Upgrade from a 130mm bike to a 160mm bike

[JoeBlow]

I'm not a particularly good rider but I am very confident on blue trails and will venture onto a red now and again. I'm also taking more air time than I once did. I haven't yet bottomed the suspension on my Trek 4 Powerfly FS but have recently become conscious of the fact that it's more a XC bike than a Enduro/downhill. I ride more trail centre than XC. I'm considering getting a new bike with 160mm travel. Would I feel any benefit or would I be throwing money away for no good reason? I might add that I am also feeling the need for better brakes.

Al

 

[urastus]

I'd get a new bike. The bike you have looks like an awesome and very versatile commuter if you decided to keep it as well. Most bikes are aimed at just what you want.

 

[JoeBlow]

I would buy a new bike but I noticed that when I posted in that context I did not get any replies so all I am really looking for is experiences, information and advice regarding the transition from 130 mm to 160 mm travel.

Al

 

[urastus]

I would buy a new bike but I noticed that when I posted in that context I did not get any replies so all I am really looking for is experiences, information and advice regarding the transition from 130 mm to 160 mm travel.

Al

I have a merida e140 - 140 front, 130 rear. I love it, but I've always been a trail rider. I enjoy climbing easily as much as descending. I do like high volume tires though. Most people into emtb and mtb want enduro with a focus on going downhill, and the manufacturers have responded accordingly. This is awesome for you. Personally, I don't feel that need. I'm starting to get air (never been into jumps before) but still have suspension to spare. I can't compare what I have to a 160mm - 140 is the longest I've ever had (first emtb). Basically if you only ride uphill for the downhill then go for the enduro type bike which has more of a descending bias (the majority of emtb) - you are spoiled for choice. The powerfly fs 5 seems more of a trail bike, like mine, equally good at climbing and descending. I see the fs5 has 2.35 tyres! I'd want to get something like 2.6 assegai front, 2.5 minion dhf or dhrII or aggressor depending on what your trails are like. Or 2.6 both ends? If you kept your bike, that would be my first move. Higher volume tyres will add to your suspension and braking package.

Where I ride, there is nothing very big. It's steep and technical but no monster jumps or drops. I think most people where I ride are over gunned, and just don't use their bikes to their potential. I'm pretty light on suspension and tire pressures though, even now when I'm starting to get into jumps. I get the impression that your heart is really into an enduro - if you can afford it, I'd say go for it. I might consider it when mine is out of warranty and retired to urban / commuting duties?

 

[steve_sordy]

I have had bikes with everything from zero suspension, 50, 80, 100, 130, 140, 150, 160. My all time favourite was the 130mm FS and I would have gone anywhere on that, but that was an analogue FS. My one and only emtb (one of 8 that I tested) is 150 FS. However, there is more to a bike than just the suspension travel; the biggest impact is the geometry, so read the reviews.

 

[Zimmerframe]

Remember suspension quality will also make a lot of difference, so a cheap 130 will not perform anything like a quality 130.

I went from 120 hardtail (that's suspension just at the front @steve_sordy & @JoeBlow Just to make things simple, I don't think they make a powerfly 4 HF 130..... ) to a Kenevo 180/180. It was bliss.

There are obviously trade off's from increasing the amount of suspension travel, the bike will be slower to react, potentially heavier, not as sharp, less rewarding for the scalpel edged trail shredder .. but for the rest of us, it's just nice ! It's more forgiving if you make a mistake.

 

[RickBullotta]

To clarify, you want to upgrade from 130mm *front suspension* to 160mm *front suspension*. There's generally very few options to upgrade your rear travel. That's a fairly big jump which, as Gary points out, will slacken the bike substantially and lift the front end a bit. Perhaps a 150mm fork would be a better fit, and if you purchase a fork that can have its travel changed with a relatively inexpensive air shaft, you can experiment with other travel lengths and also have a fork that you can likely use on a future bike (just be sure to cut the steerer tube as long as you can get away with)

 

[JoeBlow]

As explained in the main body of the post, I'm looking to upgrade the bike not the parts. Unfortunately I picked a poor title. I did this in an attempt to avoid advice about which bike to buy but all I've succeeded in doing is creating misunderstanding . Forums don't you just love em

Al

 

[Gary]

Controversial view here but for me blue and red graded trail centre trails are way more fun on a normal 100mm fork hardtail than a 160mm Ebike. The climbs are a lot easier on an Eeb though.
I wouldn't ever want another hardtail Emtb unless it was light (like sub 33lb light) I find heavy (48lb) hardtail Emtbs absloutely dead feeling compared to normal hardtails though. FS Emtbs are way less dead feeling.
an extra 30mm fork travel isn't going to change any of that

 

[Mikerb]

I think what you are experiencing is progression! From what you describe as your current skill level any well designed FS all mountain type bike would suit you. Typically that would be 66° head angle 150mm front and back suspension travel. Your choice whether you go 29er or 27.5. Look at bikes like the Levo, Cube Stereo 140, Whyte E 150 . Virtually every brand has a bike in that category with similar geo. Such a bike would handle everything from XC through trail to moderate gravity gnarl and moderate bike park.

 

[Zimmerframe]

Did you buy a new bike ? We want a picture ..

 

[JoeBlow]

Did you buy a new bike ? We want a picture ..

No. The consensus seems to be building on this and another forum that I don't NEED another bike. I would quite like one but £5000 is a lot of pennies to part with on that basis and under my current circumstances. My bike is probably suited to my limited skills.

Al

 

[Akiwi]

No... Don't do it.. You will be way over your head and probably need about a year to be able to handle the 160 mm travel!
And don't believe a word I say!
I have the cube 160 TM with 170mm on the front and 160 rear and love it.
One reason I got it was it is the only cube that comes with 27.5 wheels which I find a bit more agile and easier to turn on tight trails. so In my opinion it is the best of both worlds. I am an old fart and tend to keep my wheels mostly on the ground, though I do like gnarly trails which I tend to ride too fast, and the 170mm front suspension soaks up loads. I always have to wait for my friends at the bottom of trails.

 

[urastus]

No. The consensus seems to be building on this and another forum that I don't NEED another bike. I would quite like one but £5000 is a lot of pennies to part with on that basis and under my current circumstances. My bike is probably suited to my limited skills.

Al

Gee, I didn't get that at all, re the consensus Usually "need" is a dirty word when it comes to blokes and their toys; if you want a happy life try to avoid that word. Money is a different matter. I don't like doing major upgrades for anything. I've bought a different size (cheap) chain ring, and a larger rotor for the rear (from 180 to 203).

OK, I found a powerfly fs 4 on trek's international site. If yours does indeed have 180mm rotors (as per the site), I'd go 203 - you'll need different adapters too. Fairly cheap upgrade. And, as already mentioned, I'd go bigger and higher volume tyres, 2.5 or 2.6 (2.6 front, 2.5 rear). These will add to your suspension, braking, speed and traction. Then I'd just focus on dialling in everything so that you get the maximum use out of it, especially tyre and suspension pressures. If you were looking at upgrading the forks, I'd start to consider a different bike. That's just an opinion - I know many do upgrade their forks - to me that adds to the initial cost of the bike; I'd rather buy the right bike in the first place.

 

[Swissrider]

It is the quality of the suspension that matters, more than the amount, both climbing and descending. In a big test of bikes, emountainbiking magazine found to their surprise that the Kenevo was the best climber and was obviously at home on technical and steep descents. I have the older Kenevo, with 180mm of suspension.For the riding I do in the Alps it suits me very well. On the other hand, I sometimes use my wife’s Levo and although it only has 140mm forks and 135mm at the rear, I am amazed how well it rides. You have go to do a pretty big drop off or jump to really feel the lack of travel and it’s easier to throw it around than my Kenevo. I think a lot depends on where you are going to ride and the type of riding you enjoy now and are going to develop into as skills increase - single track specialist - bike parks. There are bikes that will do both, but they are bound to be a compromise. Niches are opening up year on year. Many people are excited by less powerful but much lighter EMTBs but others are really enjoying EMTBS with real DH capabilities. Research time talking to people, testing bikes is seldom time wasted and choosing a bike has got to be part of the fun!

 

[CjP]

I'm not a particularly good rider but I am very confident on blue trails and will venture onto a red now and again. I'm also taking more air time than I once did. I haven't yet bottomed the suspension on my Trek 4 Powerfly FS but have recently become conscious of the fact that it's more a XC bike than a Enduro/downhill. I ride more trail centre than XC. I'm considering getting a new bike with 160mm travel. Would I feel any benefit or would I be throwing money away for no good reason? I might add that I am also feeling the need for better brakes.

Al

In response to your original post, Yes you will benefit from more travel.
It feels nicer on the pants o meter, allows you to tackle more demanding terrain safer.
Like you said above, your not particularly a pro rider so I’m assuming comfort/security wins over that scalpel edge response of a short travel bike.
I personally have opted for as much travel as possible due to back injuries and I absolutely love it. I ride anywhere and it’s never an issue where as the lack of travel can cause a problem for me.

160mm is hardly long travel on an ebike.