is a hardtail capable

pastey_boy

ive flirted with many full sussers over the years but always end up back on a hardtail. i love the simplicity and not having to worry about pivots or bushings wearing out or sending my rear shock for its annual extortionate service. i like to just ride my bike, if i need to do a downhill course i will build a specific bike but for general trail riding or trail centres in this country a hardtail will suffice. big tyres and a flexy seatpost enhance comfort massively on a hardtail so no need to feel every bump. people have got to remember that dh forks used to sport a massive 75mm of travel and riders could fly on such bikes, we now have hardtails with travel from 80mm-180mm. i guess you ride what is put in front of you.

Thewaylander

el loco pollo wrote:

Yeah they are fine for most stuff but will never be as capable as a decent FS when the trails are tough, which is why ~99% of all bikes at any DH track, the Mega, Mountain of Hell etc are FS.

I don't agree with the "learn on a HT" thing either, it's bike riding not formula 1 training, it's not like the learning curve is particularly steep.

I disagree with this, myself but everyone to there own, its easier to learn techniques liek floating your bike, unweighting and bunnyhoppyng on a hardtail.

Northwind

MountainMonster wrote:

Who cares about outrunning people. Only people who have "something to prove" worry about that. I just worry about having fun, no matter what pace that is at!

Faster people just get less time spent descending

FBM.BMX

el loco pollo wrote:

it's not like the learning curve is particularly steep.

I would have to disagree with this. Good riders only get good after atleast 5 years of riding, sometimes a lifetime to get good. If there isn't much to learn, how can it take so long to master?

I work in a very reputable shop, the amount of customers that come in moving from a FS to a hard tail saying how they had no idea how little bike skill they had. They're immediately asking about tuition and going on rides.

Bike riding is what ever you want it to be, but if you go the FS route, whilst possessing no skill, monster trucking down hills, all that really is, is fancy, expensive, all terrain sledging.

For the OP, as said by quite a few others, a hardtail isn't the limiting factor, it's the rider.

Northwind

FBM.BMX wrote:

I would have to disagree with this. Good riders only get good after atleast 5 years of riding, sometimes a lifetime to get good. If there isn't much to learn, how can it take so long to master?

That's a long learning curve then not a steep one

pastey_boy

FBM.BMX wrote:

el loco pollo wrote:

it's not like the learning curve is particularly steep.

I would have to disagree with this. Good riders only get good after atleast 5 years of riding, sometimes a lifetime to get good. If there isn't much to learn, how can it take so long to master?

I work in a very reputable shop, the amount of customers that come in moving from a FS to a hard tail saying how they had no idea how little bike skill they had. They're immediately asking about tuition and going on rides.

Bike riding is what ever you want it to be, but if you go the FS route, whilst possessing no skill, monster trucking down hills, all that really is, is fancy, expensive, all terrain sledging.

For the OP, as said by quite a few others, a hardtail isn't the limiting factor, it's the rider.

5 years to get good on a bike !!!!!!! based on what ? i know lads that have been riding less than 2 years yet have become very good riders in that time. some people will get very good in their own time yet others will be useless no matter how hard they try.

Shaggy_Dog

FBM.BMX wrote:

Bike riding is what ever you want it to be, but if you go the FS route, whilst possessing no skill, monster trucking down hills, all that really is, is fancy, expensive, all terrain sledging

This is a fantastic quote! Pretty much sums up what I think about people reckoning you need at least 140mm travel for normal riding blah, blah, blah.

Thewaylander

Shaggy_Dog wrote:

FBM.BMX wrote:

Bike riding is what ever you want it to be, but if you go the FS route, whilst possessing no skill, monster trucking down hills, all that really is, is fancy, expensive, all terrain sledging

This is a fantastic quote! Pretty much sums up what I think about people reckoning you need at least 140mm travel for normal riding blah, blah, blah.

How about i say i need 160mm of travel to cushion my poor ass?

ilovedirt

MountainMonster wrote:

Who cares about outrunning people. Only people who have "something to prove" worry about that. I just worry about having fun, no matter what pace that is at!

Racing is fun! Nothing wrong with having a little race with the person in front of you! I always do it, whether I mean to or not.

sheepsteeth

if you are gonna end up on a fs bike, you should just buy one and learn to ride that, i think the old learn on a hardtail business is a lod of tosh.

most of the folk who say they learned on a ht dd so because 10-15 years ago, full sus bikes were rubbish. they are good now so there is no need to learn on an under suspensioned bike.

full sus is the best way to ride off road for everyone, except for the poor.

trail jacker

disagree with that, ht's dont sap any pedal power, are far lighter and have no pivots to worry about....but can hammer the descents just as well as full sussers. I have a gt ht and keep up with my mate on his zesty fine on the downhills and thrash him uphills.
surely thats the best way of riding off road?!
....and not just "for the poor"

sheepsteeth

i disagree with that, fs is better off road, your mate is clearly websters at riding a bike off road.

jimexbox

sheepsteeth wrote:

except for the poor.

Yeah, I see plenty blokes on lovely full sus bikes, beer belly, poor fitness, but hey they look cool. Must be a mid life crisis thing.

sheepsteeth

said the poor person.

jimexbox

sheepsteeth wrote:

said the poor person.

You presume a lot.

pastey_boy

you dont really get many poor people at trail centres as you need a car to get there,
here is a list of how a typical council tennant makes do.
drop off

---

really high kerb
jump

---

speed bump
north shore

---

stolen pallets propped upon stolen milk crates
really tired so can i have some assistance to finish my sweet list please.

sheepsteeth

jimexbox wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

except for the poor.

Yeah, I see plenty blokes on lovely full sus bikes, beer belly, poor fitness, but hey they look cool. Must be a mid life crisis thing.

what has any of that got to do with whether a fs is better than a ht?

jealous much?

trail jacker

well thats a matter of opinion and varies with what off road discipline your referring to, but im a firm believer in simplicity and cant get much simpler than a ht - no need to overcomplicate things!
...and my mate is a good rider thanks for your intrest 'sheepsteeth'...

jimexbox

sheepsteeth wrote:

jimexbox wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

except for the poor.

Yeah, I see plenty blokes on lovely full sus bikes, beer belly, poor fitness, but hey they look cool. Must be a mid life crisis thing.

what has any of that got to do with whether a fs is better than a ht?

jealous much?

Again you presume rather a lot.

Plenty poor people have a car, sky tv, smoke and drink. So if the poor people wanted a full sus bike, I'm sure they could find a way of getting one. It was you that made this assertion, not me.

sheepsteeth

i wonder why we never hear responses like "im loads faster than my mates on their ht bikes" form fs riders yet ht riders are constantly trying to justify their choice.

im not being argumentative, im just interested in the trend.

trail jacker

to be honest i dont understand why you brought social classes into a discussion about bike frames anyway, your asking for trouble.
when i was buying my bike i could have bought a full sus but chose a ht because i believe them to be great fun offroad and perfectly capable but way less hassle to maintain.

that choice doesn't make me "poor"

back to the question in hand...yes, hardtails are perfectly capable.

jakeeeeeee

if you can be bothered with complicated pivots, linkages and suspension sag etc buy a full sus if not get a hardtail. like me !!

FBM.BMX

pastey_boy wrote:

5 years to get good on a bike !!!!!!! based on what ? i know lads that have been riding less than 2 years yet have become very good riders in that time. some people will get very good in their own time yet others will be useless no matter how hard they try.

Based on the fact it is immediately obvious when you see someone who has ridden for a couple of years, some can look pretty impressive, then you see someone who has ridden all their life, you can see they're so much more at home on a bike.

That life long rider is on a whole different level to someone who has ridden for a couple of years.

jeremyrundle

sparky803 wrote:

im pretty new to riding and would like to know what a hardtail is actually capable of. all the mags i read to review trails nearly always seem to both recomend and feature fsussers.does this mean hardtails are not suitable for most red trails or worse.

The question is "what did people ride before suspension was invented" hardtrail :!:

sheepsteeth

trail jacker wrote:

to be honest i dont understand why you brought social classes into a discussion about bike frames anyway, your asking for trouble.

what makes your opinion on a subject more valid than mine?

i see plenty of people on this very site who claim ht are for real riders, fs bikes are for lazy feckers who cant ride as fast as them on their hardtails.

as soon as those folk muster the funds or find one going for a good sale price and can afford a fs bike, they buy one.

same with loads of bike things which are expensive (joplin posts, nicer forks, xtr cranks etc etc), folk think stuff is pricey, so they state that they are useless and pointless, as soon as they find them going for a prce they can afford, suddenly, these items are worth a punt.

sheepsteeth

jeremyrundle wrote:

sparky803 wrote:

im pretty new to riding and would like to know what a hardtail is actually capable of. all the mags i read to review trails nearly always seem to both recomend and feature fsussers.does this mean hardtails are not suitable for most red trails or worse.

The question is "what did people ride before suspension was invented" hardtrail :!:

people used to ride rigid forks too, i woner why folk think suspension is necessary on the front of their bikes but not so necessary on the back :?

bennett_346

jakeeeeeee wrote:

if you can be bothered with complicated pivots, linkages and suspension sag etc buy a full sus if not get a hardtail. like me !!

It isn't rocket science really. Setting sag is easier than doing so for the forks and pivots only go wrong if you don't periodically clean and regrease them, which takes an hour max every 6 months or so.

Northwind

jeremyrundle wrote:

The question is "what did people ride before suspension was invented" hardtrail :!:

Well, no The reason being, suspension hadn't been invented. We rode rigids. Really, really crap rigids. And don't let some retrobike beardie tell you old bikes were great. We knew no better and yet we still knew they were crap.

sheepsteeth

can anyone find the video clip of national downhill racing which was basicly people on rigid bikes ridng down a field and not managing to negotiate a bend at the bottom?

no wonder bikes are better made, hardtails included of course, but quoting old bikes as a reason to ride a hardtail isnt a brilliant argument.

Northwind

You have to admit though, it's a lot funnier to watch than modern racing.