Optimal bike choice and setup for riding down actual mountains

Wonderful follow up. Chapeau.

@scienceofficer has it nailed.

Monday night I rode my 18kg 180/155 triple clamped (Nero R’s set at 180 internally, but with the negative chamber overinflated so they are around 165mm) Geometron.

Tuesday my 14Kg 140mm Hardtail.
Both in the same area, but different trails, both rides were great and I was on the right bike for want I from them on both ride.

Monday
https://strava.app.link/WikNCx81Zxb

Tuesday
https://strava.app.link/3nkog7b2Zxb

Never a truer phrase than Skills Compensation

This is my comment about bad workmen blaming their tools…Can’t get down that (from the OP)  long rough descents on sustained chunky terrain On your 24lb XC bike?

It’s clearly your skill level.

Most folks have the cash for one “nice” bike, and buy the thing that will make the bits they enjoy doing more fun, while being willing to compromise on the bits that they don’t enjoy with half an eye on their local terrain. I used to live in the Chilterns, and the bike I regularly rode then was completely different to the bike I ride now in Calderdale. If you want a bike for long rough descents that you can* pedal, it makes more sense (to me at least) to buy the most bang for your buck.

* being the operative word, I tested a Geometron and like @ta11pau1 and others, I found it less shit – for a given value of “not a XC bike designed solely for going fast” than I was expecting.

I’m surprised at how much travel many folk are using; I’m on 35mm stanchion, 140mm travel coil Helm for my ‘big’ bike, a four year old Flare Max with 120mm at the back and a Cane Creek shock. That combination is more than happy on everything in the Highlands and has been on high Alpine, guided weeks and Alpine bikepacking too. Torridon, Big days in the Gorms, Ben MacDhui, Alder, Sgorr Gaoith etc etc..
Yes, there is a place for more travel but a tighter bike doesn’t lurch into its travel and change angles nearly as fast as a bigger rig. In this sort of terrain, I’m more concerned about pedal strikes from a bike that’s too low than ultimate travel, dropping me too close to those boulders. The Flare is a little lighter for carrying up Beinn a Ghlo, for the Angus glens and survives for the steeper woods days too. Anyway, you may have other views but I like this particular compromise, it works for me. But then, I have been known to ride the 130mm Solaris in those same locations too.

I’ve the same FlareMax, but with a 150mm Lyric, 132mm at the rear and -2 headset – it’ll do anything my new 170 FS will do, just not quite as composed on seriously rough stuff. They punch well above their ‘weight’.

Between the (not so) humble brags of the Gnarpoons on their boutique short travel/hard tail weapons, there’s a couple of gems.

As for skills compensator, I prefer skills facilitator for the Slayer.

The thing is, i don’t give a toss how it pedals.. I couldn’t care less how it climbs, how it goes along the SDW, Ridgeway or across a Pennine trail… I don’t care if the ascent at Afan takes me 30 mins or 34 mins… It’s just getting to the top/over/up something. The bike is for going down, the rest… it’s just ‘time’

sounds like you’ve got the wrong bike then. Probably should just be riding a DH bike.

The rest of us, who understand to get to the top of a hill, generally you have to pedal a bike so all of those things are important because in reality we don’t live in Whistler bike park bashing out endless laps.

I don’t want ride a bike that’s crap at riding up hills when the reality is that’s 80% of a bike ride in time.

I pedal uphill, plenty. I just don’t care how fast or slow it is. That sounds a bit glib, but it makes no difference to me. I don’t time, Strava etc, so it’s all just miles and fun. On Sat I’ll be doing Y Wal at Afan then Blade, but it’s not important how quickly I get to the top.

There is something about a light short travel bike on twisty undulating singletrack, but broadly, weekly is right. The only caveat would be if you’re too knackered from pedalling up that you can’t enjoy the down, but I suppose if you have the time, you’d just take a break and have a Kit Kat.

Yes, to most of the comments; especially about the slower bit. When I’m in the mountains, I’m not charging, I’m usually trying for maximum enjoyment and flow, so perhaps that’s why I enjoy having to work at it a wee bit on that shorter travel bike than others might prefer. I do prefer a better damped fork to a longer fork, does that make sense to folk?
140mm of really well controlled fork is worth a lot more to me than 170mm of travel; that latter bike is going to steepen up it’s head angle a lot sooner on the same steep descent.

The irony is, that were I buying today, I’d probably get a Jeht instead of a the Flare, with a really good 150mm fork. but that’s just a theoretical question, as I love what I have.

I ride a lot of mountains. Over the years my bikes have flip flopped between burly 160-170mm enduro bikes and 140mm trail bikes.

What I’ve found works for me is this, which is a little bit of a compromise to suit my day to day riding (Tweed Valley, Dunkeld etc.). Bear in mind I’m someone who puts a lot of store in low bike weights, playfulness and fitness. And I’m alright down a hill but not mega fast. I’ve got a good number of Strava top tens on munro descents but justinbieber, for example, is a much better rider than me.

– 140mm suits me best for most mountains. They tend to be technical, gnadgery trails rather than fast blown out straight lines and so all out travel isn’t as important as a more nimble, lighter bike. 140mm bikes tend to be lighter and so easier to get up the mountain too – if you’re climbing for two or three hours, or doing a 8, 9, 10,000ft day an extra few kilos really helps. I like my air shocks for the weight and to be honest, I don’t think I’d notice the difference with a coil shock. I like a reach of 450mm at 5’10” – there are often tight switchbacks with big consequences up in the hills and a shorter bike makes that easier.

– A mullet or 27.5 suits me best because you do need to respond to stuff quickly as you’re riding what can be a very rough trail blind.

– With that in mind, a slack head angle helps. It’s more stable when you hit something unexpected. The bikes I’ve preferred have been in the region of 63 degrees.

– Tyre casing is a bit of a funny one. I ride a 1000g ish rear tyre with an insert. On proper big mountain terrain the speeds are low enough that you don’t hit stuff mega hard. I have had a few front punctures on lighter tyres, though – usually from hitting a sharp rock (it’s the mountains, rocks are sharp and uneroded). I’ve occasionally run DH casing front tyres, and sometimes rear. The front works quite well but I don’t like a DH rear tyre, it dulls things too much.

– Tyre tread wise, an allrounder usually works fine. There’s rarely a need for a mud tyre.

– Rotors, I run 200m front and 180mm rear. If I were 10kg fatter (I’m 72kg) I’d maybe go for a bigger rear rotor. I use brakes with as little pull as possible run as close to the bar as I can (Formula Curas) to reduce arm pump.

– I run SPDs. I haven’t run flats in the mountains for a while and wouldn’t. Clips suit me but they also reduce dabs and make you commit to the gnadge more. I run 175mm cranks and it’s fine – a proper mountain is usually steep enough that you’re not pedalling where you’d strike your pedals, and where they level off there tend to be fewer boulders and lumps because of erosion patterns.
.
– I do prefer a compliant bar. Comfort is important on a long descent, and my suspension is possible a little softer than most as a result. I don’t run it mega high but I’ve raced XC for a long time so am used to a lower front end.

– Someone up there mentioned frame storage and not riding with a pack, but that’s completely inappropriate for big mountain riding. Weather changes quickly and if something goes wrong rescue times are long. You need a pack with an emergency blanket, a lot of water and food and spare layers.

This is what I run now, 140mm travel and mulleted.

I pedal uphill, plenty. I just don’t care how fast or slow it is.

Me neither, but I care hugely whether I actually manage to ride the terrain or not. For me that is the true essence of mountain biking…. managing a techy challenging section of route. Riding up the North side of Cut Gate well gives me far more satisfaction than riding down it.

I also cannot comprehend how delusional people are about how great these massive bikes are at pedalling and riding mellow terrain.

Can you clarify what you mean?
Can’t decide if you think people who love massive bikes on mellow stuff are delusional, or people who think massive bikes are shit on mellow trails are delusional.

I’m surprised at how much travel many folk are using; I’m on 35mm stanchion, 140mm travel coil Helm for my ‘big’ bike, a four year old Flare Max with 120mm at the back and a Cane Creek shock. That combination is more than happy on everything in the Highlands and has been on high Alpine, guided weeks and Alpine bikepacking too. Torridon, Big days in the Gorms, Ben MacDhui, Alder, Sgorr Gaoith etc etc..

Meh. I’ve done high Alpine, Torridon, big Gorms days, Macdui on a 79 degree head angle short travel bouncer.
Hell I’ve done Sgurr Gaoith and Dollywaggon Pike on a fully rigid with cantis…

And the truth of the matter is that they were a bit shit…

Riding natural high land terrain is imho the one place where modern bike geometry really shines. Trail centres have been tamed by them, downhill trails are purposely cut exactly for the bikes ( people would be just as happy on mellower trails with less capable bikes ) Downhill racing…. again it would make sod all difference if everyone rode less capable bikes.

The only one area where new bikes are an absolute game changer is big mountain ” natural” trails. They’re bloody amazing for that.

Why are some of you talking like you can only have one MTB to ride on mountains?

Sometimes short-travel is perfectly fine, but going balls out on a long-travel bike is glorious fun.

This is what I run now, 140mm travel and mulleted.

Too…much……STEALTH!!!

The rest of us, who understand

Steady now. You don’t speak for me.

That said, I’m pretty sure munrobiker does on everything they just posted.

I think the longer travel boys have a point though, IME 150mm bikes DO ride as well as 120mm bikes from 5 years ago. No reason to assume that trend is going to stop.

In 2017 I was riding q 125mm bike. Now I’m riding a 147mm bike. If anything it rides better and weighs almost the same.

* being the operative word, I tested a Geometron and like @ta11pau1 and others, I found it less shit – for a given value of “not a XC bike designed solely for going fast” than I was expecting.

That pretty much sums it up for me – but there is a vast difference between ‘finding it less sh*t than I was expecting it to be’ to something that is a rocket for normal trail riding (vs a sofa). And, heaven forbid, 95% as capable 😉

I think the longer travel boys have a point though, IME 150mm bikes DO ride as well as 120mm bikes from 5 years ago. No reason to assume that trend is going to stop.

That’s mostly because there wasn’t really any decent 120mm bikes 5 years ago. For me, they have only really become a really good thing in the last 18/24 months (where bike designers are seeing geometry > travel).

If I was ever in a position where it was one bike for all, something around 140/150 would probably be where I end up.

@Munrobiker said

I ride a lot of mountains.

Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that.

Riding down a Munro like Ben Vrackie, which I struggle to walk down, is a completely different proposition than riding down, say Walna Scar. Both are ‘riding down a mountain’. For the properly steep nadgery Munros a shorter bike would definitely be an advantage.

I dubbed my bike ‘project overkill’ and if anything it’s the geometry which has made the biggest difference – if it had 20mm less travel it’d still be as good, however even with the extra travel, burlier tyres etc it’s honestly as good as at pedalling as my previous 150mm trail bike – it’s genuinely a very pleasant place to be when pedalling over flat/rolling terrain – this isn’t just my view, it’s the view of multiple reviewers, and owners.

My mountain riding tends to be natural/wild trails – faster, looser, wider & rougher stuff – think Peak District potato alley/beast, Schiehallion, borrowdale bash etc. so a bigger/slacker/longer bike suits me well.

I’m off to Torridon in 2 months with a few days in the Tweed valley beforehand, that’ll be the bikes first introduction to some big mountains and I expect it to excel. Cannot wait for Torridon!!! 😁

I seem to have reached a point of deluded happiness, where I ride one of two bikes that would be pretty rubbish against the clock or feel unnecessarily hard work if I were used to “better” bikes but I’m very happy in my state of delusion. Those bikes are a Moxie 160mm singlespeed hardtail and a Levo 160/157mm e-full-sus. If I want rear suspension then I take the Levo even if I’m not using the motor – but with the Moxie’s geometry and fork I’m happy to take it down anything that would be within my comfort zone on any bike. If I rode another full-sus (with decent pedalling efficiency – as most do have nowadays) I’d probably get annoyed with the Levo uphill unpowered but as it has 11 gears vs 1 on my hardtail it feels fine!

The grass might be greener but I refuse to look at it! 😉

Back to the actual subject – it feels like any decent enduro bike with the right tyres should be the answer.

 to something that is a rocket for normal trail riding

I’d reckon that “normal” covers a wide range for everyone on here, from bucolic rolling woody singletrack* to vertiginous goat tracks.

*I took my Calderdale bike to the Chilterns a while back, and while it certainly wasn’t as fast as the bike I used to ride there, it was still pretty good fun despite having 40mm more travel, and weighing 2.5kgs more.

but there is a vast difference between ‘finding it less sh*t than I was expecting it to be’ to something that is a rocket for normal trail riding (vs a sofa). And, heaven forbid, 95% as capable 😉

True – but then the OP is asking about a bike for riding down mountains, where uphill performance is important, but downhill performance is importanterer.

Something that’s a rocket for general trail riding for me would be a 120mm bike with pikes, light wheels, fast rubber, nimble geometry. Which is the opposite of what I’d want for riding down a mountain.
They may be 95% as capable in the right hands, but when its day 5 of 5 of riding in the mountains, and you’re tired and just trying to survive the final rocky descent back to to the van/accomodation, I’d rather have the ‘skills compensator’ than go over the bars because I lost concentration for a moment.

That’s mostly because there wasn’t really any decent 120mm bikes 5 years ago. For me, they have only really become a really good thing in the last 18/24 months (where bike designers are seeing geometry > travel).

If I was ever in a position where it was one bike for all, something around 140/150 would probably be where I end up.

And if you wanted a single bike to do it all, then these new school, slack, longish, ultra capable 130-150mm travel bikes are ruddy brilliant and a really good at everything.

Shorter travel bikes have gotten much more capable but at the same time long travel bikes have also gotten much better at being ridden and pedalled all day. 170mm bikes aren’t big wallowy sofas that bob 4″ on each pedal stroke any more, the same as 120mm bikes aren’t 69 degree head angle deathtraps on anything worse than a few roots. There’s no ‘bad’ bikes nowadays, it’s just where your priorities lie which is the deciding factor when buying. And for me, I ride up a mountain for 1 reason. To ride down. Ok, and to look at the views.

Edit: to add, one of the guides on my regular trips rides a transition spur with pikes (130mm travel I think) and I’ll be riding my 175/170mm travel Geometron on the same trails. Another guide rides a 17kg full steel, full coil starling FS bike. Modern bikes are brilliant. All of them!

Highlander.

Frames currently £600 off down to £2400 – https://store.deviatecycles.com/ if anyone was looking (or is now).

66deg head angle with a 150mm fork though, see above comments about head angle.

Coil fork, or a chonky air fork like a Zeb to stay on track through the rocks

Also, the Zeb is a heck of a lot stiffer than a 36, and that’s a big help when tackling steep rocky descents.

Interesting, I’m probably getting off to walk out of fear/self-preservation sooner than I run into scenarios where I’d notice this.

As for my big bike, there is no carbon on it, as I’ve cracked too many

Maybe this should be a criteria. If you fall off your bike, or hop off it to save yourself, it’s probably going to land on a rock.

What kind of mountains are we talking?

UK mountains was what I had in mind. You’re carrying up most of the way, or maybe part of the way if there’s an alternative way up.

No changes to damping or cockpit setup – why would I want the bike to react differently to what I’m used to?

Fair point and optimal for most of us, but not totally optimal.

I’m surprised at how much travel many folk are using

One benefit might be being able to go faster while being safer, as in chunky terrain stalling the bike and losing balance can happen if going too slowly and you hit a surprise. Faster also means wheels not falling into every hole, so more comfortable.

When I’m in the mountains, I’m not charging, I’m usually trying for maximum enjoyment and flow

Also, self-preservation.

there are often tight switchbacks with big consequences up in the hills and a shorter bike makes that easier

Made me think of another one – “not an ebike” perhaps, at least for the lighter/weaker of us.

imo if the rider is heavy, a dual-crown fork should be on the list. Adds a couple of hundred grams of weight, but improves stiffness, tracking, and feeling like a boss.

imo if the rider is heavy, a dual-crown fork should be on the list.

Crickey. Gotta say I’m really struggling to recall ever seeing a dual crown bike out in the genuine UK mountains.

“Crickey. Gotta say I’m really struggling to recall ever seeing a dual crown bike out in the genuine UK mountains.”

Did you misspell “creaky”?

I’d put dual crown forks on every 160mm+ bike if they were more affordable, more available and the frames were rated for them. I was googling Boxxers yesterday after the front of my bike made a bad noise and I worried it might be from my fork crown…

Those pinkbike huck to flat videos make singlecrown forks look like a terrible idea!

Crickey. Gotta say I’m really struggling to recall ever seeing a dual crown bike out in the genuine UK mountains.

This will be being punted down the MacAvalanche in 5 weeks time. I’m lead to believe that’s on a proper mountain.

^Nope lift assisted^

I’m in the light and nimble camp, 140 trail bike never been one to plough!

Oooft, that’s a proper winch and plummet machine @tomhoward. Would be equal parts incredible and disgusting in the lakes – having no rear mech would be amazing

Did you misspell “creaky”?

My damn phone changed it to cricket, and I failed to correct it properly. 2 syllable words are a bit much for me 🙂

This will be being punted down the MacAvalanche in 5 weeks time. I’m lead to believe that’s on a proper mountain.

Mmm. Wot Fergal said. Do the five Munro evening spin from Glenshee, or ‘gorm & Mac, then we’ll talk 😉

I always used to run a decent hardtail and a FS (140/130) as both bikes were really compromised in different situations. As longer travel bikes got better, the hardtail just became redundant for me. I enjoy every ride I do (more than ever), including on the road, I’m more comfortable than I’ve ever been and if I want to hit that 12 foot drop, I know the bike will happily do it. I do think any bike riding is great but modern long travel rigs aren’t the compromise many seem to think 🙂 hardtails and fully rigid can be perfect for many situations too!

Just love bikes for all their different glories, as long as it’s fun 🙂

Oooft, that’s a proper winch and plummet machine @tomhoward. Would be equal parts incredible and disgusting in the lakes – having no rear mech would be amazing

Pretty much sums it up. As long as tech riding is done with the assistance of gravity, rather than despite it, it’s all good! Will climb a fire road ok, if slowly. It’s not the heaviest enduro machine I’ve seen, but at a hair under 38lbs it’s never gonna fly up anything.

Crickey. Gotta say I’m really struggling to recall ever seeing a dual crown bike out in the genuine UK mountains

for pedal-up riding I’d agree – lots used at uplift/push up places though. I don’t think that’s a UK phenomenom either – even in the sea to sky corridor its rare to see a bike with wide-range gears and a triple crown. I’m not sure why though – the old enduro expert evo used to come with boxxers at stock (lowered to 180mm) but very few other bikes. I think its a shame, the wieght penalty is negligable and the steering lock a non-issue in the vast majority of circumstances.

As others have said it really depends where your priorities lie. For me it’s descending as fast as I can go. I came from a 130/160mm trail bike onto the G1 after trying my friends and realising I could ride quite a bit quicker without the risk. The G1 is heavy yes but at the same time way more comfortable to pedal than any other MTB I’ve tried.

I can’t remember what review it was on which site, but it hit the nail on the head for me, a 120-140 trail bike versus a 160-180 enduro bike, for varied terrain, a 160-180mm enduro takes away more from the uphill/flat flowing stuff than a trail bike takes away from the gnarly descents.

I personally don’t find a 160-180 enduro bike really gives any benefit in DH capability versus a 140-160 bike, but do find a bigger proportionate gain in all round enjoyment 140-160 versus 160-180.

That also means too, i find 160-180 bikes pretty pointless for what i do, dislike pedalling too much, so would only use them for uplift, but then a DH would be the right bike (well only on the properly gnar stuff, DYFI, really horrible stuff in the alps as examples). I find a DH bike ridiculously more capable than at 160-180 bike.

I’ve floated between all setups, currently on a bronson v4, because I’m trying to do the one bike thing, doesn’t quite feel as energetic is ideally want for mellower stuff, but haven’t backed out of any gnar or felt out of depth on it.

Interesting earlier in the thread someone saying well i need zebs because they’re stiffer and running them at 180mm, i’d put money on a current lyrik or fox 36 at 160mm is just as stiff as a fox 38/zeb at 180mm.

Then it’s a whole other debate on “well i just like to go fast DH”, this is where i do start to feel it a bit of a skills compensator. I’d be inclined to make people think with the question, out of anyone you know of who is fast, do you think they’re going fast because of skill or because they’re just holding on?

Then you have the arguments over setup, there seems to be quite a few people who i’d suggest incorrectly are looking for a bike that erases all sensation of what is happening underneath them, a lot of the time in pursuit of safety, where going after this will make it more unsafe.

Interesting earlier in the thread someone saying well i need zebs because they’re stiffer and running them at 180mm, i’d put money on a current lyrik or fox 36 at 160mm is just as stiff as a fox 38/zeb at 180mm.

That would be me, and I didn’t quite say that… The frame is designed around a 170-180mm fork, and Fox and Rockshox have in their infinite wisdom, decided to stop offering a 36 or Lyrik in 170mm. So I ended up with the Zeb.

As for the stiffness of a 36 at 160mm (my old setup) vs a Zeb at 180mm, I don’t have the numbers to hand or know if they even exist, but I have noticed the front end of the bike is stiffer. Same bar, stem and headset. Only thing that’s changed is the frame and fork. I suppose I could ask the frame designer if he knows which frame is stiffer, but I’m not sure it’s hugely relevant.

I also mentioned the Zeb.

On my old 170mm bike, I went from a 170mm Lyrik to a 190mm Zeb and, despite the 20mm extra travel, it still felt much stiffer and more authoritative to me (and more comfy).

I’d still go for a Lyrik (or my coil Helm) on a 150mm bike though – and ride that kind of bike MUCH more than I do the “super-enduro” type.

I’ve just moved from a 160mm Lyric (which is for sale!) to a 170mm RXF 38 and I find them stiffer fore and aft.

The ‘skills compensator’ thing potentially opens a can of worms – it’s definitely the case that riders of a certain skill level wont be pushing a 180mm bike anywhere near its capabilities and are basically ‘getting away with it’ on tricky terrain but there are riders who are quite skilled who will be getting more out of the bike – to the point where a shorter travel bike will hold them back. Also, its very easy to set up a lot of longer travel bikes to get more feedback/sensation from the trail, hence making it more fun and if you’re skilful, faster too.

I think the type of terrain you ride 95% of the time really ought to dictate the amount of travel required.

“As for the stiffness of a 36 at 160mm (my old setup) vs a Zeb at 180mm, I don’t have the numbers to hand or know if they even exist, but I have noticed the front end of the bike is stiffer.”

Based on the numbers I’ve seen I’m pretty certain the Lyrik is stiffer than the 36, particularly in torsional stiffness. Extrapolating from that I suspect a Zeb at 180mm has the slight edge on a 160mm Lyrik for torsional stiffness and near identical side to side and fore-aft stiffness.

This whole fork thing opens up a whole other can of worms too, it illustrates that people tend to skip a step when they’re describing a product and it’s affect, i personally believe it’s a major pit fall.

So lets take this fork stiffness thing as an example…a few people above have said “x felt stiffer than y”, ok, but what did you FEEL when you were riding, front wheel got knocked off line more easily? Steering was more direct? Steering was calmer? Felt less feedback through the bars? Felt more feedback through the bars?

+25mm on the a-c is going to have a big impact on HA and stack and reach, how do you know what you were feeling was fork stiffness”?

A brand new fork felt more comfy than an old one, IS it stiffness?

You got a new frame or front wheel, even maybe tyre, it feels different, what are the different feelings?

When rockshox released the zeb, they quoted it a ~+2% stiffness fore/aft, +7% lateral, +20%b torsional, over a MY21 lyrik. 25mm diff on a-c is ~4% diff in leverage. Rockshox say MY23 lyrik has ~20% greater torsional stiffness than the out-going lyrik. Are the gains in stiffness just in they new bushings/spacing/overlap? Is the MY23 zeb ultimate way stiffer than the non MY23 ultimates? What do i take away from he numbers? Firstly, when we’re into difference less than ~5%, BS you can isolate them to the point you can feel them. A 160mm lyrik is probably as stiff, if not potentially more fore/aft as a 180mm zeb.

In a long winded, maybe slightly arsey way, I think it’s a real problem people create with bike setup, jumping straight to what could potentially be the root cause, and very likely getting it completely wrong. Rather than going, “i’m feeling this”, “it could be x, y or z”, “ok lets discount each of these methodically so i’m sure i get to the best answer within my ability”. We end up with so many set-up and product wives tales, which are just that, wives tales.

I think the type of terrain you ride 95% of the time really ought to dictate the amount of travel required.

I’ve been doing this long enough that I can remember another cyclist at an event telling me that the 100mm Manitou fork was so much travel on my HT that not only would it make the bike un-rideable* (I was riding it at the time) it would add to the erosion of the trails** and possibly the end of civilisation as we know it.***

I think what ought to dictate the amount of travel on your bike is what the rider decides they want.

*, ** yes, he actually said that

** I made that bit up

You make good points, its pretty much impossible to quantify isn’t it – I’m sure part of the feeling I had was part the bigger fork but also the additional damping from the fork (Ohlins is definitely heavier damped than the Lyrik). I really noticed the fore/aft stiffness on 1 section of track which was a steep shoot with humps at the bottom which you’re having to brake within before hitting a turn. Generally though it felt more direct, similar to when I went from a 35mm Boxxer to a 40. I dropped the stem/bar to compensate for the additional travel to make sure it wasn’t completely skewing my previous set up.

Stiffness isn’t always the best either, I like the G1 as it’s got quite a flexy rear end – the spherical bushing do work which is one of the reasons the bike creates so much grip.

its pretty much impossible to quantify isn’t it

Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed it. I’m only partly trolling, if I still lived in the Chilts there’s no way I’d have bought an Enduro bike, but at the end of the day, it’s whatever makes you happy that counts, more than anything else.