what chakaping said. i ride a 160mm bike because i like to. i ride it up and down pitch faster than most other people on smaller bikes, you just need to be fit. i wouldn't want to do an xc race on it though.
Bike Forum
Too much bike/travel - just exactly what does this mean?
-
Posted 4 months ago #
-
I would definitely go the two bike route if you can. XC whippet for races and big XC days out and then you can go for a hooligan bike without worrying about practicality. I agree with ianpv about big bikes. They can winch uphill and when is climbing fun anyway but it is the traversing and flat stuff that makes them feel slow.
Ride one for a while and then it is always great fun to get on the other. My twopenneth, wrong probably.Posted 4 months ago # -
Lots of generalisations but "bigger bikes" tend to have more burly frames and forks, heavier duty components (thinking wheels and tyres mostly here), slacker geometry and a cockpit that overall has wider bars that are closer to you and near or above your saddle height. All those attributes are great for "bigger riding" over more challenging terrain.
And there is the rub - by "great" I guess I mean possible to travel more efficiently and faster at a given skill level that you could on a more xc orientated bike which implies riding quickly for the given location is a good thing. Thing is, all the above characteristics make it not as "great" as an xc bike in less challenging terrain. Both style of bike can get from A to B over the other's preferred terrain but both will be a little slower than the specialist.
[contentious] In my opinion the better the rider you are the more this balance changes. A well skilled rider can cope with a hardtail where I'd struggle with a 160mm full suss. Similarly a cardio vascularly fit rider could really make the xc orientated position pay on long flat sections while the slow, heavy less fit rider will plod along no matter what bike you put them on. ergo the less capable rider is less easily "over biked" [/contentious]
For me I found for the sort of riding I do a 100mm full suss set up "racery" with a long stem a flat bars made the most sense and felt the best. My road racing background makes me happiest stretched out with my arse in the air, my lack of balls means I don't tackle anything too challenging and my aging bones means being shaken to pieces on a hardtail all year no longer has much appeal. I could ride a hard tail but 100mm of skill compensation works for me! I had a long travel bike and just couldn't get used to the ride position for the majority of my riding. I have a burly and lightweight set of forks and wheels (and wider bars and shorter stem in the wings) to change the character of the bike depending on where I am and who I'm riding with and that works great for me.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I keep looking at the Anthem, its probably all I need for where I live TBH.
Posted 4 months ago # -
ive had a few 160mm based bikes.
modified Cove Hustler
Turner 6 Pack on modified rockers
nicolai helius AM.all of them great in their own right, but for 95% of my riding, there's nothing i cannot ride on my HT whatsoever.
however, I have found trail nirvana on a new nicolai helius AC 29er. 120mm of suspension and it's superb...... for 95% of my riding...
there is no right answer, but i suspect 120/140mm [26"] 100/120 [29"] is adequate for most of the UK 95% of the time....
Posted 4 months ago # -
float - Member
you could check out those full sus ragleys that are supposed to be coming out (or are out already, i cant rememeber) they can take a big fork but have relatively little travel at the rear.
they won't be available for about a year (which is realistically when my finances
willmay be able to cope).but i don't really wan't a big fork either, they're tall, heavy and expensive.
i've been tempted by a specialized camber 29er, but i'm not sure it'll stand up to (slow and crap) Dh racing, and it seems that 3 extra inches of wheel costs £600...
Posted 4 months ago # -
Better to burl-up a 120mm bike than make a 140mm all light and xc-mince?
Maybe a warranty dept would disagree, but I think a well-tuned 120mm bike with bolted forks, wide rims, good tubeless tyres and the right bar/stem may be the perfect FS bike for most UK trails. A bit less than may be ideal for the Lakes, a bit more than you need for southern singletrack, but perfect for the rest inc N Downs.
Little chance of feeling 'over-biked' then - ie the dull, no real input needed, isolated from the trail feel that you may get riding a big bike on tame terrain.
To me 'over-biked' is not what another rider is if they ride a 150mm AM bike where I ride a rigid bike, it's just how I'd describe the polar opposite of how I like to ride. I prefer doing more with less, I guess you'll know if you like that challenge, or I you prefer a bike feeling 'ready for anything' when 'anything' may only come along a few times a year.(I ride a rigid ss 29er on the same trails as someone who always rides 6" plus, Minions, dropper post, Lyrics etc. We have fun riding the same places. Neither of us are over or underbiked, but we may feel that way if we swapped rides : ) He also rides places like Spain or Verbier more than I do..)
Posted 4 months ago # -
Just remember - people won't talk to you if you buy a Specialized.
Personally I have spent a lot of time up there on everything from a burly Turner 5 spot to a Superlight and more recently a Lynskey 29er. I prefer the Lynskey!
Posted 4 months ago # -
Some interesting comments so far.
THM - I ride the same trails as you with a group of mates and we all have different makes of bikes with differing amounts of travel. The bikes include 100/120mm HT's, 120/130/140 and 150mm FS and I reckon that the amount of travel is not so important but the fitness and skill of the rider is. Personally I think that 160mm and above is a lot of travel for the area and more importantly, for the kind of riding we do. It's the style of riding that you do that starts to influence the amount of travel that you need and your choice of bike. IMO.
What I think is very important is fit and comfortable, especially on a big day out (if that's your kind of riding) then anything between 100 and 150mm of travel will work fine. It's important to set the suspension up to suit your kind of riding too. 3 of us had a 6 hour ride round Tilford/Guildford/Farnham/Frensham today and all the bikes worked fine regardless of the amount of travel, although I was on my HT and it definitely isn't as comfortable as my 150mm FS.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Personally I like how a hardtail feels but if I was going down the full-sus route for your riding I'd be thinking shorter travel and lighter but with a reasonably slack head angle and reasonably steep seat tube, and using big enough tyres, good brakes and stiff forks and wheels, and a dropper post, rather than something bigger but with lighter wheels/tyres.
I can't imagine anything I wouldn't ride down on my relatively burly built Soul that I'd be confident to ride on something bigger. The 'smaller' bike may be slower downhill in an absolute sense, but just as much fun if it has tyres, brakes and geometry that you trust.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Thanks everyone for really interesting comments. Very helpful and appreciated.
piha - just trying to imagine your route - the G'ford = F'ham is easy enough as I guess that's just NDW (do you cycle the FP bits?).
So Tilford - Guildford - Crooskbury, Puttenham etc or Thursley, Mousehill, G'ming? (not sure how you would do last bit there unless Eashing, C'house, sort of route)
Posted 4 months ago # -
Lots of comment about being able to ride anything on a bike no matter how 'small' or 'big'. Fair enough and I accept the idea of a compromise bike. However I can ride anything (except gaps and big drops) on my rigid bike but often I have to go slowly . I can ride nearly everything faster and have huge fun on my Soul and I can ride everything on my Orange Blood even faster and have even more fun.
But on a sunny day, going out for a big ride with big views nothing beats the rigid bike, even climbing can then be fun. The answer is more than one bike.Posted 4 months ago # -
THM - We didn't take a particularly direct route so from G'ford down to Artington, then NDW to Puttenham and down past Rodsall Manor, over to Gatwick and head towards Cooksbury Hill onwards to Bourne Woods, Pierrepoint Farm, Frensham Ponds (the sand was just about rideable with all the rain we've had), then over to Spreakley. We kinda turned round then and made our way over to Elstead along the Frensham BW and followed the river to Elstead. Couple of pints in the Donkey then made our way up to the Sands and the NDW (cheeky bits included) to West Warren and climbed up to the Hogs Back. Quite a big ride especially with the ground conditions as they are.
There are a lot of trails round that way and we chose that area today cos it holds up well in the wet weather. Mostly bridleways but plenty of stuff to keep you entertained if you know where to look and keep off the stuff popular with the horses.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Saw a few tracks on the steps down past Rodsall Cottage towards Rodsall Manor this morning on my run - could have been you guys!!
Intrigued that you went via RM and Gatwick. I normally swing off Puttenham Common by the Lakes, then cross the road for some short little single track to Britty, then Crooksbury (sshhh!). Never been past Frensham on mtb though.
Agree that this area is good in the wet. And the trails are not mashed as in SHills.
Posted 4 months ago # -
All this 'too much bike' stuff is bollocks (until you start trying to ride XC loops on a proper downhill bike at least). I regularly ride 30 mile loops (including the surrey hills) on my 35lb Nomad and that's fine. Just makes you fitter.
Normally the people that say it are the same people who insist that anyone riding a Champery DH WC course on anything other than a singlespeed rigid on-one 29er wearing SPD sandals is a big girl and calls people who wear body armor 'storm troopers'.
The key thing to remember is that if you're worried you have too much bike you're just not going faster enough downhill
Posted 4 months ago # -
It's an endless debate this one, on so many forums. Personally I think the real solution is more than one bike.
But to my surprise my Spesh Camber with a little beefing up has handled everything I have thrown at it. I'm no Danny Hart but I consider myself a handy(ish) Downhiller from a Motocross background so I don't tip-toe down the rough descents and I don't consider my riding style because I'm on a shorter travel XC orientated bike.
So far the Camber has taken it all with relative ease and is a truly enjoyable super light ride. If it's on your consideration list then I'd say put it at the top.
Posted 4 months ago # -
I went from a Trailstar (rides best with 125mm forks) to a Bullit (180mm each end) and liked it to start with, but now I'm back in the UK I think the Bullit is way too much. It's probably a bit faster, but it feels quite wallowy and makes all of the trails I ride feel slower, especially ones that need lots of pedalling. Makes the trails feel too easy as well. I'd love to try a short travel full sus that's designed for downhill/freeride.
I guess the only thing to do is look at the trails you're riding, test some suitable bikes out and make up your own mind.
Posted 4 months ago # -
...So far the Camber has taken it all with relative ease and is a truly enjoyable super light ride. If it's on your consideration list then I'd say put it at the top...
i'm not listening, la la la - la la la - la la la - la la la....
(it's bit pricey, and it's got rubbish kit on it, but i've had a go on one and it felt ace, but it's a bit pricey - repeat to fade...)
Posted 4 months ago # -
the dual ply super tacky 2.5 dhfs on the bike yesterday made it too much bike
now ive got a touch of shin splints.
Posted 4 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
