Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • 170mm for trail abuse too much?
  • johanhej
    Free Member

    Hi,

    Been eagerly awaiting the new YT-industries bike, hoping for it to be ~150mm travel. Turns out, this wasnt the case as it was 170mm.
    http://www.yt-industries.com/shop/de/Bikes/Trail/Wicked-650B-Pro?x2a455=m9pjea9hmphbs3l9ikua2ls094

    Would 170mm be too much for general trail riding, with slight focus on the decents? I aim to ride mainly singletrack, without too much jumps etc. Not very flowy as it’s mainly on trails not made for cycling.

    Are there any other options available which would suit my needs better? I’ve seen the Spectral, but 6 months delivery is a deal breaker.

    Trimix
    Free Member

    Depends how you set up your suspension.

    robhughes
    Free Member

    Funny how that frame is basically the same as my spicy.

    fr0sty125
    Free Member

    If you are spending that sort of cash and not sure of the sort of bike you want then I would advise that you demo some bikes. That bike will clearly do some very gnarly stuff!

    molgrips
    Free Member

    The number of mm isn’t that important – angles, kit, geometry etc is.

    nuke
    Full Member

    Where do you intend to ride it most?

    If if were my local trails (Surrey Hills), I’d say definitely too much but it does depend on where you are.

    JCL
    Free Member

    Makes no sense dragging an AM monster like that around the trails.

    Are you 650b only? If so what about the new Trance? 29″? Camber Evo?

    sodadr
    Free Member

    For general trail riding without much in the way of large drops etc that looks a bit too much bike for me. A riding buddy recently bought one of the new Trance SX models, it’s great value for money, pretty light, climbs well and has geometry that can handle pretty much anything we ride here on the NorthShore (including the double blacks)…if I was in the market for a new bike, it would be first on my list.

    ahwiles
    Free Member

    world cup Dh racers have 200mm of travel, they clock up silly speeds and hit massive things really hard.

    are you 85% as fast/massive/hard as a world cup Dh racer? – on your ‘trail’ rides?

    the answer might be yes, in which case crack on…

    (of course you can get a long travel bike to behave itself, and pedal properly, but it takes carefull attention to suspension set up – hardly anyone does this. I don’t, do you?)

    having said all that, i bet that bike’s awesome fun in the right environment.

    buy a 2nd hand spicy, and give it go, you can sell it for little/no loss if you don’t get on with it.

    johanhej
    Free Member

    Where do you intend to ride it most?

    Something similar to what enduro racers are riding. Realisticly it wont be as much up and downs as those races, as my area isnt as hilly as most others.

    Are you 650b only? If so what about the new Trance? 29″? Camber Evo?

    I was at the beginning when looking at a bike, but I’m not too fuzzed anymore. I would likely need a size large, and these tend to look really silly with 26in wheels. I haven’t thought of 29er that much, as i’m afraid it’ll feel a little to big for my trails. I’ve followed the development of the On-One Codeine though, which looks pretty interesting.

    For general trail riding without much in the way of large drops etc that looks a bit too much bike for me. A riding buddy recently bought one of the new Trance SX models, it’s great value for money, pretty light, climbs well and has geometry that can handle pretty much anything we ride here on the NorthShore (including the double blacks)…if I was in the market for a new bike, it would be first on my list.

    The trance does look good. I’ll have a look at that!

    julians
    Free Member

    Looks like a brilliant bike, just looks ‘right’

    if its going to be your one and only bike, then I reckon it’ll be fine. It’ll take everything from trail centres to the alps in its stride. And will be great fun on almost any descent.

    Just dont expect it to be as efficient a climber as something lighter with less travel.

    FWIW I have a bike with 170mm front 160mm rear, its my only bike (well apart from the specialised enduro which this one replaced and I still have, which is very similar) and its fine, I dont find myself ever wishing I had less suspension travel.

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    Perfectly fine. 170mm on my Nomad, it goes out in the Surrey Hills most weekends. Other times it’s in Wales, doing some downhill and it’s had one trip to the Alps. It’s a do-it-all AM bike. Just set it up to use the majority of travel for the riding you’re doing at the time.

    It’s a bit much for somewhere like Swinley and the MOD lands I often ride (and now do night rides round). Though I do it from time to time, but mostly use the 130 hard tail for those places. Just because it’s lighter and a fast sprinter.

    Oh and climbing… non issue. I’ve never had an issue with climbing on short and long travel bikes and I’ve never even had lock out on them. It’s really only an issue if you climb out of the seat, and then you should be more worried about your knees if that’s your thing 😉 (and seated climbing is more efficient. Maybe not faster in a sprint, but easier in the long run).

    And trails not made for cycling are often the better ones and can give a suspension a good work out.

    p.s. remember, big travel isn’t always about big jumps and drops. After all, a dirt bike can do those with no travel at all. To me it’s about the speed you can blast over rough as hell terrain. More travel the faster you can hit it.

    Bagstard
    Free Member

    I’ve ridden a YT 170 and it only feels like 170mm when you need it. With BOS shocks front and rear it doesn’t give up the travel easily.

    deanfbm
    Free Member

    Me, personally, no. That would be a personal hell for me.

    But if you end up enjoying it, who am I to critique.

    Generally, for me, trail/do it all riding would be pretty rubbish if I was on a heavy, glued to the ground bike, yes carry more speed in the rough, less speed everywhere else, less interaction, less chance of getting air Bourne, less speed generated through pumping.

    I just went from 160\150 to 150\130, its been quite a revelation, so much better and almost every way, just given up a little in chunder, but I can just jump the whole lot more easily now.

    adrec
    Free Member

    New trance looks lovely. 140mm and 650b sounds perfect for what you want it for. I’ve got a 26 127mm trance and I love it.

    Bagstard
    Free Member

    I would counter that the YT isn’t heavy and certainly doesn’t ride heavy. It is a very taught, poppy feeling bike, climbs really well and descends even better, also the spec is amazing value.

    Hob-Nob
    Free Member

    Hmmm. 14kg without pedals, more like 14.5 with (and allowing for creative weighing) – so 32lbs. It’s not bad for a 170mm bike, but it’s a lot of a ‘trail’ bike.

    On paper it seems great value. A lot of pig & glitter comments, the glitter being suspension you can’t get fixed easily when it craps itself, wheels which have a reputation for falling apart in a multitude of different ways, etc.

    I wouldn’t want to hump that thing around, unless I lived deep into Wales. Even then i’d be questioning the need for it.

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    Big shocks doesn’t mean a heavy bike. My Nomad is 30lbs which is fairly normal for an ali AM bike, if not light. Doesn’t ride heavy at all and pedals well. Very chuckable bike. Has a fair bit of carbon on it. I could get a carbon Nomad with the same travel though and get it down 5lbs maybe.

    My carbon hard tail is actually a little heavy at 26lbs. The main benefit with being lighter is easier to lift over things if I have to. Though since going 1×10 + clutch mech on both bikes I find the Nomad has a similar immediate power away feel as the hard tail does. Just it’s slower at the moment more really because it has draggy tyres on it compared to the hard tail.

    JCL
    Free Member

    I was at the beginning when looking at a bike, but I’m not too fuzzed anymore. I would likely need a size large, and these tend to look really silly with 26in wheels. I haven’t thought of 29er that much, as i’m afraid it’ll feel a little to big for my trails. I’ve followed the development of the On-One Codeine though, which looks pretty interesting.

    A 29″ won’t really have a noticeably longer wheelbase than a 650bs. Try a Stumpy Evo 29″. I sound like a broken record recommending that bike but as a trail bike that can totally slay the descents it’s the best I’ve ever ridden.

    cazum
    Free Member

    hi m8

    i went from a 140mm rocky mountain altitude 50 full sus to a giant reign x that i built up with lyriks and a DHX 5 air. hardly ANY noticeable difference on climbs for me but the grin on my face is so much bigger on the downs!!!

    johanhej
    Free Member

    Thanks for all the responses, even though it didn’t make it much easier for me :). I realise I should try different bikes, but bike shops selling these kinds of bikes are many miles away.

    I’m figuring the YT will probably be a tad too much bike for me. I might have a look at Codeine once it’s available. Hoping for some good value kits with the ~140 pike. The spesh enduro 29 seems to be handling pretty well after all :).

    njee20
    Free Member

    I could get a carbon Nomad with the same travel though and get it down 5lbs maybe.

    What a daft thing to say. There’s not a 5lb difference in frame weight. You could get yours down if you spent the money.

    OP – I’d be trying it out on your local terrain. I can’t think of anything worse, but I’m not you, nor is anyone else on this thread!

    zero-cool
    Free Member

    I ride my Orange Alpine 160 for everything. I needed a something that could replace my DH bike and my XC bike as I couldn’t afford/keep 2 bikes. At 34lbs it’s a bit heavy for long XC days compared to many, and you feel over bikes if you take round a neutered trail centre but it pedals well and you just get stronger.

    If I could afford another bike I would get a hard tail to compliment it but can’t.

    All I would say is to buy the right bike for what you ride most rather than the right bike for an Alpine holiday. There are a lot of lighter bikes out there with decent geo and strength nowadays that would probably be better for trail centres, singletrack and less hilly places which will still be fun.

    Tom kp

    deadkenny
    Free Member

    njee20 – Member
    What a daft thing to say. There’s not a 5lb difference in frame weight. You could get yours down if you spent the money.

    True, I exaggerated somewhat there 😀 . Actually had no idea how much lighter the carbon is, but looks like it’s 1 lb difference. Now thinking about it I did compare mine built up to a carbon and thought it wasn’t much in it.

    Not that I’m really fussed about the weight. For an AM bike 30lbs is not bad really. Considering I’ve got beefy 2.5 EXO tyres as it’s still in Alps mode and 170 Lyriks on it.

    To be fair though, if I went carbon on a full sus I’d be looking to save weight everywhere so could knock it down a fair bit. But then it would be more of an XC trail thing, which isn’t what I want out of a full sus. Hard tail is fine for that (and even then I’ve got scary thoughts towards a rigid single speed build also!)

    andyrm
    Free Member

    You’ll be absolutely fine with the YT. Modern Enduro bikes are designed to climb pretty well, don’t get sucked into the usual STW hype of being “overbiked” – there’s no such thing. If you are more into Enduro/AM than XC/Trail then it’s ideal. You get a bit fitter on the climbs (and who really cares about climbs other than wierdos anyway?!?!) but can hit it that much harder and go faster on the downs.

    I know someone who has the old 26″ Wicked, and one who has the new 650b version – both absolutely love them, and neither struggles on the climbs.

    Do it.

    JCL
    Free Member

    All relative isn’t it? I’d rather be on a shorter travel 26lb bike that is easier to climb and will be more responsive on flatter trails. Unless your downhills are pretty rowdy you wouldn’t be any quicker on a 170 to 140mm as long as the geo is good.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    +1 JCL

    I’m selling my 160mm to get a 140mm, I reckon it’ll be a better all round compromise for me.

    Keeping a big fork to put on it when required though.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    It depends entirely on your idea of what a trailbike is, for some people it seems to be for riding trailcentres, for others it’s for riding anything at all. Changing from a 160mm to a 170mm fork doesn’t necessarily add much weight, and if it’s well damped it’s not an awful lot of loss of control either.

    funkrodent
    Full Member

    Just to add my two penn’orth, I’ve got a 2013 Norco Sight 650b. Picked it up for £1600 complete bike. Now the spec on it is a bit pants, but the frame is excellent and I can upgrade it over time. With 140 front and back and a 67.5 degree head angle it’s pretty much the perfect do it all bike. I ride it in North Wales and the Peaks primarily and it loves the rough stuff, descends superbly and climbs very well. I know they’re unfashionable because Evans sells them, but they get very well reviewed. Have previously had a 5.Spot and I’d say it is pretty much as good as that bike (praise indeed). Well worth a look at inmho

    cookeaa
    Full Member

    I’m increasingly keen on the idea of a low, slacker angled, relatively short travel bike in the 100-120mm range (26″ wheels please), simply because I think it would fill that gap between the current lot of Slack HTs and a Proper DH bike better than a ~150mm+ “Trail” / “Enduro” bike… The geometry and retaining a bit of “pedalability” being more key than travel in What I understand a Trail bike to be for…

    I can see how adding just an extra 15-20-30mm seems reasonable over time, in people’s heads…. But actually if I were to get to design my own FS bike I’d quite like to do a shorter travel Grrr machine, sort of like the old Yeti 4x but maybe a tad taller/more upright in the seat tube for pedaling uphill…

    But Yeah, 170mm will still be fine, you are getting on for DH-esq travel, however if you think you might make use of it, or it will help you man up a shade more then there’s no harm in giving it a whirl.

    As ever YMMV…

    JCL
    Free Member

    I’m increasingly keen on the idea of a low, slacker angled, relatively short travel bike in the 100-120mm range (26″ wheels please),

    Get your head around the bigger wheels and a Camber Evo is just what you want. That’s the bike I’d have if I moved back to the UK.

    nasher
    Free Member

    nukeproof mega tr

    or even the AM if you really want more travel

    freeridenick
    Free Member

    There’s no getting round it.
    2 bikes really needed

    I ride a short travel Banshee Rampant round Surrey. So much fun with short back end etc

    Nukeproof Mega on away trips…

    Camber Evo is a weapon around Surrey.. Following Tattoo Dave on his confirms that!

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Blimey does a camber evo survive TD’s riding. It’s a better bike than I thought. Does he have the alu or carbon one?

    Northwind
    Full Member

    cookeaa – Member

    I’m increasingly keen on the idea of a low, slacker angled, relatively short travel bike in the 100-120mm range (26″ wheels please), simply because I think it would fill that gap between the current lot of Slack HTs and a Proper DH bike better than a ~150mm+ “Trail” / “Enduro” bike…

    Yeah, me too… Always liked the combo of 160mm front, 120mm rear on my hemlock- party at the front, business in the back 😉 Thought the Camber 26 would do what you describe but it didn’t come close. Not really sure the bike that we’re talking about exists. Having said that, that’s at least partly because longer travel bikes can work so well now… (part of what killed the camber for me was realising that a stumpy evo weighs barely any more, and pedals almost as well, then turns the camber inside out when descending)

    Still to try a camber evo 29- now that looks more like it.

    freeridenick
    Free Member

    standard alu. I was impressed as only got reba’s upfront.

    happily jumped the 20 footer on Donnie Darko..

    The Carbon with the Pikes must be incredible
    I am tempted !

    mildred
    Full Member

    As mentioned above, it’s the quality of the suspension, geometry etc. that’s more important than mm of travel.

    My Nicolai Helius ST was set up with Bos Devilles and a Vip’r. This combination is just fantastic; super controlled, only uses what it needs, low speed damping that offers great support, yet sensitive to the smallest bump.

    This made sure that although it had anywhere between 140mm & 200mm travel at the rear and 160 front, it was never a chore to ride – because you’re never wallowing deep in the travel or in the midstroke, it’s easy to lift and hoik over trail stuff.

    If that’s what you want I think the YT would be a great option that’s frankly unbeatable value for money.

    Incidentally, I now have marzocchi rc3ti’s up front and although low speed damping characteristics are a bit different they still suit the bike.

    leo72
    Free Member

    It’s as many have said, more to what components you have on the bike that makes it fun for trails. I’ve been riding my Santa Cruz Bullit on trails since 2003. Those days the 178 mm rear travel was way too much travel, according to most. Today it still is a lot, but now the competition is getting closer at around 160 mm for AM bikes. I have a RS Lyric 170 mm RC2DH fork on the bike and still the bike climbs well. Here are two movies showing what kind of trails I like to ride over here:

    [video]http://vimeo.com/75658082[/video]

    [video]http://vimeo.com/77350454[/video]

    /Leo

    xiphon
    Free Member

    My DH bike had 170mm each end, until it was ‘retired’ to the garage wall recently.

    I have 170mm forks on my (150mm) Enduro and even though I can drop them to 140mm, very rarely do – only for the steepest climbs.

    I find it a perfect bike for everywhere I ride.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)

The topic ‘170mm for trail abuse too much?’ is closed to new replies.