How much travel is 'long travel' for a hardtail?

Bike Forum

[closed]

How much travel is 'long travel' for a hardtail?

16 posts & 13 voices | Started 2 years ago by poppa | Latest reply from crackhead

Tags:

No tags yet.

poppa - Member

LT hardtails are all the rage at the moment, just wondering where the definition begins.

IMO 130 is the bare minimum...

80-100mm = XC Hardtail
130-160mm = LT Hardtail
180mm+ = **** stupid

Bearing in mind that this is all a load of pointless 'about to go home twaddle' and doesn't mean anything in reality. Glad I don't ride 120mmm or else I wouldn't exist.

EDIT: I've changed my mind.

80-100mm = XC Hardtail
120mm-130mm = JRA hardtails
140mm-160mm = LT hardtails
130-160mm = LT Hardtail
180mm+ = **** stupid

All IMHO of course...

(I ride 130)

Posted 2 years ago #
rs - Member

these days I would say absolute minimum is 140mm but even that seems quite normal these days for a general use bike so LT must be at least 150-160mm.

Posted 2 years ago #
pitduck - Member

mine`s 125

Posted 2 years ago #
The Swedish Chef - Member

JRA ? "Just about right" with a cryptic typo?

Posted 2 years ago #
james - Member

JRA = Just Riding Along

Posted 2 years ago #
poppa - Member

... Just Riding Along... i.e. a bit of everything. Too burly to XC race, too light to DH but more than enough for most of people.

Posted 2 years ago #
Eccles - Member

It's all down to perception: Anything that makes you mutter "dear god almighty" and swear that the next bike will be a full suss after you nose off a drop and suddenly find that the head angle feels like -80 degrees, but which has the handling characteristics commonly associated with livestock when going downhill and those of a unicycle going up is probably a LT hardtail.

Posted 2 years ago #
The Swedish Chef - Member

ta,

120 for just riding along!

Posted 2 years ago #
RDL-82 - Member

tend to spend most of my riding at 120 on a 456 ss and never feel its too little

Posted 2 years ago #
poppa - Member

When I say JRA I don't mean mincing, just the kind of riding most of us do...

Posted 2 years ago #
Nick_Christy - Member

what does determine which length of shock can be used with which bike...?

i was told i shouldnt go for anything larger than 100mm?

nick

Posted 2 years ago #
rs - Member

Nick, the manufacturer will have designed each frame around a certain for length, 20mm here or there probably isn't a problem but adding a much longer fork will change the handling and put more stress on the frame than it was designed for.

Posted 2 years ago #
ahwiles - Member

i really can't see the point in using longer forks than 100mm onna hartail.

i honestly think it's gone a bit daft now, people started putting long forks on their bike and found that they liked the slack handling, manufacturers responded by designing bikes around longer forks, and we had to resort to increasingly long forks to get the slack handling that was missing in the first place. it's become a vicious circle.

i understand that everyone is different and that's a good thing, but right now there's only 1 manufacturer offering a hardtail frame that's nice and slack with short forks. (on-one, in case you din't know)

i don't understand why my full bounce xc trail bike has a head angle of 68ish degrees, but my hardtail frame's closer to 70degrees.

it's obviously a conspiracy by fork manufacturers; they're paying off the frame designers to only design bikes with increasingly-stupid-steep head angles so that we're forced to buy increasingly-stupid-long-expensive forks to compensate....

er,

i'm sorry, i went off on one a bit there didn't i?

Posted 2 years ago #
alpin - Member

140+mm i'd consider long travel.

i sometimes run Revs at 130mm on my Sanderson (they say 100mm) if riding steeper technical stuff, but wouldn't consider it long travel.

Posted 2 years ago #
nickc - Member

i really can't see the point in using longer forks than 100mm onna hartail. (sic)

I remember not that long ago, meeting a chap who was astounded that I could ride a bike with a pair of Manitou X-verts on it. They were 100mm travel, at the time admittedly Pro DH bikes were only at 150mm or so, so to him (in the mid 90's) 100mm seemed ludicrous.

Using Thors now, 140mm, seems OK, could do with more occasionally

Posted 2 years ago #
Northwind - Member

"i honestly think it's gone a bit daft now, people started putting long forks on their bike and found that they liked the slack handling, manufacturers responded by designing bikes around longer forks, and we had to resort to increasingly long forks to get the slack handling that was missing in the first place. it's become a vicious circle."

Agree with this, I use 130mm on the soul for the geometry not the travel, I think most of the time i'd be happier with a really well controlled 100mm fork, as long as the geometry was the same as I have now.

Posted 2 years ago #
crackhead - Member

enough to flatter your riding due to a lack of technique and skill,
then add more for quietening your imagination...take off a bit for pedaling uphill,put some back on for image,bit more off for bob...bit more off to quicken the steering,bit more off for frame warranty issues...add some for the trip abroad,bit more so I can put them on the full sus...

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine

Bike Forum

How much travel is 'long travel' for a hardtail?

Topic Closed

Don't miss…

Singletrack

Website & Forums

Exits