What would you do... MTB question

[bikerboy337]

So I'm getting my first mountain bike in a few years now. Looking for something fun to tool around on my local NE trails on, rocky, rooty crap (not the fun stuff i grew up riding in So Cal)...

I'm a little stuck on what I should go with... not going to give specific models i'm looking at for now, just wondering peoples thoughts on travel... going the FS route. Three options I'm looking at

1) 120/120 travel, 27.5 wheeled All Mountain Bike
2) 130/130 travel 29er All Mountain Bike
3) 150/150 travel 26 wheeled Enduro/All Mountain Bike

Struggling over how much travel i should get. Again, not racing, just looking to tool around and start mountain biking again on some local trails, dont anticipate climbing major hills/mountains, just tooling... blue hills outside of boston would be the biggest hills i'd likely hit up or down on this bike...

Just looking for a few thoughts from fellow roadies...

Last mountain bike i had was an early 2000s Giant NRS 0... stiff and light XC machine, was not a ton of fun to ride...

[JAGI410]

#4. Rooty/rocky "fun" bike calls for a 27.5 plus bike. 120mm travel minimum.

My suggestions: Pivot Switchblade, Trek Fuel EX, and Santa Cruz Tallboy/Hightower. All of these allow for a 29er wheel set too. The wider tires will help with the roots and rocks, while giving you more confidence and traction. In some cases, much faster than other wheel sizes.

[MattTuck]

#4. Rooty/rocky "fun" bike calls for a 27.5 plus bike. 120mm travel minimum.

My suggestions: Pivot Switchblade, Trek Fuel EX, and Santa Cruz Tallboy/Hightower. All of these allow for a 29er wheel set too. The wider tires will help with the roots and rocks, while giving you more confidence and traction. In some cases, much faster than other wheel sizes.

I'm certainly not qualified to give mountain bike advice, but I was going to chime in and pose the question why the OP didn't include a 27.5 Plus bike in his list.

Seems, for New England, it should be in the consideration set.

[JWDR]

1) 120mm travel, 27.5 wheeled All Mountain Bike
2) 130mm travel 29er All Mountain Bike
3) 150mm travel 26 wheeled Enduro/All Mountain Bike



I think you are a little off on the travel. 0-150ish travel = 29er, 140-160ish travel 27.5, 160ish plus 26.

Im currently on a 120mm 29er but want a new school 140/150 29.

[christian]

1 or 2. I think 120 is marginal for a 27.5 "trail" bike, so I would go with #2.

[sparky33]

Try out a plus bike and/or a long-travel bike and see what you think. These features are awesome fun in some respects...

Though having purchased a mtb for the first time in a decade recently, I found that the biggest advantage with new mountain bikes wasn't the plus tires or the shocks but the modern geometry...slack headtube, short stem, wide hbars, rear bias weighting. I got a 27.5 Highball hardtail, and it's simple and awesome. I don't want for more more travel or plus tires around here, 2.3's tubeless are enough. A bike with plus tires and huge shocks feels kinda cumbersome to me. Whatever feels right.

I've heard excellent things about the Tallboy too.

[NHAero]

Riding on rooty and only occasionally rocky Martha's Vineyard, with a fair amount of blow-down limbs across trails, the larger diameter wheels really help. I don't see suspension travel as a key signifier here nearly so much as wheel diameter and tire size. The 27.5 plus guys have more traction than my 29er with a 2.3 rear (Pivot Mach 429).

The change to the Pivot from a '99 Litespeed with the Moots YBB softtail was a huge upgrade. You'll be happy!

[weaponsgrade]

I'd go 1 or 2 - probably 2. The 26 platform seems dead. This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but there's a park a few blocks from my house that I'll loop around sometimes either on my rigid 26er or CX. The trails are pretty tame for mtn bike trails, but not bad for a city park. I started ripping around it on a rigid 29er and I'm a lot faster on the 29er. I'm still holding onto the two 26ers I've got, but mainly because they're vintage ones from BITD.

[ofcounsel]

1 or 2. I think 120 is marginal for a 27.5 "trail" bike, so I would go with #2.

Agreed. Not knowing anything else about the bikes other than the travel numbers and wheel size, I would also go with option #2. The travel numbers/wheels alone put it in a bit more of an "one bike to do everything" category.

Any particular models you are considering?

Note that even bikes with similar travel numbers can feel very, very different on the trail. Way different than you would get going from road bike to road bike. So I'd encourage you to try them all out before buying, if you can.

Also, companies like Pivot, Santa Cruz, Ibis and even Trek are putting out bikes that pedal way better than they should given the amount of travel they have. At the same time, there are some bikes with not a lot of travel, like the Pivot Mach 429 or Evil the Following that can handle way more than you would expect given the amount of travel they have. Travel is not necessarily the end al to be all of a modern mountain bike!

[sandyrs]

I would consider 27.5+ because they seem fun but I think the 130 travel 29er, realistically, will be more than enough for almost anything you can ride in Rhode Island or eastern MA.

[bikerboy337]

Just to update as its been asked...

Bike 1 - 2015 Norco Fluid 7.1
Bike 2 - 2014 Stumpjumper FSR 29er
Bike 3 - 2013 GT Force LE


Was leaning towards #2 to begin with...

Have great deals on all 3 of these available...all have amazing reviews online... the GT has the best specs by far (was a $5500 bike), stumpy is nice, lots of specialized parts, the Norco has great reviews as well from everything i've read... so i'm really just trying to figure out what travel/wheel i think would be best at this point... just haven't ridden mountain in so long dont have a great idea, was leaning towards the stumpy as that is a basic standard 29er at this point...

[christian]

Stumpy.

[gdw]

How tall are you?

[bikerboy337]

6-foot, standard dimensions, ride a 56cm road frame, will be large for most mountain bikes...

How tall are you?

[crownjewelwl]

all depends on how rowdy you want to get

i have an ibis ripley (140F/130R)...it is great for climbing and pretty good descending

but my next bike will be a 27.5+ bike with similar travel (if not more)...it is more of a point and ride experience downhill and so much fun

you should consider the 27.5+ option since you're starting from scratch! the traction makes it so much fun

[ofcounsel]

I'd go with Stumpy.

[superbowlpats]

Having ridden the rocks and roots of SE Mass/RI, I second your decision to get the full suspension. I'm on a hardtail and regret it almost every time I step foot into Freetown State Forest.

[old fat man]

Try the Stumpy 6Fattie. People I know in southern New England seem to like them.

[rusty1200]

29er or 27.5 plus. You wont regret it

[MattTuck]

29er or 27.5 plus. You wont regret it

Until a new standard emerges. the 28.1 Husky standard, 2019's bike of the year. :D

[benb]

Also being in NE and not really knowing anything but rocky and rooty I would also go with the 27.5+ or 29/29+ options.

I've been riding a 26er with only 80mm of suspension travel for seemingly forever and it's still a pretty bone jarring ride even though it's way better than a hard tail. I always ride the biggest tires I can squeeze into my frame at the lowest pressure I can.

I guess I like the idea of a bike I can run 27.5+ or 29 on if I wanted to change my mind. Chances are I'd pick one and never change it. Maybe it'd just be 29+ since I'm tall.

[ofcounsel]

I currently run a 29er EVO version of the Stumpy, which is the more aggressive version of the standard stumpy. It has 5mm more rear travel and 10mm more front travel. It also has a little lower bottom bracket and is slacker on the head tube angle. I have a two other mountain bikes, a hardtail and a short travel, full suspension 29er (the short travel full-suss 29er sees the most use). The Stumpy gets used anytime I'm going to "advanced" trails. It's also my travel bike. I take this bike with me when I'm riding on trails I've never been before, or going on a multi-day trip and need to be ready for anything that comes my way.



http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s81/ofcounsel/50491d48-fde0-44ca-8a28-635418d56587_zpsi9v3b4zn.jpg

But if I had only one bike in my quiver, the standard version Stumpy (or even the Specialized Camber) would probably been a better choice.

[Tony]

I'm also looking for another mtb and have been lately demoing bikes. I currently have a Ibis Mojo 650 b and a Ti 29er hardtail. Drove to Santa Cruz to test ride a Ibis 3 (27.5+) and a Santa Cruz Bronson. I recently tried a Intense SPIDER 275C and will try out a Intense Primer next month. Really like the Bronson and Spider. I ride with two who have Switchblades, and several others who are running 2.8- 3.0 tires on Mach 429 Trail to HD3. I think 27.5+ in were the MTB industry is heading. I spent a short time on the Swichblade and it challenged everything I thought a plus bike would feel like. It was nimble, felt light and responsive. I will say that following behind riders on 2.8-3.0 tire while on descents and not peddling loose momentum fast compared to the 3.3-2.4s.

Try as many bikes as you can. Like Ofcounsel said many of these bikes can handle much more than you think given the amount of travel they have.

[ofcounsel]

I just demo'ed a Switchblade in 29er mode last week as well, and I thought it was awesome. I did a good climb and a technical downhill that I routinely ride with my Stumpy Evo. I ran my fastest downhill time ever on the Switchblade and didn't even have the suspension fully set up for me. The bike is impressive! But what impressed me the most was that it didn't feel like I was giving up any efficiency on the long climbs.

I'm going to demo the Ibis Mojo HD3 in 27.5+ mode this Wednesday night. I'm going to take it along the same trail as I did the Switchblade.

I may end up replacing the Stumpy next year.... We'll see. But in the meantime, it's a lot of fun to ride these other bikes to gather data and make comparisons.

My buddy, who has a Spider 29c, just demoed the Primer. He tells me it's similar to the Spider, just a little more capable on the downhill.

[Gummee]

The hot setup for those that ride stuff like that down here seems to be a 27.5+ bike with a pair of 29er wheels to swap out when you aren't riding rooty/rocky stuff.

HTH

M

[old fat man]

Feedback about what works out west in California is irrelevant to the rocky rooty stuff in New England. Those low bb's are non starters around here.

[Tony]

I just demo'ed a Switchblade in 29er mode last week as well, and I thought it was awesome. I did a good climb and a technical downhill that I routinely ride with my Stumpy Evo. I ran my fastest downhill time ever on the Switchblade and didn't even have the suspension fully set up for me. The bike is impressive! But what impressed me the most was that it didn't feel like I was giving up any efficiency on the long climbs.

I'm going to demo the Ibis Mojo HD3 in 27.5+ mode this Wednesday night. I'm going to take it along the same trail as I did the Switchblade.

I may end up replacing the Stumpy next year.... We'll see. But in the meantime, it's a lot of fun to ride these other bikes to gather data and make comparisons.

My buddy, who has a Spider 29c, just demoed the Primer. He tells me it's similar to the Spider, just a little more capable on the downhill.

I was really taken by the Spider, looking forward to riding the Primer!

[Schmed]

Turner Flux 27.5 with free carbon wheel upgrade.....

[ofcounsel]

Feedback about what works out west in California is irrelevant to the rocky rooty stuff in New England. Those low bb's are non starters around here.

I wouldn't say that feedback about works out "west in California" is irrelevant.

I would instead say that certain aspects of bike design/components may not be as applicable/desirable in certain geographic regions. For example, lower bottom brackets, as you suggest may not be desirable, for you, in New England. Likewise, for me, in California, there's not as much value to narrow bars or 26" wheels because it's not often that I'm iding in tight twisty stuff between trees or in super-switchy switchbacks.

But that doesn't mean the feedback is irrelevant just because the messenger is from the west, or vice versa. For example in some areas of riding out West, the our technical climbs have stretches of multiple sharp, large bolders on uneven ground. The effect from a lower bottom bracket is the same as rocky rooted stuff: Pedal strikes.

But, for my riding, occasional pedal strikes are a small price to pay, in for the added feeling of being planted while cornering and bombing a downhill on my Stumpjumper (which has a lowish bottom bracket). For my more XC biased bikes, I prefer a higher bb.

That's why it's very valuable to try out as many bikes as possible before buying. To see what works for your riding style, intentions and terrain. But at the same time, folks understand that trying everything out is, at a minimum, time consuming, and at worst, impossible. So having feedback of all sorts is important. And also understanding the charictaristics your bike may exhibit, based on suspension travel, suspension design (DW Link, Horst Link, Maestro, CVA, ABP, VPP), head tube angles, seat tube angles, bottom bracket height, reach, stem length, wheel size, bar width and a host of other metrics can be important.

And it doesn't matter if the advice about how those characteristics /metrics will affect your mountain bike is coming from California or New England.

[ofcounsel]

Turner Flux 27.5 with free carbon wheel upgrade.....

I saw that the other day!! Hell of a deal for a "one-bike to do it all" rider.

[Tony]

I wouldn't say that feedback about works out "west in California" is irrelevant.

I would instead say that certain aspects of bike design/components may not be as applicable/desirable in certain geographic regions. For example, lower bottom brackets, as you suggest may not be desirable, for you, in New England. Likewise, for me, in California, there's not as much value to narrow bars or 26" wheels because it's not often that I'm iding in tight twisty stuff between trees or in super-switchy switchbacks.

But that doesn't mean the feedback is irrelevant just because the messenger is from the west, or vice versa. For example in some areas of riding out West, the our technical climbs have stretches of multiple sharp, large bolders on uneven ground. The effect from a lower bottom bracket is the same as rocky rooted stuff: Pedal strikes.

But, for my riding, occasional pedal strikes are a small price to pay, in for the added feeling of being planted while cornering and bombing a downhill on my Stumpjumper (which has a lowish bottom bracket). For my more XC biased bikes, I prefer a higher bb.

That's why it's very valuable to try out as many bikes as possible before buying. To see what works for your riding style, intentions and terrain. But at the same time, folks understand that trying everything out is, at a minimum, time consuming, and at worst, impossible. So having feedback of all sorts is important. And also understanding the charictaristics your bike may exhibit, based on suspension travel, suspension design (DW Link, Horst Link, Maestro, CVA, ABP, VPP), head tube angles, seat tube angles, bottom bracket height, reach, stem length, wheel size, bar width and a host of other metrics can be important.

And it doesn't matter if the advice about how those characteristics /metrics will affect your mountain bike is coming from California or New England.

And pricey : )

Totally agree with this, good advise.

[Schmed]

I saw that the other day!! Hell of a deal for a "one-bike to do it all" rider.

Yea. I'm sooooo tempted, being a Turner Homer and all....

[MrDangerPants]

I have a 2016 Stumpjumper FSR Comp 6Fattie (https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/trail/stumpjumper-fsr/stumpjumper-fsr-comp-6fattie/107081) (27.5+; 150F/135R) and absolutely dig it.

Here I am this year at the Vermont 50:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/3eade185a496f73a2b3d56e92c8e9aa1/tumblr_ohdtn2pl061tst9oeo1_1280.jpg

I highly recommend a 6Fattie.

[ofcounsel]

I have a 2016 Stumpjumper FSR Comp 6Fattie (https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/mountain/trail/stumpjumper-fsr/stumpjumper-fsr-comp-6fattie/107081) (27.5+; 150F/135R) and absolutely dig it.

I highly recommend a 6Fattie.

One of my buddies has the exact same bike. He loves it! My wife has the Specialized Levo FSR Comp 6Fattie. She loves it. I took it for a spin. I was amazed on how much traction those big tires give on the downhill!

[MrDangerPants]

I was amazed on how much traction those big tires give on the downhill!

And confidence!

[bikerboy337]

Lots of good thoughts here, unfortunately my budget is limited on this purchase...

Have three great deals available on the 3 bikes mentioned so i'll be going with one of those, at this point, the stumpy is pretty much it, as i knew it would be...

The 27+ intrigues me but i don't have a few grand to throw down at this point... so its not in the cards, only option in my budget would be a 27+ hardtail and thats not what i'm looking for...

so for now, going to be planning to pick up that 2014 Stumpy 29er, will be a good entry back into the market and then depending on how much i actually ride, i'm sure i'll be back next year looking for the next bike ;)

[benb]

I wouldn't say that feedback about works out "west in California" is irrelevant.

I would instead say that certain aspects of bike design/components may not be as applicable/desirable in certain geographic regions. For example, lower bottom brackets, as you suggest may not be desirable, for you, in New England. Likewise, for me, in California, there's not as much value to narrow bars or 26" wheels because it's not often that I'm iding in tight twisty stuff between trees or in super-switchy switchbacks.

But that doesn't mean the feedback is irrelevant just because the messenger is from the west, or vice versa. For example in some areas of riding out West, the our technical climbs have stretches of multiple sharp, large bolders on uneven ground. The effect from a lower bottom bracket is the same as rocky rooted stuff: Pedal strikes.



Except he's right for the most part though. You list a trail/climb with multiple sharp builders and/or uneven ground as something you see in "some areas". Here it's pretty much everywhere. You're either riding through a rock garden or you're riding over a spider web of roots. You very rarely run over anything that is smooth. If you do it's a temporary thing, someone put dirt on the trail and it hasn't washed over yet. Due to everything be scraped over by glaciers even your "smooth" trails" grow rocks as the tires push the dirt out of the way and we don't really have open land anymore as almost everything reforested so the webs of roots are present in just about every trail system as well.

I guess you could say you get a break from the roots when you are going through a rock garden and vise versa!

[ofcounsel]

Except he's right for the most part though. You list a trail/climb with multiple sharp builders and/or uneven ground as something you see in "some areas". Here it's pretty much everywhere. You're either riding through a rock garden or you're riding over a spider web of roots. You very rarely run over anything that is smooth. If you do it's a temporary thing, someone put dirt on the trail and it hasn't washed over yet. Due to everything be scraped over by glaciers even your "smooth" trails" grow rocks as the tires push the dirt out of the way and we don't really have open land anymore as almost everything reforested so the webs of roots are present in just about every trail system as well.

I guess you could say you get a break from the roots when you are going through a rock garden and vise versa!

I wasn't suggesting that roots or rocky terrain are not predominant terrain feature all over the east coast.....

But as any advice on this forum, it's smart to consider the source and take any advice for what it's worth. Your mileage may vary.

[ofcounsel]

Lots of good thoughts here, unfortunately my budget is limited on this purchase...

Have three great deals available on the 3 bikes mentioned so i'll be going with one of those, at this point, the stumpy is pretty much it, as i knew it would be...

The 27+ intrigues me but i don't have a few grand to throw down at this point... so its not in the cards, only option in my budget would be a 27+ hardtail and thats not what i'm looking for...

so for now, going to be planning to pick up that 2014 Stumpy 29er, will be a good entry back into the market and then depending on how much i actually ride, i'm sure i'll be back next year looking for the next bike ;)

Congrats on the choice! I don't believe you will be disappointed.

[trener1]

I'm in NY, so basically the same stuff that you are riding, I have a steady diet of Rocks and Roots all day long.
If you don't care about racing at all and just want to have a blast on the trails
then I would highly recommend a longer travel 29er.
Yes the 27.5 will be more "flickble" and maybe a bit quicker but the 29 wheels will bowl over and through rock gardens better.

[jimcav]

for others out there I just wanted to add (to the good advice in this thread), that the bottomline is know the trails you will and MIGHT ride with the bike. my opinion, having learned on a fully rigid bike (still ride a rigid single speed when I visit my mom in central indiana), less than 120 can get you in trouble if you have trails in your area you may try once you get a full susp bike. I now want to try things that my nearing-50 yr old reflexes and joints shouldn't do on my 110 travel hard tail, so I got a 130 FS, which now has me trying things that are probably safer for me on a 140-150 travel bike. I guess this is why some have multiple mtn bikes, but the cost is prohibitive, so if you are after an all-rounder, I would err on more travel if your trials have the gnar, drops, etc

[NHAero]

Tony, could you explain what you are saying below please?

[QUOTE=Tony;2083558]I will say that following behind riders on 2.8-3.0 tire while on descents and not peddling loose momentum fast compared to the 3.3-2.4s.

[christian]

He's saying that 2.8 tires have significantly more rolling resistance than 2.3 tires. That may not matter for amateur riders who need all the traction they can get uphill and are scared to go fast downhill... but it's undoubtedly true -- mechanical traction and rolling resistance are directly linked.

[Tony]

Yes, thanks Christian. Its very noticeable how fast the 2.....2.40 will close the gap on those running 2.8-3.0 on descents while not pedaling. However, those larger tires offer so much traction uphill, downhill, in corners, and are just plain fun!

[jh_on_the_cape]

Test ride them. It depends a lot on your size and style of riding.
I rode a bunch and settled on 120 travel 27.5 Santa Cruz 5010
I tested the 5010, bronson, a kona 29er, and owned a Turner 26er 5 spot before. Also had a 29er ss and rode a 29er trek fs.
Look past the numbers. You have to ride the bike. For me and my style of riding the 5010 was great.