[Closed] Just how much difference can 20mm make??

The travel doesn't "have" to match both ends. Think of a hardtail with 140mm, and then add some squish to the rear for comfort, added traction, more control on the descents and you'll be getting there. Pros & cons to all concepts. IIRC Transition favour mismatched travel. Being a HT rider, it makes sense to me.

No, sorry, not asking about the mismatch, more about the length of travel.

So how does a MID-Travel bike (approx 140mm) behave/ride compared to a SHORT-travel bike (approx 130mm)?

Not much on it's own really. In theory a bike with 120mm rear travel will feel a bit more "snappy" than one with 140mm, but you may not feel as comfortable going as fast over rough ground. But once you add in different leverage curves and pro-pedal options on shocks the differences due to the travel may get lost in the noise. It's more a statement of intent though and a bike with 140mm of travel is often (but not always) built more solidly overall than one with 120mm of travel. It's these differences in the rest of the bike that are more important in practice than 20mm here or there on the travel.

'Statement of intent'... loving that line!

From the research I've done it does seem that 140mm is the norm (new norm?) for a trail bike and that 160mm is Enduro.

And you're probably quite right that the rest of the spec will make quite a difference from bike to bike too.

Geometry and how it uses it's travel is the key.You could have a 120mm travel bike that is more capable downhill than a 140mm one.And a 140mm one that climbs more efficiently than a 120mm one.

My Trek is 130mm front and rear which seems to work pretty well!

My Trek is 130mm front and rear which seems to work pretty well!

Glad we cleared that up then. 😁

Haha. Good question. And I'am not able to give a good response.

But following, I bike three bikes right now:

29 er hardtail, originally designed for 100 mm fork. Changed the fork to 130 mm. Modification is like "day and night". Bike was no fun before - now it's an fantastic bike. Fox Float Rythm 34, 130 fork. This bike I use for "very long distances" and winter mud biking.

27.5 inch 130mm/130mm trail bike. Plush, fun, perfect for the trail. Has limits when it's getting very rough so. RockShox Silver Sektor 130 mm fork. When biking with my pals, getting into very rough stuff: I have to hit the brakes and the "Enduro type" bikers are gone...

27.5 inch "PLUS" bike, All Mountain bike with 150mm/150mm travel. Fox Float Rythm 34, 150 fork. Bike climbs still very good. Downhill, rough stuff, the bike has "no limits". Feels very safe and very stable. On this bike I use 35 mm rims and 2.6 inch tyres. The 2.6 inch tyres give me an advantage over the pals which bike older Enduro bikes with 2.3 inch tyres... But on "tame trails" the 130/130 trail bike is definitely more fun (over roots and stuff like this). Even the 130 mm fork on my hardtail feels more plush than the ("same") fork - but with 150 mm - on my All Mountain 150/150 bike. But a fast, perfect downhill run is incredible. Feels like a "one week vacation" to me...

Means: 20 mm difference in "travel" might be a huge difference. Your question makes sense...- don't have the answer...

10mm isn't much difference. Running higher and lower tire pressures would make a more noticeable difference.

My 130mm full sus climbs better than my older 100mm full sus due to the design and technology of the fork and shock, but has so much more grip on natural trails.

If you compare a current 130mm bike and a current 160mm bike you would notice a more significant difference. If you're a wheels on the ground rider who doesn't race then maybe look for something around 130 or 140. Its a happy medium.

In general terms - It's not like they just add another 20mm to the travel - the purpose of the bike changes - so a 140mm will be a bit more downhill (gravity, not DH racing) oriented than a 120mm bike. It'll be heavier, sturdier, probably less fun for all-day riding, but point it down a bumpy track and it'll love it!  A 120mm bike will be lighter and better climbing, though still decent on descents.

As you can see - a fair few people, myself included, go for something more in the 130mm range as it's an inbetweeny, I-like-uphills-but-I-wanna-be-Sam-Hill-too kinda bike.

as others have said above, there are many other variable between say a 120mm xc bike and a 140mm trail bike that would effect things above and beyond the extra 20mm travel. even if you swap out a 120 fork to a 140 fork on the same bike (and make no other changes) it will still have an impact on geometry and effect the handling more than just an extra 20mm of travel.

having said all that, all other things being equal (and you could some how have a 120 or 140 fork on the same bike without it impacting geo etc) I 'do see the extra travel as providing a larger emergency comfort zone and get you out of jail free card when you get something wrong. when I first went from 140 to 160 forks I definitely noticed I got away with more mistakes / bad rider inputs that wuld of had be over the bars on a 140 travel fork

I'm coming round to the idea of a 120mm front/100mm Rear 29er, but with more "Modern Geometry" (i.e. "Long/Low/Slack").

This is on the basis that I would seldom make use of an extra 40mm of travel, but would still like a relatively lightly built (shorter travel is, apparently easier to build light?), easy rolling bike, with angles that allowed me to winch and plumet like I already do on a 120mm forked HT, but with just a bit of tail-end cush to offset the fatigue of a whole days riding (and getting older), the rear suspension wouldn't be expected to allow me to blat through rock gardens or Huck 20' to flat, nor would I want "XC bike" angles that weren't fun on twisty trails... a sort of "Light-Trail bike"...

There's only a few bikes that come close to this that I've seen, and very few that are intended for such a "Short" fork as 120mm and have the angles/layout, but I've probably not looked hard enough, or at the right budget level...

I’m coming round to the idea of a 120mm front/100mm Rear 29er, but with more “Modern Geometry”

.....sounds like an advert for a new Yeti SB100..... 🙂

It may depend on the trails you ride, too. The suspension allows you to corner more smoothly, hold a line etc without being knocked about so much.

For one person riding very rocky trails, 140mm might feel perfect whereas for someone else on sandy or dirt trails, it might be less of a benefit.

I ride one of those 120/100 mm 29ers (kona hei hei) and it's great here in the south of England. If I lived somewhere hillier and rockier I'd want a longer travel bike for regular trail riding (I take a beating over a full day at Coed y Benin compared to my old 150mm bike for example!).

The answer is 150mm front 120mm rear

sounds like an advert for a new Yeti SB100

Switch infinity? No thanks, I maybe should have said a nice simple single pivot or faux bar.

I liked the look of that (115mm travel) swarf on the front page a couple of weeks ago, so that but you know... Less travel and maybe lighter (aluminium/carbon?)...

Hei hei isn't a bad shout but moar slackness in the head and a smidgen more reach would be ideal...

Basically it's a bike that's mostly in my head and not really a need, so I'll probably be a bit too picky to ever actually buy anything and see if it really works for me, probably end up going for something with longer travel just to play it "safe"...

Wow, thanks to all who replied.

Some really good opinions and information, it's really made me look at things from a whole new perspective.

It probably won't be the last question about a new bike purchase...

The answer is 150mm front 120mm rear

Haha. This bike is an very interesting design ...

My opinion:

Even 150 mm front and 0 (zero) mm rear will be fun for trail biking...- nice hardtail with a good fork and fat tyres?

To me: XC hardtails with less than 120 mm travel forks are no fun. O.k. - depends on your hometrails...

Fork, trail biking: fun starts at 120 mm ? Better 130 mm? Transition Smuggler with 150 mm fork: for trail biking a bit of the "upper end"?

Rear, trail biking: fun starts with 0 (zero) mm? Hardtail? And full suspension bike..: Transition Smuggler with 120 mm, rear, indeed a very good compromise...?

Much more than 130 mm rear travel will kill the fun with trail biking?

Just an idea. Never biked an Transition Smuggler. For trail biking I use 130 mm front, zero mm rear or my other bike with 130 mm front and 130 mm rear. 150 mm front and 120 mm rear sound at least like a good "recipe" as well! (or something like 140 front... 130 mm rear?)

Sorry..

Just making noise!

Well... Bigger wheels need less travel to get the same ride over a given surface, obviously huge hucks will need the same travel to be absorbed but it doesn't sound like you're too bothered about that.

That said, my 29er trail/do it all HT is longer travel than any of the 26ers I've owned, it does have fairly high bars even with the stem slammed though.

0mm both ends is fine. I don't tend to have too many random accidents with 100mm forks on a hardtail. The more the merrier both ends though, 140mm/135mm 29er FS trail bike is great fun and goes up hills fine too. 180mm/150mm 26er was fun too, might take it out when I visit the parents at thee weekend. Doesn't climb so well though it's a different design and weighs ~5lb more and has slow slow tyres on.

best idea is to see what locals ride, i had a 150mm/140mm spectral never worked for me,

my 120mm full sus is great for all day, but its definately at its limit on some descents.

a few mates ride the whyte T-130 and the fork hasnt bottomed out on the same tracks ive riden with the 120mm used up.

shouldnt be too much diff between 130 and 140. the diff comes when you go upto the 160-170 suspensions the magazines want to sell us, for gnarly riding. read that as "over biked" for the vast majority of uk riding.

cookeaa

I’m coming round to the idea of a 120mm front/100mm Rear 29er, but with more “Modern Geometry” (i.e. “Long/Low/Slack”).

Ah, you want a downcountry bike 🙂

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/what-the-heck-is-a-down-country-bike-opinion.html

Love the pinkbike article Stevet1. I just wish they'd clarify their position on e-bikes 🙂

the diff comes when you go upto the 160-170 suspensions the magazines want to sell us, for gnarly riding. read that as “over biked” for the vast majority of uk riding.

Haha. Correct!

a few mates ride the whyte T-130 and the fork hasnt bottomed out on the same tracks ive riden with the 120mm used up.

I've ridden with people who never bottomed out their 80mm forks, and others who always bottomed out with far more travel - it really depends a lot more on setup than travel.

The inference being that 80mm forks are all you need?!

Er, 80mm forks are all you need to avoid bottoming out, if that's all you're bothered about. 0mm each end is all you *need*... But you might have to restrict your riding to suit.

never bottomed out their 80mm forks

Minimum "need" / no fun = 80 mm fork...? Or better lets say 80...100 mm fork?

"Fun" (trail biking): starts with around 130 mm fork?

O.k. you might be able to increase the fork pressure in an 80...100 mm fork that you never bottom out.

But "sag" is "zero" then as well? Zero sag = no fun for me...

Google translate must be playing up (either that or you're talking bollix again).

orange stage 4?