How Much Suspension Travel Do You Want vs. Need in Your Mountain Bike?

If you'd asked me a year or more ago what my ideal travel bike was, I would have quickly answered a 170mm enduro type.  Beginning of '23 I got a Nomad 6 and love(d) it.  It pedals really well for how much travel it has, but has enough suspension that it can erase poor line choice and handle a few days per year at the bike park.  But then this year I got a Heckler SL ebike (which is basically the new Bronson with a mid power motor), and damned if that thing isn't more poppy and playful than the Nomad while still feeling bottomless.  (Same tires/wheels/shock on both.)  When the new Bronson came it, it had me questioning whether or not the Nomad really was the right "quiver of 1" bike for me.  

The point I'm trying to get at is that now kinematics, geometry, and suspension has gotten so good is that I think we'll see a shift back from 170mm enduro bikes for "quivers of 1" towards 150mm.

I'm  fairly certain I want something in the 150-160mm rear travel range. This is actually being decided primarily due to me wanting a 160mm fork.

I think having a fork around 160mm with 36mm stanchions is where I want to go, and a balanced f/r suspension seems nice to me, especially if I want a 27.5" rear wheel...

I would be open to the idea of a well-managed 140mm rear suspension platform. For example, 140mm with rearward axle path.

This is also being affected by which bikes are available these days with a gearbox, as I've committed to that being my next bike. 

@sspomer  - is there anyway we can see some of this data over time? Or did Vital not gather that stuff previously (I can't remember). Specifically, I'd love to see if people have gravitated (pun intended) toward different amounts of travel on their primary bike over the last X years....

Thx!

Well, does anybody here have the oportunity to compare for example a Raaw Madonna v3 VS Jibb v2? That's for me the epitome of "thats the bike we make, pick the travel you like and go ride " Frame weight its about the same and build kit could be very close, if not identical, for the intended use of an individual trying to the decide wich one to buy.

It's a real struggle trying to decide between category defying bikes, wich I think it is at the core of this discusion. Can we no longer assume the intended use of a bicycle bassed solely on suspension travel? What then, frame weight? Build kit offerings? Manufacturer tire choice (No. Not that)?

The weight of 150mm travel and up bikes is so close (and they are so heavy!) so should we just pick the longest travel option available anyway?

I myself am looking for a new frameset , and I dont think I need long travel, as I dont ride park or "built" trails, but i am after some level of stiffness and wheel/tire reliability, so part spec its gonna be close to one of an enduro bike anyway...

In my experience, there's no replacement for displacement.

The converse though is that running a 170mm bike with the suspension stiffened up (less sag and/or more compression damping) is not going to feel the same as a 150mm bike with otherwise similar geometry etc.  OK, well maybe if both were 100% linear and running coil but that's not the case 99% of the time.

Pick the damn bike that best suits your trails and your riding. It's not that complicated.

Buy the bike that is ideas for 90% of your riding. Don't buy a bike because you will do a one week trip somewhere that needs a bigger/small bike. Rent that bike. 

"Buy the bike that is ideal for 90% of your riding" kinda misses the point. I have a fully rigid bike that is tons of fun but its a very different riding experience on the same trails as my 150/160mm bike.

If you say go for minimum viable travel then I'll point at the full rigid. If you say go max I'll point at the old DH bike I used to push up trails. Everything is about compromise, so how does one find the ideal?

Also you rob the tinkerers of fun when you say there is an ideal. I won't let my gear affect my ride, but when I get back home I will absolutely micro manage spoke tension and tire pressure on the fully-rigid (there is nothing else to tinker with)

That's a god point, so should I LS swap my econobox then? It is a 1.2l or about 73c.i🤣

There is a saying in Spain "Ande o no ande, caballo grande" blindly going big might not always be the right choice...

How does "your riding" miss the point. 

While I can pluck down anything on a fully rigid bike it's not my preference. I have a capable long travel hardtails that mostly just gets used as a gravel bike and riding with my kids because as much as I love a hardtails it's again not my preference for the trails I ride most. 

I struggle to grasp that someone can't figure out what the ideal bike is for their most loved trails they rode most frequently. 

I don't want to post yet another hot take today but... It depends on what lens you're trying to look at all of this through. Vital skews HEAVILY gravity riding and arguably north america. Pinkbike is slightly more global and has a lot more XC talk. And yet, NEITHER are great representations of the MTBing community at large. Aka, when you drive out to a random trailhead and just start checking the average users. Not only are these enthusiast websites but statistically only the most enthusiast are bothering to vote in polls and stuff (I know I was unaware of said poll being brought up here). Ya know, friendly reminder that 'undecided' or 'no vote' wins the presidential election every year. And despite so many Americans not voting it's not like they don't take part in the country. Same as MTBing. Regardless of online polls/forums, people be riding blissfully ignorant of our ramblings here lol

That said, it does seem like the industry is absolutely designing bikes around what the enthusiasts want. All so people can ride their YT Capras on flowy blues...

That's not true either, you can't just "stiffen up" a total different bike and expect it to ride like another shorter travel bike. Leverage, anti squat, frame stiffness and a hundred other variables make the difference. The closest test for this is just to reduce shock travel on the same bike (i.e. with a reduction chip like 65mm to 57.5mm). Then I'd argue 99.9% of the time nobody can tell if they have that extra 10 or 15 mm of wheel travel. 

My question: why are we still defining bikes via wheel travel?

My argument: It's really geometry and kinematics that makes a bike feel a certain way. So yes, I believe you can make a 170mm travel bike feel like a 130mm travel bike. The caveat is because of the kinematic you might never use the last 20-40mm of travel on the 170, but the benefit is that's it's still there in case of a huge oh shit huck-to-flat moment. In my opinion travel should be defined by the maximum the designer can extract out of their kinematic and packaging (packaging being the balance between size and weight of the suspension). So no it doesn't make sense to put a 230 i2i shock on a bike with XC geometry and a kinematic to make it feel like 100mm travel. But downcountry (cringe) bikes could all be 150-170mm travel but feel like 130 travel with minimal weight penalty. 

Great advice if the bikes are well-defined to the individual rider and the trails they're riding are well-defined to the individual rider.

I think the issue is that people often don't know what they need so they have to guess. I'm a great example. I'm semi-new to mtb - 2 years in on a hardtail - but I have a lot of time riding bmx street and commuter fixed gear bikes. Being on a bike is second-nature so I'm enjoying pushing hard and trying to go faster all the time. I don't have a full suspension but I'm looking to grab one for next season.

I go to the two shops that are worth going to in my area, one shop is telling me a 115mm travel bike with flat bars, 100mm dropper, and 67º headtube is perfect for our local trails and the other shop is telling me that I'll be unhappy with anything under their 160mm enduro bike but their 167mm Orbea is probably the safest choice. If I really wanted to go all-out and not have to buy another bike for the next 5 years as I dive into mtb deeper, I should just buy smart and get the Orbea Wild (a 160mm full-power emtb).

Which one of those two sets of options is better for my local trails which are state-park-service maintained or chattery as hell and loose/dusty because of weather cycles, equestrians, and/or livestock? Which one of those bikes are best for urban jibbing which is something I enjoy doing on the way to the trails and on quick rides on busy days?

Neither of those places offers a rental or a demo outside of their parking lot.

I've learned enough to know that the truth is I probably want to go with something in a 120mm-140mm short travel trail bike range. Mixed wheel would be ideal 'cuz I'm a short dude. But I only know that because I've put a ton of time into figuring out what other people have ridden in trails more and less intense than what I have around me and what that large group of people have commented on liking/disliking...and calling other bike shops...and calling Jenson/Worldwide Cyclery to chat about it. No I don't sleep. Do any of those bikes feel comfortable to me? No clue. AND I won't be able to find out without traveling and renting.

...so I understand why people are unsure of what huge purchase they're only going to get one shot at making and getting right.

I can tell its starting to get colder and rainier in much of the Northern Hemisphere  

We are over complicating this, for sure. The reality is you can ride any number of bikes down a trail and have fun. There is no such thing as "the perfect bike". Vital tends to skew a little more toward the racer, where bike choice matters (a lot) more, but even then I'd wager a good racer could likely put in about the same result on any number of good bikes with various amounts of travel (obviously within reason). 

Others have mentioned it, but what is most important in bike selection is finding the bike that fits your style, terrain, strengths, weaknesses, fitness level, what (if) you plan on racing and biomechanics best. From there, you need to spend as much time as possible getting used to the bike, tweaking it to be just like you want and knowing exactly how it will respond in any given situation. Knowing your bike and how it will respond to inputs is far more important than having a bike that is "technically perfect" for a particular day/trail but not being familiar with it. 

One final point - heavier riders tend to be able to get away with more travel (and heavier bikes) with less of a penalty than lighter riders. This is kind of common sense, but seldom talked about. Us heavier dudes often have a different (lack of) style too...

YMMV.

 

Are these shops trolling you? How daft is it that one shop says xc whippet and one shop says full fat e enduro? 

I've always been a believer of having some headroom in your bikes capability, so there is at least a little bit of margin for error and forgiveness. As you get faster/more confident its better to "ride in to" your bike rather than reach a point of over riding it. As some riders get more skilled they can choose to run things a bit tighter and trade off a little bit of that forgiveness to get a shorter travel, snappier bike but they understand that there's less room for error. 

I see it all the time in bike shops that staff will try to convince riders they only need 140 or 130mm travel, and sure those bikes are fun for a while but pretty soon they get tired of being pounded on rough descents, or start to lose confidence jumping because they know if it goes slightly wrong they'll get punished. They have fun on the bike but they normally come back with "can I increase the travel on the fork?......what about an angleset?.....can the shock stroke be extended?......what do you think of those cascade links?....."

On that note, does @CascadeComponents have much demand for links that give you LESS travel?

Personally I really like modern 160mm travel bikes, they are manageable for all day riding but you can push them pretty hard and not feel like you've gone over the edge. Even 150mm (up front at least) feels like you run right up to the limit of available travel, and going much longer than 160-170 seems to have diminishing returns compared to what you lose

This is exactly my point. I know some stuff and both shops know that I'm not 100% ignorant and yet they're making these disparate recommendations. Imagine someone going in to a shop without a fistful of knowledge and relying on a shop to help them pick "the damn bike that suits your trails." Both of those shops would have put me on the wrong bike.

To be fair, the place suggesting the XC bike isn't THAT far off from something that would work. An incredible human athlete person/machine doing 25 hours a week of on-bike training could get on that XC bike and absolutely rip up our trails faster than I could go down them. But I'm trying to go as fast as I can in a bike handling and trail riding way and not in a "cut my bars down narrower to save a little weight" or "is there something faster-rolling than an Aspen" sort of way. I'd have been on a very much wrong bike and they only slightly misunderstood what I'm going for.

That other shop is sort of a long-standing joke that earned all of its respect in the past. They're the sort of place that sells a $35 chain-cleaning tool for $80. When someone recommends me an ebike when I haven't expressed wanting an ebike (I never have, it doesn't interest me at this point) I take that as a sign that they're not interested in setting me up with a bike that will be good for me but would prefer to set me up with a bike that works best for their sales numbers.

What I probably need is a Ripley with a Sram drivetrain that isn't a billion dollars. Or a Yeti SB 120. Or Revel Rascal. Or Commencal TEMPO (which no shop would recommend, obviously). Or Santa Cruz 5010. Or Druid. Or Raaw Jibb. According to everyone in the internet space, those bikes are all significantly different and are meant to do wildly different things. The truth is they're more similar than they are different in the grand scheme of "trail bikes" but I only know that because I'm awake 20 hours a day. Even with that knowledge, I'll never get an opportunity to know what half of those are like. I'll never find out if any of those bikes are better than the one I've flagged as the most likely to be my pick. I'll potentially have picked the worst of that group for my usage. If I were a different person who was trying mtb rather than having spent most of their life riding a bike of some sort, I could see being frustrated with riding because I picked the most wrong bike, not knowing that's what the problem was, and then quitting to go do something stupid and socially reprehensible like kayaking or instagram dance tutorials.

p.s. Sorry for my super wordy replies. I guess I have a lot of thoughts about this stuff right now and you've accidentally bumped the wasp nest of my future-bike-selecting frustrations.

I like my bikes around 160-170mm of travel for my riding style and types of trails I like to ride. My wife rides some of the trails I like on her 125/140mm travel Optic but she is not trying to race to the bottom, looking for side hits or hitting every jump/drop. 

If I had no idea what to get I think a 150-160mm bike is the sweet spot for a bike that will do most things well.

Historically speaking, no. The demand for less travel has been low. People have generally wanted two different things, more travel (within reason of course) and/or the ability to run a longer shock stroke for similar or slightly larger amounts of travel. I feel we might be at a turning point, though. With the new Bronson and Hightower, my first thought was can I make a link with flip chip that gives a shorter travel option as well as a stock travel option with a tweaked leverage curve.

I dont know how much travel is necessary but ive been liking 160. I feel like 160-170 is a sweet spot if your riding everything from blue to double black enduro or bike park trails and want something that can pedal. Also if you end up on a green for a day it can still work but may not be ideal. I ordered the frameworks enduro to see if it can do everything reasonably well compared to my stumpy evo with cascade link and wrp yoke

This thread needs a voting poll at the top...

Buy a bike with more travel than you’ll ever be capable of riding to its potential and purpose, be a man. 

If you have the means, the best answer is don't compromise and go n+1. The X/C full suspension bike or hardcore hardtail (built to whatever capability preference you desire) pairs very nicely with a 160-170mm long-travel enduro bike and this quiver covers all the kinds of trails and riding styles nicely where I live.

I have never had any use or desire for the mushy middle, average at all-the-things "trail" bike even going back to when my personal bike lust all started in the mid-2000's, but I understand where it fits into the market, and how it's ideal for much of the middle part of America + Canada.

Don't buy just one bike,if you can.

Bikes are so good these days that I prefer having two medium range bikes than a top one.

I had a previous gen Scott Genius but wanted more.  Upgrading that turned out to be a non-starter, and what's the point of a Genius without Twinloc anyway, so I bought an enduro bike to replace it.  Then I changed my mind and kept the Genius (now used for long distance rides) which allowed me to get silly with the enduro bike, so that's now all coil and over-stroked.

Overbiked for sure, but it beats me up less and forgives my sins.  And I'm more than happy with that!

Great Topic!!
I have a Druid V2 which I built up pretty burly,Double Down tires and WA1 Wheels.. didnt really focus on weight,just kinda put on there what I liked. Travel is a 150mm and just installed the Cascade Link..riding/living in Switzerland we have alot of technical chunk - I think this catergory is my sweet spot. This bike is the best I've owned so far (coming from a Hightower V3 and Bronson).

Went to Finale,Madeira and it performed pretty awesome. Good for the climbs and nimble enough for the decents. 
I'd rather have less travel and ride everywhere/ be challenging on some chunk...than so have a 160-180mm bike.

This is purely what works best for me

Besides the added weight, which in this case is not THAT significant, having more travel alone on your bike is not really going to slow you down at all on your average trail/XC type ride (unless you are talking about standing and sprinting). Having a second lighter wheelset with the appropriate lighter and faster rolling tires will make the biggest difference if you wanna ride trail with your buddies one day and park the next.

Today's suspension designs are so much better that they don't really compromise your pedaling like the older bikes did. 

Obviously however if you're racing XC, optimizing your bike for that seems logical.

Interesting, I actually went back from Bronson to Nomad. My first Enduro was a RM Slayer (the smoothlink one) with a coil shock that would actually make sense even today, could still ride it happily. That thing made me sell my dh bike, it was so good on the descents. But then I wanted something that goes a bit easier uphill. So I had couple of 150 mm bikes (Altitude, Stumpy, Bronson V3) and got a dh bike. Now I'm on the Nomad V5 and it's so good. I didn't lose anything in terms of uphill performance to th Bronson, but it's noticeably more capable on the descends. I also like that I can confidently huck it to flat if needed. But Bronson was good enough.

So actually the uphill performance should not decide what travel to go for, especially when you use the climb switch (which I very rarely do). It's more about what trails you ride on the downhill. 

Bought an Aeris 9 last year and bought an additional airshaft for the Zeb and the link to have the option of 160/160 or 180/180. 

Realistically should have gone for something like the old Hightower with a Lyrik, especially for the riding I'm doing now.

150 is where it's at (in the Alps) for me.