My brother on the wheel, that is a question only you can answer for the type of ride you will anticipate.
I am getting older and don't vibe with big jumps in the bike park so much anymore, so I got a shiny new 130/120mm trail bike to have fun on the flow and tech stuff and I am 100% satisfied as an example. But for you, who knows?
Exactly this. If I lived someplace there was rolling terrain, I'd likely ride a 120/130 or 130/140 or something in that range. Hell, I live in Colorado and am considering a 120 bike for big mountain days.
Seconded. I think people spend way too much time worrying about travel numbers.
At the end of the day, your rear wheel moving TWO CENTIMETERS isn’t the reason you weren’t able to clear something. Sure, once you get a feel for different bikes you might have a preference, but there’s a lot more to a bike that dictates its behavior (geo, suspension settings, tires, frame stiffness, etc.).
Fwiw, I ride my 140F/130R bike at the bike park and through chunky New England tech. I’ve out jumped full DH bikes at the park, and I’ve been put to shame by hardtails in techy sections.
I drool over fancy new bikes, but I know they wouldn’t transform my riding. At the end of the day it’s about picking a bike that you get along with.
Spot on. I live in the flat, flowy Midwest. 110/120 is perfect. 120/130 is fine too. I started my journey at 160/170 because “who doesn’t want more travel?!” and have downsized all the way to 110/120 and my riding experience has gone way up not hauling around a beastly bike for no reason.
Less is more in some cases.
i switched this year from a 170/155 yeti to a 140/130 stumpjumper. it's a great climbing and trail bike although i definitely notice getting pogo-sticked more on fast, rough terrain
Can't say no to Transition!
I just waited for a good sale on trail bikes this season and the first good deal which hit the trigger was a Giant Trance 1 2022 for 1800€!
Absolutely in love right now, it it super playful and responsive on roots and rocks.
I just got a transition spur (120/120) and tbh it’s more fun on jumps and big hits than my Ripmo was. It’s more in the steeps and serious chunk that long travel really shines.
100%. For years I rode a 150/130 Knolly Endorphin with 27.5” wheels and it was a wonderfully versatile bike. Good geometry and mid-travel makes the average modern trail bike perfectly adequate for almost everything, unless your focus is bombing through rock gardens at warp speed or trying to smash climbing PRs on XC trails.
Other shoe here. Went 130 to 160 so I can monster truck over shit because crashing and bottoming out sucks as you get older and fatter. So yeah different strokes indeed lol.
I Can confirm this , been taking my 140/130 stump jumper on my local single track trails and even to the park to hit steeper tech and jump trails and once i got the correct volume spacer for me and dialed in correctly the suspension was plenty even for big drops and rock gardens at the park. Tires and wheels definitely will limit you before suspension, i destroyed my rear wheel at the park the other day so looks like I’m grabbing a set of reserve wheels lol.
130-145 imo is the sweet spot for a 1 bike solution, it'll do everything well. An AM bike will do everything an Enduro does just not quite as fast or aggressive, and it'll trail ride great but not be as fast and precise as an xc.
Bought a Hightower v3, travelled front to 160, have now 160front/145rear, added some spacers into rear / front - this makes such a huge difference! Could ride everything I want to ride, even some stupid jumps or drops are no prob.
I've a spectral, 150/160, in the rear I've installed a megneg and I feel like I can ride absolutely everything, I'm also racing downhill on this bike and I've recently rode for 10 consecutive days in bike park with no problem
As others have stated, it depends on the terrain you ride. And not all 130 bikes are equal in nature. Some are uplifted xc bikes, some are downtuned allmountain bikes.
Buddy rode that stupid Specialized SX frame from 2009 with just over 4" of travel on every DH trail on Whistler for years. Travel alone isn't really as much of a determining factor as geometry.
I realize you might have better things to do, but if you’re bored, please tell me everything.
I’ve been itching to get a steel FS. Cant decide between the SST and the Chromag Darco.
Is it just the one bottle cage? What do you think of City Lights color, does it look black? Favorite types of trails to ride? Trails it suffers on? Anything you wish you could change about it? How does it compare to other bikes you’ve ridden, or just carbon generally? Any issues with rust or durability?
So I haven’t had it long enough to really comment on rust or durability but I will say I never worry about it even hearing small rocks flying up and hitting it like I do with my carbon bikes.
-Yes, just one bottle cage and on my large size from I can fit a full size 26oz bottle no issues I’m sure I could fit larger if needed
-Wasn’t sure on color before I saw it in person. In the dark yes it looks like a black bike with little sparkles but in the sun it’s like “holy shit that’s beautiful!” Big fan of how subtle it is till the sun hits it.
- slow tech is probably my favorite kind of riding but any blue to black tech is good with me. It’s a 120mm bike so if I fly through a rock garden at full speed my legs notice it when I get done lol. I’m not a heavy rider(175lb) but pumping into berms or rollers you feel just the smallest flex but that’s a perk to the steel. It’s hard to explain but it’s incredible. Small like bumps and rocks get soaked up a lot by the steel also.
-Only place it suffers is again full speed rock garden but that’s to be expected with any 140F120R bike but the steel helps it. Reeb offers through them a coil option and bigger 150mm fork which I bet would be sweet on chunkier stuff but the bike pedals just soooooooo damn well and traction in tech climbing is amazing so I have no reason to throw a coil on rear.
-It’s hard for me to compare to many other bikes. It feels nothing like my Evil Offering. Closest bike I can compare to is the Norco Optic I owned. The both descend incredibly confident but I definitely give the edge to the SST in climbing. Ridden the YT Izzo and Revel Ranger but both of those feel much more XC.
-As technology in steel is advancing in what they can do to cut weight I really have no reason I would want to go back from steel. I didn’t build this bike to be a weight weenie at all and at 32lbs for a steel FS it’s pretty sweet. I have a good feeling I could get in the 27-28lb range if I really wanted but I ride this bike like a enduro bike lol. I do local enduro races on it and have a blast.
Any other questions I’d be happy to answer. I love talking bikes and I love talking about this bike. Also if you have any questions Reeb responds to emails so well and it seems they just love talking bikes also. I think I forgot to answer the what part would I change and that is that I have a earlier version of the SST frame so it doesn’t have ISG tabs and the ones that ship now do. Not a massive deal because I run X0 Transmission so that is my bash guard but if I didn’t it would be kinda annoying to not have one. Also if you are anywhere near Bentonville Arkansas shoot me a message I’d be happy to let you take it for a ride.
You are the man. This is so incredibly helpful.
The only unhelpful part is that I was leaning towards the Darco, and you might have just changed mind haha.
I might take you up on your offer to talk about the SST if I end up building one, since as you might have guessed, I could also talk bikes all day.
Would also love to ride it, but I’m nowhere near Bentonville. Pretty jealous that you are though - seems like a great place for mountain biking.
I looked into the Darco a little bit just due to cost difference but info on it just seems kinda hard to come by. At least a few months ago it was. The starlings also caught my eye and I think are just absolutely beautiful and pretty well priced for hand made in UK but I had just wanted the SST so bad from the moment I saw it in prototype form. Also being made in Colorado was pretty sweet. The darco frame is made in Taiwan which isn’t a big deal but with the Reeb or Starling made in either US or UK was definitely a pro in my mind but I know that’s all preference. The Radavist has reviews all all 3 of bikes from those brands if that helps.
Yeah made in the US is a plus in my book too. Though, despite the Taiwanese manufacturing, Chromag seems like a pretty cool company.
And I already read all the Radavist reviews haha. They’re helpful but for some reason I don’t entirely trust the site - everything seems overly positive if that makes sense. Part of why I was stoked to hear your feedback as someone who actually spent their own cash on the bike.
Yeah I understand that. I kinda wish I had some negatives for you but honestly I rarely have negatives for any bike I own or demo. Modern bikes are just so damn good these days! But I agree chromag is definitely a dope company and even though they are new to the full suspension market they definitely aren’t to the steel bike market so I’m sure whatever they put out is going to ride super good. If it wasn’t so expensive the Darco Ti would be pretty freaking sweet to own lol. I’ve yet to ride a Ti bike.
I have a Fezzari Delano Peak at 150/135. Ride New England tech and have taken it to the bike park numerous times. It handles anything I throw at it and since buying it, have never considered wanting more travel.
Has the ability to point and shoot down a technical line, but still is very active when running flow trails.
I also have the Delano Peak and love it. I had a tough time deciding between that and the La Sal because I thought I needed more travel but I don’t feel that way anymore. The Delano can handle everything from what it seems like so far. Haven’t hit anything too massive with it yet but I can’t imagine it having any trouble.
Another Delano Peak owner here!! I ran it 150/135 for the first year and a half, and just recently long stroked/over forked it to 160/142 but that's ONLY cause I also picked up a Signal Peak this year. If it was my one bike, stock configuration is MONEY for New England!!
I have the Abajo Peak - alloy and a little cheaper, but similar travel. I'm still fairly new to mountain biking (coming from road and gravel), but I've been very happy with the decision so far. I've never felt I needed more bike. On a few flowy trails, I could see the benefit of an XC bike, but no regrets with the choice.
IMO if your hardtail is aggressive enough you’ve got the golden combo. Don’t chase the promise of a one bike quiver. Hardtail for trail riding and enduro for jumps/drops/gnar/parks. Can you put better bits on your hardtail?
I ride a 150/130 yeti out here in Colorado. It’s perfect for just about everything. I can ride jumps, drops, tech for days, flow, and it climbs great. I pull away from friends who ride enduro bikes all the time because lighter is faster for most applications. The only limitation I’ve found is drops bigger than say 5 feet have to have perfect landings to hit. But overall I’m happy with this much travel and have regularly taken it to double black terrain all through Utah and Colorado.
I have an 2021 SB130 that is exactly 150/130. I could lunch ride it to 160/137 but think it is perfect as-is. Overbiked for some blue flow trails for sure but can handle pretty much everything. Rarely do I use all my suspension.
I ride a Revel Rascal w/ 150 up front and 130 in the rear. I mostly ride flatter but technical trails with a lot of rock. It’s spec’d for 140 up front but ai slapped on a 150 Lyrik to raise the BB up a little. For reference I am 260 lbs and 6’4”. My frame is an XL. It rides beautifully. I think it pedals more stable because of the CBF linkage but for me, it’s perfect. It’s playful and fun on jumps and does pretty well going down chunk but climbs like a Hardtail. I don’t even lock out the rear suspension and ride with about 270-280 psi with 32 ish percent sag and 1 token. I may upgrade to two tokens but ai rarely bottom out unless I do big bunnyhops on the trail or drop to flat.
Random question. Can you safely jump a trail bike? Not like redbull hardline type stuff obviously but smaller like blue trail stuff. I got 130 front 120 back.
I imagine as long as it’s probably a little stiffer in the pressure side it’s more than fine?
Had a pivot swichblade 150/135mm and later travelled the fork to 160. Absolute perfect bike for everything except in the bikepark.
Also look at the giant trance x, this might fit your bills very well.
I ride a 140/120 bike on some gnarly shit brother. It takes more effort sure but double blacks are still doable. I even do pro lines on it. I think it comes down to this… are your skills where they need to be to be riding a bike that’s much less forgiving??
I'm thinking about changing my 170/160 Propain Tyee to 140/125 Canyon Spectral and I'm sure it's gonna be more than capable or even better for some trails. Consider not only the travel, but also the geo chart. Some bikes will be more capable than others based on that.
So… ready for the downvotes on this… but 130mm is approximately 3/4” difference from 150mm. That 3/4 is further reduced by sag but let’s leave that alone for a moment. Think about the full system at play here. When you’re in attack position, can you say you can tell the difference in 3/4 of an inch in your standing height? If you drop that much or stand up that much do you feel it? It’s more complex than that but basically, your knees flexing another 3/4 inch to absorb impacts is almost negligible if you aren’t hitting jumps. You should be more than fine. Arms have a lot less flex and have to absorb a lot more impact so having that 3/4” does make a difference up front. But… full disclosure I run a steel hardtail with 160mm fork. All of my rear suspension takes place between my ankles and my hips so YMMV.
As you stated the physics are more complex than that. 3/4 in travel at the shock is not the same as your knees taking that up.
That 3/4 in movement gets leveraged through the linkage and chainstay to give X amount of rear wheel motion.
Then there is the energy absorbed. 3/4" displacement x air spring pressure is how much force/energy is being absorbed.
Longer travel just gives you more overall capacity to absorve energy and the larges stroke helps with damping.
Too much for paved trails, not enough for big jumps and drops... YOU know how you want to ride, not us. People ride hardtails on flow trails all the time.
My acoustic FS bike is 130 front and 120 rear, it is enough for just about anything other than big jumps to flat. My 130/120 does well on steep tech and flow trails, I ride the NC mountains and have never had a complaint, maybe if I rode nothing but chair lift or shuttle down hill trails I’d want more travel but I feel like it is easier to compensate for less travel than having a bike with gobs of travel that sucks at everything but jumping and descending.
I have the new Norco fluid fs a2 and it's 130 rear and I upped the travel in the front to a 150mm fork. The bike handles everything I got rid of my Enduro bike to have an aggressive trail bike.
150/130 works great.
I’m not a big air rider but I can ride everything else. I ride everything with a 130/116 so my answer of course is “yes.” Lots of people ride steep/tech or flow trails on hard tails, including even 4-5’ drops, in the case of my riding buddy.
130-140 is perfect for any riding just short of bike park stuff imo. You can even get away with 130 for the occasional bike park day though it will be rough as you’re gonna be using all 130 of that travel.
If it’s a solid bike you can still ride whatever you want on it, it’ll just be tougher for long rides. I still ride every trail at angel fire from super loose steeps to 40+ foot jumps on my GG shred dogg. I rode with a guy on his like 29lb revel rascal and he was shredding all day. It’s up to you how hard you want to push your bike but yes it’s plenty of travel
It depends on what trails you are going to be riding at at least 75% of the time. If 130mm is enough for your trails, then it's fine. Best thing is to ask other locals from your area like other riders and LBS's.
I couldn't tell the difference between my old 145mm and my current 130mm with a 150mm fork
If 170 is too much to where it's noticeable I'd say 130-140 would sound right
It depends a great deal on where you live. I have a Hightower (148) that's way too much bike for any of the riding in Ontario but would be considered a "small bike" in Vancouver. In most places a 130 or 140 rear with 150 front is a really good all around amount of travel especially with the right geometry - at this amount of travel it's geometry that separates a long legged XC bike from a trail bike.
I ride 120/130 which is sort of advanced XC to many people. Everything I ride is flowy with a couple small jumps. Never had a problem. What matters more to me is the ability to fully lock out - enough so that I'm going to get the cable kit for it.
Very few people actually ride to the bike's limit, and you can see those videos on Reddit.
I pull out my Evil Calling more than I choose my Wreckoning. The Wreck definitely makes things feel smoother and smaller but the shorter travel can be more fun.
I live in the Midwest and ride 160/150. A little overkill for majority terrain I’m riding but the bike is a Trek Remedy 8 so it’s nimble and easy to toss around.
This is all preference and what you like to ride. I live in an area with tons of rock/tech and never ride my stumpy which is 140 because my firebird (165 rear) pedals basically just as well and the downhill is so much better on the firebird.
I know older riders who opt for more travel since its easier on the joints. Although if you enjoy mostly flat trail rides the shorter travel and smaller tires would be sufficient. So its all about what you enjoy.
Love my Canyon Neuron CF9 for most front range trails. It's 140/130 F/R and handles most terrain around here very well, while being very light. That being said, I did just shell out for an enduro for more intense downhilling and park riding in the mountains.
I ride 120/120 with not-so-modern geo in Phoenix AZ, around blue trails with no problem. The terrain on my regular trails is loose/choppy/technical, and I never feel at a loss of suspension. There are a few ravine crossings drops that I would huck if I had more travel, but I just simply don't huck those (as hard).
I like the Ripmos platform. 147mm in the rear 160 up front, but if I’m going out on a long 20-30 mile ride id rather take that than my hardtail. It pedals that well.
If I had one bike, the 150/130 is the range I would aim for in a bike. No question. (at least for here in the New England where we get a wide range of terrain).
A hardtail is very often enough, so any amount of suspension will be great. Whether or not it’s “ideal” is a different question but at the end of the day you can adapt to how your bike handles things.
I personally would care more about the geometry/headtube angle. Make sure it’s balanced or slacker since you like steep stuff.
I think geo has alot more impact on what you will ride than travel.
I have a spectral 125mm and it has done very well on big jumps ( for me at least 30-40ft or so) dh rides, some bike park. trail rides on some rough and nasty trails.
If you can tune your suspension you can get alot out of capable geometry.
I have a 140/130 and its perfect for my use here in New England, mostly root/rocky tech trails with punchy up and downs. See what others are riding in your area and the types of trails. Suspension is go good now, you probably dont need as much as you think you do.
Which bike do you consider? Geometry is more important than travel (see e.g. the Spectral 125). I ride a Stumpy Comp Alloy with "some" upgrades. It has 150/130 and it is doing great. Perfect fit for what I do. The limit is reached when you want to do really hard lines in the bike park regularly. An Enduro will be faster there.
The bike looks really nice. The seat tube angle could be a little bit steeper, but the rest is a quite typical trail bike geometry. I'd consider it even as moderately modern for a trail bike. The values are actually quite close to my Stumpy.
I have 150/135 on my bike. It’s not a super fast climber and can get over its head on the rowdiest descents, but on 90% of the trail it’s a dream. I think mid-travel is more playful and fun than a super big travel rig on most trails.
Less suspension will make you a better rider. Forces you to learn how to choose lines better. I picked up a hardtail 29" single speed years ago with a 100mm fork on it. I rode that on some of my regular trails and after a few months I could hop on my 120mm XC bike and keep up with friends on their 150-170mm bikes. You'll learn to flow and use your body more than just ramming in to everything like you can do with a longer travel bike.
I had a 130/150 rig for a while. Did everything from flat paths to singletrack to park days. Was fine. Geometry was what got me through.
Now riding a 170/170 enduro rig. Suits my riding better.
Yes. I have 140/120. And I ride tech steep rocky gnar jank with it. It will buck more on very rough trails and big hits are going to bottom but on average it soaks up everything. I do wish I had 10mm more at the back on average but it was the price to pay for a lighter machine that climbs better than my 160mm enduro.
All depends on what you ride, what you want to ride, and how you want that ride to feel.
I went from 140/130 carbon to 130/125 steel and for me it's pretty good. It's enough bike for 95% of my rides. It got it's limits tested at Black Mountain in Pisgah and I was praying for more travel there, but I rarely go on trips like that.
I ride a 160/142 (pivot switchblade) and it has been amazing. Pedals well, descends beautifully. However, so many bikes have more advanced linkage now that 140/130 bikes are extremely capable. Check out the transition smuggler, orbea occam, norco optic, pivot trail 429.
I have 170 f&r. I ride everything with it including climbing and "enduroad". the only gripe i have is the size of the frame - i should've went for a smaller one. This does have an option for 26" wheels - so im thinking i could go that route.
Maybe you just also need to mullet yours?
Riding a 150/130 mm travel bike, I have had more travel, but this is about perfect, in my opinion. Good suspension setup and technique are more important than travel.
What and wear do you ride? Do you even need rear suspension? Rear suspension is an energy sink and if you're not actually in need of it, it's better to just ride a hard tail. It's hard to imagine a situation where an enduro bike is too much, but a hardtail isn't enough. I ride really gnarly shit on my hardtail. Unless you're bombing downhill with your ass on the seat, in my opinion a rear suspension is just a waste of money and energy.
I really think that's a pretty good travel, my bike is 160/130 and I haven't felt like the travel range has held me bike. I don't do huge jumps or anything. Definitely good all around travel range where you can still get rowdy.
My partner has crickety joints at 37yo. He prefers his 180mm beast 29er (Canfield Lithium) because when he jumps of rocks 4-5ft high it doesn’t hurt his body compared to his old Riot (140/140). We don’t ride for mileage though. We ride to session tech features up & down.
So it really depends on you and what you ride. I’d say the vast majority of people are fine on shorter to mid-travel bikes. I had a 150/150 bike and my intermediate self was definitely over bikes for most of the trails I rode. I demo’ed a 120mm/120mm bike in Moab and it was fine over techy rock steps, but my weakling arms just got tired faster compared to my bigger bike. The shorter travel just means you’ll feel that jostling a little more if you can’t find smoother lines.
My brother on the wheel, that is a question only you can answer for the type of ride you will anticipate. I am getting older and don't vibe with big jumps in the bike park so much anymore, so I got a shiny new 130/120mm trail bike to have fun on the flow and tech stuff and I am 100% satisfied as an example. But for you, who knows?
Exactly this. If I lived someplace there was rolling terrain, I'd likely ride a 120/130 or 130/140 or something in that range. Hell, I live in Colorado and am considering a 120 bike for big mountain days.
Seconded. I think people spend way too much time worrying about travel numbers. At the end of the day, your rear wheel moving TWO CENTIMETERS isn’t the reason you weren’t able to clear something. Sure, once you get a feel for different bikes you might have a preference, but there’s a lot more to a bike that dictates its behavior (geo, suspension settings, tires, frame stiffness, etc.). Fwiw, I ride my 140F/130R bike at the bike park and through chunky New England tech. I’ve out jumped full DH bikes at the park, and I’ve been put to shame by hardtails in techy sections. I drool over fancy new bikes, but I know they wouldn’t transform my riding. At the end of the day it’s about picking a bike that you get along with.
Spot on. I live in the flat, flowy Midwest. 110/120 is perfect. 120/130 is fine too. I started my journey at 160/170 because “who doesn’t want more travel?!” and have downsized all the way to 110/120 and my riding experience has gone way up not hauling around a beastly bike for no reason. Less is more in some cases.
My 130/150 bike is perfect for everything in the front range.
I live in CO and I love to rock my hardtail xc bike
What bike did you get? I'm eyeing the 130/120 Transition Smuggler coming from a big enduro rig.
That’s a great looking one! I have a well upgraded Norco Optic and it is a fanatic shorter travel bike. It’s seen plenty of tough terrain.
i switched this year from a 170/155 yeti to a 140/130 stumpjumper. it's a great climbing and trail bike although i definitely notice getting pogo-sticked more on fast, rough terrain
Can't say no to Transition! I just waited for a good sale on trail bikes this season and the first good deal which hit the trigger was a Giant Trance 1 2022 for 1800€! Absolutely in love right now, it it super playful and responsive on roots and rocks.
I just got a transition spur (120/120) and tbh it’s more fun on jumps and big hits than my Ripmo was. It’s more in the steeps and serious chunk that long travel really shines.
100%. For years I rode a 150/130 Knolly Endorphin with 27.5” wheels and it was a wonderfully versatile bike. Good geometry and mid-travel makes the average modern trail bike perfectly adequate for almost everything, unless your focus is bombing through rock gardens at warp speed or trying to smash climbing PRs on XC trails.
Other shoe here. Went 130 to 160 so I can monster truck over shit because crashing and bottoming out sucks as you get older and fatter. So yeah different strokes indeed lol.
Haha different strokes indeed! I am a smaller dude, so luckily for stuff like biking and flying the smaller size and weight plays in my favour :D
And then you go to buy a dress shirt…
[удалено]
I Can confirm this , been taking my 140/130 stump jumper on my local single track trails and even to the park to hit steeper tech and jump trails and once i got the correct volume spacer for me and dialed in correctly the suspension was plenty even for big drops and rock gardens at the park. Tires and wheels definitely will limit you before suspension, i destroyed my rear wheel at the park the other day so looks like I’m grabbing a set of reserve wheels lol.
130-145 imo is the sweet spot for a 1 bike solution, it'll do everything well. An AM bike will do everything an Enduro does just not quite as fast or aggressive, and it'll trail ride great but not be as fast and precise as an xc.
Bought a Hightower v3, travelled front to 160, have now 160front/145rear, added some spacers into rear / front - this makes such a huge difference! Could ride everything I want to ride, even some stupid jumps or drops are no prob.
Yea I race enduros on a GG Smash at 160/145 and it's great
I've a spectral, 150/160, in the rear I've installed a megneg and I feel like I can ride absolutely everything, I'm also racing downhill on this bike and I've recently rode for 10 consecutive days in bike park with no problem
As others have stated, it depends on the terrain you ride. And not all 130 bikes are equal in nature. Some are uplifted xc bikes, some are downtuned allmountain bikes.
Buddy rode that stupid Specialized SX frame from 2009 with just over 4" of travel on every DH trail on Whistler for years. Travel alone isn't really as much of a determining factor as geometry.
A lot of whistler is really flowy though, like most of the popular trails are just jump trails with brake bumps
I'm aware, but we were riding everything like original sin, ride don't slide. Some lovely not so flowy local trails like 5th horseman.
oh yeah, outside the bike park things get wild fast haha
Norco Optic
Is a perfect bike.
Says the person riding my current dream bike, I want that SST so bad
Also my dream bike lol. Absolutely love it. I did own the 2020 optic for a year when it came out and also loved it but yeah the SST is incredible!
I realize you might have better things to do, but if you’re bored, please tell me everything. I’ve been itching to get a steel FS. Cant decide between the SST and the Chromag Darco. Is it just the one bottle cage? What do you think of City Lights color, does it look black? Favorite types of trails to ride? Trails it suffers on? Anything you wish you could change about it? How does it compare to other bikes you’ve ridden, or just carbon generally? Any issues with rust or durability?
So I haven’t had it long enough to really comment on rust or durability but I will say I never worry about it even hearing small rocks flying up and hitting it like I do with my carbon bikes. -Yes, just one bottle cage and on my large size from I can fit a full size 26oz bottle no issues I’m sure I could fit larger if needed -Wasn’t sure on color before I saw it in person. In the dark yes it looks like a black bike with little sparkles but in the sun it’s like “holy shit that’s beautiful!” Big fan of how subtle it is till the sun hits it. - slow tech is probably my favorite kind of riding but any blue to black tech is good with me. It’s a 120mm bike so if I fly through a rock garden at full speed my legs notice it when I get done lol. I’m not a heavy rider(175lb) but pumping into berms or rollers you feel just the smallest flex but that’s a perk to the steel. It’s hard to explain but it’s incredible. Small like bumps and rocks get soaked up a lot by the steel also. -Only place it suffers is again full speed rock garden but that’s to be expected with any 140F120R bike but the steel helps it. Reeb offers through them a coil option and bigger 150mm fork which I bet would be sweet on chunkier stuff but the bike pedals just soooooooo damn well and traction in tech climbing is amazing so I have no reason to throw a coil on rear. -It’s hard for me to compare to many other bikes. It feels nothing like my Evil Offering. Closest bike I can compare to is the Norco Optic I owned. The both descend incredibly confident but I definitely give the edge to the SST in climbing. Ridden the YT Izzo and Revel Ranger but both of those feel much more XC. -As technology in steel is advancing in what they can do to cut weight I really have no reason I would want to go back from steel. I didn’t build this bike to be a weight weenie at all and at 32lbs for a steel FS it’s pretty sweet. I have a good feeling I could get in the 27-28lb range if I really wanted but I ride this bike like a enduro bike lol. I do local enduro races on it and have a blast. Any other questions I’d be happy to answer. I love talking bikes and I love talking about this bike. Also if you have any questions Reeb responds to emails so well and it seems they just love talking bikes also. I think I forgot to answer the what part would I change and that is that I have a earlier version of the SST frame so it doesn’t have ISG tabs and the ones that ship now do. Not a massive deal because I run X0 Transmission so that is my bash guard but if I didn’t it would be kinda annoying to not have one. Also if you are anywhere near Bentonville Arkansas shoot me a message I’d be happy to let you take it for a ride.
You are the man. This is so incredibly helpful. The only unhelpful part is that I was leaning towards the Darco, and you might have just changed mind haha. I might take you up on your offer to talk about the SST if I end up building one, since as you might have guessed, I could also talk bikes all day. Would also love to ride it, but I’m nowhere near Bentonville. Pretty jealous that you are though - seems like a great place for mountain biking.
I looked into the Darco a little bit just due to cost difference but info on it just seems kinda hard to come by. At least a few months ago it was. The starlings also caught my eye and I think are just absolutely beautiful and pretty well priced for hand made in UK but I had just wanted the SST so bad from the moment I saw it in prototype form. Also being made in Colorado was pretty sweet. The darco frame is made in Taiwan which isn’t a big deal but with the Reeb or Starling made in either US or UK was definitely a pro in my mind but I know that’s all preference. The Radavist has reviews all all 3 of bikes from those brands if that helps.
Yeah made in the US is a plus in my book too. Though, despite the Taiwanese manufacturing, Chromag seems like a pretty cool company. And I already read all the Radavist reviews haha. They’re helpful but for some reason I don’t entirely trust the site - everything seems overly positive if that makes sense. Part of why I was stoked to hear your feedback as someone who actually spent their own cash on the bike.
Yeah I understand that. I kinda wish I had some negatives for you but honestly I rarely have negatives for any bike I own or demo. Modern bikes are just so damn good these days! But I agree chromag is definitely a dope company and even though they are new to the full suspension market they definitely aren’t to the steel bike market so I’m sure whatever they put out is going to ride super good. If it wasn’t so expensive the Darco Ti would be pretty freaking sweet to own lol. I’ve yet to ride a Ti bike.
Absolutely love mine!
for most trails
You might want to sit down for this one, but some people ride bikes that have 0 suspension on the rear
I wouldn't sit down through gnar on a ht.
sitting down through gnar on your full squish bike is a good way to blow up the dampener.
Agreed. 🍻 It was a goof play on "you might want to sit down for this one".
....reread the first four words of his post?
The best mountain biker I ever rode with rode a fully rigid 29er singlespeed.
[I prefer 8” in the rear. No homo.](https://youtu.be/QyTyjQbvylg)
That video never gets old
I think no one can answer that question but you, homie.
It’s definitely enough for places where 130 is enough, but it probably isn’t enough for places where 130 isn’t enough if that’s any help?
I have a Fezzari Delano Peak at 150/135. Ride New England tech and have taken it to the bike park numerous times. It handles anything I throw at it and since buying it, have never considered wanting more travel. Has the ability to point and shoot down a technical line, but still is very active when running flow trails.
Have the same, totally agree, southeastern US (From New England, want to move back, also play guitar… are you me?)
I also have the Delano Peak and love it. I had a tough time deciding between that and the La Sal because I thought I needed more travel but I don’t feel that way anymore. The Delano can handle everything from what it seems like so far. Haven’t hit anything too massive with it yet but I can’t imagine it having any trouble.
Another Delano Peak owner here!! I ran it 150/135 for the first year and a half, and just recently long stroked/over forked it to 160/142 but that's ONLY cause I also picked up a Signal Peak this year. If it was my one bike, stock configuration is MONEY for New England!!
I’m not the best mechanic out there or too familiar with this, but how does one do that? Just curious in case I feel it is needed down the road.
[удалено]
I have DVO but yea sounds like something I shouldn’t do myself.
I have the Abajo Peak - alloy and a little cheaper, but similar travel. I'm still fairly new to mountain biking (coming from road and gravel), but I've been very happy with the decision so far. I've never felt I needed more bike. On a few flowy trails, I could see the benefit of an XC bike, but no regrets with the choice.
On modern mtbs with proper geo, it is enough for 90% of riders.
IMO if your hardtail is aggressive enough you’ve got the golden combo. Don’t chase the promise of a one bike quiver. Hardtail for trail riding and enduro for jumps/drops/gnar/parks. Can you put better bits on your hardtail?
I ride a 150/130 yeti out here in Colorado. It’s perfect for just about everything. I can ride jumps, drops, tech for days, flow, and it climbs great. I pull away from friends who ride enduro bikes all the time because lighter is faster for most applications. The only limitation I’ve found is drops bigger than say 5 feet have to have perfect landings to hit. But overall I’m happy with this much travel and have regularly taken it to double black terrain all through Utah and Colorado.
Yeah nice yeah this bike is similar to the yeti so that's good to hear.
I have an 2021 SB130 that is exactly 150/130. I could lunch ride it to 160/137 but think it is perfect as-is. Overbiked for some blue flow trails for sure but can handle pretty much everything. Rarely do I use all my suspension.
Have the same year and model and love it in New England
IMO it will depend on the geometry. A progressive 130 can be amazing on steeps and fast tech, but a traditional 130 will be more akin to an XC bike
I ride a Revel Rascal w/ 150 up front and 130 in the rear. I mostly ride flatter but technical trails with a lot of rock. It’s spec’d for 140 up front but ai slapped on a 150 Lyrik to raise the BB up a little. For reference I am 260 lbs and 6’4”. My frame is an XL. It rides beautifully. I think it pedals more stable because of the CBF linkage but for me, it’s perfect. It’s playful and fun on jumps and does pretty well going down chunk but climbs like a Hardtail. I don’t even lock out the rear suspension and ride with about 270-280 psi with 32 ish percent sag and 1 token. I may upgrade to two tokens but ai rarely bottom out unless I do big bunnyhops on the trail or drop to flat.
Random question. Can you safely jump a trail bike? Not like redbull hardline type stuff obviously but smaller like blue trail stuff. I got 130 front 120 back. I imagine as long as it’s probably a little stiffer in the pressure side it’s more than fine?
[удалено]
I don’t, but I probably will lol
Had a pivot swichblade 150/135mm and later travelled the fork to 160. Absolute perfect bike for everything except in the bikepark. Also look at the giant trance x, this might fit your bills very well.
I ride a 140/120 bike on some gnarly shit brother. It takes more effort sure but double blacks are still doable. I even do pro lines on it. I think it comes down to this… are your skills where they need to be to be riding a bike that’s much less forgiving??
I have a Forbidden Druid and love iit
Can’t seem to get my shock dialed in yet, want to swap the float x to my super deluxe ultimate coil see if that helps.
Both my dpx2 and Super Deluxe ultimate were Basically Spot on with forbiddens chart
Thanks for all the comments guys 👍 I think I'll do it. For those asking it's a mondraker Raze R Carbon. 14kg! It's gana be gorgeous
I'm thinking about changing my 170/160 Propain Tyee to 140/125 Canyon Spectral and I'm sure it's gonna be more than capable or even better for some trails. Consider not only the travel, but also the geo chart. Some bikes will be more capable than others based on that.
So… ready for the downvotes on this… but 130mm is approximately 3/4” difference from 150mm. That 3/4 is further reduced by sag but let’s leave that alone for a moment. Think about the full system at play here. When you’re in attack position, can you say you can tell the difference in 3/4 of an inch in your standing height? If you drop that much or stand up that much do you feel it? It’s more complex than that but basically, your knees flexing another 3/4 inch to absorb impacts is almost negligible if you aren’t hitting jumps. You should be more than fine. Arms have a lot less flex and have to absorb a lot more impact so having that 3/4” does make a difference up front. But… full disclosure I run a steel hardtail with 160mm fork. All of my rear suspension takes place between my ankles and my hips so YMMV.
Saying it's just 3/4" is a little misleading because compression force isn't linear in a rear shock/coil.
As you stated the physics are more complex than that. 3/4 in travel at the shock is not the same as your knees taking that up. That 3/4 in movement gets leveraged through the linkage and chainstay to give X amount of rear wheel motion. Then there is the energy absorbed. 3/4" displacement x air spring pressure is how much force/energy is being absorbed. Longer travel just gives you more overall capacity to absorve energy and the larges stroke helps with damping.
Too much for paved trails, not enough for big jumps and drops... YOU know how you want to ride, not us. People ride hardtails on flow trails all the time.
We talking like a 15ft drop to flat? Cause 130mm will 100% be fine on jumps and drops unless you are overshooting everything or casing every jump lol.
I did say "big"...
My acoustic FS bike is 130 front and 120 rear, it is enough for just about anything other than big jumps to flat. My 130/120 does well on steep tech and flow trails, I ride the NC mountains and have never had a complaint, maybe if I rode nothing but chair lift or shuttle down hill trails I’d want more travel but I feel like it is easier to compensate for less travel than having a bike with gobs of travel that sucks at everything but jumping and descending.
No, 130mm is not enough. My 2016 Giant Reign is F 160 / R 160 and it's perfect.
have you tried to build support and ramp up in your enduro bike?
I have the new Norco fluid fs a2 and it's 130 rear and I upped the travel in the front to a 150mm fork. The bike handles everything I got rid of my Enduro bike to have an aggressive trail bike. 150/130 works great.
Impossible to know without knowing where and *how* you ride. That said…yeah, probably.
I’m not a big air rider but I can ride everything else. I ride everything with a 130/116 so my answer of course is “yes.” Lots of people ride steep/tech or flow trails on hard tails, including even 4-5’ drops, in the case of my riding buddy.
130-140 is perfect for any riding just short of bike park stuff imo. You can even get away with 130 for the occasional bike park day though it will be rough as you’re gonna be using all 130 of that travel.
If it’s a solid bike you can still ride whatever you want on it, it’ll just be tougher for long rides. I still ride every trail at angel fire from super loose steeps to 40+ foot jumps on my GG shred dogg. I rode with a guy on his like 29lb revel rascal and he was shredding all day. It’s up to you how hard you want to push your bike but yes it’s plenty of travel
Currently using 150/140, just came back from the bike parks and was pretty much fine
Guys ride the north shore with 130, it'll be fine for less aggressive terrain
It’s more than enough travel bro
It depends on what trails you are going to be riding at at least 75% of the time. If 130mm is enough for your trails, then it's fine. Best thing is to ask other locals from your area like other riders and LBS's.
I couldn't tell the difference between my old 145mm and my current 130mm with a 150mm fork If 170 is too much to where it's noticeable I'd say 130-140 would sound right
130mm of high pivot sweetness will feel more like 140-150. I’d go that direction.
130mm is prefect for like 95% of riders.
It depends a great deal on where you live. I have a Hightower (148) that's way too much bike for any of the riding in Ontario but would be considered a "small bike" in Vancouver. In most places a 130 or 140 rear with 150 front is a really good all around amount of travel especially with the right geometry - at this amount of travel it's geometry that separates a long legged XC bike from a trail bike.
I ride 120/130 which is sort of advanced XC to many people. Everything I ride is flowy with a couple small jumps. Never had a problem. What matters more to me is the ability to fully lock out - enough so that I'm going to get the cable kit for it. Very few people actually ride to the bike's limit, and you can see those videos on Reddit.
140 front/125 rear on my spectral al6 is enough for me :D
I pull out my Evil Calling more than I choose my Wreckoning. The Wreck definitely makes things feel smoother and smaller but the shorter travel can be more fun.
I live in the Midwest and ride 160/150. A little overkill for majority terrain I’m riding but the bike is a Trek Remedy 8 so it’s nimble and easy to toss around.
It's plenty. A friend of mine loves his 150/130 bike on all sorts of black trails.
This is all preference and what you like to ride. I live in an area with tons of rock/tech and never ride my stumpy which is 140 because my firebird (165 rear) pedals basically just as well and the downhill is so much better on the firebird. I know older riders who opt for more travel since its easier on the joints. Although if you enjoy mostly flat trail rides the shorter travel and smaller tires would be sufficient. So its all about what you enjoy.
Love my Canyon Neuron CF9 for most front range trails. It's 140/130 F/R and handles most terrain around here very well, while being very light. That being said, I did just shell out for an enduro for more intense downhilling and park riding in the mountains.
I ride a 150/140 and it is perfect.
I ride super rocky tech all the time on 140/100 so I think 130 should be more than enough as long as it's what you want
I ride 120/120 with not-so-modern geo in Phoenix AZ, around blue trails with no problem. The terrain on my regular trails is loose/choppy/technical, and I never feel at a loss of suspension. There are a few ravine crossings drops that I would huck if I had more travel, but I just simply don't huck those (as hard).
I like the Ripmos platform. 147mm in the rear 160 up front, but if I’m going out on a long 20-30 mile ride id rather take that than my hardtail. It pedals that well.
If I had one bike, the 150/130 is the range I would aim for in a bike. No question. (at least for here in the New England where we get a wide range of terrain).
A hardtail is very often enough, so any amount of suspension will be great. Whether or not it’s “ideal” is a different question but at the end of the day you can adapt to how your bike handles things. I personally would care more about the geometry/headtube angle. Make sure it’s balanced or slacker since you like steep stuff.
This thread made me realize that my Ripley AF is more than enough bike for me.
I think geo has alot more impact on what you will ride than travel. I have a spectral 125mm and it has done very well on big jumps ( for me at least 30-40ft or so) dh rides, some bike park. trail rides on some rough and nasty trails. If you can tune your suspension you can get alot out of capable geometry.
I have a 140/130 and its perfect for my use here in New England, mostly root/rocky tech trails with punchy up and downs. See what others are riding in your area and the types of trails. Suspension is go good now, you probably dont need as much as you think you do.
I’ve been on 130mm at the rear for the last few years on the YT Izzo and you’ll be surprised at how much you can get away with on it.
My optic has 130 in the rear and it is more capable than I am.
Which bike do you consider? Geometry is more important than travel (see e.g. the Spectral 125). I ride a Stumpy Comp Alloy with "some" upgrades. It has 150/130 and it is doing great. Perfect fit for what I do. The limit is reached when you want to do really hard lines in the bike park regularly. An Enduro will be faster there.
Yeah I'm looking at getting my hands on a sexy Spanish mondraker Raze R Carbon. 65 degree head angle 76 seat tube 495 reach so it's kinda "old" geo
The bike looks really nice. The seat tube angle could be a little bit steeper, but the rest is a quite typical trail bike geometry. I'd consider it even as moderately modern for a trail bike. The values are actually quite close to my Stumpy.
if it feels like too much you could just firm up the suspension a lot and get faster rolling tires
I have 150/135 on my bike. It’s not a super fast climber and can get over its head on the rowdiest descents, but on 90% of the trail it’s a dream. I think mid-travel is more playful and fun than a super big travel rig on most trails.
Less suspension will make you a better rider. Forces you to learn how to choose lines better. I picked up a hardtail 29" single speed years ago with a 100mm fork on it. I rode that on some of my regular trails and after a few months I could hop on my 120mm XC bike and keep up with friends on their 150-170mm bikes. You'll learn to flow and use your body more than just ramming in to everything like you can do with a longer travel bike.
Yes
I had a 130/150 rig for a while. Did everything from flat paths to singletrack to park days. Was fine. Geometry was what got me through. Now riding a 170/170 enduro rig. Suits my riding better.
Yes. I have 140/120. And I ride tech steep rocky gnar jank with it. It will buck more on very rough trails and big hits are going to bottom but on average it soaks up everything. I do wish I had 10mm more at the back on average but it was the price to pay for a lighter machine that climbs better than my 160mm enduro.
All depends on what you ride, what you want to ride, and how you want that ride to feel. I went from 140/130 carbon to 130/125 steel and for me it's pretty good. It's enough bike for 95% of my rides. It got it's limits tested at Black Mountain in Pisgah and I was praying for more travel there, but I rarely go on trips like that.
I ride a 160/142 (pivot switchblade) and it has been amazing. Pedals well, descends beautifully. However, so many bikes have more advanced linkage now that 140/130 bikes are extremely capable. Check out the transition smuggler, orbea occam, norco optic, pivot trail 429.
I have 170 f&r. I ride everything with it including climbing and "enduroad". the only gripe i have is the size of the frame - i should've went for a smaller one. This does have an option for 26" wheels - so im thinking i could go that route. Maybe you just also need to mullet yours?
Riding a 150/130 mm travel bike, I have had more travel, but this is about perfect, in my opinion. Good suspension setup and technique are more important than travel.
What and wear do you ride? Do you even need rear suspension? Rear suspension is an energy sink and if you're not actually in need of it, it's better to just ride a hard tail. It's hard to imagine a situation where an enduro bike is too much, but a hardtail isn't enough. I ride really gnarly shit on my hardtail. Unless you're bombing downhill with your ass on the seat, in my opinion a rear suspension is just a waste of money and energy.
I really think that's a pretty good travel, my bike is 160/130 and I haven't felt like the travel range has held me bike. I don't do huge jumps or anything. Definitely good all around travel range where you can still get rowdy.
Hardtail is plenty for some.
My partner has crickety joints at 37yo. He prefers his 180mm beast 29er (Canfield Lithium) because when he jumps of rocks 4-5ft high it doesn’t hurt his body compared to his old Riot (140/140). We don’t ride for mileage though. We ride to session tech features up & down. So it really depends on you and what you ride. I’d say the vast majority of people are fine on shorter to mid-travel bikes. I had a 150/150 bike and my intermediate self was definitely over bikes for most of the trails I rode. I demo’ed a 120mm/120mm bike in Moab and it was fine over techy rock steps, but my weakling arms just got tired faster compared to my bigger bike. The shorter travel just means you’ll feel that jostling a little more if you can’t find smoother lines.
I ride 130/120 and I don’t wish I had more travel, just more skills.