@AKAKTM I'm curious your opinion on this . You go thru bikes pretty quickly it seems.
Happy to share my $0.02 worth. Please let me know specifically what you'd like to know about. A few random observations to begin.
First, newer bikes aren't necessarily faster or more fun! In fact, I can make a strong argument that the tendency toward longer, lower and slacker has some benefits, but those benefits may not be beneficial to many of us on IMTB. Most of us who ride in SoCal ride primarily more mellow trails with flow and deal with lots of sand and rocks over hard pack and long, low and slack bikes aren't too helpful in this situation and long bikes are decidedly less 'playful', slower turning and generally more cumbersome to throw around.
As you noted, I've had a lot of bikes and try to pay attention to all aspects of the bikes I own from how they build up (since I build most of mine) to how they ride to how much fun I have. Like Tom, I used to hold that the OG Ripley was one of the best I've ever had, until I rode one recently and that opinion changed. Having ridden many newer modern and much longer bikes, the OG Ripley now feels super quick turning which is not all bad, but also much less stable and less confidence inspiring. I no longer have any desire to own one and have a better perspective on what works and what doesn't as my tastes and skills have changed.
At the other end of the spectrum, I've owned and ridden some pretty 'big' bikes like the Specialized Enduro, Trek Slash and various Transition bikes with the so-called SBG (longer, lower, slacker) and I've learned that those bikes are super stable and provide immense confidence in very technical and in steep terrain and some of them pedal much better than they have a right to (Enduro). On the other hand, those same bikes feel more lethargic and unwieldy on local SoCal trails. They are more work to turn on flatter terrain and tend to be less poppy and playful. They are awesome tools for the right rider who rides the right terrain. I think of them as best suited to the PNW and Western Canada. I am sure some here will disagree and love to ride these bikes in SoCal which is great if that's what you like.
When I look back over the past 10 - 15 years at which bikes stand out as being really good and I believe I'd still be happy if I'd kept them a few stand out. I think the V4 Ripley is an awesome all-around bike for most more mature riders in SoCal and still has enough capability to be comfortable riding when you travel. For a bigger bike, the V1 and V2 Ripmos still ride great and I'd not be disappointed to ride them all the time and have either as my primary bike today. Likewise the Stumpjumper G14 (the last one) is a great all around bike and there are many others. I'm not saying bikes haven't advanced since these bikes, but they are still excellent all-around bikes.
A few years ago I got my first (hard to believe) FS Yeti--an SB130 LR and was reluctant as I'd heard so much mixed info on Yeti, wasn't sure about the overly complex SI link, the relatively heavier frame, and wasn't sure about the whole Yeti thing. I was excited about the looks and capability and reviews of the SB130 LR and finding a killer deal on a used one was enough to get me in. I took that bike on a multi-day Rocky Mountain journey riding some of the EWS enduro trails at speeds I have little business riding and I came to love that bike. I consider it similar to the Ripmo, Hightower, Fuel and other related bikes. The bike punched way above its weight and rode wonderfully. Interestingly, I slot just between size M and size L and tended to go with L bikes, but for the 130, I got a M and learned that it worked fantastically. As bikes have become longer and slacker, wheelbases have grown. Getting a size M gave me the more slack geo without allowing the wheelbase to grow so long as to compromise cornering and toss-ability. I liked that bike so much that when Worldwide in TO called to let me know they have an SB140 LR frame with my name on it, I jumped on it. I love the 140 but can honestly say it wasn't much of an upgrade from the 130 (or even a Ripmo for that matter). It's an incredibly bike and the initial sensitivity and plushness in the rear suspension is a little better than the 130 or Ripmo, but overall, it's pretty close to those bikes meaning that a 7 year old Ripmo would satisfy me about as much as the 140.
So, will I revert or keep chasing new bikes? I will not go back to the really short and steep OG bikes from 15 years ago. I'm glad geo has advanced and it suits me well to a point. Ultimately, I am finding that bikes with 64 - 65º head tube angles and 76 - 77º seat tube angles with moderate chain stay lengths (not super short) and wheelbases that run 1220 to 1240 work great for me. Running a 1180 to 1200 wheelbase would be better for Tapia and many trails in TO, but are not nearly as good in Simi, Laguna, Montana and Colorado. Given that I plan to have a single pedal MTB for all uses and an eMTB as a supplement, something like the SB140 (or HT or Fuel or last gen SJ) seems to work really well for me. Will I stay on the SB140 LR or try a new Ripmo or Stumpjumper 15? Stay tuned!
Newer is not always better or more fun and it's certainly not lighter as bikes are consistently getting heavier and potentially more robust).
As for wheel size, I think the others posting here (See SnakeCharmer below) are right on. Ride what you like. I prefer 29, but 27.5 has its strengths too. Ultimately, ride what makes you happy and what looks good because looks matter
.
The shock feels great.
).
