[Closed] Possible to feel over-biked on 140mm travel?

own a 140r160f trail bike. Overbiked in some places of course, under biked in other of course.

I'd rather have a bike to 50 weeks of the year than for 2 if you get what I mean, which is why I have a HT also a DH bike to build up and a proper XC machine coming when funds allow....

It's a slightly odd term. I would say that when riding seems unchallenging, the pleasure from the thrill is lost.

It rather depends on the trails you are typically riding and your skill/confidence/speed.

Overbiked is a stupid term generally used by people who can't afford a bigger, better bike or don't have the skillset to ride more challenging terrain fast. Note I say ride it fast, not just ride it.

Get the bigger bike and if it initially seems harder work on easier trails, the bonus is that you'll get fitter.

I've always believed in spec'ing the bike for the biggest use you will do and getting fitter to mitigate any weight gain.

I've always believed in spec'ing the bike for the biggest use you will do and getting fitter to mitigate any weight gain.

What this guy said.

You can always run less sag and a semi slick

I disagree that overbiked is a stupid term. It doesn't necessarily mean the bike is too much for you, just that it's too much for your regular trails.

I went from a HT, to 100mm FS, then up to a 140mm FS. I used to do a lot of trips to Wales, Scotland a couple of times, and once to Spain. For these the 140 was perfect but once these trips became less frequent 140mm felt like complete overkill for the likes of Swinley (and is IMO).

I then built a hardtail which was great fun and eventually sold the 140mm and HT and built up a 120mm FS. The 120mm suits my local rides (Swinley) perfectly, no doubt I might feel slightly 'underbiked' on bigger trails but I'm sure I'll manage for that once or twice a year.

Edit: Meant to say that I do agree with this though:

I've always believed in spec'ing the bike for the biggest use you will do and getting fitter to mitigate any weight gain.

If your suspension is adjustable, set it so it suits you and your riding. You can also change your speed. Id not worry too much about daft terms like "overbiked"

Im overbiked when I ride slow, or dont take the challenging option. But sometimes thats good as Im knackered or not concentrating.

I've got a 140mm Stumpjumper FSR and have never felt that it was too much.
Yeah, perhaps riding round Thetford it is somewhat overkill, but it's efficient enough that the extra travel doesn't really come into it.

I've never thought 'hmmmm, I wish this bike had less travel' and I'm pretty sure it has got me out of plenty of buttock clenching moments when I realise I've run out of skill for the speed I'm travelling at.

Geometry comes into it too though; I wouldn't want anything that was a pain to ride uphill, just so I could have a bit more travel.

I find that 'overbiked' isn't directly linked to travel amount.

Amount of pedal bob
Bike weight
Bike Geometry

All make as much difference. There are plenty of quickish handling and pedalling 140mm bikes out there that wouldn't feel out of place on XC rides/races.
And vice versa - there are 120mm slack single pivots that would feel lethargic on normal trails.

The most important thing is that you ride a few bikes and find out what you like.

I've never, ever felt overbiked on my Maverick apart from when I run Super Tacky tyres on tarmac 🙂 Those same tyres make it feel completely unflinching on descents.

With a bigger travel bike you'll end up taking rougher lines, maybe jumping things you didn't ever consider to be jumps, going faster on many rocky rough sections and it will change the way you ride. No matter what bike you're on you can ride up to the limit of your ability on that bike and it's still as much fun.

Your back will thank you for a comfier ride and a bigger bike will be faster (= more fun) when you do go to rockier descents.

Besides, good 140mm bikes now aren't slow on the climbs. They can be pretty efficient and sprightly.

forget travel, look at the geometry.

Have a look at your middle finger.. It's about 20mm thick right? (Farmers or laydeez excluded) 😉
That's nothing and makes no odds really to how the bike actually performs. People talk about that extra bit of rear wheel movement as if it means that the rest of the bike is suddenly 20lbs heavier or something.
Suspension and geometry WILL matter though.
Shocks are really tuneable too...
I'd get a 140mm bike myself, but I'm worried I might be UNDER-biked...
I usually ride my 160mm Mega on anything. 😀

I think geometry has a bigger bearing on the ride when it comes to feeling overbiked. For example something like the new Kona Process 111 would probably ride worse than some 120/140mm bikes with different geometry. I did a 900km stage race on my Ellsworth Evolution with that much travel and was climbing stuff most guys were walking.

I've always believed in spec'ing the bike for the biggest use you will do and getting fitter to mitigate any weight gain.

I think that the extremes on the bike spectrum are, frankly, too extreme for this to be genuinely sensible advice. Too many people buy the biggest bike for the "biggest use" they *think* they will do and end up slogging up and across muddy bridleways on a downhill bike. Not fun. Even if you do have the odd weekend down-hilling, a downhill bike would be an awful tool for the other 50 weeks of a year when you're riding round the countryside.

It's never been a better time to buy a genuinely capable bike that will cope with climbs and descents without going to one extreme or another.

Demo some. I had a Ragley MmmBop which was incredibly capable down and surprisingly capable up. It was horrible on the flat though, so the thought of riding the land rover tracks of your wilderness epics would have filled me with dread. I repeat, demo some 🙂

I felt a bit overbiked on my 140 stumpy. Im now on a 120 whyte 29er which feels much better. I was never a wheels off the ground rider, so 120 much better for me.

It used to matter more when bigger bikes were unwieldy lumps.

I ride my Enduro everywhere - 150mm frame with 170mm forks, 2.3" tyres 30lb dead.

As a young teenager I used to have a 100mm "xc" Marin that weight 31lb and climbed like a dog compared to my Mega.

Lol, how times have changed.

Hmm I read this as

I've always believed in spec'ing the bike for the [s]biggest use you will do and getting fitter to mitigate any weight gain[/s] most frequent use it will get.

I do similar riding. My trips to Wales are few.

I tried 140mm and bought 105mm (Flux). I ride it set up quite stiff at Swinley etc and for longer XC jaunts and normal for Wales. It's amazingly capable and I don't want to be on terrain where I need more to be frank.

Likewise, my allround bike is a 170/180mm reign, and I am happy pedalling it up hills all day. Did 1400m ascent at the weekend and it felt great.

Overbiked is a stupid term generally used by people who can't afford a bigger, better bike or don't have the skillset to ride more challenging terrain fast. Note I say ride it fast, not just ride it.

Trolling much?

A view like this has made me regret opening STW and having look, it's most probably going ruin my **** now too.

Why can't people just ride bikes, have fun, not get sucked in to irrational bolloks, whether it be forum drivel, magazine reviews written by a newb or the latest market jazz words and buy the bike that is actually designed for the riding they do.

Being faster isn't the be all and end all.

Ride what you enjoy but remember to blame your limited skill set or bad technique as the limiting factor rather than the bike.

Bikes will get you a little increase in performance (increase in performance isn't just being faster), working on that mental or technique issue along with getting strong and fit along with practise will make you exponentially better day on day as well as producing infinitely more fun.

PS, i think the OP is on the money with his doubts, a 100mm 29er or a 120 26/650 sounds pretty ideal to me.

I've been riding 140mm FS for years and never felt over biked. I use mine for everything, so much so that my other bikes rarely get a ride out.

I kind of agree that building a bike to cope with your most extreme riding is the better way to go if you have 1 bike. My bike fits into the trendy Enduro cat' with 160mm front and back and comes in at 33lb and I ride it everywhere fine. Sure you feel a bit "overbiked" on the average trail centre but if you go down that route then full sus altogether is overkill for trail centres. The plus side is I dont need a different / second bike for the mega or the odd trip down to Gawton etc...

Go with what you feel is the most fun, regardless of trend or what anyone else thinks.

John

andyrm - Member

Overbiked is a stupid term generally used by people who can't afford a bigger, better bike or don't have the skillset to ride more challenging terrain fast. Note I say ride it fast, not just ride it.

Get the bigger bike and if it initially seems harder work on easier trails, the bonus is that you'll get fitter.

I've always believed in spec'ing the bike for the biggest use you will do and getting fitter to mitigate any weight gain.

Rubbish, by that logic we'd all be riding DH bikes on XC loops and just gettign fitter to compensate, despite the fact they'd probably be slower even on the downhills!

My pitch is around 32lb, it's right on the borderline of ride-able all day. Yes it can do 50mile rides around the Peak or Lake district, but it's painfull up hill on the road, and much harder to ride up technical climbs as it's just too planted with no ability to put a quick burst in or lift the front wheel over a big step.

So I respectfully disagree with you, an XC bike would be much more fun, faster, and require more skill than a 150mm travel bike. You can ride an XC bike fast over 'challenging terrain' and have fun, but you can't have fun on a 150mm travel bike on the other 90% of the ride going uphill or flat.

Surely andyrm means within reason? I dont think anyone is suggesting getting a DH rig as a do it all bike.

John

Is the Norco/Canyon instead of, or as well as, the hardtail?

Got a 140mm Norco Sight 26" and never felt as though there was too much bike there. I have plenty of fun on it and even when I know I am doing an XC type run I am choosing it over the 120mm hardtail. Each to their own I guess. As long as you are smiling at the start, during and end of a ride then you have the right bike.

There are not too many 140mm bikes that are heavy lumps. But there are plenty of heavy, wallowy 160-170mm bikes.

It might feel a bit unnecessary, but I doubt 140mm would feel [i]ridiculous[/i] on anything except a road ride. Where for sure a 160mm bike would feel like hard work on flat-ish XC rides. IMO.

Tried 150mm forks and they just felt like I was perched on them. After much experimenting with diffrent forks I found that 130mm is the sweet spot for me, with 140mm on the back and built up as light as possible.

140mm bikes are really versatile and there are some really well designed ones these days. Remember just because it's 140mm you don't have to build it up for world cup downhill, you can build it really light by focusing on wheel and tyre choice to suit your local terrain.

I ride a 160mm front/150mm rear 31 lb bike for all day epics (+ almost everything else as well)and with draggy tyres on and find it's no problem at all. You soon adapt your fitness to it on the climbs and then commit mass murder on the downhills. I've had this one on many a Scottish mountain epic including the really hard version of the Torridon loop and Cairngorn rides with 100's of ft of descent with no issues at all (apart from a warped beyond all use Ice Tech rotor on the Annat descent).

"All day epic needs a light shorter travel bike" is a bit misleading. I find the all day epics have some pretty hardcore descents for thousands of feet and if you are going for it your bike needs to be up to it.

I say go for it and have a lightweight wheel set for Disneyland (trail centers) and a tougher set for mountain days.

I found that 130mm is the sweet spot for me.

And there ladies and gents, is the most sense you're likely to read on here this evening. Ride what suits you and stop mithering about what everybody else thinks you should be riding.

At the weekend I rode my 100 mm hardtail, my riding Compadre's rode 150mm full sussers, rigid 29ers, 26er single speeds and a 29+ krampus wotsit.
Did we all have a good time?
Course we did.

With the one caveat that you are not going to be actually racing said bike against the clock (ie proper XC racing) then i see no reason not to get a modern 140mm bike. They pedal so well, and are so capable and not so heavy that i can't really see the penalty for riding one.

With the one caveat that you are not going to be actually racing said bike against the clock (ie proper XC racing)

Ahem.

STRRRAAAAAVVVVAAAAA!

Being faster isn't the be all and end all.

Well said. Everyone always seems to be obsessed with faster, faster, faster. Buying things to go faster, this bike will make you faster, bigger wheels will roll faster etc.

Always enjoyed technique over speed, take pride in being very smooth, not arsed in being fastest on a trail. Had one puncture in last 7 years.

I sold my 140 and got a 125.

Much happier and much easier round the Peak and no slower

Overbiked is a stupid term generally used by people who can't afford a bigger, better bike or don't have the skillset to ride more challenging terrain fast. Note I say ride it fast, not just ride it.

WARNING!! BS ALERT!!

I owned many FS bikes and over several seasons swapped down from 200mm to 180mm to 160mm to 145mm to 100mm and eventually to a carbon fibre 29'er hardtail

this happened as my riding needs changed, and I just found the bigger bikes felt slow and unnecessary on the trails I was riding in the South-East of the UK.

the 29'er hardtail is much more fun to ride for me on these trails (where the FS would soak it all up) and its so much easier to clean and a general lack of maintenance

I am still going very quick, probably averaging quicker times than on the FS bikes

cannot see myself buying another FS bike unless I moved somewhere with rocks and lots of tree roots.

Be careful, it's dangerous ground.

Next you'll be wearing elbow and knee pads for cross country rides, and dare I say it, a Met parachute.

Then you'll be pretending you're booked into a round of a Gravity Enduro, or you'l be browsing all inclusive holidays to Les Gets, in an attempt to justify owning an "over bike" to your friends.

If you find yourself wallowing about the Glentress freeride park, barely being able to clear the table tops, you'll know you've over biked it.

Get the bigger bike and if it initially seems harder work on easier trails, the bonus is that you'll get fitter.

I've read this opinion on a few threads lately and have to say that although it sounds like sense, the risk is that you buy a bike that you end up dreading riding. The way a bike feels and rides - and yes I also mean speed here, is not only dictated by your fitness. You've got to enjoy riding it from the start, otherwise you won't ride it.

Surely andyrm means within reason? I dont think anyone is suggesting getting a DH rig as a do it all bike.

^^This. Humblest apologies all. I forgot to caveat this up to the eyeballs.

Any modern Enduro bike (there, I said it), 1x10/11, 160ish travel is absolutely fine for UK use all the time. They climb pretty much as well as a 130ish travel bike, don't weigh much more and with the advances in suspension and easy tuneability/better damping/geo etc, there's no reason you can't have it as your only bike. I have done for the last year and been totally happy - as have lots of others who aren't scared of Enduro as a philosophy of "one bike for everything" rather than just a marketing name.

I did the one bike thing, was really convinced it was the way forward.

Then my mtbing progressed, bike was getting broken and always felt compromised on dh tracks and big gaps, sure i could ride it, but always fel like i had to reign it a little, bike go beefed up.

I also started doing bigger xc rides, my riding buddies was,nt restricted to dirt jumpers/bmers finding gaps to do in the woods anymore. My heavy lump that was almost sturdy enough for dh was now too much of a tank for confortable long rides.

So i got in a cycle of beffing and then lightening, either compromising a lot on the xc or a lot on the dh.

Bit the bullet, got a 29er hardtail, 130 ough trail bike and a dh bike, noe im happy and have the most fun in all circumstances, no longer compromising.

I think the division of bikes by travel is very misleading. My new FS is technically a 140mm bike - but it's long (1166mm wheelbase), slack (65.5-66.5 HA depending on settings), stiff & strong & not light (31lbs of Banshee!), on 650B wheels with big tyres (about 28"), has a big fancy shock (CCDBair) and kinematics that feel longer travel than they are. And 160mm forks up front!

I don't think I'd have loved this bike a few years ago - I don't think I'd have had the skills to ride it fast enough to enjoy its benefits over my 140mm hardtail or the leg strength to pedal it happily uphill (though I'm astonished at how well it climbs). I think I could also have got myself into some trouble with the excessive confidence downhill it imbues - it wants to go flat out over everything which is fine until you hit a jump/drop/corner that requires some actual bike handling ability.

I suspect it might feel a bit dull if I just cruised around all my local trails but I'm forever trying to push the ragged edge in my authentic STW mincecore STRAAAAAVVAAAAA!!!!!! way (I might have been spotted at the least gnarr trail centre on the planet recently sporting goggles and open face helmet...)

So I guess what "overbiked" means to me is riding a bike that's less fun than a smaller bike for how/where you ride. I've been "underbiked" too often in the last year and my body was getting sick of it!

160ish travel is absolutely fine for UK use all the time.

Of course it's 'fine', but is it the best tool for the job?

I'd rather have a bike that suited 99% of my riding, than lug around an unnecessarily cumbersome bike that'll excel on that 1%.

I have done for the last year and been totally happy

Aaah, it's what you've done, therefore it's right. Makes sense!

Any modern Enduro bike (there, I said it), 1x10/11, 160ish travel is absolutely fine for UK use all the time. They climb pretty much as well as a 130ish travel bike, don't weigh much more and with the advances in suspension and easy tuneability/better damping/geo etc

That was my opinion when I bought mine, and it is great, if you live in Keswick or Hope. Unfortunately it's utterly soul destroying on the flats (climbs, as long as they're smooth aren't so bad). It's a constant reminder that if you were on an Xc bike this would be fun, it's like riding the XC bike dragging a boat anchor and a parachute behind you. I get it for 'enduro' whether its just on a ride or in a race, but it's still a very limiting bike. However you plan a ride 90% of the time is going to be uphill or along, big bikes hobble 90% of the ride to go 10% faster on the last 10%.

And all the arguments that make a 160mm travel bike as good as a 130mm of a few years back work the other way around too. The shorter travel bikes have gotten more capable, you could say a 130mm bike is just as good as an old 160mm bike downhill, but as much fun as a 100mm bike uphill and along the flat bits.

I still prefer riding my Enduro along riverbank singletrack to riding my steel Kona HT if I'm honest. I find it climbs better too

I think saying riding an enduro bike on the flat is like towing an anchor is a bit over the top. A bit more work, sure but its not enough to turn an otherwise fun bike ride into a horrible one. Also was riding uphill ever that fun to begin with? The uphill only exists as a necessary evil to have downhills to me so it makes sence for my bike to be orientated more towards down at the expense of the up. (Obviously within reason)

I think 90% of it is just in the mind what you get used to.

John

Great thread. Lots of awesomeness around. But really it's just personal preference no? I guess I could drag a 160mm full susser around the Peak, but my riding ability and strength isn't really up to exploiting it, so I potter round on a 140mm hardtail instead. Works for me, but everyone's different, so who I am to say otherwise. There isn't a 'right answer' is there, just what suits you.

Overbiked? Too much bike for the rider or for the trail? It's sounds like it's where philosophy meets mountain biking... what would Kant say? How about a reasonable man? 😉

Surely when a big bike feels annoying on the flat it's just because it's wearing big tyres? It's not really the bike's fault!

I've been "underbiked" too often in the last year and my body was getting sick of it!

To expand on that, I did consecutive days of uplift at Antur and BPW on my hardtail and it all but broke me. My fingers took a couple of months to stop hurting. Maybe a younger or fitter me would have been fine but this me wasn't!

The only person who can decide if you're over or underbiked is yourself. I suspect some people constantly feel they're one or the other whilst others never do. Antur was the first place I've felt underbiked on the Soul - BPW was fine but I was too battered from the previous day's relentless rocks. Haven't felt overbiked on the Spitfire yet, maybe I will on a long XC ride but maybe I'll enjoy it being comfier when I'm sitting down?

I still don’t get it, though. Buying a car because it suits your requirements for two weeks in the summer surely is like wearing ski boots all year round because you go to Verbier every February.

That Clarkson is onto something.

Looking at this another way, when do you ever have the right bike? What defines not being over/underbiked? For pros it's what bike is the fastest for a given terrain but most of us here aren't pros and we want a bike to be as much fun as possible as our main goal, after all this is a hobby for the majority of us and we wouldn't do it if not for wanting to have fun. Tomac raced downhill on a rigid with drop bars so if that's possible then maybe having any suspension at all is being overbiked if you can ride it without and still have fun?

Too deep?

John

I haven't read the rest of the thread as it started descending in the usual STW whiney-bitch-fest with the unusual suspect spouting bollocks.

Get the burlier bike then you can pump the shock and forks up harder to reduce the travel. Hey-presto - you have a shorter travel bike!

Big bikes are good. Small bikes are good. It's all a balance, depends on the actual bikes, the rider, the trails, and personal taste. My big bike's an unashamedly big bike- coil forks, fat tyres, etc. But it's still a hoot to ride on most trails, you just have to go recklessly fast 😉

there is a lot of bull in here.....no real surprise

In reality it all comes back to how much you want to compromise, it is possible to train your arse off and ride a big travel AM/Enduro style bike with a weight penalty as fast as some others ride an XC bike, I was chatting to Matt Simmonds (CRC/Nukeproof Dh rider) on the start line of the Manx e2e one year - he was on a Mega and he smashed a lot of people on XC bikes, put him on an XC bike and he would probably have been further up the field.

I spent 4 days racing 200km across the west of Tassie on my 140/160mm Carbon 26" trail bike. It was fun in places, it was also a drag with people asking what it was like towing that up all the hills at a mere 3kg over par weight for a lot of the bikes out there. Given the terrain I'd probably have been better on a 100mm 29r for that.

I took the same bike over to Rotorua and over to the mainland, off to Stromlo next month and a few other places and it's a great laugh out there, with the exception of out and out DH it's the best for it.

In the end if you have one bike unless you only ride within very tight parameters it will be a compromise. You just need to decide what is most important to you. See Ski Boots comments above...

an d for this particular beauty...

Get the burlier bike then you can pump the shock and forks up harder to reduce the travel. Hey-presto - you have a shorter travel bike!

It depends if you ride mainly for speed/fitness or for fun. I would get the 140mm but then i prefer that kind of riding. I'm not bothered about getting from A-B in the fastest possible time i'm more likely to see something interesting and stop to have a play and then carry on riding.

The 140mm bike will be more fun all round, the 120mm one will be quicker.

or a bike with all the weight none of the benefit and a compromised suspension setup....

1) Lots of 160mm frames that weight as much as 130mm frames these days

2) How would they be compromised? On a 130mm trail bike you tend to run 20 percent sag, 160mm bikes are usually run at 20-25 percent sag, some people (weirdo's) run them at 33 percent. The kinematics aren't going to be that different when the 160 bike is set to 20 percent sag when compared to the 130mm bike. The only difference will be a negligible increase in BB height.

Basically you don't know what you're talking about, the right 160mm frame can be made to handle very closely to a 130mm bike if you know what you are doing with sag, compression, rebound and tyre choices. Geometry can also be tweaked using anglesets, shorter shocks and offset bushings.

Basically you don't know what you're talking about, the right 160mm frame can be made to handle very closely to a 130mm bike if you know what you are doing with sag, compression, rebound and tyre choices. Geometry can also be tweaked using anglesets, shorter shocks and offset bushings.

Lots of light BIGmm frames that weight as much as Heavy SMALLmm frames these days

There are also 130mm frame that can be set like 100mm frames there are 130mm frames that can be ridden like 160mm frames...The travel doesn't matter as much as the design and the application. The characteristics that make some bikes fun to ride in some places (slack HA etc) make them a pig to ride elsewhere. If most of your riding is on flat blasty trails then slack HA's are not that useful. Couple in just making the suspension a bit harder for long steep technical climbs will rob you of some of the suppleness in the rear that helps with traction and still leave you with a slack bick with front end lift/wandering issues.

Pick the sag for the application and the bike/suspension setup.

I've ridden a lot of bikes, for my sins I've also ridden the wrong bike for the situation a lot. Choosing to plug away with something that wasn't right but was a compromise. Learning from that is where my advice comes from.

No such thing as 'overbiked' unless you are taking freeride bikes to the towpath. I ride a 80mm XC race bike, a 5" trail bike and a 7" Patriot on my local trails. All different, all fun.

There's FAR more overlap than people would have you think. Only the stuff at the extreme ends of that bike spectrum is where some of the bikes become less suitable. For instance I wouldn't race XC on the Patriot, it'd be too slow; however there's not much I can ride on the Patriot that I woudn't ride on the XC, I'd just do it slower. I've taken all three on big rocky trails in the mountains and the Cwmcarn DH course. None was really 'wrong' just faster or slower. It was all fun - the XC bike on a trail centre DH is amazingly easy to get airborne for example - and you do it in a different way.

Just go for what feels good to ride to you, on your trails.

There's so much more to it than the amount of travel anyway. Angles, weight, gear, rim size, tyre size etc. When I got my Patriot it was a chore up climbs, but I tweaked the setup, moved the contact points and went tubeless, and now it's fine.

Hi, I looked at the Norco Fluid too as liked the sound of the 68.5 Degrees head angle over the Spectrals 67, but The Norco weighs 14kg and for £100 more the Spectral weighs 13kg so I'm hoping by the time you factor in 650b wheels and being able to tweek the sag it should be pretty nimble for a 140mm travel bike. Plus that weight includes a Stealth dropper post Included with the Spectral which the Norco doesn't have so pretty good!

Dunno and don't care. I've happily ridden a hardtail around the Peaks but then it depends on which hardtail and what build and travel. Same with a full suss.

[b][u]OP you really really need to test ride the bikes before you buy them[/u][/b] If its mail order only- try and ride a local riders one, if not buy something that isn't blind. Its an expensive mistake if buying brand new*.

Mine was trial and error, mainly error before I landed on what I like to ride.

*The only brand new frames that I bought were test ridden first or borrowed/rode.

My 2p worth... I am currently in the same place as the op... I have been looking at 120mm and 140mm fs bikes. I live and do the majority of riding around hampshire and the surrounding area with about 10% in the peaks/wales. After talking to alot of people and test riding alot of different bikes I have decided that the shorter travel, lighter bike would be better for most of my riding . There is always the option of hiring a bike if the situation is likely to demand more travel, ie European holidays or the dh blacks at Fort William. But as hora said... test ride where ever possible

I've said it before and now Hora has put it in bold, so it must be important. [b]Test rides![/b]

I too was in a similar boat, debating whether to go with the "bigger" bike so I can go faster/harder on the technical trails and the descents, or have something that will be less of a chore up and along but maybe a touch compromised downhill.

I went for the "smaller" option (140mm Bandit) and I'm so so glad I did. Whilst I may feel under-biked in my head, out on the trail - in reality - the Bandit is more than capable of descending solidly; any faster and a fall would be quite serious. I know my limits 🙂

Every time I go uphill I'm so glad I didn't go for a bigger/slacker bike. I'm sure the reason many riders hate climbing is that they are on an unsuitable tool for going uphill. Climbing on a bike designed to go uphill can be extremely satisfying. Honest 😀

I used to ride a 100mm XC race FS bike round the same area, now ride a racey 29er hardtail. If I wasn't racing I'd possibly consider something a bit more slack, but I'd not want to give up the feeling of speed that comes with a light bike. I'm shit at certain trails because of my lack of skill, nothing to do with the bike!

Not everyone's bag though, and I do enjoy climbing, so I'd echo the test ride sentiment. Not that I test rode either of my last 2 bikes...

i ditched my longer travel bike for a smaller travel bike cos it was alot of effort to ride any distance. i cant afford fancy suspension though i can see how it would help.

personally i`d sell one of my kids for a new cannondale jekyll but wifey wont let me.

as a first foray to FS defo buy a smaller travel bike as you would have already bought a FS if you regularly rode trails that really required it.

It's all a package... Like, if you were to build a 160mm bike up super-light, with fast rolling tyres etc, then sure it'd be not that much slower than a shorter travel bike... But it'd also be no more useful. So travel isn't really the defining factor, it's the stronger kit and bigger tyres etc that a harder use bike requires that defines it.

Thinking about travel in particular, my big bike's 160mm front, 150mm rear and tbf a lot of the time, it just doesn't need that- though it carries it well. But it's very rare I wouldn't be just as happy on a 140mm bike with the same angles and strength. It only wears those forks because that's what gives it the handling it requires. But shorter travel aggro bikes are just not that common so there's a natural process, harder use leads you to bigger travel just because you want the slackiosity and the durability that's easier to find in a 160mm package.

And going the other way, shorter bikes tend to be more optimised for weight and pedalling- regardless of what you do with sag/pressures, there's some basic design considerations that mean some bikes just pedal better than others, and some just soak up hits better than others, and again they tend to go along a travel line.

IMO of course 😉

I have the spectral and its perfect for what I want im used to a 100mm ht but I find riding the 140mm spectral a lot easier even when im climbing if you are planning on an alps trip I would say the more travel the better tbh

Which bit of your ride do you really enjoy?

I ride in the Lakes so not Surrey Hills but a mate hauls an ancient Scott High Octane freeride beast around at a respectable pace along and up and then at an indecent pace down.

Others choose an more lightweight 120mm FS bike and are faster along and up but very slow down.

Its always going to be a compromise between rigid singlespeed to DH monster.

I thought a Giant Anthem would be fun and while it was fast on moors and smooth singletrack it was noodley and not for me on rough ground.

I have a 140mm Marin Wolf Ridge. Its fairly heavy at 15kg/33lb but its so much fun to ride. Ive done 40+ mile routes around Calderdale without any problems, it climbs reasonably well & it descends like a loon!
I have a 100mm travel XC bike in a Mount Vision but it hardly gets ridden these days as the Wolf Ridge is just so much fun.
Of course, i live in the Pennines, if i lived somewhere flatter it may have been a different choice.