if you lot...

SJ

Ooh, touchy ground there, now you'll start the debate as to who has more riding skills, HT riders or FS riders

Steve Austin

FS bikes are for folk who can't ride properly

Red Lemon

Steve Austin wrote:

FS bikes are for folk who can't ride properly

Like Steve Peat, eh?

Steve Austin

thats not riding, thats jumping.

That has about as much to do with CYCLING as fishing has to do with going to the fishmongers

speshcp

Oh, there's no doubt that Peat can ride, though it would be interesting to take today's crop of Downhillers, and send them down the old Cap L'Ail (sp?) course on the machinery that JMC, Cully and Jonny T were riding, back in the day. :twisted:

Red Lemon

What's he riding? A bicycle.

Peyote

SJ wrote:

Ooh, touchy ground there, now you'll start the debate as to who has more riding skills, HT riders or FS riders

Oi! Don't put words in my mouth... :evil:


...bl**dy stirrers...



...mutter...

Red Lemon

He rides a full susser too...

speshcp

Red Lemon wrote:

What's he riding? A bicycle.

Exactly.

I remember years ago when Cannondale brought out a prototype DH bike with (I think) an internal gear box, and three sets of drive trains, and the tech bod in the long-since defunct MTBW magazine summed up the article with a comment along the lines of "at the end of the day, it's just a bike."

Steve Austin

don't look very FS too me :?

Red Lemon

2006 bike: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2006/probikes/?id=specialized_liam_killeen

2007 bike: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=liam_killeen_epic07

You are wrong.

Steve Austin

what about? I think i can tell the difference between a FS bike and hardtail

still doesn't change the fact that most folk riding FS bikes can't ride for sh!t and have compensated with their lack of talent by buying the newest fad going.

Red Lemon

You're right, full suspension is clearly the "newest fad going", having only come onto the market in what? 1988? :?

Peyote

Red Lemon wrote:

2006 bike: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2006/probikes/?id=specialized_liam_killeen

2007 bike: http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=liam_killeen_epic07

You are wrong.

Nah, the Spesh Epic is an anomaly in the whole FS/HT debate. Spesh themselves used to say it bridged the gap between the two!

Steve Austin

Red Lemon wrote:

You're right, full suspension is clearly the "newest fad going", having only come onto the market in what? 1988? :?

well in that case you could argue MTB is a fad too having started at the same time

Still doesn't change the fact that FS bikes are in the main ridden by folk who can't ride.

speshcp

I'm trying not to take sides here, but jeez, I wish some people would take their road-tinted© specs off! :roll:

There may very well be a number of riders who have latched onto the current "freeride" bike trend (probably all those who read MBR ), thinking that 5" travel and discs will compensate for a lack of skill, but there are a hell of a lot of FS riders who have cut their teeth on hardtails or even rigid bikes, and carried across the skills they have built up.

Red Lemon

Steve Austin wrote:

Red Lemon wrote:

You're right, full suspension is clearly the "newest fad going", having only come onto the market in what? 1988? :?

well in that case you could argue MTB is a fad too having started at the same time

No, you can't argue that it's a fad, if you actually look at the definition of a fad. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad:

"a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., esp. one followed enthusiastically by a group."

A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.

20ish years and still growing. Sound like a fad? Not really.

Stop trying to be clever, because it's not working.

John Stevenson

speshcp wrote:

There may very well be a number of riders ... thinking that 5" travel and discs will compensate for a lack of skill

Hey! That's exactly why I ride a bike with 5in of travel and discs!

Skill? Yeah, I've heard of it!

Steve Austin

When did the first FS frame design come out that worked? The early FS designs were horrific and were in the main just bouncy or so stiff they didn't work.

FS is still a developing design, hence why 'most' manufacturers are changing their designs every year. There are few designs That Companies were using several years ago. and i don't know if you had noticed but MTB riding isn't all about dropping down the side of mountains at 40mph. MOST MTB riding is about pootling around the woods or racing XC and FS is a waste of time for either of these two types of riding.

you ain't doing anything to convince me that FS riders in the main can't ride.

speshcp

john_stevenson wrote:

speshcp wrote:

There may very well be a number of riders ... thinking that 5" travel and discs will compensate for a lack of skill

Hey! That's exactly why I ride a bike with 5in of travel and discs!

Skill? Yeah, I've heard of it!

Confession is good for the soul... :twisted:

Big Red S

Steve Austin wrote:

FS is still a developing design, hence why 'most' manufacturers are changing their designs every year.

I don't know that that is still true. There has just been a big jump onto the VPP bandwagon, but for a few years previous to that there was little change. Specialized, Trek, Banshee/Mythic, Norco, Turner, Kona, Cannondale all have pretty consistent suspension designs.

There are few designs That Companies were using several years ago. and i don't know if you had noticed but MTB riding isn't all about dropping down the side of mountains at 40mph. MOST MTB riding is about pootling around the woods or racing XC and FS is a waste of time for either of these two types of riding.

I'd disagree with that, too. Most MtBs I sell are to people who ride XC. I think it's called 'trailriding' now. An efficient full sus bike is generall more suitable than a hardtail for them, especially when the suspension is set up correctly. It gives greater traction and greater comfort at little weight penalty.

you ain't doing anything to convince me that FS riders in the main can't ride.

I don't think anyone's trying to.

Red Lemon

Steve Austin wrote:

When did the first FS frame design come out that worked? The early FS designs were horrific and were in the main just bouncy or so stiff they didn't work.

FS is still a developing design, hence why 'most' manufacturers are changing their designs every year. There are few designs That Companies were using several years ago. and i don't know if you had noticed but MTB riding isn't all about dropping down the side of mountains at 40mph. MOST MTB riding is about pootling around the woods or racing XC and FS is a waste of time for either of these two types of riding.

you ain't doing anything to convince me that FS riders in the main can't ride.

1) The Horst link used and refined by Specialized was designed in 1991.

2) The rear sus design on my King Kikapu is ancient but refined to be very effective. Santa Cruz, among others, still use the Single Pivot design. I could go on listing brands, but why?

3) For some people, MTB riding is about dropping down the side of mountains at 40mph, so I don't know who you think you are, to be able to come out with such a bold declaration.

4) Again, Mr. Killeen would beg to differ about the XC racing part. But obviously you know better, Mr. Anonymous internet forum user.

5) I don't care what I "ain't" doing. I don't have to prove anything to you, nor do I feel a need to. I never said FS riders are better or worse, and I think people should ride what they enjoy riding most.

Steve Austin

mleh

Red Lemon

Very similar to the sort of thing teenage girls do when they can't win an argument or someone calls their BS. "WOTEVAAAA!!!"

Squaggles

Steve Austin and Red Lemon , we're not interested in your petty bickering , can't you do it via email or something ?

SJ

Steve Austin wrote:

FS bikes are for folk who can't ride properly

Or just for those of us who's riding has progressed to a level where a HT generally isn't suited any longer...

Steve Austin wrote:

thats not riding, thats jumping.

That has about as much to do with CYCLING as fishing has to do with going to the fishmongers

He's still riding the bike! He had to 'ride' it to get it into the air in the first place surely?

Steve Austin wrote:

what about? I think i can tell the difference between a FS bike and hardtail

still doesn't change the fact that most folk riding FS bikes can't ride for sh!t and have compensated with their lack of talent by buying the newest fad going.

How can you generalise so? I agree that there probably are a fair few 'all the gear, no idea' types but surely you get that in every type of riding, not just MTB?

Steve Austin wrote:

Still doesn't change the fact that FS bikes are in the main ridden by folk who can't ride.

Aargh! Seriously, are you for real??!

Steve Austin wrote:

i don't know if you had noticed but MTB riding isn't all about dropping down the side of mountains at 40mph. MOST MTB riding is about pootling around the woods or racing XC and FS is a waste of time for either of these two types of riding.

It's not 'all' about XC or pootling around the woods either! For me, mtb IS about dropping down the sides of mountains, as fast and as smoothly as I can. For a long time that was done on my HT (an Orange MsIsle) which I have to say I do think helped to develop my technique and skill because a HT isn't as forgiving and you do have to be more careful when choosing your lines, but it has in the last 6 months been replaced by my FS (an Intense Uzzi VPX).
I can still ride XC on either bike should I wish, but for the type of riding I enjoy most I prefer the FS and it's most certainly better suited to the type of riding too.

formerlyknownasbonj

john_stevenson wrote:

speshcp wrote:

There may very well be a number of riders ... thinking that 5" travel and discs will compensate for a lack of skill

Hey! That's exactly why I ride a bike with 5in of travel and discs!

Skill? Yeah, I've heard of it!

hmmm.. same here. I could say having a front wheel compensates for a lack of skill, and that why aren't you honing your skill by riding a unicycle. If it enables you to go faster with more confidence then i'm all for it.

Red Lemon

Squaggles,

John Stevenson

SJ wrote:

Or just for those of us who's riding has progressed to a level where a HT generally isn't suited any longer...

Oooh, I shall have to remember that. It sounds so much better than my usual admission that I'm old and knackered and would rather not come back from a ride feeling like I have been beat up by every rock.

"I'm not an old fart riding an armchair; my riding has progressed to a level where a HT generally isn't suited any longer."

SJ

john_stevenson wrote:

SJ wrote:

Or just for those of us who's riding has progressed to a level where a HT generally isn't suited any longer...

Oooh, I shall have to remember that. It sounds so much better than my usual admission that I'm old and knackered and would rather not come back from a ride feeling like I have been beat up by every rock.

"I'm not an old fart riding an armchair; my riding has progressed to a level where a HT generally isn't suited any longer."

Sorry, I should have re-phrased that a bit.
'Or just for those of us who's DH riding has progressed to a level where a HT generally isn't suited any longer'.

A FS bike is more suited to riding DH, I find that I can ride faster and much smoother on the FS than I ever could on the HT because it's better set up and designed for the type of riding I do. If it were XC then I probably would stick to the HT because I personally think it would be more fun!