It's all trends, heavily influenced by the bike companies. They need to keep making new things, it's the nature of capitalism. Trends are starting to swing back the other way, with companies putting out more short travel offerings. And "trail" isn't cool enough anymore either. Now it's "down country" which is so cool it's sickening. If you are happy with less, go with it.

 

Down Country. I havent heard this one yet but I'm sure I will. Another term that if you ask 50 people what it means you will probably get 50 different answers.

 

I don't know about everyone else, but I did it once. Bought a highly rated 140mm 29er for a my all-rounder. There were some trails I got my mileage out of the configuration, but in some ways it was a barcalounger on wheels. Still didn't climb great especially compared to my hardtail (obviously) and was heavier and more maintenance work. In the end I'm just a hardtail guy and like the added challenge, but I probably would have loved a 120mm-ish playful bike.

 

I think most people would agree with this 100 percent but would never admit it. I think 130 is gonna be the sweet spot for me.

 

Honestly, I think the term XC has evolved to mean very short travel, very light bikes meant for the short track, while the term Trail has come to mean what we thought of back in the day as XC (I have been mountain biking since the 1990s).

Also, bike geometry and suspension design have changed, meaning that a 140mm bike works pretty well on flowy, up and down singletrack.

Newer trail bikes also allow you to try drops, roll-offs, and jumps that would have you over the bars and into the woods on an old-fashioned XC bike. More local trails feature these sorts of things now because the bikes have changed.

Newer trail bikes tend to be heavier, yes, but people seem willing to pay that penalty for something they feel is a bit more fun.

Now, I do feel most bikes come with ridiculously aggressive, wide and heavy tires that slow things down unnecessarily (2.4 seems plenty wide to me, and would have been consider a tractor tire when I started mountain biking), but tires are easy to change and to each his own.

 

I'm with you on this. My bike came spec'd out with a 2.3 front and rear. Swapped for a grippier 2.3 rear and a 2.5 front because although my bike rolled fast, the rear didn't hook up too well. Paying the price now because my bike rolls terribly now on anything but the downs.

 

I got out of mountain biking back in 08 due to moving, marriage, etc. I just had no time for it anymore. Flash forward to a few mos ago and I got back into it. Back then most people hit my local trails on 100-120 mm bikes. 120 was probably the sweet spot. The downhill guys who made runs to the bike park on the weekends ran 150-160 mm bikes. All of that made sense for the types of riding people in both classes were doing. The terms Enduro and All Mountain were out there but never really made sense to me because the bikes in that class still weren't robust enough to take to the bike park, and were way overkill for most singletrack and trails in my area. Nowadays I hit the same trail systems I used to ride at and I see people pedaling around heavier 150-170 mm bikes and I can't help but ask myself why. I'm on a hardtail currently and I'm not getting beat up in the least, although I do plan on buying another full suspension within the next 6 mos.

I just can't understand why everyone seems to be riding these huge long travel bikes on flowy singletrack with long climbs, etc when they could get away all day every day with 130mm travel and a lighter bike. I guess it would make sense if they had one bike to do it all, but most have seperate bikes they take to do the downhill stuff.

In my opinion the type of riding that most of us do is XC. Whether we choose to admit that or not is another thing I guess. Now we have to call it "Trail" because it's like saying XC is a bad thing or not cool enough maybe. Even before I got out of mountain biking 12 or so years ago people seemed to know that most of these new bike industry terms were just being used to sell bikes.

All this being said, am I the only one who thinks most people are pedaling around way more bike than they need, or is there a benefit to all this extra travel that everyone is buying to ride what 120 mm forks and shocks won't even come close to bottoming out on?

Just curious what other riders take on this is as I navigate the different websites and see what different companies are offering as far as bikes go. I'm seeing cooler bikes out there like a Santa Cruz 5010 for example, and finding myself considering it because I see other local guys riding them and I'm like,well if they can make the climbs on that then so can I. Then I'll pull myself back and say wait a minute, the Tallboy would make more sense, or a Stumpjumper. Maybe I'm rambling but I'm just trying to figure out how much everyone's bike choices are influenced by marketing and just overall hype. I also wonder how many people probably bought the wrong bike and don't even realize that they'd be happier on a lower travel, slightly lighter rig.

I freely admit I have more bike then I need but I can afford it and enjoy it so I'm not going back. I could have saved quite a bit of money going with an aluminum frame and lesser components. Referring to travel, I've settled into 130/120 and it works great for me.

Though i usually ride solo, the people I do ride with seem to have decided 130/120 or something close is plenty of bike but none of us are doing DH anymore.

I own a 2021 SC Tallboy and will be riding my son's 2015 SC 5010 today while my riding buddy in NorCal (I live in the Northeast) has not graduated from a 29" hardtail and he'll be lending me another HT when I visit in the spring.

 

I freely admit I have more bike then I need but I can afford it and enjoy it so I'm not going back. I could have saved quite a bit of money going with an aluminum frame and lesser components. Referring to travel, I've settled into 130/120 and it works great for me.

Though i usually ride solo, the people I do ride with seem to have decided 130/120 or something close is plenty of bike but none of us are doing DH anymore.

I own a 2021 SC Tallboy and will be riding my son's 2015 SC 5010 today while my riding buddy in NorCal (I live in the Northeast) has not graduated from a 29" hardtail and he'll be lending me another HT when I visit in the spring.

My question is more about the travel though. Moneywise, all nice bikes now are expensive. Thats another whole topic. I have no problem spending the money on a nice bike especially with the lifetime frame warranties now. I just dropped 2700 on a hardtail. If you told me 12 years ago that in 2021 I'd do that I'd have called you crazy. I think the travel on most bikes is just way overkill and peoole would probably have more fun on 130mm than they realize. Thats really what I was getting at. I'm already budgeting around 5k give or take for my next bike. I just wanna tey and find the seeet spot of having a capable bike that dosen't have all this extra weight and travel that I will never need.

 

Maybe I'm rambling but I'm just trying to figure out how much everyone's bike choices are influenced by marketing and just overall hype?

They totally got me. "Get a steel singlespeed" they said. "It will be fun" they said.

Turns out they were right, now I have 6

 

They totally got me. "Get a steel singlespeed" they said. "It will be fun" they said.

Turns out they were right, now I have 6

I have a feeling that even when I buy a full suspension I will end up riding my hardtail just as much.

 

Yes.

People buy whatever is trending at the moment and make stupid buying decisions.
If I look around me, it's full of carbon bikes with Recon forks and low-end brakes around the 2000€ mark. Why do people buy this when they could get a Fox 34 and decent brakes with an alu frame for less than that and with a dropper to boot? because carbon is trendy.

Oh yes... carbon is also more comfy. And rigid. They claim a 30% increase in rigidity every year. If that was true, current bike frames would be like Rocco Siffredi on viagra when he was 20.

Don't forget that 29ers are faster, 1x is better and don't miss on the opportunity to buy a motorbik... I mean an ebike.


IMHO, there have been only 3 meaningful innovations in mountain bike since they were invented:

• Hydraulic discs.
• Suspension forks.
• Dropper posts.

The rest is full of crap.

 

I remeber when I swore I'd never buy a full suspension. Ended up buying one and realizing what all the hype was about. Definitely made riding enjoyable for me, but I think people are going way too far when choosing how much travel they really need. As far as carbon goes, I wouldn't even consider it unless aluminum bikes disappear altogether.

 

I have to agree with this post. My buddy bought a bike that has way more travel than he had before and the bike is much heavier as a result. On our ride yesterday it was clearly hurting his climbing ability.

I couldn’t help but think he would’ve been better off buying something less burly.

20+ years ago I had an Intense Uzzi SLX which was kind of a tank back in the day but back then Freeride was the cool thing. It had a coil shock and can’t remember how much travel it had. Probably way more than I needed. I now ride a V1 Pivot Switchblade and it suits me well. It has 135mm of rear travel and the fork has 160mm. Compared to the Uzzi it feels like a feather. The Pivot was the first bike I bought since re-joining the sport and after having that intense for so many years. When the time comes to buy a new bike again I could see myself going with something with less travel upfront and maybe a bit more in the back just to balance it out. Just have to see where I’m at and what bikes appeal to me then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is definitely what I was getting at. Now your friend can post about how much travel his cool new bike has, and show up at the trails woth this monster of a bike, meanwhile the actual riding he is doing suffers because of it. He bought into the marketing and hype, which is easy to do these days, and it sounds like he would be so much happier on something else and he may not even realize it. It's what I'm trying to avoid when choosing my next rig.

 

I think some people think more is better.... obviously its not unless you need it for your terrain.
I think a bunch of people buy bikes for what they think they want to do, not what they actually do. They buy the bike to take to teh bike park, that they have done twice in the last 5 years, instead of for the trail they do every other week that is 30 minutes from their house.

I'm not expert, and I was out of the sport a while, but it seems XC no longer means what it used to mean. It now is basically race XC bikes and everything else is trail. Downcountry is marketing obviously, but it seems an effort to make short travel cool again and differentiate from the weight weenie race machines. Despite feeling like its manufactured marketing, that is the sweet spot in biking for my area. You could ride a hardtail, but a 120/130 trail bike is really where its at, and 150 is too much unless you travel.

 

The first 2 lines of this comment literally sum up my whole entire post. So much truth in what you said.

 

For me I went from a 2003 DS @ 125mm/125mm to a 2021 DS @ 130mm/140mm so not too much more travel. The differences in Geo and tech improvements are noticed, but overall
I'd say I'm not overbiked. Ride/buy/use what you feel is required for most of your riding terrain and don't worry about what the others are using.

 

I'm not really a fan of "overbiking". For me all you need to make a bike more capable are some meaty tires, a solid suspension fork, four piston brakes, a dropper, and a wide bar. More suspension only makes it so you can ride faster on rougher terrain.

Last fall my full sus bike (160/155) was in the shop for more than a month and I only had my hardtail, a 130mm/67.6* HA trail bike. Before then I never really realized how much extra energy I had to exert to climb some of my local trails, and the lighter weight of the hardtail made some descents easier as well. After having almost as much fun on some double black trails as on my full sus, I realized that my main mountain bike is simply too long legged for how I like to ride pedal access trails. Since then I've decided that going back to a 130mm full sus bike for my "trail" bike would help me enjoy XC riding again and balance out my trips to the bike park.

I think that the sweet spot of full suspension bike travel is around 140mm, for most people who even need a full suspension bike. Now if you want something different, that's totally fair, but given frame design and suspension technology, that's a big enough platform to tackle all the XC tech you'd want, can still have a great time on jump/flow trails at the bike park, and not be too much to handle on a climb.
From there, go for a bike with less travel if you prefer climbing, and more travel if you want to hit harder lines, bigger features, or race enduro/DH.

 

I think the main thing is just to be realistic with yourself and the terrain that you’re riding otherwise you’re lugging way more uphill than necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Couldn't agree more. And as someone else mentioned, to kinda sum it up, most people are buying these long travel bikes based on what they are telling themselves they are gonna do with their bike, then never actually riding it like that. As a result, their riding will actually suffer because of it.

 

The answer is it really depends on the trails in your area. I live in Ontario Canada, it doesn't have mountains, we have hills and some bike parks, and a lot of rocks. In general all mountain/enduro/long travel bikes are overkill for the trails here.

For the last decade I regularly rode an all mountain bike with 150 mm rear and 160 mm travel. It worked great in the bike park and rough terrain but not that agile for xc compared to hardtails or shorter travel bikes. However, the main thing for me was that it was a huge confidence booster; rock gardens at speed, steep drop ins, accidental casings, it didn't really matter, the bike shrugged it off and it was fun and allowed me to safely push my comfort zone and improve my skills. If i wanted efficiency, I would ride my hardtail, but slower on the technical bits.

Nowadays, I regularly ride a mid travel 29" trail bike and it is just as capable as my all mountain bike but it has the agility and efficiency and find that it's perfectly suited for the riding I do.

To bring it back to the OP's question, I regularly see a lot of riders on enduro/all mountain/long travel bikes and would agree that it's likely too much bike. That being said, with the evolution of bike geometry, suspension, and dropper posts, they aren't giving up as much in terms efficiency. Most of these riders aren't racers or trying to KOM their local leader boards, they are just regular riders who want a little bit more travel just in case. As long as they are out there enjoying the ride, that's all that really matters.

 

For the last decade I regularly rode an all mountain bike with 150 mm rear and 160 mm travel. It worked great in the bike park and rough terrain but not that agile for xc compared to hardtails or shorter travel bikes. However, the main thing for me was that it was a huge confidence booster; rock gardens at speed, steep drop ins, accidental casings, it didn't really matter, the bike shrugged it off and it was fun and allowed me to safely push my comfort zone and improve my skills.

In some ways this a contradiction in terms. Making things easier doesn't improve the skill set, outside of high speed bike handling. It just makes things safer so long as you're not going mach chicken and improves confidence. Can be fun though as you mentioned.

 

around my parts you really could not over bike yourself. but I see a ton of under biking.

and its more about geometery than about travel.

 

Sure but it's not like newer riders are more susceptible to marketing than the people in this thread.

A few counter points though... 1) Most of the riders I know running long travel bikes on the local XC trails also travel to a bike park 3 hours away to ride proper downhill bike terrain. 2) Bikes are more efficient than they were in '08. 150mm bike probably pedals as well or better than most '08 120mm bikes. 3) the terrain hasn't changed but the 8ft drops and jump lines are new.

 

Yes, people overbike, just like people over-car and over-cell phone. It's what keeps the industry profitable and it even benefits those who don't overbike because the technology trickles down. The only thing that bothers me about overbiking is when people neglect the additional maintenance required. I personally don't even buy used bikes anymore because about 95% of the people I know with fancy bikes never service their suspension. Sometimes they will service dropper posts when they get stuck. But shitty suspension performance is undetectable to 95% of consumers.

 

I personally don't even buy used bikes anymore because about 95% of the people I know with fancy bikes never service their suspension. Sometimes they will service dropper posts when they get stuck. But shitty suspension performance is undetectable to 95% of consumers.

I also see this. Couple of grand bikes with worn stanchions everywhere. It's also true of drive trains. Most people don't replace the chain until the transmission is completely trashed. And don't get me started on cup & cone bearings...

I suppose they buy the bike but don't factor the cost of servicing it. In time, or money.

The only bike I bought used was a fully rigid hybrid I use to ride around town and to carry my son in a child seat. Even then, I had to overhaul the whole bike to make it work.

 

I think most riders dont mind the up hills as long as they have fun on the down hills. I have 2 bikes, one is 150mm frt/130mm rear and one that has 160mm frt/ 150mm rear. Both 29ers. For me its just easier on the joints since im in my 50s. The shorter travel bike is more nimble, but the long travel is more forgiving.

 

Yeah age and joint protection is a big factor also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

With bikes costing so much these days and replacement parts being scarce my approach is to own a bike that is well suited for my local terrain (a mix but nothing really aggressive) and to rent if and when I do go to bike parks. I'd rather let a rental take the use/abuse of a park and then hand it back at the end of the day. Also I don't think it's possible for a single bike to be optimal for all types of terrain.

 

Are people these days too concerned with what equipment other people are using? Seriously why would anyone care how much travel someone else is riding?

 

THANK YOU

 

Like Mom always said - "you've got enough to worry about with you, don't worry about anyone else."

ride what ya want, don't worry about whether someone else is running too much bike, and smile, this is supposed to be fun.

 

We need a poll. Someone get on it STAT!

 

May I suggest a title?

Is Dirt Jumper running too much bike?

 

I see people riding full suspension bikes in trails I ride a hardtail on, and friends ride rigids on.

Do I care? Meh, not so much. Then again, I've also taken my 150/160 bike on those same trails, just because it was new and I felt like riding it. Who cares.

 

I think it's because most people have only one bike. With modern bikes there is almost no penalty to going from 120mm of travel to 150mm of travel in terms of pedaling performance. But if you find yourself in a situation where you need that extra travel, it's nice to have it.

It's also just plain easier to ride with more travel. More travel can save you if you make a mistake or don't have great riding form, and most of the newcomers to this sport aren't really interested in paying the price of crashing to increase their skills.

Being underbiked can be fun but not everybody wants to be the fully-rigid guy sending the DH line.

 

150 bikes generally have a large bump in weight over a 120mm bike and often come with heavier wheelsets. There's definitely a penalty. All of our trails here are roots, rocks and punchy ups and downs. There's elevation but mostly not all at once so the bigger bikes don't play to their strengths that much other than to require more effort.

The comment about it being easier to ride more travel is interesting because I often forget how I started on fully rigid hardtails before we even had suspension forks. We learned to ride without all that shuff so my perspective is often framed around that reality.

 

Here in NWA overbiking is a huge thing. We don't have any true downhill here. Sure, there's tech, and if you go fast over it, maybe you'll want more travel. But largely what we have here is modern XC courses. As mentioned, I know XC is a dirty word that means smooth, groomed trails with mostly climbing and flowy descents. That doesn't describe our trails at all. Quick punchy climbs, rocks, roots, drops, loose gravel...it's very bench-cut/handcut into the side of rock. I would say it's XC meets All Mountain, in a way. Still, none of that begs for 150+MM of travel, nor is it punishing unless you find those super chunky trails and exclusively ride them (which some may do).

Same with the jump parks/runs. Some really are into those more than anything. Some even own specific bikes for that. But most seem to have a do-it-all bike that's in that 150-160 travel range, mostly ride the XC type trails that ALL of NWA is full of, and only occasionally venture beyond that.

I do think it's marketing: I'll ride faster and more comfortable on this bike (except the climbs, flats, etc.). And yes, some of it is the need for a do-it-all bike. But if you're not racing downhill for time, and it's only 20% of your riding...I'd argue a 130 would do you just fine.

The other thing to consider as Steve from HTP mentions is that a ton of travel means your geo is changing dramatically as you actually use that travel. You go from 63* HTA to 71* HTA in a hurry. This requires a much higher level of reaction/adjustment from the body...

 

The other thing to consider as Steve from HTP mentions is that a ton of travel means your geo is changing dramatically as you actually use that travel. You go from 63* HTA to 71* HTA in a hurry. This requires a much higher level of reaction/adjustment from the body...

That's mostly for hardtails though. If you're bottoming out your rear shock then you're using a decent amount of fork travel too. If you're using most of your fork travel without much rear shock then **** went wrong anyway and you'll be glad to have the travel.

 

I think this is true for quite a bit of people out there. A lot of it has to do with the industry and others telling them what they should buy instead of an honest evaluation of what they need. Many people buy a bike for the worst case scenario and defaulting to a "more capable" bike. Here's the reality though, if you're a trail rider and ride mostly XC, the more capable bike is only more capable a small amount of time and a lot LESS capable climbing. The rest is pushing against a lot more weight and suspension. I'm 52 and have two bikes:

1. 2021 Specialized Stumpjumper S-works
2. 2021 Devinci Troy

The Troy is 4 lbs heavier than the Stumpy. 27.5 lbs vs 31.5 lbs. The frame is heavier and less forgiving and the wheels are a bit more too. But, here's the thing, the Stumpy rides the same stuff the Troy does, just sometimes a hair slower on the descents. There are times that the Troy is more capable but it's no game changer for me unless I go to the bike park. Everywhere else the Stumpy performs as well and better in most conditions. On long rides I'm quite a bit more fresh on the lighter bike. I'm not slow but at my age but I don't need to go faster at this point. I do not get up as easily after falls anymore.

I see guys on 35 lb enduro bikes on local XC all the time. They ride with other guys on the same stuff so it's not a big deal. If you're of equal ability as your friends and you're on an enduro bike and they are on light trail bikes you'll see a large difference over long rides.

 

I have an enduro type bike with 170/161 travel that's 36#. I also have a 150/140 trail bike that's 28#. Despite the relatively large weight difference, I'll grab the heavier enduro bike 99% of the time for a trail ride because it handles better (geometry) and the suspension is of higher quality so it feels better. Although most of our trail network is what people would consider mellow xc there are sections of more demanding terrain and the bigger bike lets me have more control for the trickier lines and bigger jumps/drops.

Also, I often travel to other places to ride so the bigger bike is more versatile for whatever terrain I might encounter. Someone on my home turf might look at my bike and think "that's way too much bike for here" but they're seeing only one brief moment in time when they make that judgement.