Does full suss lead to poor skills?
Comments
-
I guess it depends what you ride for
The idea of flying around the track at break neck speeds and launching off every tabletop (which is a healthy amount at Glentress!) is what appeals to me, more so than finding myself pushing my limits.
I enjoy repeatedly running the bottom half of the blue or Spooky Wood for the jumping/dropping kicks for example.
I find everything a lot harder on my Stumpy HT than my Meta, because of this I generally go slower and flow much less. Hence I normally use my full sus if it's dry. Wide bars, 5.5" travel, huge tyres, easy mode definitely but I love it. I'll end up a lot more adrenaline fueled and find myself leaping off anything I can.0 -
sorry i didn't type that right, i couldn't have got a fs bike i was happy with without spending about 3.5k, my 456 was only about 1.5k although it is now 2k at retail!0
-
Do you really need a FS for any of the trails at Glentress though?Toasty wrote:I guess it depends what you ride for The idea of flying around the track at break neck speeds and launching off every tabletop (which is a healthy amount at Glentress!) is what appeals to me, more so than finding myself pushing my limits.
I enjoy repeatedly running the bottom half of the blue or Spooky Wood for the jumping/dropping kicks for example.
I find everything a lot harder on my Stumpy HT than my Meta, because of this I generally go slower and flow much less. Hence I normally use my full sus if it's dry. Wide bars, 5.5" travel, huge tyres, easy mode definitely but I love it. I'll end up a lot more adrenaline fueled and find myself leaping off anything I can.0 -
bigbenj_08 wrote:Do you really need a FS for any of the trails at Glentress though?
Course not. You don't "need" suspension or gears
Then again, you don't need a full suss for Fort William or Innerleithen either, or anywhere else I've ridden. Uncompromising extremist0 -
What I meant was... its one of the least demanding trail centers out there. I feel overbiked on the NS!Northwind wrote:bigbenj_08 wrote:Do you really need a FS for any of the trails at Glentress though?
Course not. You don't "need" suspension or gears Then again, you don't need a full suss for Fort William or Innerleithen either, or anywhere else I've ridden.0 -
What's 'need' got to do with anything? I'm sure I could ride it all on my Stumpjumper HT, but it wouldn't be as much fun. Do you need 140mm forks and a hardcore hardtail for it?bigbenj_08 wrote:What I meant was... its one of the least demanding trail centers out there. I feel overbiked on the NS!
Indeed, it was used previously in an example which is why I picked up on it. I love Glentress, we're going there again next summer for a week and have for the last 2 years. I don't enjoy it because it's hard and pushing my limits though, I enjoy how fast and flowing everything is. I feel a lot more fast and flowing with my Meta smoothing everything out. I'm fit enough to climb to the top so the weight isn't an issue.
What's the downside?0 -
160mm... and no, I said I felt over biked.Toasty wrote:What's 'need' got to do with anything? I'm sure I could ride it all on my Stumpjumper HT, but it wouldn't be as much fun. Do you need 140mm forks and a hardcore hardtail for it?0 -
You didn't do Secrets and Lies/Brown Trout then
Though, there's a bit of gnar on the waymarked black trails too, and the black options.
But it's a good example, and I think is probably similiar to what I'm saying- if you're overbiked, things tend to be easier or even too easy, and if they're easier you're not learning the same as you would otherwise. You don't have to be on a full suss to be overbiked though but it's probably more likely.
But, trying to treat all FSs as if they're the same and all HTs as if they're teh same doesn't work. What's better, an Anthem X or a BFe? What's more capable?Uncompromising extremist0 -
bigbenj_08 wrote:
160mm... and no, I said I felt over biked.Toasty wrote:What's 'need' got to do with anything? I'm sure I could ride it all on my Stumpjumper HT, but it wouldn't be as much fun. Do you need 140mm forks and a hardcore hardtail for it?
I was still a post behind when I wrote that bit. :P0 -
Toasty wrote:bigbenj_08 wrote:
160mm... and no, I said I felt over biked.Toasty wrote:What's 'need' got to do with anything? I'm sure I could ride it all on my Stumpjumper HT, but it wouldn't be as much fun. Do you need 140mm forks and a hardcore hardtail for it?
I was still a post behind when I wrote that bit. :P
Ahh fair enough.. i retract the arsey tone haha :P0 -
I don't quite get this "overbiked" thing anyway. If I took a DH bike to Glentress I'd be overbiked, heaving all that up the hill wouldn't be worth it for the extra confidence on the downs.
What's the problem with using a 30lb full sus instead of a 30lb hardtail though? The tons of traction and speed over rough stuff is benefit enough for me, regardless of the extra confidence.
I'm not over or underbiked, I race up the hills, fly down the other side and have fun every day. How is my bike choice incorrect?0 -
bigbenj_08 wrote:Ahh fair enough.. i retract the arsey tone haha :P
Nah, hold back on the retraction a sec, I'm not done yet :P0 -
Toasty
I think I'm more talking about travel/weight ratio.
I wasn't saying I thought you were overbiked.. I was saying I was!
The NS can take a beating....but It actually weighs more then your meta at around 34-35lb and only has 9 gears!
Let me get up there on the 140mm P7 when its done.... that should be pretty fun 0 -
You really need at least 160mm travel for trails these days. Obviously.0
-
lol, if you look in WMB some of their "long travel" bikes have 120mm forks... I found that quite funny!Wololo wrote:You really need at least 160mm travel for trails these days. Obviously.
I guess it depends on how old you are though. But yea, 160mm is quite a lot for general trail work.0 -
my isue with the whole, "if you find FS too easy, ride a harder trail, or ride faster" is that where i live, without using a car, (wich i dont own) i canot access rougher, biger, harder trails than what i already ride, i want to be able to ride out of my front door, and in a 1 hour ride, ride something that is hard enough,and technicul enough for me to have been challanged, and so have had fun. saying i dont want to have to ride faster just to make it hard enough to warrent FS, i think this is a stupid argument, if just riding a trail at normal speed isnt enough to challange and exite you, then you dont need a a bike that is as capable as it is, of cource this cant go too far, you cant say that as a 4inch HT makes a fire road to easy you need a uni-cycle, but within reason , this is true, for the trails i ride, on a regular basis, i feel comfortable on me HT, but i still get challanged. i dont want to have to ride faster to enjoy the trail, just becouse im rding a FS.I like bikes and stuff0
-
round and round we go ,
where it will end nobody knows
anyone tried a HT vs FS google fight thingy ?
settle it once and for all.0 -
ive got 160mm forks on the front of my favourite bike and i never feel over biked. its tougher than i am and still weighs under 31lbs. i even like riding it at thetford.0
-
I think this is an interesting debate that seems to come up in various guises from time to time. As to which bike is best depends on how you measure ‘best’. For some riders best will mean fastest round the whole course, while for other the best bike will be the one which enables then to push the limits on the aspects of a trail they enjoy (i.e. lighter shorter travel bikes for those who love a climb, and larger suspension burlier rigs for those who like to thrash a decent).
If you look at the pro xc riders they seem to swap between full sus and hardtail depending on the specific course. If the race includes a few rocky descents then they opt for a full suss, a few smooth grinding climbs and the hardtails come out. And they don’t seem to become under skilled by changing between bikes but choose a certain bike for certain applications.
Now, the real argument comes when we talk about non-competitive cycling. This is where we have seen a gradual increase in suspension travel and a move to full suss over the last ten years. This is because when choosing a bike not everyone wants the fastest round the whole course, but they choose a bike which lets them pushes the limits on the sections they enjoy. It is this which has led people who like the descents to grab long travel full suss bikes which open up more lines, more speed and more fun. Are they over biked? Perhaps if their goal was to set the quickest lap time they would be, but if their goal was to thrash a decent they couldn’t on their hardtail then no.
Now, the really interesting thing is the situation being described in this thread when the bikes are so good that getting more travel will not open up any more lines on the same old trail and this leads to a feeling that the bike is killing the soul and the thrill of the ride. There are two solutions to this; find a new trail with more aggressive line choices available to push the capabilities of the better bikes or get a bike which restores some of the challenge back to the trail (i.e going hardtail, rigid or single speed).
Now, the situation in which full suss bike can limit progression is when you’re hitting all the hardest lines on a trail at max speed but still not getting the thrill/challenge. At this point if the rider keeps hitting the same old lines at the same speed then they will grow stale and lazy. This isn’t the bikes fault however, it’s the riders for not recognising that its time to find a greater challenge to keep progressing.
Sorry for the essay.It\'s not your aptitude but your attitude that determins your altitude0 -
joshtp/mbukman wrote:for the trails i ride, on a regular basis, i feel comfortable on me HT, but i still get challanged. i dont want to have to ride faster to enjoy the trail, just becouse im rding a FS.
Yup, exactly what I was failing to say Some people do prefer going fast, all other things being equal, but for me it just means it's over faster Uncompromising extremist0 -
dont be sorry, its a good explanation, i think your pretty much right.mozzy10 wrote:I think this is an interesting debate that seems to come up in various guises from time to time. As to which bike is best depends on how you measure ‘best’. For some riders best will mean fastest round the whole course, while for other the best bike will be the one which enables then to push the limits on the aspects of a trail they enjoy (i.e. lighter shorter travel bikes for those who love a climb, and larger suspension burlier rigs for those who like to thrash a decent).
If you look at the pro xc riders they seem to swap between full sus and hardtail depending on the specific course. If the race includes a few rocky descents then they opt for a full suss, a few smooth grinding climbs and the hardtails come out. And they don’t seem to become under skilled by changing between bikes but choose a certain bike for certain applications.
Now, the real argument comes when we talk about non-competitive cycling. This is where we have seen a gradual increase in suspension travel and a move to full suss over the last ten years. This is because when choosing a bike not everyone wants the fastest round the whole course, but they choose a bike which lets them pushes the limits on the sections they enjoy. It is this which has led people who like the descents to grab long travel full suss bikes which open up more lines, more speed and more fun. Are they over biked? Perhaps if their goal was to set the quickest lap time they would be, but if their goal was to thrash a decent they couldn’t on their hardtail then no.
Now, the really interesting thing is the situation being described in this thread when the bikes are so good that getting more travel will not open up any more lines on the same old trail and this leads to a feeling that the bike is killing the soul and the thrill of the ride. There are two solutions to this; find a new trail with more aggressive line choices available to push the capabilities of the better bikes or get a bike which restores some of the challenge back to the trail (i.e going hardtail, rigid or single speed).
Now, the situation in which full suss bike can limit progression is when you’re hitting all the hardest lines on a trail at max speed but still not getting the thrill/challenge. At this point if the rider keeps hitting the same old lines at the same speed then they will grow stale and lazy. This isn’t the bikes fault however, it’s the riders for not recognising that its time to find a greater challenge to keep progressing.
Sorry for the essay.I like bikes and stuff0 -
joshtp/mbukman wrote:
dont be sorry, its a good explanation, i think your pretty much right.mozzy10 wrote:I think this is an interesting debate that seems to come up in various guises from time to time. As to which bike is best depends on how you measure ‘best’. For some riders best will mean fastest round the whole course, while for other the best bike will be the one which enables then to push the limits on the aspects of a trail they enjoy (i.e. lighter shorter travel bikes for those who love a climb, and larger suspension burlier rigs for those who like to thrash a decent).
If you look at the pro xc riders they seem to swap between full sus and hardtail depending on the specific course. If the race includes a few rocky descents then they opt for a full suss, a few smooth grinding climbs and the hardtails come out. And they don’t seem to become under skilled by changing between bikes but choose a certain bike for certain applications.
Now, the real argument comes when we talk about non-competitive cycling. This is where we have seen a gradual increase in suspension travel and a move to full suss over the last ten years. This is because when choosing a bike not everyone wants the fastest round the whole course, but they choose a bike which lets them pushes the limits on the sections they enjoy. It is this which has led people who like the descents to grab long travel full suss bikes which open up more lines, more speed and more fun. Are they over biked? Perhaps if their goal was to set the quickest lap time they would be, but if their goal was to thrash a decent they couldn’t on their hardtail then no.
Now, the really interesting thing is the situation being described in this thread when the bikes are so good that getting more travel will not open up any more lines on the same old trail and this leads to a feeling that the bike is killing the soul and the thrill of the ride. There are two solutions to this; find a new trail with more aggressive line choices available to push the capabilities of the better bikes or get a bike which restores some of the challenge back to the trail (i.e going hardtail, rigid or single speed).
Now, the situation in which full suss bike can limit progression is when you’re hitting all the hardest lines on a trail at max speed but still not getting the thrill/challenge. At this point if the rider keeps hitting the same old lines at the same speed then they will grow stale and lazy. This isn’t the bikes fault however, it’s the riders for not recognising that its time to find a greater challenge to keep progressing.
Sorry for the essay.
i agree 100%, i have to say that a lot of people go on about the right bike for the right trails blah blah blah....whatever happened to riding where there are no trails, making your own way up the mountain and back down again? i took a ride out today and did about 5 miles on road on my full suss, am i overbiked? at this point yes and it would have probably have been much easier on my hardtail, but then i turn off the road to a swampy sodden steep grassy climb, over the other side down a real rocky bumpy descent, over the road and into some woodland down a bumpy muddy horse trail, then i come to a real big descent with some steep steps for people to climb up or down, do i take the easy option of going down the grassy descent or do i challenge myself and go down the steps which switch from left to right? i'm on the full susser so i opt for the more challenging steps option, i fall off half way down! then back on the road home, which, when i get home iv'e got a huge grin on my face, i guess my point is that it depends on what sort of rider you are, are you the sort of person that likes to stick to trails that are ok for a hardtail, or are you a mountain biker that likes to make his own trails and to which no obstacle will get in your way, to those that say a hardtail is plenty enough for the trails you ride then i recommend you get off the trails and go looking for something a bit more gnarly, and don't say there aren't any, your just not looking hard enough....you never know....you just might enjoy it....
oh and just for the record i thought a hardtail was all i would ever need, then i discovered i was the sort of rider that wanted more....0 -
0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:
no.JamesBwmb wrote:does riding full suss lead to a loss of skills that you need on a hardtail??
PMSL
Props to the McGeester.0 -
I have found it harder to learn some of the skills on my FS however it has allowed me to go further and do more without hurting myself. There have been too many times when I know the back end would have caused problems had I been riding a HT.
It depend on where and how you ride to start off with, I think riding both is probably the best idea -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
I met the trail builder for Laggan Wolf Trax this Feb , whilst going round red runs on my HT, and he informed me that he uses a 3" front travel HT for ALL the Wolftrax trails, including the black runs.....my original query was whether using a FS alllows you `to bash through, ie less skilled` obstacles / difficulties than using a HT. The WolfTrax trail builder`s choice of bike may bear this out!!0
-
All I can say is that if riding full sus leads to poor skills, then the likes of Darren Berecloth, Wade Simmons, Andrew Shandro, Steve Peat, Cedric Gracia, Nathan Rennie, Ruaridh Cunningham, Josh Bryceland, the Athertons and Sam Hill must be really lacking in talent...0
-
point taken ---that was not what I was intending to suggest but perhaps that average riders can get away with more mistakes with FS than a hardtail??? 0
