Hardtails...

scale20

It took me 13 years to try the FS thing. I was always a HT fan and hated everything FS. In 2008 I had the chance of 20% off a new Trek Ex9 so I bought it.

All of a sudden I loved the FS thing and my HT sat there for a few months doing nothing. When I did finally take the HT out I struggled to ride it for the first few K's of off road.

A HT will allways have a place in my collection because they are so much fun to use and make you think about your riding more.

IMO and in my experience FS bikes make you a bit lazier when it comes to reading the trail, when thrashing down some singletrack on a HT you have to pick better lines and have better positioning on the bike. With the FS you just roll over everything, if you get it wrong 9 times out of 10 you will get away with it.

As for MBUK, its ok if your 12 years old and into baseball caps that are way too big

Alex

In fairness to the magazines, the hardtail concept has been done. Every combination of materials, design geometry and paint has been covered. There's not a lot of new ground to cover.

You can look at a frame's spec sheet and from the numbers, materials and shape of the frame's build you can pretty much know how it's going to ride based on the dozen similar ones you've played with in the past.

With a hardtail, you check the purpose, the geometry, the fit and the spec and then you buy, or not. More of the feel is going to come from the componentry than the spec.


FS bikes have dynamic geometry and similar bikes will react differently a situation even if the static angles and other numbers are essentially the same. There's a far greater variation and scope for differentiation across similar FS bikes. That makes them more interesting subjects for reviewing.

Finally, you've got market. Clearly Future think that most mid end mountainbikers between 16 and 29 are after something that goes bounce at both ends. Singletrack meanwhile knows that all mountainbikers want hardcore steel/ti hardtails, light as possible, preferably singlespeed and rigid. Oh, and a stable of bikes to dabble in every other possible niche.

infoxicated

I've ridden an FS bike for about ten years now, after spending my first few years on a HT, and the last couple of years has had me thinking about returning to a HT bike.

I still have a hard tail, but on the occasions that I use it I just find it feels a bit weird not having a floating back-end. I'm certain the FS bike has dulled the skills I gained when I was riding a HT full time, too - I don't thread my way through a rough trail so much as just steam right through it knowing I'll get away with the rough stuff.

Back in August when I went on a ride with Greeneyelevin on his HT up in Arrochar, it was clear I was at a disadvantage with the FS bike - none of that loop required an FS bike, and nor does 90% of the riding I do, if I'm honest.

Although it did allow me to be a little more wreckless through the technical downhill bits, I struggled on the uphills, and the suspension didn't stop this from happening when I overcooked it on a downhill section :


So I dunno - when it comes to replacing my ageing FS bike I'm going to look long and hard at the type of riding I do compared to the trade-off between FS and HT.

For the kind of money you need to shell out for a decent FS you can get a very high quality and lighter HT with better components.

llamafarmer

I'm a definite full sus convert, having ridden rigids as a kid and then a hardtail more recently. But it's still great to have an HT in the garage to hone the skills every now and again. My FS is pretty much in hibernation for the winter now

JayKingFunk

I ride HT but find myself longing for a FS but its money that limits me.

I've spent the last year or so upgrading my HT and I've just about finished it now and I love it. I do give it quite a lot of hammer though as there's a quarry near where I live with really big drop offs and jumps etc.

Me and my mate do often say when we're out on the bikes and come across more challenging stuff that 'I'd try that if I was on a FS'. I always wonder if I'd be more confident on a FS??

Only downside I've ever experienced when I've had a go on FS' is the bunny hop thing, I try and jump everything when I'm riding single track because I love the feeling of jumping on a bike but I find it a lot harder to get the back wheel up on a FS, I feel there's a greater degree of back wheel control on a HT.

Just thought I'd add that! J

joshtp

HT's are always better, they are more fun, lighter, moe rewarding, and "purer"
*sits back and puts legs up....*

Northwind

Alex wrote:

In fairness to the magazines, the hardtail concept has been done. Every combination of materials, design geometry and paint has been covered. There's not a lot of new ground to cover.

So how is it that new hardtails keep coming along with different geometry? Brant Richards s**ts hardtails with new numbers

joshtp

Northwind wrote:

Alex wrote:

In fairness to the magazines, the hardtail concept has been done. Every combination of materials, design geometry and paint has been covered. There's not a lot of new ground to cover.

So how is it that new hardtails keep coming along with different geometry? Brant Richards s**ts hardtails with new numbers

well said, HT's keep progresing, and, as far as i know, th only bike in MBUK to ever get a "perfect 10" was a HT

Tostaryman

I recently moved from HT (well semi rigid tbh with an old Pace RC35 fork) to a full sus and couldn't be happier with the change. Much of the argument over HT v FS seems to me to hinge on the way you ride your bike as much as the terrain itself. For me, I spend most of the time in the saddle spinning the pedals, rather than out of the seat. With my old HT that meant that a good deal of the XC riding I did just wasn't very comfortable, whereas the FS smooths things out beautifully. I did go for a racey XC bike to make sure that it was still lively and relatively light, and so far it's proving to be a great ride.

Having said all that, I can appreciate the fun to be had in skipping along rooty singletrack on a HT, it's just that when part of a 3 hour ride, it gets a bit knackering after a while. But then I am the wrong side of 30...

soveda

Valy wrote:

soveda wrote:

ETA: but if anyone wants to ride fully then go for it, it's your wallet and your leg muscles

I s that an implication that FS bikes might be harder to ride if there is some bobing?

Nope, purely about weight on smooth(ish) uphills. (You do still pedal uphill on MTBs don't you? It's been a while since I read any of the comics)

supersonic

Not all FS bikes react the same. Some I have pedalled up hill and have been horrible - hit a small hollow and the pedals yank backwards, upsetting rhythm and losing traction.

Willrideforcake

FS for full-on DH, AM HT for everthing else. Next arugment please....

(Sits back and awaits flaming...)

infoxicated

Tostaryman wrote:

Much of the argument over HT v FS seems to me to hinge on the way you ride your bike as much as the terrain itself.

That's a very good point, and I think it's equally applicable to both HT and FS bikes.

I've had two different FS bikes and my first one - a single pivot swing arm - just did not gel with the way I had ridden my hard tail up to that point and I had to adapt my riding style to suit it. After that got stolen I ended up with a parallelogram style frame and that felt more comfortable right away.

I vividly remember taking the Coyote frame out of the bike shop, climbing on it and thinking my rear tyre was flat! Whilst doing the same with the Giant that replaced it I zipped off along the road home thinking it felt great straight away.

So I think the way the suspension moves has a good bit to do with it. Find one that suits your riding style and position and it feels very natural, but one that's a bad fit can leave you thinking FS bikes are gash. The same could well be true of hard tail geometry.

Alex

joshtp/mbukman wrote:

Northwind wrote:

Alex wrote:

In fairness to the magazines, the hardtail concept has been done. Every combination of materials, design geometry and paint has been covered. There's not a lot of new ground to cover.

So how is it that new hardtails keep coming along with different geometry? Brant Richards s**ts hardtails with new numbers

well said, HT's keep progresing, and, as far as i know, th only bike in MBUK to ever get a "perfect 10" was a HT

They aren't new numbers, they're just last year's "freeride" frame with a lighter tubeset.

butcher of bakersfield

Alex wrote:

In fairness to the magazines, the hardtail concept has been done. Every combination of materials, design geometry and paint has been covered. There's not a lot of new ground to cover.

This is one of my problems with magazines. I'm more interested in reading some well written, interesting articles and seeing some mountain biking, than I am in seeing how cool I can be if I spend x amount of money. There's magazine's dedicated entirely to that if you're looking for new kit. ...most of them, it seems. Unfortunately, it seems that is what most people are into.

And yeah, I noticed a huge lack of hardtails, but then I guess you can't pick and choose what people ride when you go out shooting. I've no idea how much influence, if any, the mags have over that.

Northwind

Alex wrote:

They aren't new numbers, they're just last year's "freeride" frame with a lighter tubeset.

So what freeride frame last year had the exact same geometry as the Ragleys?