just wondering here – looking at the lapierre spicy 916 it weighs a measly 26lbs with 160mm F&R travel…now that is much lighter i bet on average than most five pros’ etc weighing i would imagine at 28-30lbs with 140mm travel…

question im wondering is people always say that 160mm is too much for uk riding, but why would this be the case with the 916? it weighs a good chunk less than a 140mm bike so why would it be more sluggish climbing? would the angles of it being 160mm mean it was a shit climber or is it just purely weight? if so surely having a superlight 160mm bike would be ultimate do it all bike as it should in theory (due to weight) be as good climber as any trail bike at 140mm and be an absolute hoot on the downs?

i seriously cant afford a 5k machine admittedly but if i could im wondering why more people dont just have a superlight 160mm one?

Set the suspension up properly to your weight and riding style, and it will climb fine…. but it depends on your expectations for ‘climbing’

Are you sure about the weight? Thought it was more like 29lbs?

To the original question, climbing isn’t much different on a 140mm or 160mm trail bike in my experience – it’s on the flat and twisty stuff where a 140mm can be quicker.

I’ve a 150m Pitch, it climbs, but nowhere near as well as a hardtail or XC bike, it does weigh in the low to mid 30’s though, I think it’s 90% the geometry that makes it hard work though as it climbs just as well as it did when it weighed 29lb. On the one hand this makes technical climbs a bit of a sufferfest so I tend to stick to smoother climbs, but it is more fun going down. Unless I lived somewhere like the Peaks or the Lakes and specificaly picked routes that suited it (lots of ups and down, no flats) it’d be rubbish as an only bike I think.

Head angle and seat angle will be a major factor in climbing, if your have travel adjust on the forks it wont be as much of a problem though.

The 20mm makes bugger all difference IMO.

Most 140-160 bikes seem to be settled on similar static geometry as well, although when sagged a 160 slackens out a little more.

if so surely having a superlight 160mm bike would be ultimate do it all bike as it should in theory (due to weight) be as good climber as any trail bike at 140mm and be an absolute hoot on the downs?

i seriously cant afford a 5k machine admittedly but if i could im wondering why more people dont just have a superlight 160mm one?

Which is exactly what I did coming off an Orange 5. I built a Nomad carbon which is lighter, stiffer, climbs better & goes down better too.

I have raced DH on mine (and won), plus go out & blast round XC on it. IMO it could almost be the ideal allrounder (obviously for my circumstances).

there is a climb on the quantocks that I have only ever cleaned on a SX trail fitted with 180mm totems…

traction is sometimes king.

interesting points so far – hob nob thats my point what you’ve done, sounds exactly like the reasoning im thinking about….

i guess if you build a 160mm machine that weighs 35 lbs etc then yep it would be pointless, but if you can afford something like a 916 (or similar weight build) then it seems a no brainer to get a bigger bike thats lighter, cappable of descending quicker and equally as quick going up….

i guess a few factors come into it, like where you live, but places like the peak district/lakes etc etc are perfect for a 160mm on the downhill stuff, and if they didnt suffer on the climbs then what a great comprosise of the perfect do it all bike….

at the end of the day you gain, 20mm more travel for descending and its as light as most 120 mm FS bikes! (again your talking 916 territory at 26lbs)

There would be no point sticking 160mm on to a Superlight IMO. Their geometry is more suited to climbing and twisty singletrack, and in many ways the geometry would limit your absolute fun DH, not the overall travel of suspension (ie your more likely to feel like you will go over the bars)

Big travel bikes tend to have slacker geometry too which make them more stable and easier going DH

FunkyDunc – Member

There would be no point sticking 160mm on to a Superlight IMO. Their geometry is more suited to climbing and twisty singletrack, and in many ways the geometry would limit your absolute fun DH, not the overall travel of suspension (ie your more likely to feel like you will go over the bars)

Big travel bikes tend to have slacker geometry too which make them more stable and easier going DH

sorry dunc – didnt mean SC superlight – just meant a super-light bike as in weighs nothing ……

Ah 😆

Well then lets say your 916, regardless of whether it weighs 22lbs or 35 lbs, the geometry will more to do with how well it climbs, decends and how chuckable it is.

In general though more slack angled bikes will ivariabley not climb as well.

interesting points so far – hob nob thats my point what you’ve done, sounds exactly like the reasoning im thinking about….

i guess if you build a 160mm machine that weighs 35 lbs etc then yep it would be pointless, but if you can afford something like a 916 (or similar weight build) then it seems a no brainer to get a bigger bike thats lighter, cappable of descending quicker and equally as quick going up….

i guess a few factors come into it, like where you live, but places like the peak district/lakes etc etc are perfect for a 160mm on the downhill stuff, and if they didnt suffer on the climbs then what a great comprosise of the perfect do it all bike….

at the end of the day you gain, 20mm more travel for descending and its as light as most 120 mm FS bikes! (again your talking 916 territory at 26lbs)

Exactly, my Nomad when I first built it was 26.something, now it’s 27.2lbs, although I changed a couple of bits so it may just sneak under the 27lb mark again.

For sure I could have built it lighter with a more SC orientated build, but I wanted something I can use when I don’t fancy the DH bike & not be scared for it to break. I’ll take it out to the Mega this year & the only thing i’ll do is put some dual ply tyres on it. Not worried in the slightest about breaking anything.

There’s always a tradeoff.

I agree with the points others have made about traction, something very plush with decent tyres will just dig in and grip. My 160mm bike tackles some of the climbing my way reasonably well, but it demands a certain technique and a lot of patience. My 130mm full susser is far better in this respect as the long top tube gives me room to breathe. A TT of similar length on a 160mm bike would just cause the front end to flop around all over the show.

To get my “big” bike to do it all would entail me throwing an awful lot of money at it and even then the TT would still be a little short for day long epic rides.

That’s why I own three bikes…

A lot to do with geometry, I find it harder to keep the front end in check on the 160 bike cos its slacker and the bb is possibly a bit higher than my xc bike. As a result I struggled to keep up with those of similar fitness, but on 120mm travel bikes. Admittedly, mine is a heavy 160mm bike but it feels more to do with the geometry and the slow speed that climbing usually entails rather than the extra weight.

Geometry and set up is key, suspension travel is almost a red herring.

I ride a 140mm FS but have the suspension set very firm, maybe 10% sag on both the forks and shock….havent had any trouble with local climbs.
My previous bike was a 100mm hardtail which i had set up with offset to the rear seatpost, very short stem and wide bars….it was a pig to climb on and would wander like buggery….required the most bizarre physical contortions to keep any weight over the front on climbs.

The reason long travel (150mm+) bikes get a bad press is because people set them up wrong….if you have a bike like this set up to use all its travel on your local XC/trail loop then it will handle like a pogo stick….in my opinion long travel bikes should be set firm for most riding so that the extra travel only comes into play when things get nasty….a long travel bike is your get out of jail free card but not if it compresses all 160mm of the forks rolling off a kerb.

Sadly loads of people set their bikes up like this because its ‘comfortable’….

why do you need the bike to climb well, is it because you race your mates up and downhill or are you concerned about being left at the back on group rides.

Its a trade off between how well you want to go up compared to how the bike can handle going down.
alternatively concentrate on your fitness and you can ride a 160mm bike up as quick as an unfit person on a carbon 29er HT and then smash them on the way down.

sancho – non of the above are applicable to be honest…

im pretty fit, im pretty quick on the downs for a everyday kinda rider and im never at the back on descents….it was more to do with having more travel to attack the downhills more, but not lose the climbing capabilities of say a standard 140mm FS bike…

i just expect that it would be a hoot to bomb down a lot of peak stuff on a 160mm but wondered also what it would be like to climb back out (something i love doing), so wouldnt want it to be like hauling a sack of potatoes around….as i said im only questioning it due to the weight of a 916 being lighter than most 140 do it all bikes….but it seems from the posts above alot of people are saying the geometry would be the main culprit for it being sluggish climbing if anything

Of course though, the more travel you add the more numb the ride feels. I’ve gone back from 130mm travel to 100mm and much prefer how much more lively the ride feels and how you feel so much less removed from the trail below you.

There’s always a compromise, no matter how light your 160 bike is and IME it tends to be on relatively flat terrain that it’s most annoying.

For me, having a DH-biased trail bike and an XC bike makes a lot more sense than having one super-bling lightweight 160 ‘all-rounder’

im on a Covert and its all about the downs at the moment, riding uphill is just something to get to the start of the downhill.
Though on tech singletrack you cant beat a hardtail.

Have you seen Dirt this month? Steve Jones has this exact dilemma putting a Zesty head to head with a Spicy. He makes the points the 2 bikes are very similar in weight and almost in angles. Climbing not much difference. But downhill much better on the Spicy. He goes on to say he’s thinking of giving up with 26×140 inch wheel trail bikes and would choose a 29×140…. THats a whole different argument though. IN conclusion he reckons Zesty if only surfaced trail centre riding, Spicy for enduro, riding with mates fast and Alps.

Having had a number of bikes over the years with various amounts of travel from 120 to 170 Im rapidly coming to the conclusion that 140mm is enough for the UK. Most of my riding is in the Peaks. I have some 160 forks for alpine duty or uk DH but thats it.

I would suggest looking at the zesty and see what the weight savings are over the spicy at that price point and then decide.

I ride a 140mm FS but have the suspension set very firm, maybe 10% sag on both the forks and shock….havent had any trouble with local climbs.

because people set them up wrong

Name one bike manufacturer or suspension tuner that recomends 10% sag? If you’re using too much travel don’t alter the sag, either change the spring rate if it’s incorect (on a coil, or the air volume in an air can) and the compression damping. Adding more preload to a coil or air to an air shock will just leave you with an oversprung pogo stick as all theenergy goes into the spring rather than being damped by the damper like it’s supposed to.

I have a night light Spicy (not carbon sadly) and it’s great fun wherever I take it, even on flatter stuff where I’d normally have the hardtail out. As someone said above, i don’t run it stupidly soft, or use daftly lightweight parts, but I can’t say I ever feel “over-biked” on it.

thisisnotaspoon….my set up seems to work, took the advice of several suspension websites who recommend setting the rebound and compression to the midway point, then playing around with air pressures to set sag….you’re correct that no manufacturer recommends 10% sag….but with the recommended sag the bike was too squishy….i’m quite heavy at 15 stone/95 kgs so i added more pressure until the bike was firm and taught on singletrack but would use pretty much all its travel at the Rogate and Forest of Dean DH tracks…..i also realise its a crude way of doing it but it means i remember my set up and dont have to fiddle with the compression and rebound, just leave them in the middle of their adjustment….i dont get any pedal bob either.

Fork/frame stiffness is important too. 32/Rev 140-150mm forks a not great IMHO and a 36/Lyrik/55/Deville makes a bike feel very different in a good way despite the heavier weight. I’d rather the bike was a bit heavier and went where I pointed it than playing noodle-fork-pinball.

To a certain extent a heavier bike can be “hustled” along just fine as long as as you feel the trade off is enough for the Doonhalls. I prefer my Nicolai Helius AM at 35lb to when it was at 31lbs because the coil suspension works better than the air for where I ride and the bigger tyres don’t split when I sneeze near them… I like a DH feeling AM bike on the doonhall bits so I can rag the stormtrooper lines… if your going to mince the DH bits anyway then you have other options… YMMV and IMHO etc etc.

I use 170 forks nowdays. Climbing is technique too eh 🙂