# Is short travel FS for you?



## bikesdirect (Nov 7, 2006)

Lately there has been an increase in sales of short travel full suspension bikes
this is defined by the industry as under 130mm
although I really think of it as mainly 100mm or 120mm

are you interested in short travel FS?
If so : what type designs ?
And what equipment?
Weight ? Price range ?


----------



## celswick (Mar 5, 2020)

I am definitely.

My daily ride is 5 miles on pavement to the trail (and 5 miles back), 7-14 miles mostly smooth and sandy singletrack with a couple of miles of pine roots, and sometimes 3-5 miles of gravel. Usually 1.5 to 2 hours.

I ride a 27.5+ hardtail now, but I'd like something a little lighter, faster, and still capable of riding rougher stuff like Pisgah, Dupont, etc. a couple of times a year.

On my short list are:

Fezzari Signal Peak Comp
Trek Top Fuel 8
Both are around $3,000 but Fezzari is carbon fiber and Top Fuel 8 is Aluminum.

Maybe I can talk my wife into it after we pay off my hospital bills from my last crash.

Specialized Epic Evo was among those in the running but I've watched the price go from $3,300 to $3,900 in the past few months so I'm going to scratch that one from the list for now, unless I can find a good deal on a used one.


----------



## Zguitar71 (Nov 8, 2020)

I have a 2021 Epic Evo that I ride on roads to trails. I take it in some black trails but mostly blues. They are rocky and have small drops and most are long and steep. I have not found the short suspension to be limiting except on the black trails where I pick a smaller line to avoid the big drops and rocks. I think with a different design like the Revel Ranger or Transition Spur the bigger stuff could be done but the E Evo is a bit more xc in the riding position.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

bikesdirect said:


> ... are you interested in short travel FS?...


Nope.

Whatever I need a 100-120mm travel bike for, I can do just as well on a 140mm bike. But that's just me and my trail and riding preferences.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

Yes. I like a quick and snappy bike for tech riding that will still open up for fast rocky downhills. A modern 120mm 29er is very capable as a trail bike. Also, let's not forget that 120mm was firmly in the mid-travel category just a few years ago. The trend where everyone thought they needed an enduro bike to ride the trails seems to be fading a bit.


----------



## La Nada (Mar 1, 2017)

I would be interested in a lightweight aluminum bike similar in geometry and travel to the transition spur. I would want it to have a stepcast or sid and a 12 speed slx groupset. If they could offer that with a good suspension design for 3k or less, I'd probably bite.


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

And while you're at it, bikesdirect, how about finding some more of those component deals you always used to run. I know supplies are limited in these COVID times, but that was one of the main reasons I'd periodically look in on your website.


----------



## bikesdirect (Nov 7, 2006)

wayold said:


> And while you're at it, bikesdirect, how about finding some more of those component deals you always used to run. I know supplies are limited in these COVID times, but that was one of the main reasons I'd periodically look in on your website.


Which components ?wheels? Tires? Der? Cassettes?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I feel like my 170mm E29 isn't enough. So, no.


----------



## wayold (Nov 25, 2017)

bikesdirect said:


> Which components ?wheels? Tires? Der? Cassettes?


BD used to have great deals on cassettes, chains and derailleurs that all seemed to dry up in early 2020. I know the parts market is way different now, but I always thought one of the cool things about BD was how you got overstock of these items and let the rest of us get a good deal. I know your primary business is selling bikes, but component deals was one of the main reasons I'd go looking at the BD website - and I'd always end up looking around at your bike offerings at the same time.


----------



## b rock (Jan 5, 2017)

fredcook said:


> Nope.
> 
> Whatever I need a 100-120mm travel bike for, I can do just as well on a 140mm bike. But that's just me and my trail and riding preferences.


This is my thinking, but I'd need to demo more short travel to get a real feel for it.

What I'd like to know is, how different is it to ride a short travel bike vs putting my RockShox Deluxe RT3 (140mm) 3 position compression adjustment lever in the pedal or lock position? Likely the answer is, "it's way more complicated than that, due to each rear shock behaving differently on each bike"?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

fredcook said:


> Nope.
> 
> Whatever I need a 100-120mm travel bike for, I can do just as well on a 140mm bike. But that's just me and my trail and riding preferences.


I'd argue that a 140mm bike gives up quite a bit to a 120mm bike in some areas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

120mm Evil V1 Following. Don't need more travel unless I shuttle or go to the bike park. I like a short travel bike to be quick handling and easy to pop. Something under 30lbs would be good.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> I'd argue that a 140mm bike gives up quite a bit to a 120mm bike in some areas.


And a good argument when it comes to climbing. But some new geo bikes are good at overcoming that concern. Especially at "just" 140mm. That's what moved me from 110-120 to 140... being just as comfortable climbing on a 140 as a 120. But, it's never just about travel... overall geo design and spec. In the end, for me, it has to do with what I intend to do with the bike and what's more important I guess. The good news it, all of this helps justify having more than one bike in the garage!


----------



## celswick (Mar 5, 2020)

fredcook said:


> And a good argument when it comes to climbing. But some new geo bikes are good at overcoming that concern. Especially at "just" 140mm. That's what moved me from 110-120 to 140... being just as comfortable climbing on a 140 as a 120. But, it's never just about travel... overall geo design and spec. In the end, for me, it has to do with what I intend to do with the bike and what's more important I guess. The good news it, all of this helps justify having more than one bike in the garage!


I still can't convince my wife I need mountain bike AND a road bike. "You can ride your mountain bike on the road can't you?" she says. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

b rock said:


> This is my thinking, but I'd need to demo more short travel to get a real feel for it.
> 
> What I'd like to know is, how different is it to ride a short travel bike vs putting my RockShox Deluxe RT3 (140mm) 3 position compression adjustment lever in the pedal or lock position? Likely the answer is, "it's way more complicated than that, due to each rear shock behaving differently on each bike"?


I've done that comparison, kinda. I've locked out (not a 100% lockout) my 140mm bike and compared it to my 130/110 bike. I say "kinda" because the 140 is a trail bike, the 130/110 an XC. So geo is night and day. I could determine though, that non technical climbing on the 140 locked out is just as easy as the XC bike even though the XC is lighter. However, when it comes to technical climbs... rocks, roots, steep, twisty... the longer travel trail bike blows my XC bike away. Also, the longer, slacker, more aggressive trail bike is more snappy and agile than the traditional XC bike. Net result... my XC bike hardly sees the light of day anymore. The trail bike is ridden several times a week, which includes plenty of XC trail rides. This supports my thinking that whatever _I_ need a shorter travel bike for, I can get by with on my 140 (which really isn't considered that much these days). This opinion certainly doesn't fit everyone's need and requirement.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Having ridden Hardtail, 100, 120, 140 and 152mm bikes of various designs on the same train. I'm old don't enjoy the Hard Tail as much, even though doable.
Yes, some 140+ bikes pedal well, but riding isn't just about pedaling, it's about fun. More travel on tamer trails just isn't fun.

Imagine a long line of speed bumps, take a run at them at the same speed in something like a stock Jeep vs a trophy truck- Jeep's gonna be more fun.


----------



## RobertRinAustin (Dec 16, 2020)

Light weight, slack and steep 120 would be fun. Someone else mentioned the Spur and that'd be a great starting point.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

I’ve found that I enjoy an overall stiffer but comfortable setup to go fast everywhere. If I were younger and raced a lot, I would ride a true xc bike. But I can still pretend I am racing out there on a light 120/115 while not beating my body up. And my terrain really is more flowy so I don’t need the long travel. Anything more gnarly is on more remote longer trails that I am moving more slowly and carefully anyway.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Would love to build a super lightweight Spur, but it really wouldn't get much use except on a Bentonville trip or during the dead heat of a TX summer when I stick to more mellow trails anyways.
My solution for this summer is to just try and run a bit faster tires over the summer.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## mikey419khp (Feb 18, 2021)

Suns_PSD said:


> Would love to build a super lightweight Spur, but it really wouldn't get much use except on a Bentonville trip or during the dead heat of a TX summer when I stick to more mellow trails anyways.
> My solution for this summer is to just try and run a bit faster tires over the summer.
> 
> Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


I simply need view of trek 820 center pull. Brakesand derailure gear system. .


----------



## mikey419khp (Feb 18, 2021)

Why can't you do this


----------



## oldnick72 (Feb 8, 2021)

I've got a Whyte S120 C works (120mm 29" wheels) and I love it. Previous bike was a Pivot 5.7 carbon (140mm 26" wheels) and the Whyte is a better bike for this 52 year old. I seem to go further for less effort, and it still flatters me over rock gardens and 3' drops.


----------



## fredcook (Apr 2, 2009)

oldnick72 said:


> I've got a Whyte S120 C works (120mm 29" wheels) and I love it. Previous bike was a Pivot 5.7 carbon (140mm 26" wheels) and the Whyte is a better bike for this 52 year old. I seem to go further for less effort, and it still flatters me over rock gardens and 3' drops.


I considered the S120, but went with the T130 (140/130 27.5) for my last acquisition. I really like Whyte's quality. Both are great bikes!


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Nope. 

My 165/180mm bike does everything a 120mm bike can do and more.... So much more.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

plummet said:


> Nope.
> 
> My 165/180mm bike does everything a 120mm bike can do and more.... So much more.


It really can't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

plummet said:


> Nope.
> 
> My 165/180mm bike does everything a 120mm bike can do and more.... So much more.


This is so not true to the point you see EWS racers limiting suspension travel to maintain efficiency. They're often choosing 160/170mm bikes over 180mm bikes when given the choice and having better results.

I have a Megatower and Tallboy which have very similar geo but different travel. There's no tire setup or pumping up the suspension that turns the Megatower into a Tallboy. They're surprisingly different bikes.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> It really can't.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





jeremy3220 said:


> This is so not true to the point you see EWS racers limiting suspension travel to maintain efficiency. They're often choosing 160/170mm bikes over 180mm bikes when given the choice and having better results.
> 
> I have a Megatower and Tallboy which have very similar geo but different travel. There's no tire setup or pumping up the suspension that turns the Megatower into a Tallboy. They're surprisingly different bikes.


Let get one thing straight. I'm not talking racing. Sure there are faster race bikes with less travel. 
I ride my slayer on the road rides with my wife, through the easy flow trails with my kids and then go and hit old deserted goat tracks up mountains that are are harder than double black runs in bike parks. All on the same bike.

If you can ride it on your 120 mm bike so can I on my 165/180mm bike. I might be a little slower on the up. But I can still ride it. Then on the down there will come a level of silly where you say no more, this is not fun and it is getting dangerous on your 120mm bike. At that point I will be revelling in the glory of my 165/180mm bike.

A very interesting build is a light built long travel bike. It doesn't ride like a slug like a big travel heavy build enduro bike would. Its playfull and poppy and is fun on the easier tracks but can still handle the jandle on the big stuff. Rolling weight is critical. If you can run a light wheelset with lightish tyres without giving away too much grip then you can mitgate the dullness of a bigger travel bike on easier trails.

I recently went on a ride where I swapped bikes with mates. I rode, 5010, banshee prime, trek slash, trek remedy. 
All nice bikes in there own right. Which bike was the lightest? my 165/180mm slayer. Which bike pedalled the best? I was a toss up between slayer and prime. Certainly there was no dissadvantage being on the my light built slayer on the ups with those bikes. On the downs the other bikes rode fine. But when it go roudy they started bouncing around where the slayer would just haul. None of the other bikes increased my fun factor on the easier trails. But on the down they decreased the fun factor.

In my world of down focused riding. 120mm is dead to me.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

You can ride a DH bike on the road if you want but I don't think that matters.


----------



## EvanWilliams1783 (Oct 11, 2011)

I agonized over this when I was deciding what bike to buy recently. I ended up with a top fuel. I think the “Downcountry bikes” are really good. I still want a little efficiency and lightweight but not hardcore race. When I got into cycling it was XC racing and road so that has something to do with it. Big bikes definitely have disadvantages even if the folks on them refuse to believe it. What’s funny is 3 years ago these new xc bikes would be considered trail bikes.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

jeremy3220 said:


> You can ride a DH bike on the road if you want but I don't think that matters.


What if your longer travel bike was lighter and pedal better than your shorter travel bike? what then.



EvanWilliams1783 said:


> I agonized over this when I was deciding what bike to buy recently. I ended up with a top fuel. I think the "Downcountry bikes" are really good. I still want a little efficiency and lightweight but not hardcore race. When I got into cycling it was XC racing and road so that has something to do with it. Big bikes definitely have disadvantages even if the folks on them refuse to believe it. What's funny is 3 years ago these new xc bikes would be considered trail bikes.


What are those disadvantages? Also disadvantages are in the eye of the beholder.

For an xc race dude a bike that goes slightly slower uphill will be considered a disadvantage. If that same bike goes slightly slower downhill or isnt capable of riding tech tracks that he/she doesn't ride he wont mind. Uphill is where the time is made. Any time saving on the up well and truely makes up for slight losses on the down.

For a down focused person those datums are swapped. Who cares if you give away a bit of up performance if your grin factor on the down increases.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

plummet said:


> What if your longer travel bike was lighter and pedal better than your shorter travel bike? what then.


Then I'd probably buy a lighter better pedaling short travel bike.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

plummet said:


> What if your longer travel bike was lighter and pedal better than your shorter travel bike? what then.
> 
> What are those disadvantages? Also disadvantages are in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> ...


We get it, a downhill sled is perfect for road riding to you. Your experience doesn't match that of most riders.


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

I will argue that Plummet is just wrong. I am interested b/c of where I live...and millions of others. There's a ****-ton of people between D.C. and NYC...add in Boston too. 

Most of us will only venture outside of 50mi within their house 1,3, maybe 5 times per year to go mtb. At home, I will never ever ever (unless I go to Blue or Bear Creek for lift serve) ever need more than 120/120. If I travel within 1 days drive, I will never ever ever (aside from lift serve) need more than 150/140. I would need to travel at least 8-10hrs before I'm remotely close to needing anything bigger.

I mean sure, I "could" ride a 180/165 bike...I "could" also ride a 200/200 dual crown DH bike on my road rides...it has wheels and pedals...but that is just stupid.

I guess it took a bit to evolve, but many of the new "down country" bikes are just about perfect for probably > 50% of this country's terrain. And certainly for where I live.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

smartyiak said:


> I will argue that Plummet is just wrong. I am interested b/c of where I live...and millions of others. There's a ****-ton of people between D.C. and NYC...add in Boston too.
> 
> Most of us will only venture outside of 50mi within their house 1,3, maybe 5 times per year to go mtb. At home, I will never ever ever (unless I go to Blue or Bear Creek for lift serve) ever need more than 120/120. If I travel within 1 days drive, I will never ever ever (aside from lift serve) need more than 150/140. I would need to travel at least 8-10hrs before I'm remotely close to needing anything bigger.
> 
> ...


Hell take that a step further, rode every trail at Bryce Mountain on a 120/100 Tallboy V1.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

A burly and aggressive geo short travel bike is ideal for most everything: less boggy when climbing, still very capable for big hits (when set up correctly), and far more fun for messing around on little stuff.

I far prefer my 140/160 Shred Dogg over the 155-165/180 Mega Trail.

My next bike will be even a tad shorter travel, 130/150 high pivot Druid.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

plummet said:


> What if your longer travel bike was lighter and pedal better than your shorter travel bike? what then.
> 
> What are those disadvantages? Also disadvantages are in the eye of the beholder.


A longer travel suspension must be built stronger and thus heavier. A long travel bike will also suffer more energy loss, as that was the purpose of the longer travel, to dissipate energy. Those are design constraints that have to be worked around. It's all a compromise and it's a great world we live in to have all of those options.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

smartyiak said:


> I will argue that Plummet is just wrong. I am interested b/c of where I live...and millions of others. There's a ****-ton of people between D.C. and NYC...add in Boston too.
> 
> Most of us will only venture outside of 50mi within their house 1,3, maybe 5 times per year to go mtb. At home, I will never ever ever (unless I go to Blue or Bear Creek for lift serve) ever need more than 120/120. If I travel within 1 days drive, I will never ever ever (aside from lift serve) need more than 150/140. I would need to travel at least 8-10hrs before I'm remotely close to needing anything bigger.
> 
> ...


I am not wrong and neither are you..... In your world a 120mm bike might be ideal.... in mine 165/180mm is ideal.

Its all about perspective, terrain and the style we ride. Even on my most road style rides around town with the missis I still dive off down a double black equivalent run or 2 before rejoining the pedal fest. The favourite part of the pedalfest for me is diving down the black run. I dont want to give away my grin for extra pedal ability. I dont actually need the extra pedallability as im fitter than most of my mates. So i just end up waiting for longer at the top of the hill. Far better to have more grins on the down and not be so far ahead on the ups........


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

akmtnrunner said:


> A longer travel suspension must be built stronger and thus heavier. A long travel bike will also suffer more energy loss, as that was the purpose of the longer travel, to dissipate energy. Those are design constraints that have to be worked around. It's all a compromise and it's a great world we live in to have all of those options.


Why does a longer travel bike need to be heavier? you can arvo that longer travel will dissipate force over a longer stroke therefore giving less shock loading into the frame..... Most longer travel bikes are build heavier and the build spec is heavier. But there are a few out there that are built light and if you build that light bike with light gear you can get yourself a unicorn that does everything well.


----------



## natas1321 (Nov 4, 2017)

120-140mm is ideal for me and probably a bit more than I need at the majority of the places I ride. 

Sent from my moto g(7) supra using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

plummet said:


> Why does a longer travel bike need to be heavier?


Because they're made for different applications. You could in theory make a DH bike that weighed 22 lbs, you just couldn't ride DH with it. While quite capable, my 120mm bike can't handle the impacts my enduro bike can. Longer travel bike frames need to built tougher to handle rougher terrain and impacts. You could neuter a longer travel bike with weaker less stiff components to keep the weight down. You could run a 160mm Pike or 34, a DPS shock, XC wheels and tires...but then you've negating a huge part of the benefits of having a long travel bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

jeremy3220 said:


> Because they're made for different applications. You could in theory make a DH bike that weighed 22 lbs, you just couldn't ride DH with it. While quite capable, my 120mm bike can't handle the impacts my enduro bike can. Longer travel bike frames need to built tougher to handle rougher terrain and impacts. You could neuter a longer travel bike with weaker less stiff components to keep the weight down. You could run a 160mm Pike or 34, a DPS shock, XC wheels and tires...but then you've negating a huge part of the benefits of having a long travel bike.


If someone doesn't understand that a SID can be lighter than a Pike, which can be lighter than a Lyrik, which can be lighter than a Zeb, and why, I don't know that we can have a meaningful conversation with that person.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

plummet said:


> I am not wrong and neither are you..... In your world a 120mm bike might be ideal.... in mine 165/180mm is ideal.
> 
> Its all about perspective, terrain and the style we ride. Even on my most road style rides around town with the missis I still dive off down a double black equivalent run or 2 before rejoining the pedal fest. The favourite part of the pedalfest for me is diving down the black run. I dont want to give away my grin for extra pedal ability. I dont actually need the extra pedallability as im fitter than most of my mates. So i just end up waiting for longer at the top of the hill. Far better to have more grins on the down and not be so far ahead on the ups........


But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that your 160 slayer can do everything a 120 bike can.

which I suppose is technically true...just like my stupid argument that I could use a 200 Arum for road riding. I mean technically I could...but....

Here in the mid-Atlantic, you'd be severely outgunned on a 180/160 bike...guys just zip around on their SuperCals, TopFuels, Epics, SB100s and hardtails...and you'd just get left behind. A short travel bike (or HT) is prolly the right bike for 90% of the people here...an Endurbro bike isn't.

So I suppose you could ride your bike here...just like I could a road bike or a bmx bike on the trails here...but I wouldn't keep up with the good riders around here.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

jeremy3220 said:


> Because they're made for different applications. You could in theory make a DH bike that weighed 22 lbs, you just couldn't ride DH with it. While quite capable, my 120mm bike can't handle the impacts my enduro bike can. Longer travel bike frames need to built tougher to handle rougher terrain and impacts. You could neuter a longer travel bike with weaker less stiff components to keep the weight down. You could run a 160mm Pike or 34, a DPS shock, XC wheels and tires...but then you've negating a huge part of the benefits of having a long travel bike.


If you find a spec somewhere in between you end up with a sweet sled. My slayer weighs less than most of my mates 130mm bikes and pedals better than them and then owns them on the down. It is truely a sweet ride.

I'm not saying everyone should only ride a 160/180 bike. All im saying is that I can, and from my down orientated perspective it is fun on all terrain. I don't want for or need a shorter travel bike. When I rider shorter travel bikes I feel limited because I want to hit that line that I can see on during the pedal fest, but I really shouldnt because its well beyond the bikes capability. I would much rather have a bike that handle the jandle on the big stuff and isnt bad on the small stuff than a specific small stuff bike that means I have to bypass the big stuff during the ride.



smartyiak said:


> But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that your 160 slayer can do everything a 120 bike can.
> 
> which I suppose is technically true...just like my stupid argument that I could use a 200 Arum for road riding. I mean technically I could...but....
> 
> ...


I raced an urban street criterium last week. Short track dead flat with a 4m small pinch up and ride down a couple of flights of small stairs. I won my division. Me and a hard tail guy were neck and neck. He would blaze away on the straights and I would pass him on the stairs. It was hilarious. I felt the pain on the flats but really enjoyed sending it on the stairs as hard and fast as I could.

So yes I could ride my by bike on your trails. Would I keep up with most riders for standard trail rides?
Yes I could. All but the fastest xc racers who were smashing race pace. Would I have fun? hell yes. I'd find features to ride amongst the pedal fest. There will be obscure lines to find and hit.

So can I and do I ride my 160/180mm bike everywhere. Yes I do. Do I find it fun on all those terrains. Yes I do. Does that mean you need a 180mm bike. No it doesn't. Blaze your 120mm bike on your 120mm suitable trails and have fun.

At the end of the day its all about grin factor. Do whatever gives you the biggest grins. If thats a short travel bike ripping through the singletrack then so be it. Enjoy the **** out of it.


----------



## Sparticus (Dec 28, 1999)

In terms of frame design & suspension performance, 160mm is the new 130mm.
To each their own. My tendencies tend to be more in line with plummet's but maybe this is simply because the terrain & trails I ride offer up more opportunities for challenge lines and hits.
Ride whatever you like. But for me, the answer to the OP's thread title is no, a short travel FS is not for me. Even if I could save a few pounds of bike weight, my priority lies in capability. Not saying anyone else's should.
=sParty


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

plummet said:


> So yes I could ride my by bike on your trails. Would I keep up with most riders for standard trail rides?
> Yes I could. All but the fastest xc racers who were smashing race pace.


Sorry but that is a pretty arrogant statement


----------



## smartyiak (Apr 29, 2009)

Sparticus said:


> ...maybe this is simply because the terrain & trails I ride offer up more opportunities for challenge lines and hits...
> =sParty


And that is really my point. It is also why I answered "yes" and why, I believe, the new dc bikes are such a hit. (and why a 180/160 bike would just be not much fun here...since we're now using the "grin quotient."

If I lived in the PNW, I might want a Sentinel. In Co., I might want a SB130LR or a Rascal. But in large parts of the east coast and huge parts of the midwest, a 120/120 or 120/100 is all you need for 99.2% (scientifically proven) of rides.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

TwoTone said:


> Sorry but that is a pretty arrogant statement


But its the truth. Neither me nor my bike holds me back. I will ride on any given trail ride typically front end of the pack. The only time I'm out the back door and punished is when I am riding with elite level guys.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I've still never seen a person actually riding an enduro bike up steep climbs at 3,000m+ in CO. They're always pushing. Hell, even 1,000m below that, guys on big bikes seem to have a propensity for pushing and not actually riding. Imagine possessing one of the most efficient vehicles ever invented, and PUSHING it up a 10% grade.

Meanwhile, the people on the light, efficient, fast rolling bikes just keep on riding.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Le Duke said:


> I've still never seen a person actually riding an enduro bike up steep climbs at 3,000m+ in CO. They're always pushing. Hell, even 1,000m below that, guys on big bikes seem to have a propensity for pushing and not actually riding. Imagine possessing one of the most efficient vehicles ever invented, and PUSHING it up a 10% grade.
> 
> Meanwhile, the people on the light, efficient, fast rolling bikes just keep on riding.


You must have some awesome downs with 3000m mountains. I'm at sea level so cant comment about riding at 3000m the highest I get to locally riding is 1500ish. I'll get off and walk when my 46-32 combo is maxed out. At that point most others are walking too.

I'll agree that light and efficient is awesome. Mine just happens to have lots of travel.....


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

We get you like your Slayer, that doesn't negate the physics of why shorter travel bikes can be lighter and are more efficient.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Well I can definitely see both sides of this discussion.

I run a 150/ 160 travel bike but there is no doubt I choose bikes and parts in search of the best efficiency I can obtain that will still do the job. And on my AM bikes I can climb with anyone and also run with a general XC group ride no problem and often do. My AM also works well enough on my easier rides often with family because on those I'm usually waiting for others so what's the point in going even faster?

However, when I try and chase high level riders on high level XC race bikes, it's hopeless. My full out sprint speed that I can maintain for 2-5 minutes, is just their pace they can do for 15 miles. And I've ridden those bikes and it's obvious why, they are dramatically faster rigs.

My thoughts on it is that a bike like that, because of how fast they get up to speed, easily they maintain speed, how rigid the short travel suspension has to be, combined with fast rolling yet a bit slippery tires, can make a rather boring trail, a lot more fun.

Also worth noting that I've been clobbered by guys on rigid single speeds on very chunky trails, so ya know what I need and what another much more skilled rider might need can be two different things.

No one is going to make up the lost minutes on the smoother parts of a XC or Crit course on a staircase or two that takes a max of 15 seconds to get off your bike and walk down. Even on very chunky trails, I believe most riders would be faster overall on a XC or light duty trail bike, they just might not have as much fun, feel as comfortable, or enjoy new more aggressive trails as much.

Going to build a seriously light and fast Spur sometime this year.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6920 using Tapatalk


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I don't have anything against building a light longer travel bike (within reason). I'm just saying there are trade-offs. The way my Tallboy and Megatower are setup they're nearly just as comfortable as each other on XC trails. You can't just pump up the suspension pressure and turn 160mm into 120mm. It will feel like crap. Even at the same weight, shorter travel pedals better, pumps better and is generally more lively.


----------



## Nick_M (Jan 16, 2015)

bikesdirect said:


> Lately there has been an increase in sales of short travel full suspension bikes
> this is defined by the industry as under 130mm
> although I really think of it as mainly 100mm or 120mm
> 
> ...


I do interester more in bike with internal storage aka trek or S, amount of travel does not bother me much, currently i have 180/180 27,5 and i can rode it and have fun in the bike park or local trails

Honestly, I rarely use more then 160 of travel, however geometry was the selling point;

so next bike should be with nice LLS geo and internal storage, within 35pound, travel irrelevant


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Well I guess we all agree that shorter travel bikes can be more efficient and faster for low tech riding. Some people have a need for them and some people don't dependent on their local terrain and riding style. 

What seems to be less agreed with is that longer travel bikes can be used in low tech applications and still be fun to ride. 
The several dudes on here saying they do exactly that prove the point that they can and are being used effectively. 

Does that mean everyone needs to ditch there low travel bike and go for long luxury instead.?

Hell no!

Ride what ever gives you the biggest grin factor. He who grins the most wins!


----------



## EvanWilliams1783 (Oct 11, 2011)

There’s no point in take a longer travel bike and putting lighter components on it. Your still have the travel but you really can’t use it because you’ll break the components because they are light weight. There’s so many choices on bike choices and that’s great. We can all agree that the same rider will be faster on a bike that has more efficiency. 

Whenever I do endurance races in Arkansas that basically involves going down boulders the dudes on Hardtails sometimes single speed absolutely smoke folk. Ya the bro on his trail bike that he got because he watched YouTube is probably having fun but he isn’t the fastest.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

I'm not even sure how you build an especially light enduro bike without putting inappropriate parts on it. I mean my XXL Megatower CC with XO1, Fox 36, WOA Agent wheels and EXO+ casing tires weighed 33 lbs. I could have found some slightly lighter rims, gone down to EXO casing tires and saved a little bit. To get down to the weight of my Tallboy (29 lbs) I'd have to run way lighter components than what are on the Tallboy, which has a 130mm Pike, DPS, EXO tires, NOX rims, etc. It's really not possible. I mean you can make an enduro bike that's light for an enduro by spending the money and running light tires but you can't make an enduro bike that's light for a short travel bike without making bad decisions. Even then it's still not going to pedal as well. 

To me it's pretty simple, run however much bike you need. If you can afford multiple bikes for the different types of trails you ride then even better. It's not a theoretical issue in my experience, you know when you need more travel. There's certainly plenty of overlap where both bikes are fun but there's also situations when one bike isn't fun. I don't want to ride actual DH on the Tallboy and I don't enjoy 15-20 mile XC rides on the Megatower. Fun fact, both suck at the pumptrack.


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

Yes- I have a 2015 Scott Spark 930 FS with 120mm travel. On the technical trails I get ~90% travel more than occasionally. That sort of riding is only 10% or so of why I typically ride so there is enough cush to keep life interesting. 

I could see going to maybe 130mm (Santa Cruz Hightower). The main thing holding me back is I don't want to have an oddball 148mm rear wheel. Between my wife and I, there are ~8 bikes all of which are 135mm or 142mm and can easily be swapped in or out.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

EvanWilliams1783 said:


> There's no point in take a longer travel bike and putting lighter components on it. Your still have the travel but you really can't use it because you'll break the components because they are light weight. There's so many choices on bike choices and that's great. We can all agree that the same rider will be faster on a bike that has more efficiency.
> 
> Whenever I do endurance races in Arkansas that basically involves going down boulders the dudes on Hardtails sometimes single speed absolutely smoke folk. Ya the bro on his trail bike that he got because he watched YouTube is probably having fun but he isn't the fastest.


The point is to have fun and be able to ride a wider range of track including double black + stuff on the one bike.

You can do a lot of weight saving without compromising performance too much. I riding all the hardest tech on my lighter slayer no problem.

In that scenario of dude racing a hard tail smoking a guy on a trail bike who having more fun. I'm the guy on the fs guy having fun. And if my funometer is maxed out thats all I care about.



jeremy3220 said:


> I'm not even sure how you build an especially light enduro bike without putting inappropriate parts on it. I mean my XXL Megatower CC with XO1, Fox 36, WOA Agent wheels and EXO+ casing tires weighed 33 lbs. I could have found some slightly lighter rims, gone down to EXO casing tires and saved a little bit. To get down to the weight of my Tallboy (29 lbs) I'd have to run way lighter components than what are on the Tallboy, which has a 130mm Pike, DPS, EXO tires, NOX rims, etc. It's really not possible. I mean you can make an enduro bike that's light for an enduro by spending the money and running light tires but you can't make an enduro bike that's light for a short travel bike without making bad decisions. Even then it's still not going to pedal as well.
> 
> To me it's pretty simple, run however much bike you need. If you can afford multiple bikes for the different types of trails you ride then even better. It's not a theoretical issue in my experience, you know when you need more travel. There's certainly plenty of overlap where both bikes are fun but there's also situations when one bike isn't fun. I don't want to ride actual DH on the Tallboy and I don't enjoy 15-20 mile XC rides on the Megatower. Fun fact, both suck at the pumptrack.


My light slayer is a touch over 30lb. It used to be in the 29 range but I made it heavier by putting a push 11-6 in the back.

I'm running some roval traverse wheels 28/24 spoke and they are light. I've got specialize 2.6 purgatory on the back and 2.5 exo minion max grip up front. That combo makes for a light (by enduro standards) set up that rolls well and has reasonable grip. Plus there's carbon bars and a smattering of TI bolts to lighten it up a bit.

So..... I have the weight and similar pedal efficiency of your tallboy and big hitting capability if your megatower. 
I still hit everything plus I can and do ride 15-20 mile xc rides on it and love it.


----------



## EvanWilliams1783 (Oct 11, 2011)

Man that’s great that it works for you. It seems like your telling everyone that a 30 pound bike is light enough for what everyone wants and that just isn’t true. The thought of riding a 29 bike sounds horrible to me(I have and raced on one). A down country bike that’s 26ish will feel completely different and if the rider can handle go down the same stuff a bigger bike will.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

I think Plummet has answered the question in the title of this topic.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 2, 2004)

smartyiak said:


> I will argue that Plummet is just wrong. I am interested b/c of where I live...and millions of others. There's a ****-ton of people between D.C. and NYC...add in Boston too.
> 
> Most of us will only venture outside of 50mi within their house 1,3, maybe 5 times per year to go mtb. At home, I will never ever ever (unless I go to Blue or Bear Creek for lift serve) ever need more than 120/120. If I travel within 1 days drive, I will never ever ever (aside from lift serve) need more than 150/140. I would need to travel at least 8-10hrs before I'm remotely close to needing anything bigger.
> 
> ...


I'm one of those millions and agree. We have some descents that can get pretty steep and rowdy, but they're 5-600 vertical max, usually half of that. Up is just as important. Flat is really important. Give me a 1% grade twisty downhill and I'll have no trouble having tons of fun via some pedal power. Tech capabilities are really important, and long travel can be a hinderance unless it's going down. In some ways, this type of riding is much more appealing to me than slogging up some 60 minute climb to bomb a nice DH. Would love to have that option, but would probably spend more time going up and down.

Funny how we're the vast majority, but all of the marketing goes to the other locations. Granted, they sure do look better on video.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

plummet said:


> big hitting capability if your megatower.


Not with 24 spoke wheels. You must have an older small frame or something because the new Slayer is a porker. It isn't possible to responsibly build my Megatower that light (it already has carbon everything and an XO1 drivetrain). Same goes for the heavier Slayer. I'd have to run actual XC wheels tires, and bars.

My Tallboy is also carbon everything and XT/XTR drivetrain. The frame, while not light for a 120mm bike, is lighter than the Slayer. Only way to drop significant weight is weaker components.


----------



## joecx (Aug 17, 2013)

plummet said:


> The point is to have fun and be able to ride a wider range of track including double black + stuff on the one bike.
> 
> You can do a lot of weight saving without compromising performance too much. I riding all the hardest tech on my lighter slayer no problem.
> 
> ...


You are soooo full of it if you think the pedaling efficiency is the same as a Tall boy but as the man said,

"that's great if it works for you".


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

jeremy3220 said:


> Not with 24 spoke wheels. You must have an older small frame or something because the new Slayer is a porker. It isn't possible to responsibly build my Megatower that light (it already has carbon everything and an XO1 drivetrain). Same goes for the heavier Slayer. I'd have to run actual XC wheels tires, and bars.
> 
> My Tallboy is also carbon everything and XT/XTR drivetrain. The frame, while not light for a 120mm bike, is lighter than the Slayer. Only way to drop significant weight is weaker components.


You are right. Its a 2018 Slayer size medium. Not the heavy new model. The new model is too heavy for me. Not sure what bike i'll get next. I'll be honest its hard finding a light long travel frame. Most of them are porky.

But there are some unicorns around.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Sparticus said:


> In terms of frame design & suspension performance, 160mm is the new 130mm.
> To each their own. My tendencies tend to be more in line with plummet's but maybe this is simply because the terrain & trails I ride offer up more opportunities for challenge lines and hits.
> Ride whatever you like. But for me, the answer to the OP's thread title is no, a short travel FS is not for me. Even if I could save a few pounds of bike weight, my priority lies in capability. Not saying anyone else's should.
> =sParty


We have the terrain for a longer travel bike up here in the PNW. I quickly found out that converting my mid-travel trail bike into an enduro bike worked much better around these parts.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Someday someone is going to time their short travel bike (i.e. Spur) and then compare it to a smartly built 150/160 bike. And then for the ultimate test swap the wheels and tires from the short travel rig to the big bike to see how much of that difference was in the wheels/ tires and how much is a result of the small weight difference and the additional efficiency. 

My '21 Evo S5 weighs 30.6#s properly built w/ an EXT, 1000 gram tires with inserts front and rear, pedals and tools on board. It also pedals pretty well too. But I've ridden true XC bikes and it's a pig compared to them.

I do think a short travel bike could be lighter & faster than my current bike, but for their to be a difference I would care about I'd also have to have a significant drop in capability specifically in the wheels/ tires but also in the suspension & brakes.

Here is an example: A buddy that is a heck of an athlete rides a local trail that is pretty challenging and also very pedal heavy (Brushy Creek for ATX locals). His 22#, Fox Live Valve having, Rocket Ron tire XC race bike is 7-8% faster over the ride (about a 40 minute loop) than his 27.5" DHF having AM bike. How much of that 8%/ 3 minute savings is attributable to the tires/ wheels of the XC bike, how much is the 8# weight difference & how much is the rigid Fox Live Valve? One thing is clear from his mouth, the XC bike isn't nearly as much fun when the trails get rough.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

Suns_PSD said:


> Someday someone is going to time their short travel bike (i.e. Spur) and then compare it to a smartly built 150/160 bike. And then for the ultimate test swap the wheels and tires from the short travel rig to the big bike to see how much of that difference was in the wheels/ tires and how much is a result of the small weight difference and the additional efficiency.


That goes hand in hand with what I was saying about reducing the capability. You can run lighter duty parts to decrease weight but there are downsides. I'm already running about the lightest/fastest tires I can get away with on my Megatower's trail duty wheelset (DHF EXO+ front, e13 S/S enduro casing rear). I could put the same tires I have on the Tallboy (Dissector/Rekon) but then I'd be limiting the Megatower to roughly what the Tallboy can handle. I have two plugs in the DHF (need to swap it soon) and went from the trail to enduro casing (similar to DD) on the semi-slick because the trail casing was folding in corners like crazy. I rode somewhere yesterday where I was still getting quite a few rims strikes with 31 psi in the semi-slick. I'd have to run 35+ psi in the Rekon to get the same support (and still have less cornering traction and puncture resistance). So for me going to lighter tires would lead to the exact issue I was talking about before, which is neutering the bike.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I'd rather order a well engineered custom steel hardtail. The frame would cost more than your complete bike. It would ride better and be several pounds lighter, but I'm not your target audience.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

jeremy3220 said:


> That goes hand in hand with what I was saying about reducing the capability. You can run lighter duty parts to decrease weight but there are downsides. I'm already running about the lightest/fastest tires I can get away with on my Megatower's trail duty wheelset (DHF EXO+ front, e13 S/S enduro casing rear). I could put the same tires I have on the Tallboy (Dissector/Rekon) but then I'd be limiting the Megatower to roughly what the Tallboy can handle. I have two plugs in the DHF (need to swap it soon) and went from the trail to enduro casing (similar to DD) on the semi-slick because the trail casing was folding in corners like crazy. I rode somewhere yesterday where I was still getting quite a few rims strikes with 31 psi in the semi-slick. I'd have to run 35+ psi in the Rekon to get the same support (and still have less cornering traction and puncture resistance). So for me going to lighter tires would lead to the exact issue I was talking about before, which is neutering the bike.


Yeah it really is terrain dependent and riding style dependent. I too have moved away from the reckon dissector style of tyres and now insist on dhr up the front. I've have a set of dh wall minions and use them when i'm at super rocky bike parks like Wairoa gorge. For my local which is loam and slippery tree roots the dh wall is actually slower even on the gnarliest downs. They make the bike dull and non excelerative and actually not as much fun. I've found a good compromise with exo DHF max grip up front and weirdly a specialized purgatory make for a really good combo for my style of riding and track.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

jeremy3220 said:


> That goes hand in hand with what I was saying about reducing the capability. You can run lighter duty parts to decrease weight but there are downsides. I'm already running about the lightest/fastest tires I can get away with on my Megatower's trail duty wheelset (DHF EXO+ front, e13 S/S enduro casing rear). I could put the same tires I have on the Tallboy (Dissector/Rekon) but then I'd be limiting the Megatower to roughly what the Tallboy can handle. I have two plugs in the DHF (need to swap it soon) and went from the trail to enduro casing (similar to DD) on the semi-slick because the trail casing was folding in corners like crazy. I rode somewhere yesterday where I was still getting quite a few rims strikes with 31 psi in the semi-slick. I'd have to run 35+ psi in the Rekon to get the same support (and still have less cornering traction and puncture resistance). So for me going to lighter tires would lead to the exact issue I was talking about before, which is neutering the bike.


I do the same, I buy the light strong parts but in addition I'm always trying the dance between faster rolling vs. enough traction & durability. It's a fine line.

People love the Dissector as a front trail tire as an example, I rode mine 13 miles and then gave it to a friend before I crashed my brains out on it. Just not enough traction for my purposes and that was when it was at it's very best. But it did roll quite fast!

What's tricky is that some of the slowest tires have tons of traction, in part because they slow you down so much (i.e. Assagai) and you just aren't going as fast. Then you get faster rolling tires, you are now going faster and they are sliding everywhere.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## I❤️2MtBike (Feb 17, 2021)

celswick said:


> I am definitely.
> 
> My daily ride is 5 miles on pavement to the trail (and 5 miles back), 7-14 miles mostly smooth and sandy singletrack with a couple of miles of pine roots, and sometimes 3-5 miles of gravel. Usually 1.5 to 2 hours.
> 
> ...


The signal peak is really awesome. I would recommend it.


----------



## I❤️2MtBike (Feb 17, 2021)

bikesdirect said:


> Lately there has been an increase in sales of short travel full suspension bikes
> this is defined by the industry as under 130mm
> although I really think of it as mainly 100mm or 120mm
> 
> ...


I think that most of the things you could do on a short travel FS you could do on a hardtail if you are on a budget. If I didn't have a budget though, I would go either Fezzari Signal peak or the Scott Spark RC.

Right now I am looking at a Fezzari Solitude though.


----------



## Mountainfrog (Mar 7, 2006)

Aluminum 29er with DW Link 120mm travel, Fox 34 Performance or Rockshox Pike Select 130mm travel, < 29.5 pounds/13.4Kg (Large), $3600 USD not light and fast XC but light and burley DC.


----------



## akmtnrunner (Dec 12, 2020)

I❤2MtBike said:


> I think that most of the things you could do on a short travel FS you could do on a hardtail if you are on a budget. If I didn't have a budget though, I would go either Fezzari Signal peak or the Scott Spark RC.
> 
> Right now I am looking at a Fezzari Solitude though.


It's this trap of thinking that caused the market to gloss over the potential of the 100-130mm range. There's a world of difference between a hardtail and even a 100mm travel FS. And with trail bike geometry, a 120mm bike will behave a lot like a 140 trail bike. Now that the industry is slacking out these xc/short travel bikes, it really doesn't require a lot of suspension travel.


----------



## jeremy3220 (Jul 5, 2017)

akmtnrunner said:


> It's this trap of thinking that caused the market to gross over the potential of the 100-130mm range. There's a world of difference between a hardtail and even a 100mm travel FS. And with trail bike geometry, a 120mm bike will behave a lot like a 140 trail bike. Now that the industry is slacking out these xc/short travel bikes, it really doesn't require a lot of suspension travel.


Yep, my Tallboy V4 is closer in capability to my enduro bike than my previous steel hardtail with a 65° hta. The TB is also lighter and climbs faster than the hardtail (but also more expensive).


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

My Intense Sniper is infinitely better than any HT unless the trail is super smooth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

Considering 100% of my rides are both up and down and are not EWS courses, I'm pretty stoked on my first short travel build. I've ridden a hardtail since 1988.


----------



## 33red (Jan 5, 2016)

At the moment i enjoy a new 130fr/120rear and my previous 120HT very light bikes.
I guess if i was limited to a bike i would go for 120 fr and about 110 rear on the light side
on 29 with 35 rims and room for 2.8 I would use wider tires for spring and fall.


----------



## pushie (Aug 3, 2020)

Love my 160/150 for shuttle days but its a bit of a handful for trail riding. Would love a short travel bike for when there is a bit more pedalling involved. One day!

N+1, a bike for every occasion!


----------



## Joe Handlebar (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm kicking myself in the arse for not doing before......









Scott Spark. 130/120 SLX drive train/brakes (XT BB/Blackspire ring), Stan's Neo on WTB rims, PNW Loam....so much damn fun.


----------

