Opinion: The Case For Being 'Over-Biked'
Drawing by Taj Mihelich
Recently I was chatting to a rider on my local trails who said something that really got me thinking: "A 120mm-bike is really the ideal bike for UK riding, isn't it?"
Is it?
Mike Levy made the case for short-travel bikes back in 2012, and the popularity of this sentiment seems to have grown recently. I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade; there's no doubt that short-travel bikes have got a lot more capable in recent years, and if you like riding downhill on your downcountry bike then great. But it seems that for some people, under-biking is a badge of honour while over-biking (riding an unnecessarily long-travel bike) is something to be ashamed of. Some see long-travel bikes as a comfort blanket or a one-trick pony - a bad choice for anyone who isn't racing an EWS stage. My view is that long-travel bikes are actually the more versatile option. They don't need to be a slog on mellower trails or when climbing, and they are just better when the trail gets nasty.
The right tool for the job, and a pretty good tool for easier terrain.
More travel, more options
Going back to that rider's comment, there is plenty of rowdy terrain in the UK, and even here in the Wye Valley where our conversation took place. But as for the flowy trail we'd just ridden, I could see his point - you really don't need more than 120mm of squish to ride it comfortably, and nobody wants a bike that feels like a soft mattress when pumping through fast, smooth berms.
But you don't have to use all of your travel all the time. In fact, you don't have to use all your travel... ever. I think some people take the often-repeated advice that you should set your bike up with about 30% sag and bottom-out once per ride too seriously. If you want a more responsive feel from your long-travel bike, there's nothing to stop you from trying less sag, more compression damping or more volume spacers (even if it means you never use full-travel). Just flicking the climb switch will close the gap to a short-travel bike when pumping smooth terrain. But if you wanted to make a short-travel bike softer and more forgiving, you'd soon run out of travel. In other words, you can make a long-travel bike firmer and more responsive, but you can't make a short-travel bike softer and more forgiving.
Norco Factory Mechanic and researcher, Lewis Kirkwood, has shown that mountain bikers can be exposed to more vibration than jackhammer operators. He still rides a hardtail, but the point of the research stands.
Bad vibrations
But there's a good reason most people want to make use of all the travel they've got: harshness. There's precious little scientific data in the mountain bike world, but this study from Edinburgh Napier University is a rare exception. Two elite-level athletes raced two UK enduro races each, riding either a 27.5" bike with a 170mm fork or a 29er with a 160mm fork. They had accelerometers fitted beside the grips which revealed levels of vibration that exceed safety limits set for industrial workers using equipment like jackhammers and chainsaws.
How bad is that? The study's lead author, Lewis Kirkwood, says "I don't want to cause panic"..."but it's concerning". Here's how it's put in the study: "elite enduro mountain bike athletes are exposed to potentially harmful levels of hand-arm vibration ... prolonged or repeated exposure to such levels of vibration could potentially lead to the development of vibration-related pathologies such as ulnar nerve compression or HAVS [hand-arm vibration syndrome]".
This test was on enduro stages, which are probably rougher than your average ride. But both riders were using relatively long-travel bikes, so it stands to reason that riders could be receiving similar levels of vibration on less extreme terrain when riding a shorter-travel bike with stiffer suspension. And of course, this concern that vibration could lead to long-term pathologies is just another reason why you might prefer softer suspension - traction, confidence on technical terrain and in-the-moment comfort are still very good reasons.
Long-travel bikes don't have to suck uphill, but short-travel bikes will always suck going downhill.
A good deal
Bike design and bike choice largely come down to the trade-off between climbing performance against descending performance. Increasing travel means gaining a lot on the descents without necessarily giving much up on the climbs.
Sure, longer travel bikes tend to be heavier, but it's not the travel itself that adds weight, but the heavier components which long-travel bikes tend to be paired with. A 180mm RockShox Lyrik weighs the same as the 150mm version, and a 170mm-travel Nukeproof Giga frame weighs just 280g more than a 130mm-travel Nukeproof Reactor.
And while long-travel bikes used to pedal like a bouncy castle, there are plenty of long-travel bikes these days which have very little pedal-bob thanks to clever use of anti-squat, which controls suspension movement when pedalling. There are also lockouts or climb switches, which allow any bike to pedal more efficiently at the flick of a switch. More travel doesn't have to mean a reduction in climbing efficiency. With well-designed suspension and steep seat angles, some modern enduro bikes are really good climbers.
Which of these bikes is the more efficient climber? According to Levy's version of science, it's the 170mm-travel Nomad.
In last year's efficiency test, the 170mm-travel Santa Cruz Nomad climbed faster than the 130mm-travel Ibis Mojo (at the same power), and the 180mm-travel Propain Spindrift wasn't far behind - that's despite the longer travel bikes being fitted with slower-rolling tires and all of the shocks were fully open. So, even if you can't bring yourself to use that "cheater switch" (lockout), some long-travel bikes are so efficient these days that you can have your cake and eat it too.
But when descending, there's no replacement for displacement. A short-travel bike will never deal with rough terrain as deftly as a well-set-up long-travel bike because the vertical wheel travel fundamentally limits how much the suspension can absorb before the frame starts moving upwards into the rider.
The crux of my argument is that there's an asymmetry here: a long-travel bike can climb like a short-travel bike if the suspension is designed well, but there's no way to make a short-travel bike absorb bumps like a long-travel bike. It's just not possible. Suspension travel is one of the most important factors when descending, but one of the least important when climbing.
The Kona Process 111 was arguably the OG downcountry bike...
...but I much preferred the Enduro 29 (even the non-S-works version)
The original short-travel troublemaker
The Kona Process 111 was a pretty interesting bike when it launched in 2013. What made it stand out in my view was the relatively long reach, short stem and short-offset fork, which together made it among the best handling 29ers of its day. But I rode one as a long-term test bike for a year and its defining feature (the 111mm of travel) was the worst thing about it.
Most reviews pointed out that it descended surprisingly well for its travel. I agree, but that's not the right question. A better question is does it descend well relative to how it climbs? The answer is no.
The bike I had weighed 16Kg (35lb) and had an effective seat angle of 73-degrees at my pedalling height. The suspension (which had very little anti-squat and no lockout) bobbed quite a lot when pedalling too, even when compared to longer-travel bikes. And while it handled well, it soon became brutal as the trails got faster and rougher. Even bikes of the time like the original Specialized Enduro 29 climbed just as well (if not better) and was much less limiting when the descents got gnarly.
Conclusion
The recent down-country trend has made a lot of people realise how much you can do with a small amount of travel. But it's also worth keeping in mind how capable long-travel bikes have become uphill. There's a lot of flexing to be done by sending it on your 120mm-bike, less so by bossing a climb on your 180mm bike. But when it comes to the balance of climbing vs descending, the long-travel route makes way more sense. It's easier to make a long-travel bike that climbs well than a short-travel bike that desends well.
I'm not against short-travel bikes which are actually fast uphill.
Don't get me wrong - I see the appeal of super-light cross-country and downcountry bikes for all-out speed and efficiency; I love the idea of donning Lycra and chewing up singletrack on a Transition Spur or Scott Spark. But I see more and more short-travel bikes being used as do-it-all bikes, often fitted with coil shocks, hefty tires and inserts in an attempt to make up for the lack of travel. If you want one bike to do everything, I think it makes more sense to have a capable long-travel bike that can be fitted with faster-rolling tires (and even stiffer suspension settings) for mellower rides.
I'm sure I'll get plenty of pushback in the comments for this so let me know if you agree or if I'm missing the point.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
A shorter travel trailbike might, in fact be slower on the descents compared to a enduro or DH bike. But the thrill of greasing a rowdy steep double black diamond tech trail on the former and feeling like you just got away with murder can be just if not more fun.
I want a bike that handles well in the terrain that I ride, travel be damned.
More travel does provide more cushion, but more cushion doesn't provide better handling.
I'm riding two bikes now that have 140mm travel, a GG Shred Dogg and Canfield Tilt.
I'll admit that a bigger version of the Tilt (Lithium) is intriguing, but I went that way once and backed off for a reason.
So yeah, for climbing and descending, I think the sweet spot is 140mm rear travel.
If I were racing, then forget about playful...just needs to be fast.
My take is that we follow Lewis Kirkwood's research and ride HTs with 200mm DH forks
I'm looking at the Privateer 141/161, which are basically exactly the what you're talking about comparing. Both of which are bikes I'm considering for a future build.
Both bikes have similar geometry (although not identical), similar weights, etc. Both have potential pros and cons. I just have no idea which to choose, or if they're really all that different in the first place.
Observations: I think the dynamic movement of a longer travel bike in technical terrain is something Seb is missing here. Even with a stiffer tune, it’s hard to get a longer travel bike to move through (slow) technical terrain like a shorter travel bike. It just takes more effort to move the bike around. Think about sports car suspension vs Cadillac suspension. You can tune out some of that movement, but the mid-stroke support on a shorter travel bike comes sooner, as does the ramp up towards the end.
But as far as which is better… I think this can depend SO much on where you live, the type of trails you ride, and your personality as a rider. In places with long climbs and long descents (big mountains) the advantages of long-travel bikes really outshine the negatives for most folks. But if your trails have lots of ups-and downs and technical bits with less sustained climbing and descending, then the shorter travel bike comes into it’s own- even with the same parts and weight, it’s less tiring on long rides. With appropriately lighter parts, it’s significantly faster and more enjoyable.
Coming back to the article… I will admit- switching from the Tallboy to the Ripmo- my first few rides were very in line with the points Seb is making. I found myself thinking ‘wow, this bike gives up practically nothing to the shorter travel bike’ - and ‘this feels a lot better going downhill at high speed, especially on rough terrain’ … Both are great bikes. If I could only own one MTB, I would probably settle on something in the 130-140 travel range with modern geo. But since I have the hardtail for my XC rides, the Ripmo really opens up more comfort and confidence on the rougher terrain, and lets me push my limits a bit further.
I’m glad to see this kind of debate on Pinkbike! It sure beats reading the same ‘it’s a motorcycle, no its a bike’ back and forth we have going on with e-bikes. At the end of the day, I just want to have as much fun on the trails I frequent as possible- debates like this remind me of why I love to ride, and mess around with bikes in the first place.
My Ripmo with same tires is about 0.5-1lb heavier (mostly from the bigger fork) than a Ripley with much less travel. When I run less sag, I only use part of my travel on easier trails and it pedals pretty much the same as a short travel bike, with just a little more room for error if I go a bit bigger.
Then when I’m going to be in rougher terrain, I lower the pressure, adjust a couple knobs, and I have a longer travel bike again.
I keep reading about bikes like the new SKOR or Guerilla Gravity bikes where you can have two bikes in one with just a different fork and rear shock. A longer travel bike just needs a shock pump to become a shorter travel bike. Ok, the geometry may be a little bit slacker, but then it’s really just a short travel bike from two years in the future the way bikes evolve.
In other words, I’ll in full agreement with the article.
But, last week I was on an annual guys trip to a (pretty mellow) flow-trail bike park and suddenly I was bored out of my skull using the 170mm bike. Happily, our local trails are quite at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to flow-trails.
I used to ride motorcycles a lot, and although my 1100cc Kawasaki was amazing at chewing up miles in comfort with ridiculous power, I so rarely got to use the capability of the bike. A motorcycle friend and I used to scheme how we wanted to get 125cc bikes and ride down the coast from Seattle to Mexico. All with the idea that although way more tiring to ride, the little bikes would be more 'fun'.
Never for around to doing it, but I know the idea is valid.
I picked a middle of the road trail bike with 140mm of travel and even though a few times it would have been easier work more travel, I like getting it done with my medium bike rather than the 170mm sleds of riding friends.
Liar! Lol.
Try FIA historic racing. In pre -65 we have to run Dunlop CR65 tires. Old-school diagonal ones that love to go sideways. Doesn't matter if you're in a Mini or a GT40, you'll go more sideways than straight, steering with the loud pedal. Yup, it's fun, and pretty fast too.
That car analogy works, but only if you have maxed out your speed on the trails you are riding. Or if there was a speed limit?
Like on a public road up a hill, lots of turns, it would be more fun going full gas in a slow car, because you have to work hard. But in a race car, you would have to worry about killing someone or going to jail for tripling the speed limit.
On the race track though, it is unbelievably fun to ride a race car. Much more fun than in a slow car! Same for tires, racing tires might make the ride too easy on public roads, but they are great fun on the race track, where the g-forces really kick in and shifts your internal organs to either side! And they will take more drifting before they melt as well.
For me, a fast, steep hill on singletrack or in a bikepark is more comparable to a racetrack. Either if you're trying to go fast or you just want to shred all the side hits, you are usually not limited by the law. And I don't think many people believe they have hit maximum human potential speed on any downhill track? You could always work harder, push more and be more on the limit. The perfect run never existed?
So I believe a fast long-travel bike is justifiable for anyone that likes to go fast down a hill. That said, there is a LOT to learn by trying the same on a less capable bike that forces you to ride the terrain more actively.
“It never gets easier, you just get faster” – Greg LeMond
That will set where you sit on the Poppy->-plow and dull->-dangerously twitchy spectrums.
I see all the bonuses of having longer travel as described. But maybe its the 500mm reach, 1300mm wheelbase and DH head angles that are turning people off the big bikes, not the 15% more squish
spot on imo. I got an 13 year old DH bike with 220mm travel and mega short wb and reach. feels like a BMX compared to modern trail bikes
What is your current goal/happy place as a rider?
Are you trying to progress technically as a rider? Currently focused on and excited about pushing your comfort zone and getting into bigger terrain with some higher consequence features? You will probably be better served and happier on a bigger bike that is going to really play well to that objective. Being "underbiked" does not encourage someone to try totally new/bigger/scarier things that they have not already dialed. They may work up to it, but they may not. It just doesn't encourage that. People hitting big things on small bikes have probably already hit bigger things on bigger bikes. Things that are small to one person can be big to another because perspective and experience is everything, and is unique to every rider and how they interpret every trail.
Being more underbiked I think encourages you to push your distances and fitness, but stay more within your technical progression comfort zone. Once you have that fitness, you can do still do those distances on a bigger bike but it is perhaps less encouraging to push those boundaries out further.
You are most likely not rapidly unlocking features on something you feel undergunned on. And you are most likely not rapidly unlocking miles on something you feel overgunned on.
Play to your interests and goals as a rider and less to trends and what other people consider ideal for a given terrain.
Can I afford that sick cushy enduro bike -> um no absolutely not
Can I afford a hardtail -> arguably
Therefore I ride a hardtail
I think the point Seb's missing here is that fun on the descent comes in all sorts of flavors. Sure, you can set up a longer travel bike to be more responsive, more poppy, more what-have-you. But all that travel, and the angles that come with it, mean you end up going way faster. When my 111 bit the dust and it was time for a new bike, I tried both a 134 and a 153. And even though the geometry of those two bikes wasn't all that different (same HTA, very similar CS length), and even though both bikes were really fun to ride, I very clearly decided on the 134, and I've not regretted that decision in hundreds of rides since. The 153 was fun - but I was finding myself going way faster, overshooting jumps, etc. I was burning off altitude way faster, and I was increasing the consequences.
There's some mention of the 'slow car fast' philosophy in the discussion here. I think this applies to this conversaton not just in terms of fun - but also in terms of risk management. I can have a total blast on my shorter travel trail bike without getting into speeds that are outside my comfort zone, not from a skills perspective, but based on my risk tolerance (because even riding within your skills, shit can go sideways - and going way faster means you hit the ground/rock/tree way harder...).
My DH is out of action this weekend so I’m going out for some XC and DJ and next weekend the boys at work want to ride around the longest lake in Europe so my flat bar road bike will finally see some action. Horses for courses. The thought of being restricted to one bike makes me shudder.
What size are you riding?
Thank you
To some "more fun" seems to equal "more pain", but not me.
A fast car with slippery tires can be more fun if, say, you like max drift angle. But if you only like cornering speed, you'll absolutely want the stickiest tires for maximum fun. So that's kind of an incomplete argument.
You kinda caught up with that last sentence, but there is still usually this undertone of "most capable" meaning "fastest downhill", and I think that's was Seb is trying to address. A big bike might be "more capable" downhill but modern ones are plenty capable uphill as well, where as a small bike will likely be "more capable" uphill but is absolutely less capable downhill.
In the end it comes down to the flexibility: the big bike can be ridden like the small bike (more spring, more ramp, more damping, can pick and choose lines when you want to, maybe even less tire if that's your thing), but the small bike can't really grow to match the big bike (less spring or ramp or damping means more bottoming out and maybe damaging things, have to pick & choose lines because plowing means breaking things or a crappy jarring ride).
Except what you're riding changes the magnitude of those rider errors. Tough to really unlink the two.
But are they though? I genuinely want to agree with you, I'd really like something lightweight to complement my 15kg enduro bike, but from my reasearch you either buy an actual XC bike (and stick a dropper on it) one of the new breed of downcountry bikes (like a Spur) but once you get over that 120mm mark, all the bikes weigh pretty much up the the 15kg (33lbs) range.
Guess that brings in the actual build to the equation, which is definitely worth mentioning. haha Still, the bikes I have now are definitely in a middle ground between 32+ pound enduro bikes and 25-28 pound downcountry bikes. Those couple pounds make a world of difference especially for me pedaling around 9k-13k feet for 90% of my riding season.
I have a hard time imagining riding with less than 150-160mm here in BC (noting I also used to be able to ride my old 40lb 180mm 26er Norco Shore uphill).
I feel like bikes are designed for riders around 170lbs and you need about an extra 10mm for each 20lbs you add beyond that.
This would make a good video btw. Take something like a Megatower and Tallboy (both have very similar geo) then build the Megatower with the same parts as what would come on a Tallboy from the factory. Then compare the two and see if light long travel makes sense.
And regarding momentum, well the big bike can often build more momentum (straighter/riskier lines through/over jank, riskier gaps to pump backsides, later/minimal braking through rough corners, just the weight alone). It's up to the rider to keep that momentum, and if you have more to begin with you might come out the same at the end.
Maybe it's a disconnect on what "flat trails" means. Because flat in elevation does not always mean flat in actual trail surface. There are janky trails near me with a half mile of just a few meters of total elevation change but a 160 bike smokes a 120 bike because the big bike carries so much more momentum much more easily.
It's actually super surprising to me that the lighter women in the EWS are riding the same forks & bikes at the same travel as the heaviest men who can be close to twice the weight. Less weight has less momentum which means the impact energy can be dissipated in much less distance given the same damping force. But instead of running less travel (and making for a lighter bike that is a smaller percentage of the bike-rider system) with the similar damping, we see many smaller riders running the same massive travel with very little damping.
In other words, kinda as you said, overbiked/underbiked could/should be applied as travel related to rider weight, as opposed to just the raw travel numbers.
I'll use my wife for this example. Back in 2013 we got her a light weight, 120mm XC bike upon a shops reccommendation. It was overkill in the fact that it rode uphill well, but as a new rider she was terrified to come down anything other than a gravel fire road. We went to "slack" 130mm all mountain bikes upon shops reccommendation. We were now riding trails up, and down but walking basically all obstacles. I grabbed the reigns, and snagged her a Process 153DL, and ditched the 130's. With the travel came better geo. We rode up at the same rate, we rode more because she enjoyed it, we began riding bikeparks!! After 5 years on what was a great 160/150 bike at the time, finally being able to build that skill - we bought Norco Shores. She's now jumping, descending, cutting berms, blasting rocks and booking weekends at bikeparks for us. We do ride the Shores up - maybe less than we should - but she enjoys riding so much we sold a vehicle and bought Range VLTs as our XC bikes. Same Shore capability, over long distances. We've found the limit of being overbiked, but the Shore is a 180mm 40lb pig with DH conponents.
Long story short. We've been over biked since 2015, and its turned her into a very competent rider who enjoys the sport. On 120mm bikes, we'd still be riding gravel paths.
I am on the other hand disagree with this article, coming from 180mm enduro to 140mm trail bike is the best decision ever. I though this will be a mistake but I took my trail bike to BC and was shocked how capable this thing is.
I do have 200mm DH bike for parks and it's better then any 180mm Enduro ever will be.
So enduro for me now is like multitool... yeah it's capable of a lot... but nothing replaces proper tool for the job... DH for gnarly double blacks and park.... trail bike for everything else including huge flowy jumps, or rooty chunky forest that you need to climb up first.
Also just FYI - if you are ever in Edmonton you will be blown away by our River Valley trail system... yeah it is not as big as real mountains but it is an amazing trail system right in the city. Edmontonians are actually pretty good riders but BC residents think opposite for some reason.
Actually no, I agree completely.
I ride a Scott Ransom (170 f/r) on 6000ft + back country rides all Summer long - when I'm not racing Enduros or even riding a bit of park with it. Any time I'm tempted by the idea of a lighter, sprightlier bike I make a list of what trails and when I'd ride it and the answer is zero. Granted our local trails and mountain rides around here in the PNW are pretty much all some flavor of gnar.
I get the temptation to buy "one more bike" and I think that makes sense if you had something like a Spark or a hardtail that was many kilos lighter, with faster tyres, lockouts etc. so there was a significant benefit on the climbs. My argument is that if you only want one bike it should be long-travel, not too heavy, with a set of fast-rolling tires (maybe a lightweight wheelset with matching tires) to swap onto for longer & mellower rides. A lightweight but long-travel 29er like a Ransom is a pretty ideal all-rounder in my book.
"If you're bored, you must be boring too". -Piebald
These days I feel like a 140-160mm trail bike can do absolutely anything well with almost no sacrifice in any department - especially if you can afford the light dentist build kit. But if you are slightly more gravity oriented go longer, slightly more climbing oriented, go shorter. It’s really quite simple.
I know it's down to the suspension kinematic/shock, but the Giga gets much more air off of roots and other stuff that isn't an engineered trail feature, and then has the extra travel to soak up the flat landing.
All about the right “all mountain”. I was on a Sentinel, it was great, but like you mention pretty much compromises everywhere. I’m on an SB130 now (137mm rear, 150mm front) and it is what changed my mind that one bike can do it all. I’ll happily take it on a 100km XC ride, or big steep days.
But yeah, in a perfect world everyone would have one of each type of bike…
The article is saying that longer travel bikes descend faster than short travel bikes but they also climb either just as well or very nearly as well. In the last conclusion paragraph the author says how he also enjoys riding shorter travel bikes but the point of the article is that if you are going to only have one bike to do everything well a long travel machine is a better compromise than a short travel machine.
The question is "if you could only have one bike, would your hardtail be the best choice?" rather than "Do you think that only long travel bikes are worth anything, everything else is shit?"
I too have a big bike and a 130mm 29er. The latter sees 90% of my riding, but on occasions when I can get out to bigger mountains with sustained dh, then big 27.5 bike, no contest.
My yardstick is riding Derby, where the EWS is held in Tasmania. There the 130mm bike still rules, for poppiness , ability to climb, and % of fun overall. The bigger bike is amazing on really rowdy sections, but a bit of a wallowy boat anchor elsewhere.
Of course modern geo comes into play too. But my conclusion: I’d rather be a tad under-biked most of the time
So yeah, there's your excuse. Go buy a big fat fatty.
I agree long travel bikes are more versatile than ever but I think the writer is overstating how wide the band is for suspension changes.
What's great about shorter travel is the BB height itself is more stable/consistent, so it's easier to have the positive ride qualities that a low BB brings but with more pedal clearance on average.
In other words: it's easier for most people to bunny-hop an enduro bike than it is for the same most people to get a downcountry bike down a nasty janky chute at (close to) the same speed and/or without breaking things.
We overtake them and a few try to keep with the 25 km/h uphill pace for 1 minute,then they were all done...hahahahaha.
I'm willing to bet 90% of riders out there don't know how to ride the bike they have to it's limits, let alone a super enduro bike. We are mostly all already over biked.
I guess it’s for childless people? I’m not wasting a chance to ride anything but full gonzo maniac runs. Time is running out!!!
Also guys, if you happen to see someone riding your local trails on a bike that isn’t “suited” in your mind, maybe don’t say something. I had a real jerk off try and tell my wife that her demo was “way too much bike” for her and those trails and she’d “never have fun”. She’s had more fun on that bike than I probably do, and it was really disheartening to hear that after we’ve had such a great time with most other riders on the trails. Please don’t say that shit, if you think it’s funny just keep it to yourself, you’re quite possibly disheartening a potential shredder who may have not been on a bike that long..
3 years ago I stupidly sold the bike and bought a 27.5 YT Capra - I figured that I *needed* the longer travel, and it was a 'safety net' for me as I'm not as young as I used to be - and it was better to be 'overbiked'. I loved the first season, the hard trails, rock gardens and bike park days became *much* easier, and I was much quicker. The second season, this continued... to the point that I just didn't enjoy it as much as I used to, and the challenge was vastly reduced. I began to focus on perfecting the bike, improving my Strava times etc as the bike just ate everything I put in front of it. All the while I had friends who still rode their 120-130 travel bikes and kind of seemed to have more fun. I also never used the Capra for trail riding, so I found I used it less and less.
12 months ago I sold the Capra and went back to a 130mm 29er and have found I have enjoyed my riding a lot more - I have to pick lines again, I have to balance the limits of the bike and my ability - I am no longer monster trucking everything, and going at vastly unsafe speeds, outside my abilities to have fun... I also use the same bike to ride local trails, woodland paths, and even commute on it now and again!
I rode a bike park last weekend, and had the most fun in ages - the bike was *just enough*, and I had to think about my riding - was I slower? Did I realise that I needed to upgrade my brakes? Yes, a lot. Was I laughing more through the day? Hell yes!
You can't just over-spring a long travel bike to make it feel like a short travel bike. This just brings the BB up higher which makes it corner terribly and there's no was to pretend something with a 64 degree HTA will handle like a 66.5 degree HTA.
Tire tread design, casing and compound have a lot more effect on the pedaling efficiency than travel, anti-squat & shock tune on modern bikes.
He seemed like a kook.
I have 7 bikes w/ 10mm travel increases from my epic to my enduro. Had to go outside specialized for some of them, but I have the perfect setup for every trail. My bike caddy follows me in my polaris ranger and I can change depending on how I feel and the track in front of me. Maybe its just my golf roots and trust funds talking, but this is really the only way riding a mountain bike can be fun.
Thing about 29ers is, if you accept the better rollover from the bigger diameter, you have to accept that there is also more rotating mass in that bigger circle, and that definitely means they take more energy to accelerate and change direction: that's just physics. The question is whether it's noticeable and/or worth the trade-off. As you pointed out, the bigger (heavier, more mass) the rider, then less noticeable it's going to be and potentially more worth the trade-off.
Regarding a smaller rider like your daughter, I think the raw size of the 29er wheel is back becomes the limiting factor, even more so than the extra mass. I see so many racers with wheel marks on their backside, and I just can't imagine having butt-to-wheel strikes being a regular thing for me. I'm 5'10 but I'll never ride a 29er rear wheel on a full-sus bike, because I refuse to let butt-buzzing become a normal part of my (non-race) riding. There is way too much potential for disaster. To me it's the same as the idea that I could run ultralight wheels and it'd be noticeably quicker in almost all situations, but it also vastly increases the chance of a catastrophic failure, and that's just not worth it.
At my height I have maybe had the back tire hit me 2-3 times in the past 3 years (which is how long I've been on full 29).
I would however, be interested in trying a mullet just to see the differance in feel. That being said, to your point in terms of rotating mass, I will agree with you in regards to physics, however that brings to point that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
29" wheels take more to accelerate, but they carry momentum much easier. So I think we're potentially back to a 6 of one and half dozen of another scenario.
So far all the number indicate a wash when it comes to timed laps. So I think in any case it should simply come down to individual rider preferences.
If your Spur is a size large I'll happily relieve you of your need to decide.
These days short/middle trvel options are not that much lighter, they pretty much share the same components.
Tires choice has probably more impact on weight abd feel
Yes, not everyone needs double-layer casings, but a good strong wheel with decently supportive tires (something more like Conti's Apex than a DoubleDown or BLCK DMND) is well worth the weight trade-off for anyone trying to smash janky shit. And that's kind of the point of this whole thing: forgiveness vs lightness. And most of us will be better off with the forgiveness since we're probably not fast enough to really take advantage of the lightness.
Manufacturers then spec this way because the media gives the impression that this is something that people want.
With a long travel bike, you can run super low sag and make that thing ride very quickly and lively and poppy—i don’t get why people think short travel bikes have the market cornered on being playful and poppy. That’s really a matter of how you set up your sag and rebound, , whether you run coil or air more importantly, and you can absolutely preload deeper with more travel, resulting in more pop.
I don’t need to boost my ego my riding scary stuff on a short travel bike. Instead, i’ll ride even scarier stuff to get the same feeling (and progress more as a result).
Curly bars are fun, XC is fun, DH is fun. The "quiver killer" is no longer a small fraction of the bike industry, but expanded to capable short travel descenders and unbelievable long travel hill-devouring billy goats.
It comes down to your local trails, ride whatever puts a smile on your face. Crush that custom fixie hardtail on a group ride all day long if that's your vibe, kudos!
I´m not going to do the fastest lap time,but it is fun to learn how to pump and going every time a little faster.
Enduro long travel bikes to rule them all!
Not saying overbiking is bad. Did it for years (and under biked for a long time too). However a bike optimized for the sorts of trails you ride most often also makes sense, and today’s aggressive trail bikes in the hands of a skilled rider work pretty good for nearly everything.
All that said, there is always a danger of being too over-biked. There is a distinct difference between being appropriately over biked (say, using a Ripmo in place of a Ripley) and being way over-biked (Specialized Enduro in place of an Epic). There absolutely comes a point where you simply have more bike than you will use, and you suffer for having carried all that extra capacity around. Using an enduro rig for XC is dumb and wasteful. But it's a matter of opinion and preference where you draw the line. There's a sweet spot to be found between "just enough" bike and "too much" bike, and that's honestly where I like to find myself.
Unless you're rich enough to have both DH and Trail bikes, I've never understood the fascination with riding shorter travel bikes (assuming you enjoy riding technical terrain).
“Downcountry” bikes have benefited from contemporary downhillgeometry traditionally reserved for DH and enduro bikes. That said, enduro bikes have benefited from weight reduction and climbing geometry from down country bikes.
Having done the underl biking thing for a few years I see no downside to “over biking” now for an every day bike for BC that isn’t used for XC racing.
Also few years back, long travel bikes had much better geo
Ok, but I don’t hold my handle bars as firmly as I do a chainsaw or other powers tool, therefore the amount of vibration transferred to my hands is surely going to be less.
Plus it sounds like the sensor was mounted to the bar and don’t account for the grips dampening vides.
Unless you’re death gripping the bars measuring the vibrations at the bar will surely only give a rough idea until they can develop a sensor that you could fit to your palm.
Just a thought
Whilst I somewhat agree that big travel bikes CAN climb well, the reality is that a lot of them don't, and again it's relative. There's a lot of hype around the new breed of big travel bikes climbing well. Thing is, they don't. Not really. They climb well relative to how much travel they have. Yes the new Norco Range climbs well for what it is, but no, it isn't a good climber next to say a Santa Cruz Blur. And no, it isn't ever going to. It all comes down to what you prioritise, and for me mid-travel bikes are the way forward. My Reign 29 is the best of both worlds in my opinion - rarely out of its depth on the way down and climbs great for what it is. 150ish travel bikes are the sweet spot for me.
Also can people stop talking about "UK bikes" as if there's no gnar over there. The UK has some real gnar if you want to find it - and I have.
THAT, and as @robotdave points out, weight is an additional consideration beyond PSI on the suspension components. Or prove me wrong.
170mm specialized enduro with downhill casing and a Zeb. Well it might’ve been nice to I have a smaller lighter and bike, it never really bothered me during the ride. However dropping into 19th hole with a small travel bike I’m sure would bother me a lot more.
I can easily ride 95% of the same trails on my blur and still have fun as if I had my Hightower. Reverse it and the Hightower is only good for 50% of the ideal blur trails.
That being said, I do switch my HA to 65.5 degrees for more pedally trails (when I ride them) and that makes a hell of a different feel. Need more options like this!
But one day, I build up a steel Enduro Hardtail! Man, what a fun to ride!!! Improved my skills finding lines over roots and rocks - made me faster also on my Enduro. But VERY harsh ride! Always thought, that an „Enduro-Softtail“ might be a cool bike - but slowly forgot it…
When it came to the situation, when I thought a 29“ might be interesting, I started to testride many Enduros with ~170/160 travel and slack headangles… NEVER felt welt on these bikes! Sure, fast and safe to ride - but somehow the bikes rode with me, not me with the bike. Missed the fun on the normal trails!!!
Solution: Bikes like the Ibis Ripmo v1, or my Switchblade!!! Not so slack HA, short CS, comfy and safe 160 Fork, responsive 140 in the back! SO MUCH FUN TO RIDE - although 140 seems not enough and 66° seem too steep! But it works superb for me!!!
Vibrations in the construction industry are dangerous because the operator is potentially exposed to them 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Time at the vibration level (exposure) is key to have any meaningful discussion.
A pro enduro cyclist will be much less exposed per week as their training plan will not be flat out race pace every day. Joey punter is even less exposed and will cross this threshold for a few minutes per week at best.
Tires can often be as much of a factor in how capable a bike feels than the amount of travel it has.
Calling @seb-stott for your opinion, as I know you ride one of the bikes here, and are also a taller fellow (I'm 185cm barefoot).
I feel like this topic gets super interesting/confusing, when you look at bikes like the Privateer 141/161. The bikes geometry is fairly similar (although not identical), the and so is the weight. But which one makes more sense?
By all accounts, they both thrive in the same sort of terrain (steep up, steep down). The main difference being that the 161 is supposed to be a race bike, while the 141 is a enduro bike disguised with a trail bikes rear travel number.
I live in the greater Seattle area of the PNW. So my rides are all "toblerone" in profile. The 141 gets great reviews... but would the 161 give a bigger safety cushion, and give me a better "one bike" choice?
And yes... I'm considering buying one of them in the near future. But without demos available, I can say its not an easy choice. So I'm curious of others (especially @seb-stott) opinions on this particular topic.
Which bike sounds more appealing at this moment ?
Full disclosure, I've not worked my way all the way up to Predator yet. I've only been riding for ~2.5 years now, and am now dabbling in black trails, but haven't done any double blacks yet.
I've done OTG on my Kona Process 153 29er. Was fun for sure.
So steep up and steep down is more my style than XC, at least as far as I have experienced so far.
@preston67
I'm stuck between thinking the 161 would give a larger margin of error for a relatively skill-less fellow, and thinking the 141 is more appropriate for more things that I currently ride, and the geo improvements since my 2018 Kona might make it actually feel better to me.
Thanks
I'm on the progression train at the moment. We'll see where I get off. But for now, I'm not saying "never" to pretty much any trail/feature. Rather, "I don't have the skills for that yet", and will re-evaluate if/when I get to that level of skill.
And if ever I look at a trail/feature while knowing I do have the skill set, but still don't want to hit it due to risk/exposure/etc... that's fine by me too
We can probably take our conversation on local trails offline. I understand EBAD is a good stepping stone for Predator's steepness. No experience, since that is not my jam.
So the correct answer is to pick the 130-150mm "trail" or "all mountain" bike. I can put a 2.3 DHF and a Rock Razor on my Meta TR and feel efficient and lively on XC trails or I can put a 2.5 Assegai/DHR and feel sluggish but have enough traction to ride park all day.
I compared timed rides over the course of a summer and much to my surprise I was consistently faster and less fatigued on the Spartan up and down and especially in technical terrain and had more fun. That experience largely changed my perspective on bike travel and efficiency.
However, I just got back from Whistler and I rode my trail bike to hit the local dirt jumps in town, but rented a Specialized Demo to ride the bike park. The riding up there pretty much requires it if you’re not staying on flowier runs. Yes, it would have been possible to ride some of the technical runs up there, but it would have not been anywhere close to as fun.
That was the bike that opened my eyes to longer geometry and the potential of short-travel 29ers - but my god it pedaled like a (very heavy) sack of spuds.
I don't disagree with the general thrust of the article anyway, but I'm happy to have a big, heavy long-travel bike which is shit for mellow rides and a long-legged trail/enduro bike - oh and a short-travel trail/downcountry bike as well.
From my experience fire road climbing is ok on most bikes, but the extra travel really sinks inn over some features all energy get sucked away with more travel.
Nukeproof Mega TR275, fitted with -2 angleset, 160mm coil fork up front, CCDB CS out back
Nukeproof Mega 2016, fitted with standard headset, 160 then 170mm fork up front, air then coil shock out back with varying springs for different rides.
Both had 2 sets of wheels, 1 burly, 1 trail/XC.
The TR275 (RIP as it snapped in the common snap point in the end) was the most fun bike to ride, I even rode it often with old 26" wheels and the BB was super low.
The thing with firming up a 160mm bike, is you are messing with the design, you are just not sat in the right place in the leverage curve when riding normally, which can make it seem harsh.
Its also not as playful on normal trails, it "feels" like you have to put more effort in, although this might not be the case in reality. the front takes most of the hits, so having a slack head angle with more travel works good.
BUT
There are things I would hit on the 6" bike that I would not on the trail bike. The rear was more kicky and you had to pick lines more carefully on the 275. Then, the same can be said when comparing the 6" bike to my Dh bike. The Dh bike is better tool for going downhill.
2 bikes... ideally trail and Dh.
1 bike.... enduro bike probably. Maybe trail.
The best thing about this sport is everyone is different and we like different things for different reasons, best is to enjoy what you have, enjoy the trails and not really care too much about 5" v 6"
Oh and triggering grumpy "you're over biked" evangelists can be quite a rewarding hobby too.
I also pay a lot of attention to my riding position. This means a protaper 2020 bar on my short travel bike and protaper 76mm rise or SQLab 16/50mm on the long travel bike. Getting a comfortable bar makes the biggest difference to my ability to cover lots of ground on either bike. If I used the stock 30mm rise less swept bars on either bike, I would cover less than half the km I do each week.
I will go back to the automotive analogy. I am old now so I have had a few cars, I have had as my transportation two series IIA SWB landrovers, and a 51 International pickup. I wouldn't go further than around the block in any of those without a go bag full of tools, 90 kmh was flat out crazy speed. And you really wanted to be sure to anticipate any corners or need to reduce speed in a hurry. I loved driving each of them and would actually describe it as fun. Right now I have a 2013 dodge Ram. It tows my little boat nicely, and is very comfortable and efficient on the highway but driving it is transportation not fun.
I currently have a 2016 Kona Honzo st, 2015 Kona HeiHei frame (with a variety of parts) Norco Saquatch Fatbike (lived in Northern Manitoba), and a 2009 Spec. Demo - they are all fun when you ride them. I don't actually own a nice new long travel enduro bike but I am sure it would be fun too
That said, comparing myself on a 140mm ht and my mates on 160mm fs bikes, the enduro rigs perform better everywhere. The only case where the ht outperforms them is on hike-a-bikes.
This is the one sentence that matters the most. People like to talk about how short bikes won't let you just plow, but there is absolutely no reason (except a lazy rider) that says big bikes can't pick those same non-plow-y lines. Difference is that when the small bikes do get off line, they're that much closer to something nasty happening.
I mean, Seb said pretty much the same thing anyway. ;-)
This is an assumption that is way off-base for some (many?) riders. Yes, it's very trail and rider dependent, but I know there is nasty janky stuff comparable to EWS tracks all over the places I ride. Maybe single sections aren't as long or as steep for as long, but there are so many sections where you have to pick & choose or plow & pray (because there is no "easy" line) where a small bike literally wouldn't give the same options. Instead of a preferential choice between sniper-line, deal-with-that-one-huge-hole-and-then-power-out, or straight-up-monster-truck-and-hope-nothing-breaks, on big bike, it becomes a forced-choice between sniper-line and broken bike or broken rider on the smaller bike.
Now that kinda doesn't make sense. If people claim to want the 120mm bike because it climbs super fast and that's seemingly more important that send it downhill, then why is bossing a climb on the 180mm bike a lesser feat/flex? The downcountry advocates yell about climbing prowess all day, so they should greatly appreciate a big "slow" bike ripping up a climb. It should be a bigger flex to smash the climb on any bike, considering how much we hear about "it's the rider, not the bike" in other situations.
Very interesting that for descending, many people like to try and neutralize the bikes by pointing out how some people can shred the gnarliest jank even on hardtails, but for climbs it's more often blamed on a bike that has too much travel, or is just too soft and bobby, that's holding someone back.
This article based on ONE good climbing large travel bike while the most of them suck at it
I'm a short travel bike owner (120mm) and love it. Rode a SB130, Ripmo and Evil Offering in 2019. Will eventually upgrade to a 140mm bike as the 90% of my trails match that type of bike category (Trail/All Mountain).
that should cover it all
Is anyone actually routinely doing that?
I’m a relatively new and old rider so for me a big day is 4-5k of climbing.
DH bikes are more reliable and stronger than Enduro/All mountain. They are a bit less fun but you can send it and I can do 15-20 laps and I am fine. Especially when you have a sensitive double crown fork like the marzo 380.
IMO get a DH bike if you go more than 10 times per year in a bikepark.