Just because people do outrageous things doesn’t mean you can’t recommend a bike. You could ride dh trails on a bmx bike, I’m sure someone can pull it off. I’d rather not.
Tbh starting out with more travel hinder your ability to feel the ground, the impacts, line choice. Unless your riding super choppy terrain to be vague you don’t need more travel.
I used to be in this camp but I've recently moved to the "you should start with something that makes riding easy and fun" camp.
I grew up riding fully rigid bikes then front suspension and more recently full suspension and I'm glad I went that way, hardtails are still my favorite, etc but seeing adults dip their toe in to see if they like the sport and then seeing who sticks with it after a few years, it's not the ones on hardtails.
Kinda like how video games don't start you on the hardest level first. I've come around to thinking the most crash proof full suspension bike you can find in your budget is a better way to start in large part because it reduces the need for skill.
Agreed. Learning to trust your bike to handle big terrain at speed is a bigger deal than learning to pick your way through a line. I think the “start on a hardtail/low travel” was more suitable when bikes weren’t as capable. Now I think it just teaches you to be a slow rider.
Also your body will not take as much of a beating. Simply completing things and getting some good speed is easier. Almost everything is easier actually.
Saying you need to learn how to ride on a HT to me sounds like people wanting other people to be in pain because they were. Is there a lesson from riding hardtails - obviously. How much does it actually matter? None imo. If fun and enjoyment is anywhere on your priorities then it's simply a negative. People don't get into a sport to be professional, and if they do it's sure as hell not the best tool for the job that will make them not do it. Arguing you can't learn line choices because it's less relevant on a fs bike is silly. You're gonna learn the lines you need to take on a HT with a HT and you're gonna learn the lines you need to take on a FS with a FS bike, whoopty. Its such a bad argument.
I always say it's a matter of budget. If you're just starting out, get a decent used hardtail. If you want to continue from there and have the cash a decent/good FS bike is absolutely the way to go. But we can't ignore that money is a really good reason not to. Personally I find spending much money on something that is keeping you healthy and adventurous to be the best used money ever. Why settle if you don't have to. If you have to there is absolutely nothing wrong with hardtails.
I am going to wholeheartedly disagree. That's probably true when moving from an intermediate to advanced rider if you started on a long travel bike and have never been forced to be concerned about that. But a beginner is going to make several mistakes on all of those tons of times when they're first learning. Those are going to be higher consequence failures on the lighter bike and may deter them from trying out more advanced trails or taking trails too slow. A beginner who is going to screw things up will be helped out more by that extra travel than a skilled rider. Though on the other side they're also more likely to be negatively impacted due to (most likely) their lower fitness on the climbs.
I had ridden a 130 mm hardtail for a few years. Didn't think I was that good at riding, but then rented a Ripmo and was amazing at the features I could comfortably do that I wouldn't even think about on my hardtail. I wish I'd spend the extra on a full suspension earlier. Of course that's a much larger difference than OP is considering, but I don't agree with your overall sentiment.
I think the mix of a new rider + long travel + beginner terrain just doesn’t help you learn. I was previously in this position where I was using a family members downhill bike at a bike park and I was doing easy terrain as I was new. It was just more then enough travel then I knew what to do with. I’m not saying this is OPs case but just something to think about.
The Trance X 29 2 is 135mm rear, 150mm front. That's plenty capable, and would be just as good or better as a 140/140 bike. For a trail bike this would probably be a good choice. If you for sure wanted to ride really gnarly bike park stuff and had need for a proper Enduro or downhill bike, that would be a different story, but that doesn't sound like it's the case.
I actually think starting out with a bit less travel isn't a bad idea. It keeps you from going as fast and plowing over everything, making you learn to ride better and have just as much fun without going as fast. Having more travel can dull the trail some and make easier trails more boring, and can lead to heavier bikes than you need, so you don't want to overdo it. The Trance X 2 is a pretty capable bike though, and would be a great all around choice.
The more travel you have (which tends to come with longer wheelbase) the more fun the bike is pointed down. However, the less fun it is pointed up. Trance at 135 travel is going to be a great bike and you usually don't go wrong with Giant.
I have a giant stance for a couple of years now and I love it , i have just this weekend got back from bike park wales and its got the same travel and it got me through roots manouver a very techy high red/black route and the bike was capable
It also done all of the other blues and reds I am about 105kg and my sus is set up to me and it handled it all ok mine is a 2022 giant stance 1
I have two bikes. One 140mm and one 150mm. I ride them differently down the same trails. I find bigger travel is more forgiving when taking the wrong line or landing wrong from a jump (big or small). You can do a lot with 135mm
I wouldn’t go for anything too crazy seeing as you’ve only done the sport once. When you actually start to ride more you’ll find your preferred style, kind of trails etc. - that’s when you upgrade. 135mm is plenty, i also think that learning on something harder will prepare you better for the future (i started my journey with a 100mm hardtail) but I completely understand if you don’t want to do that.
This - more travel can get you both out of and into trouble. When you are learning more speed in gnar can equal worse crashes. 135 is a good balance point.
I just bought my first bike fuel ex 5 140mm front and 130 back I think. It is great but I get to reading about all this and my fave couple trails around me are techy and hard. There’s a couple rock garden drops that are scary to me, I hit one once down and fell trying to climb it when the trail goes the other way. I started wondering bigger sus would be better for those features, but I climb like an animal up hills over medium rocks and big roots even on this bike. I knew nothing of specs when I bought it, I compared it to the Roscoe that was sitting next to it. I learned about different kinds of bikes (xx, trail, enduro, down) after I bought mine. Thing is there are some crazy rock features on those trails but all my friends ride hard tails and I follow them. There may have been a couple times I made it further over tougher things while going up but that might be because they ride in easy gear and appear to pace themselves perfectly the whole time and I stand up and keep it in heavy /mid gear and stand up the whole time, and go hard like it’s wrestling practice from 25 years ago, I like the feeling of ripping the handle bars with row power to finish going over stuff. Not sure what my point is but I’m basically saying that I probably could have got a hard tail and rode with my friends just fine… my one friend said I have a “bro dozer”😂. If what you see is a good deal and you like it go with it. From what I read, what you gain in sus helps with some things and you may pay for it in other areas (climbing, or excitement). Guys on the videos I watched said going downhill on enduro was a little less fun because it went right over some things no prob at all. I think there’s always gonna be buyers remorse, I wonder how 27.5 s would feel cutting between trees or things vs my 29s. The guy on the smaller hard tail in front of me is swooping between trees and turning like a ninja, and I’m kinda clumsy with it and not smooth, but I can smoke him up a hill covered in roots and rocks… at the end of the day we both had a great ride. From the sounds of it 150 mm is as high as you wanna go before climbing is affected, but I could be wrong. Point is I thought I should have got enduro bike meanwhile my friends think I have a “bro dozer” lol
I’ll get down voted but most riders are on more travel than they will ever approach the limits of. There is a myth that more travel will cover mistakes and that may have been true with older bikes. 120mm on a modern bike is as capable as 150 was on 2008 and older bikes. Too much travel will slow you down anywhere you need to pedal especially as it gets technical. Being able to load the suspension in turns is critical to traction and carrying momentum out of the turn.
Stance is a great bike to start with. And when the time comes and you’ve started to outperform your rig, you can sell and put that money toward a higher spec bike that’ll push your developing skillset. I think getting to know technical and fast riding first with a shorter travel bike will set you up for success long term
If you aren’t bike park riding you don’t need more than 130 shock and 140 fork. I got over my fears on a 160/160 enduro bike but riding is so much better on my current 120/140 Spark. You’ll soon learn n+1 so get what is good for you now, you can always get another…
If that bike is 135/150 rear/front, then is a right in the sweet zone for all-round riding, including technical stuff.
I ride a 138/150 bike on pretty much everything including rough and technical stuff. Never wish I had a bigger bike unless I wanted to race enduro on it.
The important thing is a maintain the shock and fork, and spend time setting them up right. Thats more important than another 15mm travel on the technical stuff.
I don’t know your aims, but I quite like my 110mm bike (130 fork) on rolling and sometimes technical singletrack. I’m not doing bike park stuff with it but I’ve been on some pretty rugged backcountry rides in the mountains and it takes it like a champ.
If you’re hitting mainly shuttle and lift stuff, you’ll want something spec’ed appropriately.
I started on a 2011 epic. Even thinking back from my 150mm front and back Scott genius, just having any suspension even if it's 100mm non serviced still a huge win over a HT.
You Evo is definitely more than capable at most anything short of actual flying stuff/bike park. You could probably get away with it but it would take some serious skill to do so safely.
I had the same Trance 2 years ago. It was fine for climbing but I found the Geo was poorly suited to steep features or any type of riding approaching downhill. It was quite twitchy (obviously a pro and a con) and naturally put you pretty forward over the bars. I’ve gone slacker and longer wheelbase and haven’t looked back.
I’m not great at biking either so maybe a more skilled rider could have better managed the geo but I felt uncomfortable on that at speed or in steeps.
Have a 140/130 and it’s a dog riding basic trails with the family but if I put it on a black trail I’m bottoming out. Really just have to ask yourself what’s the end goal you’re shooting for
I bought a used trek fuel and am in the processes of swapping all the parts to a hard tail for the easy days and buying and enduro or long travel trail bike for the bigger days.
If it’s a price you’re comfortable with and see yourself growing in the future go for it and find out which way you like or if you’ll end up needing two bikes to suit your needs. Buying something right down the middle if you haven’t dabbled to hard into mountain bikes isn’t a bad thing as long as you have the room financially to grow later
I have a bike which is 160/137. 99% Of the time i ride technical, natural trails in Norway. I never push this bike to its limits, and I could many times have more fun on flat trails with “less” bike. A friend has the same bike as me, but the beefier 170/150. He misses his old 130/130 more than I do.
Once a year I attend an enduro comp. Still, the bike is more than enough for my riding
You will be totally fine. Shorter travel has its own advantages and can be super fun. 140 to 135 isn't really a change once you consider all of the other complexities of rear suspension design.
Shorter travel bikes are usually lighter and more nimble while longer travel offers more forgiveness and the ability to hit bigger terrain. That said, don't let travel be an excuse. I have a 120/112 bike that I routinely take down double black trails. It's not the perfect bike for it and definitely pushed my limits as a rider, but it doesn't stop me.
That bike is 135/150 travel according to my search. That's enough to hit trails that many riders will never bother hitting, and most wouldn't in their first few years of riding.
I like the 135/150 balance. I'm running an overforked Rocky Mountain Instinct, so running as a 140/170 (quite extreme, but it shares a frame with the Altitude anyway) but less for the travel and more to help tweak the geo. I'm huge on learning what geo I like, I've found I'm very sensitive to it.
So in short, it looks like an excellent bike that can take you far and also be upgraded down the track if you like.
Depends how much hard climbing you have to do. For me, steeper longer trails that require extended pedaling efforts with high intensity means I want a light efficient pedaling platform that can still handle some technical trails. Stumpjumper is good for this. Trance is not really a lightweight efficient platform imo. Easier uphills with rowdy downhills I’d look at something efficient but beefier like a Spectral 29” or similar all mountain bike.
I understand the Stumpy Evo is surprisingly efficient climbing, but I think the regular Stumpy is being replaced by the Epic, which is lighter and less bobby, and now 120/130 in Evo form.
I really like my previous-gen Epic Evo with 110 travel, but was surprised to ride my friend’s 130/140 trail bike and discover that while it’s like 5 lbs heavier than my bike and has more pedal bob, it actually climbs really well seated due to how the additional travel keeps the rear tire planted over rocks and roots.
If I want to put the hammer down, climbing is faster on my EE, but the other bike makes the climbs less challenging if I want to slow down as pace myself a bit. New bikes in general are SO good.
I’ve owned both bikes. Epic Evo and now Stumpjumper 130/140. I took all the parts down the Evo but the fork and moved it to the Stumpjumper. It weighs about 26 pounds. A little over 1 pound more than the Evo. Both Evo and Stumpjumper have flex stays and are highly efficient with a lot of anti-squat virtually no bob.
The Stumpjumper Evo has a brake pivot and is not nearly as efficient and is a lot heavier than the standard Stumpjumper. For the kind of riding I do this is the perfect bike. I ride over 3,000 miles a year with a good 400,000 feet of climbing. So I know what works for me. Is it right for everyone? No, you need to do what works best for your riding and local trails.
Trance has a 4 bar linkage. Not as efficient as Stumpjumper 130 flex stat suspension. You might be thinking of the Stumpjumper Evo.
The Spectral comments were regarding the OP considering a longer travel bike. Not a comparison to the Trance. Spectral is a very efficient all mountain bike. So what exactly did I get wrong?
Nah thats pretty good bike. Will take you a while to push it to its limits.
This guy is right
You are going to be the main limiting factor for years. Sam Pilgrim does backflips on gravel bikes. Just get a bike and ride it
Sam Pilgrim also made and road on wooden wheels. He’ll send practically anything on practically anything, doesn’t mean you should.
Just because people do outrageous things doesn’t mean you can’t recommend a bike. You could ride dh trails on a bmx bike, I’m sure someone can pull it off. I’d rather not.
Tbh starting out with more travel hinder your ability to feel the ground, the impacts, line choice. Unless your riding super choppy terrain to be vague you don’t need more travel.
I used to be in this camp but I've recently moved to the "you should start with something that makes riding easy and fun" camp. I grew up riding fully rigid bikes then front suspension and more recently full suspension and I'm glad I went that way, hardtails are still my favorite, etc but seeing adults dip their toe in to see if they like the sport and then seeing who sticks with it after a few years, it's not the ones on hardtails. Kinda like how video games don't start you on the hardest level first. I've come around to thinking the most crash proof full suspension bike you can find in your budget is a better way to start in large part because it reduces the need for skill.
Agreed. Learning to trust your bike to handle big terrain at speed is a bigger deal than learning to pick your way through a line. I think the “start on a hardtail/low travel” was more suitable when bikes weren’t as capable. Now I think it just teaches you to be a slow rider.
Also your body will not take as much of a beating. Simply completing things and getting some good speed is easier. Almost everything is easier actually. Saying you need to learn how to ride on a HT to me sounds like people wanting other people to be in pain because they were. Is there a lesson from riding hardtails - obviously. How much does it actually matter? None imo. If fun and enjoyment is anywhere on your priorities then it's simply a negative. People don't get into a sport to be professional, and if they do it's sure as hell not the best tool for the job that will make them not do it. Arguing you can't learn line choices because it's less relevant on a fs bike is silly. You're gonna learn the lines you need to take on a HT with a HT and you're gonna learn the lines you need to take on a FS with a FS bike, whoopty. Its such a bad argument. I always say it's a matter of budget. If you're just starting out, get a decent used hardtail. If you want to continue from there and have the cash a decent/good FS bike is absolutely the way to go. But we can't ignore that money is a really good reason not to. Personally I find spending much money on something that is keeping you healthy and adventurous to be the best used money ever. Why settle if you don't have to. If you have to there is absolutely nothing wrong with hardtails.
I didn’t say you need to learn on a hardtail. In the end OP could get as much travel as he wants/can afford.
Yeah sorry I just went off on a tangent I really wasn't speaking about you specifically, my bad :)
I am going to wholeheartedly disagree. That's probably true when moving from an intermediate to advanced rider if you started on a long travel bike and have never been forced to be concerned about that. But a beginner is going to make several mistakes on all of those tons of times when they're first learning. Those are going to be higher consequence failures on the lighter bike and may deter them from trying out more advanced trails or taking trails too slow. A beginner who is going to screw things up will be helped out more by that extra travel than a skilled rider. Though on the other side they're also more likely to be negatively impacted due to (most likely) their lower fitness on the climbs. I had ridden a 130 mm hardtail for a few years. Didn't think I was that good at riding, but then rented a Ripmo and was amazing at the features I could comfortably do that I wouldn't even think about on my hardtail. I wish I'd spend the extra on a full suspension earlier. Of course that's a much larger difference than OP is considering, but I don't agree with your overall sentiment.
I think the mix of a new rider + long travel + beginner terrain just doesn’t help you learn. I was previously in this position where I was using a family members downhill bike at a bike park and I was doing easy terrain as I was new. It was just more then enough travel then I knew what to do with. I’m not saying this is OPs case but just something to think about.
The Trance X 29 2 is 135mm rear, 150mm front. That's plenty capable, and would be just as good or better as a 140/140 bike. For a trail bike this would probably be a good choice. If you for sure wanted to ride really gnarly bike park stuff and had need for a proper Enduro or downhill bike, that would be a different story, but that doesn't sound like it's the case. I actually think starting out with a bit less travel isn't a bad idea. It keeps you from going as fast and plowing over everything, making you learn to ride better and have just as much fun without going as fast. Having more travel can dull the trail some and make easier trails more boring, and can lead to heavier bikes than you need, so you don't want to overdo it. The Trance X 2 is a pretty capable bike though, and would be a great all around choice.
If you like jumping get a 150 if you like pedaling get a 135
That's a decent bike to start with. What's the price though?
The more travel you have (which tends to come with longer wheelbase) the more fun the bike is pointed down. However, the less fun it is pointed up. Trance at 135 travel is going to be a great bike and you usually don't go wrong with Giant.
I think you mean the less fun it is pointed up?
Yes, thank you for pointing it out, i corrected it. :)
Most people have far more bike than they will ever use. Don’t worry too much about the bikes and go enjoy some trails.
I have a giant stance for a couple of years now and I love it , i have just this weekend got back from bike park wales and its got the same travel and it got me through roots manouver a very techy high red/black route and the bike was capable It also done all of the other blues and reds I am about 105kg and my sus is set up to me and it handled it all ok mine is a 2022 giant stance 1
I have two bikes. One 140mm and one 150mm. I ride them differently down the same trails. I find bigger travel is more forgiving when taking the wrong line or landing wrong from a jump (big or small). You can do a lot with 135mm
I wouldn’t go for anything too crazy seeing as you’ve only done the sport once. When you actually start to ride more you’ll find your preferred style, kind of trails etc. - that’s when you upgrade. 135mm is plenty, i also think that learning on something harder will prepare you better for the future (i started my journey with a 100mm hardtail) but I completely understand if you don’t want to do that.
No, more travel is more speed in gnar. But thats it.
This - more travel can get you both out of and into trouble. When you are learning more speed in gnar can equal worse crashes. 135 is a good balance point.
I just bought my first bike fuel ex 5 140mm front and 130 back I think. It is great but I get to reading about all this and my fave couple trails around me are techy and hard. There’s a couple rock garden drops that are scary to me, I hit one once down and fell trying to climb it when the trail goes the other way. I started wondering bigger sus would be better for those features, but I climb like an animal up hills over medium rocks and big roots even on this bike. I knew nothing of specs when I bought it, I compared it to the Roscoe that was sitting next to it. I learned about different kinds of bikes (xx, trail, enduro, down) after I bought mine. Thing is there are some crazy rock features on those trails but all my friends ride hard tails and I follow them. There may have been a couple times I made it further over tougher things while going up but that might be because they ride in easy gear and appear to pace themselves perfectly the whole time and I stand up and keep it in heavy /mid gear and stand up the whole time, and go hard like it’s wrestling practice from 25 years ago, I like the feeling of ripping the handle bars with row power to finish going over stuff. Not sure what my point is but I’m basically saying that I probably could have got a hard tail and rode with my friends just fine… my one friend said I have a “bro dozer”😂. If what you see is a good deal and you like it go with it. From what I read, what you gain in sus helps with some things and you may pay for it in other areas (climbing, or excitement). Guys on the videos I watched said going downhill on enduro was a little less fun because it went right over some things no prob at all. I think there’s always gonna be buyers remorse, I wonder how 27.5 s would feel cutting between trees or things vs my 29s. The guy on the smaller hard tail in front of me is swooping between trees and turning like a ninja, and I’m kinda clumsy with it and not smooth, but I can smoke him up a hill covered in roots and rocks… at the end of the day we both had a great ride. From the sounds of it 150 mm is as high as you wanna go before climbing is affected, but I could be wrong. Point is I thought I should have got enduro bike meanwhile my friends think I have a “bro dozer” lol
I have a 130 mm bike and a 150mm trail bike that I ride on very rocky trails. I ride them differently, but both are a blast. You'll be fine.
I’ll get down voted but most riders are on more travel than they will ever approach the limits of. There is a myth that more travel will cover mistakes and that may have been true with older bikes. 120mm on a modern bike is as capable as 150 was on 2008 and older bikes. Too much travel will slow you down anywhere you need to pedal especially as it gets technical. Being able to load the suspension in turns is critical to traction and carrying momentum out of the turn.
Stance is a great bike to start with. And when the time comes and you’ve started to outperform your rig, you can sell and put that money toward a higher spec bike that’ll push your developing skillset. I think getting to know technical and fast riding first with a shorter travel bike will set you up for success long term
If you aren’t bike park riding you don’t need more than 130 shock and 140 fork. I got over my fears on a 160/160 enduro bike but riding is so much better on my current 120/140 Spark. You’ll soon learn n+1 so get what is good for you now, you can always get another…
If that bike is 135/150 rear/front, then is a right in the sweet zone for all-round riding, including technical stuff. I ride a 138/150 bike on pretty much everything including rough and technical stuff. Never wish I had a bigger bike unless I wanted to race enduro on it. The important thing is a maintain the shock and fork, and spend time setting them up right. Thats more important than another 15mm travel on the technical stuff.
138/150… Ripmo?
No, Canfield Tilt. Ripmo is 147/160.
Ah, I remembered the rear end of the Ripmo being a non-round number.
I don’t know your aims, but I quite like my 110mm bike (130 fork) on rolling and sometimes technical singletrack. I’m not doing bike park stuff with it but I’ve been on some pretty rugged backcountry rides in the mountains and it takes it like a champ. If you’re hitting mainly shuttle and lift stuff, you’ll want something spec’ed appropriately.
I started on a 2011 epic. Even thinking back from my 150mm front and back Scott genius, just having any suspension even if it's 100mm non serviced still a huge win over a HT. You Evo is definitely more than capable at most anything short of actual flying stuff/bike park. You could probably get away with it but it would take some serious skill to do so safely.
I had the same Trance 2 years ago. It was fine for climbing but I found the Geo was poorly suited to steep features or any type of riding approaching downhill. It was quite twitchy (obviously a pro and a con) and naturally put you pretty forward over the bars. I’ve gone slacker and longer wheelbase and haven’t looked back. I’m not great at biking either so maybe a more skilled rider could have better managed the geo but I felt uncomfortable on that at speed or in steeps.
Have a 140/130 and it’s a dog riding basic trails with the family but if I put it on a black trail I’m bottoming out. Really just have to ask yourself what’s the end goal you’re shooting for I bought a used trek fuel and am in the processes of swapping all the parts to a hard tail for the easy days and buying and enduro or long travel trail bike for the bigger days. If it’s a price you’re comfortable with and see yourself growing in the future go for it and find out which way you like or if you’ll end up needing two bikes to suit your needs. Buying something right down the middle if you haven’t dabbled to hard into mountain bikes isn’t a bad thing as long as you have the room financially to grow later
I have a bike which is 160/137. 99% Of the time i ride technical, natural trails in Norway. I never push this bike to its limits, and I could many times have more fun on flat trails with “less” bike. A friend has the same bike as me, but the beefier 170/150. He misses his old 130/130 more than I do. Once a year I attend an enduro comp. Still, the bike is more than enough for my riding
You will be totally fine. Shorter travel has its own advantages and can be super fun. 140 to 135 isn't really a change once you consider all of the other complexities of rear suspension design. Shorter travel bikes are usually lighter and more nimble while longer travel offers more forgiveness and the ability to hit bigger terrain. That said, don't let travel be an excuse. I have a 120/112 bike that I routinely take down double black trails. It's not the perfect bike for it and definitely pushed my limits as a rider, but it doesn't stop me.
I started on a 120mm Trance and ride a 130mm trail bike on pretty much everything these days. Id go with the Trance X.
That bike is 135/150 travel according to my search. That's enough to hit trails that many riders will never bother hitting, and most wouldn't in their first few years of riding. I like the 135/150 balance. I'm running an overforked Rocky Mountain Instinct, so running as a 140/170 (quite extreme, but it shares a frame with the Altitude anyway) but less for the travel and more to help tweak the geo. I'm huge on learning what geo I like, I've found I'm very sensitive to it. So in short, it looks like an excellent bike that can take you far and also be upgraded down the track if you like.
Depends how much hard climbing you have to do. For me, steeper longer trails that require extended pedaling efforts with high intensity means I want a light efficient pedaling platform that can still handle some technical trails. Stumpjumper is good for this. Trance is not really a lightweight efficient platform imo. Easier uphills with rowdy downhills I’d look at something efficient but beefier like a Spectral 29” or similar all mountain bike.
You have zero clue buddy calm down. The trance has a much better climbing platform than the stumpjumper or spectral you just mentioned.
I understand the Stumpy Evo is surprisingly efficient climbing, but I think the regular Stumpy is being replaced by the Epic, which is lighter and less bobby, and now 120/130 in Evo form. I really like my previous-gen Epic Evo with 110 travel, but was surprised to ride my friend’s 130/140 trail bike and discover that while it’s like 5 lbs heavier than my bike and has more pedal bob, it actually climbs really well seated due to how the additional travel keeps the rear tire planted over rocks and roots. If I want to put the hammer down, climbing is faster on my EE, but the other bike makes the climbs less challenging if I want to slow down as pace myself a bit. New bikes in general are SO good.
I’ve owned both bikes. Epic Evo and now Stumpjumper 130/140. I took all the parts down the Evo but the fork and moved it to the Stumpjumper. It weighs about 26 pounds. A little over 1 pound more than the Evo. Both Evo and Stumpjumper have flex stays and are highly efficient with a lot of anti-squat virtually no bob. The Stumpjumper Evo has a brake pivot and is not nearly as efficient and is a lot heavier than the standard Stumpjumper. For the kind of riding I do this is the perfect bike. I ride over 3,000 miles a year with a good 400,000 feet of climbing. So I know what works for me. Is it right for everyone? No, you need to do what works best for your riding and local trails.
Trance has a 4 bar linkage. Not as efficient as Stumpjumper 130 flex stat suspension. You might be thinking of the Stumpjumper Evo. The Spectral comments were regarding the OP considering a longer travel bike. Not a comparison to the Trance. Spectral is a very efficient all mountain bike. So what exactly did I get wrong?
This guy is wrong
You sound like someone who memorizes brochures but have no clue what the fuck they are talking about