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

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?

coffeeking - try riding in the Lakes. Even the easiest trails make "black grade" trail centre routes look like a walk in the park.

Out this weekend on the Quantocks with young lads, all much faster on their hardtails than anyone I know (close to my age) is on a full sus.

coffeeking - try riding in the Lakes. Even the easiest trails make "black grade" trail centre routes look like a walk in the park.

I used to ride in the lakes every other weekend (that's a lie, but usually at least once a month before I moved to Scotland), cheers. My point is not that the black trail centres are harder, but that they're the fun ones on a full sus, and not because they're technical (because the suspension irons most of it out), but because they're often very very fast and swoopy. Natural trails are more fun, certainly, but again suspension irons out a lot of the fun (the fun that doesn't require brain removal to ride) AND they're also not fast and swoopy, meaning a double fail.

Coffeeking

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.

That is the reason why I have just got rid of the dh bike. Too much bike, even for the dh tracks I ride. Just flattened them out. Made them boring to ride. I have down sized the fleet for the reasons you have pointed out.

What sort of trails are you ladies riding with 160mm tow paths/trail centres, i used to ride everything on a 100mm Hardtail that includes Laggan Black/ Ben Lomond, now ride the meanest mother****ing trails in t'Lakes and ecosse and find it way more capable, i think we are talking crossed wires here you guys bought big bikes for trail centres and bridelways, at the end of the day you can get down the trail riding anything, but did you feel like like a riding god at the end.

I guess it all comes down to what everyone gets from riding in the end. Some people get an adrenalin rush from riding fast, some like to nail a tricky section slowly, some like the smooth flowy sections and jumps of man-made trails. I like them all to some extent, but I do find anything more than about 3" needs to be reserved for the most hardcore of trails, be they natural or man made, otherwise it's just too simple. I didn't realise this a few years ago and was lulled by the confidence inspiring long travelness. After a few years (and a long trip to the Alps) I just got bored of riding here.
And since I spend spend most of my time riding local trails that are not DH monster runs, it makes more sense to have a shorter travel frame. Doesn't mean I don't want a DH bike for the times when I can get to an all-out survival of a DH route, just that most of the time it's actually a negative.

I've spent a bit of time thinking about my riding recently, thinking about why I don't really enjoy it any more. This is part of my conclusion.

110-120 rear with 130-140mm front seems to be where I've settled in the last few years afer everyting from hardtail to 9 inch dh bike. Most stuff I ride isn't steep or technical enough to warrant a bigger bike and 26-27lb is a nicely pedalable weight.

although a pounding on the descents at the weekend has me considing a 30lb 6 inch bike with lyriks again!

sefton

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"?

Too true. Looking in the back of What MTB etc and the categories that they pigeonhole bikes and riders into there is always a danger that the ego gets in the way!

Oh yeah aggressive trail ripper !

As for travel I've always hovered around the 5-6 inches. Although the old San Andreas Mountain Cycle had very dubious suspension and put me off for a long while.
[img] [/img]

And no ones mentioned the zenith in suspension design
[img] [/img]

Different people want different things, but for me about 120mm seems the sweet spot. I have a Superlight with 100mm at both ends, and a Blur Classic with 115mm rear and DT Swiss XMC130 on the front. The latter is noticeably better downhill even on local trails, at somewhere like CYB it is much more secure, but you certainly lose out a bit on the climbs or any non-technical stuff, and that's with trying to keep the Blur as light as possible and with forks that partially lock out. They both weigh within a pound of each other (27lbs ish) and have the same wheels/tyres. I can't imagine wanting more travel at either end unless really focusing on the downs alone.

On the other hand I've pretty much given up with the hardtail - the Superlight, set up slightly stiffer than the Blur, is so capable even in the wet or on-road I just don't have a need for the hardtail. I'm a firm believer in full suss - just lightweight, well set up, and without too much travel.

Is it not the case that Frame design has caught up. You now find the same sort of geometry in a 120mm bike as you used to find on a 160mm bike - i.e. it used to be longer travel = slacker angles - now it's not so clear cut.

And as the geometry is a huge part of how a bike rides you can now get away with less travel and less weight, so easier to get up the hill, less wallowy etc etc, still fun on the downs.

And the argument about trails being ridden on rigid bikes meaning no one needs more travel is surely the same as saying everyone should just have a model T ford. It worked didn't it?

And for the record, i've gone
0" hardtail,
5" Old enduro
0" Prince albert
6" Old Bullit
4" Blur 4X
5" Heckler
6" Nomad / 0" Blue Pig
5" Five

I've found the five is a lot more lively than the Nomad, but you don't get through the rough stuff quite as quickly. Fun all the same though!