# Harder hitting short travel bikes vs longer travel trail bikes



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

So I am looking at getting a full sus bike sometime hopefully in the not to distant future and I keep wondering about where I want to go with it. I know I am not interested in a big enduro bike or a cross-country bike but I am wondering about kind of the shorter travel bikes like the RSD Wildcat, Bird Aether 9, Banshee Phantom, etc, versus going with something like 140-150mm rear travel bike. I saw the Pinkbike review of the RSD Wildcat V3 and that is what had we wondering. It was the slowest climber of the bikes in their "Downcountry" test but was the second fastest descender. Do these shorter travel bikes climb better than a longer travel trail bike? Does a more descent-oriented shorter travel bike even make sense?

_Admin edit: Photo added for social and newsletter_
_







_​


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Climbing ability is determined by so many things (suspension design, travel, weight, geo, etc). A short travel bike with enduro like geometry (without getting crazy) can climb really well. I have a Tallboy and Megatower. The bikes have pretty similar geo (MT is about 1.5° slacker). The riding experience is pretty different though with the Tallboy being much quicker on rolling terrain. 

When seated on long smooth steady climbs there's not a huge difference. The real advantage of the Tallboy is acceleration...pumping terrain, sprinting out of the saddle, getting back up to speed on tight trails, etc. So if most of your riding is winch and plummet style there's little advantage to the shorter travel bike. If most of your riding is tight or rolling terrain there's little advantage is to having a heavy super slack bike.

Personally, I'm not buying a 120-130mm travel bike that weighs 33+ lbs and has a 63-64° HTA. I think the performance benefits are largely lost at that point and you might as well get a 150mm bike. A few mm of travel doesn't make an enormous difference. It's about the total package for me.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

140-150 travel is pretty darn close to enduro, closer to enduro than it is XC racing...so they'll pedal closer to enduro than XC bikes.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

If you are especially big/tall the difference from shorter travel bikes to medium and long travel bikes tends to be greater, especially if you like to stand up and mash on the pedals.


----------



## HollyBoni (Dec 27, 2016)

Personally I don't really see the point of harder hitting short travel bikes. You have most of the components, weight, and geo as longer bikes, just not the travel. I just don't see the benefit. A bit less travel doesn't automatically make a bike climb better. I'm sure there are specific use cases and terrain where they can excel, but IMO a longer bike is more versatile and more enjoyable for most people. That's just my point of view tho.


----------



## NC_Foothills_Rider (11 mo ago)

93EXCivic said:


> Does a more descent oriented shorter travel bike even make sense?


Tallboy 4 AL owner here - a piece of heavy metal fun. I came from XC bikes, both HT and FS. The TB is quite a bit heavier (around 34.5 lbs) than my old bikes yet I don't feel the weight except on long climbs. It's more fun than either of my old bikes on flowing hilly terrain where I mostly ride. The new geo is more stable and the VPP rear suspension gets great traction allowing me to clean a couple of climbs hereabouts that I couldn't on my old bikes despite a number of attempts on both.

To answer your question: I think it makes a lot of sense. The TB (and many other competitors would be) lots of fun on XC type trails (as long as not racing against XC bikes) but capable of feeling composed and secure on trails that would make my XC bikes feel sketchy as hell. *(IE- Kitsuma/Green's Lick near Asheville).

The TB4's got more of a do-it-all feel than XC bikes but can still be ridden and is fun on XC trails, where a 150+ travel bike might be a little too wallowy or maybe just not feel challenged at all by 2 and 3 foot jumps and sub 20 MPH speeds.

It's a compromise like a dual sport motorcycle sort of. Not great at any one thing but can do many.

For wealthier or more dedicated enthusiasts maybe it doesn't make sense if they can manage a specific bike for every type of trail they ride.

If I raced XC races a lot I'd definitely get an XC bike. I tried a race on my TBn LOL LMAO. It went about like what you'd expect.

2¢


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

Climbing is so subjective unless you're talking about a high pivot coil bike, which you're not. My bikes are 0mm, 115mm and 160mm in the rear. They all climb well. The only climbing area where the 160mm suffers is standing on really smooth surfaces. On the other hand, it sticks like glue to everything else seated.

Descending is also subjective. Are you talking about XC style stuff (that can still be pretty rowdy) or true DH stuff. You can get used to a lot. I feel like many reviewers are so used to plush long travel bikes, they shortchange the lower travel more racy bikes that are actually very capable once you get used to them.

Put me down as another one that doesn't get the enduro-ish geometry short travel bike. Your loosing the fun playfulness and you're still not going to take big hits on it, though I realize plenty of people hit big features on such bikes.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Jayem said:


> 140-150 travel is pretty darn close to enduro, closer to enduro than it is XC racing...so they'll pedal closer to enduro than XC bikes.


I have demoed the Range and Spire and those both felt like too much bike for where I ride and what I ride. Also demoed the Kona Process 153 (which I really liked), Norco Fluid (which I didn't love). I have also demoed Giant Anthem and Norco Revolver which I hated both of. But I haven't demoed any of the "down country" options.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

goldsbar said:


> Climbing is so subjective unless you're talking about a high pivot coil bike, which you're not. My bikes are 0mm, 115mm and 160mm in the rear. They all climb well. The only climbing area where the 160mm suffers is standing on really smooth surfaces. On the other hand, it sticks like glue to everything else seated.
> 
> Descending is also subjective. Are you talking about XC style stuff (that can still be pretty rowdy) or true DH stuff. You can get used to a lot. I feel like many reviewers are so used to plush long travel bikes, they shortchange the lower travel more racy bikes that are actually very capable once you get used to them.
> 
> Put me down as another one that doesn't get the enduro-ish geometry short travel bike. Your loosing the fun playfulness and you're still not going to take big hits on it, though I realize plenty of people hit big features on such bikes.


My local riding is mostly rolling rocky terrain. Not much in the way of smooth climbing trails. I currently have a pretty slack hardtail which I really really enjoy but sometimes I don't want to take the abuse and it would be nice to have something more forgiving when traveling to trails I don't know. Also for riding with friends so I am not completely beat up on longer rides.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

yzedf said:


> If you are especially big/tall the difference from shorter travel bikes to medium and long travel bikes tends to be greater, especially if you like to stand up and mash on the pedals.


6'2". 210lbs. I do sometimes like to stand and mash.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

jeremy3220 said:


> Climbing ability is determined by so many things (suspension design, travel, weight, geo, etc). A short travel bike with enduro like geometry (without getting crazy) can climb really well. I have a Tallboy and Megatower. The bikes have pretty similar geo (MT is about 1.5° slacker). The riding experience is pretty different though with the Tallboy being much quicker on rolling terrain.
> 
> When seated on long smooth steady climbs there's not a huge difference. The real advantage of the Tallboy is acceleration...pumping terrain, sprinting out of the saddle, getting back up to speed on tight trails, etc. So if most of your riding is winch and plummet style there's little advantage to the shorter travel bike. If most of your riding is tight or rolling terrain there's little advantage is to having a heavy super slack bike.
> 
> Personally, I'm not buying a 120-130mm travel bike that weighs 33+ lbs and has a 63-64° HTA. I think the performance benefits are largely lost at that point and you might as well get a 150mm bike. A few mm of travel doesn't make an enormous difference. It's about the total package for me.


Most of my terrain is more rolling but rocky terrain. 

My current bike is a Ragley Big Wig which is 64 deg, 35lb hardtail. I love it but it can be a bit abusive. It will be staying.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

93EXCivic said:


> Most of my terrain is more rolling but rocky terrain.


A short travel bike would obviously be a good option in this type of terrain. I would just try to keep it reasonably efficient rather than super long and heavy. I'm not really into ultra light old school geo either. Budget is always a factor in how light the bike will be of course. 

I feel like the geo, components, weight and travel should have the same focus. My Tallboy isn't held back by any aspect. I don't find myself sketched out by the geo while feeling I have too much travel. From a performance perspective it makes sense to have these aspects balanced. 

People's preferences are all over the place and if someone wants a 63° HTA steel rigid singlespeed then more power to them.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

HollyBoni said:


> Personally I don't really see the point of harder hitting short travel bikes. You have most of the components, weight, and geo as longer bikes, just not the travel. I just don't see the benefit.


The quote I have seen is a bike with geometry that the suspension can't deliver. 



93EXCivic said:


> Most of my terrain is more rolling but rocky terrain.
> 
> My current bike is a Ragley Big Wig which is 64 deg, 35lb hardtail. I love it but it can be a bit abusive. It will be staying.


Keep in mind, that sagged, your bike is closer to a 65-66 degree head angle. As you go through the travel, a hardtail head angle only gets steeper. On a FS bike, the front and rear sag pretty evenly.

I am a fan of matching. Match the bike to the rider. Match the bike to where you ride. If you ride lots of slow and tight stuff, you will want a steeper head angle and shorter stays so the bike is more nimble. Ride mostly faster stuff, a slacker longer bike. You like to pop off everything a shorter bike is going to fit you better than someone who plows through everything. Do lots of big drops and jumps, you will want suspension with a more progressive leverage ratio. Plow through stuff and and don't hit big drops, a more linear leverage ratio. Favor the bike that feels like it want to surge ahead while climbing, look for high antisquat values, but the tradeoff of less traction on loose and technical climbs and more pedal kickback. 

Everything is a compromise, you have to take a look at how and where you ride and find the compromise that best fits you and where you ride. I would go in the following order:

1) Fit. If the bike doesn't fit you right, nothing else matters. Do you prefer your bars higher or lower? Pay attention to head tube lengths, get a bike with the same toptube and reach but a 20mm shorter headtube and when you add the spacers in, the bike with the shorter headtube will fit 8mm shorter. 
2) Geometry. What fits your riding style, conditions, and riding speed?
3) Travel- Match the geometry and where you ride. 
4) Suspension Design- Ignore what it is called (DW Link, Maestro, Horst link, etc.) and look at the numbers. Does the leverage ratio match how you ride? Do the antisquat values match what you want in the balance between peppy feeling and traction?


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

I used to have a 140m Jeffsy, and went to a 115mm Phantom, so I have some perspective.

I think it comes down to what makes things more fun when you hit the rougher trails - being able to plow through like a monster truck, or picking your lines and being more technical, while going a bit slower? And, when it comes to technical climbing, are you a 'sit and spin to grind through' vs. a 'stand and stomp to surge over' type? Longer travel is better the more technical the climbing gets (it can keep the wheel on the ground on more gnarly obstacles), but it's also going to be more sloggy and boring for less challenging stuff.

It all boils down to the old 'overbiking vs. underbiking' question. It's a personality test more than an objective 'this is better than that'.

The trails where I'm at are mostly flat and my riding buddies are all on hardtails, so the Phantom for me feels like an 'old man hardtail' - I don't feel like I have appreciable distance I can sink into like a longer travel bike, but on the really fast and flat but rocky stuff it saves my back and legs. I ride it like a hardtail with some forgiveness.

I'm fairly big even for a Clyde - I powerlifted for a long time, and I have a huge frame, so I weight about 40 more pounds than anyone guesses for my size - so something overbuilt like the Phantom is perfect for me. If you're not a Clyde, I personally think there are better options, like an Ibis or Santa Cruz.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Cary said:


> I am a fan of matching. Match the bike to the rider. Match the bike to where you ride. If you ride lots of slow and tight stuff, you will want a steeper head angle and shorter stays so the bike is more nimble. Ride mostly faster stuff, a slacker longer bike. You like to pop off everything a shorter bike is going to fit you better than someone who plows through everything. Do lots of big drops and jumps, you will want suspension with a more progressive leverage ratio. Plow through stuff and and don't hit big drops, a more linear leverage ratio. Favor the bike that feels like it want to surge ahead while climbing, look for high antisquat values, but the tradeoff of less traction on loose and technical climbs and more pedal kickback.
> 
> Everything is a compromise, you have to take a look at how and where you ride and find the compromise that best fits you and where you ride. I would go in the following order:


I in general prefer to pop off things and have fun. But at the same time the hardtail does that decently and the one I am building will probably do it even better (26in wheeled short chainstay single speed built to be halfway between a trail bike and DJ). So maybe it makes sense to have more of plow bike since it would be more of a difference from the hardtails but then I don't want something that is pig to climb and not at all "poppy" when I travel with it. I think it is a bit of analysis paralysis. I really need to demo more bikes probably.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

93EXCivic said:


> Most of my terrain is more rolling but rocky terrain.


I have a Ripley AF (120/130) that is perfect for this type of terrain. I also have a 170mm enduro bike which is great, but when you're in rolling tech, having too much suspension can sometimes be an obstacle. For example if I roll into a compression that has to be followed quickly by up moves over rocky terrain, the bigger-travel bike is going to sink a little more and make it a tiny bit harder to get the back wheel up over stuff. The 120mm travel bike is lighter and quicker in this scenario.

If you're talking about just pedaling straight up a fire road, or sitting and spinning over roots and such, I think the longer travel bike is actually better. But standing and mashing over rocks and roots on rolling terrain with multiple grade reversals is easier on a shorter travel bike IMHO.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

I have never seen a good explanation for what makes a shorter travel bike more fun on less technical terrain, is it the geometry, the travel, the suspension design, all of them? I would love to demo one of these more aggressive short travel bikes at some point just to see how they handle.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

To echo a point made earlier, the climbing itself is not that much better on a short travel bike (assuming the longer traveling one has a good suspension design). For long climbs and decents, more travel is good. It is the punchy stuff in rolling terrain I find a shorter travel bike to be better (more fun) on.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I currently have a 140 hardtail (paradox), a 140/140 trail bike (tilt) and a 160/170 enduro (lithium). Of the three, I ride the trail bike the most. It's the most playful of the FS bikes. It's the best over all pedaling of the FS bikes. Actually, if I were to have a single bike, that'd be it. I should probably sell the lithium, to be honest, as I just like riding the tilt more. I'm rambling.

Where am I going with all of this? I guess I'm saying that perhaps the smaller bike is a lot more fun


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

93EXCivic said:


> Does a more descent oriented shorter travel bike even make sense?


That really depends a lot on your descents. Are we talking about fast and relatively smooth trails, or very steep and chunky with big compressions, holes, etc. The terrain that you mostly ride will dictate what bike will work best for you.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

AEyogi said:


> I have never seen a good explanation for what makes a shorter travel bike more fun on less technical terrain, is it the geometry, the travel, the suspension design, all of them? I would love to demo one of these more aggressive short travel bikes at some point just to see how they handle.


All of those aspects. It's easier to get off the ground, pump, accelerate, hit tight turns faster, etc. On the short travel bike I might come around a tight corner, stand and put in a few good pedal strokes and use a root to pop over a rock. On the enduro bike I might be like 'screw it' and just sit and lazily pedal through that same section. That's the best way I know to describe it.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

I've owned YT Izzo and currently own Ibis Ripmo. The Izzo is semi aggressive short travel bike? 130 front and rear. 66 HA. Fox 34 and DPS suspension.

Climbing wise, not a whole lot different. The Izzo wasn't a lightweight downcountry bike. My medium with pedals was 31lbs. The Ripmo is about a pound heavier. On rolling terrain was where most noticeable difference. There's a transition where the Izzo would make it further up the uphill before I needed to pedal. The Ripmo slows down right away. I wonder how much of this is due to tires? Izzo came with 2.3 Maxxis Forekasters. Ripmo has 2.5 DHF and Aggressors. If Strava times is a factor in your decision, my feeling is short travel bikes will have faster times the flatter the trail. As others have mentioned, on steep fireroad climbs, it sucks on both bikes. There is no advantage with the shorter travel bike. Maybe it was significantly lighter.

On steeper, bumpy downhills, it was night and day. The YT izzo was too firm for my taste and was like riding a wild horse. What's interesting to me is my DH times on the Ripmo aren't significantly faster than the Izzo. I eventually set PRs with the RIpmo, but the Izzo was still pretty fast on rough DHs. It's just that the Ripmo is comfortable and more confidence inspiring.

Also not due to travel, but short travel bikes tend to have steeper HA and shorter wheelbases. Definitely more nimble on tight trails. It really comes down to where you ride. If your answer is everything, then get something in the 140-160 range. Then you can narrow down the brands by do you want the suspension to be more plush feeling or supportive.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

jeremy3220 said:


> All of those aspects. It's easier to get off the ground, pump, accelerate, hit tight turns faster, etc. On the short travel bike I might come around a tight corner, stand and put in a few good pedal strokes and use a root to pop over a rock. On the enduro bike I might be like 'screw it' and just sit and lazily pedal through that same section. That's the best way I know to describe it.


It seems important to understand what makes a bike "playful". The worst case would be to get a slack short travel bike, and find it dull on the flowy stuff, and easily overwhelmed on the chunk. I ride a Ripmo AF, and it is awesome on most of my trails, but I am overbiked if I ride with friends on the blue trails.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Curveball said:


> That really depends a lot on your descents. Are we talking about fast and relatively smooth trails, or very steep and chunky with big compressions, holes, etc. The terrain that you mostly ride will dictate what bike will work best for you.


Locally a lot more of the chunky-ness. Occasionally steep but not always super steep. The flowest trail that isn't a flatter XC trail is still chunkier then other places I have ridden.


----------



## Mike Aswell (Sep 1, 2009)

I have a 145 bike and a "hard hitting" shorter travel bike.

Not surprisingly, on the shorter travel bike I do bottom the shock more often on drops. I also occasionally have oh shoot moments descending which IMO are more a function of the geometry of the shorter travel bike and it being less able to mask poor line choice or execution.

For me, personally, I prefer the 145 bike as my trail bike. Although I would attribute that to equal parts travel and geometry. I also ride somewhere that is very rocky and technical.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

93EXCivic said:


> Locally a lot more of the chunky-ness. Occasionally steep but not always super steep. The flowest trail that isn't a flatter XC trail is still chunkier then other places I have ridden.


Well, when I'm envisioning somewhere like New England, there are a lot of big rocks and tech puzzles where a short-travel bike will help with punching up onto features but may be fairly harsh landing off of them. A long-travel bike will work great there for landing off rolls and big features but may be a bit too squishy for some tight trails and technical moves. Trying to pop a 160 mm bike up onto a rock could take some real effort. This is where I see a mid-travel bike working very well since you'd have some good travel for dropping off things and enough support for popping onto and over things.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

93EXCivic said:


> I in general prefer to pop off things and have fun. But at the same time the hardtail does that decently and the one I am building will probably do it even better (26in wheeled short chainstay single speed built to be halfway between a trail bike and DJ). So maybe it makes sense to have more of plow bike since it would be more of a difference from the hardtails but then I don't want something that is pig to climb and not at all "poppy" when I travel with it. I think it is a bit of analysis paralysis. I really need to demo more bikes probably.


I’ve got a 170/180 plow bike and a 130/140 fun bike and I’m in the process of parting out my super slack hardtail. I’m riding the shorter travel bike about 3/4 off the time now, it’s really put into perspective how much extra effort it is to pedal the big bike around. I’m overshooting stuff and pulling way too hard on those fun little natural trail gaps… it’s so much fun! There is something to be said for more travel on the bigger hits that I routinely do, I have to watch my speed much more carefully on the smaller bike.


----------



## apdg (2 mo ago)

From how you've described your trails and the bikes you've demoed and liked/disliked, it sounds to me like you're on the right track with the bikes you name in your initial post. 

I primarily ride a 2017 Transition Scout which is fairly similar suspension and geometry to the Aether 9, and I would definitely consider it the right tool for what you're describing. It's fantastically playful, climbs like a dream, and copes well with the moderately rowdy descents. I recently demoed a Revel Rail. Slacker and much beefier suspension, but only a couple pounds heavier. I was surprised that it felt almost as easy to climb with, and it was great in the air. But overall, on the descents, the big suspension made my regular trails kind of boringly easy. Which makes me think, if you're mostly doing rolling rocky terrain, I'd probably stay away from bigger travel. Even though it'd be a bigger departure from what you currently have.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

One upside to descending rough terrain on a short travel bike is you are going slower when you wreck.


----------



## apdg (2 mo ago)

kapusta said:


> One upside to descending rough terrain on a short travel bike is you are going slower when you wreck.


Haha, definitely this. I crashed that Rail at a higher speed than I would have crashed my Scout on the same feature. I often have more fun and sometimes _feel_ faster on little squirrely bikes even if I'm objectively going faster on bigger ones.


----------



## davec113 (May 31, 2006)

Short travel bikes are so capable these days it makes it more about personal preference to a larger degree. My 120mm DC bike can handle chunky terrain but it takes a lot more work vs the 160mm burly trail bike. Both bikes can be a ton of fun on the same trails. Sometimes it's hard to choose, just depends on mood. But there are plenty of trails I wouldn't want to ride on the DC bike too, it has light and fast tires, less travel, more flex, it does hit it's limits. OTOH the trail bike is too much bike on many rides so it's nice to have both. For one bike I'd definitely take the 160mm bike + a 2nd lighter, faster rolling wheelset though.


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

My small bike is now a slightly weight-weenied ibis Ripmo because it pedals better than most short travel bikes and can still rip proper DH trails at 160/147 front and rear.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

norcalbike said:


> weight-weenied ibis Ripmo


The official dadduro setup.


----------



## zhendo (Aug 31, 2011)

I can speak for the Banshee Phantom V3 - it's a stupidly fun bike. Having a beefy enduro bike is non-negotiable for me given my riding style and where I live, but the short travel rig has been a game changer for having fun on short after work rides and the like. It was a bit of an experiment on my part, but it has panned out well and I ride it at least 2x per week. It's way more engaging and fun to ride on less tech trails, especially mid-winter when steeper trails are snowy or soaked, and the snappy feel encourages me to push harder on the climbs and flatter sections because you can get much more response from the bike.

I think where you can get into trouble is either building up a big bike with too light of parts, or building up a bike like the Phantom with too heavy of parts. If you're going to entertain having multiple bikes in your garage, at least have them differentiated. I've seen lots of guys buy a Phantom and build it up with a coil shock, heavy fork, burly wheels+tires, and end up with a 35lb bike with 115mm of travel. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

My last bike was 140/160 5-Spot. Last year replaced it with a 138/150 Tilt.

Recently bought a 120/130 Ripley AF for my better half. And of course I had to take it out a few times to bed the brakes in

Holy crap, that bike is fun. Despite weighing the same as my Tilt (with heavier rims) it is really fast and fun in rolling terrain. Really playful and easy to pop off of all sorts of stuff. I kinda want one now.

I rode it 5 times over the course of a week, and afterward reduced the travel of the fork on my Tilt from 150 to 140.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

kapusta said:


> My last bike was 140/160 5-Spot. Last year replaced it with a 138/150 Tilt.
> 
> Recently bought a 120/130 Ripley AF for my better half. And of course I had to take it out a few times to bed the brakes in
> 
> ...


You planned ahead getting a SO the same frame size as you. Smart man.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Personally I think the biggest influence to climbing efficiency is weight, primarily rolling weight. 

I have a 165/180mm enduro sledge that's 31lb with pedals. It pedals and climbs better than my mates 130 - 150mm 33_36lb trail bikes. I'd also place bets that it would climb better than your 34lb hardtail on technical terrain. 
Then when the trail turns downhill you wint see me from dust... 
I also don't see the point in low travel at similar weight to more travel. You might as well have the good travel and send it.


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

jeremy3220 said:


> The official dadduro setup.


Is this a commentary on how there’s a lot of unskilled dorks who watch BKXC videos and ride Ripmos at your local trailhead? I’ve noticed, but the bike rips.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

norcalbike said:


> Is this a commentary on how there’s a lot of unskilled dorks who watch BKXC videos and ride Ripmos at your local trailhead? I’ve noticed, but the bike rips.


Something like that. It's seems to be the AM/enduro bike that middle age dudes who don't need an AM/enduro bike buy. They got a longer travel bike for comfort reasons and need something that pedals well on XC trails.

It's obviously a great bike but does attract some middle age dorks as you say.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

First of all where do you ride? What are you currently riding? 



93EXCivic said:


> I saw the Pinkbike reveiw of the RSD Wildcat V3 and that is what had we wondering. *It was the slowest climber of the bikes in their "Downcountry" test but was the second fastest descender.*


Keep in mind, and I still don't know why there were so many super high dollar builds in this particular comparison??, but they compared a lot of efficient/race $10k bikes against a $4k bike. It's very odd and not a fair fight/great reference IMO. I'd rather see a comparison of decked out race bikes OR a comparison of reasonably affordable short travel bikes. 



> Do these shorter travel bikes climb better then a longer travel trail bike?


Yeah, no free lunch. Generally whatever goes up better will go down worse, and vise versa. That said modern mid-travel bikes climb pretty damn well now a days. Still, don't expect "XC race bike" efficiency. 



> Does a more descent oriented shorter travel bike even make sense?


Depends on what kind of _feel_ you're going for. Personal preference.


----------



## Tallboy723 (4 mo ago)

kapusta said:


> To echo a point made earlier, the climbing itself is not that much better on a short travel bike (assuming the longer traveling one has a good suspension design). For long climbs and decents, more travel is good. It is the punchy stuff in rolling terrain I find a shorter travel bike to be better (more fun) on.


Yep everyone I have talked to says the same thing about less or more travel. The climbing isn’t much different between the two, say like 130 ST to 140 LT. I don’t have much experience but many guys I ride with have ridden many types and demo’d and have commented. I’m on a TB v4 and I love it. I was never really one to kill it on the up hills so really doesn’t matter how good the bike climbs. Lol. The uphills were a means to an end. To go down. But not much I ride in my area has big up hills. Some trails do but not a whole lot.


----------



## flgfish (11 mo ago)

norcalbike said:


> Is this a commentary on how there’s a lot of unskilled dorks who watch BKXC videos and ride Ripmos at your local trailhead? I’ve noticed, but the bike rips.


This hits close to home. I’m riding a Ripley right now but am waiting on a Ripmo frame to build. And “dadduro” is about the most appropriate name for what I am doing. I think I shall wear this as a badge of pride.

Middle-aged dork…that’s me.


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

flgfish said:


> This hits close to home. I’m riding a Ripley right now but am waiting on a Ripmo frame to build. And “dadduro” is about the most appropriate name for what I am doing. I think I shall wear this as a badge of pride.
> 
> Middle-aged dork…that’s me.


Hey as long as you’re having fun out there, all that matters. I still love Ibis bikes despite not being wild about all the youtube influencer types they sponsor.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

kapusta said:


> My last bike was 140/160 5-Spot. Last year replaced it with a 138/150 Tilt.
> 
> Recently bought a 120/130 Ripley AF for my better half. And of course I had to take it out a few times to bed the brakes in
> 
> ...


This sounds familiar.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

*OneSpeed* said:


> First of all where do you ride? What are you currently riding?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right now I have a Ragley Big Wig hardtail with 150mm travel and building a custom Marino single speed with 26in wheels. Most of local riding is rocky, rolling but sometimes steep terrain. 
I absolutely understand that the RSD is a little outgunned as far as weight in this test but I was more using it as point of reference to do these bikes make sense since while it was one of the fastest descenders and one of the slowest climbers would it make sense against a similar longer travel bike. I am not looking for an XC level climbing bike. Just want something that isnt going to make me hate climbing like my old full suspension (a WFO9). For example when I did the Kona demo day, I had just broken my old bike and was looking for a new one. I only had time to demo two (a Carbon Honzo and the Process 156). I liked the Process a lot but it made a lot of the local trails a bit boring and I love the Honzo all the time so I build the Ragley. When I tried a couple 170mm bikes it was even more so. I haven't tried anything with short travel category other then XC bikes that I didn't like (Giant Anthem and Norco Revolver).


----------



## flgfish (11 mo ago)

.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

If possible, you should try a short travel and medium travel bike. At least in an ideal world. You've tried long travel and know hardtails.

What year was your WFO 9?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

AEyogi said:


> You planned ahead getting a SO the same frame size as you. Smart man.


I made sure to swap bikes on our first date to verify we were compatible.


----------



## gdb85 (Mar 4, 2017)

This will go over like a lead balloon and you might be anti Big-S but my my carbon Stumpy with flex stays (140/130) is the best bike I've owned to date. It handles 95% of what I ride in the SWPa and WV area without an issue. I'm not a bike park guy nor do I send it off 4-5 ft drops. It comes in at 28 lbs and when you pedal, it lunges forward, very easy to keep momentum and pick up momentum on the trail, quite playful and poppy off little stuff too.

Not for everyone, I understand that. Just my $.02, go ahead and flame away...


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

dysfunction said:


> If possible, you should try a short travel and medium travel bike. At least in an ideal world. You've tried long travel and know hardtails.
> 
> What year was your WFO 9?


The WFO9 was 2012 so 100% not modern geo at all. I am sure modern bikes climb much better. I know the Kona Process I tried did and even the Spire seemed to. I do need to try out some medium travel and shorter travel non XC bikes for sure. 

What do we even count as medium travel though?


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

It took awhile to acclimate to my Tallboy 4 but I love that thing and have tons of fun on it. I can ride all the same trails I did before on my 130/140/150/160mm bikes, just had to learn to adjust my eyeballs a bit. I've set tons of PR's, won races, podiumed or been in the hunt at every race I've entered. I plan to add a 'fun bigger travel' bike in time, just haven't decided on what I want yet. I also added a gravel bike this year and that makes my Tallboy feel like a couch lmao


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Oh yea, things have totally gotten better! I generally look at 100-130ish being short travel and mid as being 130-160ish.. Not that I'm huge into travel representing how a bike rides, but it's a common reference. They blend at points, that is for certain. It'd also be really interesting, I think, if you could try different suspension types.. but wow, that's a perfect world IMO


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

What I found going from a led sled longer travel bike (which was overkill for my local trails but I wanted a burly bike to handle my weight of 280lbs) to a shorter travel bike (after losing 30lbs of burgers and beers) is that the shorter travel bike was just more lively in almost every aspect. 

It seemed to dig out of the hole from a stop faster, climbed better, was more fun to pop off of trail features, etc.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Jacklopez56 said:


> Historically, cross-country bikes have .... the coldest water bottle - Bottle For Water


Okay, wtf is this you're posting around?
Where you going with this?


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

I have a: 
2019 Specialized Stumpjumper Expert in XL - 140/150 mm
2022 Specialized Stumpjumper Expert in S6 - 130/140 mm
2022 Specialized Enduro Expert in XL - 170/170 mm

The Enduro weighs in at 34 pounds with a coil shock..... maybe 2 lbs heavier that my other bikes. there is just no reason for me not to ride it. I can set it up to ride my local Rooty and rocky trails, or I can bomb downhill at the bike park. for the extra 2 lbs ill take that versatility ALL DAY LONG.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Cleared2land said:


> Okay, wtf is this you're posting around?
> Where you going with this?


Spamalot.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> What I found going from a led sled longer travel bike (which was overkill for my local trails but I wanted a burly bike to handle my weight of 280lbs) to a shorter travel bike (after losing 30lbs of burgers and beers) is that the shorter travel bike was just more lively in almost every aspect.
> 
> It seemed to dig out of the hole from a stop faster, climbed better, was more fun to pop off of trail features, etc.


How was the weight compared to your burley bike?

I reckon most of that is weight reduction rather than travel reduction.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

plummet said:


> How was the weight compared to your burley bike?
> 
> I reckon most of that is weight reduction rather than travel reduction.


I'm 6'2" and 240lbs.....5lbs isn't something I notice. It very much was the reduction in travel imho. I went from Banshee Prime-->SC Tallboy 3-->SC Hightower. I rode the hightower once and knew the bike just wasn't gonna be any fun.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

jonshonda said:


> I'm 6'2" and 240lbs.....5lbs isn't something I notice. It very much was the reduction in travel imho. I went from Banshee Prime-->SC Tallboy 3-->SC Hightower. I rode the hightower once and knew the bike just wasn't gonna be any fun.


You most definitely would notice 5lb of weight reduction particularly if a lot of it is in rolling weight. Hell going from 900gm enduro casing tire to 1300gm tires makes a significant impact. 

I guess we beg to differ.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I can swap the wheels between my tilt and lithium, and the tilt's still more 'playful' IMO. Different bike, different wheelbase, different suspension, different geometry it all adds up.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Bassmantweed said:


> The Enduro weighs in at 34 pounds with a coil shock..... maybe 2 lbs heavier that my other bikes. there is just no reason for me not to ride it. I can set it up to ride my local Rooty and rocky trails, or I can bomb downhill at the bike park. for the extra 2 lbs ill take that versatility ALL DAY LONG.


I mean for me, I am not near any bike parks and 170mm suspension is massive overkill for all but a few local trails at least in my limited experience. It makes a lot of the trails fairly dull.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

93EXCivic said:


> I mean for me, I am not near any bike parks and 170mm suspension is massive overkill for all but a few local trails at least in my limited experience. It makes a lot of the trails fairly dull.


i live in New England where every trail seems to be endless 2” roots or rocks. Plus I’m getting older so I appreciate the extra suspension.


----------



## La Nada (Mar 1, 2017)

jeremy3220 said:


> Something like that. It's seems to be the AM/enduro bike that middle age dudes who don't need an AM/enduro bike buy. They got a longer travel bike for comfort reasons and need something that pedals well on XC trails.
> 
> It's obviously a great bike but does attract some middle age dorks as you say.


Wait, are there people besides middle aged dorks that mountain bike?


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

plummet said:


> You most definitely would notice 5lb of weight reduction particularly if a lot of it is in rolling weight. Hell going from 900gm enduro casing tire to 1300gm tires makes a significant impact.
> 
> I guess we beg to differ.


Interesting assumptions. I swapped the wheelset over to the tallboy. What say ye now?


----------



## HEMIjer (Jul 17, 2008)

Original poster you have got a lot of feedback and all likelihood some of it is confusing so will say this:


Ignore the Pinkbike rakings, they area great channel good reviews but ranking bikes almost not in the same category even they admitted that on the RSD
Just prioritize what you care about, you got more a opportunity than a problem most Full Suspension bikes are just so good right now hard to go wrong. Long Travel bikes pedal good descend great. Short travel climb great still descend good.
Similar to above think about what you will want to do with the bike long term, is the RSD a step along the way maybe or long term "insvestment" . If not sure buy something lower travel see if it fits need but look used first or something on lower end of price point, or something that know will have good resale.


If all else fails go with DW link bike, Ibis Ripley or Pivot 429 Trail- Can't go wrong.


----------



## killjoyken (Jun 12, 2009)

gdb85 said:


> This will go over like a lead balloon and you might be anti Big-S but my my carbon Stumpy with flex stays (140/130) is the best bike I've owned to date. It handles 95% of what I ride in the SWPa and WV area without an issue. I'm not a bike park guy nor do I send it off 4-5 ft drops. It comes in at 28 lbs and when you pedal, it lunges forward, very easy to keep momentum and pick up momentum on the trail, quite playful and poppy off little stuff too.
> 
> Not for everyone, I understand that. Just my $.02, go ahead and flame away...


I'm right there with you. If I could only have one bike it would be my Stumpjumper.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Here is a great comparison for those who believe weight trumps suspension travel for how a bike feels. @plummet these are two excellent pedaling bikes from the same company, with minor geo changes and travel increase. 

IBIS Baby


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

HEMIjer said:


> Original poster you have got a lot of feedback and all likelihood some of it is confusing so will say this:
> 
> 
> Ignore the Pinkbike rakings, they area great channel good reviews but ranking bikes almost not in the same category even they admitted that on the RSD
> ...


The biggest thing I got out of this thread is I need to test ride a lot more bikes in the 150-110 travel range.

As far Pinkbike, I was really just using it as an example to say does a fast descending short travel like the RSD makes sense versus a longer travel trail bike.


----------



## 67King (Apr 16, 2020)

Okay, so when I got my first bike a few years ago, I thought I wanted to be able to handle the big, gnarly downhills, and flick the bike around, etc. Didn't think weight was that critical for a mountain bike. I ended up with a 34.5 pound trail bike. Served me fine to get started. Did a lot of upgrades.

But I'm bringing a knife to a gunfight FOR THE TYPE OF RIDING I DO. Been looking at a 29-ish pound trail bike, 120mm rear travel, all carbon, blah-blah-blah. But after speaking with a friend of mine I ride with a fair amount, and on whose relay team I was on for a 12 hour race last month, I realized that I'm really after one of the newer XC bikes that seem to fit in the "down country" area. Why? I like to ride hard and not stop. I ride AROUND the jumps, rather than hit them. I enjoy riding, it is a good, fun way to supplement my primary fitness activity (swimming). When I ride with some people, there is a lot of stopping to recover, etc. socialize, whatever. Other groups, we only stop to keep from getting separated. When I ride by myself, I don't stop. The climbs to me are the harder parts of the ride, but not merely a means to an end. I live in Knoxville, TN, at the foot of the Appalachians. Lots of good climbing areas, and some are worn granite, some are sharp slate and limestone, and some are exposed roots. Some soil is sandy and loose, and some is more like clay, either rock hard when really dry, or muddy when not. So lots of varied terrain. Probably average 150' of climb per mile.

Let me tell you, after riding for an hour at 8.5-9MPH, I'm worn out. It gets harder and harder to pull that wheel up over seemingly small obstacles. It becomes a chore. Meanwhile I'm riding with guys who are not more fit than me who've been riding shorter travel XC bikes that weigh 10 pounds less than mine who are unfazed.

So, what kind of riding do you do? Do you dread climbs and only do them so you can do a downhill? Get to the top and wait for your crew to all get there before hitting the downhill sections? If so, I wouldn't think a short travel bike would be the best bike for you. Do you do longer rides, only stopping when you have to do keep the group bunched up? Or even better, ride a lot solo, and only stop when you're done for the day, or to eat a quick snack after a couple of hours? If so, I'd think a lighter weight cross country type bike would make your ride more fun/rewarding.

So yeah, it is all about the type of riding you enjoy.


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

I had a Giant Trance 29 2 that was 130/115. It was a great “down country”bike. I bought an enduro Ibis Ripmo AF with 160/147 and it destroys the Giant in every category including climbing!


----------



## LoneStar (Jun 17, 2004)

I have an Alchemy Arktos that I have been playing with long and short travel settings lately. Ran it 120/140 for the first year and half. Fun bike and no real complaints aside from a low bottom bracket that some 165mm cranks helped with. This summer I switched to the 140/160 version. I was expecting it to take a hit on climbing but that wasn't the case. It did just fine. Besides, I now view climbing as a necessary evil and no longer try to scurry up the hills as fast as I once did. Technical climbing was noticeably better, and obviously, downhills were much more controlled feeling. I recently switched back to the short travel setting, and while it definitely is a bit more responsive when standing up and jumping on the gas, I don't really ride that way much when on a FS. Maybe a little more poppy, but no big difference to the long travel setup. All this to say it is now back in the long travel mode and likely will be for some time. Just a better combination on what I'm looking for in how/where I ride now. FYI, I changed nothing else on the bike, so overall weight was essentially the same going from one version to the other.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

67King said:


> So, what kind of riding do you do? Do you dread climbs and only do them so you can do a downhill? Get to the top and wait for your crew to all get there before hitting the downhill sections? If so, I wouldn't think a short travel bike would be the best bike for you. Do you do longer rides, only stopping when you have to do keep the group bunched up? Or even better, ride a lot solo, and only stop when you're done for the day, or to eat a quick snack after a couple of hours? If so, I'd think a lighter weight cross country type bike would make your ride more fun/rewarding.


Me personally I generally ride solo and try to find little things to pop off, session sections, trying different lines, etc. I don't completely hate climbing and will occasionally session technical climbing sections but really I enjoy downhill much more. But I am also not hitting huge jumps or drops (probably right now the biggest I hit is 4 or 5 feet) and while I want to get better at jumps, I don't see myelf hitting big gap jumps. I also don't go chasing KOMs on uphill or downhill or do racing just out for fitness and fun. Also I enjoy steep tech but I don't enjoy blast rock gardens at Mach Chicken. But when I do get to ride with friends they are generally less about stopping and sessioning things and more about just going.

I think that is my dilemma. I want something pedally enough for rides with friends but that is also a blast for just having fun dicking around. That was part of my problem with the long travel bikes they just feel built to absolutely charge downhills which is fun but tbh the speed they carry just means a wreck is potentially bigger and they don't seem to have the same pop off of things (well compared to a hardtail) and pure XC bikes really don't suit that sort of riding either. Like to be honest, Pinkbike's field test of the Evil Following sounds perfect except for the price.


----------



## Oogie (Jun 9, 2021)

I keep waffling between the izzo, spectral 125, banshee prime, and a stumpjumper. First one that popped up used for a good price I would jump on. Spectral is number one right now, but the stumpy is most likely. Lots of choices in this shorter travel, trail bike segment!


----------



## flgfish (11 mo ago)

Izzo just dropped their prices, and they actually have stock. 
It feels like there will be sales on new bikes through the end of the year if you’re patient.


----------



## 67King (Apr 16, 2020)

93EXCivic said:


> Me personally I generally ride solo and try to find little things to pop off, session sections, trying different lines, etc. I don't completely hate climbing and will occasionally session technical climbing sections but really I enjoy downhill much more. But I am also not hitting huge jumps or drops (probably right now the biggest I hit is 4 or 5 feet) and while I want to get better at jumps, I don't see myelf hitting big gap jumps. I also don't go chasing KOMs on uphill or downhill or do racing just out for fitness and fun. Also I enjoy steep tech but I don't enjoy blast rock gardens at Mach Chicken. But when I do get to ride with friends they are generally less about stopping and sessioning things and more about just going.


Sounds like a nice lightweight trail bike, which is what I had started out looking at, would be what you are after. Something like a Giant Trance, maybe even a Trance X. Canyon Neuron's are on sale. YT Izzo Core 4 looks like a lot of bike for the money. All of those are under 30 pounds. I don't see any reason to consider a XC bike for what you do.


----------



## Oogie (Jun 9, 2021)

We are getting into riding season in the desert. I am being patient, but it is hard. I found a like new banshee prime frame. I am going to see if the seller is willing to ship. wish me luck! ha


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

67King said:


> Sounds like a nice lightweight trail bike, which is what I had started out looking at, would be what you are after. Something like a Giant Trance, maybe even a Trance X. Canyon Neuron's are on sale. YT Izzo Core 4 looks like a lot of bike for the money. All of those are under 30 pounds. I don't see any reason to consider a XC bike for what you do.


I am probably a bit away from buying. I am building a garage and things keep costing more then I expect... Hopefully next year. The Process 134 also looks interesting.


----------



## Chrispy1974 (Aug 28, 2020)

LoneStar said:


> I have an Alchemy Arktos that I have been playing with long and short travel settings lately. Ran it 120/140 for the first year and half. Fun bike and no real complaints aside from a low bottom bracket that some 165mm cranks helped with. This summer I switched to the 140/160 version. I was expecting it to take a hit on climbing but that wasn't the case. It did just fine. Besides, I now view climbing as a necessary evil and no longer try to scurry up the hills as fast as I once did. Technical climbing was noticeably better, and obviously, downhills were much more controlled feeling. I recently switched back to the short travel setting, and while it definitely is a bit more responsive when standing up and jumping on the gas, I don't really ride that way much when on a FS. Maybe a little more poppy, but no big difference to the long travel setup. All this to say it is now back in the long travel mode and likely will be for some time. Just a better combination on what I'm looking for in how/where I ride now. FYI, I changed nothing else on the bike, so overall weight was essentially the same going from one version to the other.


If I were looking right now, I would be STRONGLY considering the Arktos...the current pricing with their build kit is pretty impressive.

I looked at them back in Sept. 2020 but they were OoS on my size...so ended up pulling the trigger on an Evil the Following V3...and frankly...I love this darn bike...but the Alchemy is till pretty slick and at $4500 for Fox Factory fork/shock/dropper, GX build and i9 hydra wheelset...certainly worth a look


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

Ripmo


----------



## analog7 (Jun 3, 2021)

93EXCivic said:


> Me personally I generally ride solo and try to find little things to pop off, session sections, trying different lines, etc. I don't completely hate climbing and will occasionally session technical climbing sections but really I enjoy downhill much more. But I am also not hitting huge jumps or drops (probably right now the biggest I hit is 4 or 5 feet) and while I want to get better at jumps, I don't see myelf hitting big gap jumps. I also don't go chasing KOMs on uphill or downhill or do racing just out for fitness and fun. Also I enjoy steep tech but I don't enjoy blast rock gardens at Mach Chicken. But when I do get to ride with friends they are generally less about stopping and sessioning things and more about just going.
> 
> I think that is my dilemma. I want something pedally enough for rides with friends but that is also a blast for just having fun dicking around. That was part of my problem with the long travel bikes they just feel built to absolutely charge downhills which is fun but tbh the speed they carry just means a wreck is potentially bigger and they don't seem to have the same pop off of things (well compared to a hardtail) and pure XC bikes really don't suit that sort of riding either. Like to be honest, Pinkbike's field test of the Evil Following sounds perfect except for the price.


You basically described my riding and I ride a Ripley AF.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

analog7 said:


> You basically described my riding and I ride a Ripley AF.


Personally, I think that's a solid choice. Solid enough that I considered it.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

93EXCivic said:


> Me personally I generally ride solo and try to find little things to pop off, session sections, trying different lines, etc. I don't completely hate climbing and will occasionally session technical climbing sections but really I enjoy downhill much more. But I am also not hitting huge jumps or drops (probably right now the biggest I hit is 4 or 5 feet) and while I want to get better at jumps, I don't see myelf hitting big gap jumps. I also don't go chasing KOMs on uphill or downhill or do racing just out for fitness and fun. Also I enjoy steep tech but I don't enjoy blast rock gardens at Mach Chicken. But when I do get to ride with friends they are generally less about stopping and sessioning things and more about just going.
> 
> I think that is my dilemma. I want something pedally enough for rides with friends but that is also a blast for just having fun dicking around. That was part of my problem with the long travel bikes they just feel built to absolutely charge downhills which is fun but tbh the speed they carry just means a wreck is potentially bigger and they don't seem to have the same pop off of things (well compared to a hardtail) and pure XC bikes really don't suit that sort of riding either. Like to be honest, Pinkbike's field test of the Evil Following sounds perfect except for the price.


It really sounds like a bike in the 125 to 140 mm travel range will work very well for you. Too many great ones to list here, so I'd visit all the LBS's to try out the available models.


----------



## Oogie (Jun 9, 2021)

Chrispy1974 said:


> If I were looking right now, I would be STRONGLY considering the Arktos...the current pricing with their build kit is pretty impressive.
> 
> I looked at them back in Sept. 2020 but they were OoS on my size...so ended up pulling the trigger on an Evil the Following V3...and frankly...I love this darn bike...but the Alchemy is till pretty slick and at $4500 for Fox Factory fork/shock/dropper, GX build and i9 hydra wheelset...certainly worth a look


I like that there is locations for two water bottles, but the downtube makes the frame look all pot-bellied.


----------



## Brant sanders (Jul 4, 2021)

93EXCivic said:


> So I am looking at getting a full sus bike sometime hopefully in the not to distant future and I keep wondering about where I want to go with it. I know I am not interested in a big enduro bike or a cross-country bike but I am wondering about kind of the shorter travel bikes like the RSD Wildcat, Bird Aether 9, Banshee Phantom, etc, versus going with something like 140-150mm rear travel bike. I saw the Pinkbike review of the RSD Wildcat V3 and that is what had we wondering. It was the slowest climber of the bikes in their "Downcountry" test but was the second fastest descender. Do these shorter travel bikes climb better than a longer travel trail bike? Does a more descent-oriented shorter travel bike even make sense? _Admin edit: Photo added for social and newsletter_ _
> View attachment 2007372
> _​


 I got the phantom. It’s very capable. If that’s your choice, get sans shock and find an alternative that avalanche can custom tune. The phantom flat out shreds.


----------



## Colin Lewis (2 mo ago)

jeremy3220 said:


> Climbing ability is determined by so many things (suspension design, travel, weight, geo, etc). A short travel bike with enduro like geometry (without getting crazy) can climb really well. I have a Tallboy and Megatower. The bikes have pretty similar geo (MT is about 1.5° slacker). The riding experience is pretty different though with the Tallboy being much quicker on rolling terrain. When seated on long smooth steady climbs there's not a huge difference. The real advantage of the Tallboy is acceleration...pumping terrain, sprinting out of the saddle, getting back up to speed on tight trails, etc. So if most of your riding is winch and plummet style there's little advantage to the shorter travel bike. If most of your riding is tight or rolling terrain there's little advantage is to having a heavy super slack bike. Personally, I'm not buying a 120-130mm travel bike that weighs 33+ lbs and has a 63-64° HTA. I think the performance benefits are largely lost at that point and you might as well get a 150mm bike. A few mm of travel doesn't make an enormous difference. It's about the total package for me.


----------



## Colin Lewis (2 mo ago)

93EXCivic said:


> So I am looking at getting a full sus bike sometime hopefully in the not to distant future and I keep wondering about where I want to go with it. I know I am not interested in a big enduro bike or a cross-country bike but I am wondering about kind of the shorter travel bikes like the RSD Wildcat, Bird Aether 9, Banshee Phantom, etc, versus going with something like 140-150mm rear travel bike. I saw the Pinkbike review of the RSD Wildcat V3 and that is what had we wondering. It was the slowest climber of the bikes in their "Downcountry" test but was the second fastest descender. Do these shorter travel bikes climb better than a longer travel trail bike? Does a more descent-oriented shorter travel bike even make sense?
> 
> _Admin edit: Photo added for social and newsletter_
> _
> ...


Try an Ibis Exie with a 130mm Fox factory 34”. A good custom build for 23.3 lbs


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

An 8 grand XC bike... hmmmm.. seems a bit out of what has been discussed.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

dysfunction said:


> An 8 grand XC bike... hmmmm.. seems a bit out of what has been discussed.


Seems like post covid that ain't sh!t anymore!


----------



## Colin Lewis (2 mo ago)

93EXCivic said:


> So I am looking at getting a full sus bike sometime hopefully in the not to distant future and I keep wondering about where I want to go with it. I know I am not interested in a big enduro bike or a cross-country bike but I am wondering about kind of the shorter travel bikes like the RSD Wildcat, Bird Aether 9, Banshee Phantom, etc, versus going with something like 140-150mm rear travel bike. I saw the Pinkbike review of the RSD Wildcat V3 and that is what had we wondering. It was the slowest climber of the bikes in their "Downcountry" test but was the second fastest descender. Do these shorter travel bikes climb better than a longer travel trail bike? Does a more descent-oriented shorter travel bike even make sense? _Admin edit: Photo added for social and newsletter_ _
> View attachment 2007372
> _​


 You can not have it all. Inexpensive today is 4 to 6K but it will weigh quite a bit over 30 lbs. That’s a Ripley AF. Great bike but it will be a tough one on long climbs. You want the same and light, no problem but it will become more expensive the lighter the build! Perhaps it is time for a KTM 250 4 stroke but is it legal on your favorite trails?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Colin Lewis said:


> You can not have it all. Inexpensive today is 4 to 6K but it will weigh quite a bit over 30 lbs. That’s a Ripley AF. Great bike but it will be a tough one on long climbs. You want the same and light, no problem but it will become more expensive the lighter the build! Perhaps it is time for a KTM 250 4 stroke but is it legal on your favorite trails?


Ripley AF is not a tough one on long climbs.


----------



## BIGTIMEBALLER (Jul 7, 2020)

LoneStar said:


> I have an Alchemy Arktos that I have been playing with long and short travel settings lately. Ran it 120/140 for the first year and half. Fun bike and no real complaints aside from a low bottom bracket that some 165mm cranks helped with. This summer I switched to the 140/160 version. I was expecting it to take a hit on climbing but that wasn't the case. It did just fine. Besides, I now view climbing as a necessary evil and no longer try to scurry up the hills as fast as I once did. Technical climbing was noticeably better, and obviously, downhills were much more controlled feeling. I recently switched back to the short travel setting, and while it definitely is a bit more responsive when standing up and jumping on the gas, I don't really ride that way much when on a FS. Maybe a little more poppy, but no big difference to the long travel setup. All this to say it is now back in the long travel mode and likely will be for some time. Just a better combination on what I'm looking for in how/where I ride now. FYI, I changed nothing else on the bike, so overall weight was essentially the same going from one version to the other.


I think this is a fine example of “travel” not being a huge factor. In this case the same frame is converted from relatively short travel to relatively long travel and the rider says there is not much difference.


“Short Travel” is not what makes a ST29’er fun and unexpectedly capable. It’s the modern geometry. That geo does so much more to influence the experience than does the length of travel (geo includes weight IMO).

90% of trails and riders do not require an enduro rig (say 160mm and up). Bad geo for so many years and the slow evolution of quality suspension components have been masked my “more travel”.

The ST29’er is so popular because…
1. Modern Geo
2. 29” wheels
3. Light weight (24-28lbs)
4. 120-140mm travel (more than enough for nearly all local trail systems)
6. Versatility (from XC to 6ft drops)

Currently have a TR Spur and a Yeti SB165 and ride them both on the 90% of the same trails… both are incredibly fun, but if I had to chose one it would be the Spur.


----------



## JustRon (Nov 20, 2009)

Based on what the OP is looking for, I would strongly suggest trying something with a DW Link. The type of suspension can make as much of a difference as the amount of travel (to some extent).


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Colin Lewis said:


> You can not have it all. Inexpensive today is 4 to 6K but it will weigh quite a bit over 30 lbs. That’s a Ripley AF. Great bike but it will be a tough one on long climbs. You want the same and light, no problem but it will become more expensive the lighter the build! Perhaps it is time for a KTM 250 4 stroke but is it legal on your favorite trails?


I mean my hardtail weights like 34 lb.... I have never said I was looking for a super light bike. I am 6'2" 205-210lbs. I don't have massively long climbs and none of them are smoother climbs.


----------



## flgfish (11 mo ago)

kapusta said:


> Ripley AF is not a tough one on long climbs.


My Ripley v4 is astonishing on climbs. It just goes up, it's magical. The AF weighs a couple pounds more but the seat angle, suspension and general geometry is the same, and it climbs great as well.

Another great thing about the Ripley is the pork chop bag. It fits great, holds all your bike tool crap, phone and keys. It's really slick. With the pork chop bag you never have to worry about anything but water.


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

My Ripmo AF climbs great with the DW link suspension.... I can only imagine how well the Ripley pedals up the hills?


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

CRM6 said:


> My Ripmo AF climbs great with the DW link suspension.... I can only imagine how well the Ripley pedals up the hills?


It’s real good


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

That said, Ripmo is pretty close and much better on the downs. I think it’s a better one bike solution unless you’re leaning pretty heavily in the XC direction


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

norcalbike said:


> That said, Ripmo is pretty close and much better on the downs. I think it’s a better one bike solution unless you’re leaning pretty heavily in the XC direction


Agreed! The Ripmo is a great Do It All bike.....


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

There are a whole lot of really good short/mid travel bikes out there  I really prefer CBF over DW Link, but that's because while it's less efficient, it's a better technical climbing suspension IMO.. and it feels better going downhill as well. Then again, I can also get along fine with a well implemented horst link. There are a ton of great choices these days. Personally, I wouldn't own a bike that was more XC orientated.. because it doesn't match the way I ride.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

What about single pivots?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

93EXCivic said:


> What about single pivots?


I haven't ridden one of those in a very long time. Like before your last FS bike


----------



## Chrispy1974 (Aug 28, 2020)

dysfunction said:


> I haven't ridden one of those in a very long time. Like before your last FS bike


All single pivots are not created equal.... Evil's DELTA is a single pivot but works great...


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Chrispy1974 said:


> All single pivots are not created equal.... Evil's DELTA is a single pivot but works great...


No doubt, but I'm not gonna comment on something I haven't ridden. You know, a modern single pivot


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

93EXCivic said:


> What about single pivots?


What about them do you want to know?


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

kapusta said:


> What about them do you want to know?


Who even makes them and how do they ride? I know Starling and Orange do.


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

dysfunction said:


> There are a whole lot of really good short/mid travel bikes out there  I really prefer CBF over DW Link, but that's because while it's less efficient, it's a better technical climbing suspension IMO.. and it feels better going downhill as well. Then again, I can also get along fine with a well implemented horst link. There are a ton of great choices these days. Personally, I wouldn't own a bike that was more XC orientated.. because it doesn't match the way I ride.


Is CBF really less efficient then the DW link? Wish we could have some timed efficiency test to really find out. I just did a 2 hour 45 minute ride today on mine and it was wonderfully on the climbs. First FS I have jelled with in a long time, being a single speeder and like to stand on climbs. If you have a somewhat smooth cadence it is really efficient and the biggest benefit even getting out of the saddle climbing the rear end still stays glued to the ground getting over technical obstacles without getting hung up. 

Also I finally weighed by Tilt, medium. Have the heavier Helm on it and no real light weight parts with mid weight wheels with trail tires. Even thou I have a rigid post, which is a boat anchor at around 350 gram for a rigid post. It came in at 31 pounds 13 ounces on the bike shop park scale. I was surprised. I could easily get it under 30 pounds. It would be a trail weapon under 30.


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

Hard hitting short travel MTBs. AKA, Down Country. The first time I heard that term, I literally LMAO. Over a year later and 3k plus miles on my Ranger, I'm still LMAO.


----------



## Colticus (Jun 10, 2016)

UPSed said:


> Hard hitting short travel MTBs. AKA, Down Country. The first time I heard that term, I literally LMAO. Over a year later and 3k plus miles on my Ranger, I'm still LMAO.


Right? Just recently got back into the game and I’m hearing “downcountry” bikes are all the rage. Very strange since my bike is a 120/120 bike from 2016.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

SSsteel4life said:


> Is CBF really less efficient then the DW link? Wish we could have some timed efficiency test to really find out. I just did a 2 hour 45 minute ride today on mine and it was wonderfully on the climbs. First FS I have jelled with in a long time, being a single speeder and like to stand on climbs. If you have a somewhat smooth cadence it is really efficient and the biggest benefit even getting out of the saddle climbing the rear end still stays glued to the ground getting over technical obstacles without getting hung up.


Can I say for sure? No, but it feels it. I'm not talking about a huge difference, just a bit less 'jump' when getting on it on the pedals. That staying glued to the ground bit? I find that to be better. That's actually my favorite part.. well, that and just how little it matters when pedaling.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

SSsteel4life said:


> Is CBF really less efficient then the DW link? Wish we could have some timed efficiency test to really find out. I just did a 2 hour 45 minute ride today on mine and it was wonderfully on the climbs. First FS I have jelled with in a long time, being a single speeder and like to stand on climbs. If you have a somewhat smooth cadence it is really efficient and the biggest benefit even getting out of the saddle climbing the rear end still stays glued to the ground getting over technical obstacles without getting hung up.
> 
> Also I finally weighed by Tilt, medium. Have the heavier Helm on it and no real light weight parts with mid weight wheels with trail tires. Even thou I have a rigid post, which is a boat anchor at around 350 gram for a rigid post. It came in at 31 pounds 13 ounces on the bike shop park scale. I was surprised. I could easily get it under 30 pounds. It would be a trail weapon under 30.


Keep in mind that the DW Link can (and is) tuned differently for different companies. My comparison below is for Ibis’s DW-Link.

I own a Tilt. I’ve also spent a bit of time on my wife’s Ripley AF, and rented a Ripmo AF for 3 days in CO. 

IMO, the DW links I have ridden are snappier and a little more efficient pedaling. But the CFB on the Tilt stays more active when pedaling over rough stuff, and is the better technical climber. The differences become even more pronounced when standing. CFB also seems a little better on the way down. 

My previous bike was a Turner 5-Spot (DW-Link). On the whole it felt like it was tuned with a little less anti-squat. Slightly more active and slightly less efficient. I just bring this up to point out that there is some variation in the implementation of the DW-Link.

Also, with any of these designs, swapping chainring sizes changes the Anti-Squat numbers. I like the way the Tilt pedals with a 30t ring rather than the stock 32t. A little more anti-squat…. But not too much.

I have not ridden Revel’s CFB, but my understanding is that it is similar in its indifference to sag in terms of AS.


----------



## SSsteel4life (Jul 1, 2016)

kapusta said:


> Keep in mind that the DW Link can (and is) tuned differently for different companies. My comparison below is for Ibis’s DW-Link.
> 
> I own a Tilt. I’ve also spent a bit of time on my wife’s Ripley AF, and rented a Ripmo AF for 3 days in CO.
> 
> ...


I am aware of that, have demoed various DW link through the years. No disbelief in your results. I am just curious what a timed controlled (same wheels and tires) efficiency test would show. Just wonder how much of a difference there would be. I am just so impressed with my Tilt all around capability and I am hard to please when it comes to full suspensions. Also with changing the front ring seems to make more of a tangible difference then some systems. Which is cool that you can really dial in your ride feel.


----------



## 2wls4ever (May 11, 2006)

Suspension, kinematics, proper tire setup and a bike under 29 pounds will make you smile up and downhill. And ignore anyone who says you don't need a lockout for the rear.


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

2wls4ever said:


> Suspension, kinematics, proper tire setup and a bike under 29 pounds will make you smile up and downhill. And ignore anyone who says you don't need a lockout for the rear.


You really don’t need one on a dw link


----------



## matthepanther (Jun 7, 2016)

Like others have said, only advantage to a short travel is if it weighs less than 30lbs and fits your terrain. Something to note is don't expect any of them to have smooth or plush rear suspension; I've been disappointed with every hyped up down country bike. Now all these people have 150mm 36's on 120-130mm bikes that have firm rear suspension. They are all firm and big rocks/roots will for sure beat you up. My opinion over 30lbs don't go with short travel, plenty of good longer travel bikes at that weight that will be more comfortable and pedal just as well. 
I ride an izzo, 66-66.5 HA keeps it nice and agile for my Ohio terrain. The two best bikes I've ridden were switchblade and the ripmo; 30lbs and they pedal as good as any short travel I've ridden that wasn't XC

The exception is price. Can't get anything under 30 for 3grand-ish. That you'll just have to do what you can


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

93EXCivic said:


> I mean my hardtail weights like 34 lb.... I have never said I was looking for a super light bike. I am 6'2" 205-210lbs. I don't have massively long climbs and none of them are smoother climbs.


I think Santa Cruz Tallboy would be good fit. It's a short travel trail bike, but the VPP feels more active than other suspensions. You'll get the traction for your technical climbs and a little more comfort on the downs. I hear Revel Rascals ride similar to Tallboys too.

Or get a Ripmo and call it a day.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Colin Lewis said:


> Perhaps it is time for a KTM 250 4 stroke but is it legal on your favorite trails?


Trail use legality doesn’t matter anymore. You can ride whatever you want on any trails.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

I prefer to be a little underbiked for the few advanced sections or occasional (out of town) black diamond trails I might ride, than overbiked for the cross-country-ish trails I ride 90% of the time. It's just more engaging and fun. In my experience it's better to buy a bike for how and where you ride rather than how and where you would like to, pursue the median over the outliers, etc. A good rule of thumb for me is to read the reviews and pick from the bikes that tested out as feeling overwhelmed or too quick steering for the jaded extreme dudes (and dudettes) doing the testing.


----------



## Oogie (Jun 9, 2021)

I thought this bad boy was moving to the top of the dream bike list, but the seat tube is way too steep and the ett seems silly short. I don't think it would work even with a set back dropper post.


----------



## theMISSIONARY (Apr 13, 2008)

93EXCivic said:


> What about single pivots?


I really like all the Commencals which were all single pivots till recently, they are heavy for what they are and I wouldn't call them good climbers but they descend very well


----------



## CRM6 (Apr 7, 2021)

2wls4ever said:


> Suspension, kinematics, proper tire setup and a bike under 29 pounds will make you smile up and downhill. And ignore anyone who says you don't need a lockout for the rear.


I've never switched my fork or shock from open on my '22 Ripmo AF. I live in Asheville and ride Pisgah,Dupont,& Kanuga exclusively.


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

There are so many good bikes these days that honestly any bike you pick that is the right size for you, will probably be a winner. Having said that, if it were me and I was riding the rocky terrain you describe I would opt for a bike with a bit more active suspension (not DW Link) with a weight of 30 lbs or less. Preferably less.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Looks like Pinkbike is spying on our conversations here...



https://www.pinkbike.com/news/short-or-long-travel-which-is-the-best-all-round-mtb.html



Great article. Summary, tires make a big difference.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Bikeventures said:


> Looks like Pinkbike is spying on our conversations here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a bad read, and interesting yet predictable results. 

What clearly stands out to me is the very last sentence and the graph at the bottom. (granted I'm not the target market for either the bikes tested or the PB readership.) But I have a different take. 

"So if you want one bike to do everything, it might make sense to pick a long-travel bike with a spare set of fast-rolling tires for mellower rides. " 

Well since the shorter travel bike with "worse" tires was actually faster on the timed downhill section, why isn't the short travel bike the winner? Granted he makes a valid point about confidence in gnar and sending bigger features, but if you don't ride like that or don't have that terrain then why is the longer bike the better option?

I am much more engaged when I'm doing the work instead fo the bike. In particular riding a hardtail, granted a modern/capable hardtail, but I like the challenge and I like using my skills to navigate tech lines and features. When I ride my much more capable 135mm Trail bike, everything is too easy and the bike does all the work. That's way less fun to me unless I have the terrain to match that bikes capability. Then it shines obviously and is the right tool for the job. 

So if you ask me "if you could only have one bike" the answer is a hardtail, and probably a SS. It's the most fun and the most rewarding to ride, and I'm sure the fact that it's more "challenging" is no small part of it for me personally. I don't want it to be easy. (I understand most people feel differently and spend obscene amounts of money to make their ride easier, that's just not what interests me.)

The graph: clearly PB readers want an average of 150-160mm rear travel as a 'one bike to do it all', but safe to assume many of those riders either have bigger features and mountains to play on than I do, or they just want more squish cause it's easier, or more comfortable, or more fun for them. They're not wrong and I'm not right or vise versa. 

Conclusion: I just think it's funny that I was on board with the entire article for the most part but if I were the writer I would have finished the last sentence differently because I'd rather be challenged/engaged (under-biked) as opposed to being "over-biked." 

/ramblings


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

His conclusion is probably more aimed at the bell curve of riders. Someone who doesn't ride anything specific, wants to ride every kind of trail. If you prefer short travel bikes, you have the experience to know what you like and what works best on your trails.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

The efficiency test is meaningless. A steady state climb is where suspension travel matters the least. As I mentioned before sprinting out of the saddle, pumping, accelerating out of tight corners is where short travel shines. The crank power meter also does not measure the energy wasted by the rider causing the suspension to bob.


----------

