Some questions are scary to ask. We don’t want to seem like newbs, even when we are absolutely, unmistakably, inexperienced. The specter of ridicule isn’t fun. All it takes is one I-know-more-than-you correction to make you wish you hadn’t walked asked.
Of all the questions you might ask upon deciding to buy a mountain bike, none is more important than the question of travel—just how much of it you need. The fun, or the frustration—depending on your outlook—is that there’s no one answer. It depends.
It depends on a number of different factors, but honestly, the single biggest is where you ride. For everyone in flat or flat-ish places, i.e., anywhere where you can’t get a substantial descent, there is no point in going with full suspension. If you’re riding flat to rolling trails, it makes more sense to stick with a hardtail. And if you’re sticking with a hardtail, then keep the fork travel to 100 or 120mm of travel. That is, unless you’re doing dirt jumps and in that case, go with something like a Fox 36 with 160mm of travel, but still, hardtail.
Part of this owes to the fact that everywhere I’ve ridden where the trail system was flat, the trails twisted and turned in such tight coils that you won’t get an enduro bike around those turns very easily, thanks to its long wheelbase. A hardtail has a shorter wheelbase and can carve tighter turns.
Okay, now, for folks who live in places that have longer descents, and by longer, I don’t mean the downhills need to last for a mile, but they need to be long enough and steep enough that you’ll generate enough speed to compress the suspension.
Most of us, the great majority of us, will do fine with a trail bike. These days, trail is defined as between 120 and 150mm of travel. I’ve seen reviews that have referred to bikes like the Ibis Ripmo as a trail bike. Just no. It’s an amazing bike for multiple reasons, such as its suspension design and geometry, but it’s not a trail bike.
It’s been nice to see full-suspension cross country begin to catch on, finally. If you’re thinking of racing cross country, they can be great, but the real reason to consider one is if your trail system is more old-school with really tight turns that aren’t bermed out.
Based on what I’m seeing in reviews and social media, trail bikes don’t seem to be the hippest choice right now. Long-travel 29ers, mullets, enduro rigs, that seems to be where all the love is. Bikes with 160-180mm-travel forks, and rear travel of 145-160mm.
The thing is, even though some of them pedal really well, these longer-travel bikes simply aren’t as versatile as a trail bike. They have a longer wheelbase—they are made for big terrain—and a substantially higher bottom bracket. So, while they can carve a mean line and plow through a dry streambed without blinking, they aren’t as nimble as trail bikes.
The other thing to consider is how these longer-travel enduro and all-mountain bikes are made for big air. If you don’t have a steady diet of drops of four feet or more, the trail bike can deliver what you need.
I’m seeing travel in the trail segment climb just as it did with enduro and downhill bikes. Bikes that were 130 front/120 rear become 140/130 after their refresh—and their head tube angle tends to get another three-quarters of a degree slacker. But seriously, a 130/120 bike is so capable. Bikes like the Santa Cruz Tallboy, the Ibis Ripley, Specialized Stumpjumper—there are reasons why those bikes are so popular. They are versatile. The only place I wouldn’t want one of those or a similar trail bike would be because I was riding flat terrain. When I’m in Memphis I absolutely do not want full suspension. I want the shortest possible wheelbase and the most efficient pedaling possible because I’m 100 percent of the acceleration—there’s no gravity assist. And if the terrain is too big for a trail bike, uh, I am apt to pass.
Here’s another way to consider the question of travel: Are you bottoming out the suspension on a trail bike? Unless you’re bottoming out the suspension, or have pumped the fork and shock up so high to take big impacts that they’ve lost the ability to move under smaller bumps, moving to a longer-travel rig isn’t necessary.
There’s a reason why trail bikes are so popular. For most of us, they do what we need—they pedal well, float over rocks and roots, carve tight lines and remain chill at high speed. All the elements of a good time.
“These days, trail is defined as between 120 and 150mm of travel. I’ve seen reviews that have referred to bikes like the Ibis Ripmo as a trail bike. Just no. It’s an amazing bike for multiple reasons, such as its suspension design and geometry, but it’s not a trail bike.”
Okay, I’ll bite. Why isn’t the Ripmo a trail bike? The travel numbers are right where you stated they should be. It’s geometry would be considered conservative as far as modern Enduro bikes go. I see plenty of people including a fella I rode with last night riding them on trails that probably do not warrant even half the travel it has (I was aboard my hardtail FWIW). If you wish to dump it into the Enduro bike category, it’s numbers make it more on the pointy side of things and would take a highly skilled pilot to ride it at Enduro race speeds. I’d call it a long-legged trail bike which IMHO is what it always has been. If you want a whole hog Enduro rig from Ibis then the HD6 is your steed.
On the contrary, my bike a Santa Cruz 5010 MX has a slacker head angle than the Ripmo as I have over-forked it with a 150mm Zeb versus it’s stock 140mm Pike which seems anemic in comparison. My travel numbers are 130/150 and I can get after 95 to 98% of anything I ever rode on notably longer travel bikes. My geometry is clearly in the Enduro range, yet I have significantly less travel on tap. You could call it a “Trail-duro” or “En-trail” bike. I just call it El Diablo Rojo, my tap-dancing bulldozer or just fun.
Ripmo V2S size M wheelbase 1219 mm.
Ripley V5 size M wheelbase 1211 mm.