Show your all mountain bike

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
Show your all mountain bike
Author Message
flag aribr
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 3:54 Quote
ricochetrabbit wrote:
aribr wrote:
ricochetrabbit wrote:
Can someone explain to me the point/objective in a short travel 29er? What are you trying to achieve?

Why not just get a XC bike?

They are fun and relatively comfortable, terms not commonly used about (pure) XC bikes.

My Phantom makes spicy trails way more interesting than the mid-travel bike, so it's also a nice way to get some variety on the local trails.

Instead of riding mellow trails why don’t you just ride trails that are more challenging instead of having two different bikes?

Because I live in a place without many challenging trails Smile

EDIT: If I could I'd have an XC bike, a gravel bike, a DH bike etc...but it could be argued that they can all be ridden on the same trails, so I don't get that comment actually.
flag marko369
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 4:08 Quote
ricochetrabbit wrote:
badbadleroybrown wrote:
ricochetrabbit wrote:
Can someone explain to me the point/objective in a short travel 29er? What are you trying to achieve?

Why not just get a XC bike?
Travel is overrated... it's a crutch for low skill in probably 85% of riders. Of all the 170mm travel bikes out there, I'd bet fewer than half of them spend a significant amount of time being riden in a manner that requires 170mm of travel. A 130mm 29'er, or even 27.5, with modern aggressive geometry can handle the vast majority of aggressive riding that bigger bikes are commonly used for and offer the advantage of being a shit ton more enjoyable to pedal around for extended periods over rolling terrain.

Big travel is great when your riding style is "hold on tight and let the bike do the work, then get in a truck and go back to the top" but for actually getting out and just riding your bike, short travel big wheelers are hard to beat.

Why a short travel and 29 inch wheel tho? Seems 130-140mm of travel would be better suited on a 27.5. I do admit I am biased agaisnt 29ers and would never ride one under any circumstances so that does influence my train of thought.
When I had my 27.5 fuel I rode it for awhile at 140/130 but it was overwhelmed at the bike park. When I increased it to 160/141 it was much much more composed and just as fun when shorter travel.
It seems like sacrificing travel to be able to be 10-15% more “efficient” when climbing is a pit return on invest. You are more limited to your type of rising with short travel than vice versa in my opinion.
My warden is 170/168 and yes it’s a bit of a chore to pedal around but the decending and overall ability of the bike during the other 80% of the time is worth it. I’m sure with faster rolling tires the Warden would be just as efficient as a trail bike and more capable everywhere else.


Descending ability is more about geo than travel, want proof of that....go ride a 10yr old 200mm DH bike back to back with a 2021 200mm DH bike and see the difference in times.

Now that 29ers have caught up with the 'aggressive' geo of modern Enduro bikes, plus they benefit from the larger wheel(smaller rolling resistance) it has become apparent you can go just as fast with a little less travel. Actually, its more fun as a 170mm 29er flattens/dampens/dumbs down trails more than a 27.5 bike(remember going from 26 to 27.5 ....... its that feeling amplified) Speed increases, but it feels slower and more controlled.

So, IMO thats where the shorter travel 29er steps up. For EWS riders they are going speeds we mortals cant even fathom(we can all think we are almost as fast, but reality is we're not even close) they need the additional travel and benefit of 29er wheel(front at least in most cases) Casual riders/weekend warriors need to scale it down a bit to still feel like we are going fast, added benefit is we are actually going quicker! Throw into the mix that scaling down, along with new technologies and the modern geo, means your probably riding a lighter bike that's more efficient going uphill. Faster downhill, easier uphill, modern components(presuming most upgrade the whole bike and not just the frame) and bling......suddenly its all looking attractive no?

For ref, I ride a 27.5 160/170mm Mega and a pretty aggressive custom 29er steel hardtail with 150mm fork so have experienced the comparison 1st hand. My next full suss, 150/160mm 29er and I guarantee it will be faster than my Mega and more versatile.
flag tbc
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 4:31 Quote
The ugly argument about 29ers seems very outdated to me. I know looks are subjective but if you look at something like the sentinel and the scout they both look gorgeous, most would be hard pressed to even tell which was which from a picture and in person they both look just right. Same with Santa Cruz and yeti
flag Beecee336
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 4:38 Quote
ricochetrabbit wrote:
badbadleroybrown wrote:
ricochetrabbit wrote:
Why a short travel and 29 inch wheel tho? Seems 130-140mm of travel would be better suited on a 27.5. I do admit I am biased agaisnt 29ers and would never ride one under any circumstances so that does influence my train of thought.
When I had my 27.5 fuel I rode it for awhile at 140/130 but it was overwhelmed at the bike park. When I increased it to 160/141 it was much much more composed and just as fun when shorter travel.
It seems like sacrificing travel to be able to be 10-15% more “efficient” when climbing is a pit return on invest. You are more limited to your type of rising with short travel than vice versa in my opinion.
My warden is 170/168 and yes it’s a bit of a chore to pedal around but the decending and overall ability of the bike during the other 80% of the time is worth it. I’m sure with faster rolling tires the Warden would be just as efficient as a trail bike and more capable everywhere else.
You're basically just compounding assumptions to justify your dislike of 29" wheels...

29" wheels offer better traction and better roll over and, with an improved approach angle, mitigate the need for more travel so they carry speed better and handle rough terrain better. And it's not a matter of less travel merely climbing marginally better, it's that less travel improves pretty much every aspect of a bikes handling. The two combined just produce a pretty optimal ride for just riding your bike wherever the trail takes you. Your Warden will never be a efficient as a 29'er with 50mm less travel, it'll never be as responsive, and it'll never be as generally 'rideable' for everyday riding. You're not going out and riding 20-30 miles of rolling terrain on your Warden and you're definitely not doing it nearly as efficiently as someone on a short to mid travel 29'er would be.

To put things in terms of arbitrary percentages like your climbing reference... you may descend 10% better on your long travel bike over particularly rough terrain but that short travel 29'er is going to ride 20% better in literally every other scenario. So it really becomes a matter of getting 10% more in a small percentage of riding or getting 20% more in a huge percentage of riding. Like I said, if your rides are all about bombing down and then shuttling or grinding a fire road back up then a short travel 29'er isn't for you... if you want to get out and actually mountain bike, ride up and down and around while not being really held back on those rough descents, then a short travel 29'er is gonna check all your boxes.

Fair enough I suppose. I guess the 29 Has its place if your riding that kind of stuff. For me it has no place. I prefer to bomb. Lift up. Bomb again. If I wanted to stop and look at the scenery, I put my hiking boots on

This is the point you're missing... not everyone just rides lift access park like you. You said yourself you hated the long day of pedalling a while back. Imagine how much better that long day of pedalling could have been on a shorter travel efficient trail bike that can still handle the gnarly sections.
flag ricochetrabbit
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 4:39 Quote
aribr wrote:
ricochetrabbit wrote:
aribr wrote:


They are fun and relatively comfortable, terms not commonly used about (pure) XC bikes.

My Phantom makes spicy trails way more interesting than the mid-travel bike, so it's also a nice way to get some variety on the local trails.

Instead of riding mellow trails why don’t you just ride trails that are more challenging instead of having two different bikes?

Because I live in a place without many challenging trails Smile

EDIT: If I could I'd have an XC bike, a gravel bike, a DH bike etc...but it could be argued that they can all be ridden on the same trails, so I don't get that comment actually.

Haha. I feel ya bud. I’m in the same boat...that’s why I travel north to ride
flag ricochetrabbit
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 4:42 Quote
tbc wrote:
The ugly argument about 29ers seems very outdated to me. I know looks are subjective but if you look at something like the sentinel and the scout they both look gorgeous, most would be hard pressed to even tell which was which from a picture and in person they both look just right. Same with Santa Cruz and yeti

Idk. I can tell the size difference rig away. I use the top of the wheels relative to the fork crown and it just looks goofy.

Santa Cruz makes the most ubiquitous looking bikes on the market in my opinion. I can’t stand Santa Cruz. Overpriced.
The only 29er looks wise that I have seen that visually appeals to me is the raaw Madonna
flag real-name-hidden
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 6:00 Quote
Kamiizoo wrote:
real-name-hidden wrote:
Kamiizoo wrote:
I'd definitely try to get a short travel 29er for local stuff and keep that bike for gnarlier shit. If funds allow, ofc.

that's the plan, I want to get a 120ish 29er for the tamer local stuff. But I could only get one to start and wanted to go big. Riding this for a year will make the smaller bike feel that much faster when I get it, at least thats what I tell myself when I'm sucking wind going uphill
Lighter weight will also help. I currently ride a 37 lbs beast. I just tell myself its just making me stronger lol. I'd love to have a 30 lbs 150/140 or 160/150 bike one day. I know I will get there. Just gotta get a job.

Same, I bought a bike because I was starting to get fat and hated running.... at least that's what I tell myself
flag twonsarelli
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 6:09 Quote
my 120/140 29er Ripley LS (67 HTA) was significantly faster everywhere I rode it in comparison to my 27.5 151/170 Insurgent (63.X HTA). It was also faster than my 29er 170/170 Capra. The only thing that has been faster than the Ripley is my SB 5.5 at 140/160.. so it seems like the happy medium is actually somewhere in between!
flag gnarnaimo
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 6:20 Quote
ricochetrabbit wrote:
Santa Cruz makes the most ubiquitous looking bikes on the market in my opinion. I can’t stand Santa Cruz. Overpriced.
The only 29er looks wise that I have seen that visually appeals to me is the raaw Madonna

We get it..like many other things you believe in you preach it like a broken record.
Looks are entirely subjective, 29ers simply function very well on the trail, and there is probably a reason you see alot of Santa Cruz bikes.
IMO it's not surprising you don't see more Knolly's I mean look at the bottom tube/seat tube/bottom bracket junction, and that overly complicated, flexy, mess of linkages... ..and pricing. Alloy Knolly builds aren't exactly a bargain.
flag bkchef2000
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 6:20 Quote
I’ve had the spectrum of 29ers
Hardtail with medium and long travel forks
Short travel
Long travel
And while all have their merits, my preference in all conditions is the hardtail or the mid/short travel 29. Long travel bikes are great and I’d love one but I sold my process 153 29 because it was too much bike for 98% of my riding and I’m in the sweet spot of riding bikes out here here in Washington. Bellingham is an hour away and Canada is only another 1/1.5hr. Ultimately what matters is that the rider picks the bike best suited for their needs.

To answer your question as to why a short travel aggressive 29er, because they are seriously fun to ride. Unfortunately you’ll never know because you aren’t willing try it out. 29ers in general are great and have advanced so much from the early days. I highly recommend you try one, even if it is a long travel 29er on one of your park days.
flag bkchef2000
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 6:26 Quote
My last three bikes. The Rootdown is my current rig.

Dirty girl....
Dirty girl....
photo
photo
flag newbermuda
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 6:26 Quote
gnarnaimo wrote:
ricochetrabbit wrote:
Santa Cruz makes the most ubiquitous looking bikes on the market in my opinion. I can’t stand Santa Cruz. Overpriced.
The only 29er looks wise that I have seen that visually appeals to me is the raaw Madonna

We get it..like many other things you believe in you preach it like a broken record.
Looks are entirely subjective, and there is probably a reason you see alot of Santa Cruz bikes.
IMO it's not surprising you don't see more Knolly's I mean look at the bottom tube/seat tube/bottom bracket junction, and that overly complicated, flexy, mess of linkages... ..and pricing. Alloy Knolly builds aren't exactly a bargain.

Considering a knolly frame costs more than an alloy santa cruz frame, i dont see where the argument is.
flag half-man-half-scab
O+
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 8:20 Quote
I rode the 1st gen smuggler for 4 years, which was 115mm travel and 67.5* head tube, and loved it. For a given suspension design, the shorter travel stuff accelerates more quickly out of corners, which is a pretty addictive feeling.

I demo'd the newer short travel stuff 1.5 years ago: 2nd gen smuggler, process 134, and latest Tallboy. The Tallboy was awesome in the corners but pedaled like shit for its travel. Maybe I fd up the setup, it's a pain in the ass judging sag on late model Santa Cruz with shock tunnel.

Then I tried a Ripmo and it gave up a bit in the corners relative to tallboy, and made me realize suspension design can give you a small bike feel with more descending capability, and at less weight in the case of the Ibis.
flag commental
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 8:55 Quote
half-man-half-scab wrote:
I rode the 1st gen smuggler for 4 years, which was 115mm travel and 67.5* head tube, and loved it. For a given suspension design, the shorter travel stuff accelerates more quickly out of corners, which is a pretty addictive feeling.

I demo'd the newer short travel stuff 1.5 years ago: 2nd gen smuggler, process 134, and latest Tallboy. The Tallboy was awesome in the corners but pedaled like shit for its travel. Maybe I fd up the setup, it's a pain in the ass judging sag on late model Santa Cruz with shock tunnel.

Then I tried a Ripmo and it gave up a bit in the corners relative to tallboy, and made me realize suspension design can give you a small bike feel with more descending capability, and at less weight in the case of the Ibis.

I've still got my 1st gen Smuggler. I thought about selling it last summer, but couldn't bring myself to do it as it's just too much fun. I came across a thread on mtbr about long shocking it. I gave it a go as I already had a shock that would fit. Now I can't decide which iteration I prefer. Happy days, it's like having 2 bikes for the price of 1.
flag ricochetrabbit
Posted: Jan 15, 2021 at 9:03 Quote
gnarnaimo wrote:
ricochetrabbit wrote:
Santa Cruz makes the most ubiquitous looking bikes on the market in my opinion. I can’t stand Santa Cruz. Overpriced.
The only 29er looks wise that I have seen that visually appeals to me is the raaw Madonna

We get it..like many other things you believe in you preach it like a broken record.
Looks are entirely subjective, 29ers simply function very well on the trail, and there is probably a reason you see alot of Santa Cruz bikes.
IMO it's not surprising you don't see more Knolly's I mean look at the bottom tube/seat tube/bottom bracket junction, and that overly complicated, flexy, mess of linkages... ..and pricing. Alloy Knolly builds aren't exactly a bargain.

Knolly’s are not good looking bikes. Mine has grown on me. But they ride fantastic. I’m not sure where you get the flexy linkage from. Maybe I’m not as fast as you to notice.
What I do know is out of all the bikes I have owned, Glory, Session, Fuel, M16, V10, the Warden is the best feeling and “fastest” at the park. Which is what I care about. The fuel was easier to pedal around than the Warden is.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.056890
Mobile Version of Website