Don't Get Hung Up On the Numbers - Opinion
Chainstay length. Headtube angle. Reach. Stack. Bottom bracket height. Travel amount. Many of us mountain bikers are obsessed with numbers, poring over geometry charts with a level of scrutiny typically reserved for actuaries or teenage boys in possession of their first dirty magazine. There's no shortage of opinions surrounding those numbers either, especially on the internet, and even bringing up something as innocuous as chainstay length can be akin to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
One of the most puzzling numbers-related comments that I've seen popping up lately goes like this: “Why would I spend that much money for only XXX millimeters of travel?" It makes me shake my head a little, slightly confused by that line of reasoning. For one, there's no correlation between how much a full-suspension mountain bike costs and the amount of travel it has – you can just as easily find a $5,000 short-travel XC machine as you can a $5,000 all-mountain rig. But the most glaring issue with that statement is that not everyone needs (or wants) 160mm of travel, and there's also absolutely nothing wrong with choosing a shorter-travel steed over one with gobs of travel and ultra-long and slack angles.
Yeti's SB 4.5 might have 'only' 114mm of rear travel, but it had no problem taking on terrain like this and scampering up the steep climb to get there.
Modern geometry and suspension technology has made the argument for shorter travel bikes even stronger, and there's a bumper crop of insanely capable bikes out there with less than 150mm of squish, all of them able to deliver a ripping good time on just about every type of trail. When Mike Levy penned his polarizing op-ed on the topic back in 2012 there was still a fairly distinct divide between all-mountain bikes and more XC-oriented options, but that line has become increasingly blurry over the last few years. The Transition Scout, Trek Fuel EX, YT Jeffsy, Cannondale Habit... the list goes on and on, full of bikes that can push that fun-o-meter all the way into the red. After all, for most riders, that's what it's all about, and the quick, snappy, and lively handling that many of these shorter travel bikes possess is part of what makes them so appealing.
It's funny to how closely trends in the ski industry parallel what's happening in the mountain bike world. Super fat and radically shaped skis were all the rage for a handful of years – the enduro bikes of the skiing world you could say - and even at areas where powder days are measured in inches rather than feet you'd see skiers cruising around on skis better suited for heli-skiing in Alaska. By all appearances that trend has passed, and skis with more versatile dimensions are back in favor. That same scenario is beginning to play out in the mountain bike world, and going into 2017 I have a feeling we'll be seeing more mid-travel steeds entering the market. But don't worry, there will still be plenty of enduro-race oriented bikes available; it's just that the gap in between those slack-angled beasts and pointy XC bikes is going to get filled in with even more versatile options.
Transition's Scout is a prime example of a playful and versatile shorter travel bike.
As is Santa Cruz's Tallboy 3. Whatever wheelsize flavor you prefer, there's no shortage of choices.
The follow up to the first question I mentioned typically goes something like this: “Why would I buy a bike with only 130 or 140mm of travel when I can get a 160mm bike that weighs exactly the same? Fair enough – it's kind of like trying to decide between a monster truck and a rally car that both somehow get the same gas mileage. On one hand, you have a bike that will be more forgiving when you're plowing through a chunky rock garden, or coming up half a wheel length short on a jump, but at slower speeds and on technical climbs that monster truck isn't going to feel nearly as responsive as the shorter travel, rally car-like option.
Choosing how much travel your next bike will possess doesn't have as much to do with your skill level as it does the feeling you're looking for out on the trail, and the terrain you ride the majority of the time. For instance, if I lived in Nebraska or Texas my bike of choice would be quite different than if I lived up in Whistler. Sure, you can cruise around on gently rolling trails aboard an XXL Nicolai Geometron, but will it be as enjoyable as getting after it on something whose wheelbase isn't a city block long? Probably not. The good news is that the number of lemons on the market is at an all time low – there are more great options than ever, with more on the way, and no matter if you decide to go the rally car or the monster truck route it's highly likely you'll have a great time once those tires hit dirt.
Author Info:
Member since Feb 1, 2009
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
The thing I never got and never will is the even MotoGp bikes have full suspension. They are designed to race on the smoothest surfaces available yet they are suspended. You don't see hardtail MotoX bikes do you. Yet when it come to mountain bikes that need more effort to ride and you would think benefit from energy saving suspension the most, people want to act all tough and ride hardtails or rigid. I just don't get it.
Its all about the rider for speed, yes the same rider will be slower on the roughest trials compared to there f/s. But a good fast rider on a hardtail will be faster then a rider with less skill level on a f/s. Time for a new bike and I can't decide on another ht or go fs.
I am back on HT after 5 years of FS. I was missing the feedback and techniqe focus from the HT,plus I only have one bike,and use it for bikepacking too..
It`s very individual..
Look for something that helps in what you are lacking in.
Slacker and longer travel might help a more XC person wanting to get more gnar. Nothing worse than getting a bike that's a real good climber for someone who is a good climber! Someone who is really confident in the rough and steep could go more mid travel and less slack who wants to climb more. Get equipment that pushes you where you need it.
If you're riding a lift-assisted DH trail or bike park, by all means get a DH/park specific bike. If you're riding DJ trails or ramps, by all means get a DJ specific bike. But when you're riding well-rounded singletrack/all-mountain trails with equal amounts climbing/descending, groomed/gnarly, flowy/techy...you know, what 90+% of us actually do 90+% of the time...buy a well-rounded bike that makes you a well-rounded rider. Simple, I think.
And then often in our area these same people will complain that the trails are to easy, no shit flowing Ontario trails on a 150mm+ bike are easy.
Sure I could use a bike that climbs better as I am more deficient in that area. (and sure if you have 5 of them you may as well get one that climbs good) BUT I'd rather continue to be horrible at climbing while maximizing the fun parts...
In general I think one should always push the aspects that you are good at, and become great at it. Of course balance it out and not concentrate only on 1 thing, but a shit descender will not get better only by buying a downhill bike, and viceversa.
Neg prop away!
Sorry, but this just isn't right. For example, I'll be every single person reading this could improve 95% of their riding by putting a longer, lower stem on their bike and slamming the seat all the way forward. That would get them up hills faster, which is where the vast majority of the time in the saddle is spent. But none of us do that, right? Why not? Because we're only going up those hills so we can have fun on the way down, which is a small fraction of the time.
Thank's Mike kazimer for the time and energy you spend, to help those who are ready to drop coin on a new steed.
N+1 or S-1
Where N= the number of bikes you currently have and S=the number of bikes that would lead to divorce
Sure, steep grinder climbs can be done on slacker bikes with wider bars, but they can be done faster with longer stems and the seat forward, and faster still on XC bikes. Similarly, steep, rocky descents can be done on XC bikes with long stems and the seat forward, but they could be done faster with shorter stems, and faster still on an enduro bike.
What bike people choose to ride, and how they set it up, should be based very little on the time they spend on various types of terrain. Far more important is how much each individual values certain parts of the ride, and it is entirely reasonable for people to choose bikes and setups based on a small fraction of their riding.
The bike industry wants to sell us as many bikes as possible. Marketing departments want us to believe we need a different bike for every type of trail we ride.
There is certainly some merit to the right tool for the right job, but too often we forget that it's more about the Indian than the arrow.
Most of our livelihoods do not depend how fast we can ride, how large we can huck, how hard we can slam a berm, or how rad we can steeze on the trail. Mountain biking is a hobby for most of us, and a great hobby, taboot taboot. It promotes wellness, gets us outside, provides diversion - in geeking out over gear, bike lust, industry trends, and in actually riding - and ultimately is super fun for a diversity of reasons. That being said, because biking is a hobby and not a career or "lifestyle", we need to fit it in admidst earning an income, going to school, being part of a family, and a million other more important things.
Modern bikes are ridiculously expensive. If you can afford to own a quiver of bikes, awesome. If you can only afford one, by all means take care in finding the best bang for your buck and the right bike for the type of riding you do - because that is pretty fun in own right.
BUT PLEASE, remember that you will yield the most enjoyment out of actually riding your bike as much as possible and not obsessing over owning a bike you think will make you better or make you happier. All wheels, regardless of width or size, are round. All bikes (e bikes excluded I guess....) are pedal powered. All suspension is going to sag. Modern bikes are rolling compromises. There is no one bike to rule them all... No bicycle, regardless of what reviewers on the Internet say or advertisements lead you to believe, will make you a better rider or make riding bikes more fun simply by swinging a leg over it.
Of course riding different bikes and trying new gear is fun, but it won't automatically make you a better rider.
Obsessing over gear and lusting over bikes will never be more fun than actually getting outside and riding. It's all about the Indian and not the arrow. So I urge you to quit looking at new arrows. Put that obsessive energy into learning to maintain your current arrow rather than memorizing geometries of bikes you'll never even consider buying. Put that energy into shootinng the arrow you already own as often as possible.
Quit watching movies, quit believing everything you read on the Internet, and quit drinking the kool aid. Just get your tires on some dirt and enjoy the ride
If u cant have 2 or more bikes i guess its just good to try something new every 1-1.5 years while u still have resale value.
People who tend to ride similar styles tend to ride together. There's no point smashing your buddies on your XC race whippet hardtail up the hills and then have them leave you for dead in the rock gardens on the way down. Riding is mostly about sharing good times and trails so ride what your friends ride +/- 20mm
turn around a go the other WAY...
Curiously wheel size in not on the equation... Why should we chose a 29' truck than can roll over 10 foot high boulders when we can be riding a much cheaper snappy 26' bike and have soooo much more fun!
Contradiction is rife in the industry when they want to sell something new (old).. new.. ...
I'd liked to know which bikes are considered lemons. On this website where all bike reviews end up stating "it climbs good and descends great", it would be great to know which bikes to avoid, especially for those who don't have a chance to demo a variety of bikes before purchasing.
Then you missed the fact that huge portion of people buying 110-130 bikes tend to beef them up with big knobby tyres and 150-160 forks sooner or later. In such climate of 160 bike parts and slack&long geo, you end up with a bike that has geo and componentry that outperform the rear suspension of the bike.
You could not find a bike that suits my trails better on paper than a modern 110-130 machine with light tyres. Yet top 10 charts of Strava of all trails are littered with 140-160 bikes.
I am glad you mention Mike Levys article because it is only a sign how history repeats itself. If you go to a bike park or many popular shuttling locations, the Downhill sled is the single best weapon. It is durable and provides big margin of error. So it is with a 160 bike for local trails. The buying force of 130 bikes is 30+. These people can afford a lot with their money, like to get rowdy but cannot really afford much crashing. 110-130 bikes tempt you to go fast, but they rarely have your back when sht goes down.
They are excellent secondary bikes, just like dh bikes. So yes don't get obsessed by the numbers: just pedal damn it and make sure you have fun on the way down
Bike industry would like to sell you many bikes. A HT for those days you feel like going retro, a short travel XC bike for those marathons and lap races. Then you need a short travel trail bike for those not totally gnarly days out and of course an enduro bike and even a DH racer for the big stuff.
All good if you can afford it. If not and you want a bike that can do almost everything, Why would you not buy a 160mm enduro bike? I have raced 3 day marathons on mine and look for bigger obstacles to jump and rock gardens to carry more speed through. If I was restricted to a short travel trail or marathon bike like so many people here ride, I'd be restricting what I can ride and the fun factor would diminish hugely.
So with that logic of course more travel costs more money.
It doesn't really make sense to make comparisons between a modern longer travel bike and an older short travel bike. If you say, "my modern 160 bike pedals like a 140 bike," someone else can say "my modern 140 bike pedals like a XC bike," and then someone else could even say "my modern full travel XC whippet pedals better than a hardtail because the suspension smooths out the rough stuff with zero efficiency loss." Similarly, I also see al lot of "I used to ride X, now I ride Y and it's just as good." Well, of course it is, your "X" bike is newer than your "Y" bike.
At a given level of technology (or point in time), you are still left with the same question. Do I want a bike that climbs better or descends better? Gwinn isn't choosing a 140mm bike to race on because it's so "capable" and Nino Schurter isn't choosing a 160mm bike to race on because it climbs as good as a 130mm travel bike. You have to pick too. Your choice doesn't make it right for anyone but you, because no one else has your unique mix of athletic ability, experience, fitness, preferences, and ability to handle stress.
We want to make it into some sort of mystical question, but it's really much simpler. Does the bike allow you to have fun the way you want, without pissing you off so much in the intervening moments that you chuck it off the cliff or pay someone to steal it? Yes? Then you win
But to answer the Why would I buy a bike with only 130 or 140mm of travel..." question, the only number that matters is n+1. Why not just buy both bikes =)
How about learning how to ride what you've got?
I agree, I get annoyed when people feel that full suspension = higher end and when they scoff at a hard tail that cost even more they complain. Same is true when I hear people equate longer travel to being a better bike. If only they could understand that both shorter travel and longer travel perform better in their own respected categories.
When it comes to geometry and numbers it actually is important depending on what type of rider and trails you enjoy riding. I wouldn't invest $$$ on something with the wrong geometry so to be honest looking at numbers is important.
Thats come to a head it seems, tapered headtubes came in etc.
I mean my old rockshoks had 140/150 on a lightweight all mountain frame. Frame felt good but the fork...no faith in too hard an impact at a bad angle. It was restrictive.
But it was also the only choice between that and hefty dh models given my budget.
Same issue...balance. Losing the restrictions while keeping things free flowing and fun, riding a hoverbike is fun now and again, but it ain't mountain biking in my eyes. Where's the feel.
Got a Specialized Fuse Expert Carbon. 650+ tires, 120mm fork, dropper post. total shredder bike.
Well written piece.
Having done more and more riding in Bellingham I see a lot more people down there getting on board with going with shorter travel bikes and maybe just adding 10mm on the front fork to give them a little more rake and the just getting out there and sending it at breakneck speed.... Whereas up here on the shore it's still an uphill battle getting as many people on the idea that 170-160mm travel is really not all that necessary like it used to be to get down the trails.
The new Evil Calling.
HONEY! Call the exterminator, their back!!
How I spec the bike and what I use it for is up to me.
So true! There is purpose built DH close to me which I always used to hit up on my 140mm trail 29er... always had a blast. Was always a nice challenge without being too hard on me or the bike (although I did frequently use up my travel).
I rode it for the first time on my DH bike last week, in terrible weather, slippy as hell... and I was sailing down without blinking. It was like a carpet! I had to commit to carrying much more speed and really pushing the bigger features to have the same level of fun - the margin for error was just so much bigger on the big bike and it smoothed out the trail to a degree just not possible on the trail bike.