Survey: How much rear travel is best?

[mark4444]

Let's see what the current consensus is on the optimum amount of rear travel. Also this time I checked the box that makes you vote to see the results. Pick what you would want on your current or next ebike.

 

[Mikerb]

.....the same or close to the amount of travel in the fork.

 

[DtEW]

GIGO.

"Optimum" is completely dependent on terrain and rider technique and preferences. The suspension design and the shock type and finer characteristics will all play a role in determining what is "optimum".

 

[mark4444]

True, but could also just be personal opinion... because what feels good rides good.

 

[steve_sordy]

I bought a 140mm travel FS mtb after I had had several years of a 150mm travel FS. Similar spec otherwise. The lower travel bike performed far better and felt like it had more travel than the previous bike. Then I bought a 130mm travel FS and the same thing happened again! I'm fairly sure that in each case the difference was due to geometry and a stiffer frame.

But I'm riding a 150 FS emtb now and I'd get the same again, maybe 160 but no bigger. So I ticked your 150 box. However I am not happy with the "best" angle. A simple "what do you have" would probably have been better.

 

[Mikerb]

The amount of suspension travel cannot be separated from frame design. That is not to say designers necessarily get it right. I think the Levo is a classic example as far as fork travel is concerned. I changed from 150 to 160mm forks and the bike was an instant improvement...some of that due to a better quality fork no doubt but the extra travel certainly made a difference. As far as shock travel is concerned it makes sense to me for it to be the same as or possibly a little less than the fork travel in order to achieve a front to back balance. That argument of course falls apart as far as hard tails are concerned!! Glad I just ride them rather than worry about design!!

 

[rod9301]

180

 

[Neeko DeVinchi]

I guess it depends on the kinematics of the suspension platform. Yes, more travel can allow greater confidence in rougher terrain but you'd be surprised what a short travel 29er is capable of. Not to mention, there are some hardtails out there which have proven themselves to be very versatile.

 

[Avyoung]

I think 150-160 is still quite versatile. I ordered a bike with 180 fork and 170mm rear however to try something different over my 2018 commencal meta power 29 (150/140mm stock: I over forked to 170mm tho). I do have access to fairly steep and chunky terrain.

 

[Varaxis]

160 +/- 10

Been contemplating between a Forestal Siryon (170) and Marin Alpine Trail E2 (150) as an upgrade. Travel really isn't a deciding factor between them. Leaning on the Marin. Upgrading from a 140mm ebike... wanted a longer WB, shorter CS, steeper STA, shorter ST, more range, a more reliable/tougher build, and a more normal look. Vitus E-Sommet, Whyte's lineup, and Privateer would interest me if I were in the UK. Among the choices Whyte has, I wouldn't lean on the smaller/shorter options.

 

[mark4444]

I've been on 170mm rear, 200 up front, we have some very rough 4 to 5 min tracks around here. Going with the bigger fork up front, made a big difference on tech climbs... they got a bit harder. And the downhill got a little easier.... As you would expect I guess.