People have become accustomed to charging into challenging terrain with abandon, expecting to find traction and triumph that often happens solely because of these immensely capable bikes, not because of the rider’s competence.

Response: Nothing you enjoy doing on a bike is wrong.

Nothing you enjoy doing on a bike is wrong

even skids?

especially skids

The same argument applies to riding everything on a single wooden wheeled dandy horse, it’s a pretty poor case to put forward.

Oh do fuuuuuuck off. It’s a bike. Long travel short travel rigid. They’re all bikes must we re hash this same old tripe every week….oh look I’ve fed the troll!

I would agree with the premise that long travel does need less skill than short, it can get you out of trouble and it can hide line choice mistakes, BUT does it really matter for the average rider?

If you enjoy riding then that is what matters, isn’t it?

My only concerns, long travel when it goes wrong it goes wrong, harder and faster and more painfully.

If your racing seriously then having the right bike makes a lot more sense, be it long travel, short travel, hardtail etc etc.

Doesn’t that argument result in bare foot fell running?

Isn’t it just like saying you can do everything on a hardtail or you should learn to ride and handle a bike on flats before spds and you should hone your skill on a bmx before getting an mtb?

Bikes are fun, end of.

Approaching it in the same manner again and again for years on end can take the edge off the fun, breed bad habits, get you stuck in a rutt ability wise.

What keeps the fun for me is variety, I love ploughing through the rough stuff on my fulls sus, I love getting loose on the same stuff on my xc hardtail, however one wouldn’t be so good without the other, this has been the case when I haven’t had a hard tail.

Looking at the trail in a different way keeps the spice there, one day I’ll plough through stuff, another I’ll treat it as a pump track, another I’ll treat it as a row of jumps, seeing where I can gap.

What I’m trying to say (not tooting my own horn here), is because I have a certain level of competence, competence that allows me to pick and choose the way I ride based on what I fancy doing, I have more fun. It also keeps things fresh and interesting.

I have the view there is no boring trail, the limiting factor is the ability and creativity of the rider. Any trail is as hard as you make it.

/tangent

My main point is relying on suspension hinders progression of ability, breeds bad habit, stifles creativity, thus long term reducing the fun.

Longer travel just means you can get away with mistakes at higher speeds which is funner and therefore better. Also long travel hurts my arse less which is always a bonus.

“You don’t need all that travel, it just rolls over everything”

“Get a 29er, they’re great, they roll over everything”

It’s all a bit tedious, the whole wheel size/skills compensator nonsense. Try as many bikes a you can. Ride the ones you like. Enthuse about the best ones. And accept that others think differently.

I am rad to the power of sik and I’ve never owned a full sus..
In fact the one time that I rode one it felt like I was a giant walrus floundering about on a roller skate crossed with a pogo stick..
So that’s cleared that up..

next

I smell troll.

Its a flawed argument because what ever bike you ride if you ride to the limit of your ability it takes the same amount of skill.

why is it trolling? It’s a valid discussion, linked to a real article on pinkbike. maybe every saying troll rides a 160mm mince tank and can’t bunny hop 😛

I’d say ride what you want but I always advise people looking to get into biking to get a hardtail or maybe a short travel full susser and learn some skills, rather than getting something that lets you tank over anything without having to learn any bike handling.

+1 for fun, can’t deny that that is why I ride…

… but I wouldn’t hesitate to say that I wouldn’t have as much fun (nor would I know how to ride as I now do) on my “enduro” rig now, if I hadn’t started off on a cheap, entry-level hardtail with 100mm up front, only arriving at a full-on DH bike via a steel hardtail with 140mm fork and a full-sus with 140mm both ends over a period of 4 or 5 years. The DH bike is now a memory only after having down-sized.

I’ve found the most fun on a smaller-than-full-on-dh bike, so can completely understand the original author’s point.

I don’t believe this. Longer suspension means you are hitting things at a faster pace (or at least able to), but even with more suspension you can’t just relentlessly ‘charge into things’ with wonton disreguard. This will lead to punctures, damage, accellarated rider fatigue and ultimately will end up in a crash. You still have to exert slills to ride over stuff quickly and use the suspension to maintain momentum and speed which you’re then carrying into the next berm or bend – where more skills are needed to take those carrying the extra speed.

Its different skills, but not necessarily more or less.

why is it trolling? It’s a valid discussion, linked to a real article on pinkbike

I’m not trolling. CTBM link to the article of FB; I thought it would make an interesting discussion on here.

bigjim – Member

rather than getting something that lets you tank over anything without having to learn any bike handling.

Where can I buy this magic bike, it sounds ideal.

I’m really enjoying my biking, strangely, on a bike with no suspension…

It’s a viewpoint with which I have some sympathy but that’s probably because I have a low scare threshold so the idea of getting a much more capable bike (read “longer travel”) and then having to ride faster/steeper/more sketchy trails to get the same buzz from it doesn’t quite add up for me, especially as I’d probably still lame out of overly technical trails and restrict my speed to that with which I’m comfortable.

Others like to be able to look at a double black and ride it knowing that it’s pretty hardcore terrain to get that buzz and don’t really enjoy riding a less hardcore terrain on a ‘less capable’ bike even if the skill requirements may actually be similar.

So, as ever, what works and is fun is different for different people.

Those trying to say what is and isn’t allowed are basically just the Fun Police.

It’s an interesting point I think but it’s so hard to discuss without sounding like you are saying how good you are or sneering. Ultimately ride what you want and have, there is no right answer, if you are smiling then you are on the right bike. I do see a lot of poeple on big bikes, and by big I mean 160 type, who don’t pump or flow but just plow. Is that bad? I don’t think so, even on the World Cup DH circuit there are riders who plow more than others who pump and jump. A sort travel bike does encourage you to learn that pumpy-floaty thing… unless you just keep the same style and slow down, but it is just a style and isn’t the only way to ride.
It’s also true that a good 150mm bike is a lot faster than a DH bike in a lot of places, I know that having chased better riders down loads of trails when I’m on my 150 and they are fully dh’ed up.
What was the point? I’ve forgotten. Ride as many different bikes as you can, it’s ace and I think you learn loads from riding different bikes, maybe that was my point.

sounds like he wants one of these

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Kona-Process-111-DL-Review-2013.html

who cares about mad skillz whats the most fun way to ride

I think the pinkbike article is interesting but wide of the mark for these shores.

DH bikes are still pretty niche in the UK. I’m sure the majority of us ride what Canadians and Americans would consider to be short travel anyway.

Even at Enduro events I’ve been at 140mm seems to be the average. There is also a really strong hardtail “scene” in the UK.

I think the article is really just arguing about the right tool for the job, which makes sense

Just to add –

What do people consider more dangerous and more likely to result in big injury, on the same trail?

Skilled rider, less suspension

Or

Unskilled rider, more suspension

Mental boosts are a big reason for going for extra travel, but is it really the safe thing to do if your skill isn’t there?

PS I think its harder to rider longer travel skillfully, so when you’re learning skills, why make it harder for yourself? Short term gains, long term plateau IMO

Suspension systems are supposed to make certain aspects of riding easier and more comfortable, obviously beyond a certain point there are diminishing returns when you expect to be able to ride back up a hill so pick your own level of acceptable compromise, somewhere between a 18lb fully rigid XC machine and a V10 you’ll find your own “sweet spot” for the type(s) of riding you want to do I’m sure…

Can you be “Over biked” or “under biked” for a bit of terrain?
Yeah probably, but it’s not that big a deal really, we can all own bikes that are completely “appropriate” to all terrain so at some point you either end up having to pedal harder or be more selective with your line choices, and both cases can actually be useful learning / training experiences.

If this argument had real merit then the technical development of the bicycle would have halted at or before this point:

But it didn’t. As is the way with human beings, we tend to invent something then refine, improve, modify and tweak it to the point of being almost unrecognisable when compared with the starting point…
And then a certain minority of people will always start bemoaning that solution for making life too easy…

Because some people don’t care about skill and just ride for fun, and sometimes having nice expensive parts is fun and desirable. Why cant people get it into there heads that’s its none of there businesses what someone else chooses to ride or how to ride.

deanfbm – Member

Just to add –

What do people consider more dangerous and more likely to result in big injury, on the same trail?

Skilled rider, less suspension

Or

Unskilled rider, more suspension

Neither factor is all that important imo, it’s not the rider’s skill or lack of that’ll cause a crash, it’s whether or not they push (themselves or the bike) too far.

The Rt Hon MussEd had it covered, with his first four words.

Same argument could be made for pretty much every aspect of modern MTBs where d’you draw the line, geometry? Gears? Brakes? Dropper posts…? All have been improved/developed incrementally over the years.

Still watch people fall off/ crash so it’s not having that much of an impact, clearly

Who gives a shit?

As long as you’re enjoying riding your bike, whatever travel it may have, then that’s what counts.

Although the average standard of riding ability has slipped dramitically in the UK lately, with the introduction of these long travel AM bikes which are designed for big mountain riding in Canada, but are used over here for mincing round Swinley forest.

I think people just lack common sense these days. Learner drivers and motorcyclists start off on smaller machines. The same should apply to mountain bikers.

What do people consider more dangerous and more likely to result in big injury, on the same trail?

Skilled rider, less suspension

Or

Unskilled rider, more suspension

Why are these the only two possible choices?

And why is suspension travel seen as such a key thing anyway? I’d say the rest of the geometry of a bike can have as big an effect on handling and rider confidence as lots of springs… 10-20mm more fork means almost bugger all in reality, -2 degrees head angle, 1/2″ more wheel base and 1/2″ lower BB will have a much more noticeable effect on someones technical riding than bumping them from 120 > 140 > 160mm of travel, it’s just a numbers game…

My own experience is that wrestling a longer travel bike about on trails is only of any real benefit if it lets you tackle something much more challenging, like “plowing” into a field of rocks an roots, it’s more likely you’ll just tire yourself out on the smoother, pedally bits than suddenly get “out of your depth” in a rock garden.

Less skilled / Novice riders just tend to be keener on the brakes, put them on long or short travel bike its lack of pace, “fearing out” and tumbling sideways into some bracken before they get to those scary trail features that’s normally the biggest issue…

I don’t really believe anyone should have to earn or justify the bicycle they choose to ride, you’ll know if it works for your needs or not, and that is sufficient IMO…

it’s not the rider’s skill or lack of that’ll cause a crash, it’s whether or not they push (themselves or the bike) too far.

Push themselves too far where? Beyond their ability? AKA their skill level? In all walks of life the most skilful and accomplished will still make mistakes so I can see the point you’re trying to make, but I’d counter that – first and foremost – skill is the main factor in determining whether you crash or ride off into the sunset, regardless of the bike you’re on. The bike you choose for a particular trail will determine quite how much you need to rely on that skill.

This is an old article that prompts interesting argument/discussion and therefore justifies its existent in this 21st century world of ours. It makes a refreshing change from wheel sizes 😀

I read the article when it was last posted on here and took it as saying pick the right bike for your terrain/riding and don’t be fooled into buying/riding the latest thing that is in fashion or being sold to you. This could be different wheel sizes, more suspension, more gears, ect. So I think anybody who thinks it is about commenting on other peoples bikes is off the point.

It for example states that slacker angles make scene on super steep stuff but is rubbish for most riders terrain which is perfect sense. Am I correct in thinking that skiing was all about speed and equipment followed the alpine downhillers but now more skis are broader, easier to turn and more fun as people wanted fun not speed. Maybe it will go that way with bikes.

Interesting debate. My first MTB was a Cube hardtail, so called RFR geometry, and it became rapidly apparent that it and I were very nervous on rocky steep loose stuff. I kept stuttering to a halt and went over the bars more times than I care to mention. I eventually raised and widened the bars and shortened the stem and found that if you tweaked the geometry it was still twitchy, but I was no longer as scared. Then I got a full suss. The slacker angles (and possibly the longer suspension, who knows) immediately instilled confidence. It taught me that you could ride down stuff without crashing or hurting yourself. I then went back and rode the same lines on the HT and discovered that you need to be e bit more circumspect, but that it was the confidence that made the difference. I swapped the XC style steep fronted Cube for a Soul frame and discovered there was little the 140 bike could do that the Soul couldn’t, so much so that I have now gone to a bigger bike and am keen to learn to ride more drops and jumps. My point? Confidence helps you to progress, and part of that might be having the right kit for the job. I love my new mince tank, but it made ‘degla dull as ditchwater last time I rode the red…. so perhaps it’s helping me to get better.

now more skis are broader, easier to turn and more fun as people wanted fun not speed. Maybe it will go that way with bikes.

Doubt it. Most on here are happy to ride hardtails with 160mm forks round trail centres. I think people just lack common sense these days.

I’d say from my own experience it depends where/what you are riding, and your experience/skill as a rider?

generally, a more experienced rider can get away with riding a shorter travel bike on challenging terrain because they have the skill and experience to do this. I met guys in Whistler riding 100mm bikes as fast as the guys on DH bikes.

I’ve ridden 200mm travel bikes on this terrain

I’ve ridden 100mm travel bikes on this terrain

its about the rider, not the bike.

longer travel bike will keep the ride more comfortable and provide some margin of error when mistakes are made, but you get it wrong on any bike you are still going down hard, and no amount of suspension travel will stop that happening!

Ok I was a bit harsh, it may indeed be ‘an interesting debate’ but it’s one that has absolutely been done to death since suspension bikes became available. So that makes it boring.

JUST RIDE WHATEVER BIKE YOU HAVE.

stilltortoise – Member

Push themselves too far where? Beyond their ability? AKA their skill level?

Or their bike’s ability. But it’s never a lack of skill that causes a crash, it’s attempting to do something that requires more skill than you have. Unskilled riders can ride within their abilities, highly skilled riders can exceed theirs.