So after a few years of relative (and total) mtb abstinence waiting for and then recovering from a hip op I’m back in action – and it feels good!

So of course now the new bike itch has taken hold! Riding at Afan a week ago reminded me I’ve never been that enamoured with my current bike (Turner Flux) – too short, too steep and tyre choice for rear and current forks limits tyre wide more than I’d like. Suspension is not top of my lists of reasons to change; I both like the DW system and the travel is sufficient for my type of riding. At the same time it was apparent that those out on the same trails as me (Whites Level, Blade – that’s kind of my sweet spot for technical vs distance, adrenaline vs skills limits) were all riding bikes with more travel than my 105/120mm offering. Whilst I don’t need more travel I don’t think, just more suited geometry, I’m not adverse it it either. I was amazed on a demo day how well long travel bikes climb these days – well at least once you reach the point with your riding that climbing xc whippet style is not in your future.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that 120mm travel (and the right geometry) would suffice and indeed be sensible but I might just go bigger(140 to 150mm) anyway for the hell of it.Specifically looking at the Bird Aeris 120 and 145 for the moment but nothing is ruled out. Of course some demoing is my next step (and why not, it’s always fun), but just interested in others opinions.

For context – trail centre red and natural equivalent is my preferred riding and although I live in the south downs and local stuff is tamer my days of SDW bashing are probably behind me whilst blacks are not off limits. Happy with my wheels in the air but I don’t go out of my way to find that sort of riding. I’ve done the long travel hardtail thing and my hips says he’s only interested in full suss off road from now on.

I’ve got one thing to add.

T130

Winstanleys bikes.

Well, that’s 2 things i guess.

Every now and again when thinking about suspension travel I get a ruler out and look at the difference between 120mm 130mm and 140mm.

It’s not a lot really! So I think it’s a lot more about geo and how the travel is delivered.

I am now on a 100mm hardtail after years of 150/160mm full suss bikes. The terrain I now ride is a little tamer due to moving to a different area, but I still ride and enjoy bigger days on the HT.

I will be getting a new full suss at some point as I have a dodgy back and the rear bounce helps on longer rocky days, but I will be looking at the shorter travel but still slack bikes, but wouldn’t avoid 140/150mm either.

Long way of saying that it’s more about the package than the travel.

I’m running 150r160f, although I wouldn’t say I regret the choice, there are trails that are noticeably less fun.
On flatter trails with small natural features, where on my old hardtail i would have been popping off roots and mini kickers, the big bike irons it all out. However on the steeper and rougher trails I’m having a lot more fun and going a whole lot faster.

I’d also say that I’ve really not noticed much of a difference in climbing ability between the two, surprisingly.

I think ~140mm is the sweet spot for most trail centre reds, can’t really speak for the 100-120 range though.

Bigger travel bikes can be fun sponges (© Northwind I think).

Nope. More travel opens up different riding styles and lines.

Only if you can’t ride a bike…

When I got my first full suss it was a choice between Trance (140) and Reign (160). I went Reign so I could ride “big stuff” and it was a great bike to take to the Alps but overkill for 95% of the time. If I had to have just one FS it would probably be 140 although the longer travel bikes these days pedal very well. I am a Cotic fan so a Flare or Flare Max or a Transition Scout (I have a Covert as my 160 bike) I’d add to that list.

I bought a SC Nomad. I can see it was a great bike, but it was too much, too long and too slack for most of my riding, wanted to go alarmingly fast on the bits where it was helpful and just generally made me sad.

I swapped it for a mid-travel hardtail and was immediately vastly happier.

🙂

Only if you can’t ride a bike…

^^^ This is fair, but if you’re unrealistic about whether you can ride a bike, that leads to a lot of dissatisfaction 🙂

Your post could have been written by me (apart from the current bike – I was coming from a 150r/170f Specialized Pitch) and I demoed/bought the Aeris 145. The 120 would have been perfect for about 95% of my riding, but the 145 wasn’t enough of a compromise on that to not get it so that I’d have the extra for the 5%, IYSWIM!

Demo both, Bird are great.

I had a similar dilemma recently. Having got used to “new school” geometry on a hardtail I was finding the 120/105 travel and steeper angles on my Blur XC just too limiting/scary. Looking at alternatives was an inevitable balancing of travel and weight. I ended up with an Orbea Occam AM. 140mm front and rear should be more than ample for my riding, which has sounds similar to yours other than I plan to use it for some big mountain routes in the Scottish Highlands too.

I like my 26 flux and the rear travel at 105 has always felt sufficient.

I picked up an aluminium 650b flux 2nd hand before xmas and it is awaiting some 130mm pikes before I build it up.

Answering a slightly different question – but with hopefully a helpful answer – my last bike purchase was a 140mm/130mm Transition Bandit. I had thought about getting a bigger bike, but felt it would be overkill for most of my riding. The Bandit is ACE and is the closest I’ve ever got to “one-bike-to-rule-them-all”. Sometimes I crave a big wheeled, shorter travel mile muncher, but I’ve never felt under-biked. Granted I’m not a full-on downhiller, nor someone who spends much time at the local dirt jumps, but I’ve happily ridden the bike at Farmer John’s and Macc Forest DH. I’d be more than happy taking it to the Alps for some “all mountain” (or whatever we call it these days) riding.

Sometimes when I go a little faster than usual, the bike shows it still has plenty more to give. 26″, double chainrings and 4 years old and I fall in love with it a little more on every ride.

A friend had a Flux and moved to a Cannondale Trigger (?) and much prefers it.

I just went from a 29er with 140mm front and 135 rear to a 29er with 160mm front and 165mm rear. For the way I ride and where I ride most of the time its great, this is steep, techy, jump stuff, climbing is fine just tweak the compression as it doesnt have lock out.

But I think this is down to the quality of the suspension over the old stuff, before I had a revelation fork on the front and now I have a lyrik, the stiffness of the fork was noticeable straight away and the fork itself just works better, on the rev I was 3 or 4 tokens and 90PSI on the Lyrik I havent had to add any tokens and am now playing with how low I can run it.

Same on the back, I had a Fox float RP23 with the CTD, I could only run it in descent and overinflated to stop bottoming out and destroying the shim stack! the new bike has a monarch plus which again is like night and day.

Maybe if the bike which had shorter travel had better parts I wouldn’t have needed to upgrade, but I have and so far I am very happy!

If someone wanted to swap my 26″ rocket (150mm travel) for a flare, I wouldn’t say no. The bike is great fun and doesn’t ruin trails at all, but it turns out I can’t ride for toffee and the rocket raises expectation levels too high

I had a Pitch for a few years, it was absolutely brilliant on a downhill in the Peak or lake district. But for a lap of Swinely it was utterly hell. Yes it could take different lines, carry more speed on the bumpy bits and generally be a lot of fun on the fun bits. But for the other hour or so of a lap it was just purgatory because all you could do is spin the pedals because there was enough suspension that there was no point being active on the bike and you went faster just monstertrucking through everything.

Only if you can’t ride a bike…

The counter argument is that hardtails also get more fun (and faster, and more capable) the better rider you are, on an even steeper curve.

I’d get something with ~5″ travel, it’ll be under biked, but 99% as fast as a ~6″ bike on a few occasions, but it’ll keep everything else fun too.

I went from 100mm 26″ Anthem to 140 27.5 Trance. TBH don’t really notice the extra travel that much, what made a far bigger difference was going from 71 degree head angle to 67. Penalty is the Trance is 3.5 lbs heavier.

Meta TR short travel trail bike with very good geo

I went from a 170/160 650b bike to a 140/130mm 29″.

So far, it’s faster everywhere. It’s rougher, granted – i’m sure in the Alps the bigger travel bike will be more suitable, but that’s a week or two a year.

The combination of geometry & shorter travel is the driving force for me. My bike is slack, low & reasonably long, which is what I wanted.

It’s probably a bit too light for the tougher racing stuff I do, but i’m sure it will survive 🙂

Good point made by oikeith regarding quality of suspension. My 2013 Bandit came with a Fox CTD shock which blew through the travel at the slightest provocation. I played with spacers and air pressure with very little success. I eventually gave up and had it PUSH tuned. Massive (and very positive) difference and a lot cheaper than buying a longer travel bike.

The Flare’s good- great probably- and way better than I’ll ever be which is why I prefer HTs, I’m just not good enough or brave enough to be able to push the bike and the amount I’m physically able to put in to riding is roughly the same as what I get back out of riding a HT (or very short travel FS, like 80-100mm or so short.)

So, to conclude, too much travel is too much travel.

Close the thread 😆

edit- anyone know if you can limit the stroke on an X Fusion air shock?

Demo’d the new 120mm Scott Spark the other day. Geo is perfect, really fun and playful but pedals well and the travel soaks up bumps well. For Afan if I had to choose a perfect bike it would be a SC 5010 (£££) closely followed by the much cheaper Spark.

Combination of Geo/suspension evolution/honesty about your capabilities seems to be moving some riders away from longer trail. I’ve ridden my mk1 Aeris over 4000km in two years but probably ‘needed’ the travel for about 100km of that!

The Aeris was noticeably better (for that read, more composed, faster and less scary) at Antur than my Flare Max but not by as much as I expected. And the Flare Max – for me anyway – was more rewarding in the FoD/Malverns where I do most of my riding.

I reckon the Mojo3 (140/130) is close to the sweet spot for me. Not because of the travel but because the DW link makes it great for climbing and descending, it’s pretty light, it’s not super long or super slack. The last point is the most important, for <10% of my riding that’s not so good, for the other 90% it absolutely is.

Every bike is going to be a compromise somewhere. Whatever the marketing says 😉

TINAS – I rode my Pitch round Swinley a couple of times; I think “utterly hell” is over-egging it a touch 😉 Mind you, I used to use it for bimbling along bridleways and still enjoyed riding it, so what do I know..! I guess it all depends on whether you can still have fun being on the “wrong” bike.

I’m on a 150f/130r 4 bar trail bike and have been for almost 2 years now. It has a reasonably steep head angle though (it came as a 130/130 but I had the Revelations extended to 150) and I’m fancying something which descends a bit better.

I probably don’t have the skill to justify it and money maybe better spent on done coaching, but I fancy a new toy.

Going to demo an AirDrop Edit and Bird Aeris 145 and then decide which to go for (as long as I like them over what I have already).

Think the 160mm bikes I’ve considered seem to be a bit heavier and more DH orientated – the Bird and AirDrop seem to me to be an ideal compromise.

Capra / Mega 275 etc all look like they come up quite heavy which could be a chore to pedal uphill compared to what I have (meant to be 13kg if the manufacturer weightbis to be believed).

I’ve got a dual positon 140/160 fork on my Trance SX, could be an option?

Sort of the opposite for me – I was shopping for a mid travel (120-130mm travel) 29er last year and ended up getting a Mega 290, which has 150mm of travel. Before I demoed some longer travel options I was expecting that they’d flatten out too much of the interest on mellower trails but that wasn’t really born out by my experience.

I’ve not regretted getting the Mega so far, far from it, but then I do have a shorter travel bike so there are some rides that it doesn’t go on. But given I haven’t tried it on such more XC-oriented rides there’s no actual evidence for that decision. 🙂

When I compare my Flux with my Epic it’s not the geo that’s limiting it’s the wheel size (kittens!). Stuff at Aston that I blast over on the Epic has the Flux tied in all sorts of knots because the wheels fit in the gaps between the roots.

I’d prefer a 100mm/120mm 29er to a 120mm/140mm 27.5.

I think “utterly hell” is over-egging it a touch Mind you, I used to use it for bimbling along bridleways and still enjoyed riding it, so what do I know..! I guess it all depends on whether you can still have fun being on the “wrong” bike.

OK, I was being melodramatic. The fast bits were a lot of fun, more fun than on a short travel bike, and made it good fun overall once in a while (or for sessioning sections). But Stickler, seagull, etc which make up 90% of the loop, and almost all the off-piste stuff, is more fun on a smaller bike.

Thanks for the responses. Interesting points. I think some testing is required. I guess part of the best fit solution is to think of the riding you probably do most of and then imagine the stuff you would most likely do as well. For me when I bought the Flux it was probably trail centre as core riding with the exception being SDW in a day or maybe an xterra triathlon as the other stuff. Now it would more likely be something lumpier rather than something longer and flatter as the alternative which I guess leans towards a lumpier bike.

I went from a 160mm Banshee Rune to a 140mm Devinci Troy because I thought the Rune was a bit of a chore up hill (but mainly because I had a new bike itch)
Most of the time on the Rune, I was ok and didn’t need more or less travel – i think I used the amount of travel as an excuse for being slow up hill.I was underwhelmed on my first ride on the Troy as I thought the lighter bike would make it easier to get up to the top of the hill. 2lbs lighter bike and 20mm less travel – I should zip up the hills right? This wasn’t the case, it was all down to my fitness (going from 2×10 to 1×11 didn’t help but that’s another gripe)
The main difference for me is the handling. The troy is super fast to change direction and is superb for tights and twisties, whereas the Rune just ploughs through things. If I had plans to do uplifts or going to Alps/ whistler etc, I think I would’ve been happy with the Rune and work on my fitness.
I guess my point is that the amount of travel isn’t the main factor.

I agree with much of the above. Travel difference makes next to bugger all difference these days but geometry makes more.

It’s also just about what the bike brings out in you. Get a bike you’re excited by instead of a spreadsheet bike.

I’ve got a Rocket 275. Amazing bike but at the moment, I’m 95% riding my hardtail just because it’s what I’m drawn to at the mo.
Climbing ability is the same. I’m knackered on either…. 😆

convert – Member
Thanks for the responses. Interesting points. I think some testing is required.

Cotic spring party is This Weekend

Used to quite enjoy riding my 200mm Voltage FR around Cannock

It was like taking a rocket launcher to a knife fight but great fun smashing it down/over/through everything

Recommend that you demo lots. I demoed the aeris 120 wasnt for me, coming from a 26″ five gone to a 29″ segment. I’m on the south downs too, shoyer travel bigber wheels was the way to go for me. I found the five great most of the time but too much of a lump for longer all day rides.

I think wheel size is a factor as is rider size, if you’re xs 27.5 probably makes more sense, if xl 29. If you happen to be over 6′ and near birighton you can have a go on my orange.

I used to be really into the “less travel” idea, it makes sense- if lots of travel makes things easier then less should make things more interesting. And it should be lighter and easier to pedal, right? So I bought a Camber and all it was, was a shitter Stumpjumper. It pedalled identically, weighed about the same, wasn’t any more fun on easy stuff so the only real difference was how much worse it was at harder stuff. Hurrah. You could achieve exactly the same effect by setting up your suspension poorly.

But there are big bikes that are great at little riding, and big bikes that aren’t- tbh these days I don’t think it’s rocket science to build a 150/160mm travel bike that’ll be great at hard stuff, but making it fun on glentress red is more of a skill. So I just got a bike that can do both of those things rather than getting something that’s intentionally worse.

The whole notion of demoing bikes is one I believe in, but it has its pitfalls. I remember demoing an Orange 5 back-to-back with a Yeti ASR-5. On paper the Yeti was the one I thought was the bike for me, but the Orange was the one that I had the most fun on. The thing is, I’d done a reasonably hard 90 minutes on the 5 before having a go on the Yeti. Would I have come to the same conclusion had I ridden the Yeti first?

The lesson: don’t beast yourself demoing a bike and then go straight out and demo another, and wonder why the second demo feels hard work 😆

The lesson: don’t beast yourself demoing a bike and then go straight out and demo another, and wonder why the second demo feels hard work

Very true!

I did a demo a few years ago (of an Orange 5 coincidentally) and all the way around I could only think about the stupid 620mm narrow bars, the silly thin grips and the creaky bottom bracket they let the bike out with. The poor frame didn’t get a look in.

I also have a demo where they let me keep the bike for a week. I swapped the tyres, bars and saddle so it felt like mine with the noticeable differences being the actual bike. So much better.

Just to add a bit of balance, I’m much happier on a short travel FS than I would be it’s longer travel equivalent (Transition Scout vs Patrol).

Not a huge amount in it in terms of weight, the Scout just edges it, and does climb better, but the ride qualities when descending I found quite different. The Scout wants to go over everything, the Patrol is more effort to ride in that way, and is easier to plough through stuff. Patrol much more stable at speed. Loose is fun though, so for me the Scout works. I can ride it closer to its limit than I would the Patrol.

Could someone else check – is Bird’s website broken at the moment?

link

OK for me Convert