Riding style HT+FS

supersonic

Oh, on the fly, ok. The fork would have to be made longer though, surely?

I like Uturn because the spring rate does change in the lower travel settings, and overall stiffens up.

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

Oh, on the fly, ok. The fork would have to be made longer though, surely?

Well, that's the entire idea! Making the fork longer without messing with the suspension action or travel at all.

popstar

Northwind ... from your replies I see the consensus? Slacker head angle on HT with at least 120mm is ideal compromise between HT and FS? And how slack HA have to be 66* - 67* coupled with adjustable fork length but not travel ... and to which frame would it lead my lost soul (kind of Ragleys or 456s)? Many questions really ... sorry for that.

At least now I wouldn't be marketed around that more travel is better. My style of riding isn't that mental to justify 140+mm of travel, but learning geo-angles is somewhat refreshing. I wonder if anyone did bottom out theirs 140+ on UK trails.

Thewaylander

Lol i have seen people bottom out SX trails on Uk trails mate.

I'm currently looking at 140-160mm bikes from my 120mm as i'm starting to find the 120 is not enough for me. though to be honest its more the 120mm bike isn't stiff enough for me and i'm looknig for a bit more burly nature.

To be honest here is no such thing as too much or to little in my veiw it relates to your style. Myself i don't care about flying up, i'm more about enjoying my decents and cruising easily to the top... but i know there are people out there who time there trails trying to squeeze another minute off there time each to there own and there is a bike to match your style

popstar

There is no doubt you need burly bike for jumps+big drops etc...there is clear direction to go FS with that. But for normal **trail center+reasonable wild nature** rides there is confusion and big divide between HT and FS.
Trying to get opinions form HT and FS crowds on riding style really, and maybe see people own opinion without marketing tricks of their personal aspects and set ups-upgrades of each platform.

After all, I am sure it's not only me who stands at crossroads and looking at sides of either HT or FS.

Thewaylander

No indeed,

you need to find like minded people and see how they ride, and what they ride to get an idea of what your STYLE is best suited for.

I ride clean lnes and tidy but i still find a full susser with bigger travel allows to me go faster and enjoy the downs more But i'm no downhiller so i want to ride up too, so a longer travel FS bike works great for me air shocks about 30pounds or so perfect!

But it is so down to style, while none can truly be better just different. Also the type of trails you regularly ride.

alexh1981

Is weight really that important? we are only talking small % changes compared to the overall mass of rider and bike.

A good blow out pre trail would wipe out a few lb's

i`m yet to experience FS due to budget (I dont get out enough to warrant big bucks), and i wrongly have prejudice against FS based on the usual comments. BUT, hopefully next week i should have a mid/low budget Mongoose teocali FS in my possesion to cut my teeth on, and i`ll see if i can wipe that prejudice out to give an unbaised opinion.

Thewaylander

You comparing things incorrectly.

A few pound change to you is probable not even 1-2% weight diff nothing.. but for the bike 2 pounds is waht 2/30 nearly a 7% adjustment in the bikes weight this has massive handling applications.

Also it's harder to accelerate the bike than yourself i can't reme,ber th physics behind this. but bike weight does make a diff. ask some to pedal a 34pound bike on a flat and then a 22pound bike and watch how much faster they are because it takes laot less energy to accelerate

Thewaylander

You comparing things incorrectly.

A few pound change to you is probable not even 1-2% weight diff nothing.. but for the bike 2 pounds is waht 2/30 nearly a 7% adjustment in the bikes weight this has massive handling applications.

Also it's harder to accelerate the bike than yourself i can't reme,ber th physics behind this. but bike weight does make a diff. ask some to pedal a 34pound bike on a flat and then a 22pound bike and watch how much faster they are because it takes laot less energy to accelerate

joshtp

I thinks that a really short bike (100mm) would be perfect for uk trails if it was slack enough, like with a 66 deg HA

Thewaylander

joshtp/mbukman wrote:

I thinks that a really short bike (100mm) would be perfect for uk trails if it was slack enough, like with a 66 deg HA

For you maybe..

Northwind

popstar wrote:

Northwind ... from your replies I see the consensus? Slacker head angle on HT with at least 120mm is ideal compromise between HT and FS? And how slack HA have to be 66* - 67* coupled with adjustable fork length but not travel ... and to which frame would it lead my lost soul (kind of Ragleys or 456s)? Many questions really ... sorry for that.

Well. That's what I feel. Though my new bike is shaking that up a little, since it has very little disadvantage to the longer travel. Light long forks make a big difference to the whole equation. I want to try an Mmmbop with a 140mm fork... So maybe I'm wrong. I don't think the bike I want actually exists so I can't test it. The Ragley's designed to be slack with a long fork, like the SS, both end up a wee bit compromised with a short one- low BB, steep seat tube. I'd love to try a Soul with a 2 degree slacker head angle maybe, but then no doubt it'd need other tweaks to get some balance back.

But then what do I know? I did think 6 inches was just a silly amount of travel, now I know it's not neccesarily. What else am I wrong about?

Thewaylander

I did try a long travel hard tail myself...

Hated it passionately, since the front dipped like 5" on a big hit and the back never moved it kinda felt like the bike was trying to buck me off

popstar

Hehe ... that's the character of HT, I don't like to be spat out by back end of bike too. There is a BIG BUT, HT gives you really nice direct feel on pedal stroke, especially in tricky (narrow gaps, uphills between trees'n'roots) I am sure latest technology is there to eliminate that muted pedal thwang but guess I need more riding to do and try to concetrate on quality of riding rather than speed.
Btw it became long debate ...

Anonymous

all i know is that i like slack bikes, i dont like ht bikes so theyre out of the window for me, so if i want a slack fs bike i prefer a longer travel bike as thats what i get.

my stumpy is about 78.5, this is slack for many people but in riding, it fels very steep to me.

my enduro is 66 degrees and it feels amazing, very stable, very confidence inspiring but he caviat is that i have to have longer travel cause no one makes the kind of bike i would like. as it happens, although i have 160mm of fork travel, i bet i only use about 120mm on a ride. those extra 40mm of travel equate to alot of wasted weight im carrying around unnecessarily for most people but for me, those extra 40m equalls an extra couple of degrees of head angle which is what i want.

i run my forks quite hard with a fair bit of low and high speed compression so the bike isnt diving all over the place when i corner, descnd or brake and it feels ace.

in the ideal world, if i was after another bike, i would want a 140mm travel fork (with high and low speed compression settings), 120 out back, fsr system and a 66.5 degree head angle.

alexh1981

Thewaylander wrote:

You comparing things incorrectly.

A few pound change to you is probable not even 1-2% weight diff nothing.. but for the bike 2 pounds is waht 2/30 nearly a 7% adjustment in the bikes weight this has massive handling applications.

Also it's harder to accelerate the bike than yourself i can't reme,ber th physics behind this. but bike weight does make a diff. ask some to pedal a 34pound bike on a flat and then a 22pound bike and watch how much faster they are because it takes laot less energy to accelerate

I can fully understand what you say, and i`m pretty sure its right

But maybe i`m looking at it from a far too simplistic physics- you and the bike are one, are you not? so its best to consider bike and rider together as a package. 150lb rider, and the above weight difference is 8% of that package. Ok 8% quicker is going to help, but its not the be and end of it.

My titanium BMX sure as hell didnt mean i won races in the early 90's and now means i cant ride it as its got a ten stone weight limit.

As for handling i`d rather lose the weight off myself than the bike, centroid of me is a bit higher than the bike, thus more impact on handling.

and i have a good stone to get rid of.

Thewaylander

No the bike and rider are not one.

In terms of energy use accelerating the bike is hard than you. decent physics people will tell you about rotational acceleration on parts and so on.

So in terms of going up hill see with your theory if you lost a stone in weight you could ride a 38 pound bike up a hill aswell as you could a 24pound bike when you weigd more.. this is not true...


And popstar, i find my FS accelerates as well as any hardtail i have ridden.. but youhave to pedal to it well for climbs and so on not to have bod and waste your power, its a technique thing

bails87

Yes, but weight in some places affects you more than in other places.

Strap a 1kg weight to each foot and run up the stairs. Now put 2kg in a backpack and run up the stairs wearing it. Which one's harder?

peter413

bails87 wrote:

Yes, but weight in some places affects you more than in other places.

Strap a 1kg weight to each foot and run up the stairs. Now put 2kg in a backpack and run up the stairs wearing it. Which one's harder?

The second because your knackered from the first

alexh1981

Thewaylander wrote:

So in terms of going up hill see with your theory if you lost a stone in weight you could ride a 38 pound bike up a hill aswell as you could a 24pound bike when you weigd more.. this is not true...

I`m not convinced. My body has still got to haul that combined mass up the hill. The resultant force to move the bike and rider up the incline(over and above friction) is therefore same, as mass nor incline has changed.

Energy used = Force * Dist

Force being mass * Accel, which has not changed, ergo Energy expelled is the same?

Thats my basic physics over and out, and possibly too basic.

I guess its related to polar moments about the centoid of the rider, additional weight of bike being further away from the rider, therefore more difficult to drag it up the hill.

What i`m saying is you are right, but i dont have the physics knowledge to prove it, my basic understanding does nothing but disprove it.

Long day, time to go home me thinks.

supersonic

Northwind wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Oh, on the fly, ok. The fork would have to be made longer though, surely?

Well, that's the entire idea! Making the fork longer without messing with the suspension action or travel at all.

For 2 inches and 2 degrees of adjustment, a 6 inch fork would have to have 8 inches of stanchion visible!

joshtp

Thewaylander wrote:

joshtp/mbukman wrote:

I thinks that a really short bike (100mm) would be perfect for uk trails if it was slack enough, like with a 66 deg HA

For you maybe..

well no actually, becouse for me, living where i do, a long travel HT is perfect, but for many areas where the hills are not as large, and the rocks not as savage, shorter travel makes sence, so long as you can keep the slack angles.

supersonic

I guess its related to polar moments about the centoid of the rider, additional weight of bike being further away from the rider, therefore more difficult to drag it up the hill.

Spot on. Plus handling, changing direction quickly, and even stuff like bunny hops.

Anonymous

joshtp/mbukman wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

joshtp/mbukman wrote:

I thinks that a really short bike (100mm) would be perfect for uk trails if it was slack enough, like with a 66 deg HA

For you maybe..

well no actually, becouse for me, living where i do, a long travel HT is perfect, but for many areas where the hills are not as large, and the rocks not as savage, shorter travel makes sence, so long as you can keep the slack angles.

are you sure you're not just saying what you think is popular?

first off, a ht is perfect, then a 100mm slack bike then a slack 100mm bike isnt perfect? what is your actual opinion?

Thewaylander

alexh1981 wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

So in terms of going up hill see with your theory if you lost a stone in weight you could ride a 38 pound bike up a hill aswell as you could a 24pound bike when you weigd more.. this is not true...

I`m not convinced. My body has still got to haul that combined mass up the hill. The resultant force to move the bike and rider up the incline(over and above friction) is therefore same, as mass nor incline has changed.

Energy used = Force * Dist

Force being mass * Accel, which has not changed, ergo Energy expelled is the same?

Thats my basic physics over and out, and possibly too basic.

I guess its related to polar moments about the centoid of the rider, additional weight of bike being further away from the rider, therefore more difficult to drag it up the hill.

What i`m saying is you are right, but i dont have the physics knowledge to prove it, my basic understanding does nothing but disprove it.

Long day, time to go home me thinks.

Ah but you ahven't taken into account leverage in your force calcualtions in terms of accelerating a rotating mass

thel33ter

I've always had FS but since getting my rigid 91 Hardrock I've prefered it to my Kona for most of my riding, it just depends on how and where you ride.

popstar

After few rides, came to conclusion ... beginers not necceserily must have FS bike. It's a hard job to pedal cheap heavy bike uphill for half an hour then descend on it in 5 or less minutes :? . Then of course , if your local-regular riding places aren't that savage and harsh HT in some places could be overkill too!
Started to appreciate my HT even more on longer climbs while riding in group of Full sussers, while riding trails ... I may be a bit slower, but don't think that I enjoy less after all, its all down to confidence and technique.
But, generally FS riders take more crazy lines and can ride faster, they can get away with it couse of FS ... but boy do they crash harder if they made it completely wrong. In that respect HT bike may kinda *safeguard* you lol. But then yea, I agree that while riding FS it can make your brain-box lazy in terms of reading terrain for flow* .
If I did ride locally in Wales or Scotland ... guess FS would be better choice. But Southern part just somehow doesn't justify big bucks spending on a bike.
I do love direct almost instant response + snappy at any will accelaeration of bike in tricky situations as SS mentioned HT have. So thats a small stone thrown towards FS garden . Yet I always love to see FS bikes in flesh and watch those beutifully engineered lines of frame.
Well Surrey Hills are OK place for HT really, its just that when i go to other places like Wales-Scotland makes me want FS.

diy

I did a HT to Full sus transplant last year and there is no way I would go back to HT. In terms of weight it was about the same, because I was going for a better frame, and I also replaced a few heavy parts. I have an older shock that has an itch switch and lock out, I also have a shorter front, both are full air, so I can set it up exactly as I want. So for a long slow climb I can flick the rear to lock...

But one of the problems I have with the idea of a long front HT, is that on a big decent with drops, you have to hang so far over the back on HT, to stop it bouncing over the front when the front compresses, that you loose some of the grip on the front.

For me rear sus, is not about absorbing shock, but about maintaining contact on decent. That increases my grip.

fcumok

I've ridden FS since 98 until last year. I built a HT and loved it. Still have the FS in the shed but it's hardly used.

Northwind

diy wrote:

But one of the problems I have with the idea of a long front HT, is that on a big decent with drops, you have to hang so far over the back on HT, to stop it bouncing over the front when the front compresses, that you loose some of the grip on the front.

Not really. The HA changes as the fork compresses but that doesn't change where you put your weight substantially, and won't throw you over the front ever by itself. The change in geometry can be very unsettling though. Putting your weight exaggeratedly far back does reduce the weight on the front and so reduces the geometry change but as you say, you sacrifice grip doing that so it's not a good idea at all. Unless you're talking about a roll-off to flat or something daft like that but you shouldn't just be hanging off the back for stuff like that.