How much can a MTB HT take?

Liam 2010
Liam 2010 Posts: 101
edited September 2010 in MTB general
I've recently started getting in to MTBing and I'm getting my bike this coming weekend, which is going to be a Boardman Comp MTB HT.

I won't be ragging it too hard but I would like to give it a bit of stick. But, how do I know what it's limits are in terms of jumps and bumps, etc? Or is this something that I'll have to learn for myself?


Liam
«1

Comments

  • nonnac85
    nonnac85 Posts: 1,608
    Well here is what you can do on a road bike...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z1fSpZNXhU
    My Website - Trail Centre info for the UK: MTB Trail Time
  • Tartanyak
    Tartanyak Posts: 1,538
    I think... Very little of what you're gonna do will even come close to breaking a HT frame :)

    Note he's sensible and riding flats too. Even with all the lycra'd up stupidity :D
    Looks like a Kona
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    Its a racy hardtail its not designed for jumps but it will take a lot of abuse.
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • cooldad
    cooldad Posts: 32,599
    You'll probably break yourself before you break the bike.
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • Buckled_Rims
    Buckled_Rims Posts: 1,648
    The only problem I can see is if you jump from a fairly high height and land bang on the rear wheel. Even then, the wheel will probably buckle first and cushion the impact.

    I'll lay odds that you'll not break a frame unless there's a manufacturing fault in it.
    CAAD9
    Kona Jake the Snake
    Merlin Malt 4
  • Liam 2010
    Liam 2010 Posts: 101
    Thanks for the help guys, I think if that's the case I should be fine with Comp HT, it will suit my needs.

    I plan to take it off road and do realtively small jumps, nothing big though. Just a lot of riding in off road conditons, with the odd down hill cycle.

    Liam
  • snotty badger
    snotty badger Posts: 1,593
    It'll be fine- wasn't that long ago everyone rode rigid bikes.
    08 Pitch Pro
    14 Kona Unit
    Kona Kula SS
    Trailstar SS
    94 Univega Alpina 5.3
  • Liam 2010
    Liam 2010 Posts: 101
    Cool, thanks Snotty badger.

    Just checked out your bike....looking really good!



    Liam
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Buckled_Rims wrote:
    The only problem I can see is if you jump from a fairly high height and land bang on the rear wheel. Even then, the wheel will probably buckle first and cushion the impact.

    I'll lay odds that you'll not break a frame unless there's a manufacturing fault in it.
    Actually, if you're landing on flat, un-sloped ground, rear wheel first is best.
    It's like when you jump off a wall, you drop yourself down, and then push your legs out to meet the floor, reducing the distance you drop.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Buckled_Rims wrote:
    The only problem I can see is if you jump from a fairly high height and land bang on the rear wheel. Even then, the wheel will probably buckle first and cushion the impact.

    I'll lay odds that you'll not break a frame unless there's a manufacturing fault in it.
    Actually, if you're landing on flat, un-sloped ground, rear wheel first is best.
    It's like when you jump off a wall, you drop yourself down, and then push your legs out to meet the floor, reducing the distance you drop.
    I would of thought it would be best to spread the impact forces across both wheels, same weight, but force is halved across both wheels so less stress on one rim.
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    The wheels on the (my!) boardman are surprisingly strong. As others have said, it's a strong bike, most riders won't get near it's limits.
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    bennett_346 wrote:
    I would have thought it would be best to spread the impact forces across both wheels, same weight, but force is halved across both wheels so less stress on one rim.
    Nope. That would be like suggesting that it's best to jump off a wall and bellyflop onto the concrete, rather than absorb the impact with your legs.
    Take a look at any trials rider doing a large drop off. There's a reason, in fact there's more than one reason, why they land back wheel first.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    bennett_346 wrote:
    I would have thought it would be best to spread the impact forces across both wheels, same weight, but force is halved across both wheels so less stress on one rim.
    Nope. That would be like suggesting that it's best to jump off a wall and bellyflop onto the concrete, rather than absorb the impact with your legs.
    Take a look at any trials rider doing a large drop off. There's a reason, in fact there's more than one reason, why they land back wheel first.
    You can land on both wheels and still absorb the impact with your legs, what am i missing?
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Imagine you're on a wall (on your legs, to simplify things).
    To get off, you could either just step off, which would be the same as landing on both wheels.
    OR
    You could crouch down so that your backside is at the same level as the wall, then hop off, extending your legs to meet the ground.
    By doing this, you're reducing the distance you're falling by the length of your legs.

    When dropping onto the back wheel, this in essence is what you're doing. You can push the rear wheel much further down than you could push the whole bike.

    Also, on landing, you can use the rear wheel as a pivot to absorb the impact.
    If you allow your bodyweight to go rearwards, and the front wheel to drop in the opposite direction, and use your arm strength to damp the impact.
    This one's kinda hard to explain, best bet is to watch trials riders and watch how they absorb huge drop-offs.

    Oh, and also your legs are much more capable of absorbing an impact than your arms.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Imagine you're on a wall (on your legs, to simplify things).
    To get off, you could either just step off, which would be the same as landing on both wheels.
    OR
    You could crouch down so that your backside is at the same level as the wall, then hop off, extending your legs to meet the ground.
    By doing this, you're reducing the distance you're falling by the length of your legs.

    When dropping onto the back wheel, this in essence is what you're doing. You can push the rear wheel much further down than you could push the whole bike.

    Also, on landing, you can use the rear wheel as a pivot to absorb the impact.
    If you allow your bodyweight to go rearwards, and the front wheel to drop in the opposite direction, and use your arm strength to damp the impact.
    This one's kinda hard to explain, best bet is to watch trials riders and watch how they absorb huge drop-offs.

    Oh, and also your legs are much more capable of absorbing an impact than your arms.
    If pro riders do it its enough to convince me lol
  • Mynameisdann
    Mynameisdann Posts: 665
    bennett_346 wrote:
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Imagine you're on a wall (on your legs, to simplify things).
    To get off, you could either just step off, which would be the same as landing on both wheels.
    OR
    You could crouch down so that your backside is at the same level as the wall, then hop off, extending your legs to meet the ground.
    By doing this, you're reducing the distance you're falling by the length of your legs.

    When dropping onto the back wheel, this in essence is what you're doing. You can push the rear wheel much further down than you could push the whole bike.

    Also, on landing, you can use the rear wheel as a pivot to absorb the impact.
    If you allow your bodyweight to go rearwards, and the front wheel to drop in the opposite direction, and use your arm strength to damp the impact.
    This one's kinda hard to explain, best bet is to watch trials riders and watch how they absorb huge drop-offs.

    Oh, and also your legs are much more capable of absorbing an impact than your arms.
    If pro riders do it its enough to convince me lol

    I usually land on my face, cant see that catching on though :/
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    Mynameisdann wrote:
    bennett_346 wrote:
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Imagine you're on a wall (on your legs, to simplify things).
    To get off, you could either just step off, which would be the same as landing on both wheels.
    OR
    You could crouch down so that your backside is at the same level as the wall, then hop off, extending your legs to meet the ground.
    By doing this, you're reducing the distance you're falling by the length of your legs.

    When dropping onto the back wheel, this in essence is what you're doing. You can push the rear wheel much further down than you could push the whole bike.

    Also, on landing, you can use the rear wheel as a pivot to absorb the impact.
    If you allow your bodyweight to go rearwards, and the front wheel to drop in the opposite direction, and use your arm strength to damp the impact.
    This one's kinda hard to explain, best bet is to watch trials riders and watch how they absorb huge drop-offs.

    Oh, and also your legs are much more capable of absorbing an impact than your arms.
    If pro riders do it its enough to convince me lol

    I usually land on my face, cant see that catching on though :/
    Faces dont tend to be great impact absorbers :(
  • rudedog
    rudedog Posts: 523
    bennett_346 wrote:
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Buckled_Rims wrote:
    The only problem I can see is if you jump from a fairly high height and land bang on the rear wheel. Even then, the wheel will probably buckle first and cushion the impact.

    I'll lay odds that you'll not break a frame unless there's a manufacturing fault in it.
    Actually, if you're landing on flat, un-sloped ground, rear wheel first is best.
    It's like when you jump off a wall, you drop yourself down, and then push your legs out to meet the floor, reducing the distance you drop.
    I would have thought it would be best to spread the impact forces across both wheels, same weight, but force is halved across both wheels so less stress on one rim.

    The front still does take some of the impact but by landing rear wheel first, you are allowing your legs to absorb more of the impact which have far better shock absorbing properties than your arms.
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    rudedog wrote:
    bennett_346 wrote:
    yeehaamcgee wrote:
    Buckled_Rims wrote:
    The only problem I can see is if you jump from a fairly high height and land bang on the rear wheel. Even then, the wheel will probably buckle first and cushion the impact.

    I'll lay odds that you'll not break a frame unless there's a manufacturing fault in it.
    Actually, if you're landing on flat, un-sloped ground, rear wheel first is best.
    It's like when you jump off a wall, you drop yourself down, and then push your legs out to meet the floor, reducing the distance you drop.
    I would have thought it would be best to spread the impact forces across both wheels, same weight, but force is halved across both wheels so less stress on one rim.

    The front still does take some of the impact but by landing rear wheel first, you are allowing your legs to absorb more of the impact which have far better shock absorbing properties than your arms.
    I thought we were discussing stresses on the bike, not rider though?
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    We are. But take a bike and rider's mass, and almost all of it is on the rider. By making your legs absorb the impact you are reducing the impact to the frame.
  • rudedog
    rudedog Posts: 523
    bennett_346 wrote:
    I thought we were discussing stresses on the bike, not rider though?


    What do you think is cause of the stresses on the bike?
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    If you take an XC bike and constantly hammer it, you're likely to run into trouble. Maybe not the frame, but the whole build is with a purpose in mind. They'll take a reasonable amount of abuse, what you could call typical riding, but hammer it all the time and things will break. You also lose the tolerance for crashing etc- my Soul's build is perfectly capable of surviving anything I throw at it while I'm in control but if I screw up I can break stuff, I mullered the rear wheel at fort william with a really crap line choice. Wheels especially can be overstressed quite easily if you land a jump crossed up.

    But, that's quite a lot of hammer. That bike'll be absolutely fine for the abuse most people will subject it to, in fact, loads of people who reckon they "need" a 6 inch full suss would probably be fine on one :lol: Not because it's as strong, but because people massively overestimate how awesome they are. Still, if you really do plan to beat it up, probably get something stronger, IMO. There's a reason not all bikes are 23lb XC bikes.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    Yeah that makes sense, sunday night and physics don't go well together...
  • Liam 2010
    Liam 2010 Posts: 101
    Cool, thanks for the advice guys.
  • Liam 2010
    Liam 2010 Posts: 101
    I don't plan to hammer it too hard, moderately I'd say. Only when I need to, it won't take constant hammering. I just want to be confident that if I want to give it a bit of stick it will be able to handle it without any problems.

    I had considered a HT pro, and I'm looking to see if I can stretch my budget out to purchase the pro instead.


    Liam
  • .blitz
    .blitz Posts: 6,197
    cooldad wrote:
    You'll probably break yourself before you break the bike.
    Apparently the latest CEN test for a steel frame requires it to withstand a force of 9g at the bottom bracket, equivalent to a flat landing that would break the rider's legs :shock:
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Isn't the CEN test the same for steel and aluminium?
  • .blitz
    .blitz Posts: 6,197
    You may be right. Think it was in WMB, they were talking about the reasons steel frames are not as skinny as they used to be.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    No, I don't know if it is or not, I was asking if you knew.
    It would make sense for them to be the same, since it doesn't matter what it's made of, their ultimate use will be the same.
  • chiefgrooveguru
    chiefgrooveguru Posts: 80
    edited September 2010
    Also aluminium alloy frames when new are far stronger than they need to be, because they have to remain strong enough for their reasonable working life and they gradually weaken through fatigue with usage.

    I'm enjoying getting increasingly large amounts of air (though still rather small!) with my Boardman HT Pro and my thinking is that by the time I break the frame (if that ever happens!) I shall be due a more hardcore HT anyway. For caning techy woodland southern singletrack hard there's very little I'd change about it, bar the small tweaks it's had (much bigger tyres running tubeless, better flat pedals, shorter stem and seatpost QR - essential if you want to ride aggressively without your saddle in the way) - it's very fast and lively but not scary.

Categories