In my opinion, both yes and no. But I'd say that in that specific travel range the differences are considerable enough. I know the % change is greater the lower the travel numbers are, but I'd argue that the suspension feel changes more and more as you move into the longer travel ranges. I believe because the available dynamic sag/travel and the way you utilize that travel changes more dramatically as you move up through the range until you hit a point of diminishing returns, which I think would be the area near and greater than 200mm.
80-100mm is a pretty tiny difference. 100-120 is a bit more. 120-140 is more yet, 140-160 more again, 160-180 is pretty substantial. 180-200 is big, but maybe less than the change from 160-180.
I know this is all dependent on the spring curve/leverage rate, but the idea still applies.
Sorry for the rant. Its an interesting subject, and I think something we all struggle with when visualizing our individual "ideal" bike.
Jan. 3, 2020, 11:07 a.m. - Metacomet
In my opinion, both yes and no. But I'd say that in that specific travel range the differences are considerable enough. I know the % change is greater the lower the travel numbers are, but I'd argue that the suspension feel changes more and more as you move into the longer travel ranges. I believe because the available dynamic sag/travel and the way you utilize that travel changes more dramatically as you move up through the range until you hit a point of diminishing returns, which I think would be the area near and greater than 200mm. 80-100mm is a pretty tiny difference. 100-120 is a bit more. 120-140 is more yet, 140-160 more again, 160-180 is pretty substantial. 180-200 is big, but maybe less than the change from 160-180. I know this is all dependent on the spring curve/leverage rate, but the idea still applies. Sorry for the rant. Its an interesting subject, and I think something we all struggle with when visualizing our individual "ideal" bike.