# True benefit of suspension travel for descents



## fogby (7 mo ago)

Hello all.

I've recently moved to the Colorado mountains (9,500ft). My background is primarily in road biking, but I've always done some mt biking. I have a Trek Supercaliber that was great on the relatively flat trails I used to ride.

In Colorado, there's much steeper, rockier descents than I am accustomed to. I am having difficulties with the descents. I'm in my 50's and don't want to break a lot of bones learning how to descend - I've came to the realization that things just don't heal as quickly as they once did. 

The Trek has 60mm of travel. What are the true benefits in descending if I went with a +/-140mm bike? I know folks ride hardtails with no issues, but I'm certain they are better pilots than I. Really just wondering if increased travel would be a significant improvement or if I just need to man up and learn how to ride the Supercaliber.

Thanks.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

You’d have better control. Do it.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

From a design standpoint the primary benefit generally should be performance (racing).

However, for the average person capability and comfort are real benefits to more travel. Geo is another big factor in steep or high speed terrain.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

jeremy3220 said:


> From a design standpoint the primary benefit generally should be performance (racing).
> 
> However, for the average person capability and comfort are real benefits to more travel. Geo is another big factor in steep or high speed terrain.


That makes sense based on my experience. After a 4 hr ride I find myself much more fatigued that what I'm accustomed to. And I think my Supercaliber would be considered somewhat stretched out for a mt bike - at least I know it's low in the front for a mt bike.

Thanks for the input. I'm simply ignorant when it comes to these rocky descents.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Geometry makes a big difference as well. Longer reach and slacker headtube allow you some room for error without going over the bars. Your XC bike is not going to be designed for steep descents.

For a couple years I tried riding a bike with outdated geo and not enough travel, I was underbiked for what I was riding. One bike demo on a modern MTB with a lot of travel, and I realized features which would be terrifying on my old bike were fun and safe on the good one. 

Try demoing a bike.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

It's a lot easier (physically) to ride a bigger bike on the same descents than it is a short travel, or a hardtail. FWIW, my 140 forked hardtail's geo isn't all that different in terms of geo than my 150mm travel bike with a 160 fork, but the difference between the two is noticeable. It's why I have both  

My vote is... doooooooooitttt .


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

fogby said:


> Hello all.
> 
> I've recently moved to the Colorado mountains (9,500ft). My background is primarily in road biking, but I've always done some mt biking. I have a Trek Supercaliber that was great on the relatively flat trails I used to ride.
> 
> ...


Are you racing? Because you own an XC race bike. It's not going to be optimal for "not XC racing". I know Trek pro riders that won't ride the Supercaliber on some rougher XC races.


----------



## jimPacNW (Feb 26, 2013)

You'll feel less beatup the day after a ride
. You're only middle aged once, so buy some good toys you enjoy and get the most out of it. 
I have a fs race bike (age 55 btw), it beats me up a whole lot less than the old hardtail (which is still very fast).
The only real surprise to me about fs was that I found I can rest/recover on rough descents (seated), where on those same descents on my hardtail I'd be really stiff and not resting.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

jimPacNW said:


> You'll feel less beatup the day after a ride
> . You're only middle aged once, so buy some good toys you enjoy and get the most out of it.
> I have a fs race bike (age 55 btw), it beats me up a whole lot less than the old hardtail (which is still very fast).
> The only real surprise to me about fs was that I found I can rest/recover on rough descents (seated), where on those same descents on my hardtail *I'd be really stiff and not resting.*


That's what happens to me. I'm certainly more tense on the descents. I look forward to the climbs so I can rest.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

fogby said:


> Hello all.
> 
> I've recently moved to the Colorado mountains (9,500ft). My background is primarily in road biking, but I've always done some mt biking. I have a Trek Supercaliber that was great on the relatively flat trails I used to ride.
> 
> ...


Night and day. The Supercaliber is fine for 60% of the trails around our area (technically 100% of course), but on some of our burlier trails and faster descents I want 130+ in the back and 150+ in the front and a slacker geometry helping me out.

That said, if you do enough fast descending, big bike or not, you're gonna crash evenutally.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

Jayem said:


> Are you racing? Because you own an XC race bike. It's not going to be optimal for "not XC racing". I know Trek pro riders that won't ride the Supercaliber on some rougher XC races.


Yeah, I know what I have. And I'm not racing it. But it was perfect for my use before the move - really quick on the trails back home. And it still has a purpose for me here. I like it on the gravel roads and smooth XC trails. It's also perfect for riding on road to/from trails. I was just mainly interested in the difference I would feel on descents with more suspension since no real experience in these types of trails. And there seems to be a consensus of opinion.


----------



## baker (Jan 6, 2004)

I live in Colorado and have ridden just about any kind of bike you can imagine here. I regularly ride my hardtail, but I mostly ride and would suggest getting a mid to long travel 29er. I have a Banshee Prime that is 150/140 (I think) and feels ideal. I'm also in my 50's. The Banshee allows me to tackle pretty much anything, without much sacrifice. I am less beat up when I ride it and it allows more margin for error in the chunk. When I do the occasional race, I choose one of my other bikes that has less travel, but even then, 60mm seems less than ideal around here.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

60mm of travel is nothing. I had about that in 2006. Then I moved on. now i am 165/180mm.

You can think of increasing travel as increasing the level of tech/rough you can ride safely. The more travel the smoother the bigger features. Get yourself into a 140/150mm bike and you will revel in the increased control. 

You will lose some pedal efficiency. But that is offset by better travel and more grins on the down hills.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

fogby said:


> Yeah, I know what I have. And I'm not racing it. But it was perfect for my use before the move - really quick on the trails back home. And it still has a purpose for me here. I like it on the gravel roads and smooth XC trails. It's also perfect for riding on road to/from trails. I was just mainly interested in the difference I would feel on descents with more suspension since no real experience in these types of trails. And there seems to be a consensus of opinion.


IME, a good 29er with 120mm of travel is the most versatile. The 140ish travel 29ers become a dog really fast and you can generally handle about anything on the 120...but there's always a lot of variance too. A lot of it depends on how hard/gnarly you are going to ride. 100mm and less is XC race stuff. Generally, the harder-core riders do well with more like 150, but unless you are fairly fit, this tends to be a dog to pedal around everywhere.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Suspension lets the tires track the ground more consistently, giving you more control (directional change), and comfort (smaller impacts to the body).

Typically, with that increased control and comfort, one of two things happen. 1) You end up feeling more confident/less on the edge of control, and you go faster, 2) you end up feeling more confident/less on the edge of control, and thus feel safer/less tired.

As mentioned, the geometry of the bike has a big affect on how the bike feels in the steeper/rougher terrain. The head tube angle being more relaxed puts the front wheel out farther and extends the wheelbase, giving you more stability (less likely to deflect off line, or go over the bars), and taller stack heights help counteract the fact that the average grade you're on is much steeper, helping keep you in the right body position.

Personally, I am a fan of longer travel trail/enduro bikes for the riding we have around here, and for most people that want to ride steeper stuff, and for people that aren't racing. Bigger bikes these days are more versatile than they used to be, so IMO, they open the door up to a greater number of trails you can ride. I'd say personally something like 130-160mm of travel would be the range I'd be looking at mostly.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Jayem said:


> IME, a good 29er with 120mm of travel is the most versatile. The 140ish travel 29ers become a dog really fast and you can generally handle about anything on the 120...but there's always a lot of variance too. A lot of it depends on how hard/gnarly you are going to ride. 100mm and less is XC race stuff. Generally, the harder-core riders do well with more like 150, but unless you are fairly fit, this tends to be a dog to pedal around everywhere.


Yep, the only reason I have a 150 is because I rode my hardtail most places anyway. Well, that's changing as it seems that we don't heal as quickly in our fifties as we used to.. so I'm waiting on a smaller frame, and I'll likely run that at 125 instead of the longer 140ish that's an option on that one. I can pedal the 150 everywhere, but it's noticeably more sluggish and with the long wheelbase it's a lot more to handle on tighter trails. (it's funny how much difference in feel that a seemingly minor difference in length can be).


----------



## abeckstead (Feb 29, 2012)

More travel will increase your margin for error if you attack stuff at the speed you do now. Most of us mortals never use the full potential of these bikes. Also as others have said, geometry plays a big part in it too. In my opinion a 140mm ish travel bike is about the sweet spot for a go do anything bike. I have two bikes: a Tallboy with 120r/130f and an Evil with 143r/160f... The Tallboy can do every trail the Evil can, I just have to adjust my eyeballs a bit.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

I rode xc bikes for decades in Montana and for some reason wouldn’t go full suspension, only front. Then I bought an Epic Evo two years ago and realized what I was missing. I was riding with people that had trail bikes though and they seamed to be more comfortable on their bikes in steeper and rocky trails. I tried a new Stumpjumper and immediately bought a frame and fork and sole the Epic Evo. I was always concerned about efficiency and weight over geo. What I have found is the increased stack height and longer slacker geo brings confidence, comfort and better climbing. I always commute to the trails so I’ll add as much as 20 miles of pavement and smooth dirt to my rides but the SJ is not noticeable slower than the EE in that world (with the same tires). IMO, if your riding in mountains you really should have a trail bike. The SJ is a 130/140 bike and I don’t see needing any more or less. Medium travel with good geo can do a lot these days and there are options out there in the upper 20 lbs range that are strong and very capable.


----------



## OrangeBeast (May 10, 2020)

As a middle aged dude, I've been working my way up in travel and to a more modern descent-oriented geo. I now have far more bike then I really need (SJ Evo 160/150 travel). Comfort and control are the main benefits for me. Its a bit more effort on the climbs than my XC-oriented hardtail, but the headroom to comfortably ride just about anything is worth it. I can ride the same stuff on my XC bike, but it takes a lot more out of me. Demo some bigger bikes and you may be surprised.


----------



## McShred (Oct 4, 2021)

Match the bike to the trails you want to ride the most, and it often makes sense to get a similar bike as the people you ride with. A 170mm enduro rig will go everywhere the supercaliber will, not the other way around, yes the 170 bike will be slower on climbing and flat trails. A 170 bike is overkill for many but back to point one match the bike to your preferred trails and you more than likely have something that will be equally as happy on something a bit steeper/more technical and something smoother and flatter than your preferred trails.

I disagree with comments of 'xx travel is all you need' Different trail networks, different skill sets, different preferences, different riding styles, different wants, etc. all decide 'what you need'


----------



## Dogbrain (Mar 4, 2008)

I am stubborn and a late adopter. I rode a 29er hardtail for many many years. This year I finally bought a trail bike with 130 rear and 150 in the front. It really does make a big difference. I'm basically riding the same trails I was, but it's so much more stable even with a significant increase in speed. And I'm not nearly as beat up at the bottom. And the new geometry climbs great. I honestly think my new trail bike climbs better than my old hardtail, even though it's 6lbs heavier.

I haven't ridden all the bikes and I can't speak to the subtle differences of 10mm of travel or 1 degree of HTA, but I can tell you these new FS trail bikes are very capable.


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

Full suspension & modern geometry makes biking in rough terrain safer & more enjoyable. Sure it's a pain in the butt to learn how to setup suspension, but the bikes today can have 140mm travel or more and still pedal like a dream. Pretty darn impressive... Of course you could still ride the super caliber, it will be more difficult and dangerous and you'll probably break something on you or the bike eventually. Should be plenty of shops around, get a demo & ride like the wind!


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

Theoretically you could argue that more travel shouldn't equate to more comfort or possibly even safety for the majority of trails...but this is assuming you set up your suspension how it should theoretically be rather than how 99% of people do. Most buy longer travel so they can run softer suspension without running out of travel.. in theory you should be on the same spring rate regardless of travel, the same spring rate means the suspension would move the same amount (I'm not discussing leverage ratio changes etc) so therefore if setup correctly whatever makes your fork move 30mm on an XC bike moves 30mm on a DH fork...the idea of longer travel is to hit big features harder and faster without running out of travel, therefore logic would dictate you should buy the bike with the travel length necessary for the trails and speeds you are going. 

But again I reiterate, most don't set up there suspension like that, most run longer travel bikes softer or with lower spring rates than they would on a shorter travel bike hence the fallacy of reasoning that longer travel bikes offer more comfort. If set up properly according to terrain and speed longer travel bikes wouldn't be any more comfortable than shorter travel up until the point you either meet sever ramp up of the linkage or bottom out.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Danzzz88 said:


> Theoretically you could argue that more travel shouldn't equate to more comfort or possibly even safety for the majority of trails...but this is assuming you set up your suspension how it should theoretically be rather than how 99% of people do. Most buy longer travel so they can run softer suspension without running out of travel.. in theory you should be on the same spring rate regardless of travel, the same spring rate means the suspension would move the same amount (I'm not discussing leverage ratio changes etc) so therefore if setup correctly whatever makes your fork move 30mm on an XC bike moves 30mm on a DH fork...the idea of longer travel is to hit big features harder and faster without running out of travel, therefore logic would dictate you should buy the bike with the travel length necessary for the trails and speeds you are going.
> 
> But again I reiterate, most don't set up there suspension like that, most run longer travel bikes softer or with lower spring rates than they would on a shorter travel bike hence the fallacy of reasoning that longer travel bikes offer more comfort. If set up properly according to terrain and speed longer travel bikes wouldn't be any more comfortable than shorter travel up until the point you either meet sever ramp up of the linkage or bottom out.



All of this is assuming you're not bottoming out your smaller bikes suspension.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

dysfunction said:


> All of this is assuming you're not bottoming out your smaller bikes suspension.


Yes exactly, if you do then that obviously means you need more travel. And ofc this doesn't involve the intricacies of ramp up in air forks or leverage changes in rear linkages. But if setup properly what I mean is if you have say a 140mm travel trail bike and the trail and speeds you are going only needs 120mm, if you setup your suspension 'properly' and not for comfort then there is not much reason a dh bike even should feel more comfortable on this trail. But again people tend to dial stuff softer a few percent for every increase in travel...so they may increase travel by say 30% but decrease spring rate by 15% so they still end up with more available travel but a softer ride. But from a racing or theoretical point of view you should be riding the same spring rate across all bikes and therefore up until you reach the limits of the bike there shouldn't be any change in comfort. This is way unless you are looking for a much plusher ride and running the suspension soft most would be best served by a mid travel trail bike so you don't put up with the other drawbacks of a burly enduro like weight, overly aggressive geo ideally suited to steep dh or even too burly tyres that make riding around a chore. Most including myself are probably overbiked and would probably have more fun on something lighter with more manageable geo in the mid travel segment.

And to be fair even the Vorsprung Smashpot charts show a decrease in spring rate as travel increases...but some would argue that at least theoretically that is not the proper way to do it.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Just get something like the Ibis Ripmo or Pivot Switchblade. Those would be nice for there. I ride a lot near Breckenridge and mostly rode the Ripley last year. It has 120mm of travel. I'm in my 50s and prefer a little more so got a Ripmo. I'd say 130 is a good minimum travel range for there but bikes like the Ripmo and Switchblade do feel firm and climb well, while giving you some extra cushioning margin on the descents.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Danzzz88 said:


> Yes exactly, if you do then that obviously means you need more travel. And ofc this doesn't involve the intricacies of ramp up in air forks or leverage changes in rear linkages. But if setup properly what I mean is if you have say a 140mm travel trail bike and the trail and speeds you are going only needs 120mm, if you setup your suspension 'properly' and not for comfort then there is not much reason a dh bike even should feel more comfortable on this trail. But again people tend to dial stuff softer a few percent for every increase in travel...so they may increase travel by say 30% but decrease spring rate by 15% so they still end up with more available travel but a softer ride. But from a racing or theoretical point of view you should be riding the same spring rate across all bikes and therefore up until you reach the limits of the bike there shouldn't be any change in comfort. This is way unless you are looking for a much plusher ride and running the suspension soft most would be best served by a mid travel trail bike so you don't put up with the other drawbacks of a burly enduro like weight, overly aggressive geo ideally suited to steep dh or even too burly tyres that make riding around a chore. Most including myself are probably overbiked and would probably have more fun on something lighter with more manageable geo in the mid travel segment.
> 
> And to be fair even the Vorsprung Smashpot charts show a decrease in spring rate as travel increases...but some would argue that at least theoretically that is not the proper way to do it.


Yea, the OP's got a short-travel (60mm) XC race bike, riding downs in the Rockies. He's certainly under-biked in this case.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

Longer travel bikes can have both lower spring rates, and more bottom out resistance at the same time in comparison to a short travel bike. Some numbers to help understand the "spring rates vs travel" concept.

Here is an oversimplification that helps make it more understandable:

A 100mm (~4in) travel XC bike could have a 125lb/in spring in it. This would take 500lbs of force to compress (125lbs of force per inch by 4 inches).
A 150mm (~6in) travel trail bike could have a 100lb/in spring in it. This would take 600lbs of force to compress (100lbs of force per inch over every one of those 6 inches).
In this example, the 6in travel bike has both a softer feel to it (easier to compress the suspension some), and is harder to bottom out (600lbs to compress fully vs 500). Additionally, this longer travel bike will track the ground better when it gets rough, as it has more room to compress/extend, thus passing less harshness to the rider compared to a shorter travel bike.

I haven't ridden Colorado, but from what I've seen, if you're riding and wanting to enjoy much of the more rugged/lengthy descending, I think a bigger bike would make sense. The Ibis Ripmo would probably be right up your alley, as it is known for pedaling very well for its travel.


----------



## McShred (Oct 4, 2021)

Danzzz88 said:


> Yes exactly, if you do then that obviously means you need more travel. And ofc this doesn't involve the intricacies of ramp up in air forks or leverage changes in rear linkages. But if setup properly what I mean is if you have say a 140mm travel trail bike and the trail and speeds you are going only needs 120mm, if you setup your suspension 'properly' and not for comfort then there is not much reason a dh bike even should feel more comfortable on this trail. But again people tend to dial stuff softer a few percent for every increase in travel...so they may increase travel by say 30% but decrease spring rate by 15% so they still end up with more available travel but a softer ride. But from a racing or theoretical point of view you should be riding the same spring rate across all bikes and therefore up until you reach the limits of the bike there shouldn't be any change in comfort. This is way unless you are looking for a much plusher ride and running the suspension soft most would be best served by a mid travel trail bike so you don't put up with the other drawbacks of a burly enduro like weight, overly aggressive geo ideally suited to steep dh or even too burly tyres that make riding around a chore. Most including myself are probably overbiked and would probably have more fun on something lighter with more manageable geo in the mid travel segment.
> 
> And to be fair even the Vorsprung Smashpot charts show a decrease in spring rate as travel increases...but some would argue that at least theoretically that is not the proper way to do it.


I hope most people are setting their suspension to the manufactures recommended sag, at least starting there and tweaking to suit. Pedal platforms are often part of the engineered design and need to be in a certain sag range to be effective. Too soft would also be endless pedal strikes with too low of a bottom bracket. I honestly cant see people purposely setting things up too soft, rather than comfortable it seems like its wallowing squishy mess (reminds me of 20 year old long travel bikes)


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

ocnLogan said:


> Longer travel bikes can have both lower spring rates, and more bottom out resistance at the same time in comparison to a short travel bike. Some numbers to help understand the "spring rates vs travel" concept.
> 
> Here is an oversimplification that helps make it more understandable:
> 
> ...


Yes that is what I was getting it when I said people run things a bit softer as they go up in travel.

However this isn't without a catch either. You find as you make stuff softer and use more travel for certain features that you then need more body English to muscle the bike to do what you want it too, you get more brake dive and in some cases just a less stable unsupportive feeling bike that is harder to lift off the ground also due to more actual sag.

I learnt this the confusing way when I was wondering why a shorter travel bike felt plusher when going down consecutive steps...I kept thinking I needed to make things softer and softer but the problem was getting worse. What I actually needed was firmer suspension as I was blowing through the travel too much before, this was prolonging the forward weight shift and pressure felt on my arms and the fork wouldn't rise fast enough for the next drop. Even some case like square edge hits I've noticed if you start going to soft things get harsh as the wheel gets hung up and prolongs the length of time to clear the obstacle rather than roll over it, combine this with the prolonged and deeper travel on each hit and things actually end up feeling harsher. Yes softer springs might reduce the very initial part of impact as in the sudden initial spike, but then you find the forces just building up more and more as the fork etc struggles to respond back in time and you are in this prolonged feeling of doing a pushup for longer so the end result is you felt like it was a bigger hit and it tires you out more. Setting up a long travel bike a bit softer definitely improves comfort but it also definitely decreases manageability in my opinion and in this sense can be just as fatiguing.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

McShred said:


> I hope most people are setting their suspension to the manufactures recommended sag, at least starting there and tweaking to suit. Pedal platforms are often part of the engineered design and need to be in a certain sag range to be effective. Too soft would also be endless pedal strikes with too low of a bottom bracket. I honestly cant see people purposely setting things up too soft, rather than comfortable it seems like its wallowing squishy mess (reminds me of 20 year old long travel bikes)


But this is the point, most set up sag at least the same percentage or higher percentage the longer travel fork they have...but my point was in theory it should actually be the opposite, at least if you are racing.

A dh bike was not designed for comfort, it was designed for hitting larger stuff at higher speeds where a shorter travel bike would run out of ability.

But if you take fork sag for example, if you run 20% on an xc fork and 20% on a dh fork then you are running a softer spring rate on the dh fork as 20% of 200mm is not the same as 20% of 110mm. And ironically a lot of people run even higher sag percentage on longer travel bikes and end up with something even softer still. And this is the fallacy of longer travel means more comfort I was talking about.

The proper way is the bigger and faster the terrain the longer travel bike you need. If it wasn't then people would be using 200mm travel on xc trails. But that distinction has been blurred because people run longer travel with softer spring rates where as what should actually be the case from a pure performance perspective is you pick the bike you need and run the same spring rate regardless...so in fact you should be getting less sag % on a dh fork than you do on a trail or xc bike. But herd way of thinking means everyone does the opposite in the aim of increasing comfort and feeling like they have more control over the bike.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Danzzz88 said:


> Theoretically you could argue that more travel shouldn't equate to more comfort or possibly even safety for the majority of trails.


This is how I setup my bikes. My 160mm bike isn't more comfortable than my 120mm bike until I'm at a point the 120mm bike is getting overwhelmed.


----------



## McShred (Oct 4, 2021)

Danzzz88 said:


> But this is the point, most set up sag at least the same percentage or higher percentage the longer travel fork they have...but my point was in theory it should actually be the opposite, at least if you are racing.
> 
> A dh bike was not designed for comfort, it was designed for hitting larger stuff at higher speeds where a shorter travel bike would run out of ability.
> 
> ...


I cant follow your logic. If a manufacturer makes bike with a recommended sag range to meet performance goals, that is where you should start your setup. I am thinking of one DW link bike in particular that is very specific about their recommended 25% sag, that is where they set the pedal platform. The fork sag should also start in their recommended range as well, to preserve the balance of the bike as it is dynamically moving while you ride.

Further to that DH racing, especially at a high level, has very little in common with the sport that most of us do. The pros NEED overly stiff setups because the forces they are dealing with would constantly bottom out 99% of peoples setups.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

OK to explain it a different way...say you take an XC bike with 100mm travel and a DH bike with 200mm travel and the fork manufacturer says run 20% sag on either fork. You now have a position where the spring rate of the DH bike is half that of the XC bike as your bodyweight to reach sag has moved the fork twice as far so from a purely spring point of view both would have the same bottom out resistance.

The trouble is things get complicated because things like dampers won't behave exactly the same over 200mm of travel usage as they will over 100mm so actual travel use will be different. And to complicate things as said above people often go up in travel but reduce spring rate a bit to find a middle ground between having a bit more travel and bit softer ride than they would on the shorter travel bike.
But my point wasn't what most people do or for those looking for comfort or fun or whatever are wrong but rather that from a purely technical perspective the fastest most efficient setup means you would run the same spring rate regardless of travel and the extra travel is only there for when you run out of travel basically. This is another reason why pros run much much firmer setups than us, not only because they are faster and hit stuff harder, but because it's the more efficient way to setup the bike for the fastest possible times. Things complicate further still as at least some more wheel sag on a dh bike is preferential for increased traction over rough terrain, so this creates a counter argument to running the same spring rate.
But yes most people aren't racing so yes you can increase travel say 50% and decrease spring rate say 25% and have a little more travel and a little more comfort both at the same time.


So here we have increased travel by a large amount, a whole 50% yet because we have chose to optimise around a middle ground of slightly more comfort and slightly more bottom out resistance what we have achieved for example is a 25% increase in travel usage and a 25% increase in bottom out resistance. Now is 25% going to be enough increase in bottom out resistance to completely change what trails you can ride, and is 25% increase in travel usage during each hit going to be big enough of a difference to go from feeling beaten up to superman down the trail...well this is all subjective and dependent on how you choose to setup the suspension whether you bias more to increasing comfort or more to bottom out resistance because you need more travel.


Taking manufacturer suggested sag isn't telling the whole truth...in a way it's a fallacy aswell playing into the hands of the average Joe purchasing a new bike.

In reality there isn't much logic to FOX or RS saying run 20% sag on a FOX 32 and 20% on some FOX 40s, because this means you have halved the spring rate on the dh forks. And it gets even more weird when it is suggested run say 35% rear sag on a dh bike and 25% on an xc bike...now your spring rate is even kess than half and the xc bike could end up being just as hard to bottom out ss the dh bike...

But again this is a complex grey area because the type of people riding xc terrain generally prefer a firmer more pedal efficient setup and the dh amateurs generally want a plusher ride so it isn't an apples to apples comparison as the rider goals and riding style is completely different.
So even though technically it may be wrong, it plays into the hands of what the majority of amateur folk are actually looking for....this is the irony, it somehow works due to the fact that dh riders generally want a plush bike and xc risers generally want a firm efficient pedal friendly bike. But in reality, the fastest the bike can be set up means the dh bike should be set up a lot firmer than most people run them.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

More sag amount (not percentage) does allow the wheel to track the ground better when it's chunky. If you can do that, have a decent pedal platform, and a reasonable bottom bracket height.. Result!


There is literally nothing to be gained by having a tire off the dirt.


----------



## Clyde Ride (Jun 7, 2019)

I think a 140-160mm trail bike seems to be a no brainer for your situation. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Danzzz88 said:


> Theoretically you could argue that more travel shouldn't equate to more comfort or possibly even safety for the majority of trails...


This argument makes little sense to me.

If you are going down a trail on a 4" travel bike and you hit a 4 inch root. Your shock is already compressed 1", you get about 2" of travel or less before the suspension starts to stiffen up and you feel it in your hands and legs have to absorb that impact. On a 6" travel bike, the amount of impact your hands and legs absorb is far less. Not zero, but maybe half an inch of impact versus 2" you'd have to suck up on that XC bike.

Over this last weekend I rode 2 bikes, my 4" travel XC bike and a bigger travel enduro type bike. I hit thousands of 3-6 inch bumps per day. Riding the bigger travel bike was vastly more comfortable and I was able to ride much faster just due to reduced fatigue. I would also argue that by the time I was at the bottom of the trail it was safer because of that reduced fatigue.

This isn't about setup, it's pure and simple math. The only range of motion which your theory makes sense in is if the bump is less than 2" tall. If I'm riding a trail with nothing but 2" features then sure... the XC bike is going to be as comfortable. As soon as you are banging down a trail with big rock gardens, stairs, or sections of braking bumps, that all goes out the window.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

The advantage of the longer travel bike is linearity. Even with somewhat similar initial rates the longer travel bike can still use more travel because it doesn't have to ramp up as quickly to prevent bottoming out at 120mm.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

As someone who recently upgraded from a 130 bike to a 160 bike, my confidence was the biggest benefactor. On the same stretch of steep, bumpy trail, the 130 bike put me in "survival" mode. Just stay in control, don't crash. Whereas the 160 bike was let her rip. 

The key for me was not to sway the balance between climb/descend too much to one side. The Ibis Ripmo ended up being my goldilocks bike. I didn't give up much on the pedaling.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

While I'm sure that some people out there are running long travel bikes setup with very low spring rates trying to make the ride as soft as possible I wouldn't say its an epidemic.

Most people I talk to about it seem to mean longer travel bikes are more "comfortable" in the sense that they're not being bucked around as much due to harsh bottom outs, and the larger bumps that a longer travel bike can absorb are also less noticeable (ie, a 6in travel bike absorbs a 5in bump much better than a 4in travel bike... or even a 5in travel bike). And thus in a grand sum of a days experience, the riders are less fatigued (specifically usually in comparison to hardtails).

Again, to the OP, something with more travel than you now have will likely be an improvement in control, confidence, and will likely feel less fatigued on these longer/rougher big mountain style trails you are riding now. Coming from a 60mm travel bike, that means almost anything that is full suspension will be more travel for you. But you'd still need to decide if you want a shorter travel XC or "downcountry" type bike with 100-120mm of travel (generally still meant to pedal very fast like your supercaliber), or maybe something more trail/all mountain/enduro-y that still pedals well, but has quite a bit more travel (130-160mm - ish, give or take).


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

ocnLogan said:


> Most people I talk to about it seem to mean longer travel bikes are more "comfortable" in the sense that they're not being bucked around as much due to harsh bottom outs,


Exactly. We're way off topic now - but how composed and balanced the bike is over said terrain. And how that transmits to the rider. Comfort isn't the right word.

OP is a person on a 60mm travel bike who isn't accustomed to the terrain that long time mountain bike enthusiasts ride as matter of course. No shame in it. But if I was placing someone like that on a bike, I'd be thinking of a 120mm-140mm FS light trail bike 29. Enough efficiency to ride here in the high country, enough tooth to keep it enjoyable. Smack. Dab. In. The. Middle. I wouldn't encourage a long travel option unless they were specifically targeting terrain and capabilities that warranted the trade off.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

Carl Mega said:


> Exactly. We're way off topic now - but how composed and balanced the bike is over said terrain. And how that transmits to the rider. Comfort isn't the right word.
> 
> *OP is a person on a 60mm travel bike who isn't accustomed to the terrain that long time mountain bike enthusiasts ride as matter of course. *No shame in it. But if I was placing someone like that on a bike, I'd be thinking of a 120mm-140mm FS light trail bike 29. Enough efficiency to ride here in the high country, enough tooth to keep it enjoyable. Smack. Dab. In. The. Middle. I wouldn't encourage a long travel option unless they were specifically targeting terrain and capabilities that warranted the trade off.


You are exactly correct. I'm a fit roadie who dabbles in mountain biking. But I certainly want to have fun & push myself while on the mt bike. 

Thanks to everyone for the responses.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

I owned a SuperCaliber 2 years ago. Plenty capable bike.

I found that running aggressive/knobby 29 x 2.6" tires on it, _and_ keeping the pressures reasonably low, made it pretty dang capable.

Did it feel like a 150mm travel endurbro shred sled? Nope.

But it felt more sure footed, and gave me a lot more confidence, than when riding with smaller/faster tires.

Fast forward two years and I'm having a custom 60mm travel bike built. But this one -- unlike the SuperCal -- can fit 29 x 3.0's.

I've owned and ridden lots of 120-160mm travel bikes. They're super capable, but there's no mistaking that they are slower and less lively when getting after it on a long grind (or even a short, steep stinger) in the mountains.

My days of pushing my limits on the descents are behind me. I want to see lots of country and feel good doing it.

Short travel + big tires is my path forward.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

More travel and more stable geo is not safer.

More travel and more stable geo just mean you are going faster when you crash.


----------



## Dr_J (Jan 15, 2004)

My simple suggestion, if you can, is to go demo bikes with different levels of travel and see what feels the most comfortable and natural for you. 

My other, even simpler suggestion, if you want to take a low cost, pragmatic approach: max out your tire width on the supercaliber as Mikesee suggested. For under $200 you may be able to figure out if the bike you already own and love is still the best bike for you. I have a b+ hardtail (Big Honzo) that is the closest thing I have to a daily rider. I live in similar terrain as you're describing. The combination of "pneumatic suspension", exceptional traction and modern geo makes for an insanely fun bike. I ride this bike on the same trail systems as my mid travel (135/150) + tired full squish (Stump 6fattie) and my long travel beast (Process X). I love all three. While modern geo makes downhilling easier and faster than ever, wide, aggressive tires has made the biggest difference for me (i have admittedly been a fan of wide tires since the industries all too brief flirtation with 2.5" tires in the early 90's before early suspension forks and break clearance issues pushed them aside except for the DH crowd for the next 20 years)....


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

Ogre said:


> This argument makes little sense to me.
> 
> If you are going down a trail on a 4" travel bike and you hit a 4 inch root. Your shock is already compressed 1", you get about 2" of travel or less before the suspension starts to stiffen up and you feel it in your hands and legs have to absorb that impact. On a 6" travel bike, the amount of impact your hands and legs absorb is far less. Not zero, but maybe half an inch of impact versus 2" you'd have to suck up on that XC bike.
> 
> ...


The problem is you are conflating ramp up with travel. The math isn't flawed. To simplify it, let's say we take 2 bikes with the same linear increase in ramp up, the same kinematics and fit coil shocks to both. One bike has 6 inches of travel and 1 bike has 4 inches, now if you hit a bump uses 3 inches of the travel and set the spring rate the same on both bikes there is no reason at all for the 6 inch bike to feel any plusher or composed at all. The rest of the travel is not being used and the spring firmness is the same. 

The reason people often find longer travel bikes more comfortable is for a few reasons..

1. Either they need more travel because they are hitting stuff that surpasses the travel of the shorter travel bike. 

2. They set up their longer travel bike with a softer spring rate than their shorter travel bike so it uses more travel on each hit.

3. They run the same percentage sag on the short and long travel bikes, this means their spring rate is lower on the long travel bike and also means they will have roughly similar bottom out resistance but the long travel bike will feel plusher.

If you fit a 40lb coil spring in a 140mm travel trail fork and a 180mm travel enduro fork and only use 100 mm of travel thre is no difference in comfort or composure between the 2. It is the exact same thing, the only difference comes into play when you are exceeding the travel of the shorter fork or ramp up due to pressure in the lower legs etc is coming in sooner on the lower travel fork.

So yes often longer travel bikes do feel plusher if you are riding trails that are using most of their travel, but it isn't the travel amount per se that is the reason, it is the softer setting most people run along with the ramp up coming in later due to linkage design, bottom out bumper length or pressure build up in air shocks etc...


----------



## dllawson819 (Feb 22, 2019)

mikesee said:


> I owned a SuperCaliber 2 years ago. Plenty capable bike.
> 
> I found that running aggressive/knobby 29 x 2.6" tires on it, _and_ keeping the pressures reasonably low, made it pretty dang capable.
> 
> ...


Fogby - this is wisdom, if you don't want to buy a new bike. Slightly extending the travel on your fork and switching to a wider rims and tires could make a big difference - think Specialized epic vs epic evo.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

kapusta said:


> More travel and more stable geo is not safer.
> 
> More travel and more stable geo just mean you are going faster when you crash.


Beat me to it.

Invest in safety gear to match your terrain and riding style (or ability...whichever fails first). 

-F


----------



## thomcom (Nov 9, 2015)

Chiming in to the OP: You should get a progressive geometry enduro bike, definitely. The reason is because you're worried about getting hurt. Progressive geometries, yeah, they kick ass for descents. Turns out that flats are descents, too, except gravity isn't always trying to speed you up.

I push progressive modern geometry on every new rider because they are much, much harder to crash than old 70/70 style XC bikes. Don't crash, go long travel/progressive.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

The problem with a long travel bike at high altitude is that you have to pedal a long travel bike at high altitude.

You can buy plenty of light weight, progressive (long, slack) 120mm bikes. Transition Spur, Rocky Mountain Element, Intense Sniper TR, Epic Evo, etc. Unless you are hitting things that require a BIG bike, there's no reason to pedal a big bike. Get yourself a 66.5 or slacker 120mm bike, build it up light. Goes up fast, corners well on a variety of gradients, stable on descents.


----------



## GeePhroh (Jan 13, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> The problem with a long travel bike at high altitude is that you have to pedal a long travel bike at high altitude.
> 
> You can buy plenty of light weight, progressive (long, slack) 120mm bikes. Transition Spur, Rocky Mountain Element, Intense Sniper TR, Epic Evo, etc. Unless you are hitting things that require a BIG bike, there's no reason to pedal a big bike. Get yourself a 66.5 or slacker 120mm bike, build it up light. Goes up fast, corners well on a variety of gradients, stable on descents.


^^^ This. And I'd add the Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol and Revel Ranger to that list of bikes to consider.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

GeePhroh said:


> ^^^ This. And I'd add the Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol and Revel Ranger to that list of bikes to consider.


Throw in Trek Top Fuel too. Lots of good bikes in this space and very applicable to CO riding.


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

Mediocre rider here. When it comes to descending, my absolute times are not that much different between a FS and a HT on most trails (I say most, obviously if it's really nasty DH it's no contest), it's just I can only do it on the HT once and I feel like I'm a millisecond away from a trip to the ER and I'm done for the day. On the FS, I turn around, head back up and repeat the process multiple times and feel fresher at the end of the ride. In the true spirit of N+1, I say get both though.


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Re-reading the top post, I think the whole topic of bigger travel bikes is irrelevant.

Something like a 4" travel bike with a bit more raked out head tube angle would be fine. I have an Intense Sniper and it handles a lot of crazy steep stuff. A Honzo or similar geometry hardtail would also likely help. The Supercaliber is old school XC which is a bit much for steeper descending. 

If you feel the urge to go faster and find your arms and legs are fatigued after a ride from getting thrashed on downhills, think about a bigger travel bike.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

Ogre said:


> If you are getting 3 inches of travel without your shock ramping up, that means you have it set up too firm (not enough sag) or you are bottoming out.
> 
> Funny thing is ultimately you are reiterating what I said. Lots of trails have features bigger than 2-3". Many of them around here have literally thousands of bumps bigger than that.


But I never argued against that particular trail, I agreed if the terrain and speeds warrant a long travel bike then get one. What doesn't make sense is having a bike with more travel than you need, and the majority of people don't need a bike with 180mm of travel or even bikes like the Specialized the Enduro or Norco Range, a lot that do buy those bikes are setting them up soft so they feel more comfortable when going over terrain that a 140mm bike is capable of riding.
There is nothing wrong in wanting more travel, aggressive geometry and setting up softer for comfort but expect a weight and agility penalty, and in terms of tyres most don't need Assegais or DH22's to ride at 15-20mph, you are just going to suffer with loads of unwanted drag. I'm not saying everyone does this but I believe a lot do...they buy 160-180mm travel bikes, fit DH or double le down casing tyres then go ride on trails that could be done on a 120mm bike with exos....I see it all the time.
On the other hand I go to the local downhill centres, half the guys don't even know what Eagle is, they are absolutely shredding on dh alloy bikes from 10 years ago.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

I think that there's a lot of assumptions going on. They may be correct, they may not. But in any case..

what the fark did this have to do with the original question?


----------



## Ogre (Feb 17, 2005)

Danzzz88 said:


> But I never argued against that particular trail, I agreed if the terrain and speeds warrant a long travel bike then get one. What doesn't make sense is having a bike with more travel than you need, and the majority of people don't need a bike with 180mm of travel or even bikes like the Specialized the Enduro or Norco Range, a lot that do buy those bikes are setting them up soft so they feel more comfortable when going over terrain that a 140mm bike is capable of riding.
> There is nothing wrong in wanting more travel, aggressive geometry and setting up softer for comfort but expect a weight and agility penalty, and in terms of tyres most don't need Assegais or DH22's to ride at 15-20mph, you are just hoing to suffer with loads of unwanted drag. I'm not saying everyone does this but I believe a lot do.


I was too slow... edited the post because the whole side-topic is more or less irrelevant to the top post.



dysfunction said:


> I think that there's a lot of assumptions going on. They may be correct, they may not. But in any case..
> 
> what the fark did this have to do with the original question?


Not sure if this was pointed at me, but edits happened. Bad timing.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

The title of thread is literally

'True benefit of suspension travel for descents'


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Danzzz88 said:


> The title of thread is literally
> 
> 'True benefit of suspension travel for descents'


and, like Facebook, you stopped reading there.. and just went straight to the comments. I take it.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

He literally said in his post ''What are the true benefits in descending if I went with a +/-140mm bike?''

The thread at least isn't titled what bike brand and model should I buy to ride in Colorado which everyone seems to be assuming it is...if anyone is off topic it isn't me.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

As a quick follow up, I took a 140mm (Rocky Mt Instinct) out for a short ride today. And I mean short - less than 1 mile on a paved road. I quickly decided I want something smaller. Again, this is coming from a roadie - the 140mm just felt like a pig. And I'm not saying this b/c of the weight. It just didn't seem to immediately engage when I put power to the pedals and seemed pretty slow in turning. I just couldn't imagine having fun on that bike on days with 4-5k ft of climbing. 

I'm signed up for a proper demo day on a Pivot Trail 429 with 120mm travel. We'll see how that feels. 

But thanks again to all for the input.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Not all bikes pedal the same. Truer still for bigger bikes.


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

I think you'll dig the pivot, just make sure they get the sag right. DW bikes climb incredibly well.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Yeah, I find more than about 120-130mm on a 29er gets to really feel like a pig. Not so much on a 27.5, not that it’s faster though, just feels less lethargic.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

Get a Yeti, pedalling problem solved or just get a shock that has a climb lever?


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

To be honest, I feel that pretty much all full suspension mountain bikes feel incredibly sluggish on pavement. So pavement spins to me are still useful, but mostly for determining the very basics of fit. 

I suspect that when you try the shorter travel bike on an actual trail, you’ll probably have a better experience.


----------



## Danzzz88 (Jun 10, 2020)

I mean an enduro or trail bike with some DHF's is never going to feel like a 9kg 26inch carbon hardtail with triple crankset, they are totally different beasts. One is nearly half the weight with less inertia in the wheels, faster rolling tyres, talling gearing, no rear suspension bob, steep headtube for twitchy steering and slack seat tube for better flat riding. One is basically a road bike on steroids and the other are miniature downhill bikes. They are completely different. You should get something like a Scott Spark or Yeti SB110 and fit XC tyres or at least a super fast rolling rear tyre and maybe something a bit grippier up front.

Imo if the first thing that comes to mind when you tried the longer travel bike is how sluggish it is and not how well it descended that suggests to me you don't need a super capable descending bike. You just want an XC/trail bike with a bit more cushion than you have now and there is nothing wrong with that. That is probably the sensible and most appropriate option for the vast majority of people that ride bicycles.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

Danzzz88 said:


> Imo if the first thing that comes to mind when you tried the longer travel bike is how sluggish it is and not how well it descended that suggests to me you don't need a super capable descending bike. You just want an XC/trail bike with a bit more cushion than you have now and there is nothing wrong with that. That is probably the sensible and most appropriate option for the vast majority of people that ride bicycles.


That's exactly the conclusion I've came to. I'll be a baby on descents but have a blast everywhere else. Having fun is what it's all about, right!


----------



## eshew (Jan 30, 2004)

That's the wonderful thing about bikes. It can scratch so many itches for so many people. Different horses for different courses... different strokes for different folks... As long as you're smiling & riding that's all that matters.


----------



## dllawson819 (Feb 22, 2019)

fogby said:


> I'm signed up for a proper demo day on a Pivot Trail 429 with 120mm travel. We'll see how that feels.
> 
> But thanks again to all for the input.


That should be a great bike for your style of riding and I'm interested to hear what you think.


----------



## McShred (Oct 4, 2021)

fogby said:


> As a quick follow up, I took a 140mm (Rocky Mt Instinct) out for a short ride today. And I mean short - less than 1 mile on a paved road. I quickly decided I want something smaller. Again, this is coming from a roadie - the 140mm just felt like a pig. And I'm not saying this b/c of the weight. It just didn't seem to immediately engage when I put power to the pedals and seemed pretty slow in turning. I just couldn't imagine having fun on that bike on days with 4-5k ft of climbing.
> 
> I'm signed up for a proper demo day on a Pivot Trail 429 with 120mm travel. We'll see how that feels.
> 
> But thanks again to all for the input.


You are feeling the the tires and a 4 bar suspension. If your buying a mountain bike to go mountain biking a quick spin on the road isnt going to tell you much, especially coming from a road background. The Pivot with its suspension design (DW link) will be the more efficient pedaling bike. The tires will make a MASSIVE difference to how the bike feels on the road, the instinct looks to ship with DHF/DHR2, pivot I am not sure, but the DHF/DHR2's are an incredible combo for traction and capability, with a big sacrifice on rolling resistance.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

dysfunction said:


> There is literally nothing to be gained by having a tire off the dirt.


Um, fun?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> The problem with a long travel bike at high altitude is that you have to pedal a long travel bike at high altitude.


Yeah, riding my Megatrail at altitude in the Wasatch was quite a chore to say the least. But it works a treat at the home trails (and Deer Valley too), and I don't want to buy a new bike for a two-week vacation in the high country. If I lived someplace higher, I'd likely be on a very different bike.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Curveball said:


> Um, fun?


Hey yeah. Fun and style. I’ve been known to hop up and down all krrrazy for no reason. Some random guy scolded me for doing so once, and normally I wouldn’t be affected by something like that, but he had this enormous, weirdly angled, padded saddle with duct tape all over it that freaked me out enough to calm my ass down and just ride normal.


----------



## houndogone (Oct 16, 2017)

As someone who's in their mid-60's and coming primarily from a road biking background, I thought I'd chime in. I also used to do some mountain biking, but primarily on pretty tame trails. For 20+ years, my mountain bike was a Independent Fabrication steel hardtail with a gen 1 Rockshock Judy fork. A couple of years ago I bought a Ibis Ripley, and holy cr*p what a difference.

If you're a 50 something roady who has some concern about injuring yourself mountain biking, my assumption is that you're not going to be doing screaming descents on double black diamond trails, so I'd honestly recommend a short travel dual suspension mountain bike. Something like the Pivot 429 would be perfect, but there are a ton of other options, including Santa Cruz Tallboy, Revel Rascal and Ibis Ripley, or Ripmo if you want a little more travel. And as someone with pretty good fitness, who is used to a road bike climbing at altitude on some of Colorado's long ascents will drive you nuts on a DH style bike.

For the trails I ride around CB and Gunnison, I find that my Ripley has more than enough suspension for anything I feel comfortable riding. And it's a great climber as well. 

Also, although I didn't see anyone mention it, a dropper post was absolutely a game changer for me. That and 29" wheels, tubeless tires and disc brakes make almost as much difference to what I feel comfortable descending as rear suspension. So if you're coming from a road background I really wouldn't spend a lot of time obsessing over 10mm of additional front or rear travel.


----------



## fogby (7 mo ago)

I did a 2hr test ride on the Pivot 429 Trail yesterday. Just riding around the parking lot to make sure saddle height was ok, I immediately knew I liked it more than the Rocky Mt Instinct. The Pivot didn't feel as responsive as the Supercaliber, but felt much more responsive to my inputs as compared to the Rocky. In the Rocky line I think the Element would be best for me.

The Pivot was set up in the lowest suspension setting. In this setting I had a lot of pedal strikes. The reps said the higher setting would eliminate the strikes. It was time to leave and I didn't have time try it on the higher setting. But it clearly handled the rocky descents better than my Trek - at least not as tiring/jarring.

In the end, I think I'll keep using the Supercaliber for now since our riding season would essentially be over before a bike would become available this year. I'll get a bike next spring when the snow melts. But I'm fairly certain I'm going to go with a lightweight 110-120mm bike. Thanks to everyone for their help.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I do like Pivots but I have been riding a 120mm Ripley for 6+ months here in Colorado. I ride a lot in Summit Country where some trails are a bit rocky/chattery and found myself wanting a bit more travel. I just bought a Ripmo and much prefer it. It has 147mm but feels firm like maybe a 135mm and I'll be selling the Ripley. I'm in my 50s now too though. The Ripley feels good for most of the Front Range trails and is fast. The Ripmo gives up a bit on the climbs but climbs better than many bikes with less travel so I'm pretty happy.


----------



## zendog (Jun 25, 2011)

I’m 56 and made the jump from an XC bike to 155mm. Huge improvement riding the CO Front Range.

I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but I recommend taking a class to improve your riding skills. Learning how to flow on rough terrain will improve comfort, speed, safety a fun factor. I took a one day class from Lee McCormack (leelikesbikes.com) and its the single best thing I’ve done in my 30 years of mountain biking.


----------



## Antimatter (Jan 3, 2018)

fogby said:


> Hello all.
> 
> I've recently moved to the Colorado mountains (9,500ft). My background is primarily in road biking, but I've always done some mt biking. I have a Trek Supercaliber that was great on the relatively flat trails I used to ride.
> 
> ...


A Supercaliber I think is a XC bike. It's built for being light and fast during the climbs on mild terrain but doesn't really help for DH style riding especially when it gets really chunky.
A longer travel bike would do mostly 2 things. Feel more compliant and provide you better control and comfort and be able to take the occasional what_the_hell_was_that kind of hits every now and then.

Longer travel bikes come with more weight, it will be less quick to climb. However the amount of suspension travel alone doesn't determine a good bike. A 140-150 mm travel bike is a good compromise in weight and ability to descend.

However it seems you're more concerned with safety and control by being less afraid of the downhill. I just recently finished setting up a customer's bike, a short travel, non-XC bike called the Transition Scout. 140mm up front, 130mm in the rear. For someone like me, it's not enough because I'm a rather large and heavy guy. But the customer was 135 pounds, 5 foot 6 and it was just right for him.

The Transition bikes feel very stable going downhill due to a slacker front and more trail at the front than a lot of other bikes. This makes the bike feel very stable in a straight line and doesn't feel like they're going to wiggle when getting hit with repeated chunk. The steering feel is a bit heavier but it's much more confident feeling than with a steering feel that's light and squirmy where it feels like anything will end up disturbing your ability to keep the bars in control.


----------



## Antimatter (Jan 3, 2018)

zendog said:


> I’m 56 and made the jump from an XC bike to 155mm. Huge improvement riding the CO Front Range.
> 
> I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but I recommend taking a class to improve your riding skills. Learning how to flow on rough terrain will improve comfort, speed, safety a fun factor. I took a one day class from Lee McCormack (leelikesbikes.com) and its the single best thing I’ve done in my 30 years of mountain biking.


I agree, a good skills coach is a good way towards improving your experience riding the DH. There's a lot of riders, to include me, that benefited from skills coaches despite having decades of riding experience to include races.

For me, I didn't even know I developed bad habits regarding my body position and how I took on certain kinds of terrain. Just a few small changes and getting used to keeping those changes in effect and I saw more than better times on runs, but I also noticed I was in better control and I was better prepared going into sections I had trouble with.

When I used to help with coaching on a more basic level, the two most obvious things I see for DH runs is a lot of riders get and stay on their brakes too late, and when they see a section that scares them because it looks too steep, they unweight the front and shift their position too far back and roll through it too slowly resulting in crashes.

In some cases, I've seen riders try to ride through steep sections where it almost looks like their rear wheel is in their bum, which runs the risk of the tire getting hung up in your shorts catapulting you over the bars.


----------

