Enduro/AM - The Weight Game

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Enduro/AM - The Weight Game
Author Message
Posted: Jun 17, 2019 at 17:34 Quote
PHeller wrote:
Ok - another topic:

I have the opportunity to switch out my order for a 120 (or 130)mm trail bike for a 145mm sled. I could also short stroke the 145mm bike down to 140mm.

I could build them virtually the same weight.

The 145mm has 10mm longer chainstays. Otherwise geometry can be made nearly identical.

For those of you on shorter travel bikes, when do you miss the longer travel option? I feel like for 90% of my riding, I have no need for a longer travel bike. Especially since I'm planning on running a coil (at 130mm travel) on the shorter travel bike.

A guy a follow on the gram who rides daily and was thinking of giving up his bike due to back problems has noticed an incredible improvement riding a longer travel bike over his previous 135mm bike (he went Hightower to Carbine).

I use a 2012 reign zero as my XC bike these days, 26.5 lbs 150r160f via talas 34/160. because it floats through roots and potholes and stuff so well and is fast rolling and efficient. Xmax ST wheels, xtr1x10. no dropper. and with a switch to the oem wheels and meatier tires its a capable lighter park bike too. some designs would be not as good, but the maestro system is nearly a VPP and its always ready to rumble or sprint up a steep grind. the modern trance would be a better comparison to my older ride (from travel, weight, intended use perspective)

Thoughts?

Posted: Jun 17, 2019 at 19:18 Quote
A 120mm 29'er with aggressive geo would cover 99.9% of my riding needs and be sufficient that I wouldn't hate life on the other 0.01%. A little extra squish is nice to have but it's far from a necessity and I'm leaning more and more towards thinking I'd appreciate the extra pop and go of a shorter travel ride even more than I appreciate the extra forgiveness of a little extra travel.

Posted: Jun 17, 2019 at 22:34 Quote
PHeller wrote:
Ok - another topic:

I have the opportunity to switch out my order for a 120 (or 130)mm trail bike for a 145mm sled. I could also short stroke the 145mm bike down to 140mm.

I could build them virtually the same weight.

The 145mm has 10mm longer chainstays. Otherwise geometry can be made nearly identical.

For those of you on shorter travel bikes, when do you miss the longer travel option? I feel like for 90% of my riding, I have no need for a longer travel bike. Especially since I'm planning on running a coil (at 130mm travel) on the shorter travel bike.

A guy a follow on the gram who rides daily and was thinking of giving up his bike due to back problems has noticed an incredible improvement riding a longer travel bike over his previous 135mm bike (he went Hightower to Carbine).

Thoughts?

145 is not exactly overbiked. Unless you are racing, a few extra mm don't hurt your ride much. I have a 130mm fork hardtail, a 150mm hardtail and a 160f/150r full suspension and gladly ride any of them on all the same trails. If I was looking in the 120-145 range I would definitely go longer. Evil offering would be my choice in that range I think. Or maybe a forbidden druid?

Posted: Jun 17, 2019 at 23:39 Quote
Steve Mathews of Vorsprung did a couple of great videos on the how to determine the right amount of suspension and why more is not necessarily better:

Part 1
Part 2

The short version is that a bike with less travel is more responsive to rider input. You can hop & pop quickly, turns are initiated more quickly, brake dive is minimized, and it's easier to feel like an active participant in the ride. More travel means the bike doesn't come alive unless the rider inputs are larger and speeds are higher to recruit inertia to help move the bike around.

Geometry - specifically "low, low, and slack" - is what ensures you'll survive a difficult section of trail. Travel determines how the bike will respond and feel as you ride the section.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 1:37 Quote
swan3609 wrote:
Anyone actually had time on the new MRP Bartlett and Hazard with a progressive spring setup?


I have my carbon Euduro 29 frame that has a crack in the BB area.. Considering having Ruckus fix it and then buying that MRP suspension setup and making a dedicated park bike out of it.

Can't comment on MRP shocks, but i've been running a MRP progressive spring on DHX2 for about a month - month and a half. Spring adds 20 - 25% progression to the frame. On a flat or slightly progressive frame, I think it's perfect. It's softer of the top than same rate regular spring and ramps up nicely. I didn't notice any loss in mid stroke support.
However, it looks like the spring binds in the softer part. Paint on mine between softer wound coils is gone.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 2:18 Quote
gmoss wrote:
PHeller wrote:
Furthermore, if all things are equal, what advantage is there to running a bike with less travel?

I mean, if I can run the 145mm bike at 140 with a 140mm fork, is it really that much different from a 130/140mm bike?

A shorter travel bike will have a more rapid progression of its LR, but in terms of efficiency you can run a longer travel bike at less sag for the same effect.

That is where I am. I was tuning the TB to be more compliant and this one to be a little more stiff. I always ride with the shock in the middle position, so I like a firmer setting to start, but I still use the travel thru the ride. I was also running less air pressure and realized that the harder I rode, I needed to run more pressure, but then got too stiff. The 150/150 HTLT is allowing me to run higher pressures and still have compliance.

Geo is the main factor in what I can get through, and I find more travel is only ever useful at higher speeds. There's some benefit over really long shuttle days but shuttled stuff is almost always higher speed for me.

I bought a Spartan, totally love it, but do, most definitely wonder if I should have bought the 29" Troy and overforked it like the Devinci team guys have been testing.

Silver lining: excuse to build up a winter trail singlespeed with sweet geo.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 8:23 Quote
shoshy wrote:
swan3609 wrote:
Anyone actually had time on the new MRP Bartlett and Hazard with a progressive spring setup?


I have my carbon Euduro 29 frame that has a crack in the BB area.. Considering having Ruckus fix it and then buying that MRP suspension setup and making a dedicated park bike out of it.

Can't comment on MRP shocks, but i've been running a MRP progressive spring on DHX2 for about a month - month and a half. Spring adds 20 - 25% progression to the frame. On a flat or slightly progressive frame, I think it's perfect. It's softer of the top than same rate regular spring and ramps up nicely. I didn't notice any loss in mid stroke support.
However, it looks like the spring binds in the softer part. Paint on mine between softer wound coils is gone.
The spring has to bind for it to be progressive. Otherwise the whole spring will compress simultaneously at different rates across the length, resulting in one average spring rate instead a varying spring rate.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 8:57 Quote
heinous wrote:

Geo is the main factor in what I can get through, and I find more travel is only ever useful at higher speeds. There's some benefit over really long shuttle days but shuttled stuff is almost always higher speed for me.

I'm definitely a fan of the shift in MTB towards 29ers and overforking. That seems to be how you can get a bike that climbs really good even in open and descends super capably as well.

With good suspension setup and good geometry and tires a bike with 120-140mm rear travel can absolutely fly - and if you run it with 140-160 fork and 29s you get a bike that can plow without paying for it too much on the climbs.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 9:21 Quote
One of the thing I've read is that a longer travel bike just has more room to work (ie shock stroke) and therefore will always deal with fast chunk better than a shorter stroke shock. The short stroke just gets overwhelmed with repeated hard hits. Not to mention with big drops more suspension is always better.

That being said, a high quality shock probably makes up a lot of difference too.

However, we're not talking about a huge difference in stroke length for my application - 55mm vs 57.5/60mm. I'm sure the difference between a 45mm shock and a 63mm shock would be more apparent on the trail.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 10:16 Quote
PHeller wrote:
One of the thing I've read is that a longer travel bike just has more room to work (ie shock stroke) and therefore will always deal with fast chunk better than a shorter stroke shock. The short stroke just gets overwhelmed with repeated hard hits. Not to mention with big drops more suspension is always better.

That being said, a high quality shock probably makes up a lot of difference too.

However, we're not talking about a huge difference in stroke length for my application - 55mm vs 57.5/60mm. I'm sure the difference between a 45mm shock and a 63mm shock would be more apparent on the trail.

Shock stroke and rear wheel travel aren't always proportional. The Devinci Marshall, for example, at 110 mm of travel uses the same shock as some 150 mm bikes.

Stroke is also not directly correlated to shock performance, much less overall suspension performance. As long as the shock isn't terribly over-leveraged, which is rare now, it will perform perfectly well and many other parameters of the bike will be vastly more important in determining the ride quality.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 12:25 Quote
whats your perfect enduro frame? (travel, material, geo, wheel size, etc..)

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 12:59 Quote
Mid-travel (150mm) 29er with 66 or 67 degree head angle. All on paper though.

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 13:18 Quote
Mine would ideally have two modes depending on how I'm riding. What stays the same between them is aluminum frame and 27.5 wheels. I want a progressive leverage ratio so I can run coil shocks as well. The modes would use a flip chip for the shock, an adjustable headset to change head angle, and maybe a rear axle flip chip to extend the wheelbase. I would also want a low standover height in order to fit a 170mm dropper

Mode 1- Aggressive: 170mm fork, 160mm rear travel, 65.5 HA

Mode 2- Aggressiver: 180mm fork, 175mm rear travel, 64 HA, longer wheelbase

Posted: Jun 18, 2019 at 13:19 Quote
Also probably coil front and back, with a Push Eleven 6 and Push coil conversion in a Factory 36 with a Grip2 damper.


 
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv14 0.048261
Mobile Version of Website