Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

What FS Mountain Bike Should I buy 120 mm travel or 140 mm travel?

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
#21 ·
I'm similar age and I ride a 120mm trail bike including some light downhill, jumps and drops. That amount of travel is more than enough to smooth out bumps and rocks and give you a comfortable and controlled ride. Going larger usually means a slacker and heavier bike. Fine for downhill, but a lot less fun for regular trails.

If you were looking for something a little more capable I'd first focus on the tires. Going from a 2.2 to a 2.35 to a 2.6 makes a huge difference in grip and call also compensate for less travel. On my current bike I ride (and race) with a 120/120 aluminum FS with 2.35 Ardent Race on the front and 2.2 Rekon Race on the back. But if I wasn't racing at all I'd run 2.6" wide tires and feel like a superhero on our local trails.
 
Discussion starter · #22 ·
KevinWaterloo said:
I'm similar age and I ride a 120mm trail bike including some light downhill, jumps and drops. That amount of travel is more than enough to smooth out bumps and rocks and give you a comfortable and controlled ride. Going larger usually means a slacker and heavier bike. Fine for downhill, but a lot less fun for regular trails.

If you were looking for something a little more capable I'd first focus on the tires. Going from a 2.2 to a 2.35 to a 2.6 makes a huge difference in grip and call also compensate for less travel. On my current bike I ride (and race) with a 120/120 aluminum FS with 2.35 Ardent Race on the front and 2.2 Rekon Race on the back. But if I wasn't racing at all I'd run 2.6" wide tires and feel like a superhero on our local trails.
Click to expand...
Great suggestion on the tires. The bike only takes 2.5" tires and I have 30 mm internal width rims so I went with a Maxxis Rekon 29x2.4WT on the rear and a Maxxis Dissector 29x2.4WT for the front.
 
#23 ·
Nat said:
That's what they all say and then, you know, one thing leads to another...

Next thing you know you’re sending it for the boys!
Click to expand...
LOL it's so true. When I got into it, I bought a 100mm hardtail thinking I'd just be riding local trails. If I saw a $7,500 bike, I was the "you could buy a used car for that" kinda guy.

Fast forward 5 years, I have a 160mm enduro and I'm at the bike park pretty much every weekend they're open!
 
#25 ·
john1970 said:
Question: If I am not intentionally jumping the bike is the 120 mm vs. 140 mm of travel going to be that significant?
Click to expand...
Travel isn't really about hitting jumps and drops. Yes bikes with more travel are usually built stronger so you can hit big stuff but the travel is there for control on rough trails.

IMO if you're only going to have one bike a ~130/140mm trail bike makes the most sense for most people. Top Fuel will probably be faster in some situations, a Stumpy (or Fuel Ex or whatever) will be faster in others but probably the slightly bigger bike will be more comfortable in most of those situations so if you're not timing yourself go for more travel.
 
#26 ·
For the riding you’re describing, I’d get a Fuel EX, which is a good all around trail bike, also since this is your first 29”, it’s not bad to go with a bike that has more room to grow, fatter tired, more travel, just the right mix for an all around bike.

The Top Fuel is a cross country bike, not what I’d grab for riding east coast roots, might work fine for lapping fast flowy stuff or for some hobby XC racing. Max tire size 2.4”, that’s not a trail bike spec.

Seriously, with that low bar position the Top Fuel just screams spandex!
 
#29 · (Edited)
john1970 said:
I do have a set of Brontrager Line Pro Carbon Bars and Ergon Grips; I do hope the combination reduces hand pain.
Click to expand...
It'll definitely help ... I own a pressure washing business, don't do too much of the cleaning anymore, but holding the trigger my entire life has caused a lot of wrist pain. Amazing how much those Ergon grips helped. I don't have a OneUp (Renthal Fatbar) but you can't find anyone that says anything bad about them. so hopefully it'll work out.

Nothing worse than riding when you're not comfortable. All contact points, including riding gear I never cheap out on. Plenty of places to cut costs, but comfort ain't one of em!!

FYI if you ride with a liner, there's none better than Nezium. I found them from Seth's Bike Hacks. Little pricey, but the phone pocket is the best I've ever tried and you'll instantly forget it's even on you. I don't like riding with a pack or anything, just the key fob and card in my pocket, phone in the liner pocket, which sits on top of your thigh, Fidlock water bottle and I'm good for 3-4 hours. If you get one, size down cause they run big, but anyone that suggests any other liner probably hasn't tried the Nezium (Game Changer 2.0).
 
#30 ·
Ezra E said:
I have to disagree with the above statement,
for blue and green trails the top fuel is plenty capable.
the geometry has improved so much over the last few years.
get the top fuel!
Click to expand...
Agreed. You don't need 140mm on a FS for beginner/intermediate level trails. I get some people grow into things, and yeah, if he rides rowdier trails in the future, maybe it'd be nice to have the extra travel. But he's asking specifically about green/intermediate flow trails, which I've always ridden on a 100mm hardtail with zero problems or discomfort. The 140mm on a modern MTB is overkill IMO. Dude made the right choice for him.
 
#32 ·
Stick with the Top Fuel and see if the dealer will give you a good price on slapping in a 130 air shaft on the fork.

That will basically involve a lowers servicing, which really isn't a bad idea with a new fork anyway. Might as well start out as plush as possible!
 
#34 ·
About hand pain, that seems to be coming from the steep seat tube angles along with long reaches.
Also depends on what is causing it. Bars with more back sweep help a lot.

120/120 is more than enough for what you describe.

Look up Bryce bike park in VA, rode every trail on 120/100mm Tallboy.
 
#35 ·
john1970 said:
Thank you for the advice. I do realize that we are taking only 10 mm difference on the front and rear if one configures the Top Fuel with 130 mm fork. Can 10 mm additional travel be that significant? We are talking 0.4" of additional travel?
Click to expand...
Makes me think about that article the other day discussing actual rear suspension travel VS marketed suspension travel. (that it's usually rounded up or down to give it a nice neat number, not always though) Makes you wonder how much travel some bikes really have, if they differ slightly between frame size, etc.? The other thing is even if travel numbers were exactly the same, two different 120 bikes could feel very different. Different suspension designs, different shocks, different shock tunes, different bike intents, etc.
 
#36 ·
I'm 44 and here's my input. You can do everything you've described on the shorter travel bike. That bike will be more capable than your old 2009 bike, tech and geo has advanced significantly since then. Having said, your body will be more comfortable on the bike with more travel. Even 10mm more travel gives you a larger margin for error. I ride both a short travel 29er and medium travel (150ish) 27.5 trail bike. I race the 29er and ride the 27.5 bike for 'fun' and the occasional Enduro race. My body definitely hurts less after a day on the longer travel bike.
 
#38 ·
All things equal, more travel equals more speed with more margin for error and comfort on roots and rocks. New mid-travel bikes pedal so well that for the non-racer the only penalty is a couple pounds for that extra travel. I just went from a Yeti SB100 to a Stumpjumper Evo and at 51 in the PNW I'm loving it.
 
#40 ·
skunkybiker said:
All things equal, more travel equals more speed with more margin for error and comfort on roots and rocks. New mid-travel bikes pedal so well that for the non-racer the only penalty is a couple pounds for that extra travel.
Click to expand...
You're clearly focused on the downhill, which is fine, but the tradeoff (there's always a tradeoff) is extra weight and less efficient suspension when going up. The OP doesn't sound like he has extended downhills or a lot of elevation that would compliment a longer travel bike more.

I just went from a Yeti SB100 to a Stumpjumper Evo and at 51 in the PNW I'm loving it.
Click to expand...
Well yeah. XC race bikes aren't that fun, often they're just a tool for doing a job. No surprise you have more fun on the fun bike. (y) (especially in the PNW!)
 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
About this Discussion
58 Replies
30 Participants
Last post:
ejewels
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