Can you have too much travel on an bike?

If the bike is set up correct (sag compression etc) can you have too much travel?

no

As in, too much travel for the frame? Yes.

Or as in, too much travel for the type of riding? Yes.

Of course you can, albeit there is an element of subjectivity.

Sorry I'm talking for a type of riding/terrain not for a frame.

I would guess a DH bike would have too much travel to be able to ride XC easily but that could come down to geometry and weight too. As travel gets longer angles tend to get slacker and components stronger/heavier so its more about how things are designed than how much travel they have specifically.

No, more travel will always work better for shock absorbtion, however it will work against you as it increaces the forces on the frame (either directly by bending the forks or indirectly by making you ride quicker) and thus the weight of the frame. It will also pedal horribly unless you comprimise the shock absorbtion part.

Basicaly all suspension frames are a comprimise between pedaling, weight and travel.

Edit: so realy its a yes, you can have too much, it just depends if thats the comprimise you want.

It entirely depends on your point of view of 'fun' really. 8 inches on a XC bike whilst trying to actually do XC riding, might not necessarily be a barrel of laughs. Razzing around in a bomb hole with a few pints of cheap vodka in you, with yer mates, it's going to be laugh your tit's off funny.

Isn't it?

Yes, if you're getting towards say 26" of suspension, its going to do very little with a wheel diameter of 26". if the wheel can't roll over a bump, the suspension can't absorb it.

(Except on big Josh Bender style drops)

Yes. 6" is too big for practically any UK xc besides riding down very big mountains very fast.

It's quality of travel that counts not quantity.

yes. Marzocchi had the super monster T forks in late 2002. They had 12" travel. 8 years later, nothing much else has gone over 8" travel

too much sag is a definate disadvantage. lets say on a given trail I can lift my bars 1' without disrupting my riding too much. with 2" sag that means 10" of clear gap for objects to get under, so I can probably pile into something, say 16" high without killing myself. If I was running super monsters with 4" sag, I'd only get over something 14" high without killing myself

Travel can often be a bad thing.

I'd disagree that 6" is too much though. I did the SDW on a 6" play bike (45lb Gemini) and it was fine. I didn't need or use most of the travel, but it wasn't *too* much, just more than necessary.

Travel makes no difference if the shock is set up correctly.

Big travel usually equals heavy build which is what confuses people.
Also the geometry usually has to be quite different on the long travel bikes.

Travel makes no difference if the shock is set up correctly.

Balls. More total travel = more travel for any give amount of force (assuming the shock isn't set up stupidly).
If it's damped properly that means more energy absorbed by the damper. If it's not damped enough it means ridiculous bouncing around.

Plus too much travel makes some trails fuggin dull.

I was thinking within reason. No reason why the next generation spesh enduro can't have a lightweight 8" frame + fork.
Cant see it going much over 8" though, as any more suspension eats into your ground clearance, bottom out a 8" bike and your bb is probably 6" off the floor, take off 4" for the chainring/bash guard and any 2" pebble will hit your bashguard.

I once rode a DH bike with 14" rear travel so I could still ride DH while I had a broken foot. 5" of sag was nice at the time ;).

But FWIW I'd prefer 7" travel DH frames and forks over 8" and think anything over 4" travel is overkill for whatever new term mincers are using to describe "XC" these days.

6" is too much for UK xc, really?

I thought bikes like the Specialized Enduro were classed as "all mountain" that has 6" travel, would you say this bike is not for UK xc riding then?

I'm not criticising your comment would just like to know more of your reasoning.

Yes. Some trails need a ht to be interesting

6" travel on a road bike of bmx would be pretty hideous to be honest.

Lakes_Puma – Member
6" is too much for UK xc, really?

I thought bikes like the Specialized Enduro were classed as "all mountain" that has 6" travel, would you say this bike is not for UK xc riding then?

I'm not criticising your comment would just like to know more of your reasoning.

You talking to me?

Yes it is too much when it's on a frame that's so light it will fail riding DH as fast as a 6" bike will let you and having 6" but controlled with an air shock is a waste of travel anyway.

I don't really care who buys Specialized enduros or why.

Mehh, its subjective like cynic-al said. I dont "need" 6" travel forks on my bike, In fact they've been wound down to 5" since I fitted them, but It certainly never feels like too much, especially when my weight pounds down on them.

Intrestingly, nobody ever seems to factor in rider weight. If I was a couple of stone lighter, I could get the same level of plushness and compliance from a much shorter fork, and never get near the travel limmit that I would just blow through now. Perhaps think about that one on top of the type of terain you perceve somebody to be riding. Just because your skinny little mincy arse cant compress a 4" spring dosent mean mine wont! lol

I had a 6" travel bike for a while. It was great in the Alps, but just too boring on the stuff I could get to in England. I went back to 3.5"

Grimy, weight shouldn't have anything to do with it, the spring should be set up for your weight so a 15 stone rider should use all their suspension as should a 10 stone rider.

I think the new scott is pushing how much travel is necessary on a light bike.

ntrestingly, nobody ever seems to factor in rider weight. If I was a couple of stone lighter, I could get the same level of plushness and compliance from a much shorter fork, and never get near the travel limmit that I would just blow through now. Perhaps think about that one on top of the type of terain you perceve somebody to be riding. Just because your skinny little mincy arse cant compress a 4" spring dosent mean mine wont! lol

What?
If you can't compress your springs with whatever body weight you have then you have the wrong spring/air pressure.

In response to OP's question, I'd say yes but I'm a less is more type of rider: I prefer to have too little travel than too much…keeps things interesting.

Following on from some of the more flippant posts above…

Take a 9 stone rider and a 12 stone rider; send them down the same rocky hill side. Does the lighter rider need less travel to achieve the same level of shock absorption?

Some physics please…

Like everything it's subjective.
Is 6" too much travel for the UK? It's a big place and has very varied terrain. Scottish or welsh trails are different to the south downs for example.
When I see people riding enduros do I think "you're overbiked"? NO! I think "nice bike mate".
Opinions are like arseholes, and I'd dare to say that people riding 6-7" bikes are too busy enjoying them to give a **** about an interwebbers feelings on its appropriateness.

There is the curse of the long fork to consider…Its ok when you hold your speed through fast trails.The problem comes on slower, steep and technical trails when the front fork bottoms out and you lose forward momentum. You will then find yourself getting the old arse over tits over the bars and into the ground…this problem is much less with a small and stiff fork…

What?
If you can't compress your springs with whatever body weight you have then you have the wrong spring/air pressure.

Its not that straight forward. Yes you can increase the pressure or change the spring to better suit the riders weight, but this stiffens the fork considerably and makes it less complient. In situations where the riders weight is out back over the rear, with little on the front, the stiffer spring wont track the ground as well as a softer one, which the lighter rider can get away with.

Its hard to explain what I mean but, The forks on the bike of a heavy rider will experiance a greater transition in weight as the rider shifts around, than that of the forks on the bike of a lighter rider. If both have the same travel, then the shortfall of increasing the pressure is less compliance in all situations. Its a trade off. One way of getting around that is to increase the length, alowing you to run the forks a little softer and still have enough travel, and spring ramp up, to prevent bottoming. You see what i mean?

There is the curse of the long fork to consider…Its ok when you hold your speed through fast trails.The problem comes on slower, steep and technical trails when the front fork bottoms out and you lose forward momentum. You will then find yourself getting the old arse over tits over the bars and into the ground…this problem is much less with a small and stiff fork…

A 8" travel fork is about the same length as an 80mm fork when its bottomed out, so I don't get that theory!

Mind you, most of the posts don't really make sense.

Tinsy, its got nothing to do with the length of the fork when bottomed out…Its the shift in weight and momentum. If you hit a rock and compress your fork on a short travel firm fork, you will move forward a little and probably then roll over the obsticle…On a longer travel fork, you will compress the travel a lot further and potentially go over the bars…I managed a good one at glentress this weekend…

OMG! there's some serious pish being typed on this thread 😆

no wonder people have trouble setting up their shocks

Yes, yes you can have too much travel, in a sense.

Take this for example:

Was Stolen over in France (Les Gets/Morzine kind of area) not so long ago. Totally excessive.

That new scott looks awesome. 185mmm and under 30lbs.
I would say quality of travel is the most important.
I've been commuting on my remedy for weeks, turn on the floodgate and propedal and it's pretty stiff. I can power on the road, yet still hit a kerb head on.
Land Rovers have amazing sus travel and articulation, yet they're designed to corner pretty flat on the road. **** ing scary to see 3 tonnes doing 80 on a back road too.

Tinsy, its got nothing to do with the length of the fork when bottomed out…Its the shift in weight and momentum. If you hit a rock and compress your fork on a short travel firm fork, you will move forward a little and probably then roll over the obsticle…On a longer travel fork, you will compress the travel a lot further and potentially go over the bars…I managed a good one at glentress this weekend…

are you actually saying that shorter travel forks are better at steeper trails? really?

better get onto sam hill and sell him some sids then…

imo a longer fork will mean slacker angles which makes steep decents a hell of a lot easier. If you take that out of the equasion, the continual compression of the fork on obstical a will aid you over it, not hinder you (otherwise we'd all ride rigid)

the reason you fell off was lack of skill, not too much travel.

OMG! there's some serious pish being typed on this thread

absolutely right.

personally i couldnt give a ****.

ride what you want

are you actually saying that shorter travel forks are better at steeper trails? really?

you don't even need suspension for steepness.. look at BMX – you can't get steeper than vert!

better get onto sam hill and sell him some sids then…

Sam Hill is a DH racer his bike is set-up to get him down the whole hill fastest – if that hill happened to be faster on shorter travel set-up, He'd run it.

imo a longer fork will mean slacker angles which makes steep decents a hell of a lot easier.

it's not as simple as that though is it? I'd rather ride very steep stuff on my 100mm travel, 69deg HA, 12" BB hardtail than some 65deg 8" travel bike with a 15" BB.

I actually do have a slack, low DH bike and haven't ever ridden it down anything so steep I wouldn't ride my hardtail down, it's when it also gets rough and fast that the DH bike shines.