Well, does anybody here have the oportunity to compare for example a Raaw Madonna v3 VS Jibb v2? That's for me the epitome of "thats the...
Well, does anybody here have the oportunity to compare for example a Raaw Madonna v3 VS Jibb v2? That's for me the epitome of "thats the bike we make, pick the travel you like and go ride " Frame weight its about the same and build kit could be very close, if not identical, for the intended use of an individual trying to the decide wich one to buy.
It's a real struggle trying to decide between category defying bikes, wich I think it is at the core of this discusion. Can we no longer assume the intended use of a bicycle bassed solely on suspension travel? What then, frame weight? Build kit offerings? Manufacturer tire choice (No. Not that)?
The weight of 150mm travel and up bikes is so close (and they are so heavy!) so should we just pick the longest travel option available anyway?
I myself am looking for a new frameset , and I dont think I need long travel, as I dont ride park or "built" trails, but i am after some level of stiffness and wheel/tire reliability, so part spec its gonna be close to one of an enduro bike anyway...
So I recently made this decision. I had been on my canfield tilt (138mm) frame for about a year and a half. It replaced on older canfield balance frame where I moved all the old parts across. I can honestly say I had been missing my balance (165mm) frame. Same suspension layout, weights are pretty much identical, HTA and reach are pretty close thanks to angle sets, I even ran the little frame on 27.5 wheels like my balance. I stripped the tilt down and built my old balance back up a few weeks back. I personally don't see me going back to a smaller travel frame ever again. The smaller frame being a tiny bit poppier isn't worth every other trade off to me.
Another note is that most of the trails around me aren't that rough, steep, or demanding. I like riding those trails and do the most but have to pedal lots of cranking between all of them. I find the big bike gets me pedaled from zone to zone as well as the trail bike did.
Its interesting you bring up the Balance. I have one built 180/170, coil, burly. I also have a Pivot Switchblade. For the majority of my trails in Durango, which are mostly singletrack, blue or black rating I prefer the Switchblade. It pedals better, corners snappier. The Balance on a blue is so boring, it hates it. But when I get on that Balance on a proper black or higher trail downhill its so fun, not necessarily faster, but more fun. It's just so heavy uphill that I just don't grab it as often. The % difference in bikes is typically not as big as people expect. Both bikes are ~5% different up and down for times, but there is certainly a different experience on both.
For me, if I was to simplify it as much as possible, I'd say for greens = <= 120mm, blues = ~130mm, blacks ~150mm, double = ~160+mm rear travel. If you're choosing one bike, determine what trails you ride most often using that scale. As a data person, I pulled my miles on trails and found I ride blue 55% of the time, and black 30%, double 10%. So my typical ride is blue/black so ~140mm seems perfect for most riding.
For the current era of bikes where manufacturers will use the same front triangle (or full frame, just different shock) for a shorter and longer travel version, I think it makes more sense to buy the long travel version.
If you're buying a 140mm travel bike that weighs the same as the 160mm travel bike, why not go 160mm.
Now, if the 140mm travel bike is built from the start as 140mm, then it would absolutely be a completely different riding experience for sure
Its interesting you bring up the Balance. I have one built 180/170, coil, burly. I also have a Pivot Switchblade. For the majority of my trails...
Its interesting you bring up the Balance. I have one built 180/170, coil, burly. I also have a Pivot Switchblade. For the majority of my trails in Durango, which are mostly singletrack, blue or black rating I prefer the Switchblade. It pedals better, corners snappier. The Balance on a blue is so boring, it hates it. But when I get on that Balance on a proper black or higher trail downhill its so fun, not necessarily faster, but more fun. It's just so heavy uphill that I just don't grab it as often. The % difference in bikes is typically not as big as people expect. Both bikes are ~5% different up and down for times, but there is certainly a different experience on both.
For me, if I was to simplify it as much as possible, I'd say for greens = <= 120mm, blues = ~130mm, blacks ~150mm, double = ~160+mm rear travel. If you're choosing one bike, determine what trails you ride most often using that scale. As a data person, I pulled my miles on trails and found I ride blue 55% of the time, and black 30%, double 10%. So my typical ride is blue/black so ~140mm seems perfect for most riding.
Yah and you probably have bigger climbs to reach your trail tops then I do. I like riding my big balance but most of the time my rides are more frequent short smooth climbs to shorter rough descents so one lap doesn't wear me out like they do out in your neck of the woods. That and I like squishy bikes. They make me happy.
I haven't rode a lower travel CBF to say, but the long travel CBF is quite impressive in its ability to go up and down that I can understand it being the only bike. I can't help but think maybe you made the Tilt too capable with the angleset and it limits the capability with less travel.
Funny enough, I've been riding the Balance a lot more lately than the Switchblade, just craving challenging terrain and slapping turns, manualing and playing off everything. The extra squish is great for extra buffer of capability. I recently rode a Double Black slab line with a guy on a 100mm blur (likely 10lbs lighter) while I was on my Balance. We both had a blast.
At the end of the day riding bikes is fun. However you get your kicks go for it.
I haven't rode a lower travel CBF to say, but the long travel CBF is quite impressive in its ability to go up and down that...
I haven't rode a lower travel CBF to say, but the long travel CBF is quite impressive in its ability to go up and down that I can understand it being the only bike. I can't help but think maybe you made the Tilt too capable with the angleset and it limits the capability with less travel.
Funny enough, I've been riding the Balance a lot more lately than the Switchblade, just craving challenging terrain and slapping turns, manualing and playing off everything. The extra squish is great for extra buffer of capability. I recently rode a Double Black slab line with a guy on a 100mm blur (likely 10lbs lighter) while I was on my Balance. We both had a blast.
At the end of the day riding bikes is fun. However you get your kicks go for it.
100% could and often did ride that tilt build to the limits of travel and my ankles. I went back to the balance for comfort and so I would be less likely to die. CBF rigs aren't about standup in travel when pedaling, its about pedaling well through all travel so squish doesn't matter.
I've got a 120, 150, 170 bike, and have a really hard time deciding which bike to ride sometimes (life's tough right?). I have such a hard time because I can ride all the same trails on all my bikes. Choosing a bike that best fits the terrain I ride is near impossible because I can literally ride all my trails on any modern full suspension bike. Bikes are that good these days. I do find my 170mm bike these days collects more dust than the others, but given my past the most success I have achieved on a bike (race results) has been on a 170mm. Although there is a lot of overlap, I've found a 170 and 150 to be the best "two bike quiver" for the kind of riding I do.
I've got a 120, 150, 170 bike, and have a really hard time deciding which bike to ride sometimes (life's tough right?). I have such a...
I've got a 120, 150, 170 bike, and have a really hard time deciding which bike to ride sometimes (life's tough right?). I have such a hard time because I can ride all the same trails on all my bikes. Choosing a bike that best fits the terrain I ride is near impossible because I can literally ride all my trails on any modern full suspension bike. Bikes are that good these days. I do find my 170mm bike these days collects more dust than the others, but given my past the most success I have achieved on a bike (race results) has been on a 170mm. Although there is a lot of overlap, I've found a 170 and 150 to be the best "two bike quiver" for the kind of riding I do.
Its so true. Modern bikes of the 150-170mm variety really could do anything with one rig. Its still not ideal for xc or park days but it can be done more effectively then they have any business.
Pretty interesting results. When it comes to suspension- determining what is right or wrong comes with a whole bottle of salt. One thing I have noticed in the MTB suspension industry vs. moto- Many MTB riders will ask for more travel from us to get "comfy". Many times, our answer is "let's optimise what you have" or set it up for you before we burn through cash at a perceived issue. I would say around 60% of the time, no extra travel needed and the rider is very pleased.
With the OEM bike engineers designing better linkage and suspenion kinematics- I think we will start seeing many more 150mm bikes sold vs. larger ones. If I had $2 for every rider over 220 pounds that thinks more travel is the answer- I could quit this business and retire LOL. Very few absolutes in this business.
I don’t know man. Much heavier rider this past year due to some side effects of some medication. There is no replacement for displacement even at my normal weight. Now that I’m heavier that’s even more true. I would agree there are other factors that are equally important like frame stiffness and kinematics. But if you are going to ride hard on rough trails a short or medium travel trail bike is really hard on both bike and body.
I've always been a believer of having some headroom in your bikes capability, so there is at least a little bit of margin for error and...
I've always been a believer of having some headroom in your bikes capability, so there is at least a little bit of margin for error and forgiveness. As you get faster/more confident its better to "ride in to" your bike rather than reach a point of over riding it. As some riders get more skilled they can choose to run things a bit tighter and trade off a little bit of that forgiveness to get a shorter travel, snappier bike but they understand that there's less room for error.
I see it all the time in bike shops that staff will try to convince riders they only need 140 or 130mm travel, and sure those bikes are fun for a while but pretty soon they get tired of being pounded on rough descents, or start to lose confidence jumping because they know if it goes slightly wrong they'll get punished. They have fun on the bike but they normally come back with "can I increase the travel on the fork?......what about an angleset?.....can the shock stroke be extended?......what do you think of those cascade links?....."
On that note, does @CascadeComponents have much demand for links that give you LESS travel?
Personally I really like modern 160mm travel bikes, they are manageable for all day riding but you can push them pretty hard and not feel like you've gone over the edge. Even 150mm (up front at least) feels like you run right up to the limit of available travel, and going much longer than 160-170 seems to have diminishing returns compared to what you lose
Interestingly, I bought a Guerrilla Gravity Shred Dogg in 2017, which was a 135/150 mm trail bike. It just so happened that it was the same frame as their 165 mm travel enduro bike, but was short-shocked. So, after a rough trip to the Whistler Bike Park, I decided to remove the travel spacer in the shock and extend the fork to 170 mm to make it into the Megatrail enduro bike. It was a free and easy thing to do.
I loved it. I started riding rougher and harder trails with ease. I finally found out why most of the riders in my area of Washington were on enduro bikes. I couldn't believe the stuff I started to ride with it. It turns out that live in a place where enduro bikes definitely make a lot of sense.
I replaced that bike with a Rallon and couldn't imagine going down in travel for my main bike.
I bought a Bird Aeris 9 last year that is originally a 160/160 or 170/160 bike, but can be 'overforked' and you can get a different rocker link to get it all the way to 180/180. I bought an additional airshaft for the Zeb and the additional rocker link to have a 160/160 and a 180/180 setup. After running it in 180/180 for the better part of half a year last year and early this year, I went back to 180/180 and don't miss aditional travel. Even worse, given the amount of riding and my capabilities (I'm not 'ridden in') I think I'd prefer to go to even less travel rather than more.
So I recently made this decision. I had been on my canfield tilt (138mm) frame for about a year and a half. It replaced on older canfield balance frame where I moved all the old parts across. I can honestly say I had been missing my balance (165mm) frame. Same suspension layout, weights are pretty much identical, HTA and reach are pretty close thanks to angle sets, I even ran the little frame on 27.5 wheels like my balance. I stripped the tilt down and built my old balance back up a few weeks back. I personally don't see me going back to a smaller travel frame ever again. The smaller frame being a tiny bit poppier isn't worth every other trade off to me.
Another note is that most of the trails around me aren't that rough, steep, or demanding. I like riding those trails and do the most but have to pedal lots of cranking between all of them. I find the big bike gets me pedaled from zone to zone as well as the trail bike did.
Its interesting you bring up the Balance. I have one built 180/170, coil, burly. I also have a Pivot Switchblade. For the majority of my trails in Durango, which are mostly singletrack, blue or black rating I prefer the Switchblade. It pedals better, corners snappier. The Balance on a blue is so boring, it hates it. But when I get on that Balance on a proper black or higher trail downhill its so fun, not necessarily faster, but more fun. It's just so heavy uphill that I just don't grab it as often. The % difference in bikes is typically not as big as people expect. Both bikes are ~5% different up and down for times, but there is certainly a different experience on both.
For me, if I was to simplify it as much as possible, I'd say for greens = <= 120mm, blues = ~130mm, blacks ~150mm, double = ~160+mm rear travel. If you're choosing one bike, determine what trails you ride most often using that scale. As a data person, I pulled my miles on trails and found I ride blue 55% of the time, and black 30%, double 10%. So my typical ride is blue/black so ~140mm seems perfect for most riding.
For the current era of bikes where manufacturers will use the same front triangle (or full frame, just different shock) for a shorter and longer travel version, I think it makes more sense to buy the long travel version.
If you're buying a 140mm travel bike that weighs the same as the 160mm travel bike, why not go 160mm.
Now, if the 140mm travel bike is built from the start as 140mm, then it would absolutely be a completely different riding experience for sure
Yah and you probably have bigger climbs to reach your trail tops then I do. I like riding my big balance but most of the time my rides are more frequent short smooth climbs to shorter rough descents so one lap doesn't wear me out like they do out in your neck of the woods. That and I like squishy bikes. They make me happy.
I haven't rode a lower travel CBF to say, but the long travel CBF is quite impressive in its ability to go up and down that I can understand it being the only bike. I can't help but think maybe you made the Tilt too capable with the angleset and it limits the capability with less travel.
Funny enough, I've been riding the Balance a lot more lately than the Switchblade, just craving challenging terrain and slapping turns, manualing and playing off everything. The extra squish is great for extra buffer of capability. I recently rode a Double Black slab line with a guy on a 100mm blur (likely 10lbs lighter) while I was on my Balance. We both had a blast.
At the end of the day riding bikes is fun. However you get your kicks go for it.
100% could and often did ride that tilt build to the limits of travel and my ankles. I went back to the balance for comfort and so I would be less likely to die. CBF rigs aren't about standup in travel when pedaling, its about pedaling well through all travel so squish doesn't matter.
I've got a 120, 150, 170 bike, and have a really hard time deciding which bike to ride sometimes (life's tough right?). I have such a hard time because I can ride all the same trails on all my bikes. Choosing a bike that best fits the terrain I ride is near impossible because I can literally ride all my trails on any modern full suspension bike. Bikes are that good these days. I do find my 170mm bike these days collects more dust than the others, but given my past the most success I have achieved on a bike (race results) has been on a 170mm. Although there is a lot of overlap, I've found a 170 and 150 to be the best "two bike quiver" for the kind of riding I do.
Its so true. Modern bikes of the 150-170mm variety really could do anything with one rig. Its still not ideal for xc or park days but it can be done more effectively then they have any business.
Pretty interesting results. When it comes to suspension- determining what is right or wrong comes with a whole bottle of salt. One thing I have noticed in the MTB suspension industry vs. moto- Many MTB riders will ask for more travel from us to get "comfy". Many times, our answer is "let's optimise what you have" or set it up for you before we burn through cash at a perceived issue. I would say around 60% of the time, no extra travel needed and the rider is very pleased.
With the OEM bike engineers designing better linkage and suspenion kinematics- I think we will start seeing many more 150mm bikes sold vs. larger ones. If I had $2 for every rider over 220 pounds that thinks more travel is the answer- I could quit this business and retire LOL. Very few absolutes in this business.
I don’t know man. Much heavier rider this past year due to some side effects of some medication. There is no replacement for displacement even at my normal weight. Now that I’m heavier that’s even more true. I would agree there are other factors that are equally important like frame stiffness and kinematics. But if you are going to ride hard on rough trails a short or medium travel trail bike is really hard on both bike and body.
Interestingly, I bought a Guerrilla Gravity Shred Dogg in 2017, which was a 135/150 mm trail bike. It just so happened that it was the same frame as their 165 mm travel enduro bike, but was short-shocked. So, after a rough trip to the Whistler Bike Park, I decided to remove the travel spacer in the shock and extend the fork to 170 mm to make it into the Megatrail enduro bike. It was a free and easy thing to do.
I loved it. I started riding rougher and harder trails with ease. I finally found out why most of the riders in my area of Washington were on enduro bikes. I couldn't believe the stuff I started to ride with it. It turns out that live in a place where enduro bikes definitely make a lot of sense.
I replaced that bike with a Rallon and couldn't imagine going down in travel for my main bike.
I bought a Bird Aeris 9 last year that is originally a 160/160 or 170/160 bike, but can be 'overforked' and you can get a different rocker link to get it all the way to 180/180. I bought an additional airshaft for the Zeb and the additional rocker link to have a 160/160 and a 180/180 setup. After running it in 180/180 for the better part of half a year last year and early this year, I went back to 180/180 and don't miss aditional travel. Even worse, given the amount of riding and my capabilities (I'm not 'ridden in') I think I'd prefer to go to even less travel rather than more.
Post a reply to: How Much Suspension Travel Do You Want vs. Need in Your Mountain Bike?