riding since the Jurrasic age (he's 71), got his first FS a few months ago, and said it's been much easier on his body. And as I keep on his tail, it's obvious he's more relaxed during our rocky descents..

But you make a good point about getting complacent about line choice. One if the revelations I had when I still had a fat bike (Surly Moonlander) a few years ago, is when I started riding my 2.2" tire XC bike (Trek Procaliber 9.7), is that I HAD to learn how to make better line choices. That challenge in itself had added fun to my learning, so ideally I hope to get a FS, but STILL be able to afford to keep my hardtail.



sgltrak said:


> I stopped riding full suspension bikes and went back to hardtails about 4 years ago when I turned 50. I was finding that FS allowed me to get complacent with line choice and exceed my comfort level while my hardtails keep me more focused on descents.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I have a 165/170 bike and the terrain to use it. PNW steep and rooty trails with drops, rocks, and all manner of nastiness trying to take you out.


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

Nurse Ben said:


> I went the other way, shorter travel to improve agility and efficiency.
> 
> To me, drops under five feet don't require more travel, though they may require line choice and better technique.
> 
> I'm still riding a 140mm bike, so not short to some folks.


Me too. I went from a 160/160 to 135/160 mm travel bike. I ride all the same trails and don't miss the extra travel. The better geometry and larger wheels make all the difference for me.


----------



## KeithD42 (Mar 5, 2016)

54 here and have a 130/130 2003 Giant Warp DS 26er that is still a ton of fun on the trail. In 2017 I bought a new Scott Spark 750 (27.5) that is 120/120. Personally I think both are enough travel for what I ride in Easter Mass and some Maine trails. At this stage of my riding it is all about fun and being out in nature over jumps and drops, well for me any ways.

although I would love to get a big travel bike and run it down a ski slope sometime.


----------



## pctloper (Jan 3, 2016)

At 66 I am riding to ride another day-need to avoid big wrecks and the climbing gets harder with age--no way around it--I am in Santa Cruz CA so lots of climbing so an efficient 120/130 bike works----Pivot 429T for me but a Ripley or Trailboy also be nice----I find this is plenty of travel and I can still go a good clip on my trails but avoid big drops these days. I think the answer really depends on your trails.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

^^^ yep. Hitting my late 60s and 120/130 is my choice too. I like climbing and technical, and that's gotten a lot tougher for me the past 4-5 years. Descending is OK but not why I ride. Making it to the top is more important to me than how fast I get to the bottom. Descending within the capabilities of a shorter travel bike is fine.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

*I totally agree at 71*

My new Tallboy 120/130 is the sweet spot for me. It climbs better than any bike I've owned to date and when I point it down hill, its just fine for anything I ride and for things much more technical then I ride.

Climbing long ago became the most satisfying part of biking.


----------



## beastmaster (Sep 19, 2012)

fiveo said:


> Hitting the big 50 this week.


I am 56 and hardly think of myself as "old." In fact, I am riding as well and as fast as I have ever ridden in all sorts of terrain.

Living in the high mountains of northern New Mexico we have some very rugged terrain which translates into some difficult climbing and some awesome drops. I ride this stuff on a 120/130 bike.

The only reason I have been a bit more risk adverse lately is because of the pandemic, which is particularly bad in NM right now (Santa Fe County is really bad at the moment). I don't want to get hurt and wind up in the ER or worse. Especially since our local hospital is now at 100% of capacity. So those big moves with high consequence falls are not on the menu now, but otherwise everything else is! Haha!

So dude, at 50, get the bike you want, whatever travel it has, and ride the hell out of it!!!


----------



## SoDakSooner (Nov 23, 2005)

160/140 for me. Seems to be a reasonable trailbike number. Maybe a bit of overkill here locally, but I seem to use all my travel when we go to bentonville.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

^^^ Bentonville is paying people $10k to relocate there plus $600 toward a new bike. There are some caveats.

https://findingnwa.com/incentive/


----------



## SoDakSooner (Nov 23, 2005)

Tulsa is doing the same thing sans bike. My daughter tried but I guess living 8 miles outside the city limits doesn't count when you move into town...lol.

I have actually met several people that have done it...Tulsa that is.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

For me, being stuck on a bike with excessive travel for the trail is more frustrating than the converse. But I have the luxury of having at least a few choices in my stable. When I started serious riding it became obvious that having one bike was not an option.

50 is not old anymore unless you want it to be.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

fiveo said:


> But lately the 120 just isn't enough. I think some of it is my age and some of it is riding over the bikes limits.
> 
> So for a milestone bday I ordered a Pivot 29 Firebird. 162/170mm with a Fox 38. I don't plan on doing enduros. I plan to make this my big trail bike. I still like to ride chuncky trails is Phnx, Sedona, Moab etc.
> 
> ...


I'm knocking on 56 and have a V4 Ripley (140 up front) for everyday rides and have an HD5 (170/153) for the "bigger" rides just like you mentioned. We just returned from Moab and the HD5 is a dream bike. It may not be as fast at the Ripley going up but it's just as capable. I can't speak for the Firebird but in *my* experience, the DPX2 is completely sub-par to the X2.


----------



## spleeft (May 2, 2017)

Im 55, been mountain biking for 6 years. I have been on a Tallboy 2 , then TB3 for the last 3 years. My home turf is very technical and there are all sizes of drops / jumps / super steep techy down hill/ etc. I agree with loving the climbing and exorcise it brings with it but geez I love watching the hard core guys hit the monster jumps/drops ! The 120mm bottoms out a lot on me so I've begun a build on a 2020 SC Hightower w/ 160 forks. I feel like I will have more control when going fast through the super rocky stuff and wont bottom out as much on the 3' plus drops. I'll let you'all know how the climbing is when its done ...hopefully before December !!
PS love seeing all the 60 and 70 year old rippers chiming in ( and 50s ) !!!


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

spleeft said:


> ... I've begun a build on a 2020 SC Hightower w/ 160 forks. I feel like I will have more control when going fast through the super rocky stuff and wont bottom out as much on the 3' plus drops. ...


That's kinda the point of longer travel bikes like the Hightower, right? Of course you're trading off tech climbing and maneuverability for that. Many are happy to make the trade.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

So you shouldn’t “bottom out” more on a short travel bike than a long travel bike, if you are than that is a suspension set up problem.

More travel is just that, “more”, but don’t confuse less travel for less capable.

Think of how you would set up two different travel bikes for the same conditions, then consider the pros and cons for each bike.


----------



## ladljon (Nov 30, 2011)

Been mtn biking since 83'....went from 120mm to 90mm front, 100mm rear....still riding a hardtail Harley...68yrs young.


----------



## MR. ED (Aug 19, 2006)

Thinking about doing the same thing. My 90 rear 110 front ain't working for my neck. I've got a stubby stem and Surly hi-rise bars on it. My new train of thought is to get a bigger travel bike...probably 140 rear and 150/60 up front. Plus my old bike isn't as cute as it used to be and there's a new one down at the LBS that's been tugging on my heartstrings.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

ladljon said:


> Been mtn biking since 83'....went from 120mm to 90mm front, 100mm rear....still riding a hardtail Harley...68yrs young.
> View attachment 1378603


----------



## fiveo (Apr 26, 2006)

I think the great thing about being 50 is more time and $$ to ride. With most of the kids gone i can ride more and justify more then one bike. The wiffy still doesnt get it. She crossfits ad i try and and use a shoe analogy. She knows to wear different shoes depending on the workout. Still, $100 shoes vs 3K to $$$$ for bikes, doesnt work too well.

k2, I agree the DPX2 is no X2 My plan is to upgreade to coil. Set and forget.


----------



## Lopaka (Sep 7, 2006)

*Your evidentiary skills are weak grasshopper*



fiveo said:


> The wiffy still doesnt get it. She crossfits ad i try and and use a shoe analogy. She knows to wear different shoes depending on the workout. Still, $100 shoes vs 3K to $$$$ for bikes, doesnt work too well.
> .


How much can your wife sell her shoes for after 2 years compared to any bike of yours?


----------



## fiveo (Apr 26, 2006)

True. But it’s the only way I can try to get her to understand the “need” for more than one bike. I tell her you don’t wear your sprinting running shoes to run a 5k. Some how that doesn’t quite explain to her the difference between a short travel and long travel bike.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

I'm not sure 165/170 is considered a long travel bike anymore but I ride one for the more burly days. Soon to turn 59 but in this, my 4th decade of mtn biking, the big difference with most of my peers is that I still seek to improve my skillz. That of course is offset by risk-reward and I pick my spots carefully when doing drops or sending it but still like the gnar. And I wear knee pads to protect my total knee replacement even on xc trails. Whatever it takes.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Cool another excuse to upload a picture of my 2 slayers......

I'm running 165/180 and love it. 
I think the key to big travel while still remaining trail worthy is setting the bike up as light as practical. In particular rotating weight.

Get a decent strongish light weight wheel set and lightish but grippy tyres and you will be able to hangwith the 120mm guys on the up and hand their arses back to them on a plate on the downs.


----------



## slowrider (May 15, 2004)

*56 years old on a 160mm Intense*

I'm in no hurry so my preference is minimum 120mm but more like 150 is a sweet spot. I feel it saves my wrists and shoulders.


----------



## geofharries (Jun 2, 2006)

sgltrak said:


> I stopped riding full suspension bikes and went back to hardtails about 4 years ago when I turned 50. I was finding that FS allowed me to get complacent with line choice and exceed my comfort level while my hardtails keep me more focused on descents.


I'm not quite 50 - turning 47 in April - but I have taken the same path back to hardtails.

I still have a big bike for resort riding but lately, I've simply been enjoying riding cross-country trails. I wrote a little bit about the start of this return journey on my blog.

I know there's a lot of folks on this forum who are much older than me and still ride gnarly stuff, and maybe I will one day get there again, but for now I'm taking a break and simply enjoying more traditional XC riding.


----------



## 2sharp7 (Aug 29, 2013)

I'll be 55 tomorrow, and ride a 160/160 27.5" bike. Like it a lot, but I do miss my old bike which was 130/150. Partly because I haven't quite got the suspension dialed in on the new bike I think, plus it's just noticeably bigger and heavier. Both Knolly's. I have a hard tail on order, hopefully when that comes I'll miss the shorter travel bike a little less, but we'll see. Otherwise, I plan on going back to a shorter travel bike next time around. I'm only 5'6" ish on a good day so I'll probably stick with 27.5" if it's still a thing.


----------



## 2sharp7 (Aug 29, 2013)

fiveo said:


> True. But it's the only way I can try to get her to understand the "need" for more than one bike. I tell her you don't wear your sprinting running shoes to run a 5k. Some how that doesn't quite explain to her the difference between a short travel and long travel bike.


You just need to sit her down and explain N+1.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I am “only” 53, but with a worn out lower back..

I find that FS really helps my back as I start to get tired, but it does not need to be all that much to allieviate the beating. Even 100-120mm is plenty.

One issue for me as I consider my next FS bike is considering what is going to be less likely to get me seriously hurt, and I am a bit torn on this. On the one hand, a bigger bike definitely gives more room for error. On the other hand, it also means I am just going faster when I do wreck.

I ride the same local trails on my 140/160 trail bike as on my rigid Fat bike. Guess which one I get more hurt on?


----------



## Skooks (Dec 24, 2008)

2sharp7 said:


> I'll be 55 tomorrow, and ride a 160/160 27.5" bike. Like it a lot, but I do miss my old bike which was 130/150. Partly because I haven't quite got the suspension dialed in on the new bike I think, plus it's just noticeably bigger and heavier. Both Knolly's. I have a hard tail on order, hopefully when that comes I'll miss the shorter travel bike a little less, but we'll see. Otherwise, I plan on going back to a shorter travel bike next time around. I'm only 5'6" ish on a good day so I'll probably stick with 27.5" if it's still a thing.


Did you get the new Warden? I went from a Warden C to the fugitive LT. Less travel but I ride all the same trails on it. I am 5'6" on a size medium. Love the big wheels. I just ordered my first modern HT, so will see how that goes.


----------



## cunningstunts (Sep 1, 2011)

it takes all kinds but i'm also feeling the effects of aging to some degree. trails here range from fairly rough to very, and more travel is more comfortable on my knees and back. well, everything. i'm still pushing myself on the downs and the ups are mostly brutal and i have no love for them. riding a 2020 Slayer 29er with coil shock and it's incredible. hard rides on steep and rough trails are challenging, physical and exhilarating, only now, they are much less of a beat down. i love that.


----------



## Silverfern (Oct 24, 2012)

im 58 , ride a 170/160 mm nukeproof mega , my local trails are pretty rugged , an aggressive monster truck bike that soaks up the hits that climbs moderately makes life easier for me, than a bike that climbs really well but you throws you around on the descents


----------



## slowrider (May 15, 2004)

fiveo said:


> Hitting the big 50 this week. I have been riding for about 20 years now. I use to ride a 5" 26" bike back when we measured travel in inches. A few years ago I went to a 120mm 29er Niner Jet. Very similar to a Ripley or 429T. I set it up with a 140mm fork and 2.6 tire to be a "do all" bike. It has served me well for all day endurance XC rides to Sedona, Moab, Colorado trips.
> 
> But lately the 120 just isn't enough. I think some of it is my age and some of it is riding over the bikes limits.
> 
> ...


I ride a 2012 Intense tracer 275 with 160mm on both ends about half the time at 56 years. I've found that my 130mm Foes Ridgeline smooths the trail better as does my Lynsky 275 140 so sometimes the suspension design and geometry do more than the actual travel.


----------



## kellybee (Feb 11, 2016)

I had a 2015 S-Works Enduro (that got stolen) and have a hardtail with 120mm up front. To replace the Enduro I wasn't sure whether I wanted to get something in between that was easier to drag up a climb. I went with a Ripmo V2 w/160mm up front. 
I realized the big point for me at 58 is that the enduro-style bikes get me out of the trouble I get into. If you miss your line a bit, it is more forgiving and will roll over most of your big f-ups. 
It climbs well and also I can go to Northstar and ride Livewire or Boondocks with my kid.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

61 and still ripping around pretty quickly and loving long rides, but.......I find I may be done with the short travel racey bike part of my life. I'm not racing anymore, and a few busted up body parts just prefer a bit more travel -- especially after the ride!


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

I've been riding since 1987 and so have progressively gone from no suspension at all to front suspension to increasing amounts of full suspension. Though not old, I am now 33 years older than when I first started riding mountain bikes. Physically, that has had two effects. I don't mind getting some help with climbing & I'm more aware of the impact of crashing. I personally do find longer travel bikes with more efficient suspension systems to be a good fit for my riding style and preferences. My main bike right now is an Ibis HD4 with a 170 mm fork and 150mm rear travel. Though not as efficient as a 100 mm travel XC race bike, it doesn't seem to climb any worse with its dw-link suspension system than most 120-130 mm travel bikes. At the same time, the its ability to allow me to steer its way out of potential crashes is noticeably better than the 120-130mm travel bikes I've ridden. I will say that for a 29er, a more moderate amount of travel might be preferable for general riding as the longer travel 29ers can feel a little unwieldy.


----------



## mrdimi (Oct 26, 2020)

Interesting discussion, I'm turning 51 and only got back into riding last summer after a 10 year hiatus. Still riding my old hardtail 26" Stumpjumper Comp which I've upgraded to a 100mm travel fork/dropper post and am looking for a full squish right now. Was looking at the Giant Trance 29er which is 115/130 and thought that would be nice enough for the mostly xcross trails around me. No plan for hitting the park in Ontario but you never know. Now I'm not sure if I should be looking for something with more travel.


----------



## 1spd1way (Jun 30, 2006)

60 next month and last fall I got a Lenzsport Behemoth. 140f/150r. Best thing I have done. I raced and rode single speeds for years and was a hard tail-only rider until I couldn't keep up with my son and felt beat up when riding with my sweet heart. Both of them have Specalized full suspension bikes and pressured me to buy a full. I caved in and bought the Lenz. Best thing ever.
I still have a Krampus SS, a Big Fat Dummy and a Moonlander so I feel quite blessed.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

One thought I had when riding this weekend is to consider what type of ride experience you want. You can dial in the required intensity of a ride for any given trail by the type of bike you choose. From the choice requiring the most rider involvement to the choice requiring the least rider involvement on any given trail, my thoughts on different types of bikes are as follows:


XC/Race hardtail
XC/Race FS bike (most likely a 29er nowadays) or "enduro" hardtail
mid-travel 29er FS bike (120-140mm travel): such as a Pivot Trail 429 or Santa Cruz Tallboy
longer travel 27.5 "enduro" bike (140-160mm travel): such as an Ibis HD5, the new Pivot Mach 6 or Santa Cruz Bronson
longer travel 29er "enduro" bike (140mm+ travel): such as your Pivot Firebird, Ibis Ripmo, Yeti SB150
full-on DH bike
I think it might be worthwhile to consider whether you want a bike that needs more attention to ride well (like an old Porsche 911) or if you want a more "Cadillac" type of ride. When I got my first FS bike in 2000, I realized that my ambition on weekends was no longer to chase guys up the road for the next 30 minutes in road races or up the trail for MTB races. I just liked the experience of getting out and riding. So I got the longer-travel bike that required less attention to ride well.

That works to a point, but I would also consider that modern FS bikes which are more downhill capable can also less involving for everyday trail riding. I think the ideal bike provides just enough descending capability to adequately handle what you'll typically ride. I was seriously considering a Trail 429, but was wondering if I would benefit from a little more descending capability. I ended up with an Ibis HD4 with 27.5" wheels which I think is an ideal fit for me in terms of more than enough descending capability for anything that I'm eager to ride, but still with enough liveliness for me to want to use it for all types of riding. One thing you might find with the long-travel 29ers is that the combination of long travel and 29er wheels is exceptionally stable, but might feel too much like a monster truck for more typical trail riding. For me, going with 27.5" wheels but with longer travel was the way to get more descending capability while still feeling lively enough for my typical trail riding.

I did keep a 1995 Kona Explosif hardtail for both the nostalgia factor and the high strung feeling of an old sports car for some rides on easier trails around my house.

Also FWIW, I love the X2 for trail riding. When set up right, it feels plenty responsive for trail riding while having a lot of reserve for rocky descents.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 23, 2004)

mrdimi said:


> Interesting discussion, I'm turning 51 and only got back into riding last summer after a 10 year hiatus. Still riding my old hardtail 26" Stumpjumper Comp which I've upgraded to a 100mm travel fork/dropper post and am looking for a full squish right now. Was looking at the Giant Trance 29er which is 115/130 and thought that would be nice enough for the mostly xcross trails around me. No plan for hitting the park in Ontario but you never know. Now I'm not sure if I should be looking for something with more travel.


If your trails are as smooth as what I used to ride in Michigan, I think 115 rear travel would be plenty. Getting too big of a bike also makes it less lively. I think you ideally want enough capability for the trails you are likely to ride, but not too much more.


----------



## CKMaui (Dec 27, 2020)

getting back into cycling 57 years old 5'11" 175 lbs good shape but will need to get my bike legs under me again  just picked up a 2021 epic evo  so a 110 rear and 120 fork 

background
I am/was more roady in my 20s early 30s did about 300+ miles a week dropped down to 200 in my late 30s early 40s then quit as I had some lung issues hit me(sulfur dioxide) and got out of shape that is behind me back in shape ready to get back on a bike and I liked pushing miles more than anything
in PHX AZ and no desire to ride road here ! so looking at getting into gravel but the north mtn is literally my backyard so will dink in those hills for my daily fix and if gravel was in my backyard I would have skipped the mtn bike  do not want to put my bike on a car to ride every day
I used to own a bike shop and did trials besides the road so going slow tech is fun for me I could just play climbing in one area OR push miles 
never was much a true hard core mtn bike person more just a break from the road so for me the Epic Evo should be a great setup I reckon 

having been away from mtn bikes for a long time WOW they are freaking amazing these days and the trails I plan on riding the suspension will be enough and the balance of better efficiency will allow me to push a few more miles I hope  so stoked to get out and get going again  

I think knowing what you want to do is the key and do think general riding a 120-130 type bike is a great setup these days as a single quiver with great all around performance it seems


----------



## Five0 (Mar 26, 2018)

Thanks for all the reposes. I have replied cause I’ve actually been out riding my bike. My 120/140 bike that is. It is such a versatile bike. I’ve switched back and forth from 2.6 to 2.3 xc tires this winter and to totally changes the bike. 

I might have to change the thread tittle to long travel bike for a 60 yo The FB still hasnt arrived and there is no ETA.


----------

