Quantcast

OK, how much is TOO much?

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
What would you consider too much travel? 10" - 12" ?

Just curious.

Is quality better than quantity? 7" of quality travel or 10" of ok travel?
 

face

Monkey
Sep 14, 2005
209
0
northern utah
i think that i would draw the line at nine. but i dont know as the sport and technology changes i think it's probably okay to get bigger and bigger suspensions. i think that the next bike i get im going to get though is a small travel freeride bike i dont think that i would necessitate 9+ inches of travel
 

Kntr

Turbo Monkey
Jan 25, 2003
7,526
21
Montana
Hucks-8,9,10
DH-8,9
FR-7,8,9
TR-5,6,7
XC-3,4,5

It also depends on the bike and the person. I use my Fly in the 8" mode for everything. When my 06 Fly shows up next month, Im going to ride it in the 9" mode for everything.

Yesterday, I rode all the way up to Strawberry Lake. There was knee deep snow at the summit. I rode my wifes Big Hit in 8.25" mode with an Avy and Super T at 43lbs. I pedaled when I could and pushed when I had to. The DH was awesome in the snow and steep techy sections. So 8" is enough for everything for me.
 

fattyfat1

Monkey
Mar 22, 2005
163
0
Kelso, WA
my fatty fat gets 10 3/4" and it is too much sometimes. great bike for downhill, i call her the leveler. hard to get airborn untill you get the hang of jumping that beast. quite heavy but thats more the way she's built up. i actually have more fun on my stinky 6" if i'm just riding shuttle trails and stunts. steers quicker,stops faster,accelerates faster. fattyfat girl rules at whistler though, she was made for that place........
 

face

Monkey
Sep 14, 2005
209
0
northern utah
Kanter said:
Hucks-8,9,10
DH-8,9
FR-7,8,9
TR-5,6,7
XC-3,4,5
i disagree i've got a switch pro it's got 6 in back and thets plenty for fr for me at least you guys are probably going bigger and faster than me but i think that 6 inches rear is plenty for 10+ drops. in my humble opinion.
 

odiwik

Monkey
Mar 2, 2004
252
0
The only negative of more travel is the increased BB height as far as I am concerned.
 

maxyedor

<b>TOOL PRO</b>
Oct 20, 2005
5,496
3,140
In the bathroom, fighting a battle
after 10 it seems like you run into a serious issue, the bb gets to high and thus you either end up with your seat so high you can't reach the ground, or the total distance from crank to bb is so short you can't pedel well
 

preppie

Monkey
Aug 30, 2002
379
0
Europe
My Bighit (with 26" BETD seatstay) and a Fox RC (8.75 / 2.75"stroke) - had 8.9" travel.
I switched the RC for a shorter 5th (8.5 / 2.5" stroke)
and put the original 24" seatstay back on with a 24" rear wheel.
My BH has 7.3" travel now.

The low BB, slack HA, shorter chainstay have more benefits than the 8.9 travel and the 26" wheel.
Another thing that's noticeable is the "pumping" the bike accelerates now instead of soaking it up.

More body movement - less travel (7-7") works best for me with this bike.

Ps. I don't race DH
 

PatBranch

Turbo Monkey
Sep 24, 2004
10,451
9
wine country
My friend has a scott high octane 2 w/ a shiver- 9.5" in the back. Its way too much for me.

When I get a fr bike, all i need is 7". It will be more than enough for drops, but soak up bumps a little more than a 6". I weigh 125lbs. and am 5'3", so 7" is perfect for me.

I want to get an Iron Horse 7.3 - replace manipoo w/ '03 super-t (7"). I have a hardtail which i use for everything (xc trails, dj,fr,dh,ds,urban)

The iron horse will be more fun on the dh/fr stuff, especially when the going gets rough/studders.
 

Red Bull

Turbo Monkey
Oct 22, 2004
1,772
0
970
Alot of you dont realize, that (IMO) somewhere around 9" of travel is best. Because sag is very important and you can only run so much on a 7" bike compared to a 9" or say a v10.
 

dhkid

Turbo Monkey
Mar 10, 2005
3,358
0
Malaysia
for sure quality over quantity.
but about the tavel,i think there are quite a few factors that come into play. rider weight, height, style and the terrian you ride on.
i use 7 and 7, but wish i could get away with something like 6 and 6. for me less travel means a bike that is easier to mussle around.
 

PatBranch

Turbo Monkey
Sep 24, 2004
10,451
9
wine country
dhkid said:
for sure quality over quantity.
but about the tavel,i think there are quite a few factors that come into play. rider weight, height, style and the terrian you ride on.
i use 7 and 7, but wish i could get away with something like 6 and 6. for me less travel means a bike that is easier to mussle around.
:stupid: Thats a main reason, becasue I'm small, its easier to throw around a 7" bike than a 9" because they are usualy lighter and the suspension won't take diminish all my force to the ground when doing quick bunnyhops and stuff.
 

RhinofromWA

Brevity R Us
Aug 16, 2001
4,622
0
Lynnwood, WA
I rock a DH bike that has 7" in the front and 6" in the rear.

Bunch of pansies you big travel guys are. :D

1999-2002 Rotec Pro DH with a 2001 MonsterT
 

Thrillkil

Monkey
May 25, 2005
595
0
Isla Vista, CA
I mostly race DH, and I run my bike at 9" travel, with some sag, so my practical travel is around 7". It works fine for me.

Edit: paging Downhiller to this thread
 

Heath Sherratt

Turbo Monkey
Jun 17, 2004
1,871
0
In a healthy tension
I have eight in the front and seven in the rear. Very agile, the hardtail of DH bikes. There was only one time I wanted more travel and that was the big drop at Durango last year but I still did it then it was just scary to hit really fast.
 

Kntr

Turbo Monkey
Jan 25, 2003
7,526
21
Montana
Ive always run 8" in the front and rear.

My new bike will be 8" front and 9"rear. I guess Ill have to see.
 

heikkihall

Monkey
Dec 14, 2001
882
0
Durango, CO
Red Bull said:
Alot of you dont realize, that (IMO) somewhere around 9" of travel is best. Because sag is very important and you can only run so much on a 7" bike compared to a 9" or say a v10.
Sure sag is important but there can also be too much of it. You can get plenty of sag on a 7" bike.

I dont think I would ever need more than an 8" bike.
 

Radarr

Turbo Monkey
Feb 25, 2004
1,130
9
Montana
I'm pretty sure that it's more about rider preference than anything else. Peaty rode a 8.5" travel bike last year and dominated with it. Reinne didn't do too bad with 10" in the rear, either.

I can't really think of any mainstream DH race frames that more than 10" of travel. I know that there aren't really any race forks that have more than 8" (Risse may be the exception there). If you made a bike that had 12" of rear wheel travel and was built for racing, you would automatically assume that the bike was going to have 4-5" or sag right off the get-go. That way, all the geo is correct.

For hucking, give me that 23" bike, and I'll do Bender's 100' drop before he does.
 

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
narlus said:
how many DH bikes have 7" of travel in 2005? about zero?

splat, how can that bike have 23" of rear travel? and have a 5" z1 on the front?
Actually, don't know, since I was not really in the market for a bike this season......
 

thaflyinfatman

Turbo Monkey
Jul 20, 2002
1,577
0
Victoria
Personally I think there are many advantages to less travel (or more accurately, disadvantages to longer travel). For starters, more travel generally = longer bike. Longer bike = handles slower. It also gives you clearance issues with bottoming, means that the bike's structural loading varies more because the suspension members move/rotate further (and thus the bike is more likely to be weaker or heavier), requires a higher BB (assuming you run roughly the same percentage of sag), can give enough sag that it's hard to get out of it (jumping/hopping), and means the geometry changes more with weight shift. None of these are good things. The only real advantage of running say 10" of travel as compared to 8" is in high speed bump absorption (in terms of DH/race type stuff, because big hits and that are generally one-off events that you can soak up with your body easily enough). If you ride a lot of *really* fast rough stuff it might be enough to outweigh the other negatives.

If you ride a bike like a Sunday, SGS or a Turner and compare directly with something like a V10 or an M1, you will be surprised at how much more stable the slightly-shorter-travel bikes are when hammering into corners and stuff; they don't feel like they're bogging down mid-corner. It's a huge advantage IMO. I find they also jump nicer, but I think that's more due to personal riding style and preferences than one setup being clearly better than another.
 

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
thaflyinfatman said:
Personally I think there are many advantages to less travel (or more accurately, disadvantages to longer travel). For starters, more travel generally = longer bike. Longer bike = handles slower. It also gives you clearance issues with bottoming, means that the bike's structural loading varies more because the suspension members move/rotate further (and thus the bike is more likely to be weaker or heavier), requires a higher BB (assuming you run roughly the same percentage of sag), can give enough sag that it's hard to get out of it (jumping/hopping), and means the geometry changes more with weight shift. None of these are good things. The only real advantage of running say 10" of travel as compared to 8" is in high speed bump absorption (in terms of DH/race type stuff, because big hits and that are generally one-off events that you can soak up with your body easily enough). If you ride a lot of *really* fast rough stuff it might be enough to outweigh the other negatives.

If you ride a bike like a Sunday, SGS or a Turner and compare directly with something like a V10 or an M1, you will be surprised at how much more stable the slightly-shorter-travel bikes are when hammering into corners and stuff; they don't feel like they're bogging down mid-corner. It's a huge advantage IMO. I find they also jump nicer, but I think that's more due to personal riding style and preferences than one setup being clearly better than another.

I have an SGS, my issue is the quality of the travel, which is being remedied.