[Closed] Are people riding shorter travel bikes these days ?

I went, 4 inch, 6 Inch, 8 Inch, 4 Inch

But thats another story

120 is the new niche

I have. For that very reason. I'd rather be having a hoot on a shorter travel bike 90% of the time, and feel a bit under biked 10% of the time than feel like I'm always dragging something around that is going to be much more than I need. I had to get the 6" bike first to realise mind you.

I did ride a 140mm travel bike the over day and it did wallow quite a bit my superlight with 120 forks seems the right number

I'm swapping my 140 travel 31 lb bike for a 100mm travel 22.5 lb bike.

went from a hartail to 4", never seen the point in riding round on a sofa*

*there are one or two people who race DH where it matters, but for joe public why? The trails being ridden now have always been ridden, maybe slower but still ridden.

I went from 5" to 4.5" back to zero

Hard tial for me after getting a Cotic simple it feels almost as smooth but Hardtail suits my er style ( or lack of)

Both my hardtails have soft as in flexi seatposts

Got both, 4" XC/Marathon style whippet in an '04 Mount Vision and a 140mm/5.5" playbike in an '09 Wolf Ridge.
Both great bikes but very different.

At the moment i'm enjoying the WR more but that may be because i've had the MV for 7yrs and the WR less than 1 yr. I must say though that had i bought the WR 3 or 4 yrs ago i would have sold it because i was simply not fit enough to ride it uphill. Nowadays, whilst i'm certainly not the quickest up the hill on the WR it doesn't half kill me.
What would i keep if i could only have the one? I don't know...

I've gone, 140mm F/S, 140mm H/T, 100mm H/T 29er and also rigid 29er! 🙂

120 is the new niche

goddamit i missed by 20mm again 🙁

3.5" hardtail - 4" bouncer - 5" bouncer - 4" hardtail 29er

I've gone from a SS rigid 20er (now sat gathering dust) to a 140mm Full sus so in my case a big no !

ooops, that should read 29er not 20er !!

yes i p/x'ed my 10 stumpy fsr comp 140mm for my 10 anthem x2 100mm.i actually ordered the anthem back in august 2009 (i think).when shop said they wouldn't be able to get bike until feb 2010,i changed to the stumpy.the shop still ordered the bike,where it taunted me every time i went into the shop.the stumpy was a great bike,but way too much travel for where i ride (marlbrough downs,wandsdyke,cherhill,ridgeway) so in the end i px'ed it for the anthem.it's the best bike i have ever owned 😀

I've gone - 4"/6", 0", 7", 4", 5.5", now going to buy a 5.5"/6.5" frame and build up a 120mm hardtail too, most likely a piglet.

I got rid of my xc bike and my DH bike and bought a 6" bike, it's great at pretty much everything. I long ago realised that I was too old and fat to be an XC whippet and too much of a pussy to be a DH god, this new "all mountain" thing is perfect for pootling around the local woods, uplift days, alps trips and it's ok for all day riding too.

I seem to hover around the 150mm mark but angles etc have changed a lot to make my uphill a little easier with only a small compromise on the downhills

Never ventured above 100mm

Never seen the point

It's because the mags say so.
18 months ago, they were saying things like "140mm is the sweet spot for UK trails". Now they're saying "you don't need much more than 120mm for UK trails". Both comments are bawlacks, it's about getting us all buying new bikes.

I just keep all my old bikes so I have pretty much everything covered (except downhill) but then I can Knick the lads bike for that

150mm blue pig. make of that what you will.

i now just ride my transition bottlerocket. feels rad!

It was about 2-3 years ago that MBR insisted that riding was simply impossible unless one had a 6" travel bike. I remember them once memorably describing a steel hardtail as "a good road-based winter hack bike" which caused a right old ruckus on here!

Since then, as suspension technology has improved and the ideal balance of weight/travel/cost has been found, travel has dropped again, most trail bikes are 120-140mm now with 150mm+ reserved more for "freeride".

Even MBR now admit that!

last week i had 130mm on my hardtail. this week i wound the forks down to 100mm. so yes . less travel is the new cool. Until i go somewhere different and wind the forks back out 😉

Oh no am I out of fashion again? 6" full suss and I love it.

Quite happy with one bike I can do local pootles on or do uplift in the alps.

i went 140 to 140 to 140 to 120 but with 150 forks then 100 with 140 forks and now back at 140 and coil lyriks on the front mostly set to 140.

none of it really matters its all good.

Had a go on my BMX the other day for the first time in ages. makes all MTBs seem a bit soft and lazy...

Tools for the job innit! It's rocky and lumpy where I currently ride so I use the big bike, if I want to pootle about on non-lumpiness I take a lighter less bouncy one.................

Went from 120mm stumpy to 0mm SS hardtail then 170mm SX Trail. I Don't ride the stumpy at all now, maybe for the chain reaction at Ruthin later in the year, I like my SS every now and then but most of my riding is on my SX so it's no from me.

we all should have a hardtail I think to brush up on our skills

100mm Kona Kula hardtail in the winter and a Rocky Mountain 150 mm full sus when the trails are nice and dry. Also have an old 80 mm Fisher Supercaliber hardtail and an Intense Tracer 115 mm full sus which see occasional action. Fox 36s and 150mm rear travel are essential for the type of gnar canal towpath freeriding I was partaking in earlier...

I don't replace bikes enough to keep up with trends. 140mm ss hardtail and a 140mm full suss.

Both are fine for most of the riding I do.

My bike choices are mostly decided by what is available at the time. When I bough my full what I really wanted was something shorter travel but when you go shorter you got a lot more race orientated. IF the bike companies designs change next time I buy a bike then maybe I'll go shorter.

Started on a fully rigid in 1995, then put some 80mm travel forks on it in 1997, then went to a 125mm full sus in 2006, 160mm full sus in 2008, added a hardcore hardtail with 130mm in 2008. Now gone back to a 100mm hardtail lightweight race bike. I genuinely thought I was bucking the trend with my latest bike, but it would appear I'm still a fashion whore, didn't realise that the less is more thing was now the trend, hey ho. Like above, it's all good, just riding bikes.

trail centres? the trail centres around here are designed to flow so rear sus just isn't needed and a 100mm fork me does just fine.

I wish there were more slacker head angled shorter travel bikes.

I wish there were more slacker head angled shorter travel bikes.

The bike i use the most has 95mm travel with 120mm forks, and is ideal, and its got adjustable head angle and bb height, but for the alps and peak district i gotta 6inch travel bike which is ideal, also.

I have a GT avalanche with 100 mm forks and a Cove Stiffee with 150 mm forks. They both feel different and it depends how I feel. I do like the Cove even though it's a bit of a tank.

rigid to 80mm to 100mm & 130mm to 140mm, now 100mm 80mm (x2) and 50mm.

so yes.

personally never felt the need to go over 140mm, and the latest build will be 80mm

Recently gone from 160mm to 120mm on the full suss and best thing I have done, it's put a lot of fun and enjoyment back into my riding

shirley this depends on where/what you ride?

or is that just a stupid comment and it's actually dependent on fashion and what's in the magazines?

I ride a HT for everything except for DH, and then ride a DH for DH (but actually, after reading recent comments, I'm considering selling the DH bike and buying a Mojo/Nomad because it's better for DH)

I do feel there is a urge to get long fork bikes (with the burly downhill/all-mountain image)...dare I say "because it will make you look tough"?

how many people are "bottoming out" there 100mm forks on a regular basis?

don't get me wrong if you do the majority of your riding in places that call for longer travel or you can afford a few different bikes then of course go for it.

NO MATTER WHICH BIKE YOU RIDE THEY'LL ALWAYS BE COMPROMISES TO MAKE - ITS JUST A CASE OF MAKING A MEASURED DECISION (with your head not the little demon telling you you'll be a god if you go to Scotland on 160mm bike)

There's no magic bike, the biggest rewards will come from fitness & strength then skills 😉

how many people are "bottoming out" there 100mm forks on a regular basis?

Well I got max travel out of my 150mm fork on an XC ride in the mendips, so yeah riding the same as I was I'd have easily bottomed out a 100mm fork.
For all of the riding I do; natural and TCs, you don't NEED any suspension but it makes it a lot more fun IMHO.
Buying a bicycle to "look tough"? Really?

150mm fork on an XC ride in the mendips, so yeah riding the same as I was I'd have easily bottomed out a 100mm fork

how you figure, sports fan? on properly set up forks the chance of bottoming out would be no different for short or long forks.

suppose I'm trying to say the care free, red bull drinking, jumpdown/go anywhere image (that is shoved in our face in every mag) of longer travel bikes is "cooler" than that of the "normal everyday" xc bikes we all grew up with.

like it or not people do buy into lifestyles.

what's the point of super cars if you don't race them on the track? it's like putting a yacht on a canal.

I'm not having a go at people who ride long fork bikes (only they can justify buying them for what ever reason that may be).

There's no magic bike, the biggest rewards will come from fitness & strength then skills

rode a li'l 100mm hardtail (with a jumping/DH biased set-up) 15 years ago, still do (well.. 95mm if yer being picky).

I run my forks stiff, use all the travel but rarely bottom out harshly.

There's no magic bike, the biggest rewards will come from fitness & strength then skills

depends what you ride.. I'd put it in this order:
Skills, strength then fitness.

There's no magic bike, the biggest rewards will come from fitness & strength then skills

Strength and skills come way before fitness if you ride trails...

picky buggers 🙄 😆

136.7 mm

Nah GW I've go t to dissagree there, even the most skilled rider will be held back by poor fitnesst...

Fittness and maintaining it is a component in gaining and keeping your riding skills, the two go hand in hand...

Personally, if all I had to ride was a long travel barge, I'd probably ride less overall, the thought of lugging 10Lbs extra over the hills on a grim winters day would just make me hit the snooze button, thus I'd get even fatter and "de-skill" more than I have done with my shorter forked HTs which I really look forwards to getting out on each time, they're efficient and reward rider input without feeling all wallowy on the ups...

suppose I'm trying to say the care free, red bull drinking, jumpdown/go anywhere image (that is shoved in our face in every mag) of longer travel bikes is "cooler" than that of the "normal everyday" xc bikes we all grew up with.

like it or not people do buy into lifestyles.

.. oh and some of didn't grow up with "normal XC bikes"

Nah GW I've go t to dissagree there, even the most skilled rider will be held back by poor fitnesst...

held back? if any of those three atributes were lacking it'd hold you back, what's your point? like I said, depends what you ride.. my fitness is pretty shocking just now but I'm still strong. I rode at a DH race for the first time in 6months this weekend.. skills were still there.. fitness wasn't but even rolling a lot of the pedally sections I'm pretty confident my practice times would have got me on the podium in my age cat.

I should imagine for the majority of people XC HT's are a much more common sight than any other mountain bike.

I'm simply saying the the image of long travel bikes is perceived "cooler" than an XC bike.

I also think finess & strength go hand in hand (unless I'm being picky) 😆

0mm to 63mm to 100mm (all HT)

Considered going up to 120ish at both ends, but really need to flog 2 bikes to make space first.

Well Like you GW my general fitness is pretty poor these days, my stamina when I used to race DH let me down really, it wasn't that I significantly lacked skills or couldn't spot a line, but that I should have been pedalling more, I simply lacked fitness...

As I'm sure you know "Race Pace" DH is much more fatiguing than many who've not had a crack at it maybe realise (Nice sweeping statement) I'd say the stamina (Fitness) to keep going flatout for a whole run and to just spin the cranks where you get the chance count's more then having "Strong" arms and legs like tree trunks, your right, skill is obviously equally important but its worthless if you carked after half the run...

These days I ride more XC routes with a mate who's newish to MTBs, he's fit as an Ox, very strong, and he leaves me for dead on most climbs, for the DH sections though I'll out brake and generally out ride him, its always a case of each of us trying to pick up a bit from the other, I'm under no illusions that I'm a "Better" rider, we're on similar bikes and my skill set is only half an advantage, without either of us stopping to wait for the other at the top and bottom of hills, I think he'd get home long before me...

He could learn more riding skills quite quickly if he wanted, me getting fitter will of course take longer, but pay off more in the long run I think...

in DH terms I'd say skill alone can get you a long way, certainly ahead of some fitter, less skilled riders, but to be in wth a chance of a good time surely you need both...

how many people are "bottoming out" there 100mm forks on a regular basis?

Umm if they are set up correctly for you then you are just as likely to bottom out 100mm forks as 160mm forks.

Basically this thread shows that loads of you bought long travel bikes because you thought it was cool, and it turns out it doesn't really suit the riding you do. 😆 😛

in DH terms I'd say skill alone can get you a long way, certainly ahead of some fitter, less skilled riders, but to be in wth a chance of a good time surely you need both...

Use full travel is different to bottoming out.
There is an obvious advantage to increased travel or sam hill would be running 80mm forks.

and there's also (maybe not so) obvious (to you) advantages to shorter travel.. Barel often runs 170mm

reckon Hill would still be in with a chance of winning on certain tracks on 80.

Yeh right.

🙄 Which part do you have trouble believing?

I ride my 160-150mm bike for everything and thats because I prefer it to a HT. I find riding my enduro more fun than riding my old 456 and that Shirley is the whole point of riding bikes!

Im sure I would be faster climbing if I rode an epic but I dont want to because I probably wouldnt be able to do the things I enjoy on it as it would break. Im sure I would be faster and enjoy things more if I were fitter but unfortunately you cant buy fitness and I don't have the time to ride for 20 miles a day to get fit quickly.

Which part do you have trouble believing?

I bet it's this bit:

reckon Hill would still be in with a chance of winning on certain tracks on 80.

backhander - Member
It's because the mags say so.
18 months ago, they were saying things like "140mm is the sweet spot for UK trails". Now they're saying "you don't need much more than 120mm for UK trails". Both comments are bawlacks, it's about getting us all buying new bikes.

Well, it hasn't worked on me. I've been riding 120mm for 14 years. 🙂

p.s. anyone thinking they need 150mm or whatever travel because they bottomed out once or twice and thus would be bottoming 100mm forks all time has fundamentally misunderstood how suspension works/should be set up.

I'm confused - are you saying that 80mm of travel is the same as 200mm or whatever as long as it's set up correctly? Why do people run longer suspension forks if that's the case? Not trolling, I don't understand any of this stuff to be honest.

Edit: From personal experience my 6inch bike is better on the rough stuff than my old XC bike (100mm?) and not as good as my old DH bike (fox 40s)

Are people forgetting the awesome Judy DH forks, that Steve Peat used BITD?

I personally find that I need a different bike for different things (funny that). I went from rigid, to 75mm up front, to 6" all round, to 3.5" all round and recently have been having the most fun on a rigid again lol. I do still have a 6" waiting for wheels though.

Got to say that rigid singlespeed in dry weather on "normal" trails is so much more fun than dragging around a full sus (and my full sus is an NRS so not exactly heavy or sloppy). I just know that rigid SS is naff all good for trail centres or some of the more demanding local terrain.

Horses for courses. There's nothing that comes close to having a 6" FS in the Alps, for example (And yes I've tried it with hardtail and short travel FS).

p.s. anyone thinking they need 150mm or whatever travel because they bottomed out once or twice and thus would be bottoming 100mm forks all time has fundamentally misunderstood how suspension works/should be set up.

Not really, you can't get the same shock absorbtion from a 100mm fork (over the same piece of terrain) as a 150mm fork as you'd have to have firmer springs to give less travel with the same impact force, which means the ride would be less supple. We all know forks should be set up to bottom out every now and then, but saying there's no need for 150's because you're bottoming 100's a lot (assuming they're set up correctly) is nonsense.

I ride a 170mm/160mm Reign X.

I use it for Downhill AND cross country. Sure, it's not as good on the climbs as it's 32lbs, but it's a whole load of fun on the descents. I dare you 80mm carbon forked 30 speed 600mm wide bar lycra wearing boys to keep up with me on the descents. I guarantee i'll also be having more fun doing it too.

BTW, who cares what bike you ride, and what travel you have. As long as you're having fun, who honestly gives a toss?

I dare you 80mm carbon forked 30 speed 600mm wide bar lycra wearing boys to keep up with me on the descents. I guarantee i'll also be having more fun doing it too.

Lol I found I just can't ride fast enough to make a longer travel bike that much fun any more. When you have a long travel bike it irons out all the surface detail, so the trail has to be nicely shaped and hit at speeds approaching spinning out in your hardest gear before it's even close to fun. Don a rigid and all the little details become fun again, just getting across a stream crossing is hard work. You no longer lunch over logs like they're not there, you have to navigate them, pick the best route, set it up and work for your fun.

(I'm genuinely having this connundrum currently as I consider downsizing the fleet)

Lol I found I just can't ride fast enough to make a longer travel bike that much fun any more. When you have a long travel bike it irons out all the surface detail, so the trail has to be nicely shaped and hit at speeds approaching spinning out in your hardest gear before it's even close to fun.

you talk some amount of shite!

Lol indeed 🙄

you talk some amount of shite!

Not sure I follow, which bit do you not agree with? (Bearing in mind it's about what I find fun, not you).

What's your highest gear? (smallest sprocket/largest chainring)

44/12

As I say, it's pretty rare that I find it fun to ride much slower than my fastest speed down stuff. Generally, on most trails I ride, if you're going much slower than full tilt it's just a bit dull. Stick me on a rigid and somehow everything becomes quite a bit more taxing and takes a lot more concentration. My idea of fun is either fast swoopy trails or really technical descents - long travel doesn't really help with fast swoopy trails and while it helps on technical descents, it seems to take some of the pleasure out of it. But with the rigid I enjoy even riding the local park trails as they regain some interest again.

Ha Ha.. you really should get yourself a race license and sign up for the BDS and once you've won that go and kick minnaar/Gee's arses at World Cups, although you probably find the pace too slow to be any fun.
FWIW There's not a DH track in the UK you'd spin out 36/11. (and for me it's a big enough gear for any even vaguely interesting Alpine descent)

GW it was clearly not a technical measurement of the best speeds, my point was simply that I find I can't ride fast enough in the UK to find it interesting anymore on a long travel. Having spent a fair few weeks in the alps it kind of spoiled the natural trails in the UK for me (to the point where I got bored and took a few years off MTBing), the only things that come close are some of the better black runs at trail centres (though they seem to insist that I be forced to jump at every 3rd turn). One or two of them really work nicely and feel good on a 3.5" bike but on my old 6" bike they just felt flat and uninteresting. Is it my fault I often find myself in my hardest gear struggling to find it exciting? It doesn't mean I could compete in a DH run, or that I have any skills (though I rarely find people who can keep up with me on downs, even if my technique could be classed as "cumbersome"!)

Used to ride a 120mm fork, 100mm rear FS bike locally, now riding a 150mm forked hardtail.

Am I riding a shorter travel bike or a longer travel one?