Why Do XC Pro Riders Mostly Use HT Bikes & Not Full Suss

mikeyj28

Hi

I am going to buy a new bike and it will be for mostly XC recreational riding with the odd race thrown in. there wont be any/much drop offs or anything that resembles a full downhill course that will be ridden.

Why do the majority of pros use HT bikes over Full Suss? I realise about weight & better power transfer on a HT over a Full Suss.

It seems that all bike shops seem to try and flog you a Full Suss when in reality HT bikes seem to do the job. I currently have a HT and find it ok for the riding that i do but always feel i am missing out on something from a Full Suss.

Is it just that all bike shops want as much money as possible so just try and always sell you a Full Suss as you got more for your money with a HT.
Surely pros would not ride a HT if a FS was significantly better.

Apologies if this is in the wrong category but i am contemplating buying a new bike.

ride_whenever

Pros will usually have both and choose appropriate to the course.

Generally if you're only getting one then go for FS if you can afford it. What sort of budget are you looking at?

paul.skibum

First off I am not sure its true to say pro's ride HT - a lot of specialized's riders use the Epic I believe. Not a classic FS but a FS non the less. There are plenty of race oriented FS about but the fact is they will always be heavier and ultimately if you are trying to win races light and flighty is good.

For general riding about int he UK you can do it on a HT for sure and for the majority of my riding a HT is weapon of choice.

FS presents other options for riders though and allows access to different lines, bigger hits (possibly) more comfort on longer rides and all sorts of other arguements.

If you dont feel you are losing out when riding on your HT dont buy a FS. If people are tyring to sell you one its probably because youa re standing in a shop drooling over some bouncy piece of bike porn and they think you want it and have money to burn.

Personally no one but me ever persuaded me to part with my cash for a full susser!

dave_hill

Worm-can Opener of the Week prize goes to....

Seriously though, it's horses for courses. Yes there is the weight and power transfer issues (a hardtail will always be lighter than an equivalent full boinger, and you'll always get flex in a full sus frame), but there is no hard and fast reason.

You'll always get people who will say hardtails are better and you'll always get people who say full sus is better, there's no winning.

In my experience (note people, IN MY EXPERIENCE) a full-sus allows you to ride in more comfort for longer but at the end of the day, it's all down to the rider. Some people love hardtails, others wouldn't touch them.

They both have their place - I have both for different reasons and I love riding them both but they're completely different bikes for different situations.

Daz555

mikeyj28 wrote:

Surely pros would not ride a HT if a FS was significantly better.

Pros ride what makes them win. This is not the same as what is 'better' for you and I.

RealMan

ride_whenever wrote:

Generally if you're only getting one then go for FS if you can afford it.

100% opinion, no logic to that at all.

If you feel like you are missing out, test ride a few. If you've been getting on with a hardtail, and you want to do some races and such, then its probably the best thing just to stick with hardtails. You might find out you're not actually missing out, and its just marketing making you think you are..

CycloRos

mikeyj28 wrote:

Why do the majority of pros use HT bikes over Full Suss? I realise about weight & better power transfer on a HT over a Full Suss.

That is not really true any more a lot of top of the range short travel full sussers can be as light and transfer power just as well as an equivalent XC hardtail.

There is no right/wrong answer to the full-sus vs hardtail debate, its about picking the right tool for the job, which is what the pro's do.

There is no "better" just "different" and it's all those differences which make it so debatable

RealMan

CycloRos wrote:

That is not really true any more a lot of top of the range short travel full sussers can be as light and transfer power just as well as an equivalent XC hardtail.

Not equivalent, but of a lesser HT. An equivalent HT will always be lighter, as it will be the same just with less frame and less shock.

ride_whenever

you've got a point, but you're talking a 2lb difference between a scale ltd and a spark ltd.

11% difference in weight. Locked out you've got basically no difference in stiffness there. But the spark will climb technically slightly better due to increased traction.

Personally I'd have both so i can choose. But if pushed I'd take the spark as it is more versatile.

acorn_user

Velonews.com reckons you should buy either a 29er hardtail or a 26" full suspension bike for XC racing. I'd just try out the alternatives...

RealMan

ride_whenever wrote:

you've got a point, but you're talking a 2lb difference between a scale ltd and a spark ltd.

11% difference in weight. Locked out you've got basically no difference in stiffness there. But the spark will climb technically slightly better due to increased traction.

I'd say 2lb is a big difference.

And the spark wont climb better if the shock is locked out, it will climb worse. And with the shock unlocked, you have less power transfer.

nferrar

Pros are mostly extreme weight-weenies as a lot of racing is all about the climbs so they chose hard tails (unless it's a very technical/rough course). For recreational XC (especially if that involves some 2 hour+ rides) then comfort be a bigger factor in your decision making than it is for pros trying to win races. Personally I'd go for a short-travel full suss every time over a hardtail if it were my only bike.

mikeyj28

If you feel like you are missing out, test ride a few. If you've been getting on with a hardtail, and you want to do some races and such, then its probably the best thing just to stick with hardtails. You might find out you're not actually missing out, and its just marketing making you think you are..

I agree with you to a certain extent. I think i am going to have to try a few out but from what i have seen you definitely get a lot more for your money with a hardtail over a full suss (unless money really is no option!!)

Regarding racing, if i am entering a r4ace i do want to do well & think the extra weight on a full suss would be less beneficial on a climb than a hardtail.Even though a full suss can deliver better traction on racky ground, isn't it easier to get up with a lighter machine than a heavier one which is just more comfortable???

mikeyj28

Thanks for the replies though guys-it is very interesting and good to have your opinions on the matter.

Sorry for the worm can opener question! Just good to gauge other peoples opinions.

J55TTC

I find that when on longer singletrack rides you spend a fair bit of time sitting down as its easier and wastes less physical energy. When on my HT you get bounced all over the place while sitting, even on some relatively small bumps / dips etc. With the FS its a lot more comfortable and you find yourself standing only really for weight distribution and for manualling / hopping over obstacles.

I barely use my HT now, FS all the way. Just get one with a rear shock that locks out at the flick of a switch and you have the best of everything

canada16

OK

I am going to say it.... here it goes.....

I have had both, a scott HT and focus FS.

I would never go back to HT again :shock: , the advances in full suss were you can lock out the rear or pro pedal, and also they are getting lighter ect.. its the best of both worlds.

IMHO

I love my FS

paul.skibum

On longer xc rides in southern UK where we're talking rolling hills and flats rather than honking great ups and downs I find on my HT I ride out of the saddle and pound the pedals when its flat then just ride through rougher bits where as on the FS I pedal consistently and seated. The former is more exciting as a means of riding and feels better for my technique - when the riding gets a tad more tech then I stand for either and pedal then the FS gets a bit more fun and fast

My FS is definitley heavier and loses a lot more power pedalling than the HT!

ploeb

I had a Stumpjumper HT since 2003 and it's always been fine.
Then back in April I bought a Cannondale Rush FS, I wasnt sure cos it was the first time I tried FS but it's been a revelation. I can carry MUCH more speed over bumps, I just sit down and carry on pedaling, the back wheel stays mostly on the ground and I keep my momentum. On the HT it tends to bounce around a lot, so I stop pedaling and concentrate on keeping my balance! For me FS is faster and more fun.
I think even for climbing FS has some advantages, the back wheel moves over rocks and roots, so you have more control and traction.
Even on a long road ride FS seems worth it, cos its more comfortable and you dont need to avoid drains, holes etc.

So I would def buy FS if you can.

mikeyj28

Thanks Ploeb for the advice.

How did you find the stumpy? Is it that much inferior to the FS that you now have?
What are the downfalls of the stumpy?

paul.skibum

A 2003 Stumpy and a Cannondale Rush - ah yes, you are comparing like with like there arent you! What's the stumpy got, an 80mm fork and 1.95 tyres vs 120mm travel and 2.2's on the Rush? I think a carbon HT with 120mm fork and decent size tyres would make life more bareable than the stumpy - not to say its going to feel like the Rush but befinitely a different proposition to the stump!

ploeb

Ive been really happy with the stumpy, its done more than 12000miles (commuting and off road) and still has a lot of original parts. It has a more stretched out racy feel than my FS, with a longer stem, and narrower, flatter bars. But its 6 years old, I dont know how much the current models have changed (it has a 100mm fork and 2.1" tyres BTW).

So it wasnt an easy decision to buy an FS, but ive not regretted it at all and now i'll prefer to ride the FS over the HT almost everytime!

CycloRos

If you do XC races - get the lightest bike you can afford FS or HT doesn't matter that much

If you like to feel really involved in a ride and work on your skills and want - go HT it's less forgiving

If you go on epic multi-hour rides - then FS is usually more comfortable and adjustable to different terrain (hence the nickname "sofa-bike")

If you want one bike that does most things - choose one of the miriad of short travel full-sussers like Giant Anthem X, Spesh Epic, Trek Top Fuel

If you can afford both - do it! and choose which bike based on what fits the ride you're about to do.

Else get a unicycle!

There problem solved! (yeah right!)

spongtastic

I've got a FS, HT and a rigid SS.
Riding pretty rough XC
FS no thought required>HT bit of thought required>Rigid SS lots of thought and skills required otherwise you bounce around like a pair of melons in a washing machine.

Slow1972

Daz555 wrote:

mikeyj28 wrote:

Surely pros would not ride a HT if a FS was significantly better.

Pros ride what makes them win. This is not the same as what is 'better' for you and I.

Pro's ride what they are paid to ride, which doesnt necessarily equate to riding what they would choose to. I bet there's some riders who have to ride FS when they would prefer to ride HT

I would say a short travel XC rig is what you want if you are riding XC trails for pleasure. If you are racing, unless you are buying a top end FS rig I would have thought (and the type of course as other posters have said will affect this though) the weight gains of a decent HT will make you faster overall. I rode MM this year on an older short travel FS and wished I had a lighter HT to be honest.

But riding around a trail centre or long day rides, yeah the FS will be more comfy and losing 20 or 30 seconds on a long draggy climb doesnt matter really does it if your overall comfort and enjoyment is better

Sad thing is I'm old enough to remember riding my local trails on a rigid and considering whether front suspension was really worth it

great for your bike handling and choice of line though

surreyxc

unless you are a pro go for FS. I have been riding 17yr, mostly on HT, always turned my nose up at FS, but after getting battered on long rides I went FS and would not change, the weight gain is not bad, and across a distance the times can be as quick, you can move over rough terrain quicker, the rear tracks better and you are less faigued. Plus if your cycle buddies ride full sus, you will often find you are never actually moving at the same tempo, i.e hs quick uphill, flats, fs fast downhill, rough ground.

Most XC races are short under 3hrs, and from the few I have entered the circuits are not that technical or rough, so you can fly around on a HS with out getting to much pummelling.

I do miss HS for the immediacy in transmission, and riding HS is great for improving the skills, as others have said if you have the cash have loads of bikes, hs fs rigid pub, road, dh etc

ride_whenever

you don't have to be rich to buy lots of bikes, just live like a student...

rgarner

CycloRos wrote:

There problem solved! (yeah right!)

Best single post in this thread

guilliano

Demo both if you can on your usual trails. You could always go steel (or Ti or carbon) HT if you want a touch more comfort. You are the only one who can decide what works for you. I'm going back to a HT after having a FS for a while, but that's personal preferance and when I can afford it I'll be buying a decent steel frame to replace the alloy frame I'm building up.

seataltea

Get a HT with the Cane Creek Thudbuster LT, a truly fantastic bit of kit, not too heavy, adjustable for your weight, riding style and pre-load.

Alongside the bike, tyres and SPDs it is the single most impressive piece of equipment I have purchased for riding.........the P7 torch is pretty good though........and then then there's the cheap clothing from Aldi............Nokia Sportstracker is nice as well........entry fees to events.......repairs............it's costing me a fortune this cycling lark.