What makes hardtails so much fun?!

meesterbond

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

but I disagree wholeheartedly that the main reason for riding with suspension is comfort.

So do I.
!

But surely that depends on who you are and what you're using the bike for?

Take Enduro riders for example... 13 hours going round a XC course that is unlikely to be super-techy and from a speed perspective would probably be better on a XC HT, but most bikes marketed as designed for Enduros are FS...

Surely the main reason is for comfort?

bails87

meesterbond wrote:

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

but I disagree wholeheartedly that the main reason for riding with suspension is comfort.

So do I.
!

But surely that depends on who you are and what you're using the bike for?

Take Enduro riders for example... 13 hours going round a XC course that is unlikely to be super-techy and from a speed perspective would probably be better on a XC HT, but most bikes marketed as designed for Enduros are FS...

Surely the main reason is for comfort?

Okay, I was just making sure that Yeehaa knew that I'd never made that claim.

Again, it's down to individual needs and riding style.

nickfrog

I think the cycling industry needs FS to survive as I feel that market saturation means that the manufacturers need something for consumers to "aspire" to if they have a HT, hence the marketing message aimed at convincing people that they need FS whatever their use or terrain. That's how you end up with 30lbs big bikes being used on canal towpaths only and people on forums making sweeping statement on forums about FS being superior whatever the use or saying that HT is for poor people to justify how they have been totally brain washed by the marketing BS.

supersonic

For some it is comfort, yes.

The whole thread revolves around the different needs and perspective of the rider.

Anonymous

meesterbond wrote:

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

but I disagree wholeheartedly that the main reason for riding with suspension is comfort.

So do I.
!

But surely that depends on who you are and what you're using the bike for?

Take Enduro riders for example... 13 hours going round a XC course that is unlikely to be super-techy and from a speed perspective would probably be better on a XC HT, but most bikes marketed as designed for Enduros are FS...

Surely the main reason is for comfort?

So, what you're saying is that the enduro riders can perform better, for longer on a FS?

supersonic

So, what you're saying is that the enduro riders can perform better, for longer on a FS?

Some can, maybe

lawman

they're just better

on a serious note the only reason i havent got a fs atm is because i couldnt afford one when i got my last bike, but having decided what to get, im still keeping the hardtail for winter and the odd blast when i get bored of not feeling any bumps

monkeylizard

nickfrog wrote:

hence the marketing message aimed at convincing people that they need FS whatever their use or terrain.

What do you mean by 'the marketing message'? (Genuine question, not trying to continue the HT/FS argument).

Looking at the major manufacturers and retailers online I don't get the impression that they're trying to push FS more than HT and the same goes for the magazines I read.

When I bought my first (serious) bike last year I didn't feel pressured into buying one more than the other.

Anonymous

but seriously, poor people ride ht bikes.

disco808

Friends were out riding with Tracy moseley at the weekend she was on a HT with 100mm travel and skinny tyres, they were all riding full suspension Freeride bikes.

She was still a coutry mile ahead on the DH runs at chatel just shows what real talent does!!! granted for us mortels a full sus makes a big difference but i see so many people riding bikes with way to much travel for what there doing.

I still love taking my Cove Stiffee out in the bike park

cee

bails87

my point was that with the £1000 C2W scheme....anyone with £400 could buy a Commencal Meta 5 for instance?

so expense is a p1sh excuse!

cee

sheepsteeth wrote:

but seriously, poor people ride ht bikes.

bet Im richererererer than you....

and my dads harder

Anonymous

cee wrote:

bails87

my point was that with the £1000 C2W scheme....anyone with £400 could buy a Commencal Meta 5 for instance?

so expense is a p1sh excuse!

yet these people still refuse to buy a proper bike.

Anonymous

disco808 wrote:

Friends were out riding with Tracy moseley at the weekend she was on a HT with 100mm travel and skinny tyres, they were all riding full suspension Freeride bikes.

She was still a coutry mile ahead on the DH runs at chatel just shows what real talent does!!! granted for us mortels a full sus makes a big difference but i see so many people riding bikes with way to much travel for what there doing.

I still love taking my Cove Stiffee out in the bike park

That says nothing, apart from Tracy Moseley is seriously fast, and your friends are not.

Anonymous

whenever folk give it the old "well i was out riding and was way faster on my ht than these blokes on their fs bikes" i dont think to myself, blimey, ht bikes are the best (not least cause they are not) i think the guy on the ht bike must be a "better" rider.

im not denying that there are some seriously expensive ht bikes out there but what i am saying is that for most people (there will be some smartarse exceptions to this generalisation on br of course) the choice of a ht is down to expense as opposed to desire.

many folk who ride ht bikes would love to ride fs bikes if they were more affordable, those bikes are shocking pricey especially these days and especially if you are not smart enough to buy second hand, so they pretend tha tthey love ht bikes and that they are the best. these people are wrong.

cee

sheepsteeth wrote:

many folk who ride ht bikes would love to ride fs bikes if they were more affordable, those bikes are shocking pricey especially these days and especially if you are not smart enough to buy second hand, so they pretend tha tthey love ht bikes and that they are the best. these people are wrong.

I personally have never spoken to anyone in person for whom that was true....

Anonymous

cee wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

many folk who ride ht bikes would love to ride fs bikes if they were more affordable, those bikes are shocking pricey especially these days and especially if you are not smart enough to buy second hand, so they pretend tha tthey love ht bikes and that they are the best. these people are wrong.

I personally have never spoken to anyone in person for whom that was true....

i have.

cee

sheepsteeth
well that person/those people has issues...including a chip on their shoulder about thier own lot in life.

supersonic

A lot ride HTs as are mechanically simpler, and some don't like pedal feedback and other associated stuff. And I am one of them.

And even at the ultimate price for each, the HT will always be lighter.

Anonymous

cee wrote:

sheepsteeth
well that person/those people has issues...including a chip on their shoulder about thier own lot in life.

no, they like their bikes and enjoy riding them but would have fs bikes if they could afford them. i can see their point too, fs bikes are the best.

bike-a-swan

I ride a hardtail. I can't afford a FS at the moment, at least, one I'd want. I could have a year or so ago, but chose not to. I went for a few upgrades on the HT and a bit on some trips to ride it. I didn't really need it, although I wanted it. Head over heart decision...

Basically, it comes down to the fact that I'd have a full suss, but I'd always have a hardtail first.

supersonic

I can afford a FS, but don't bloody want one. So there.

Anonymous

supersonic wrote:

I can afford a FS, but don't bloody want one. So there.

Yeah yeah. Me and Sheeps know you're lying though.

Chronicbint

I bought a FS for a bit of arse comfort. :oops:

supersonic

How much do people think we have to pay then to get a 'decent' full susser? Say for allround XC use, dare I say it, a trail bike?

Jay dubbleU

supersonic wrote:

I can afford a FS, but don't bloody want one. So there.

+1 29 hardtails rule - lighter faster and climb like a homesick angel

Happy Harry

I bought one for the butler but he prefers the Bentley.

Anonymous

supersonic wrote:

How much do people think we have to pay then to get a 'decent' full susser? Say for allround XC use, dare I say it, a trail bike?

decent is subjective i suppose but id rather ride a 1000 quid fs bike than any ht worth twice as much, but thats all to do with the fact that i cant abide ht bikes, lord knows ive tried my best to see what the fuss is.

mind you, ive never ridden a truly light ht bike, im led to believe they are ace fun but i dont fancy it, i think they would feel unweildly and un forgiving especially with my 19 odd stone heft pummelling through it.

Anonymous

It's funny how in Motocross, or Rallying the discussion of "suspension or no suspension" never comes up.

bike-a-swan

:roll:
Now there's a sensible argument.