You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This follows on from another thread, discussing modern 29ers compared to 26 inch bikes from 15 years ago, and how the capability of modern bikes has progressed so much that a modern 29er trail bike is probably as capable in descending as a downhill bike from 15 years ago.
It's something I've thought about too. I had about five years out of mountain biking, going from a 150mm travel 26 inch bike to a 140mm travel 29er 6 years ago, and last year to a 160/150mm travel 29er.
Each time I've upgraded, it's been remarkable how much more capable each bike has been. I reckon bigger wheels are the equivalent of having 30mm extra travel over 26inch bikes, but on top of that the updated geometry has made bikes much more stable which encourages us to go faster and harder which have additional benefits.
It's hard to say for sure, because my skill level has improved, but I've gone from quite often feeling underbiked on my 150mm travel 26er from 2010, to sometimes (in the Alps) feeling underbiked on my 2017 140mm 29er, to never feeling it on my current bike, despite riding gnarlier stuff than ever (EWS routes and Alpine blacks etc).
I read somewhere that the reason that downhill bikes are all at around 200mm travel front and rear is that there is no real benefit in having longer travel. It doesn't make them faster in the tech, and it does make them more wallowy on the pedally bits.
At the same time I see people riding the Tour De Gnar or EWS on 150/160mm travel bikes. Lots of people also rave about how much fun shorter travel 120mm trail bikes can be, and how capable they are.
I wonder if we're reaching the same situation with trail/enduro bikes that we seem to have done with downhill bikes, whereby there's no longer much advantage in going for even longer travel, as we're already in the sweet spot?
I appreciate that this is very subjective, but interested to hear other's opinions on this.
Depends on your terrain and how fast you want to go, as always.
I have a 150mm 29er trail bike and a 180mm 26er (Orange Patriot 2007). They have similar head angles. When it comes to hitting rocks at speed the 26er is more capable and definitely encourages a lot more speed and hooliganism.
Skills compensation in different ways.
My 6yo orange segment has less travel than the bikes I had before it (2005 era stuff), but the geometry allows me to go down stuff in control as opposed to a wing and a prayer.
I do think the extra travel increases speed nowadays as with most bikes you can get down pretty anything your skill allows.
I think suspension travel length is only one part of what makes newer bikes more capable. I think modern bikes are also longer, stiffer, stronger and have better tyres, wheels and suspension.
120mm travel full sus is the worst of both worlds for me. Hardtail and 160mm full sus ftw.
“I read somewhere that the reason that downhill bikes are all at around 200mm travel front and rear is that there is no real benefit in having longer travel.”
Another thing I read about downhill bikes is that the force required to reach full travel on a 200mm bike, when running the right amount of sag, takes a human close to the limits of the forces they can resist without collapsing onto the bike. A motocross bike has more travel because it has the extra mass of the bike compressing the suspension when you land so you can use the extra travel.
@molgrips what head angle is that?
65.5 on the Reactor, I think it's about similar on the Patriot in the lower setting.
Stooge has entered the chat