Hi all, I need to replace my Canyon Spectral 2015 650B/27.5 full suss with 150mm front / 140 rear.
I'm sold on a 29er full suss. How much travel should I be lookng for in order to have more or less equivalency with my Spectral?
I am hoping there will be consensus that "less" travel is required.
No interest in riding more gnarly stuff, but don't want to assume that a 100mm travel 29er is equivalent and wind up disappointed.
I guess there's no equation for this, but general guidance and views would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Head angle will be more important.
I'd go one of the cheap Santa Cruz 5010 from Stif
Hightowers there too
https://www.stifmtb.com/collections/santa-cruz-5010/products/santa-cruz-5010-carbon-c-r-kit
I guess it depends on what your riding?
I find 150/140 perfect for what I like. 65' head angle (maybe 64.5 currently) and 29" wheels just seems to work perfectly 99% of the time.
Sometimes I wish the bike was slightly slacker.
Sometimes I wish the seat tube was shorter so I could get more dropper action.
Sometimes I wish I had a 27.5" rear wheel (when the 29 hits me in the arse).
I never feel like my riding would be improved if I had more travel.
What makes you want to hear that less travel will be equivalent (or better)? Have you got your eye on something specific?
I'd say that damping in the suspension is far more important than the amount of travel anyway. 130mm of well controlled and well tuned fork will outperform a badly damped 160mm fork all day long.
Going back a few years, a 150mm bike was 'freeride' and 160/170 was DH territory. Those numbers are now 'trail' and getting into 'enduro'. Modern bikes are lighter and far more capable than their travel matched equivalents from years ago so a shorter travel bike now will probably work just as well as an older bike with more travel.
Buying another 150/140 bike now will get you a trail oriented FS that will be a whole heap of fun and will pedal fairly efficiently. We're fortunate that now, we can but short(er) travel frames with slack(er) HTs and steep(er) STs where such things didn't really exist a few years ago.
Thanks. My focus is more XC than gnar. I don't want to sacrifice capability on the descents - but I also don't really need more capability, especially if it is adding weight.
I'm looking at a 2019 Spark World Cup. 29er 100mm at both ends vs my Spectral 650B with 150mm front and 140mm rear.
My Spectral has 2015 150mm Pikes and 66.4 head angle. World Cup has 2019 SID RL3 and 68.5 head angle.
That SID can go to 110mm travel which will obviously slacken the head angle a touch more.
Which bike would be more confidence inspiring on a descent like the beast in the peak district?
Where do you ride? Sounds like a medium travel middle of the road geometry, modern trail bike is in order
That 2019 Spark misses out on more modern geometry IMV. It’ll be ok but not great.
OP it sounds like you’d enjoy a “downcountry” bike like the new Spark (not the race orientated version), Transition Spur or Epic Evo? 120mm travel with a slightly burlier build. I think they’d be perfect for the Beast.
Which bike would be more confidence inspiring on a descent like the beast in the peak district?
Your current bike would be, against that era of XC bike.
If you wanted something as capable on the downs, but still with an XC bias, then the newer breed of XC or (shudders at the term) Downcountry bikes would be where I would be looking.
Something like the Epic Evo does still have a XC bias, or more descending focussed, something like a Spur, Rocky Element, new Top Fuel, etc.
Going back a few years, a 150mm bike was ‘freeride’ and 160/170 was DH territory. Those numbers are now ‘trail’ and getting into ‘enduro’. Modern bikes are lighter and far more capable than their travel matched equivalents from years ago so a shorter travel bike now will probably work just as well as an older bike with more travel.
How many years are you going back exactly? Because when I started mtb back in 2004 Boxxers definitely had 200mm of travel... And before that they were 180mm IIRC.
OP - the Spark you're looking at is a pure XC bike and will ride completely differently to your Spectral. If you're happy with your current bike, then just buy something with similar travel/geo and 29" wheels. You're not going to be erasing bumps just cos the wheel is 1.5" bigger. If anything, you might find yourself going a bit quicker and be glad of the travel. For the Peaks, I would buy something around 140mm personally.
Sounds like a Nukeproof Reactor 290 would be in order, however with the CRC/Nukeproof issues you may be concerned regarding warranty and I wouldn't blame you.
Otherwise, some great deals to be had!
Go test a Cotic, they're near you - and a Flaremax will easily do what your Spectral does, plus more.
Off the top of my head, I seem to recall that 29er equivalents of 650b bikes have typically had about 15mm to 20mm less travel, but as others have said I'd focus more on geometry and intended use of the bike - that will make far more difference than 10 or 20 mm here or there.
Reviews, spec, price of this would have me…
I had a 140mm 2017 YT Jeffsy 29er and I was definitely overbiked for the bridleways of the Peaks.
I do think that wheel size makes a difference in that bigger wheels are like having more suspension in some ways.
150-130 front / 140-120 rear range would be similiar, 29er is far quicker/better at straight lines, i dont notice much difference cornering unless its a real slalom, i never got on with my 2016 spectral, weighed a lump.
5010 mk2 i got to replace the spectral & canyon nerve was so much more fun, the 5010 have some great deals out on the latest model. under 5ft8 in height a 5010 be ideal,
so many good 29ers cant go far wrong. saw a few spec status' at bikepark wales last weekend, looks a nice bike, lots of nukeproof too all in great knock down prices
Would have a look at the Specialized Stumpjumper, not the evo version. Bit more travel and slacker than the downcountry bikes, on discount at a lot of shops at the moment as well.
Super impressed with mine, 28lbs on XCish tyres and it zips along.
Sonder cortex might fit the bill
Not that I ever doubted but wow, what a helpful set of opinions. Thanks so much.
Scott Spark ruled out. Longer travel 29ers under review.
I'll update with the outcome.
In the spirit of “recommend what you have irrespective of what’s been asked” I’d suggest a look at the Epic Evo, which is heavily discounted at the moment and incredibly capable in my experience, while still being xc light and quick when pedalling
Reviews, spec, price of this would have me…
Wants a shorter travel bike, more aimed at the XC end of the market, gets suggested a 36lb SJ Evo with a hungry desire for eating rear shocks & average rear suspension 😆
i implied ‘I’ would consider that as a replacement for his current bike 😇
you have made up the weight also, kinda boring that.
I think the idea that less travel on a 29 is comparable to longer travel on 27.5 is more to do with trying to downplay the packaging issues that designers had with longer travel on early 29ers - yes, 29ers roll over stuff better, but suspension is more about impact and compression and wheel size doesn't change that very much. If you're replacing like for like, I'd be sticking closer to 140mm - there are some very capable 120mm-ish bikes out there, but as people said, that's much more to do with geometry than wheel size.
@HobNob - good point. I've got a Stumpjumper Evo, and it's massive overkill for Peak District riding.
you have made up the weight also, kinda boring that.
You sure? There is enough reviews out there claiming weights of 15.6kg without pedals. Obviously you can’t ride a bike without them. Close enough to 36lbs, unless you are pedantic enough to worry about a couple of Oz on what is already a fairly hefty bike 🙄
Mid-travel 29er +1
Though I think 120mm rear, 130mm front could be optimal.
In the spirit of “recommend what you have irrespective of what’s been asked” I’d suggest a look at the Epic Evo
seconded.
Hi all, thanks again for all the opinions and feedback.
Favourite response: "In the spirit of “recommend what you have irrespective of what’s been asked” I'd suggest.... "
🙂
I've found myself a 2022 Top Fuel, picked up last night. 140mm travel front, 120mm (I think) rear. Beside myself with excitement for the test ride, hoping it doesn't rain all weekend!
Nice indeed, i have it's slightly bigger brother the Fuel.
Great choice of bike.
I have just done this on my 2016 Liteville. Gone from a 160 27 fork to a 150 29er. On the Geometry calculation site there is very little difference, certainly not enough to bother me. I'll see if I can dig up the details and post here.