I’m thinking about upgrading my 10 yr old Marin hardtail to a full suspension and there are some good deals on a couple of 160mm bikes at the moment. I know it is more travel than I need for the riding I do (I’m not going to be doing any enduro races any time soon) and was really looking in the 130 to 140mm range but from a value point of view and the level of kit available I’m quite tempted by the longer travel bikes.

For those with more experience of full suspension than me, would I really regret going for the longer travel bike pedalling around places like Cannock?

I have never ridden Cannock, but I’ve ridden plenty of other trail centres. A short travel hardtail is perfect. A short travel full sus like a Giant Anthem would probably also be a good choice.

Trail centres are not steep enough of fast enough for 160mm travel bikes btw. Pick the right tool for the job

Trail centres are not steep enough of fast enough for 160mm travel bikes btw. Pick the right tool for the job

Ahh…. That’ll explain why I’ve hated every trail centre I’ve been to 🙄

Don’t be tempted if that’s the kind of riding you enjoy. I’d say 160mm will be too much. I’d look for a bike wit around 120 -140mm 650b or 100 – 130mm 29er.

160mm bikes really are designed for hard steep fast trails nowadays.

I have a 140mm full sus trail bike, used to have a 170mm full sus enduro bike, and have recently built up a 100mm travel hardtail. Guess which is the most fun round my local trail centre (Dalby). Clue. Not the first 2.

Ignore DT, he hasn’t ridden a bike off-road since your old Marin reached school age – and long travel bikes have got a lot better since then! 😛

However, there are a lot of good bikes in the 120-140mm travel realm which will go uphill and along as easily as your hardtail (and grip better on technical climbs) and demolish it downhill.

I don’t know what your budget is but the new Bird Aeris 120 is a lot of bike for the money, whichever spec level you go for, and the geometry and suspension design are both very well sorted.

I wouldn’t want a 160mm bike for Cannock.

It felt a bit of a slog on my (heavy) 110mm bike.

Stick with plan a, I reckon

I’ve got a 160 bike I regularly ride around Cannock. It’s great. Over the top for most bits(well, all of it really, but it’s nice in some of the humungous braking bumps) but certainly doesn’t feel like lugging a dh bike up a fire road. A lot will totally depend on the bike anyways.
Would a 130 bike be more appropriate? Yeah, probably, but I’d rather have the bike that’s a bit OTT for a lot of my riding, with a bit in reserve, and epic for the bigger stuff, than be totally under biked on the gnar.

I’m sure a Spark or something would be faster, but it’s not what I’m used to, and it’s not what I like riding. And I’m only riding for fun, not times. Remember that 1 160 bike is not the same as another. My Transition Patrol Is a lot more fun on those sort of trails than my Capra was, or the Enduro I had for a bit.

If, however, that’s the gnarliest riding you’ll ever do, then I’d say it would be quite OTT. But the right bike will still be a crapload of fun, and happily save your bacon at times that a 100 mil bike would have spat you off.

I reckon a 120mm FS 29er is a UK sweet-spot, although all the riding I did at Cannock in the past was on a 140mm fork HT.

Ignore DT, he hasn’t ridden a bike off-road since your old Marin reached school age

Urgh, the last bike I rode off-road had drop handlebars 😀

My point still stands though; pick the correct tool for the job. Sounds like some of the above posters pick a bike based on their annual trip to the alps, and then spend the rest of the year lugging it round trail centres.

FTS. Some of the most fun I’ve had on a bike was Morgins downhill track on a hardtail. Inappropriate, but better than dragging a big full susser round grizedale every other week night.

My point still stands though; pick the correct tool for the job

Some of the most fun I’ve had on a bike was Morgins downhill track on a hardtail

😆

😀 whoops!

TBH it’s not that simple. My main bike is a Remedy 29 with 150/140mm of travel but it carries it well so it’s no great hardship to pedal it around, and it’s still fun to ride on easier stuff. That last one’s the important bit IMO, some big bikes are monster trucks that can take the fun out of easy trails.

My old bike was heavier, blobbier to pedal, but most of all it could just kind of steamroller things so it could make easier stuff feel a bit pointless- I almost never rode it on my local trails. It’s a personality trait of the bike more than anything else…

I really like the shorter travel idea but in practice it’s never worked for me… Partly because you end up using a lot of the same parts- Pikes or 34s, similar wheels and tyres, same drivetrain… So my longer travel bike’ll be lighter than some shorter bikes just because it has a fairly light frame.

I have found that increasing travel just makes the trails boring, am happier at trail centres on either my hardtail or bandit than i am on the covert which has a fair bit more travel.
It just takes the challenge out of it, and yeah i can go faster on the big bike but what’s the point when it makes trails seem uninspiring.
Have ridden my dh bike (200mm) and covert (160mm) at the fod uplift and others and it’s way more fun on the covert.
That being said there are places (revo) where i take nothing other than the dh bike

@Northwind: For the OP’s use case you wouldn’t need 34s/pikes and burly tyres though. You’d have a lot more fun on a 120mm bike with 32’s and some faster tyres.

Thanks for the comments – I’ll steer clear of the bargain and go with something more suitable. Aeris 120/Whyte T130/Cotic Flare were on my original list and pretty much at the top end of my budget. 2016 Cannondale Habit with the lefty fork is a bit cheaper but less modern geometry I think – any one with an opinion it?

You’ve only got to look at the best selling bikes in the U.K. None I bet are long travel machines , first bike to mind T130 very capable . Too many platforms the industry are flooding the market with options , never have I needed and wanted for more than 130mm on my bfe and 120 on my segment. 160mm tend to be gravity oriented very slack and a tad slow across the ground and climbing, steer clear of direct buying pay a visit to the local bike shop most ride and will ( most ) be able to get you demos.

You’d use the same tyres on either bike- no reason to put burly tyres on a bike that sees light use, just because it happens to be longer travel.

And for 120mm, a set of 120mm 32s is almost the same weight as 34s (because the 32 is effectively an older model- the step cast 32 is lighter but only comes in 100mm) 34mm is becoming the norm for 120mm.

(you could go with a Sid or similar and save more weight but there’s also tradeoffs there, and you’re talking a couple of hundred grams. I like my Sids but I don’t think I’d have them on any sort of trailbike. I liked my 120mm Revelations but they were heavier than 34s)

It’s all kind of by the by because the OP is looking at 130-140mm, or longer. But it’s interesting to me, how much better these “mid weight” parts are now, it’s been a sort of creeping quiet benefit. Today’s mid-travel and lighter long-travel bikes are ridiculous.

I love the ‘physics’ type answers! 🙄

If the mainstay of the riding is Cannock, a 100mm 29er HT is more than enough.

If you’re after a bit more squidge then a 100mm FS is pretty much gonna cover everything unless you like bombing down rock gardens and shooting gaps

My musings may asssist 😀

here

Well, I don’t really agree with the term “over-biked”, but it doesn’t seem worth getting a bigger bike just because the bigger bikes seem decent value.

It seems like you might as well go for the level of travel that you’ll use – it won’t be a huge disadvantage to have it (if, say, you were using it for the odd big day or in the alps once a year!), but it will be a small disadvantage, little bits of extra weight here and there…

What about a shorter travel but more aggressive bike? Transition Scout, Smuggler, or a Spesh Camber type bike?

As others have said, have a look at the riding you do the majority of the time and get a bike appropriate for that. However personally I would also ignore all of the advice saying you’ll be over-biked all the time with 160mm travel or that riding in the uk doesn’t justify a bike that size and you only need it in the alps, personally I think it’s rubbish. Of course it’s always a compromise, but the majority of 160 bikes pedal and climb that well these days that there is little disadvantage to carrying round the extra travel, the weight penalty is alo pretty minimal. I’ve been riding bikes of that size for the past 6 years and the only time I’ve felt it’s too big a bike is somewhere like sherwood pines if I’m riding with newer riders (which it is). Even at pretty tame places like llandegla I use all the travel, and having ridden there for years on 120, 140 and 160 travel bikes find it just as much fun / if not more (ride faster / harder) on a 160 bike. If you are only having one ‘do it all’ bike I think there a great option and use mine for everything from 30 mile rides round the peak to downhill runs in wharncliffe to the alps. But again, look at a bike appropriate to your riding, just don’t be put off 160 thinking they’ll be hard work

Much depends on the bike and its geometry – a short/mid travel bike with modern geometry will look to outperform a mid/long travel bike with conservative geometry while also improved pedal efficiency.

I happily rode Cannock on my coiled Nomad but I wouldn’t ever want to make a habit of it if it were a regular destination. If you plan to spend hours down Style Copse then perhaps there’s a case for a long travel bike otherwise sitting in the 120mm – 140mm bracket in any wheels size will cover for almost all UK usage.

If you want to plough through stuff and g enter ally catty speed then 29″ is a good option. Fancy a bit more fun then 27.5″ could be your thing. My main bike option now is a Remedy 29er with a 160mm fork and find that perfect for pretty much all the types of riding I need. Even reasonably efficient on the road.

As long as any chosen bike isn’t very specific to one discipline – ie out and out downhill bike, then I don’t believe that one can be on the ‘wrong’ bike as such.

It’s more about the rider and how much skill and fitness they have.

If you want to get the absolute best out of bike and rider then yes maybe nailing the perfect bike is for you but, for 90% of the bike riders that frequent trail centres I don’t think this is the case.

I’ve ridden a lot of centres and Cannock is the one I go to nearly every week (closest) and would be happy to ride any of them on anything from a 100mm HT to a 160mm fs.

The only thing I’d reccomend is a dropper post as it allows for a multitude of body positions that make some of the sections much more fun.

Consider the geo of the bike as well as the travel. ive got a transition suppressor and I doubt if I had a scout I’d be any quicker or slower on the downs mainly cause im a bit crap. Having a short stem and a 65 head angle does give more stability and confidence on the downs however.

I also ride the downs as fast as I possibly can and the extra travel comes in handy for any mistakes I make lol

I think propke come at this from the wrong angle, it’s not “over biked”, it’s “under trailed”.

The only thing i wouldn’t do on my 180/160mm bike is an actual XC race! For everything else, i’ll just be a tiny bit slower up the hills, which, as it’s not a race, matters not one bit 😉

Back in the day when any bike with more than 150 was a 40lb monster, with no low gears, terrible pedaling position, and suspension that was mostly stiction rather than real damping, then yes, you’d be better off on a more racey affair. But in 2016, on any 160mm bike built in the last few years, and especially a nice carbon blingy one, no worries imo!

(the other good reason to stay with short travel is if you are budget limited, but these days, thanks to the likes of Canyon and YT, even that’s pretty marginal)