So I’m torn between 140mm and 160mm – mainly because the 140mm bike I want isn’t available for a couple ole of months. I can get a 160mm version straight away. Could anyone owning 160mm full suss bikes comment on their suitability for general use? Especially uphill – it goes without saying they’ll be good on the way down!
Mostly will be general riding Quantocks, Exmoor and wherever I travel to but rarely any uplift / alpine stuff.
Cheers!

I recommenced 150mm..
But seriously i use my spicy for a lot of my riding without too much bother.The travel comes in handy when you want to got a bit crazy.. 😀

Use my Carbon Covert for local road blasts to big days in the Peak District and pretty much everything/anything in between. I used to use my C456 HT for the roads but since buying the Transition I’ve not really touched it. Never really think/worry about it’s travel length, 30lbs weight or its 1×10 gearing, just how much I like riding it.

its not generally the travel that’s the issue it’s the build. My 160 has coil front and rear, flows, big brakes and heavy tyres iro 35lbs done weeks in Scotland big mileage and climbs, however change to air front and rear lighter wheels and tyres, totally different bike but I miss the bombproof feeling the bigger build gives.
Short answer, if I need to go fast I use different bikes but if I want to have fun I use the big bike, but I don’t have any issues winching it up anything. But it can be a drag..

Depends where your priorities and preferences lie as well as where you ride.

160mm bike is winch up, bomb down, writes off any of the flatter fun stuff where you need to be able to pump and get on the pedals to maintain speed and flow. Good for some, real bad for some, i wouldn’t own another 160mm bike ever again unless i moved to whistler or the alps and that was my trail riding.

Realistically, uk trail riding, 140mm is about right, even 120 is fine, if it’s a 29er, 120mm is definitely adequate.

Also, be truthful to yourself the riding you actually do, not the riding you elude to but never actually do.

I always advocate less travel is better when debating between two options.

Had a 160mm bike but it was too much for general riding tbh.

Went to a 140mm\160mm – which was a decent compromise.

But the real revelation has been getting a 130/150mm 29er instead.

Have you considered the benefits of the wagon wheel?

I use a 160/160 bike for everything.

I trail ride on it, have the occasional day at DH venues, race DH, race Enduro, general larking about etc.

Feels about right to me. I’m sure I could have a nice fun 130mm bike too, but don’t really want, or need one enough to buy one.

But the real revelation has been getting a 130/150mm 29er instead.

What bike is this Chakaping?

deanfbm – Member

Depends where your priorities and preferences lie as well as where you ride.

160mm bike is winch up, bomb down, writes off any of the flatter fun stuff where you need to be able to pump and get on the pedals to maintain speed and flow. Good for some, real bad for some, i wouldn’t own another 160mm bike ever again unless i moved to whistler or the alps and that was my trail riding.I think this is bang on – it’s really not the uphill you need to worry about. It’ll always be acceptably bad with a modern 160 mm bike. It’s the across bits (the majority of riding) that can start to suck, wallowing around UK moorland on 160 mm not a great proposition for most riders IMHO.

I’m not certain why these ikea would suck on the flatter sections as long as they’re not too heavy and have a decent shock / rear suspension system? Think I’m tending towards the 140mm though.

I’m not certain why these ikea would suck on the flatter sections as long as they’re not too heavy and have a decent shock / rear suspension system? Think I’m tending towards the 140mm though.

Aside from your cryptic Swedish furnishing reference which has me foxed – I’d answer this by saying that I’ve done it with both 140mm bikes and 160mm bikes and Gary is bang-on.

Yes modern 160mm bikes can pedal quite well, but 140mm ones have also advanced and pedal even better.

What bike is this Chakaping?

I’ve been riding a Hammerhead Thumper with a Pike and -1deg slackset.

I have no clue where ‘ikea’ popped up from….some sort of iphone auto-correct I think….

I ride a Turner 6 pack with Fox 36 forx pretty much everywhere but mostly the Peak. It can be hard work but it’s doable. However, sometimes 160mm is too good. Shorter travel might make things a bit more engaging.

My only bike has 160mm travel, its fine everywhere I use it, peaks,wales,lakes,spain,alps,uplift and 30 milers.

I reckon something lighter with less travel would be faster on the ups and across bits, but every time I came to a downhill id wish I was on my usual bike.

Its all just opinion though. No wrong or right on this one

160 for everything here too.

Climbing is just a way to the top.

And as for the thing about “across” being dulled, I find a bigger bike opens the door to different lines, more speed or a combination of the two.

Only place I sometimes miss my hardtail if I’m not riding it is in tight, twisty, wooded stuff where my 160/160 ‘do it all’ bike feels a bit sluggish but I reckon that’s down to geometry and wheelbase rather than amount of travel.

Other than that, my Alpine goes up, across and down faster and more fun than my BFe.

160mm for everything, worst case scenario; you’ll get fitter dragging it up hill or you’ll die due to the increased ill-founded bravardo that extra 20mm gives on the way down!

160mm here too. No issues, the biggest factor being your tyre choice (drag) and shock settings (how wallowy you make it). In fact the only time i really notice all the travel is riding into the wind on flat bits, where the tall front end seems to mean my body catches all the wind like a sail!

I’ve been riding 6″ ‘big trail bikes’ almost exclusively since late 2006 when I walked into a bike shop, saw a Spesh Enduro.

The reason is simple really, I’ve got one bike, I’ve got room for one bike and I can only afford one bike – yet I want to ride everything from trips to the shop to Alpine DH.

The limiting factor isn’t the travel at all in mu experience – pro-pedal, lock-out whatever can overcome that easy, the weight isn’t bad either – the drag is the big tyres they come with – stick a set of 2.2 black chilli conti’s on my G-Spot and it flies, wearing 2.35 high rollers and a super tackie front and it needs a lot of gravity to come alive – brilliant at BPW, less so climbing in Brecon.

Ive got a 160mm specialized enduro 29er,and i find it better on anything technical as my skills are pants.its alot better a climbing than my preious bikes (specialized camber26 and clockwork 29)
We ride once or twice a week local xc stuff and ive not found any problems,and trial centres, gisburn/sherwood pines /stainburn,and i find it alot better all round.
i keep thinking about getting so something with less travel or a hardtail as a second bike, but not sure I’d use it,as i love my enduro

Until I rediscovered my love of hardtails by Banshee Rune was my only bike and I rode everything on it. To be honest it climbs far better than it has any right to which is partly down to the suspension design and partly down to the shock (CCDBa). I liked the fact that it could be do g an uplift one weekend and a big XC ride the next.

I tried to keep rolling weight down with lightish wheels and tyres (Easton Havocs and Hans Dampfs), other than that it’s all standard stuff and weighs in at just over 32lbs.

Trouble was a built up a hardtail again and spend most of my time riding that….it’s just fun. It’s slower etc but I like it. The big bike makes sens if it’s your only bike because you can pretty much do everything with it.

I’d agree about being honest about the riding you actually do. I wasn’t and would probably have been better off with a Spitfire but I do still love the Rune.

When someone finds this mystery bike that climbs uphill for you could someone tell me please,don’t really feel like getting any fitter…….

I dunno, I had a 140mm bike in about 2006 when the ‘standard’ full sus / trail bike for general riding was around 120mm. Remember the original Spesh Enduro was 125mm! Nowadays, a 160mm bike is lighter, stiffer, pedals better and generally goes uphill a load better, let alone downhill. When you can have that downhill performance in a package that weighs less than 30lbs, it’s very tempting.

Of course, 140mm bikes have also gotten a lot better in that time period as well and for most people (I include myself in this), a 140mm bike is probably optimum – and by that I mean the greatest balance of covering tricky off road terrain up and down hill in the most efficient way including all-day rides. Efficiency does not always equal fun of course.

I’ve recently gone to 160mm (From 140) and I’m enjoying it. Whether that’s just because it’s something different to what I’ve been riding for the last 8-9 years I’m not sure. I’m definitely slightly slower going up hill and probably slightly faster going down. On the other hand I rarely struggle to keep up with other people I ride with so it’s not an issue. YMMV.

I can climb just as easy on my 170 fork AM full sus bike as my 150 hard tail (and as the 130 I used to have on the hard tail). I don’t even use lock out (or have lock out on the 170 forks).

I use the hard tail though for more xc-ish duties at times, just because it’s a lighter bike and tyres I have on it are better suited for the flat and up than down.

The 170 travel bike generally gets used for the bigger hills, stuff in Wales, the Alps even, because the down is way more fun on it.

I’ve got a 160 bike orange alpine 160. love it rides everything perfectly and even use it for dh inners and fortwilliam. the look on the dh ‘shredders’ faces when you pass them on a small bike is priceless

the look on the dh ‘shredders’ faces when you pass them on a small bike is priceless

😐

Well I went with the Norco Range (160/160), it arrived yesterday and I went out today for the first time. Feels great. 1×11 is perfect with a 30 front, didn’t feel like I needed more at either end. I did a fair bit of short sharp climbs and it felt really good. The climb function on the CCDB Air was really good – much much better than pro pedal on the RP23 which I struggled to notice. The only thing I did notice was the front end wanting to lift on a really steep climb but I could sort that by taking the front fork down to 130mm for steep climbs (Dual Position Pikes).
Overall I’m glad I went with 160 as it should be great for the bigger downhill stuff – perfect as a one for everything bike.

stephenmacdonald43 – Member
I’ve got a 160 bike orange alpine 160. love it rides everything perfectly and even use it for dh inners and fortwilliam. the look on the dh ‘shredders’ faces when you pass them on a small bike is priceless

has this ever happened?

Wow Stephen is my hero.

You have to laugh when you go to trail centres with uplift and you see a load of guys with downhill bikes that look like they mainly bought the bike because if they sat on an XC bike it would probably snap…

I use 160/150 everywhere as well. Mind you I only ride natural steep tech stuff and occasional trail centre DH. As long as the linkage works well and your shock is damped correctly the pedal bob isn’t too disastrous.

Pedal bob on this bike is better then my old one, and uphill the back wheel seems to be getting better traction, especially with the CCDB climb switch on.

Been using a Pivot Mach 6 since June last year. 160/155mm. It’s a hoot. Love it.

I had a 2004 bullit with a fifth element coil shock.
There was no pedal bob at all on that and I used it as a trail bike for many years.
It’s a shame they stopped making that shock.

I would say hold out for the 140mm bike. I am in the position fortunately to have owned many types of bikes, much more than the average and currently have a 140mm and 160mm bike. Really a modern 140mm bike is all you need if you aren’t going to use it abroad or do an uplift and this sounds like you. I don’t use my 160mm bike often and really only sits there waiting for the odd outing, riding ‘dh’ style tracks or riding abroad.

I can ride my 160mm bike on flatter terrain and it’s good fun but the 140mm bike is so much more suitable for that kind of riding.

I have a 160 mm 27.5″ wheeled mega and a 27.5 120mm hard tail.

The mega does all my big rides and trail centers. The hard tail is used for everything else commuting etc.
I find 160 mm fantastic and if it wasn’t for the value of the bike I’d use it for everything. If I don’t want the travel I just add a bit more air to the shock, but that is next to never!

Norco Fluid LT here (160mm rear and Marzocchi 66RC2X 160mm front).

It’s a heavy bike. Not helped by the forks or 2.4″ X Kings. It’s now with me in Asia but used it all over Devon (incl. long Dartmoor rides) and whilst I sometimes have to remind myself whilst winching it up that it’ll be worth it on the way down – and it is – I rarely wish I was on another bike. It’s only on the longest of uphill slogs I’d like a nice light HT.

It may be a bit overkill for a lot of my riding, but I love it. I’ll never win an XC race on it, but I wouldn’t on a super-light XC bike either.

I only have one bike and I’d rather be over-biked than under-biked. If the trails are getting boring, ride them faster or go for more difficult lines.

It’s not a forever bike. If I was spending big bucks and I was going to keep it a long time, it wouldn’t be such a big bike.

Having done some more rides now I’m really glad I went with the Range. Everything about it feels great. Still getting the forks set up as I want them but otherwise amazing. Going uphill it performs better than my last bike, largely because of the amazing climb switch on the DB Air and the excellent damping on the Pikes. I have failed to spin the back wheel on anything, and I used to do that all the time before on climbs. Although the suspension system is similar to the Spesh FSR I came from it feels much better in all regards.