Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

5" vs 6" of rear travel

Jump to Latest
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
#21 ·
jazzanova said:
I should finally go ahead and sell my Tallboy C to move some $ for the new purchase... Tallboy is too close to the 5" TRc anyway.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This. Sink the dough into a nicer rear shock (well, depending on what you already have) and tweaking your current ride.

Then think about the two bike thing. I really, really love my TRc for the majority of my riding, but having a Reign-X with a 7" fork and slacked out another degree as a big bike is awesome - able to take resort riding, but still not too much a pig for the local spots where I want that much travel and slackness.
 
Save
Like Like
#23 ·
All good advice, but if you are intent on going with a "one bike" that would feel fairly fast and maneuverable on the 95% trails yet still more capable on the bigger, more gnarly 5% trails, I haven't ridden I better candidate than the Mach 6. I thought it felt like it could handle some pretty serious chunk and some groomed park stuff yet felt nearly as fast and poppy as the 5010c on the faster, smoother Aliso type trails. The other one that I would put in that category would be the Devinci Troy.

For me, I'd rather have a big bike when I want a big bike like scrublover said and go with a shorter 130-140mm light fast but capable bike for all the rest.
 
Discussion starter · #24 ·
KRob said:
All good advice, but if you are intent on going with a "one bike" that would feel fairly fast and maneuverable on the 95% trails yet still more capable on the bigger, more gnarly 5% trails, I haven't ridden I better candidate than the Mach 6. I thought it felt like it could handle some pretty serious chunk and some groomed park stuff yet felt nearly as fast and poppy as the 5010c on the faster, smoother Aliso type trails. The other one that I would put in that category would be the Devinci Troy.

For me, I'd rather have a big bike when I want a big bike like scrublover said and go with a shorter 130-140mm light fast but capable bike for all the rest.
Click to expand...
Thanks Krob.
Yes, that is exactly my preference.
"shorter light fast but capable + big bike for big stuff"
Now comes the Mach 6 and makes it a bit more complicated. I had demoed it for 2+ hours in Aliso and found it to be very capable with a wide range of uses.
I am still trying to get a Troy to demo, which is a bit difficult.
5010c was very nice as well and I would most likely run it with a lowered Pike and maybe a more capable shock, like BOS Kirk.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
 
#25 ·
was just in your situation op. going from an older 6 to a 145r/150f and sticking w/26s for my riding style. i just did a little research on which had slacker geos, more progressive rear travel design @ the end of the stroke and/or adjustable travel via linkage for down the road. i don't care about weight at all so i got a Last Herb AM. 10mm isnt much with the capabilities of the current choices.
 
#26 ·
I went from a 5" to a 6". The new bike is lighter, faster, climbs better and jumps better than the old bike.

So the bike is lighter because it's carbon fibre instead of aluminum.
It climbs better because it's a dw link vs the old single pivot.
It jumps better because of the extra travel and shorter wheelbase/ higher bb.

Of your choices the Mach 6 is getting great reviews: check out Salespunk's review of it vs the mojo HD and Specialized e29( it's in the Ibis forum currently).

In my experience people like VPP or dw, but not both usually. So demo if you can.
 
Discussion starter · #27 ·
KRob said:
All good advice, but if you are intent on going with a "one bike" that would feel fairly fast and maneuverable on the 95% trails yet still more capable on the bigger, more gnarly 5% trails, I haven't ridden I better candidate than the Mach 6. I thought it felt like it could handle some pretty serious chunk and some groomed park stuff yet felt nearly as fast and poppy as the 5010c on the faster, smoother Aliso type trails. The other one that I would put in that category would be the Devinci Troy.

For me, I'd rather have a big bike when I want a big bike like scrublover said and go with a shorter 130-140mm light fast but capable bike for all the rest.
Click to expand...
KRob,
Did the mach 6 felt noticeable sluggish to you, due to its longer travel and 66 HA, compared to a 5010?
How did you like it on tech climbs? SC VPP tends to hang on square edges, firms up and looses some traction under power. At least that's what I feel...
Is the Mach's DW - link better in this scenario?

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
 
#28 ·
Go Mach 6 and don't look back unless you are planning rides longer than 40 miles regularly. It is a fantastic 1 Bike solution. The HDR is another great option as well. It is a little more XC than the Mach 6 in terms of geometry, but the M6 does not give up anything climbing from my experience so far.
 
#29 ·
Is there some reason a 150mm/140mm F/R bike that weighs <25lbs is "XC"?

Are 2.4s, 30mm wide rims and dropper posts not "AM" enough? Does a bike HAVE to be a pig uphill to qualify?

Not everyone is a typical, overweight slob of an American. We don't all need Fox 36s.
 
#31 ·
I bought myself a NOS SC Blur LTc frame a couple months into my last trip to AFG.

DT Swiss EXM 150mm/15mm fork, XX1, Fox DOSS, Chinese carbon AM rims, XT brakes, etc.
 
#32 ·
jazzanova said:
KRob,
Did the mach 6 felt noticeable sluggish to you, due to its longer travel and 66 HA, compared to a 5010?
How did you like it on tech climbs? SC VPP tends to hang on square edges, firms up and looses some traction under power. At least that's what I feel...
Is the Mach's DW - link better in this scenario?

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No, not sluggish at all. In fact I thought the M6 felt nearly as light, poppy, and flickable as the 5010c on gradual swoopy up/down type trails, yet as capable or more so than the Bronson (and most of the 140-150mm 27.5 bikes I've tried) on the gnarlier stuff.

I didn't do a ton of climbing on the M6 but at Bootleg Canyon all climbs have some amount of tech, steps, and square edges and I thought it was stellar there as well. I think the dw link is slightly better than the VPP on tech climbing. Although I didn't feel any real disadvantage on the new VPP bikes in these situations. In fact the Bronson may have been a bit better at tech climbing, even though it was slightly worse on square edge absorption, due to more upright geometry, steeerp seat tube, and a little taller BB.

The new dw-link curve/settings that Dave Weagle has worked out for Pivot on the Mach 6 compared to other Pivots I have ridden is night and day better.

For me Knolly's 4x4 still rules in the tech/chunk climbing.
 
#33 ·
Le Duke said:
Is there some reason a 150mm/140mm F/R bike that weighs <25lbs is "XC"?

Are 2.4s, 30mm wide rims and dropper posts not "AM" enough? Does a bike HAVE to be a pig uphill to qualify?

Not everyone is a typical, overweight slob of an American. We don't all need Fox 36s.
Click to expand...
I doubt a lot of people on here are the overweight slobs you describe. I don't see my 28 lb bikes as pigs uphill and most riders have switched to 34's or Pikes now. There is a tradeoff of light parts and durability and that is why sub 25 lb bikes are not usually considered AM. For example if I go to sub 700 gram tires casings give up too easily. This has nothing to do with the width of the tire btw, but wider tires protect the rim better. Anything below 180 rotors or XC brakes fade big time on longer descents. If you are below 140 lbs geared or have exceptional, by this I mean you could win EWS events but choose not to enter, then yes you might be able to get away with a sub 25 lb AM bike. BTW JC, Graves et al are running 900 gram tires and 28+ lb bikes.

The other alternative is that what you consider AM and what we consider AM are significantly different.
 
#34 ·
If you think <25 lbs is OK for the kind of trails 6" bikes are designed for, you're not going fast enough.

Not trying to troll / be an ******* but there's really not much else to say. :(

In my mind anything sub 30 lbs is a winner, as that's what my 100mm alu XC bike is built up to now - haha.
 
#35 ·
jazzanova said:
I should finally go ahead and sell my Tallboy C to move some $ for the new purchase... Tallboy is too close to the 5" TRc anyway.
Click to expand...
Ha. Didn't know you had a TBc also. Yeah, if I could swing it, I'd get the Mach6 and keep either the TRc or TBc. Maybe the TBc for really long days in the saddle? Either way, you'd have 2 pretty sweet bikes which would cover a wide spectrum of riding.
 
#36 ·
I consider myself a "trail" rider. I ride long rides with varying terrain. I put an emphasis on pedaling even though I am not super fast. On my Solo (5010 now) I am running 140 (5.5 in) up front and the stock 125 mm (~5 in) in the back. The bike seems to be very well balanced, even after I bumped the fork up from 130. I rode the Bronson and liked it, but it felt more slugish and less snappy. To each their won but most people don't ride the limits of their bikes completely. Meaning, really good riders on 5 in bikes will always ride better than average riders on 6 in bikes.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
35 Replies
22 Participants
Last post:
GnarBrahWyo
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion