[Closed] Too much bike/travel - just exactly what does this mean?

I suggest you test lots of bikes. More travel isn't always better i've gone from a orange 5 to riding a on one whippet with 100mm forks, around the peaks and it's fun.

To give you a glib answer, it usually means the poster has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about other people's bikes.

I love riding Surrey and the Lakes on my light 160mm travel bike. Other people prefer 140mm bikes - some say you only need a hardtail.

It's personal choice at the end of the day and you're doing the right thing to demo a good selection.

I suggest you test lots of bikes & make you own mind up. Less travel travel isn't always better IME. I've got a short travel SC Superlight and though it's great fun & very quick my C'dale Prophet with 140mm gets ridden most as it's even more fun in my book

LBS has a demo top fuel with 100mm with £1k off - so quite tempted by a whippet. But try asking silly questions like, what is the problem riding this on more technical stuff etc but never get a sensible answer.

I will try a few out - but just trying to narrow the field down first.

But specifically - why would too much travel ie >140mm ever be a problem? Is it to do with the pedal bob I read about?

cha****ng - what 160m do you ride? Which are your normal trails (to gauge your riding style!)?

I think it's more to do with weight and feel. When i ride my local trails (Mugdock, so natural twisty singletrack) on my 5 i tend to ride faster and the trail feels 'easier/smoother'. When on the steel HT with 100mm travel it's a bit more 'connected', I need to pick lines a bit more and it's not as forgiving. All that said I love riding them both on most trails. I would say however that I prefer the 140mm FS at trail centres, as it is just 'more fun' IMO of course !

a sensible answer....

'too much bike for you' is used wrong IMO. 'too much bike for the trails you mostly ride' makes more sense to me.

a long travel full suss is loads of fun on rocky downhill singletrack in the alps, and can still be fun on flat woody terrain, but is more often a bit wallowy/sluggish if you're only dealing with a few roots and have to accelerate constantly.

I've recently moved back to rigid for my local trails and just added a cx for fun, but will take the full suss in a heart beat for trails with some technical downhill.

I ride a mondraker dune. I like a light bike and it is lighter than a similar specced Orange 5.

I am usually guided by a friend round Surrey but the trail names I picked up that we did last week were "the rooty one" on Pitch, "Charlie Bronson" and a few that just had numbers on Winterfold I think, "regurgitator" on Leith or Holmbury(?), the track down to Friday Street from Holmbury with the two jumps and the off camber stuff(?). Nothing too big, to be honest.

I'd be happy with a 140mm bike, except that the extra 20mm comes in handy for the rocky stuff I love in the Lakes.

BTW, the Top Fuel is an xc race bike, they look like great bikes but you might prefer something with more relaxed angles.

my tuppence:

the fastest Dh racers need/use 200mm of travel - or thereabouts, front and back.

on my fast days i maybe go half as fast (probably less) - i don't need anywhere near the same travel. even on my Dh bike (i do race occasionally).

a 200mm Dh bike set up soft enough so that i use all the travel just feels terrible, so my Dh bike has 160mm front and back, and even that's more than i need, if i'm being honest.

i'd like to see a few short-travel (100mm) am/trail bikes*, for mincers like me.

(*strong enough for some mild thrashing/occasional Dh racing/dodgy landings, geometry that inspires confidence).

Thanks for replies - B17, I understand the point about what makes more sense and interesting comment on "wallowy, sluggish".

cha****ng - I know that top fuel is XC race bike, just tempted by great offer. Could keep that for XC/XTT/trail quests and buy a "value" trail/AM - shame they don't do the pitch pro anymore!! Sounds like we ride similar trails - no idea of names on winterfold. The off camber rooty one on H to Friday Street of telegraph road was about my limit 2-3 months ago (quite a few dabs there!!) but have been on harder rocky stuff in Lakes since then. Bizarrely, I was more comfortable on rocky steps (albeit following a good rider) in Lakes, than on off-camber roots in Surrey!!!

I want to see you race xc on a reign

You'll be needing a 29er *runs away*

I ride Surrey Hills on a full sus that has 140mm travel on the rear with pro pedal which makes the climbing easier. Up front I have some U Turns that adjust from 120mm to 150mm and have lock out. On fire road type climbs like those around Yoghurt Pots, I lock them out. Most of the time they are unlocked at 140mm travel. On steeper downhill stuff I sometimes run them at 150mm. Having the adjustability and lock out is the key.
A fixed travel 160mm bike will always be harder to climb on than a HT.
A riding friend who was not so keen on more technical downhill trails tried BKB on her hard tail and didn't enjoy it much. Fast forward a few weeks to her first ride on a full sus and she is growing to love it.
I would say that my bike suits most of my riding but compared to the XC whippets at The Brighton Big Dog, I was over biked for the terrain. Well that's my excuse. Nothing to do with their superior bike skills and fitness 😉
I reckon a test ride on trails and climbs that you know is the best way to decide.

singlecrack - Member

You'll be needing a 29er *runs away*

if that was aimed at me, i agree.

if that wasn't aimed at me, i still agree.

but all the bouncy ones are at least £2k, and that's getting a bit silly.

As said above, the phrase often means 'you're not capable of riding that to it's limits, and I'm jealous that you've bought it while I'm on a Halfords special' so really, completly ignore it.

I had a trek 6700, and decided, like you to go for a bit of bounce. I wasn't sure how much to get, so i bought an Anthem X1 frame from the classifieds, and put all the kit from the Trek on it. Comletly loved the back end, but somehow the 100mm forks that I had just wern't upto the same standard as the back of the bike. I swapped the forks to some Revelation air u-turn 100-130mm forks which I run soft so more a 90-120mm style thing. Works unbelievably well. I ride the bike on everything from road trainng rides, to hacking through the welsh country side, some trail centres and a bit of racing. I love it. Would I want more travel? No, I really don't think I do. I guess if I was doing some uplift days then yes, but otherwise not really. Do I get called overbiked? Yes - still. Muppets.

If you have too much travel for the terrain you ride it takes a hell of a lot of fun out of it. You just plough through everything making it a lot more boring and less challenging. Its harder up the hills too like you already mentioned.

If you can only afford one bike to do everything then 140mm is generally a good compromise.

Depends what you are after. I have a 150 travel heckler and a 100 travel anthem. The heckler is great fun for a day out on the trails, but a fair bit slower than the Anthem.

That said I reckon its the set up of the bikes which makes the biggest difference, rather than the amount of suspension. The heckler's short stem, wide bars and mammoth super tacky front wheel inspires confidence going down, and is a drag going up. On the Anthem I've never felt undertravelled going down (Only used it at local trail centre mind), but do notice lack of control and grip from skinny tyres and bars.

On the Anthem I've never felt undertravelled going down (Only used it at local trail centre mind), but do notice lack of control and grip from skinny tyres and bars.

Stick some fatter tires and wider bars on the Anthem!

Go with your instincts teamhurtmoore. The riding you describe is the same as mine. Short travel x/c, f/s is the way to go. 😀

Stick some fatter tires and wider bars on the Anthem!

Ha well yeah that is an option! But i bought it specifically to do a bit more XC/race stuff and love the fact I can actually go up hills for a change:-)

But yeah, if I only had one bike I'd have the Anthem and stick the fatter tyres on it, I reckon they'd make much more difference going downhill than an extra 5cm of suspension, on the trails I ride.

+1 for matt24k's adjustable fork comment
I've always ridden a hardtail, mostly around similar trails to you describe (Surrey hills, Swinley, occasional trips away to Wales) and I've found it the most valuable tool on the bike.
The adjustable fork allows you to find your own sweet spot for your bike, your riding style, on your trails. It really helps clear up in your own mind what feels right, and you won't worry about over/under biked- you'll know from your own experience what is right for your situation.
For what its worth, it seems to be about 125mm for me on what I ride and I now leave it like that for pretty much 90% of the time. But its the adjustability thats allowed me to discover that.

On another note, I hired a Spesh Pitch on holiday for a couple of days and was amazed at its climbing grip. I noticed the improved traction on short steep climbs far more than any "wallowey feel" that is sometimes described. Great fun on the downhill bits too.

EDIT: having now read transapp's post, anthem with u-turn revs sounds ideal, but still worth testing the other longer travel bikes to know that for yourself.

I've got a patriot and a trance, IMO the 'problem' with big bikes isn't climbing - ok, they're heavier so they go a bit slower, but that is no big deal, and they often have really good traction.

For me, flat terrain is the bad thing on a big bike - they wallow about, accelerate slower (especially as if you have big travel, you really want big tyres), and don't pump as well as shorter travel bikes or hard tails, and this kills fun on flatter trails. So, for rides with big climbs, I'll always take the big bike as I'll be doing big descents. I'd take the trance to the surrey hills, though.

It doesn't mean anything at all, except to people who think everyone else thinks the same as them.

Lots of interesting comments, thank you!!

I agree that adjustable forks seem a great idea especially given the mix of riding that I do. Even in Surrey Hills, there are days when I just go up and down Pitch/Winterfold (more travel?) and others where do longer loops (eg standard W'cott, over the road, Holmbury, Leith, SLight etc).

I guess the real decision is (classic bikers problem) - one nice bike as a compromise doe everything or two less spec bikes/sale bikes that cover XC and then more aggressive trail?

e.g Anthem and reign/pitch pro?/top fuel (sale)/remedy or

something along the lines of a stumpy, ex-b, trance (only using big brands as an example!)

In the past I ran two bikes (HT race bike and 6" FS), but have ended up with a 140mm Ti HT. Its barely heavier than the race bike but will cover the same ground as the FS. And tbh I now find flat-barred head-down/ar5e-up racers just too radical.

When I ran two bikes at some point in a ride I'd want to be on the other..., and with only one bike I can bling/lighten at half the price 🙂

Plus am able to modify it easily, as I've still all the bits from previous bikes - so can put in either 120 or 140 maxle forks or for rough stuff a pair of 36's. Also have numerous tyres/wheels/rotors, again to change where required.

[i]. The off camber rooty one on H to Friday Street of telegraph road was about my limit 2-3 months ago [/i]

Yep, seen a couple of folk come to grief on that bit - speed, line and luck are needed there.

I have a meta4x which is my only bike. I use it for smashing around in the woods, trail centres, jumping (badly) and general hooning around.

It suits me, its not too squishy, but has some suspension for when i get it wrong. My mate rides everything on a 160mm full susser and seems happy enough, while another mate rides a shaggout out old dirtjump kona. He is also happy with his bike. Listen to sensible advice and ignore everybody on the internet. Especially me.

I ride the Surrey hills. I ride a 120mm HT most of the time and a Giant trance on occasions.

IMHO I think a nice light full-sus, 125/130mm max would suit your needs, you can do most stuff on the surrey hills and beyond on it, unless you fancy a crack at the flytipper gap jump? 😉

From what I've seen there are a lot of longer travel full sus bikes being used on the Surrey hills, but very few riders riding them with the skill set to use them, the trails on the Surrey hills are fragile and require a smooth riding style. IMHO of course.

i'd like to see a few short-travel (100mm) am/trail bikes

If it helps, I went from a Trek 6500 over to a full suss on the recommendation of my brother. It's only a 100 mm either end bike but the difference in pace and comfort compared to my Trek was amazing.

At Cannock I was 6 minutes quicker per lap of the Dog trail with no other alterations apart from the bike.

On endurance type rides I'm a lot less tired at the end of day especially if it's somewhere like the lakes/wales.

If you're going full suss then expect to spend a lot more money to get a similar spec to what you are used to. I personally went and bought a frame and moved the kit off my Trek on to the full suss so I can always go back if needed.

Ahwiles....spot on with wishing for a short travel, slack angle HT....I reckon it'd be great fun.

I sort of made my own one by fitting wide bars and short stem to a Kona Caldera, 68.5 degree head angle isn't considered slack by most but compared to the 71 degree XC biased bikes I'd ridden before then its great fun. I ride a lot of the stuff Teamhurtmore rides in Surrey and the bike is fine....however, I have just acquired a 140mm FS.

Is it too much bike for Surrey? Maybe, but I also do the 661 Gravity Enduro races so its mainly for that. I'd say the biggest difference is how fast/hard you can hit the terrain....or in my case how clumsy I can be!
With 140mm of travel at both ends its often brain-out riding with the bike bailing me out, I can see how the term 'skill compensator' came about.

On the other hand a robust FS encouraged me to do things I wouldn't on a HT. Case in point is Gibbet Hill in Hindhead, never cleared it all on the HT but managed it with FS....could be psychological I suppose?

Deviant - you will know. At current rate of progress, looking forward to time when I tackle Gibbet stuff with confidence and speed. Just on the verge with my HT/my technique at the moment. It seems for much of surrey, a balance between 120-140m is probably the best compromise (hence stumpy sound good as 140 but feel of 120 apparently). I will never race DH (!!!) only XC/XTT. But that's were I would like a nice racer!!

I am demo-ing from Farnham - so could try out ceaser's hill area (except don't know it), or Gibbet's Hill (too much at the moment?) or schlep across to W'fold. Free demos a plus but bike must be returned perfectly clean, so won't have time for two trials this week. Not sure if I can be bothered to go to Farnham, then back to W'fold and then back. Gibbet or Ceasar's much nearer but I know I will be too timid first time out.

From your home, do you ever go over to pedalon?

From a very similar background to you - trailquest type stuff, timed XC events, Questars etc, the odd Enduro and lots of trail centre riding, I found my 08 Stumpy FSR spot on. 120mm rear and 140mm up front. Never felt the need to adjust travel on the trail and purposely bought forks that could change, but not on the fly (lighter and less to go wrong imo).
I bought a HT last year for events and winter months, requiring far less maintenance, so dont need such an allrounder like the stumpy (bought myself a longer travel frame instead). The FSR frame is up for sale if you are interested? pm me for details - I'm South Hants.

Re. the original question: IMHO the too much bike is more that it's all well and good having heaps of travel and that but if you don't ride it hard/fast enough then it ends up feeling, well, unsatisfying.

Im a serial FS buyer. I always end up back at the hard tail as to be brutally honest I'm happier riding at HT speeds to push and scare myself than have to up the ante with FS. It's much more enjoyable for me. That said I would like a FS bike that was lightish but slack-ish (as per^^^) as FS is a lot less tiring...

Teamhurtmore. Ceasars camp is good, parts are as steep as Hindhead but its more open with more line choice. Leave Farnham up the steep Castle Street, turn left at the lights at the top and park in the lay-by opposite the petrol station. Ride towards the trees and have fun on the test ride!
The FS 140 stumpjumper is a nice bike, it was only the SRAM componentry that put me off. If you want FS but without too much travel try a Specialized Camber....120mm at both ends and nice angles....3 different models at various price points I think?

what chakaping said. i ride a 160mm bike because i like to. i ride it up and down pitch faster than most other people on smaller bikes, you just need to be fit. i wouldn't want to do an xc race on it though.

I would definitely go the two bike route if you can. XC whippet for races and big XC days out and then you can go for a hooligan bike without worrying about practicality. I agree with ianpv about big bikes. They can winch uphill and when is climbing fun anyway but it is the traversing and flat stuff that makes them feel slow.
Ride one for a while and then it is always great fun to get on the other. My twopenneth, wrong probably.

Lots of generalisations but "bigger bikes" tend to have more burly frames and forks, heavier duty components (thinking wheels and tyres mostly here), slacker geometry and a cockpit that overall has wider bars that are closer to you and near or above your saddle height. All those attributes are great for "bigger riding" over more challenging terrain.

And there is the rub - by "great" I guess I mean possible to travel more efficiently and faster at a given skill level that you could on a more xc orientated bike which implies riding quickly for the given location is a good thing. Thing is, all the above characteristics make it not as "great" as an xc bike in less challenging terrain. Both style of bike can get from A to B over the other's preferred terrain but both will be a little slower than the specialist.

[contentious] In my opinion the better the rider you are the more this balance changes. A well skilled rider can cope with a hardtail where I'd struggle with a 160mm full suss. Similarly a cardio vascularly fit rider could really make the xc orientated position pay on long flat sections while the slow, heavy less fit rider will plod along no matter what bike you put them on. ergo the less capable rider is less easily "over biked" [/contentious]

For me I found for the sort of riding I do a 100mm full suss set up "racery" with a long stem a flat bars made the most sense and felt the best. My road racing background makes me happiest stretched out with my arse in the air, my lack of balls means I don't tackle anything too challenging and my aging bones means being shaken to pieces on a hardtail all year no longer has much appeal. I could ride a hard tail but 100mm of skill compensation works for me! I had a long travel bike and just couldn't get used to the ride position for the majority of my riding. I have a burly and lightweight set of forks and wheels (and wider bars and shorter stem in the wings) to change the character of the bike depending on where I am and who I'm riding with and that works great for me.

I keep looking at the Anthem, its probably all I need for where I live TBH.

ive had a few 160mm based bikes.

modified Cove Hustler
Turner 6 Pack on modified rockers
nicolai helius AM.

all of them great in their own right, but for 95% of my riding, there's nothing i cannot ride on my HT whatsoever.

however, I have found trail nirvana on a new nicolai helius AC 29er. 120mm of suspension and it's superb...... for 95% of my riding...

there is no right answer, but i suspect 120/140mm [26"] 100/120 [29"] is adequate for most of the UK 95% of the time....

float - Member

you could check out those full sus ragleys that are supposed to be coming out (or are out already, i cant rememeber) they can take a big fork but have relatively little travel at the rear.

they won't be available for about a year (which is realistically when my finances [s]will[/s] may be able to cope).

but i don't really wan't a big fork either, they're tall, heavy and expensive.

i've been tempted by a specialized camber 29er, but i'm not sure it'll stand up to (slow and crap) Dh racing, and it seems that 3 extra inches of wheel costs £600...

Better to burl-up a 120mm bike than make a 140mm all light and xc-mince?

Maybe a warranty dept would disagree, but I think a well-tuned 120mm bike with bolted forks, wide rims, good tubeless tyres and the right bar/stem may be the perfect FS bike for most UK trails. A bit less than may be ideal for the Lakes, a bit more than you need for southern singletrack, but perfect for the rest inc N Downs.

Little chance of feeling 'over-biked' then - ie the dull, no real input needed, isolated from the trail feel that you may get riding a big bike on tame terrain.
To me 'over-biked' is not what another rider is if they ride a 150mm AM bike where I ride a rigid bike, it's just how I'd describe the polar opposite of how I like to ride. I prefer doing more with less, I guess you'll know if you like that challenge, or I you prefer a bike feeling 'ready for anything' when 'anything' may only come along a few times a year.

(I ride a rigid ss 29er on the same trails as someone who always rides 6" plus, Minions, dropper post, Lyrics etc. We have fun riding the same places. Neither of us are over or underbiked, but we may feel that way if we swapped rides : ) He also rides places like Spain or Verbier more than I do..)

Just remember - people won't talk to you if you buy a Specialized.

Personally I have spent a lot of time up there on everything from a burly Turner 5 spot to a Superlight and more recently a Lynskey 29er. I prefer the Lynskey!

Some interesting comments so far.

THM - I ride the same trails as you with a group of mates and we all have different makes of bikes with differing amounts of travel. The bikes include 100/120mm HT's, 120/130/140 and 150mm FS and I reckon that the amount of travel is not so important but the fitness and skill of the rider is. Personally I think that 160mm and above is a lot of travel for the area and more importantly, for the kind of riding we do. It's the style of riding that you do that starts to influence the amount of travel that you need and your choice of bike. IMO.

What I think is very important is fit and comfortable, especially on a big day out (if that's your kind of riding) then anything between 100 and 150mm of travel will work fine. It's important to set the suspension up to suit your kind of riding too. 3 of us had a 6 hour ride round Tilford/Guildford/Farnham/Frensham today and all the bikes worked fine regardless of the amount of travel, although I was on my HT and it definitely isn't as comfortable as my 150mm FS.

Personally I like how a hardtail feels but if I was going down the full-sus route for your riding I'd be thinking shorter travel and lighter but with a reasonably slack head angle and reasonably steep seat tube, and using big enough tyres, good brakes and stiff forks and wheels, and a dropper post, rather than something bigger but with lighter wheels/tyres.

I can't imagine anything I wouldn't ride down on my relatively burly built Soul that I'd be confident to ride on something bigger. The 'smaller' bike may be slower downhill in an absolute sense, but just as much fun if it has tyres, brakes and geometry that you trust.

Thanks everyone for really interesting comments. Very helpful and appreciated.

piha - just trying to imagine your route - the G'ford = F'ham is easy enough as I guess that's just NDW (do you cycle the FP bits?).

So Tilford - Guildford - Crooskbury, Puttenham etc or Thursley, Mousehill, G'ming? (not sure how you would do last bit there unless Eashing, C'house, sort of route)

Lots of comment about being able to ride anything on a bike no matter how 'small' or 'big'. Fair enough and I accept the idea of a compromise bike. However I can ride anything (except gaps and big drops) on my rigid bike but often I have to go slowly . I can ride nearly everything faster and have huge fun on my Soul and I can ride everything on my Orange Blood even faster and have even more fun.
But on a sunny day, going out for a big ride with big views nothing beats the rigid bike, even climbing can then be fun. The answer is more than one bike.

THM - We didn't take a particularly direct route so from G'ford down to Artington, then NDW to Puttenham and down past Rodsall Manor, over to Gatwick and head towards Cooksbury Hill onwards to Bourne Woods, Pierrepoint Farm, Frensham Ponds (the sand was just about rideable with all the rain we've had), then over to Spreakley. We kinda turned round then and made our way over to Elstead along the Frensham BW and followed the river to Elstead. Couple of pints in the Donkey then made our way up to the Sands and the NDW (cheeky bits included) to West Warren and climbed up to the Hogs Back. Quite a big ride especially with the ground conditions as they are.

There are a lot of trails round that way and we chose that area today cos it holds up well in the wet weather. Mostly bridleways but plenty of stuff to keep you entertained if you know where to look and keep off the stuff popular with the horses.

Saw a few tracks on the steps down past Rodsall Cottage towards Rodsall Manor this morning on my run - could have been you guys!!

Intrigued that you went via RM and Gatwick. I normally swing off Puttenham Common by the Lakes, then cross the road for some short little single track to Britty, then Crooksbury (sshhh!). Never been past Frensham on mtb though.

Agree that this area is good in the wet. And the trails are not mashed as in SHills.

All this 'too much bike' stuff is bollocks (until you start trying to ride XC loops on a proper downhill bike at least). I regularly ride 30 mile loops (including the surrey hills) on my 35lb Nomad and that's fine. Just makes you fitter.

Normally the people that say it are the same people who insist that anyone riding a Champery DH WC course on anything other than a singlespeed rigid on-one 29er wearing SPD sandals is a big girl and calls people who wear body armor 'storm troopers'.

The key thing to remember is that if you're worried you have too much bike you're just not going faster enough downhill 😆

It's an endless debate this one, on so many forums. Personally I think the real solution is more than one bike.

But to my surprise my Spesh Camber with a little beefing up has handled everything I have thrown at it. I'm no Danny Hart but I consider myself a handy(ish) Downhiller from a Motocross background so I don't tip-toe down the rough descents and I don't consider my riding style because I'm on a shorter travel XC orientated bike.

So far the Camber has taken it all with relative ease and is a truly enjoyable super light ride. If it's on your consideration list then I'd say put it at the top.

I went from a Trailstar (rides best with 125mm forks) to a Bullit (180mm each end) and liked it to start with, but now I'm back in the UK I think the Bullit is way too much. It's probably a bit faster, but it feels quite wallowy and makes all of the trails I ride feel slower, especially ones that need lots of pedalling. Makes the trails feel too easy as well. I'd love to try a short travel full sus that's designed for downhill/freeride.

I guess the only thing to do is look at the trails you're riding, test some suitable bikes out and make up your own mind.

...So far the Camber has taken it all with relative ease and is a truly enjoyable super light ride. If it's on your consideration list then I'd say put it at the top...

i'm not listening, la la la - la la la - la la la - la la la....

(it's bit pricey, and it's got rubbish kit on it, but i've had a go on one and it felt ace, but it's a bit pricey - repeat to fade...)

the dual ply super tacky 2.5 dhfs on the bike yesterday made it too much bike

now ive got a touch of shin splints.