Thinking about getting a short travel full sus bike that will be suitable for 'regular' riding in the Peaks, Lakes, Trail centres etc. So i guess it's a full sus frame around 100-125mm travel but able to take a 120-140mm fork with a 67-69 degree head angle.

So far my list goes something like this:
Trek Fuel EX
Cannondale Rize
Commencal Super4 (2010 model)
RAM nduro
Spesh Stumpy FSR

What else should i look at? Not wanting anything as 'burly' as an Orange five or Morewood Shova as i want it to come in at the 27-28lbs mark without having to spend silly money on upgrading to light parts.

Pitch or enduro maybe?

Why the desire to put the wrong fork on it? Suggest you test ride first before swallowing the magazine obsession with head angles.

RM – Pitch or Enduro – short travel?

ST4!

110mm out back, will take 120-130mm up front, and it's a rocket ship in the singletrack!

glenp – why would that be the wrong fork? i have a 130mm fork on my hardtail, so wouldnt want to lose much on a full susser but dont feel i need the 6 inches that the mags tell me i need out back.

GaryLake – good call on the ST4.

No idea of head angle, but the Giant Trance (and probably the Trance X too) takes a longer than standard fork very well.

My Trance (100mm rear, 120mm front) is brilliant for trail centres and the Dales.

Whyte E120 might fit your requirements.

Because generally full sus bikes have rear suspension of a similar travel to front. You are talking about slapping a longer fork on to a short travel frame.

Sounds to me like you are in the market for a regular mid-travel trail bike such as an FSR – so I'd advise testing a few. I don't think you will find a need to make the fork longer than the bike is designed for.

If you like a really stable, chuckable bike that is great fun to ride try a GF Rosco, although that isn't short travel.

I thought enduro had shorter travel then stumpy, and pitch had same travel..? Or am I very wrong?

VERY Wrong mate…

Both Enduro and Pitch are 150mm I think…

I'm currently using a Blur XC (Alu, not carbon) with coil Pikes on it wound down to 120mm. It's awesome.

Using a PUSHed Fox RP3 and the VPP linkage, it feels like a 5-inch travel at the back when it actually only has 115mm. I tried it with the forks at 100mm and it was all wrong. So I understand where you're coming from.

Blur 4X? Might be a bit heavy though…

Yes, I meant the epic, not the enduro. I've still seen plenty of people riding pitches XC, heard it was good for that sort of thing. Maybe not then.

I fail to see why you should match travel front and rear, what difference does that make!?

Running Pikes on a Blur XC is just daft IMO though and:

it feels like a 5-inch travel at the back when it actually only has 115mm

That's less than half an inch difference anyway!

And… since when was 120mm 'short travel'!? What are we coming to!

Running Pikes on a Blur XC is just daft IMO

I wanted a 120mm coil fork with a bolt-through that doesn't have Bomber issues, need serviced every 15 hours. This was what I came up with.

I wanted a shortish travel frame that I could razz on the downhills but wasn't too heavy, as I can't afford a race bike. Seemed to fit the bill nicely and would handle TransWales, TransScotland and the odd Merida.

That's less than half an inch difference anyway

My point was that it stills feels more balanced with a longer fork.

Second the Orange ST4 suggestion too. Heard good things about them!

The point is not that you need to match travel (obviously hardtails don't) – it's just that manufacturers tend, with a few exceptions, to design frames that way. A 120mm rear travel frame will typically be designed for 120mm up front. And so on.

My point is more why would you put the wrong fork length on from the word go without even seeing what the handling is like with the fork that the designer intended?

"Normal" 120mm trail bikes climb so well these days that there's a great deal of choice just in that niche.

Third the ST4. Great grin factor – got an '08 model with 130mm fork and tips the scale just over 28lbs in 'trail centre' mode – the '09 ones are a bit lighter.

A Blur 4X (if you can find one) with forks lighter than Pikes e.g. Magura Thor and lightish wheels should be down around 27-28 lbs. Mine is a smidge under 30lbs (on unreliable scales) with air Pikes, DT5.1s on ProIIs, XT etc.

Next years Commencal Super 4 is available in carbon flavor and with 120mm forks, 100mm out back and next years Lapierre X-control is also 120 up front and 100 out back.

A good few months in and loving my ST4 here. It is slightly nippier, slightly lighter, slightly more sprightly than the 5 – feels like a short travel bike most of the time, yet has some more travel 'up its sleeve' when the going gets steeper/rockier/faster.

I have the 15mm bolt through fox's on and they are ace. The slight wiggle from the back is only really noticeable when you really push hard (and I am 14st) – be great if orange did a Maxle rear on it or slightly stiffer…

What chapaking said – I have a trance with 100mm on the back end,115mm forks up front (recon u turns),nice wide bars (syncros bulk 710mm) & it feels fantastic for me.Is it just me or are short travel trail bikes the new long travel trail bikes ?
Must admit to having looked at the orange st4 more than once.It could be the next bike when the trance goes,but that wont be for a while.
My 2 penneth.

Have a look at the Chumba XCL. Very stiff, 5" travel 68 HA and tough as old boots! I have a few frames on offer too, email me for details 🙂

Any pics of your st4's fellas ?

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=st4&w=88555557%40N00

I'm a fan of the 2008/2009 Stumpjumper FSRs, I rode an '08 Expert everywhere in the alps and the UK – including the Pleny DH run, and it was awesome. Obviously bigger bikes do the bigger things a little easier, but they are stupid weight and their suspension feels perfect to me – possibly the best trial bike for the UK when value, backup (lifetime guarentee on frame, unlike Santa Cruz…) and performance are considered. Test ride one – their only negative is their abundance 🙂

as njee said. 120 out back for 120-140 forks is nothing like short travel!
the st4's get good right ups. that or the super 4. if buying a frame.

if complete then the cannondale would be 1st choice… then the trek.

not exactly short travel though!

though i don't see anything wrong with having wound down pikes on a 115mm blur…

i admit i do like the look of the ST4 a lot but they are quite expensive, non?

And ok, maybe the title shouldnt have read 'short' travel, it maybe would have been better as 'shorter than the mags would have you believe is required'. I certainly dont think i need as much as 140mm travel which puts me off the Five and the new Stumpys. Might see if i can get a cheap 09 stumpy in the sale.

anybody got any experience of the current super4? I know it was compared side by side to the ST4 in a recent edition of the mag. Would the Super4 benefit from having a slacker head angle like they are doing for the 2010 version?

My comment re the Blur was not so much the travel, but it's a light weight XC race frame with coke can tubing, short HT, long TT etc, coupled with a beefy trail fork. Wouldn't be my choice, thats all. Each to his own.

As mentioned, the stiffness out back on the ST4 definitely has a limit but it's much stuff than a Commencal and only noticeable if you normally ride something proper stiff like a Five…

The ST4 is good. To the point where if they can get the back end as stiff as a Five I wouldn't not even be remotely surprised to see an ST5.5 or something…

That said, I think the ST4 works because of it's geometry and notably BB height probably as much as the linkage so perhaps I'm wrong about a longer travel ST bike…

Haven't really felt "under biked" on my Mongoose Canaan yet. Running it with U-Turn Rebas (85-115mm) up front, and it's 100mm out back. Great little bike, the "freedrive" system works really well, bags of traction and feels more than 100mm if pushed. Mine's the Comp model and so isn't exactly light, but not heavy enough to worry about!