[Closed] So what's the perceived maximum travel for a "do it all" bike?

160mm for most, 120mm for those of us with skillz.

If you can afford to spend a bit, and hence get a decent one, any of the current crop of 150/160/170mm bikes are perfectly fine for "everyday" use.

So when does travel become too much travel 

As soon as you've bought it and realise that 100-120 is more than enough...

Somewhere between 150mm and 170mm ,depending on the bike ,the trails,and you.

A good enduro/all mountain style bike is great fun, I ride a mojo hd and it's very rare that I wish I was on something with less travel.

0 mm. My real do it all bike is a cyclo-crosser.

Shops
Pub
Commute
Off road when MTB broken
Club run
Tour of Flanders sportive
100 mile days out
Off road race bike.

My old Cham had a140mm and now I've gone to 160mm with some lyriks.

Thing is; it's not just the travel, the Lyriks have just a little more rigidity than the Thors it's replaced, so although the extra 20mm is welcome, it's the whole "go where you want" point-yness of the 160mm forks that wins for me.

"Do it all" is different for everyone.

It doesn't sound like you'll be riding DH tracks, a [b]typical[/b] 160 bike is the sort of thing really intended to be tolerable for climbing and capable of going flat out on full on DH tracks, well the sort of DH tracks you're gonna find in the UK/most of the alpine tracks. Also takes he fun out of the flatter stuff since it saps so much of your pedaling effort.

Jumps/drops, amount of travel is irrelevant,needing lots of travel for jumps/drops is just some irrational mental construct that the MTB average joe seems to latch onto (this is from a BMXers POV).

Something like a santa cruz solo sounds perfect for you, an actual trail bike, ie mountain bike. 120-140mm, all round geo, all round travel, all round weight. Capable of all that you describe, might benefit from DH tyres in the alps for a mental boost/extra security. Capable of what you want, not too much of a chore when you have some mindless pedal turning or or riding a trail that doesn't have gravity assistance in order to give you enough speed to make it fun.

My xc bike is 170mm with 180mm rc3 ti forks and it is ultra capable. I pedal it all day at a decent lick and it can do a fair point and shoot which lets me do the downhill runs in a totally different way.

Do it all is different depends on who you ask.

Kryton57 - Member
160mm for most, 120mm for those of us with skillz.

You have skillz?

Thing is; it's not just the travel, the Lyriks have just a little more rigidity than the Thors it's replaced, so although the extra 20mm is welcome, it's the whole "go where you want" point-yness of the 160mm forks that wins for me.

Good point- I'm pretty sure the significantly slacker head angle and stiffer forks than my sid clad flux had as much to do with enjoying the Fritzz so much as the length of the travel.

Shops
Pub
Commute
Off road when MTB broken
Club run
Tour of Flanders sportive
100 mile days out
Off road race bike.

Point well made and my cross bike does similar (plus touring) but I was quite specific in my op about what "do it all" meant in this context - and it's not that.

convert, yep, more upto date bikes with longer front centres, slacker angles, and lower BB's have made long travel much much more usable

I've got a '12 NP Mega, I thought that it would be a 'do it all' bike then tried to do Hit the North on it, it was agony and I vowed never to do any sort of XC racing on it again, ever.

If i'm going out for a ride where there will be hills, any level of fun/tech/hills then i'll take the Mega, If it's just an hour of pain (XC racing) and I take the girlfriends 456 with a lot of seatpost and a longer stem!

deanfbm - Member

"Do it all" is different for everyone.

Yup, no such thing as a do it all, I'd say 160mm is ideal for me but if you took my bike dirt jumping or road racing you'd regret it 😉 Mostly when people say one bike does it all, what they actually mean is they don't ask very much of it. Like the chap up the page who listed road riding 6 times to make the list look longer 😉

I'm running 160 front/120 rear at the moment and I really like that. Change of tyres means I could take it downhill racing or XC racing tomorrow, it'd not be great at either but it'd not stop me having fun. These days, with clever shocks, lightweight frames and that, the downsides of a big bike have got real small, in terms of handling, weight, climbing etc. But you're still left with "does it make it too easy" and that's quite tricky. My big bike is still fun on red routes and that, but not all are, I think it's kind of voodoo to build a bike that can do both.

I've found a 6" full-sus which pedals efficiently (plenty of anti-squat in the linkage) like my Spitfire is pretty incredible for everything I do. I don't do any purely XC rides, though I'm happy to put in the mileage over the South Downs to link up our best descents!

I prefer mismatched suspension with 150 up front and 130 rear...which covers most riding (bar full out DH).

My do it all bike is a Banshee Rune, so 160mm both ends. It's very capable on the descents being pretty slack but it climbs better than it has ant tight too given the travel. It's a bit porky at 32lbs or so but it rides like a lighter bike. I've done everything to long XC rides on it to uplift days.

If I'm honest,mid probably have been better with its little brother the Spitfire because I'm never going to get anywhere near what the Rune is capable of. The current crop of 140mm bikes are pretty capable things and this us where I'd be looking.

From my POV it's easy to get sucked in by the 'more is better' spin that gets touted about. I've never ridden, for example an Anthem, but from speaking to people that do its sounds like that bike with 100mm travel is as capable as most for the majority of riding demands.

Maybe on more gravity assisted terrain, more travel helps you go quicker? If that equals more fun for the rider, then more is better.

And yet, I have also been of the thought process that as a light (10.5stone in old money) person, for the general XC/trail riding I do around the South Downs, I don't really need much more than 120mm travel, but then heard the opinion hat rider weight doesn't really figure in that way.

I can ride everything on my HT that I can also ride on my 140 front 120 rear FS, but I'm definitely quicker on the down bits on the FS and yet I love riding both.

Horses for courses and possibly colour 😉

I just chose the prettiest bike.

I wouldn't travel further than 45 miles for a do it all bike myself, but I cannot speak for others.

A mate rides an ancient Scott High Octane 180/200 travel free ride Beastie everywhere. It is steady on flats and climbs and monsters downhill.

I often wonder whether I'd get by on a bike with less travel and then my ego gets in the way...

Build is more important than travel, so buy a bike that will be best on the rides you do most (if South Downs, then probably 120mm FS) and then buy wider wheels, stronger/different tyres etc for those odd days when you are elsewhere.

My best do it all bike is my rocket. Stiff 36's at 160 up front and 150 in the frame... Works for me.

Thanks so far - thinking about this further and reading the responses I think a 'modern' 140 to 150mm travel bike with modern long, low, slack geometry (and probably 650b to keep on-trend 😉 ) with nice stiff forks and a suspension design renown for good climbing would be right for me. Raid the piggy bank and make it carbon and it probably won't be a lot heavier than my current Flux which in its current setup isn't especially light.

So what bike fits the bill?

Going back to the mountain bike after 18 months on the road bike I can confirm that a pair of 2.2 tyres is more than enough travel.

160mm up front and a bit less on the back is best on a fs for me. On a hardtail I wouldn't want more than 120mm forks.

I have 170mm up front and 150mm out back on my Enduro - it's very long and pretty slack and rides a damn sight better than when it was 150mm each end

Anything 140-160 seems to be able to fit the bill now. You can build them comfortably under 30lbs and still put up with some stick too.

If I didn't race the odd bit of DH, I reckon 140 would be enough, if the numbers stacked up. But as I do, the extra 20mm gets me out of trouble, so it's welcome.

With decent shocks that have a proper 'climb' setting as well, they climb pretty well. Obviously not as well as a fast rolling XC bike, but more than acceptable given what they can put up with.

Yeah, that said ^^ a climbing god would hate my bike - but for me (a granny ring spinner) the bob is minimal

Thanks so far - thinking about this further and reading the responses I think a 'modern' 140 to 150mm travel bike with modern long, low, slack geometry (and probably 650b to keep on-trend ) with nice stiff forks and a suspension design renown for good climbing would be right for me.

Banshee Spitfire!

Many frames climb well in the granny ring because the chain line gives much more anti-squat. Not so many have enough anti-squat if you climb in the middle ring (or run 1x10 / 1x11) without needing extra damping on the shock to reduce the bob.

What I've found is a joy with the Spitfire is that it pedals really well with the 34t I have up front and that matters a lot when much of your local singletrack needs some moments of hard pedalling to ride fast. I rode a 140mm hardtail exclusively before getting the Spitfire and I can attack trails and climbs in just the same way - no thinking about extra levers/switches, just a rear shifter and a dropper post remote. Lots of standing up pedalling, which could be a bobby inefficient nightmare on some frames.

The big stiff 160mm Pike up front is pretty much as awesome as the 140mm with a CCDBair at the back. The frame is about 7.5lbs with the (big!) shock so not as light as the carbon things out there but I can't see saving 1.5lbs out of 200lbs rider+bike weight making a noticeable difference - the pedalling efficiency uphill matters way more as does the stiffness and suspension effectiveness on the way back down. Less stress when chucking it on uplift trailers too, no carbon fear!

The adjustable geometry is a really great feature if your local riding is twisty woodland singletrack but you like to go to steeper rockier less pedally places - I run it neutral here, slack/low when away.

my do it all bike has 140mm at the rear and is running a 170mm Marzocchi 55CR up front.
for climbing duties its not the best and certainly isnt the worst. the lockout on the rear shock (RS Monarch RL)is a massive bonus.
the front can wander at times but i've always had long travel forks on all my bikes so its something i'm used to and it doesnt bother me too much.
as for descending its an absolute peach of a bike. the forks eats up every bump and the rear does a great job of keeping up.
to be perfectly honest though i would prefer the fork to be dropped down to 160mm. i've had a 150mm fork on the frame and it was ok but i think 160mm is the frame's sweet spot.
i've got a 20mm spacer that came with the fork to drop it to 150mm and i know that if i bodge the spacer i.e. chop it in half, i can set it to 160mm, but i'm not prepared to do that just yet so i'm going to wait for Marzocchi to release a 10mm spacer for the fork.

the max travel for a do it all bike is as the OP asked down to perception and therefore based on individual taste taste and requirements.
to some my set up will be too much/little or plain wrong whereas some may actually like it. most of the people i ride with have either 150 or 160mm travel frames with matching forks. there are a few exceptions as on of the lads has a hardtail with 130mm and he says that is more than enough for him.

so long as you're happy with the travel your bike has and the way it rides then that's all that matters.

i think alot of time it depends on the actual design / setup just as much as the travel.Just get something that suits your riding interests's although i guess the genius of these long travel designs is that they may open up more types of riding.

I really like the more upfront notion.

Whether a bike climbs well depends so much on your style (and on how good the shock is) that it's pretty much impossible to say what will suit somebody else.

I think my 26" Five climbs pretty well and for me it does. In fact my times up most climbs are not much different whether I'm on the Five or a HT 29er. The HT can be a little quicker if it's really smooth or really steep (although rarely more than a minute over a 30 minute climb) and if it gets rough the difference becomes much smaller (with the Five winning on some climbs). But I have a Factory CTD shock with 5 different levels of platform, which I'm quite happy to fiddle with on climbs (gives me something to do) and I'm very much a sit and spin climber. For me, climbs are all about measuring my effort out over the whole climb. Somebody with a more aggressive or active climbing style would hate the Five and probably be much faster on the HT.

Getting back to the question of travel, I think it would be useful to think a bit about why you want suspension at all. For things like increasing traction, for example, how supple the suspension is has much more of an effect than how much travel you have.

Max i'd say 160 mm but normal trail riding 140 is plenty.

I've Spesh Enduro which has switchable 140 - 160 on the front only for big Lakes descents do I use the 160mm.

I'll echo what chiefgrooveguru said seeing as I have a spitfire myself and ride everything on it with a 160mm front and 140mm out back. Yes it's not as light as a carbon framed build but then I've never felt that it's too heavy to pedal everywhere. In fact it climbs surprisingly well for a FS due to the awesome CCDB shock, did a 40 mile day a few weeks ago with 4000ft of climbing, and whilst the 34t I've got upfront was a PITA on the longer climbs (probably me not being fit enough) I had no issues with pedal bob at all.

Also thanks to it's long, low and slack geometry is so good downhill and confidence inspiring that I scare myself silly most times I get on to the downs at the moment.

140 is a good sweet spot. 120-140 for UK (lower end for xc bias, higher end for more technical riding), 160 is useful for the Alps but not totally necessary, depends what you are riding out there.

140 Sektors do it for me, with another 140 out the back. Any more and I find I'm lagging behind even more than usual.

In fact it climbs surprisingly well for a FS due to the awesome CCDB shock

I think the CCDBair is the reason is feels so good going downhill and has a ton of grip around corners and when climbing - but it's such a plush shock that without the climb switch engaged it wouldn't control bob unless you had tons of low speed compression and rebounrd wound on (to the detriment of behaviour at speed). It's mostly the anti-squat built into the KS-link kinematics that makes the Spitfire such a good pedaller.

I've thought about putting a range extender cog on my 11-36 cassette but the plus side of only having 34-36 as my lowest gear is that I get to the tops of the hills sooner, even if it hurts a bit/lot (delete whichever to suit size of hill / length of ride)!

chiefgrooveguru
but it's such a plush shock that without the climb switch engaged it wouldn't control bob unless you had tons of low speed compression and rebound wound on (to the detriment of behaviour at speed)!

er, that's why you have separate low and high speed damping circuits!

When you have the correct damping co-efficients set for the full range of damper velocities, you don't need, in most cases, extra knobs or whistles to control the damper movement. In effect, the mass of the system is being critically damped at all speeds already!

(of course, some bikes geo and suspension kinematics mean that additional and rider selectable low speed compression/rebound can be usefully added to prevent excessive pedal induced bobbing, but these days, these designs are actually quite rare ime)

I think the CCDBair is the reason is feels so good going downhill and has a ton of grip around corners and when climbing - but it's such a plush shock that without the climb switch engaged it wouldn't control bob

I don't have the climb switch on my CCDBa and its fine - it bobs a wee bit but it doesn't feel that it's sapping power and the low speed rebound and compression have not been wound on massively. I think the KS link is really really good.

I'm not a faffer with suspension for climbs - I just pedal. I was reading the Pink Bike review of the Slash and it sounded like a pain - winding down the forks for climbs, changing the shock setting etc just so it would ride nicely.

maxtorque - Member

er, that's why you have separate low and high speed damping circuits!

When you have the correct damping co-efficients set for the full range of damper velocities, you don't need, in most cases, extra knobs or whistles to control the damper movement. In effect, the mass of the system is being critically damped at all speeds already!

That's the theory, in practice I don't want the same damping while climbing as I do while descending, more adjustment or better factory setup means you can choose your compromise better but propedal/climb switch is just plain better imo.

er, that's why you have separate low and high speed damping circuits!

What 'speed' do you think high & low speed damping refers to?

therealhoops - Member
140 Sektors do it for me, with another 140 out the back. Any more and I find I'm lagging behind even more than usual.

Lovely forks, proper old school utilising a spring in an oil bath, still the best way to go in my opinion...air forks are just too harsh in my experience.

My Salsa Horsethief is 120mm rear/130mm front.
Handles everything I've ever come across fine.

As did my 120mm Genesis hardtail, though the back end was a bit more rattly.

Based on what the OP described as his riding, I'd suggest 160mm is getting too much and would recommend trying a 130/140mm number. I've not read all this thread and would be surprised if this has not already been mentioned, but factors such as geometry and - dare I say it - wheel size have as much if potentially more significance in whether any given bike feels like it has too much travel.

As an example my old Whyte 46 has more travel than my current Bandit, but I can't think of many trails down or up where I'd not prefer the Bandit (the exception may be Ullswater singletrack where the high BB of the Whyte did help with keeping the pedals turning on the rocky, technical pedally sections).

In summary, only you will know and only by trying a few, but my advice is to start around the 140mm mark.

PS a friend of mine rides similar stuff to you and had a hoot on her Flux in the Sierra Nevada. Might be worth asking what the limitations of the Flux are for you and take it from there.

Thanks so far - thinking about this further and reading the responses I think a 'modern' 140 to 150mm travel bike with modern long, low, slack geometry (and probably 650b to keep on-trend ) with nice stiff forks and a suspension design renown for good climbing would be right for me. Raid the piggy bank and make it carbon and it probably won't be a lot heavier than my current Flux which in its current setup isn't especially light.

So what bike fits the bill?

You have just described a Bronson. Except the long bit.

Love mine.

Or the low, and slack bit...

sorry deviant, I know what you mean but I was actually talking about the air version. I was 100% coil'n'oil until I fitted them.

[img] [/img]

[i]What 'speed' do you think high & low speed damping refers to? [/i]

😀

just ridden a single speed rigid 29er, most fun I have had for ages.

To expand on the low vs high speed damping point (if anyone cares!) here's how it works. It isn't low vs high bike speed, nor low vs high frequency, nor low vs high amplitude.

It's low vs high [b]shaft[/b] speed, so you can be on the low speed circuits when riding very fast with the suspension moving small amplitudes at high frequency to maintain grip over niggly terrain or large amplitudes at low frequencies as you pump over large undulation.

The high speed circuits tend to get used for sharp hits, big hits, sudden movements and so on - not just when going fast through the rough but also when jumping, dropping and battling uphill over big lumpy stuff.

The other point I was making was about how the rear suspension works to counteract pedalling induced bob. I really didn't expect the Spitfire to pedal this well - I was somewhat worried that even with the climb switch on the CCDBa that it would be a squishy sluggish affair on more pedally trails. I've been so curious to work out how such a compliant unflappable descender could climb and sprint this well that I ended up trawling through the mother of all MTB geek blogs (translated by google from the original Spanish no less!) Designing a high level of anti-squat into the linkage increases the kickback and that hardtail-like feeling when you're turning the pedals because the anti-squat stiffens the suspension, so you can't just stomp away in the rough and expect it to climb over all the bumps but conversely it means that your pedalling input goes into pushing the bike forwards instead of bobbing up and down and warming your damper oil...

Northwind's Hemlock's anti-squat curve is like this:

[IMG] [/IMG]

Note that this is for a 32:15 ratio and the smaller chainring increases anti-squat. The key number is at the 30% sag point where it exhibits about 36% anti-squat, so the suspension is active but bobby and inefficient and needs increased low speed compression damping aka platform to pedal well.

My Spitfire's anti-squat curve is like this:

[IMG] [/IMG]

At the 30% sag point it exhibits about 85% anti-squat on a larger 36t ring, so about 90% on a matching 32t chainring. If you turn that on its head this very efficient pedalling linkage cancels all but 10% of the forces which cause suspension bob whilst the very active linkage of the Hemlock needs the damper to deal with 65% of those forces or suffer inefficient squishy pedalling. Basically the Hemlock is over six times as bouncy under pedalling as the Spitfire with the suspension fully open. That's why with the Spitfire you can run the damping set up for descending because you don't need it to stop pedalling related annoyance.

If you drop to the granny ring you get a load more anti-squat and that's why older pre-1x10/11 designs often have less anti-squat in the middle ring because they expect you to climb in the granny. I think it's important to think about how and where you personally ride - most of my climbs are short, sharp and not techy, hence standing up and stomping works great with the Spitfire. If I had epic big mountain climbs to do then I'd want a granny ring (or 1x11) and there would be an argument for something really active that can rock-crawl over boulders. There's no such thing as perfect suspension, just the least badly compromised for your needs (but that doesn't sound good in an advert...)

There are lots of other suspension designs with similarly clever anti-squat and such but I think the KS-link stands out as a really well balanced design which also has good anti-rise (braking action), good shock rate progression (better for getting a nice wheel spring rate and damping behaviour) and its short link solid rear triangle configuration (with ribbed stays) lends itself to very high stiffness and low friction making it both very active and very confidence inspiring when you're pushing hard. The downsides are slightly longer chainstays (429mm 26" & 439mm 27.5") than is currently fashionable (a good thing in practice I think, if not so good for selling bikes at the moment!) and quite a lot of chain growth so you're on the limit of a short cage mech with 1x10 11-36 (I'm about to swap my Zee for a medium cage SLX).

Pivot Mach6 is currently favorite - just need to do some serious financial negotiating with more sensible half!

I had a 2004 Bullit with 2004 Boxxers with 170mm front and rear as my xc bike for many years. Did the Dyfi a few times on it. I loved that bike because of the rear shock. It climbed like a hard tail. It's a real shame 5th element stopped making bike bits.
Bought a 456 with 66rc forks so 150 mm front. Again a great little bike. I now have a very little use 2006 S work Enduro 160mm. Also have Scott racing expert with fox 32 with 120 travel. A big blast now and again.

chiefgrooveguru - with all that chain growth - do you not find it takes the pedals away from you on techy climbs?
Last bike I rode with a lot of chain growth was the Intense 5.5 and it was very hard work on rocky/steppy climbs.

You have the cream of 105mm bikes (clue as to what I have :D) which won't get made again and is worth peanuts. Keep it in addition to what you might get.

Any frame with lockouts. Or a shorter travel frame without.

I'm selling my longer travel frame as its a bugger to pedal uphill due to squishy long travel forks.

Chief - (in a nice way) that is the geekiest post. Ever! Not the high / low speed stuff which I thought mst know but graphs and stuff. Good work.

Alex - I have a Rune which also uses the KS Link and I've never notice the chain growth whilst climbing (32tooth front ring with an 11-36 cassette out back). I do have to run a slightly longer chain than I would normally.

Fantastic post that... It's nice when the numbers back up your objective impressions, doesn't always (often?) happen 😆

Always think anti-squat is a bit of a misnomer, implying that the effect is limited to squat/bob when o'course it's just suspension movement in general. So pedal through a rock garden, and science happens, the same forces that are resisting bob are also affecting how the suspension soaks up the terrain.

Which, tbf, is probably one of the most sensible compromises to make- because most of the time, you get a mix of pedalling on the smooth and the rough, and you do the serious pedalling on the smoother bits.

Where I stop being able to follow it is chaingrowth... Because presumably, from a suspension interaction point of view, chaingrowth is applying a similiar (weak?) force to pedalling?

chiefgrooveguru - with all that chain growth - do you not find it takes the pedals away from you on techy climbs?

It's not something I've noticed but I'm used to riding a hardtail. The time I have noticed pedal kickback is when I'm coming up short on a double and have slightly back pedalled and lifted the front instead of nosing in the front and swooping the back up and over the lip - then when the rear wheel cases the landing I feel it kick through the pedals. But that's just poor jumping technique being punished!

Mindmap, my hobbyist geekery went so far with my last hobby that it turned into a business - and ruined the hobby... I shall have to avoid going much further with my analysis or I'll start doing something stupid like designing a frame! 😉

Northwind, I think anti-squat only controls suspension compression not extension. I don't understand all of it but it seems to be calculated as the response to the moment generated by your mass lagging the mass of the bike when you pedal, basically like an upside down pendulum, so the taller you are the more anti-squat you 'need'. In other words it isn't up and down but back and forth creating a rotation which causes up and down which the anti-squat attempts to cancel. The chain growth seems to be a side effect of the suspension design as opposed to something which helps out - Señor Linkagedesign analyses just anti-squat, anti-rise, leverage ratio and pedal kickback.

I asked Keith @ Banshee about the blog and he said he'd provided measurements directly so if other manufacturers are doing the same then it should be pretty accurate!

Back to the original post, google the graphs of the YT Capra and Liteville 601 if you want to see how much travel you can make work in a pedal friendly design - they're 170mm and 190mm respectively!