# Do we really need all that travel?



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Now I am not speaking of everyone, but I find that a large amount of people get bikes with way more travel than they need. This may be attributed to better suspension designs or maybe the market trying to push the "bigger is better" philosophy down our throats. I am not sure. 
In my opinion a 5 inch trail bike probably covers more than 95% of riders out there. You can get pretty gnarly on a 120-140 mm bike. I guess if I were regularly taking 4 ft + drops on the regular an Enduro or Slash might be useful, but since most of the time one simply pedaling rather than dropping, efficiency should probably count a little more.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong for getting an uber extreme monster energy soda-type bike but more often than not longer travel suspensions just mute rider error a bit and makes climbing less efficient. 
I know I will probably erk someone the wrong way and they are gonna post a pic of them dropping off the grand canyon or something, but I am not speaking to those people studlier than myself, I am just talking in general terms.


----------



## lotusdriver (Sep 15, 2013)

I would agree with you that 120-140mm suspension travel is sufficient for most people.

I am willing to bet that is what most people actually have. As it's a good compromise, able to do most things well.


----------



## mbell (Sep 9, 2008)

I'm pretty sure you are correct with your statement. Most rider don't "need" more than a 5" bike. But with the benefits of more efficiently designed suspension and "lock-out" features on shocks/forks, I'm pretty confident some out there will lean towards a longer travel bike. At that rate, you don't suffer from an inefficient bike, but still have the safety net of longer travel if you get in over your head.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Depends on the riding you do and where you ride.

If you live for the downhills and only suffer the uphills because you have to, then you might choose a longer travel bike.

Where I live, VERY few people ride more than a 5" travel FS. Most ride hardtails. In demoing a bunch of bikes last summer on a local trail, I found a 5" bike to have a pretty excellent combination of bump absorption while still allowing the trails to be fun. If I bumped up to 6", I felt like I was riding a rail trail. But that impression only applies to that particular trail I was riding at the time. On a more technical, more downhill-oriented trail, that 6" bike would have been a lot more fun.

I currently ride a bike that's 4" in front, and maybe 3.7" in the back. It's fun on the terrain I ride, for the most part. It's not very sensitive in the back end, so for my next one, I'd like something a little more sensitive than what I have.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I think there is a point when too much travel will ruin the riding experience too though. If you are in Wisconsin riding on relatively flat single track, a Specialized Enduro won't do much to improve your riding, in fact the extra weight and slack angles will hinder it. 
I remember reading in my Mountain Bike Action not long ago to "Buy a bike for what most of your trails are like as opposed to what the few rough sections might be.", or something along those lines. I tend to agree with that. Especially since I know great riders who clean stuff on their XC bikes that most on AM bikes would not do.


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

Agree, and it seems as though most of the 27.5" trail bikes are around 150mm travel, that why I went with a 29er on my last bike.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I ride a mix of conventional XC and technical granite riding. I got a Santa Cruz Solo (now 5010) since it can handle it all and do well. 140 mm fork and 125 mm rear shock.


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

I also have a Giant trance 26er with 125mm rear and now 140mm up front, and It is capable of more than I probably am. Still 27lb or less bike, climbs well. Loves the downhill, hits jumps well, anything more would be overkill for me.


----------



## DeeZee (Jan 26, 2005)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Now I am not speaking of everyone, but I find that a large amount of people get bikes with way more travel than they need. This may be attributed to better suspension designs or maybe the market trying to push the "bigger is better" philosophy down our throats. I am not sure.
> In my opinion a 5 inch trail bike probably covers more than 95% of riders out there. You can get pretty gnarly on a 120-140 mm bike. I guess if I were regularly taking 4 ft + drops on the regular an Enduro or Slash might be useful, but since most of the time one simply pedaling rather than dropping, efficiency should probably count a little more.
> I'm not saying anyone is wrong for getting an uber extreme monster energy soda-type bike but more often than not longer travel suspensions just mute rider error a bit and makes climbing less efficient.
> I know I will probably erk someone the wrong way and they are gonna post a pic of them dropping off the grand canyon or something, but I am not speaking to those people studlier than myself, I am just talking in general terms.


What is this suspension thing you speak of?

All you need for most trails in my area is your arms and legs


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

I was pretty thrilled with my girven flex stem back in the 90's.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I thought I was going to go for more travel this time 'round. But I'm not ready to move away from race bikes yet, thank you. 100 mm and no excuses here.


----------



## tysonnemb (Jan 23, 2010)

Most of the trails people ride were around before suspension, so clearly you really don't need the travel. 

That being said, I ride an Enduro. I know I don't need it. But l like the extra travel for the playing around. I also really prefer the position it puts you in. Technically the bike is supposed to be less efficient for climbing, but if I can't make a climb, it's my fault, not the bike. I'd buy another 6" travel again, but would love a hardtail with it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

This depends on where you ride, how you ride, how big you are, and maybe how old you are. I'm 55 and like my 5Spot's Cadillac like ride Geometry plays a big part in it. We have some DH riding on some of our local trails and while I may not need my 160mm of fork travel I do need the slack HTA and stiffness that my Float 36 brings. If I had less travel with the geometry and stiffness I would be quite happy 95% of the time. The other 5% 160mm buys a lot of forgiveness.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

I only need 100mm of travel, although 130mm on a RM Instinct would be nice.


----------



## LeeL (Jan 12, 2004)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Now I am not speaking of everyone, but I find that a large amount of people get bikes with way more travel than they need. This may be attributed to better suspension designs or maybe the market trying to push the "bigger is better" philosophy down our throats. I am not sure.
> In my opinion a 5 inch trail bike probably covers more than 95% of riders out there. You can get pretty gnarly on a 120-140 mm bike. I guess if I were regularly taking 4 ft + drops on the regular an Enduro or Slash might be useful, but since most of the time one simply pedaling rather than dropping, efficiency should probably count a little more.
> I'm not saying anyone is wrong for getting an uber extreme monster energy soda-type bike but more often than not longer travel suspensions just mute rider error a bit and makes climbing less efficient.
> I know I will probably erk someone the wrong way and they are gonna post a pic of them dropping off the grand canyon or something, but I am not speaking to those people studlier than myself, I am just talking in general terms.


MTBR Pinkbike NSMB Vital pretty much are defined by cube dwelling weekend warriors fapping over long travel bikes substituting travel for skill.

That should come as to no surprise. It's a male dominated sport and males use travel as a surrogate for skil; the old penile enhancement syndrome

It's also characteristics of many sports. Skiing. Cars. Moto. etc


----------



## Cobretti (May 23, 2005)

LeeL said:


> MTBR Pinkbike NSMB Vital pretty much are defined by cube dwelling weekend warriors fapping over long travel bikes substituting travel for skill.
> 
> That should come as to no surprise. It's a male dominated sport and males use travel as a surrogate for skil; the old penile enhancement syndrome
> 
> It's also characteristics of many sports. Skiing. Cars. Moto. etc


----------



## dirtrider76 (Sep 19, 2012)

I have 1 bike for everything and its 160mm travel. Its overkill for a bunch of places I ride but others its not. I'd never go back to a hardtail now since I have some back issue's and the suspension does help a good bit.


----------



## David C (May 25, 2011)

Around here it's mostly XC with DH, and so far I'm doing as good and more often better on my 100mm XC bike than my 6" FR rig. The big bike is a lot more fun for jumping stairs and playing around downtown tho


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Lots of good points in here. If I were rich I'd probably get a long-travel bike for special occasions but since I'm not, my Solo will have to suffice. It's a good "Swiss Army" bike that can really do a bit of everything pretty good.


----------



## z400jt (Oct 30, 2006)

I can adjust from 85-130mm of both front and rear pretty easily on my bike. I have put a pretty fair amount of miles on the bike at each of the settings and have found that 100mm is all I need. At 85mm I was bottoming often and at 130mm I felt very top heavy and felt like my climbing suffered (all mental?).


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

For the riding I do all of my bikes are
100 to 120 mm.


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

All but 2 of my 20+ mountain bikes over the past 29 years have been either hard tails or rigid bikes, so the 1" of rear travel and 100mm in front on my main bike feels plenty plush for me to ride most everything I ride. I like a good fast DH but don't drop big stuff and may not be the fastest guy on the ride through the really chunky parts.


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

My Transition bandit has 5" and it's adequate for trails which have natural or constructed technical features. I can do 20" drops at speed on our local trails as well as catching a little air. Last summer my DH frame cracked and while waiting for replacement I rode the Bandit at our local DH park. I had to roll all the drops and despite crawling over features, I was using all my travel so I had to hold back significantly. So for me. 5'' for a trail bike is good, 5" for dh not so good.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

I fail to see how travel can be construed as "a surrogate for skil" (sic), although a lack of travel would cause you to pick your way with a bit more care. There is a lot more involved than just this however. Travel is a great addition to the quiver of technological advances we have available to enhance our riding. Personally I do not understand people who stick with small or no amounts of travel in the, to my mind, mistaken belief that this is all we need is plain silly. To say That 'trails were around before suspension so we don't need it', is even more silly. I have been riding since before any so-called mountain bikes were thought of, so I know of all worlds, and suspension is absolutely wonderful! Of course it depends where you ride as to the amount of travel required, but in the many years of riding all kinds of trails, I seldom see people with an over-the-top bike for the trails I am on. I think I once saw someone on a a more DH oriented bike on a fairly flat trail, but he was only riding that as his XC was broken. I think anyone will realise that riding a 6" travel bike on an 'dirt roadie' style trail all of the time is not perhaps the most efficient thing in the world, and things will tend to shake themselves out. 
As in male human physiology, 5" to 6" will do it all pretty well, especially on a 26" or 27.5" bike.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Some of us can only afford one bike at a time or only have room for one bike at a time. If the rider likes to mix it up, the one bike may be overkill on mellow terrains, and right at home on tougher terrains.


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

I ride primarily XC kind of stuff and at 55yo I'm not doing anything extreme but I love the plush ride that a 150mm fork and 140mm rear gives me on my Blur. At 27 lbs it's plenty light for all day XC riding and I can take it to Moab and blast down Porcupine rim. This setup makes for a great, all around, do all bike. I don't always use all my travel but when I do I'm glad I have it.


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

When I first moved here I had a 4" yeti asr superlight xc bike. I hauled ass up hill, I couldn't keep up with the buddies going down. One day my friend said, take some $$ and put together a longer travel bike, shorten the stem, get some fat ass tires and let some air out of them. So I did, put together a 140mm KHS, also my 1st fox fork (for another thread). Opened me up to a whole other world. Did it substitute for some skill? probably, but I had a blast. I got fast on that downhill, and it helped me develop skills for the shorter travel bikes. I have since been through a few different bikes, looking for that happy medium. I think for me that 27lb range is key.


----------



## NorCalTaz (Nov 12, 2013)

I have 140mm up front and 5.0 rear travel on my AM bike, being a noob it is nice to have and I don't have the experience to compare. With that said, I am pretty sure I would not want to go with much less than that on my next ride. I am a big dude at 6'2 240+ lbs, and find myself using every most of the travel I have for the trails I ride.

I like the comment about the Santa Cruz 5010 (Solo) being a swiss army knife, have that bad boy in my sights for purchase later on this year and will be taking one out as soon as the rain lets up for a demo from one of the LBS's. Drooool.....


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

I don't _need_ all of the Habanero sauce I put on my tacos and Gyros...but I damn well love it!


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

Meh, I can usually gauge my enjoyment of a trail by how much travel I use. Also don't forget that you can setup a longer travel bike softer, so it tracks better and take the square edge hits better (I ride rock, rocks and more rocks).

My 6" travel bike (with DH tires & low pressures) is the only bike I've ever been happy with as far as suspension goes. I'd much rather launch off a rock that ride around it.

My current bike has over 12" of travel and it's my favorite bike EVER. It also has 45hp :cornut:


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2014)

Shane5001 said:


> I was pretty thrilled with my girven flex stem back in the 90's.


I remember riding a friends bike with the flex stem...I hope you're joking? Those stems were a bad idea, in my opinion. It was just one of the options back then; I really appreciate where bikes are at now. Currently, I'm on a 140mm bike. I'm looking at all the new bikes...unlimited options...I'll probably try a 650B with 125mm in the back, with 140mm up front.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Need? Nope. 
Want? That's a whole different story.


----------



## mattnmtns (Sep 16, 2010)

I'd tend to agree. I have been riding a tallboy 100/120 and can riding pretty much everything in WNC. There are times though I would like more travel. Also times I am reluctant to do certain drops, hit certain features with speed.

I very much want a 5 or 6 inch travel bike. It would be overkill for a lot of my trails but would nice to have it when I need or want it.

I also want to get another hardtail.

N+2


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

tjMountain said:


> I have 140mm up front and 5.0 rear travel on my AM bike, being a noob it is nice to have and I don't have the experience to compare. With that said, I am pretty sure I would not want to go with much less than that on my next ride. I am a big dude at 6'2 240+ lbs, and find myself using every most of the travel I have for the trails I ride.
> 
> I like the comment about the Santa Cruz 5010 (Solo) being a swiss army knife, have that bad boy in my sights for purchase later on this year and will be taking one out as soon as the rain lets up for a demo from one of the LBS's. Drooool.....


I am planning to upload a YouTube review soon but I like the bike a lot. Maybe it's because I am properly sized on this bike (unlike the last) but it gobbles up miles. I have had done a few double takes after looking at my GPS after rides because it feels like Im riding less. 
VPP suspension feels less plush but it pedals great and the suspension really kicks in off drops and when you need it. It can be light enough for XC racing but can handle the gnar if you set the fork to 140 mm.


----------



## jgutz71 (May 6, 2012)

It does not matter what we need. What matters is what you want and what you can afford. Heck we don't need cars that can go 120 mph either but yet people buy them...


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

jgutz71 said:


> It does not matter what we need. What matters is what you want and what you can afford. Heck we don't need cars that can go 120 mph either but yet people buy them...


I kinda disagree here. I think it does matter what we need because a bike that is too beefy can actually hinder your performance in some applications. An example would be a 33 lb Enduro on trails that are better suited for sub 25 lb XC bikes.


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I kinda disagree here. I think it does matter what we need because a bike that is too beefy can actually hinder your performance in some applications. An example would be a 33 lb Enduro on trails that are better suited for sub 25 lb XC bikes.


Yeah. There is probably a reason XC racers aren't riding DH bikes and vice versa. Out on the trails though I generally see people with bikes that make sense for the environment, but there are a fair number that ate overkill for the task we are on. No different than all those people driving 2 ton pickups because every six months they might need to move a couch or get a sheet of plywood. Convenient but also costly to no purpose.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

Where I ride, most ride 29er FS. No skills required, and those people are often dropped by guys riding ridged. Some trails are very gnarly, but they only need FS if you plan o going very fast. I think people go for more travel for stability, which is a function of geometry rather than travel. 

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

FastBanana said:


> Where I ride, most ride 29er FS. No skills required, and those people are often dropped by guys riding ridged. Some trails are very gnarly, but they only need FS if you plan o going very fast. I think people go for more travel for stability, which is a function of geometry rather than travel.
> 
> Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk


Wha?!? No skills required to ride 29er FS?!? Surely just a LITTLE!?


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

I would not enjoy riding a lesser-travel bike as much as the 7" bike which gets ridden everywhere. If I am going to buy a lightweight bike, it will be a road bike.

Edit - or a 24"/26" BMX -- there's only one BMX track in my home state though...


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

Was joking, although I thought it was pretty cool back then. It was a complete waste of $40, but I couldn't afford the rock shox mag 21. I do enjoy modern technology.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I think the geo/angles as has been said by Travis and a few others also plays a big deal in people getting slightly longer travel bikes. I've got my Prime and it's WAY overkill for about 80% of my trails, definitely a monster truck, but on the serious, chunky tech I love it's absolutely perfect. This being said, I too love a stiff, slacker bike and and on the waiting list for a Banshee Phantom when they're released, it'll have the signature Banshee slack angles, uber stiff frame and rear travel somewhere around 100-110mm of travel to be paired up with a 120mm travel fork.
Banshee Phantom 29er Prototype 2013 - YouTube











Travis Bickle said:


> This depends on where you ride, how you ride, how big you are, and maybe how old you are. I'm 55 and like my 5Spot's Cadillac like ride Geometry plays a big part in it. We have some DH riding on some of our local trails and while I may not need my 160mm of fork travel I do need the slack HTA and stiffness that my Float 36 brings. If I had less travel with the geometry and stiffness I would be quite happy 95% of the time. The other 5% 160mm buys a lot of forgiveness.


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

LyNx said:


> I've got my Prime and it's WAY overkill for about 80% of my trails[/img]


Nice looking bike LyNx. Long time, no see!


----------



## Petti the Yeti (May 30, 2011)

I would rather have long travel and not need it, than suddenly needing long travel, and not having it.

I took an unintended launch off of a switchback that I wasn't prepared for, flew about 15 feet and landed on the downslope of another part of the trail. Would have been great fun with the Sunday I had at the time, but unfortunately, I was on my Trek hard tail, and taco'd my rear rim. 

After that, I bought a lower geared cassette for the Sunday and XC'd it for months. Yeah, climbs sucked, but skipping half the "easy" downhills to create my own easily made up for it.


----------



## Brewtality (Jul 25, 2007)

Haint said:


> I would not enjoy riding a lesser-travel bike as much as the 7" bike which gets ridden everywhere.


According to the OP, you only need that to cover up rider errors and it makes you less efficient on climbs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LeeL (Jan 12, 2004)

http://forums.mtbr.com/27-5-650b/mach-6-vs-bronson-best-bike-nj-898515.html - for New Jersey.


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

I'll also say that a longer travel bike, provided that the suspension is set up properly, will be more forgiving of stupid mistakes. I'm not the most graceful rider and I can't tell you how many times I got squirrelly or landed a drop wrong and didn't crash because of 6" of travel I have.


----------



## STACK (Mar 23, 2009)

Isn't 100mm enough for most rides? I hope so. 


I'm about to get a CX, I hope that's enough..


----------



## Gumbi4Prez (Jan 2, 2014)

If you throw a Honda Civic out of an airplane. It'll do 120+ mph.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

rockerc said:


> I fail to see how travel can be construed as "a surrogate for skil" (sic), although a lack of travel would cause you to pick your way with a bit more care. There is a lot more involved than just this however. Travel is a great addition to the quiver of technological advances we have available to enhance our riding. Personally I do not understand people who stick with small or no amounts of travel in the, to my mind, mistaken belief that this is all we need is plain silly. To say That 'trails were around before suspension so we don't need it', is even more silly. I have been riding since before any so-called mountain bikes were thought of, so I know of all worlds, and suspension is absolutely wonderful! Of course it depends where you ride as to the amount of travel required, but in the many years of riding all kinds of trails, I seldom see people with an over-the-top bike for the trails I am on. I think I once saw someone on a a more DH oriented bike on a fairly flat trail, but he was only riding that as his XC was broken. I think anyone will realise that riding a 6" travel bike on an 'dirt roadie' style trail all of the time is not perhaps the most efficient thing in the world, and things will tend to shake themselves out.
> As in male human physiology, 5" to 6" will do it all pretty well, especially on a 26" or 27.5" bike.


Lol are you an attorney? (sic)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Well I ride about 4-5 days a week. 1\2 of the time I could get away with a more XC bike than my 2011 Turner 5Spot with 160mm Float 36 up front but the other 1/2 I am on more DH like trails. Yesterday we did a big climb to descend a mix of XC and more DH trail. At no time(except on the steep logging road climb) did I feel that I had too much travel. My bike is burly at about 30lbs with Flow EX rims and 2.4 tires. On my next bike I hope to go lighter but have better DH ability via a slack HTA and stiff chassis and fork. Not less than 150mm up front with 34mm+ stanchions. Overkill for some riding but safer when the going gets steep and rough.


----------



## RaythePedaler (Feb 10, 2014)

Who cares about a measurement if you're on the bike that provides the most fun? If I can beat the crap out of a 5in bike all day and night and love it, but feel like I'm thrashing and abusing a 4in bike doing the same thing on the same trail, even though the trails only "need" a HT, which bike do I need?

The answer isn't rhetorical, it's "whichever bike I personally have the most fun on".

(FYI, I'm almost always the guy with a burly bike in a field of 4in XC rigs and HT's. I'm also the guy hucking the downhills, keeping up everywhere else, and leaving the trail with a grin, that's all that matters.)


----------



## moefosho (Apr 30, 2013)

Y'all are a bunch of pansies. All you need is a single speed rigid! 

In all seriousness though, there are places where I wish I had more than 140mm travel and there are places where I can ride my rigid.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Nah, just probably been told many times that he uses suspension to make up for his lack of skill 


TwoNin9r said:


> Lol are you an attorney? (sic)
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

LyNx said:


> Nah, just probably been told many times that he uses suspension to make up for his lack of skill


Oh no I asked because judges use "(sic)" to show that something is spelled improperly because it's being quoted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

STACK said:


> Isn't 100mm enough for most rides? I hope so.
> 
> I'm about to get a CX, I hope that's enough..


I found my 'cross bike fairly limiting. There are certainly some trails it made new and interesting again, though.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

TwoNin9r said:


> Oh no I asked because judges use "(sic)" to show that something is spelled improperly because it's being quoted.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


Not just judges old chap! And actually nobody has ever told me that my suspension makes up for my lack of skill, I beat myself up on that often enough! I just don't beat up my bones too much...

And I am not a judge, altho I can be judgmental! I am not proud of that...


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Lol I'm in law school so that's the only place I've seen it 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

Joe Murray said in an interview that a lot of the reason bikes and suspension travel have progressed to the point they have is that trail design has progressed to where it seems to make longer travel necessary. In his racing days, he says, they were on rigid bikes with rare exception and the trails were mostly smooth combined with a lot more fire roads/logging roads.

I like different bike styles for different styles of trails and riding. All 29ers from a rigid ss to a 5" fs and things in between.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

I've actually never tried anything above 100mm travel but I've always been curious about whether a 120mm bike would be perfect for the trails I ride 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Brewtality said:


> According to the OP, you only need that to cover up rider errors and it makes you less efficient on climbs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then OP should worry more for his own then, ride with mutes perhaps. Or a cane.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

TwoNin9r said:


> I've actually never tried anything above 100mm travel but I've always been curious about whether a 120mm bike would be perfect for the trails I ride
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


I owned a Camber and Stumpjumper 29er (110 mm and 130 mm respectively) and I lfelt way more capable on the Camber. Long travel 29ers have always felt wonky to me but the new Camber Evo (120mm) has gotten rave reviews. They say similar stuff I did when I had the bike. 2014 Bible of Bike Tests: Specialized Camber Expert Carbon EVO 29 - Bike Magazine - YouTube


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Haint said:


> Then OP should worry more for his own then, ride with mutes perhaps. Or a cane.


Oh snap! Burn! Gonna take a few days to cool down after that one. lol. God forbid one offer up an opinion on an internet forum, that would just be downright distasteful! =)


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Oh snap! Burn! Gonna take a few days to cool down after that one. lol. God forbid one offer up an opinion on an internet forum, that would just be downright distasteful! =)


Your opinion is that Ninety-Five percent of Mountain Bikers ride bikes which they have had forced 'down their throats'. Pretty sure you have rationale behind this so lay it on us old timer.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Haint said:


> Your opinion is that Ninety-Five percent of Mountain Bikers ride bikes which they have had forced 'down their throats'. Pretty sure you have rationale behind this so lay it on us old timer.


Goodness does someone need a happy meal? I said most ride bikes that have travel for which they will never need. Many agreed with me. I also said there is nothing wrong with that but a shorter travel bike will benefit people who don't huck off 4 foot drops on the regular. and btw, you're a lot older than myself.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Goodness does someone need a happy meal? I said most ride bikes that have travel for which they will never need. Many agreed with me. I also said there is nothing wrong with that but a shorter travel bike will benefit people who don't huck off 4 foot drops on the regular. and btw, you're a lot older than myself.


Those are some very broad generalizations being made upon Retailors, upon those who market Bicycles, and upon the average customer off the street. There's Sixty-Five replies (now 66...) to this thread - at least three of them are yours. So 60-odd replies means 95% of all mountain bikers indeed got worked.

Instead provide some answers for everyone on how to rectify this problem. Then inform IMBA that their trails have too many options, and they are inspiring local trail crews to create more and more diverse trail networks.

If you're happy with what you're riding - all for it, good on it. Your view seems to be that of a pack mentality where whatever it is that got you riding and enjoying the outdoors was more a group decision than developing from a applied skillset, or wanting to develop a skill set to apply elsewhere.

Think about what your first post says one more time - 95% of all Mtn. Bikers are mal-informed by... what?? Tell us!!


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Is it Soda cans??


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Haint said:


> Is it Soda cans??


You sound like an angry dude. Go for a ride and hug your neighbor. I did make generalizations and I said so in OP. Sorry that offends you buddy. This is a forum where I can opine. If that bothers you and makes you sore, too bad. I stand by what I said.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

Whatever - I was only on here shopping for shoes.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Cobretti said:


>


holy crap the brunette looks like my ex girlfriend put on 20 lbs! like IDENTICAL


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

TwoNin9r said:


> holy crap the brunette looks like my ex girlfriend put on 20 lbs! like IDENTICAL


And I can see she's impressed


----------



## Petti the Yeti (May 30, 2011)

Glide the Clyde said:


> And I can see she's impressed


Zing! Haha.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Lol! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

The fact that you COULD do without it isn't really a reason NOT to have it unless there is a negative. You could say that having more travel would make it harder to climb hills, but with a 150mm bike vs a 100mm bike, it just takes a lot more to get to the rough part of the travel. Do I NEED it? No. Is it nice to have? Yes.

Do you NEED a 5,000sq ft house?
Do you NEED a car with 400 horsepower?
Do you NEED to drink more than 2 beers at a time?
Do you NEED a smartphone?
Do you NEED a nice watch?

And so on... buy what makes you happy


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I do believe there are a lot of people taking offense to the OPs premise because it hits close to home and in the back of their minds they think the same thing and wonder how they'd handle their trails on a lesser travel bike, would their "skill" disappear. 

Guessing this is what the OP means, is that when you're flying around on that 150mm travel bike on trails that really at best my require a HT, the trail is totally muted, you don't get any feedback and you don't have to pay attention because your monster truck will just cruise right over anything you put it to. For me this is boring, I prefer to get feedback and have to work to enjoy a trail, not just hop on some monster bike that basically rides itself. Have always stood amazed at how many visitors ride certain of our trails on XC-light Trail bikes and say they wish they had their 7" bike - I'm like and the fun of that would be? 

Displacement, is no replacement for skill


----------



## B-Mac (Oct 2, 2008)

Personally, my current bike has 5" of rear travel & a 6-inch fork. My next bike will have more (Bronson!!). I like travel! Lots of it, preferably coil-sprung and stiction free. 

I know and ride with lots of guys who ride hard tails or rigid bikes. Many of them are better riders than me. 

BUT, most or all of the guys I know that ride the XC-type bikes avoid jumps and drops like the plague. Even xc trails usually have little features off to the side of the trail that you can hit.I can't think of a single guy with a hardtail bike that will hit them. A lot of the xc guys absolutely rule the tech and the skinnies though.

Also, xc bike riders are generally REALLY, REALLY slow on downhills. I, on the other hand, am really slow on climbs & other pedally bits. 

Set your bike up for what you like & don't worry about it when other people set up theirs differently. OP - you're probably more into the physical aspects of riding - climbing, overall pedaling speed, etc - than into the adrenaline aspects - jumping, drops, steeps, cornering, pumping over obstacles - so you don't see the reason for setting you bike up like I do. Fine. There's no single right way to do this sport.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Strangely, this thread convinced me to go order a 140/130 frame and fork. Do I need it? No, in fact, I don't even "need" any suspension. Is it going to be a blast to ride? Yup. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I love my 29er enduro with 6" of travel. Here in New England we have rocks, roots and logs. Big rocks, little rocks and everything in between. I use all the travel. No stinkin' flat dirt unless you are riding on a dirt road. The rocks gardens I traverse make lesser riders weep and walk. 4-5" bikes do ok, hardtails I guess. I love blasting through them at speed. It makes me smile. At the end of the day that is all that matters. YRMV. My back thanks me.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

LyNx said:


> I do believe there are a lot of people taking offense to the OPs premise because it hits close to home and in the back of their minds they think the same thing and wonder how they'd handle their trails on a lesser travel bike, would their "skill" disappear.
> 
> Guessing this is what the OP means, is that when you're flying around on that 150mm travel bike on trails that really at best my require a HT, the trail is totally muted, you don't get any feedback and you don't have to pay attention because your monster truck will just cruise right over anything you put it to. For me this is boring, I prefer to get feedback and have to work to enjoy a trail, not just hop on some monster bike that basically rides itself. Have always stood amazed at how many visitors ride certain of our trails on XC-light Trail bikes and say they wish they had their 7" bike - I'm like and the fun of that would be?
> 
> Displacement, is no replacement for skill


Thanks, Lynx. That is what I mean. I'm all for buyers picking their bike. If extra travel makes you have more fun than that is great. I am just saying all too often I see new riders on XC trails with long-legged bikes and they wonder why they are slow. 
My Solo is 140 mm up front, 125 in the rear, that is a lot of suspension for me but the VPP suspension pedals superbly. Ride what you want everyone. I'm not trying to offend anyone with a lot of travel. Those bikes certainly have their place.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Thanks, Lynx. That is what I mean. I'm all for buyers picking their bike. If extra travel makes you have more fun than that is great. I am just saying all too often I see new riders on XC trails with long-legged bikes and they wonder why they are slow.
> My Solo is 140 mm up front, 125 in the rear, that is a lot of suspension for me but the VPP suspension pedals superbly. Ride what you want everyone. I'm not trying to offend anyone with a lot of travel. Those bikes certainly have their place.


What do you mean "those bikes"... Haha just kidding (had to)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

TwoNin9r said:


> Strangely, this thread convinced me to go order a 140/130 frame and fork. Do I need it? No, in fact, I don't even "need" any suspension. Is it going to be a blast to ride? Yup.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


Hard to argue with that. 

If I got another right now, it'd probably have about 140 too. Maybe more.


----------



## Shane5001 (Dec 18, 2013)

I spent most of last year on my Anthem 29er short travel, still love it, and it is probably the better bike, but after putting a fox float 140 on the front of my Trance 26er, I can't put it down. The funner bike.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

I ride a 145mm travel Mountain Cycle with a maverick fork on my local trail. With the big swing arm and dual crown fork it looks like a beast. I get static from people because it looks like a full on down hill bike, even though it's a svelt 26.5 lbs. trail bike.

My other ride is a hardtail with a little 80mm linkage fork, I'm faster on this bike everywhere except going down. It is the jump, switchback, berm ride, and wheelie machine.

I need all that travel of the FS bike because that is the point of having a FS bike. It is totally fun, plush, a back saver, confidence inspiring, and just an overall pleasurable riding experience. Anything I would use a 100mm-120mm bike for I would opt for a hardtail.


----------



## Burzum (Jul 30, 2009)

I remember when everyone rode rigid and complained about people running mag 21's and not having true skill, blah, blah.
Who cares if people ride long travel bikes on trails, it's all about biking and riding your ride.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

Jon Richard said:


> I ride a 145mm travel Mountain Cycle with a maverick fork on my local trail. With the big swing arm and dual crown fork it looks like a beast. I get static from people because it looks like a full on down hill bike, even though it's a svelt 26.5 lbs. trail bike.
> 
> My other ride is a hardtail with a little 80mm linkage fork, I'm faster on this bike everywhere except going down. It is the jump, switchback, berm ride, and wheelie machine.
> 
> I need all that travel of the FS bike because that is the point of having a FS bike. It is totally fun, plush, a back saver, confidence inspiring, and just an overall pleasurable riding experience. Anything I would use a 100mm-120mm bike for I would opt for a hardtail.


Linkage fork? Pics! Thats super cool


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

AMP Research, bought new in '96- these are the "long travel" version


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

Thats sweet!

It looks like it would smack the downtube though?


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

FastBanana said:


> Thats sweet!
> 
> It looks like it would smack the downtube though?


Na. Take a second look, that piece under the downtube is the anchor, like a crown, for the swing links. It works like a double A arm.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I'm still enjoying my Prime, but still agree with the OP, mutes most of my trails too much and makes life too easy. Yesterday rode one of my fav trails, no jumps or drops, but some decent tech and a little chunk and a few G-Outs, was surprised to see I'd used about 85% of my travel F&R on the Prime, tried to think back where, but really couldn't, never felt it for sure. Looking forward to getting my Phantom and knowing where it is that I use nearly all my travel, heck also looking forward to when I get back a Paradox for the same trail, it used to be uber fun, never felt I needed more and then even still, looking forward to the longer rigid fork to slacken the Monkey out a bit to ride it more.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

The dichotomy between full suspension and no suspension is such that it truly is an apples to oranges comparison. I don’t think it is fair to say that a bike with monster suspension is cheating and mutes out the trail because it is simply a totally different category of riding. 

Like many here I started riding full rigid in the eighties and even though I now have my new fancy 6” travel bike I still ride the hardtail an equal amount because sometimes I want to mountain goat it and other times I just want flow. 

My opinion differs from the OP in that to me it is 100mm bikes that make little sense. If you’re going to bother with suspension step up to longer travel to really embrace the FS experience, otherwise dust off that old rigid because it will do everything the 100mm bike will do, just more efficiently while being more in tune with the technical aspect of riding.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

If people out there are buying 150mm bikes and only ever using 100mm then they are buying the wrong bike. I don't know how much that really actually happens, most people learn how to use all their bike sooner or later.

Having said that, I will respectively disagree with the GnarBrah and Mountain Bike Action regarding this statement:"Buy a bike for what most of your trails are like as opposed to what the few rough sections might be." This is a fairly narrow "one size should fit all" mentality. Example: I might ride a twenty mile XC trail so I can hit the 10 foot jump at the end of it and be glad I'm on 6" of suspension. You might take a 4" XC bike on the same ride, walk around the jump, and have just as much fun.


----------



## Soupboy (Jan 13, 2004)

Old dude here. I remember when "upgrading" from Judy to a Zoke Atom 80 with coil/oil (heavy spring) was exotic. 

Today's suspension is a) for awesome and b) for beautiful luxury.


----------



## tipsword (Oct 9, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> This depends on where you ride, how you ride, how big you are, and maybe how old you are. I'm 55 and like my 5Spot's Cadillac like ride Geometry plays a big part in it. We have some DH riding on some of our local trails and while I may not need my 160mm of fork travel I do need the slack HTA and stiffness that my Float 36 brings. If I had less travel with the geometry and stiffness I would be quite happy 95% of the time. The other 5% 160mm buys a lot of forgiveness.


Couldn't of said it better! I chose my SB66 for all the same reasons (over 50 and enjoying the benefits of suspension forgiveness and shorter recovery when I do screw up)


----------



## goto11 (Jun 12, 2009)

Shane5001 said:


> I was pretty thrilled with my girven flex stem back in the 90's.


I loved my flex stem too. I had the single pivot one with the elastomers. What a huge difference it made compared to fully rigid, but the elastomers eventually wore out and they stopped making replacements.

Then there was the Mag 21, which was pretty good before it loosened up and turned into a noodle.

Now I ride 140mm front and rear. It seemed like it wasn't enough travel at first because it kept bottoming out in the rear off 3 to 4 foot drops with proper sag and pressure. I upgraded the rear shock from an RP-23 to a Float CTD with Boost, but the boost valve made no difference. After some research, I ordered a Fox Float volume spacer kit, installed the biggest spacer, and no more bottom-outs.

There are lots of variables here, like suspension design, sag and rising rate. If you don't think 140 is enough, maybe some shock tuning will make it better, especially if you're over 200 lbs. like I am.


----------



## hillharman (Sep 8, 2011)

If you spend a significant amount of time thinking about how much travel other people have or need, it's because deep down, you wish you had more.


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

hillharman said:


> If you spend a significant amount of time thinking about how much travel other people have or need, it's because deep down, you wish you had more.


Sigh. I wish my "travel" was longer.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk


----------



## hillharman (Sep 8, 2011)

LyNx said:


> I do believe there are a lot of people taking offense to the OPs premise because it hits close to home and in the back of their minds they think the same thing and wonder how they'd handle their trails on a lesser travel bike, would their "skill" disappear.
> 
> Guessing this is what the OP means, is that when you're flying around on that 150mm travel bike on trails that really at best my require a HT, the trail is totally muted, you don't get any feedback and you don't have to pay attention because your monster truck will just cruise right over anything you put it to. For me this is boring, I prefer to get feedback and have to work to enjoy a trail, not just hop on some monster bike that basically rides itself. Have always stood amazed at how many visitors ride certain of our trails on XC-light Trail bikes and say they wish they had their 7" bike - I'm like and the fun of that would be?
> 
> Displacement, is no replacement for skill


No, I'm pretty sure most people just ride the bike they like to ride and have fun doing it. I seriously can't even comprehend how people have these kinds of discussions.


----------



## STACK (Mar 23, 2009)

There are 1035 people viewing this thread right now.. It's 12:15 Eastern, do you know where your travel is??

I have a 120mm, I honestly thought that was a lot. I kind of suck and don't jump off anything that high, however. But I peddle hard!! lol


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

You could take the argument that we are all riding too much travel even further and suggest that in order to learn proper line choice nobody should ride tires wider the 1.9 or we should all be riding cross bikes. 

With the cost of bikes most normal people probably can't afford to have several mountain bikes, especially if they ride MTB, road, commute, etc.

A modern 5-6" travel trail bike with well designed suspension might not be competitive in an XC race but for all other kinds of off-road riding it's going to be the best compromise that will work well on pretty much any trail. A big part of the sport is the skill but to most of us I'd wager an even bigger part is getting out in the woods and having fun. Not having to worry about your bike's capabilities is a big part of that.


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

rockerc said:


> I fail to see how travel can be construed as "a surrogate for skil" (sic), although a lack of travel would cause you to pick your way with a bit more care.


Dunno your age, but I am about 50 and have been riding since 80's, I have seen a huge change in the skills required to ride trails with the advent of all this travel on both ends. I was having this exact conversation with a few riding guys, about how you used to have to really pick the exact right line through rough climbs to clean them, and how the downhill sections used to take finesse and also picking the right line. A couple years ago I finally got a Trance X with 6" up front 5" rear and was amazed at how it changed things. Instead of picking lines on very rough rooted downhills, I just pointed it straight and let it rip, and had enough momentum to also blast over all the roots on the equal sized (short) uphills w/o having to really worry about the ledges. How many trails actually have log crossings anymore? Not to turn this into a trail discussion but many of the videos I've seen, yes, people could ride them on a hard tail no problem. They are mostly flat dirt with banks and stuff. I do tend to think and maybe just my old school background that there are a lot of guys w/o the same skills as the old guys. They granted end up with different skills, but not the same. And suspension travel is like how many watts your stereo is, it makes a difference if you are pushing it to the max but it also sells a lot of bikes!


----------



## anvil_den (Nov 6, 2007)

Its just a different kind of riding.. and that's me coming from rigid to short front suspension to 6" forks and then to relive the old days, is also riding a rigid, albeit a fat one now. The same trail/section can be taken by different bikes with a different ride feel.

The biggest problem is not the excess travel itself, its that people are still in the mindset of shorter travel bikes and fail to utilize longer suspensions. Bigger bikes these days are generally slacker and allows for a more pitched forward position to allow doing more aggressive riding. If all a 6" bike sees is getting sat on the saddle >90% of the time happily being pedaled along and hardly sees taking a drop over 2'.. then yes its definitely way under utilized.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

anvil_den said:


> Its just a different kind of riding..


This is the key point that many aren't considering.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

I think part of the issue is that people's perceptions have been reset. Either through marketing or through riding bikes with longer and longer travel. It is very true though that you should pick a bike for the type of terrain that you typically ride.

Take my example. I've been riding bikes since '93. First an aluminum fully rigid (Specialized Rockhopper - that was abusive to my body) then a titanium hard-tail (Kona Hei Hei) with a total of 63mm of suspension on the front. That was nice and I would ride it over all kinds of abusive terrain (or so I thought). The thing is that as I look back I was riding slower back then with 63mm of suspension at the front and none at the back but it felt fast. I got off and walked the bigger drops as well but I didn't mind back then. 

Then one day, on a whim I got a ProFlex Animal ('96). What did that have, 2 1/2 inch of suspension front and rear? Still it didn't stop me from racing it in a French Pyrenees mass downhill. Hugely fun but then I hit the dilemma of do I ride the full suspension bike, which was fairly slow but entertaining, or the hard-tail which was fast, light (21lbs) but not as "fun"? In '97 I sold both and got a state of the art Boulder Starship. 3" of travel at the back and 70/90mm of suspension at the front. I rode that bike for the next 15 years. I loved that bike but age and a move to Colorado and the chunk of the Front Range mountains were taking it's toll on the bike - and me. I was still happy riding such "limited travel" but I had to retire the bike for safety sakes. 

This left me in a quandary. I have a bi-polar riding style living at the base of the Front Range. The trails out my door are cross country orientated and suit a hard-tail or short travel bike. But 1/2 hour west and 1-7,000ft higher up is serious chunk that likes big travel. Do I try to buy two bikes, one for near home and one for higher up? Have that right travel for all situations? My experience with my constant dilemma between the Animal and the Hei Hei helped me decide that I should only have one.

I was not sold on the 29er wheel size and would have preferred 650b (after so many years on a 26er) but 650b wasn't quite there and though I was not totally in love with the Santa Cruz Tallboy LTc I had to admit that out of all the bikes I tested it rode the best, was much faster (though strangely it felt slower as the suspension absorbed the terrain) and I had the money. So I bought it. I still have days when I question if I bought a bike with too much travel (140 front/135 rear) but then I only have to point it downhill and open it up and I remind myself "hell no!"

Though I loved my mid 90s full suspension bike, modern full suspension designs are light years ahead of what they were back then. When I ride my local trails while I am on the flat I can firm up the suspension using the climb mode of the Fox shocks. Then as I reach trail proper I switch it to Trail mode. Finally when I get to the chunky sections or ride it downhill I stick it in decent mode and the bike will plough though just about anything. It's insanely quick downhill. Meh, not so much uphill, but that is mostly me...

One thing I do notice however is that my skill level is both up and down. In one way it is worse as the bike is so capable that I get lazy and just let the bike do its thing. I hit more stuff than in days of old when I would finesse around technical challenges. Is it less fun though? No and Yes. No in that though I am riding like a complete noob by crashing through everything I am seriously fast. Speed is addictive. Speed is fun. Yes, it can be less fun when I think that I am not really riding the terrain anymore but more ploughing it that anything. I nicknamed the bike the Monster Truck as that is what it is. In other aspects my skill has improved. I'm getting older and I have a reduced lung capacity meaning that I can't generate the power of others. But as long as I accept that I will never be the first up a mountain, the bike has allowed me to ride longer and more often improving my fitness and my time riding technical terrain; So by progression my skills are improving. I ride stuff now I would never have dreamt of riding on the old bike.

So that gets me back to how our perceptions have changed. Over 20 or so years of riding my perceptions of what a bike can do and what I can do have changed. They took a huge change with the Tallboy LTc. I don't think long travel per se is getting too much bike. I think part of the issue is that long travel often comes with heavy frames and heavy wheels and that may be too much bike for cross country trails. Modern suspensions and platform tuning can handle the travel these days.

i like my current bike but I still can't help thinking that perhaps two (or more) specialized conveyances would be better. I dream of the following:
- Turner Czar for my mid week fitness rides
- Pivot Mach 6 Carbon for more wild adventures
- Borealis Yampa for snow fun

But for now I'm keeping with my 140/135mm travel Tallboy LTc. It's all I can afford and it is what I have.


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

I agree...in general. On specific situations if for example the trail next to my house is all about rocks and downhill I probably wouldn't have a choice other than going 140mm plus. 

Also depends on rider characteristics; if its a riders more interested on cardio and endurance (probably also a light rider and a good climber) would be better to go for a light bike...BUT that doesn't necessarily mean short travel...

That's why I am in favor of going as light as possible (sometimes not necessarily dropping $$$)...I've seen some amazing bikes with 150mm front and back weighting under 21 pounds...with lockout feature....hell yeah!!! that's the ride! Does it all!!!


----------



## goto11 (Jun 12, 2009)

Has anyone mentioned Fox TALAS or Rock Shox Dual-position forks? 

They give you the steep HTA + shorter travel for climbs and switchbacks and slack HTA + longer travel for descents.

Before I swapped my 140mm Float out for a TALAS, there were many tight switchbacks I had a hard time negotiating, but a steeper HTA made all the difference in nimble, low-speed handling.

Adding the dual-position fork up front and the volume spacer to the rear made a huge difference to what I could ride comfortably on my 140/140 FS bike. I can ride most stuff in short-travel (110mm) position, but it's not as fun or fast.

My next bike will probably be 160 rear + 160 TALAS up front because, for me at least, more travel = faster descents = more fun... 

This is from a guy who rode a hardtail from 1985 to 2009, not because I was against full suspension, but because I couldn't afford it. I rode the same trails on my hardtail, but I rode them slower and went around rocks, not over them. There are lines I pick now that would've been impossible on a hardtail.

Off-topic, but who uses lockout on dirt? Remote lockout levers seem useless for anything but smooth XC trails and fire roads (which is not my idea of a good time). I almost never use lockout, but if they made a remote TALAS lever, I'd buy it, because there's nothing worse than realizing partway down a sketchy descent that I forgot to switch to long travel, then trying to reach down to the fork and flick the TALAS lever without eating sh*t. Am I alone here?


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Since this discussion has managed to go on quite civilized, I will post another thought on the matter 

I don't think it's really the suspension people are after when they go long, but more the geo of the longer travel bikes, i.e. the slacker geo _(some touched on this already)_. I know that when I got my Paradox, the 69* HTA compared to the 71* HTA of my previous FS was an eye opener, I gained loads of confidence on the Paradox, rode more of the same big chunky DHs I love and ride on my Prime _(just don't have to worry to pick lines as carefully on the Prime)_ and had loads of fun. I took a lot of the sames lines OVER big rocks etc as I do onm y Prime, just a lot more cautiously and slower.

I think it all boils down to what you consider fun - for me fun IS NOT just flying down a trail plowing right over all the rocks and features on the trail with little to no finesse, it is going down the trail on the same line as the monster trucker guys, but a bit slower, with a lot more finesse, clearing the same obstacles they do.

For those who ride the longer travel bikes and say that on the DHs you just smoke the rest of the guys, yet on the flats and climbs you get dropped like a hot potato, here's my question - Who has to sit and wait the longest, you at the bottom that one time or the rest of the guys sitting at the top already had lunch while your slow ass lugs all that travel up?


----------



## zoro (Mar 14, 2007)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I am planning to upload a YouTube review soon but I like the bike a lot. Maybe it's because I am properly sized on this bike (unlike the last) but it gobbles up miles. I have had done a few double takes after looking at my GPS after rides because it feels like Im riding less.
> VPP suspension feels less plush but it pedals great and the suspension really kicks in off drops and when you need it. It can be light enough for XC racing but can handle the gnar if you set the fork to 140 mm.


I have a TRC, same bike but with 26' wheels, and it's by far the best all around bike I've ever had. It can rally all day on XC trails, go fast downhill, and as long as you have a properly damped fork, you can rally downhill also. If you put decent tires on it, not some stupid lightweight tires just so you can claim your bike is sub-25, it really is confidence inspiring. I even did Cyclocross race on it once (with baggy attire; lycra clad racers were looking at me and my dropper post pretty weirdly:eekster

My take really is: more than 5inches is valid in places like the North-Shore and the Van to Pemberton corridor. But then again, people are riding hardtails on that terrain and killing it (i.e. Chromag guys).

Once again, it's all about the rider.

*$$ can't buy you skills, and I think it's the last refuge of common sense in today's tech crazy mountain biking world.*


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

My trails (Bellingham, WA) still have plenty of log crossings. And ladder bridges, roots, root ledges, rocks, etc. Actually, it was moving here that got me to take another look at full suspension.

I really like 100 front and rear. It's enough to raise the speed limit and make my ride smoother, but I still get good trail feel and I actually climb faster on anything interesting than I do on my hardtail. Aside from it being a lot more expensive,  the new bike is better at everything. It's fun to be able to ride the flow trails faster. I'm not hitting all the jumps, but definitely more of them.

I'm not quite ready to hang up the racing shoes, so faster everywhere holds some water for me.


----------



## owensjs (May 21, 2009)

goto11 said:


> Off-topic, but who uses lockout on dirt? Remote lockout levers seem useless for anything but smooth XC trails and fire roads (which is not my idea of a good time). I almost never use lockout, but if they made a remote TALAS lever, I'd buy it, because there's nothing worse than realizing partway down a sketchy descent that I forgot to switch to long travel, then trying to reach down to the fork and flick the TALAS lever without eating sh*t. Am I alone here?


I never use my lockout, as well. Travel adjust forks intrigue me, but not enough for me to pick one up. I like the idea of being able to drop the front on some long, drawn out climbs...but I don't see many of those where I live.

I like my 140mm travel and the bike works well for the riding I do. I also think longer travel bikes are a ton of fun in the right application, but I think it's kinda silly to be riding 180+mm bikes on primarily smooth trails or DH bikes on something 120mm travel would be fine for. To each his own, though...as long as you're having fun, go for it.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Yeah I'm not a fan of the lockout either. I'm 6'3", a former aggressive skater, and nothing but quads and hammies lol. You want to improve your climbing abilities? Do crossfit. End of story! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Lots of good points in here. If I were rich I'd probably get a long-travel bike for special occasions but since I'm not, my Solo will have to suffice. It's a good "Swiss Army" bike that can really do a bit of everything pretty good.


this is what it all comes down to: you're Jeal. Someone needs to go to Jeally school, m-kay?


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Gigantic said:


> you're Jeal. Someone needs to go to Jeally school, m-kay?


I have no idea what that means....


----------



## hillharman (Sep 8, 2011)

For every short travel rider out there who thinks 6" bikes are "too big" for most people, there's an equivalent rigid rider who thinks the same thing about the short travel rider. Look hard enough and you'll find the guys on cross bikes complaining about how big tires are a crutch. One day people will learn to bite their tongue about what kinds of gear other people "need," but we obviously aren't there yet.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I think many people missed my point and became defensive thinking I was dissing people with long-legged bikes. Not the case. I am referring to the people I know who ride XC trails, nothing more, and have 6 inch bikes. They are the riders who do not jump, drop or ride any gnarly terrain (which is totally fine). For these riders a heavy AM bike with squishy suspension will make them actually slower all around. 
I think many riders are ill-informed when purchasing a bike and are often pressured by sales staff at bike shops to get more expensive bikes that do not fit their riding style. At the end of the day it's all about fun so ride what you want.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

TheNormsk said:


> I have no idea what that means....


South Park quote from Mr Mackey. "You're jealous..."


----------



## Rock (Jan 13, 2004)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I think many people missed my point and became defensive thinking I was dissing people with long-legged bikes. Not the case. I am referring to the people I know who ride XC trails, nothing more, and have 6 inch bikes. They are the riders who do not jump, drop or ride any gnarly terrain (which is totally fine). For these riders a heavy AM bike with squishy suspension will make them actually slower all around.
> I think many riders are ill-informed when purchasing a bike and are often pressured by sales staff at bike shops to get more expensive bikes that do not fit their riding style. At the end of the day it's all about fun so ride what you want.


According to a large percentage of people who have responded, it's not about fun, but about "skill" and "efficiency" and suffering (We've always done it that way)and they think most riders are moronic sheep.

I typically do not ride with those people very much. I tend to frustrate them.

My 6" travel bike is more bike than I will ever need. I like it. It's comfortable. It looks good. It always gets me back to the car. No one had to convince me to buy it. I'm not a slave to marketing. I'm an old, grown-ass boy who buys what he wants and rides the crap out of it. My bike works on all trails and I can even , GASP!, ride it on the road if I choose. The only wrong bike for any particular situation, is no bike.

I'd love to see and talk about your light-heavy/no-short-long travel/1-30-33? speed/20-26-27.5-29 inch wheel bike though. I love 'em all.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I think many people missed my point and became defensive thinking I was dissing people with long-legged bikes. Not the case. I am referring to the people I know who ride XC trails, nothing more, and have 6 inch bikes. They are the riders who do not jump, drop or ride any gnarly terrain (which is totally fine). For these riders a heavy AM bike with squishy suspension will make them actually slower all around.
> I think many riders are ill-informed when purchasing a bike and are often pressured by sales staff at bike shops to get more expensive bikes that do not fit their riding style. At the end of the day it's all about fun so ride what you want.


What does it matter what pace one keeps if the only person someone is challenging is themselves? I don't think people are I'll informed at all about bike and component selection as what I see is a hobby driven by customization. If you see a set up that is something you absolutely would not do for your own ride is that what draws you to deduce they must be I'll informed? Are hotrodders I'll informed because they put go fast components on inferior chassis?

People buy what they want and like and enjoy it how they see fit, consider that folks here are responding how they are because the question is elitist at it's core.


----------



## Haint (Jan 25, 2012)

This thread made it to the MTBR Facebook Page.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Haint said:


> This thread made it to the MTBR Facebook Page.


MTBR has a Facebook page?! Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Berkley (May 21, 2007)

We live in a culture of excess. Big houses/SUVs/etc. No surprise that the predominantly male mountain biking culture has gone the same direction. 

Full disclosure: I have a 6" bike that mostly sees use at DH parks and a 5" steel hardtail that gets ridden much more often.


----------



## Fast Eddy (Dec 30, 2003)

Jon Richard said:


> AMP Research, bought new in '96- these are the "long travel" version


I got one of those around 1990. Having the wheelbase increase on a downhill corner is not optimal.  I rode it for some years though.

Now I mostly ride rigid and like it just fine.

I've also got a Titus with a 5" Talas. Nice setup. Something more modern with a tapered headtube and a thru-axle would be nice. Lateral rigidity is important.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

Fast Eddy said:


> I got one of those around 1990. Having the wheelbase increase on a downhill corner is not optimal.  I rode it for some years though.
> 
> Now I mostly ride rigid and like it just fine.
> 
> I've also got a Titus with a 5" Talas. Nice setup. Something more modern with a tapered headtube and a thru-axle would be nice. Lateral rigidity is important.


I think they are excellent when used for xc and urban duty. I really dig them on that little DJ/ trials frame.

I had an el guapo that was simply great. My Mountain Cycle has a Maverick DUC, dual crown with a 24mm thru axle as well as a Talas function.

Honestly they are equally rewarding to ride, but completely different trail tools.


----------



## terrasmak (Jun 14, 2011)

Trying to figure out how much travel I want on my next bike. 5 or 6 inches of travel, basically a yeti SB75 or 575


----------



## worrptangl (Jun 23, 2009)

Even though my only bike right now is a rigid SS Kona Unit. I have a 100mm suspension fork for it and I would like to eventually get a FS for some of the gnarlier trails. I believe in riding what you like.


----------



## BigRingGrinder (Jan 9, 2013)

LeeL said:


> MTBR Pinkbike NSMB Vital pretty much are defined by cube dwelling weekend warriors fapping over long travel bikes substituting travel for skill.
> 
> That should come as to no surprise. It's a male dominated sport and males use travel as a surrogate for skil; the old penile enhancement syndrome
> 
> It's also characteristics of many sports. Skiing. Cars. Moto. etc


Im sure im not the first in this thread to say this, but substituting travel for skill? Really?

Ride a rigid or hard tail bike through a rock garden (im talking rock garden, not cobbles). Yes, it takes skill but there is an absolute max speed where you can no longer thread the needle with your bike. Ride a big travel plush bike through a rock garden. You can go 20+ mph through it. Calling that a lack of skill is pants on the head retarded. You still need to use a crap ton of skill to pull it off. The smaller rocks can be blasted over yes, but the bigger ones are still wedges of death that can ruin your day very easily. You still need to thread a very specific line to maintain speed and you need to so do with a much faster reaction time. Do not forget that the penalty for failure is drastic when you ride this way as well.

Claiming the guy going downhill 3x faster than you ever think about has no skill is straight up sour grapes. Its a different style of riding. Having an open enough mind to appreciate a different skill set isnt going to damage your alpha male status i promise.



LyNx said:


> *I think it all boils down to what you consider fun* - for me fun IS NOT just flying down a trail plowing right over all the rocks and features on the trail with little to no finesse, it is going down the trail on the same line as the monster trucker guys, but a bit slower, with a lot more finesse, clearing the same obstacles they do.
> 
> For those who ride the longer travel bikes and say that on the DHs you just smoke the rest of the guys, yet on the flats and climbs you get dropped like a hot potato, here's my question - Who has to sit and wait the longest, you at the bottom that one time or the rest of the guys sitting at the top already had lunch while your slow ass lugs all that travel up?


Why state that fun is the most important part, then bash riders who consider going downhill fast the fun part?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Mountain Biking is historically about going fast down hill. If there was no descending there would be no mountain biking. I don't care if your trail has only 50' descents or 2000'. If all there was only a 2000' climb and you were magically back at the trail head how many people would ride? 

I do a lot of climbing and it can be fun but if it were all up I would have a different hobby. Going down hill fast is fun and that is what mountain biking is all about.


----------



## hillharman (Sep 8, 2011)

Between riding, walking, and crashing, I make my bike selection to maximize riding and minimize the other two.


----------



## iscariot (Oct 24, 2006)

No. We don't really need all that travel.

In fact, we don't really need bikes.


----------



## wdvolks (May 23, 2013)

Hardtail and 120mm is what i ride, and ill probably never change that.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I found myself thinking about this thread during my ride today.

Thing is, I do enjoy the climb. I like picking my way up tricky singletrack. If I get a choice, I do my whole ride on singletrack, and I know that the guys I see riding up the fire roads have the same choice I do, so I think they don't want to do 100% singletrack, but maybe get in another descent or work a little less. I think it's more fun to gain my vert on singletrack.

I don't see why people have to put skill and climbing on one side and fun on another. Climbing and descending can both be fun. I like 'em both, anyway. Granted, the first part of mountain biking that really grabbed me was descending. But realizing that I could climb the singletrack was a bit of a revelation and I've chosen to do most of my climbing that way ever since.

I guess I do think people who emphasize net speed or climbing uber alles are missing something. But so are people who slog up fire roads and only descend on trails.

So to those of you who are all about the descents and nothing else, it's not that those of us who want to be skillful and fast on a singletrack ascent don't like fun:

I, for one, am more screwed up than that. I enjoy those climbs.


----------



## xOffxThexLipx (Sep 8, 2013)

Originally Posted by *LeeL* 
_MTBR Pinkbike NSMB Vital pretty much are defined by cube dwelling weekend warriors fapping over long travel bikes substituting travel for skill.

That should come as to no surprise. It's a male dominated sport and males use travel as a surrogate for skil; the old penile enhancement syndrome

_
_It's also characteristics of many sports. Skiing. Cars. Moto. etc
_
Love watching them walk down the trails im riding on a 100mm Hardtail


----------



## SHARCRASH (Jan 21, 2014)

LeeL said:


> MTBR Pinkbike NSMB Vital pretty much are defined by cube dwelling weekend warriors fapping over long travel bikes substituting travel for skill.
> 
> That should come as to no surprise. It's a male dominated sport and males use travel as a surrogate for skil; the old penile enhancement syndrome
> 
> It's also characteristics of many sports. Skiing. Cars. Moto. etc


What about those guys who buy a long travel bike and are building their skills and confidence on so so terrain so that they can move lateron towards proper terrain?

Well it costs quite money to buy a proper full suspended bike and surely even more if you change your bike each time you evolve in the discipline.

My first experiences were on a hardtail (didn't want to invest too much money) and I was the kind of guy to charge beyond his skills even without some recommendations (and I am still if I feel physically good that day). This resulted on a "there are more chances to break bones" situation... So I had to buy another bike and loose some money in the process.

So hey, have a wee of open-mind. There are some people who are willing to go for genuine warrior when the right time will come.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> Mountain Biking is historically about going fast down hill. If there was now descending there would be no mountain biking. I don't care if your trail has only 50' descents or 2000'. If all there was only a 2000' climb and you were magically back at the trail head how many people would ride?
> 
> I do a lot of climbing and it can be fun but if it were all up I would have a different hobby. Going down hill fast is fun and that is what mountain biking is all about.


I am afraid I disagree with this assumption that MTBing was all about going downhill fast. Sure, the historical 'beginnings' of mountain biking as we know it were spurred on by the like of Repack Rider and his pals in Norcal on the klunkers, but there were many others before who were doing similar things off road with their own versions long before that time, myself included. Downhill was pretty much the only option then as the equipment was such that climbing off road was extremely difficult, hence not a lot of fun. The term 'Mountain Biking' was coined around the time of the klunker races back then, altho Mr Kelly will elaborate on all that as he was there and had more than a hand in it... the sport of mountain biking really took off when bikes were built that could handle a variety of terrain, including those climbs we all love that took off when we got the bikes that allowed us to truly ride all day in the mountains if we desired. To me at least, that is what mountain biking has always been: getting away from it all in rugged terrain, not just going downhill fast. Having said that, going downhill fast is a lot of fun!


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

It's really unfortunate that the market labels these products as has been discussed in this thread (trail, xc, etc.), too, because it's a bit misleading. I think many of us have fallen victim to it, too, especially those of us who just started riding in the last 5 to 10 years. I've learned to look at geometry and what type of riding I do instead of the designation that Trek or Specialized gives the bike. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## tipsword (Oct 9, 2010)

I can't believe a moderator has allowed this thread to live this long. 


What about those people that buy what they want and ride what they want because it's what they want and nobody has the right to apply their judgements against them?


It's a free world and if someone wanted to buy a radio flyer tricycle with a foot of bazinga wahoo fork travel and unobtainium wheels and the latest in neutron propulsion to ride inverted on gym ceilings is it really anyone's business to get their indignant geranimals in a wad over it?

At the end of the day if they love it and ride it what the hells the problem? 

Anyone that makes it their business to judge the what's whys and how's of anyone else on bikes or cars or ornamental horticulture really does have too much time on their hands and should perhaps mind their own business or maybe go play on the freeway until they stop being bored mean spirited 8 year olds and can play nice with others AND stop with the nit picky judging bullshit. 

Now can we all just go ride what we love in peace and leave this junior high girls locker room it's getting stuffy in here and I think someone farted.


----------



## eddjmemg (Apr 12, 2013)

I shopped around for a while and took a few bikes out with 140mm or less. On the trails I rode and a couple in particular that I'd ride the most I bottomed them out every time on a couple drops and jumps. So is my Bronson C overkill? Not in my opinion. It might be too much at times but it'll never not be enough and I've yet to bottom it out on any drop. Besides, how much money did you haters put towards my or any 150mm+ bike owners bike? I can take the same bike and do XC all day then go hit the mountains on the same bike and not have to rent a "bigger" one. And yes I did adjust the air in the suspension. You can only put so much air before it's just too hard. I prefer a plush suspension.


----------



## mizzaboom (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm really happy with 5 on my Trance. It handles my regular trails well...from straight XC to mild AM riding (3-4 ft drops, rock gardens, steep/technical downhills, and fast/flowy downhills). I also thought it handled a day at the lift served bike park pretty well where I was able to run the "b" lines on the more difficult trails and the "a" lines on the blue runs. Though I think I will invest in a second set of wheels if I plan on going more than a couple times a year. The XT wheels probably won't hold up to the drop abuse for too long.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I enjoyed seeing my buddy clean stuff on his 100 mm Gary Fisher 29er hardtail that people on Enduros could not clean on our Moab trip last year. I will say it again, most people have way more travel than they will ever need, which actually hurts their overall riding. Not everyone, but a large portion. I did not mean to offend so many people with my statement. It's not a judgement of character, just an observation. If your trails are 99% XC and 1% Redbull gnar, you're better off getting a shorter-legged bike.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I can't believe how closely this seems to have hit home on some people :skep: BTW, how did you go from hating how the SB66 climbed on your initial test ride to now owning one? :???:


tipsword said:


> I can't believe a moderator has allowed this thread to live this long........


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

tipsword said:


> I can't believe a moderator has allowed this thread to live this long.
> 
> What about those people that buy what they want and ride what they want because it's what they want and nobody has the right to apply their judgements against them?
> 
> ...


This guys really needs to reach down, and firmly pull out those panties that are bunching up between his cheeks I reckon.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> I will say it again, most people have way more travel than they will ever need, which actually hurts their overall riding. Not everyone, but a large portion.


And I will reiterate my reply to this:

So what. If they like their bike and it gets them out there riding then it is the perfect amount of travel- All out performance be damned.



GnarBrahWyo said:


> I did not mean to offend so many people with my statement. It's not a judgement of character, just an observation.


It may not have been your intention to offend, but for you to believe that such a statement is as benign as a mere observation you are not being honest with yourself. You inadvertently exposed the truth of this in the following sentence-



GnarBrahWyo said:


> I enjoyed seeing my buddy clean stuff on his 100 mm Gary Fisher 29er hardtail that people on Enduros could not clean on our Moab trip last year.


You drew pleasure from watching others fail while passing judgment on them based on the bike they rode.

As I said before, the question itself is elitist in nature. Nothing is a bigger turn off to new riders than to encounter self admonished experts. I'm not trying to call you out, rather I am appealing to you to reexamine the attitude you hold towards fellow bike enthusiasts.


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

Do we really need all these lightweight road bikes? :devil:

"I see these people and see them spending all this money on lightweight racing bikes when for their skills and fitness, they would be better off on all-around bikes, but they go into a bike store and come out with a Dura-Ace technological marvel that weighs less than the Starbux Megga Latte. ut: My buddies and I leave them in the dust on our fixed gear cruisers and snicker at how they over-spent."


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm so enjoying this...great soap opera for my evenings


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Jon Richard said:


> And I will reiterate my reply to this:
> 
> So what. If they like their bike and it gets them out there riding then it is the perfect amount of travel- All out performance be damned.
> 
> ...


Congratulations Buddy. You spent 15 whole minutes splicing up my off the cuff comments here to present yourself as some sort of intellectual defender of new bike riders with long travel. Whatever you do, avoid editorials in the newspaper. People's opinions may send your head into a spin. I have an opinion and it offends you. Sorry.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

dirkdaddy said:


> Do we really need all these lightweight road bikes? :devil:
> 
> "I see these people and see them spending all this money on lightweight racing bikes when for their skills and fitness, they would be better off on all-around bikes, but they go into a bike store and come out with a Dura-Ace technological marvel that weighs less than the Starbux Megga Latte. ut: My buddies and I leave them in the dust on our fixed gear cruisers and snicker at how they over-spent."


Road bikes are really funny. I spend a decent chunk of training time on the road, but mostly just do those rides on my own. I'm pretty happy with my road bike, but the hardware I see when I do those occasional big organized rides is pretty wild.

I have a compact crank. I like it. There's some attitude among roadies about how you "shouldn't need" a 34t chainring. I think about that when I see some guy in Rapha pushing his carbon feather wonderbike up a hill.

Really, I think a lot of what people by is driven by cool factor and status. Sometimes I think suspension would never have gotten off the ground if we were all about performance and nothing else - those old forks...

Let's not even talk about the shoes I just ordered.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Road bikes are really funny. I spend a decent chunk of training time on the road, but mostly just do those rides on my own. I'm pretty happy with my road bike, but the hardware I see when I do those occasional big organized rides is pretty wild.
> 
> I have a compact crank. I like it. There's some attitude among roadies about how you "shouldn't need" a 34t chainring. I think about that when I see some guy in Rapha pushing his carbon feather wonderbike up a hill.
> 
> ...


Do you really need all that travel on your road bike?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

LOL, it might perform better with 19 mm tires, but I'm too much of a wimp for that.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> LOL, it might perform better with 19 mm tires, but I'm too much of a wimp for that.


Haha. I find myself growing weary of road biking. When all you do is mountain bike 1-2x a week, but you can dust off the road bike and do a metric century at b-group pace and still go home to do chores that day, it really puts mountain biking in perspective. Though I do find that road riding helps me with my mtb endurance.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Road bikes are really funny. I spend a decent chunk of training time on the road, but mostly just do those rides on my own. I'm pretty happy with my road bike, but the hardware I see when I do those occasional big organized rides is pretty wild.
> 
> I have a compact crank. I like it. There's some attitude among roadies about how you "shouldn't need" a 34t chainring. I think about that when I see some guy in Rapha pushing his carbon feather wonderbike up a hill.
> 
> ...


Yea, I'm admittedly not a super strong rider and when I picked up my road bike it had triple chainrings on it which I don't need here on the coast admittedly, but on the MS150 to Austin there were some hills and I passed many a bike being pushed probably by a few who maybe might have rolled their eyes at my triple. And the BLING you see on those rides is amazing - some fantastic riders but like any sport many who are not very fit or good riders who just get excited shopping and end up with a lot more bike than they probably need, but hey it keeps bike shops in business and the bike industry for that matter!


----------



## FastBanana (Aug 29, 2013)

dirkdaddy said:


> Yea, I'm admittedly not a super strong rider and when I picked up my road bike it had triple chainrings on it which I don't need here on the coast admittedly, but on the MS150 to Austin there were some hills and I passed many a bike being pushed probably by a few who maybe might have rolled their eyes at my triple. And the BLING you see on those rides is amazing - some fantastic riders but like any sport many who are not very fit or good riders who just get excited shopping and end up with a lot more bike than they probably need, but hey it keeps bike shops in business and the bike industry for that matter!


Yeah, Ive been destroyed by riders on crap bikes. Ive also crushed middle aged guys on 10k rigs.

Its all about income, if you have money to blow, then good for you. Buy a sweet new bike every season, ill buy your lightly used old rig.

Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

dirkdaddy said:


> Yea, I'm admittedly not a super strong rider and when I picked up my road bike it had triple chainrings on it which I don't need here on the coast admittedly, but on the MS150 to Austin there were some hills and I passed many a bike being pushed probably by a few who maybe might have rolled their eyes at my triple. And the BLING you see on those rides is amazing - some fantastic riders but like any sport many who are not very fit or good riders who just get excited shopping and end up with a lot more bike than they probably need, but hey it keeps bike shops in business and the bike industry for that matter!


Agreed. Entry level carbon (for the sit bones) and 105 for me , not to mention I got the bike nearly half price because someone accidently rented it out at the stop so it had like 2 rides on it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Road bikes are really funny. I spend a decent chunk of training time on the road, but mostly just do those rides on my own. I'm pretty happy with my road bike, but the hardware I see when I do those occasional big organized rides is pretty wild.
> 
> I have a compact crank. I like it. There's some attitude among roadies about how you "shouldn't need" a 34t chainring. I think about that when I see some guy in Rapha pushing his carbon feather wonderbike up a hill.
> 
> ...


Compact 34t crank? Heck... my road bike has a triple with 30T small chain ring and I have never had walk up anything on the with that. Not cool who cares.

I do think you are right on the "cool factor" when it comes to bikes. Long Travel is "cool" in the mountain bike world and there are plenty of people that "have to have it" because being cool is all that counts. It is a unfortunate in that there is a place for long travel bikes and the people that use that fully utilized that travel can do really cool things.

In the end I think that is what people like about long travel or 15lbs road bikes is that they feel that by getting such equipment it automatically makes them as cool as those that really need that travel. No most will say that a bike does not make them cool, but despite that just riding around thinking that "yeah I could hit that 5 foot drop with this bike" is cool factor enough.

As for me... I try to avoid all the new "cool" aspects of both mtn bike and road biking, but I can't say I am immune. My Mtn bike has XT drive train when I probably don't need XT. My road bike is carbon with Ultegra and I could probably get by with aluminin frame and 105 parts. I can try make an excuse that I really need XT for the shift feel and carbon road bike mean good ride and stiffness. etc.... But in the end there is a certain cool factor with stuff like XT, Ultegra and Carbon frames that all came along at reasonable to me price point so I pulled the trigger on them.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

The one true thing a certain person said, "It's the engine that matters"  I owned an old, steel Giant road bike with DT shifters and such for a month or two in '07 since I started MTBing, other than that I road ride on either my FS _(when I was endurance training)_ or my rigid KM, or before that an old rigid steel 26er, none of those bikes has held me back, not as much as lack of fitness or the mental ability to suck up the pain when needed and turn the cranks. I don't generally brag about myself, but when other guys you ride road with laugh when other guys who don't know me snicker at my steel, rigid MTB with 38mm slicks and warn them to be careful, I admit, it makes me smiles a bit  Road bikes, more so than MTBs it's definitely more about the engine, MTBs and their riders definitely do benefit from suspension and tech when the going gets rough.



dirkdaddy said:


> Do we really need all these lightweight road bikes? :devil:
> 
> "I see these people and see them spending all this money on lightweight racing bikes when for their skills and fitness, they would be better off on all-around bikes, but they go into a bike store and come out with a Dura-Ace technological marvel that weighs less than the Starbux Megga Latte. ut: My buddies and I leave them in the dust on our fixed gear cruisers and snicker at how they over-spent."


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I had a triple on my previous road bike. Actually had one on the current one too, but it's a 'cross bike I sometimes race and I thought I might get more forgiving performance from a double. I do.  30 to 34 doesn't turn out to be much of a difference in terms of low gears though. I just get out of the saddle slightly more often.

It's actually super-basic. Tiagra, Deore, and a frankencrankset. I don't know how much people notice it, though. The paint job is pretty vivid and I usually wear team kit, so I think people just assume the bike has all the trappings. I'm making more money now, but it doesn't perform any worse than my previous bike, with an Ultegra/105 blend, so I don't care enough to bolt any more stuff to it or replace it. At least not so far.

Did get a much fancier mountain bike though.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

haha that's the spirit!


----------



## dirkdaddy (Sep 4, 2007)

FastBanana said:


> Its all about income, if you have money to blow, then good for you. Buy a sweet new bike every season, ill buy your lightly used old rig.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS995 using Tapatalk


Until I finally broke down and built my FS rig, I was riding my retro '93 cannondale HT with original headshok at a trail and some young guys were off bikes chatting up and I was winded after a big climb so I talked to them. Of course bikes came up and they asked how old my bike was, I'm not even sure some of them were born yet which blew their mind. One kid told me the guys he rode with had bought a 4-5 new bikes in the last year to upgrade! That was the record I had ever heard about. For me it would have to be a huge upgrade to trade a new bike like that.


----------



## RaythePedaler (Feb 10, 2014)

You don't need suspension to hit drops, or jumps. You may use all of it, but you don't need any of it. I've hit 5-8 ft drops on rigid mtb and bmx bikes, thousands of times. Everyone that rode in the 90's did. Broke some parts here and there, but it's fine most of the time.

It's mainly for comfort and traction, especially when the going gets chunky. Yes, it smoothes out a landing, but the suspension you need is not a function of how big a drop you take.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I put in 10 or 12 years on hardtails when I started riding, then another 5 or 6 mainly on 100mm or so travel bikes. For the past 6 or 7, I've been having the most fun on something really slack in the 160mm range. (Not that I don't have a wide assortment of bikes that range from rigid SS to DH, and just about everything in between.) All the skills I acquired in the first 15+ years didn't go anywhere just because I added a couple inches of travel to my main trail riding rig. Anybody that thinks you can even begin to equate skill level with how much suspension travel someone prefers knows precisely jack **** about mountain biking. 

Like anyone else that's been around long enough, I've seen guys on full DH bikes clean nasty climbs that very few XC riders could manage, guys on hardtails kill it racing DH, and my 9 y/o kid passing dozens of guys on high end carbon 29ers on his 24" bike that's about 60% of his body weight. People get way too into the equipment aspect of the sport IMO. It's just a bike, not a friggin identity (don't tell the 'fatbikers' though - a lot of them seem to think they've got some sort of lifestyle thing going on).


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Congratulations Buddy. You spent 15 whole minutes splicing up my off the cuff comments here to present yourself as some sort of intellectual defender of new bike riders with long travel. Whatever you do, avoid editorials in the newspaper. People's opinions may send your head into a spin. I have an opinion and it offends you. Sorry.


With the two weeks you've invested in this thread serving as the self appointed resident suspension kibitzer I'd say the prize goes to you. Curious that you warn how people's opinions may send my head into a spin when clearly my remarks elicited the above ad hominem retort. I'm not offended in the least, sorry you found my opinion not coinciding with yours discomposing, perhaps you could glean from your own advice-



GnarBrahWyo said:


> This guys really needs to reach down, and firmly pull out those panties that are bunching up between his cheeks I reckon.


I did come at you rather strong in my last post, verbally swatting you across the back of the hand with a switch like a Dutch uncle and for that I apologize, but I do wonder if you just shake your head and roll your eyes when these guys roll by on their long travel bikes or do you approach them at the trail head and simply ask why they chose it over something more XC oriented.



slapheadmofo said:


> I put in 10 or 12 years on hardtails when I started riding, then another 5 or 6 mainly on 100mm or so travel bikes. For the past 6 or 7, I've been having the most fun on something really slack in the 160mm range. (Not that I don't have a wide assortment of bikes that range from rigid SS to DH, and just about everything in between.) All the skills I acquired in the first 15+ years didn't go anywhere just because I added a couple inches of travel to my main trail riding rig. Anybody that thinks you can even begin to equate skill level with how much suspension travel someone prefers knows precisely jack **** about mountain biking.


^This


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Jon Richard said:


> With the two weeks you've invested in this thread serving as the self appointed resident suspension kibitzer I'd say the prize goes to you. Curious that you warn how people's opinions may send my head into a spin when clearly my remarks elicited the above ad hominem retort. I'm not offended in the least, sorry you found my opinion not coinciding with yours discomposing, perhaps you could glean from your own advice-
> 
> I did come at you rather strong in my last post, verbally swatting you across the back of the hand with a switch like a Dutch uncle and for that I apologize, but I do wonder if you just shake your head and roll your eyes when these guys roll by on their long travel bikes or do you approach them at the trail head and simply ask why they chose it over something more XC oriented.
> 
> ^This


No worries man. I came to share my observations and opinions. Not meaning to knock anyone. This is the whole point of the forums. Disagree all you want, that's cool.


----------



## Jon Richard (Dec 20, 2011)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> No worries man. I came to share my observations and opinions. Not meaning to knock anyone. This is the whole point of the forums. Disagree all you want, that's cool.


UNACCEPTABLE! You're supposed to knock back calling me a putts, needing all that travel to compensate for my inept riding skillz and minuscule member, how else are we suppose to entertain the rest of the board? LyNx, get in here!

The thing is I do agree with you in a limited context. If one is after climbing efficiency and overall ground coverage on relatively tamer trails then a hardtail 29er would be a wiser consideration, but if speed and strava times aren't a concern why would someone purchase a bike that is less nimble, less comfortable, and let's face it, less fun if they have the cash?

Now what constitutes fun is subjective but I think you are seeing what you're seeing out there because the majority of riders prefer flow over technical challenges. Honestly I see suspension choice or the lack there of as a matter of velocity, the faster I go (top speed, not ground coverage), the more I want.

In terms of skill well, I can't speak for everyone but this old bmx'er complete with angina and lungs full of silicates can still trials my way up some steep sketchy stuff regardless of what bike I choose to ride that day so I'm not buying the using suspension as a crutch argument.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Jon Richard said:


> UNACCEPTABLE! You're supposed to knock back calling me a putts, needing all that travel to compensate for my inept riding skillz and minuscule member, how else are we suppose to entertain the rest of the board? LyNx, get in here!
> 
> The thing is I do agree with you in a limited context. If one is after climbing efficiency and overall ground coverage on relatively tamer trails then a hardtail 29er would be a wiser consideration, but if speed and strava times aren't a concern why would someone purchase a bike that is less nimble, less comfortable, and let's face it, less fun if they have the cash?
> 
> ...


Made me laugh at the end of my long day. That's what's counts. I am gonna go home and set the sag in my 5 inch trail bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm gonna take my son to a big-ass indoor skate/bmx park this weekend and have a good time riding with a bunch of people that can do things on little tiny wheels and zero suspension that could never be done on any mountain bike. (That description doesn't include me - I'm still hoping to make a turn over the coping by my fast-approaching 50th). 

Pretty much all of us use more technology than we definitively 'require'. But I figure, for every guy that's out there riding 'more bike then they need' there's a guy on a 29er hardtail that might be having a better time on something plusher.


----------



## Rockrover (Jul 4, 2012)

So one day, in the Co. foothills, I took a bad line on my new (then) 2012 Stumpy 29r. First mtn bike I owned since my 91' ridged Stumpy. Well as I spent some time laying in a bush, ensuring my lung wasn't punctured, I looked up over the foliage that was also lodged up my nose. Some dude on a unicycle!!! rides and hops his way down the same freaking line I ate crap on. He stopped and asked if I was alright. I smiled and said 'only my pride is hurt". He smiled and said to keep on keepin' on! Then he smiled again, waved and continued his exceptional ride. I seriously doubt that he was thinking to himself that my yuppy middle aged ass on my overpriced $5000 super travel ride couldn't make up for my obviously crappy skills. (Or WAS he? :madmax Hahahaha! To this day that obstacle wiggs me out even though I know dudes on unicycles ride it.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

This bike, just finished today z was inspired by this thread









Still waiting on new cranks, bar, and seatpost /saddle. So parts bin parts are in place for now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

Finally a picture!


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Many more to come once the trailmaster Ltd in red leather comes along with the sram boobar and the black xt cranks. 

The dslr will be coming out 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cobretti (May 23, 2005)

We.....need travel.......mister!


----------



## abikerider (May 8, 2007)

I personally went from mainly riding an '06 Epic to mainly riding a rigid SS 29er. It makes the trails I ride more interesting. I'm definitely bucking the trend as most of my riding buddies have 29ers with 4-6" of travel. For most of the local riding here though (Folsom, CA) you really don't need suspension. It helps me HTFU as well.

I still have a geared hardtail with front suspension for when I do rougher/steeper trails.


----------



## SHARCRASH (Jan 21, 2014)

Here is Brendog commenting about the future of Downhill: saying that technical sections are where he unleashes his strengths, although he says that all what he wants, and his friends, is more travel, quote "to deal with more stuff".

Where is downhill going? Interview with Brendan Fairclough // Mountain Biking Videos on MPORA

Now considering this thread and specifically wit some comments dissing people who take long travel bikes to substitute skills... I really don't think he is the kind of guy substituting suspension travel for skills. Just my agrument to invalidate that the world of MTB is a male dominated sport and males use travel as a surrogate for skills; the old penile enhancement syndrome. Plus, this kind of speech doesn't really welcome women. Girls have always to be taken into consideration in any sport! A domain dominated by men, that would be boring and pretty gay!


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Also remember that with any "type" of bike, you're kit acquiring additional skills, but substituting one set of skills for other. Having a long travel bike isn't substituting skills, it's giving up a little of the ability to climb for a little more of the ability to descend confidently. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## SHARCRASH (Jan 21, 2014)

Exactly, every bike has pro and cons, there is no best bike or worst bike for whoever you are.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

SHARCRASH said:


> Exactly, every bike has pro and cons, there is no best bike or worst bike for whoever you are.


I mean, the point of buying a certain bike is to buy one that helps your weaknesses, even if it doesn't address your strengths.

Now let's all go ride!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

4" of travel does not weigh more than 6" of travel. On my club group rides rider have shown up with all types of bikes. Some have 26" and 29" dual sus and hardtails as well as 29" ss with front sus. It is mostly about the rider. I usually choose my 29 er enduro but also have a Karate Monkey as well as a Kona Dawg( 26" dual sus) On a good ride the bike disappears from beneath me. Lots of times I pick the bike that has the tires pumped up. Go pedal.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

tipsword said:


> I can't believe a moderator has allowed this thread to live this long...


Totally. We need more regulation, everywhere!

Heaven forbid a discussion occur.


----------



## juan_speeder (May 11, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I have a compact crank. I like it. There's some attitude among roadies about how you "shouldn't need" a 34t chainring. I think about that when I see some guy in Rapha *pushing his carbon feather wonderbike up a hill.*
> 
> Really, I think a lot of what people by is driven by cool factor and status. Sometimes I think suspension would never have gotten off the ground if we were all about performance and nothing else - those old forks...
> 
> Let's not even talk about the shoes I just ordered.


I've been riding all kinds bikes for 23 years now, up in the mountains, and I can't say I've ever seen a roadie pushing his bike up a hill.


----------



## Gumbi4Prez (Jan 2, 2014)

TwoNin9r said:


> I mean, the point of buying a certain bike is to buy one that helps your weaknesses, even if it doesn't address your strengths.
> 
> Now let's all go ride!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


If that were the case. I'd be on a motorcycle. I'm old and out of shape.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

juan_speeder said:


> I've been riding all kinds bikes for 23 years now, up in the mountains, and I can't say I've ever seen a roadie pushing his bike up a hill.


From time to time, I go on a ride organized by the Cascade Bike Club. I see a lot of that sort of thing on those rides.

Don't know that I've seen someone wearing cycling clothing pushing a road bike in other contexts. Plenty of fixies, though.


----------



## iWiLRiDe (Apr 17, 2006)

Ultimately it doesn't matter what bike you ride. People can choose to ride whatever bikes they like. I do know one thing though. People who get the itch, like to go faster and faster. IF the trails are more aggressive and riders see other riders riding faster than them, they'll probably want something with more travel that will make it "easier" to ride down hills, faster and with more confidence. IF they ride trails that are very smooth and flowy without much gnar, they will realize that they'll be able to ride much faster with something like a 29er HT. Some people will realize they have purchased the wrong bike for the trails they are riding. Chances are they will realize this and adjust accordingly. If there are riders on 6inch AM bikes on flowy smooth trails that need no travel, well then just enjoy the fact that chances are you will smoke them on your 29er ht. I mean, who wants to be lugging an extra 5-10 pounds when you don't need it, right? Let them figure it out, without them making these mistakes I couldn't afford to buy all the bikes I got


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

Have you guys ever seen the some of the rock gardens they set up at the XC world championship? Not Red Bull Gnarly but they definitely chunky, steep and not something one might expect on an XC course. 
Those riders use 4 in travel bikes because 99% of their course is on XC type trails. I'm sure an Enduro could handle that gnar section much easier but it just makes sense to get a bike that suits how the majority of your trails are. Longer travel bikes can and do hinder some rider's potential. That is kinda my point.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Heres my '91 full steal rigid, my '95 2x2, a '96 3x3 (have the same exact bike, just no pic handy, stole this from google) and my Fisher Cake 5x5. 

The proflex's are more mess around bikes. My Singletrack and Cake are my main bikes. The 5x5 Cake is only needed when I head up to the black-diamond trails, otherwise I prefer the rigid. It's crazy fast.


----------



## ironsinker (Oct 19, 2012)

I don't need big suspension or big knobby tires thats for sure. I just upgraded to a 100mm Full Suspension and my take on it is unless you are really pushing a hard tail to its limits (as in getting bounced off the trail), you don't need a full suspension of any type. Just my opinion of course as an XC rider. 

Some people do need it though cause i see how crazy they are on youtube!! Like some have already said, depends on the rider and the terrain.

I believe people buy suspension bikes for the wrong reason...for added comfort. Maybe that's why you see some people with big forks even though they ride like pansies!

Then again, who am I to say what suspension is for. For me its so I can blast through roots and rocks while staying somewhat straight on a line. For some it's so they can look cool (include me here too). For others its so they don't hurt as bad at the end of the ride (sh!t include me here too). I agree most people don't need suspension at all.


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

Are we willing to give up our iPhone's and go back to startac?


----------



## SHARCRASH (Jan 21, 2014)

ironsinker said:


> I don't need big suspension or big knobby tires thats for sure. I just upgraded to a 100mm Full Suspension and my take on it is unless you are really pushing a hard tail to its limits (as in getting bounced off the trail), you don't need a full suspension of any type. Just my opinion of course as an XC rider.
> 
> Some people do need it though cause i see how crazy they are on youtube!! Like some have already said, depends on the rider and the terrain.


Agreed, it's obvious...



ironsinker said:


> I believe people buy suspension bikes for the wrong reason...for added comfort. Maybe that's why you see some people with big forks even though they ride like pansies!
> 
> Then again, who am I to say what suspension is for. For me its so I can blast through roots and rocks while staying somewhat straight on a line. For some it's so they can look cool (include me here too). For others its so they don't hurt as bad at the end of the ride (sh!t include me here too). I agree most people don't need suspension at all.


There might people that go long travel for the reasons you gave... Personally I like to diverse my tours, most of the time I ride on steepy, airy & rough sections but sometimes, with my one and only LT bike, I ride on flat areas proposing relaxed single trails just because I like that area, its landscape or just because I don't feel riding on rough stuff that day, might be dangerous, or just have a relaxed ride taking advantage of nature while listening music... Some people will have the need make to make their bias in their little narrow mind, not knowing what I really ride most of the time, those should mind their ass and crash.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

andrepsz said:


> Are we willing to give up our iPhone's and go back to startac?


We're talking MTB, not fixies.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

andrepsz said:


> Are we willing to give up our iPhone's and go back to startac?


If all you do is make phone calls...

The startac was smaller, lighter and had much better battery life. I had an old flip phone that I would charge once a week.


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

JoePAz said:


> If all you do is make phone calls...
> 
> The startac was smaller, lighter and had much better battery life. I had an old flip phone that I would charge once a week.


Was lighter?! So I am going back! lighter lighter lighter... Yeah!


----------



## andrepsz (Jan 28, 2013)

I guess my point is that we all should appreciate the evolution of things. Analogy - I will call the smartphone's=160mm+ travel bikes, both offering more capabilities; It doesn't mean that I will need and keep 500 apps on my phone, perhaps 30 will satisfy my needs (100-120mm travel). On this thread the author is making the people that keep those 500 apps on their phones to re-think if they really need it. If they don't care that their phone's are out of storage (bike too heavy and crappy climbing performance)....good for the them!

and Startac = hardtail..


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

TwoNin9r said:


> Yeah I'm not a fan of the lockout either. I'm 6'3", a former aggressive skater, and nothing but quads and hammies lol. You want to improve your climbing abilities? Do crossfit. End of story!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


And yet no professional racer is doing CrossFit on anything resembling a regular basis.

Or, during racing season, really.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> And yet no professional racer is doing CrossFit on anything resembling a regular basis.
> 
> Or, during racing season, really.


All I said was it was a way to improve your climbing. Nothing about professional racing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Do you know what works best? Riding your bike a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> Do you know what works best? Riding your bike a lot.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't really know that you can say that with certainty. Building leg strength separate from just riding might actually be a more effective way to get help climbing, especially if "running out of steam" is your issue. I ride the same amount as I used to and have noticed an exponential increase in my climbing abilities since I started doing CrossFit. Crossfit is pretty much all about endurance, core strength, and leg strength, which is exactly what it takes to be faster on the trails. I'm not a muscle bound dude by any means, I'm off relatively average build, but I still out-climb a lot of the more seasoned riders I ride with because I've built that leg strength and endurance through crossfit.

So, are either of us right? Not necessarily. But I don't think either of us are wrong. And I will concede that nothing is more effective than proper line choice and technique, so in that sense, you're very right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

My point is this: guys who race professionally aren't that strong. They can't squat a lot, don't have huge legs, etc. 

Simplified, there is little to no correlation between leg "strength" and the ability to sustain high power outputs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> My point is this: guys who race professionally aren't that strong. They can't squat a lot, don't have huge legs, etc.
> 
> Simplified, there is little to no correlation between leg "strength" and the ability to sustain high power outputs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok. You seem to know more than I do on the subject so, while that statement doesn't seem logical to me, I guess anything is possible.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

This has been a good thread! Remember when 100 mm was plush? My first Trek had 80 mm of travel.


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> This has been a good thread! Remember when 100 mm was plush? My first Trek had 80 mm of travel.


I haven't read this whole thread but I will say this. Remember when there was only 60mm of travel?

In 1993 I rode downhill in Aspen on a Stumpjumper hardtail with Rockshox Judys. I still can't believe people think they need 180mm for recreational downhill. It seems weird to me.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

I dint think it's about "need"... your don't "need" a fancy luxury car but, if it's affordable and you want it, get it.


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

Maybe need was the wrong word. Until the past two months I haven't looked at a MTB forum in my time riding which has been a while. I just rode. It's been interesting to read forums and see people asking about how much travel for this how much for that.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

blackitout said:


> Maybe need was the wrong word. Until the past two months I haven't looked at a MTB forum in my time riding which has been a while. I just rode. It's been interesting to read forums and see people asking about how much travel for this how much for that.


 Today's guys are catching a lot more air though. But I do agree, you don't need a lot of travel to get gnarly and enjoy the downhills.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

blackitout said:


> Maybe need was the wrong word. Until the past two months I haven't looked at a MTB forum in my time riding which has been a while. I just rode. It's been interesting to read forums and see people asking about how much travel for this how much for that.


Yeah i think you may have something there


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

GnarBrahWyo said:


> Today's guys are catching a lot more air though. But I do agree, you don't need a lot of travel to get gnarly and enjoy the downhills.


I don't follow a lot of MTB news. I used to in the 90s. When I started mountain biking in 1992 I was 12 and would jump 6ft stairs at my school on a rockshox quadra 5. It seemed normal to me. So today it seems so weird to see people on forums saying it is hard to do without such and such.


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

It's cause we're getting old and creaky!


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

Haha maybe so. That was on a Costco Motiv too. Such a bad bike but it worked.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree. The mountain bike industry is one of the fastest changing industries in sports. New products are released all the time and lots of these websites/magazines get their money from testing products and telling us we need the latest and greatest in our garages. 
That being said, mtbr does provide a very cool place (these forums) for us bike nerds to geek-out and share information with. That is a good thing.


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

My bike has 4" front and 4.5" rear. For me that's been fine. I have yet to bottom out on it.


----------



## blackitout (Jun 30, 2014)

I posted this on another thread. It's relevant here too.



Mr Pig said:


> I do think that the primary driver of these changes is marketing. Everyone wants the new big thing, often just because it's new.


I'd have to agree with this. Luckily I've never fallen for it. I enjoy what I have, use it until it breaks, then go buy something else. This line of thinking seems to be in a minority these days. Marketing makes people think whatever they have is inferior because it doesn't have one feature the new one has. Smart phones and tech I feel was the precursor to this line of thinking. Get a new phone every 2 years. Now it's been applied to everything.


----------



## GnarBrahWyo (Jun 4, 2012)

My last bike was so expensive that I will not be able to afford anything else for a while.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Zomby Woof (MCM700) said:


> My bike has 4" front and 4.5" rear. For me that's been fine. I have yet to bottom out on it.


Mine is 5" front 4.75 rear and I'm 205 lbs. I don't crave any more travel.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

100 mm can be plenty plush. You just have to set it up right. I'm kind of shocked at how many people don't use all their travel. I set up my fork to use as much travel as possible without harsh bottom-outs. 100 mm is a lot less plush with too high a spring rate...


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

100mm can be plush. And a 100mm by is capable of almost anything in the right hands. But what is the down side of 5 or 6 inch bikes. I went from a 100mm hard tail to a 150-140 fs. The bike weighs slightly less, my climb times are the same, my downhill and techy times are down and I have an absolute blast on the new bike. Stuff I used to write knuckle I now go over with glee. Is it too much bike for some of what I ride? Absolutely. Is it a total blast? You bet so why not have a ton of travel?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I haven't ridden one that didn't annoy me on technical climbs and in twisty stuff. And I'm not done racing yet.

I liked 140 on flow trails, though. If I had a third mountain bike, I'd go bigger.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

For what I ride, 100-120mm feels good and still allows me to feel the trail. More travel smooths out the trail so much that is starts sucking some of the fun out. And that much travel sucks on the steep climbs. It's no wonder we are seeing a proliferation of dropper posts, remote suspension levers, and various climb settings and lockouts. I hate the way suspension feels when locked out but if I had that much squish I might like it better than 6 inches of mushy climbing.


----------



## dirtrider76 (Sep 19, 2012)

There's a big difference in 160mm bikes. My Norco was horrible at climbing even with a climb switch but my Banshee climbs very well without needing to lock it out. The Norco seemed to absorb all your power when you climbed when the Banshee feels like it planting the back tire firmly every time you push a pedal. I ran the same shock on both, it's in the design of the suspension.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

No, and your car doesn't need disc brakes either.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

100 to 120mm is the sweet spot for me.


----------



## Whacked (Sep 29, 2008)

Flashback to when suspension really started to hit the market. 

"Suspension? I don't need any stinking suspension. My arms and legs are all the suspension I need"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

NateHawk said:


> For what I ride, 100-120mm feels good and still allows me to feel the trail. More travel smooths out the trail so much that is starts sucking some of the fun out. And that much travel sucks on the steep climbs. It's no wonder we are seeing a proliferation of dropper posts, remote suspension levers, and various climb settings and lockouts. I hate the way suspension feels when locked out but if I had that much squish I might like it better than 6 inches of mushy climbing.


Serious question, what does the length of travel have to do with smirking the trail out. Unless we are talking about his that are larger than the suspension can handle (for example hitting something a 101mm with a fork that is 100mm) isn't the smoothness dependent not in the length but on the quality of the shock? If it is not the quality of the shock then isn't ideal length of travel more related to the larger object you hit with regularity on the trail? For some people that will be larger and for some smaller so just get what you think you need.

As for coming and nimbleness... with a good suspension design climbing ability would seem to be more effected by geometry than travel. Granted liner travel bikes are usually slacker, but it is the slacked out HAs that make sure speed climbing harder not the travel per se, right? And good suspension design should eliminate the feel of wasted (wether it really is our not) motion. I mean I run my rear in decent mode pretty much one hundred percent of the time, even in support steep technical climbs, and it it's fine. No bobbing our feeling like I am on a sloppy trampoline.

My bike (devinci troy) can be a bit of a notch on support skew technical climbs, but the issuer isn't travel it is being in the wrong position on the bike and having the front wheel pop on me and throw me off line, but only when I don't weight it correctly. That it's due to chain stay length and HA not travel.

Also, although it has a longer wheel base than my HT with less travel it feels like it turns just as tight as my HT, mostly because it is so smooth, which means the wheels are always touching the ground giving me fine cornering control compared to my HT which was poppy meaning the rear wheel was often floating above the trail.

Anyway, my point is that most of the stuff that gets ascribed to linger travel is really more about bike geometry and suspension design and not really about travel per se.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The thing that gets me thinking about longer travel bikes on occasion is that setting up my spring rate so I don't bottom harshly means that some trails still feel pretty rough.

Though where I'm riding today, I don't seem to need even all 100 mm. At least, at my usual pressure.


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

I like slack bikes for a number of reasons. Up until recently, short travel meant steep angles. If I like downhills and big drops, I had to buy long travel to get better angles. The Process 111 violates this rule, but I am not looking for a 29er. Steep angles are for XC racerbois.


----------



## Bird (Mar 26, 2004)

That's why we should all have at least 2 bikes.

Sometimes I feel like some squish, sometimes I don't


----------



## eddjmemg (Apr 12, 2013)

Or one all mountain beast like a Bronson. Adjustable suspension for your pleasure. I really enjoy my 6" ☝😎


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

pcmxa said:


> Serious question, what does the length of travel have to do with smirking the trail out. Unless we are talking about his that are larger than the suspension can handle (for example hitting something a 101mm with a fork that is 100mm) isn't the smoothness dependent not in the length but on the quality of the shock? If it is not the quality of the shock then isn't ideal length of travel more related to the larger object you hit with regularity on the trail? For some people that will be larger and for some smaller so just get what you think you need.
> 
> As for coming and nimbleness... with a good suspension design climbing ability would seem to be more effected by geometry than travel. Granted liner travel bikes are usually slacker, but it is the slacked out HAs that make sure speed climbing harder not the travel per se, right? And good suspension design should eliminate the feel of wasted (wether it really is our not) motion. I mean I run my rear in decent mode pretty much one hundred percent of the time, even in support steep technical climbs, and it it's fine. No bobbing our feeling like I am on a sloppy trampoline.
> 
> ...


No more auto correct for you, sir. But i like your points, even about those support skew climbs... hehe


----------



## TwoNin9r (Jan 26, 2011)

eddjmemg said:


> I really enjoy my 6" ☝😎


And I find myself in 5th grade again.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

We don't NEED all that travel, we can quit any time, right?


----------



## Steve71 (Mar 15, 2004)

After riding my KTM for a few years, I got back on the MTB and boy did that 6" of travel (Reign with DH tires) feel horrible and stiff. Maybe my suspension is in need of a service...

I guess it's all relative though, if we could have a 10" travel bike that pedaled like a 4" travel bike and weighed 30lb, I'd be interested. Ultra plush suspension doesn't slow the bike down when you hit the chunky stuff - i.e. less rolling resistance.

The ultimate plushness is to ride on the rear wheel or at least keep the front very light. With a powerful engine you can do it all day long, especially on chunky climbs. On the mountain bike you can only do it for short sections of trail.


----------



## crewjones (Aug 24, 2007)

all types of bikes here where i live. I've seen unicycles, rigids, even dh bikes on fire road rides. If it gets you out there riding, then what's the difference. Saw a fatbike the other day and i thought that looked fun, the girl riding it loved it. Let's not be like road bikers and put our noses up at others bikes, heh. By the way i'm a road biker also so i know


----------



## teethandnails (Sep 16, 2013)

When you huck everything... yes you need it


----------

