130mm vs 150mm (a.k.a. YT Jeffsy vs Izzo) for North Jersey

nj6964

nj6964

Member
After a few year hiatus from mtb and another lovely daughter :), I got the bug again this year. First things first, my 2014 Scott spark that I’ve modded and upgraded to hell doesn’t feel like it’s cutting it any more.

I ride mostly rocky stuff typical of north NJ, high mtn, Ringwood, alpine etc. I’m between the YT Izzo and Jeffsy and can’t determine if 130mm up front is enough or would I be wishing I just got the 150mm Jeffsy. Trails I ride have plenty of climbing, often techy climbs but there’s something appealing about having more travel too. Currently my spark is 120mm fork/100 rear. I don’t and will never race, just out having fun.

Honest opinions? Will I miss having the better climber 130mm bike, will I have any more fun with the 150mm Jeffsy? Thanks and see you out there on the trails!
 
A subject of much debate and opinions.

Over the ages, I've found a lot of travel can be a double-edged sword. Through rough sections at speed, the more travel you have the better. However, in low-speed situations, a lot of travel can actually make a bike trickier to ride as you can tap a rock and find your momentum get absorbed by the fork travel. When I do rides in NNJ, I usually ride my Spot with 115R and 120F travel. It makes the janky, slower rock gardens easier to get through. The downside is not quite being able to bomb the faster descents like I would on my longer travel enduro bike. While I can ride the janky stuff on the enduro bike, I work a lot harder doing it. In the end, it tends to depend on how strong I'm feeling on that day.
 
From a geometry POV the two bikes are really close. Jeffsy being slightly longer and one degree head angle slacker. FWIW I was this close to ordering an Izzo and by the time I decided they were out of stock, but I also had the same dilemma. I did just recently switch from a shorter wheelbase, lighter bike to longer lower but heavier so it's (probably) a similar comparison.
If you like to hop around and find little stuff to jump off the "smaller" bike will probably be more compatible. If you're going fast the bigger bike will feel more stable but also with burlier parts will need more speed before it feels like it's trying. Plus on a longer ride you're lugging around a fair amount of extra weight, I think the Izzo is supposed to be right around 29-30lbs? Or if you're thinking of doing Creek park days then the bigger bike will be happier. Both bikes will be fine for NJ stuff, just where you want the sweet spot to be.

I know @JimN and @Wrong Way Dan recently moved to bigger smash bikes but ride mainly slow tech, maybe they can chime in.
 
Last edited:
extremedave said:
I know @JimN and @Wrong Way Dan recently moved to bigger smash bikes but ride mainly slow tech, maybe they can chime in.
Click to expand...

I love my Switchblade, and it seems to handle slow tech just fine. That said, I've not been on a short travel full suspension in a long time, so I don't really have anything to compare it to. I also don't really know anything about bikes.
 
All valid points above. IMO the real question is, are you doing to bomb the downs enough to take advantage of that extra travel? Or would you be better served by conserving energy on longer rides with less travel?
 
Transition smuggler, 140/130 travel, even their lower priced models have a really solid parts spec. I personally love the look of their frames with the top tube in line with the seat stays. I ride a Sentinel and I think it is perfect for northern NJ but it has 160/150 travel and thus to much bike for your taste.

www.transitionbikes.com

Transition Bikes

29 Inch Wheels / 130mm Travel Rear, 140mm Travel Front / Like the reliable tool you grab for every job, the Smuggler is the go-to bike for any trail pointed up, down, and all around.
www.transitionbikes.com
 
If you're coming off a multi-year hiatus I'd say start with shorter travel bike. If you find the amount of travel lacking as you ride more it will probably be the fork that's lacking, which is sort of an easy fix without replacing the entire bike. Depending on what fork you're working with you can usually bump up the fork travel to 140mm or even 150mm if it doesn't throw the bike's geo out of wack too much.

It's a toss up either way though. You won't know until you pick one and ride it a bit.
 
I ride the same trails and I would choose the longer travel. I have a shorter travel as well which really is an excellent bike. But these days I never ride it. My 150/135 is smoother, more comfortable, and is such a good technical climber that I don’t see the benefit of my shorter travel. The shorter travel bike is slightly quicker accelerating but not enough for me to care.
 
Oey12 said:
I ride the same trails and I would choose the longer travel. I have a shorter travel as well which really is an excellent bike. But these days I never ride it. My 150/135 is smoother, more comfortable, and is such a good technical climber that I don’t see the benefit of my shorter travel. The shorter travel bike is slightly quicker accelerating but not enough for me to care.
Click to expand...
Thanks Oey, what bike do you ride?
 
Thanks for the all the quick replies! Definitely giving me lots to think about. I’m sure coming from a very dated bike that both of these will feel like tanks with the slacker head angles and much improved suspension. It’s too bad YT doesn’t have any demo days anywhere near us or anytime soon. I like the suggestion that if I really wanted I can adjust the Pike to be 140mm for pretty cheap. I guess my main sticking point is how much will I struggle to climb on the Jeffsy…if it’s not going to make me cry then there’s something very appealing about it. Maybe I romanticize longer travel bikes 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit old school and not crazy with the current reach and steepness for the ST. Also the HT angle is a degree or so too much for my liking. Bikes 3-4 years ago are my sweet spot and hope companies dial it back a bit. Someone mentioned weight, seems the Jeffsey is about 3 pounds heavier.

I went on a buying experiment a few years back. Started with 120 travel to 135, then 160 and 170, then back to 100. Stuck with a light 120 for parks like Chimney and Allamuchy. North of I80 is the 135 with a150 fork. The bigger travel and weight penalty wasn't worth it for me with the additional climbing. Works for me but each their own.

Now it I were to get an eMTB, it would likely be more travel as the weight penalty is less dramatic.
 
nj6964 said:
Thanks for the all the quick replies! Definitely giving me lots to think about. I’m sure coming from a very dated bike that both of these will feel like tanks with the slacker head angles and much improved suspension. It’s too bad YT doesn’t have any demo days anywhere near us or anytime soon. I like the suggestion that if I really wanted I can adjust the Pike to be 140mm for pretty cheap. I guess my main sticking point is how much will I struggle to climb on the Jeffsy…if it’s not going to make me cry then there’s something very appealing about it. Maybe I romanticize longer travel bikes 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
@nj6964 and I have PM'd a bit the last day or so but I'll add a bit here for everyone else as I have owned and extensively ridden both bikes. If you're even considering going to 140mm on the fork of the Izzo then just get the Jeffsy. I did exactly that on my Izzo (upped the Fox 34 to 140mm and then eventually swapped to a 140mm Fox 36). The front felt way better but the rear didn't feel balanced.

It's not that climbing is a "struggle" on the Jeffsy, but it is noticeably different compared to a shorter travel, sportier bike like the Izzo. That difference is also experienced inversely on the way back down. As other's have said, it's personal preference. What part of the ride appeals to you the most? I've decided that I enjoy the ability to hit the downhills a little harder and I don't mind "lugging" the bigger bike uphill. I also like to "play" around and bunny hop, and I actually prefer the bigger bike for that stuff. For context, I am 220 pounds, so maybe not your typical "cyclist" build, and I am sure that plays a part in how I perceive different bikes. I'm not a Strava nut but I do track rides and I like to see how my performance trends over time. I wasn't really any faster when I was on the Izzo at most parks except 6 Mile Run. You could ride a road bike through 6MR, though, so that's not a surprise at all.

One more thing that I will add is that suspension setup can influence performance a lot. Seems like an obvious statement to make, but I think at least some riders are intimidated by spring rate, air spring volume, high and low speed compression and rebound damping, etc. Spending some time learning about how all of that works and dialing it in will help both the shorter travel and longer travel bike be all they can be in various terrain. As in that short travel bike might feel a little plusher going downhill and that long travel bike might not be so awful to pedal uphill if the suspension is dialed in properly. I think a lot of riders just pump up the fork and shock with air and call it good.
 
nj6964 said:
Thanks Oey, what bike do you ride?
Click to expand...
Giant Trance X 29 150/135

And the short travel is the regular Trance 29 130/115

There are two main reasons that solidify my opinion in this matter it’s it’s of any interest to you OP.

1.) With the same wheelset on each bike the difference in weight and acceleration was minimal in my opinion. Due to the tech in NNJ and southern NY I love 30mm inner diameter wheels and 2.4ish tires. I ride WTB Vigilantes which I feel is a great tire for the area. That combo sucks the life out of a short travel bike. Yes, it can honestly be debated whether that aggressive of a tire or wheel set is needed or even necessary. However I love the confidence and performance both give…wish WTB would make it in a 2.4 (2.5 is LARGE). With the stock wheel set 2.3 DHF with 25mm inner diameter rim the Trance was noticeably quicker and more playful BUT was much slower and skidish in the tech. With a wider rim and wider tire that rapidly disappears IMHO. I am faster by far on my Trance X according to my GPS than on the regular Trance.

2.) I am in my mid forties, have had multiple surgeries, have a family/home to care for, and my employment requires my body to be healthy. The extra travel simply absorbs more of the impacts instead of my body. I can ride fairly aggressively on my X, come home mow the lawn, and play with my kids in the pool with simply aching less. Best of all both worlds for me personally. The shorter travel without a doubt was harder on my body. (I understand that this is a VERY personal perspective but I wanted to share for the sake of reference.)
 
I have a Switchblade at 160 and a Tallboy at 130, riding the same NNJ trails. I have been nothing but surprised at how well that 130 handles anything I ride over, jump over or drop over. What I like about the shorter travel bike is it's faster, easier to pedal and just a little more fun to ride. That's my .02 on this topic.
 
TommyF said:
I have a Switchblade at 160 and a Tallboy at 130, riding the same NNJ trails. I have been nothing but surprised at how well that 130 handles anything I ride over, jump over or drop over. What I like about the shorter travel bike is it's faster, easier to pedal and just a little more fun to ride. That's my .02 on this topic.
Click to expand...
I agree, Going from a spark (XC bike) to a switchblade, which is a full on enduro bike, is going to be huge jump. I get it, some geo changes have made more travel feel like a bike with less travel, but there are trade offs with everything.
 
Bigger bikes encourages you to ride bigger trails. Short travel bikes give you an excuse to not ride sections of the trail. You can take a big bike to Hartshorne but you do not want to take a little bike to Mountaincreek. I am sure some will now come on here and tell their story about how much fun it was to ride a trail bike at the creek but please remember there are a lot of riders out there with head trauma from trying to ride a small bike down big bike trails.😎
 
scott62 said:
Bigger bikes encourages you to ride bigger trails. Short travel bikes give you an excuse to not ride sections of the trail. You can take a big bike to Hartshorne but you do not want to take a little bike to Mountaincreek. I am sure some will now come on here and tell their story about how much fun it was to ride a trail bike at the creek but please remember there are a lot of riders out there with head trauma from trying to ride a small bike down big bike trails.😎
Click to expand...
Skillset and bike selection are two different conversations.

Ive ridden my 5010 at creek (140/130). Am i saying it is the best tool for the place, no. Am i blasting the tech stuff there, no. Can you ride on that bike, yes. Can you hit all of the flow trails on it and all the drops/jumps, yes. Kind of a moot point at the OP didnt say he was riding creek.
 
I'm huge on buying a bike for most of your riding, not the exceptions.

Don't buy a XC carbon hardtail because you race once a season, don't buy a 180mm enduro bike because you hit Creek 2x a year. Pick the bike that fits your daily rides. If you're regularly hitting 5' drops, blasting through chunk, riding under an hour, the Jeffsy is probably the better bike. I've ridden all the places you've listed on a 130/120 Rocky Mountain Element with absolutely no issue. We don't live in an area where we see massive drops and rolls on trail. If you lived in the PNW my opinion would change drastically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom