Not another **** FS vs HT thread

andy_welch

Yes, sorry folks. I've read as much as I can find on the subject and will take a few test rides (although actually testing the bikes I'm interested in is pretty much impossible), but I'd appreciate tapping into the forum wisdom a bit more as most of the previous discussions on this (well worn) subject don't really apply to me.

For a start, most discussions start with a set budget, so everyone points out, quite reasonably, that the HT will have better components etc. But let's say we accept that an equivalent FS will be more expensive, what then? Take the Boardman bikes, for example, as I'm quite drawn to these. Would you prefer an HT Pro or an FS Pro (and you can't just take the more expensive one so that you can sell it).

The other comment that I keep seeing is that the HT will make you a better rider, but I'm afraid I don't really care about improving my skills. I ride for pleasure and to improve my fitness and at 47 I've long since resigned myself to the fact that most people on the trails are better riders than me. If an FS bike means that I can spend less time looking at the trail and more time enjoying the view that's fine by me, even if somebody else might consider it cheating.

I guess, I should also say a bit about what I plan to do with this bike. Basically I've been exclusively a roadie for the last dozen years or so and (before this year) hadn't ridden off road since we moved back to Aberdeenshire from Utah around 1997. My road cycling tends towards Sportive style and I enjoy climbing. I did Etape du Tour a few years back and have a nice range of 50-100+ mile routes around Aberdeenshire that I enjoy, most of which are pretty hilly. Recently though I've been enjoying exploring some of the routes nearby (on a 20 year old fully rigid steel Specialized Rockhopper). While it's fun to get into the country and away from the traffic I'd like something a bit more comfortable and a bit more suited to going down. My interests are more towards exploring natural trails than man made courses. These may involve a variety of surfaces, be quite steep and twisty but are unlikely to involve bid drops or jumps etc. Time wise the rides would last anything from a few hours to all day and if I get into it I'd probably gravitate towards endurance type events.

I'm currently looking at the Boardman FS Pro or building up a Cotic Soul (as I've always built my own road bikes) and I'd definitely prefer something at least part British.

Cheers,

Andy

supersonic

You are going to get a mix of answers, and probably end up more confused!

One thing is that FS is not cheating - and using a HT does not make some riders better. Othjers however may improve.

With the majority of trails I ride, I prefer my hardtail for the lighter weight. I can ride further and faster on it. For others, the weight and suspension will make them faster, but I don't ride the most demanding of trails.

andy_welch

Thanks folks,

I might have missed the last one, but I think I've read the other 5000000000000000000000000000 . However, as I say they all seem to assume a fixed budget. So, the discussion is usually something like is a £1,500 FS better than a £1,500 HT. What I want to know is whether a FS is better than a HT if you assume the same level of components, or would you still prefer the lighter weight and simplicity of a HT for general XC type riding.

Cheers,

Andy

ps. That's interesting. The post I was responding to seems to have disappeared, but I can't delete this as somebody has replied.

al2098

FS has made long rides more comfortable for me due to lower back issues.
I was glad for a full suss in the alps as after really long downhills, the guys on HT's were totally beaten up and some ended up renting FS bikes for the rest of the stay.
Also I can tackle black runs more proficiently on the FS.
If money is not an object I would think most people would go FS as you can buy a light one but they tend to lighten up your wallet.
If your a pro or whippet, HT makes sense for a race but thats someone elses game. I'm slow up and fast down so FS is it for me.
This MTB lark, everything has advantages and disadvantages. Don't even get into discussions on suspection or 29'ers.. I'm still discovering and changing stuff on my bike,..after several years of this great hobby.
If you want a british MTB don't overlook Orange, they are reviewed very well so that would be difficult anyway.

supersonic

It is impossible to say that one is better overall - as above, personally the hardtail.

However I am not averse to a well specced and good riding (in my opinion) short travel full susser: the Giant Anthem X3 is very good for the money:

http://www.pedalon.co.uk/acatalog/giant_anthem_x3_.html

andy_welch

Yes, I was tempted by that Giant. Those orange cables might even be enough to tempt me from my preference to buy British. However, even though the original price was much higher than the Boardman the spec doesn't seem to be any better and it presumably weighs about the same. It also seems to have a bit more "aggressive" angles, which worries me slightly.

I guess my number one priority is a bike that won't kill me. By which I mean that I don't want to have to work too hard on the descents. After a few hours in the saddle I want to be able to just point it down and know that it will get me home. But at the same time I don't want it to be so tough on the climb that I die of exhaustion before I reach the top.

I should say that I'm fully aware that there is no right answer here. This is clearly an issue on which reasonable people can hold different opinions and only I can decide what's right for me. But I would be interested to hear why you would prefer one over the other even if the difference in price wasn't the issue.

Cheers,

Andy

ps. I'm also a bit confused by the sizing on that Giant. I'm around 6' with a 32" inside leg. More usefully my roads bikes all have a 57cm top tube with 120mm stem. So, since MTB stems seem to run around 90mm I'd want something like a 60cm effective TT to put the bars where the tops of my drops are and probably a few cm more to get to the the brake hoods (where I usually ride). So a L size looks OK, but the standover height on the L is 825mm or 32.4" So, if I slipped off the seat it could be a bit painful.

angry_bird

See I just love bikes. Don't care if it's a hardtail or full suss. If it's got 2 wheels and I can do what I want to do on it, then it's good. Now my next bike will be full suss, but I'll still be keeping the hardtails, why? It's nice to ride different bikes, I've ridden a fair few full sussers and enjoyed them, different riding style and feeling on them, normally good fun, but then everytime I move back to a hardtail I get the feeling that I'd been missing out on something while I'd been riding the full suss. I guess what I'm trying to say is neither is necessarily better than the other as at the end of the day you can have fun and enjoy yourself on both and that's what they're about for me at least.

But if you're after something more comfortable, that you'll probably be more confident on then full suss is probably good for you. I've never ridden a boardman so can't comment on it's climbing ability but it wouldn't be a major concern for me, at the end of the day it's an XC bike, it's been designed to go up hills as well as go back down, and you can always just take it nice and slow and easy up the hills if needs be.

What I can say that after a hard days riding a hardtail can really take it out of you physically, especially when you're hitting lots of big technical stuff hard, but then over the course of a day other people might notice they tire from the extra weight they carry around on a full suss, personally the longest I've actually spent on a full suss in a day is about 5-6 hours, not that long so can't really comment on that aspect.

uk_mr_brownstone

This is a much better thread than most FS V HT ones, so I'll put my 2pence in.

Currently riding a FS but at times I build up my on-one scandal frame, usually in the winter time. This winter I just put narrow mud tyres on the Kona Dawg (rubbish mud clearance on 2.35tyres). This is my first point really- something as simple as having decent mud clearance, if you ride in an area that has 'clingy' mud, means more than a couple of pounds of weight saved or XT as opposed to Deore gearing.

In terms of going HT, having a good fork (by good I mean set up right and feeling good, not necessarily mega expensive) is the key component. The difference on my HT between 08 coil revelations (which just don't work right for me /my weight- they don't have enough small bump sensitivity) and 10 revelation air forks is massive. I can ride the scandal with the air forks set perfect for me (quite soft, including running them at about 120 not 140mm) and in the winter can hit reasonably technical stuff and get out the bottom not wishing for my FS. On the other forks it was a constant wrist aching chore. I'd say that the better fork made the whole ride comfort way better, inc reducing any back discomfort. So, for your question about spec / money- personally I'd be much more concerned to get the right fork on a HT- that would be a dealbreaker for me.

on the plus for the FS- I don't notice the extra 3 pounds in weight over the scandal because the ride position is much better (perfect frame size), so I don't think you should make any choices based on spec / weight unless those spec/ weight difference actually feel better to you.

Having said all that I still want a carbon 456 to try because HT's obviously look cooler!

andy_welch

Some interesting comments there, thanks.

I'd certainly agree with the sentiment that all bikes are good. Not counting the rigid Specialized (as it's technically my wife's bike) this would be the fifth bike in my stable. The others are; a summer road bike, a winter road bike, a fixed/SS road bike and a Brompton. All are fantastic and I wouldn't part with any of them. In fact I don't think I've ever sold a bike. Once I've ridden them a few time there are too many memories to let them go.

I also take the point about the importance of the front fork (and the way it's set up). It's obviously a bit false to ignore the budget as there is always a budget, but I think it helps to focus the discussion if we assume that both bikes have the same components and fork. So it's simply a case of whether you would want the back end sprung if (say) it came for free.

By the way (going off on a bit of a tangent here) I find the argument that you don't want suspension at the back can sometimes seem a bit false. I mean, nobody rides round on their rims and what is a tyre if it's not at least in part a form of suspension? It seems to me that the argument in favour of suspension was settled long ago, now it's just a matter of degree ie is the couple of inches of suspension that you get from your tyre enough and if not, is it worth the extra weight and loss of efficiency to add a bit more?

We seem to be reaching a consensus that one isn't better than the other. Both can be fun and fun is good. I think, for me, the point about FS giving more comfort and confidence is probably the key.

I was out this morning on the rigid Specialized, having a great time on some local forest trails and I realised that I may have been thinking about rear suspension from the wrong angle. I've been assuming that I'd want it for going down. In fact when the trail heads down I'm quite happy to stand up and use my knees to cushion the bumps at the back. What limits me at the moment is that the fromt end gets knocked about (and I can't see as my eyeballs are getting vibrated out of their sockets). If I can get the front to go where I wanted I'm happy to let the back bump around. Where the lack of rear suspension bugs me is on bumpy flats and bumpy climbs. I've always been a seated climber, happy to just select the right gear and spin myself up. As I said, on a road bike I love to climb, but off road the constant buffeting just takes a lot of the fun away.

Finally I've been thinking a bit more about that Anthem. What put me off is that it's a race bike. Chatting to a few people in bike shops about what I wanted I was getting steered more towards the Trance, which is why I was thinking about the Boardman with its relaxed geometry and longer travel. However, it's worth reflecting on my road cycling experiences. There is no doubt that, for the sort of all day riding I like, a relaxed tourer is a better option than a full on race bike. But a race bike is just so much more fun to ride and I ride for fun so that's what I ride. Fun does seem to be a word that keeps cropping up in reviews of the Anthem.

Right, that's quite enough rambling for now. Thanks for your attention and if you've got any more thoughts I'd be happy to hear them.

Cheers

Andy

bennett_346

Simple answer is if it can be locked out, FS. Weight barely changes and you get a lot more out of it (fun factor!). If the weight was an issue, i'd be concerned over the strength of some people and whether or not they should be riding a bike off road!

Unless of course you are racing, in which case this is all guff.

andy_welch

bennett_346 wrote:

Simple answer is if it can be locked out, FS. Weight barely changes and you get a lot more out of it (fun factor!). If the weight was an issue, i'd be concerned over the strength of some people and whether or not they should be riding a bike off road!

Unless of course you are racing, in which case this is all guff.

But isn't lockout just a bodge to hide a badly designed suspension system

Seriously, I take your point. If you can lock it out or at least stiffen it considerable it's hard to argue that rear suspension is doing much harm and as you say, it can increase the fun factor.

I'm not too worried about the weight penalty. At 6' and 12 and a half stone I'm not giving my GP too much cause for concern, but I could still lose 15-20 lb before being underweight so I'm not going to stress too much about a couple of lbs exta on the bike.

There is probably still some loss of efficiency, but I have no idea how large this is in comparison with other factors. How many of us really run our tyres at the optimum pressure to maximise speed, for example? If you drop the pressure a bit to improve comfort or traction and accept that you'll be a bit less efficient then it seems that you are making pretty much the same trade off as you would by having the rear triangle suspended.

Cheers

Andy

concorde

I tried a full sus today. First time ever. I liked how you can just basically point the bike in the direction you wanna go and ride over everything. But I still found myself preferring being on a HT and picking lines. Half the fun that is for me as I never go amazingly quick anyway.

dp1

I am the same age as you and ride for fitness and pleasure and last year bought an Anthem which i found to be the perfect mix for most things. Being shaken to bits on a hardtail was getting too much and i tried out a lot of bikes before going for the Anthem. The Trek Fuel EX was a close call but for the type of riding i do the Anthem was the right choice. Having said that i think a hardtail is more fun and has a more connected feel to it but i only use that for the real flat stuff now.

andy_welch

Well, there does seem to be a lot of love for the Anthem, and nobody cheering for the Boardman.

I see on another thread that somebody talked of "upgrading" an Anthem to a Trance and of how much better the extra travel was.

I guess it all depends on what you ride and on who is reading the thread. On another day I dare say there could be a lot of Boardman fans too.

Might have to go and sit on an Anthem though.

Cheers,

Andy

bennett_346

andy_welch wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Simple answer is if it can be locked out, FS. Weight barely changes and you get a lot more out of it (fun factor!). If the weight was an issue, i'd be concerned over the strength of some people and whether or not they should be riding a bike off road!

Unless of course you are racing, in which case this is all guff.

But isn't lockout just a bodge to hide a badly designed suspension system

No, i don't know of suspension system alone that can determine between rider input and trail input and lock out accordingly. You get more active and more inactive setups but i've never seen anything successfully manage to feel like a hardtail on road etc but feel supple and grippy on rough!

Northwind

bennett_346 wrote:

Simple answer is if it can be locked out, FS. Weight barely changes and you get a lot more out of it (fun factor!)

Weight barely changes? Compare like for like and I don't think there's any truth there tbh.

bails87

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Simple answer is if it can be locked out, FS. Weight barely changes and you get a lot more out of it (fun factor!)

Weight barely changes? Compare like for like and I don't think there's any truth there tbh.

Yeah, two carbon fibre, ~150mm travel frames:
Carbon 456 (HT) weighs 3.2lbs.
Pivot Mach 5.7 (FS) weighs 5.2lbs.....and costs eight times as much as a C456! That's 60% extra frame weigh and nudging towards a 10% difference on a full build, and that's a top of the range lightweight frame. Anything more sensibly priced would weigh more.


But...it might not feel heavier on the trails.

bennett_346

bails87 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Simple answer is if it can be locked out, FS. Weight barely changes and you get a lot more out of it (fun factor!)

Weight barely changes? Compare like for like and I don't think there's any truth there tbh.

But...it might not feel heavier on the trails.

Bingo.

steve_muzzy

My advice is to look at your current stable and ask 'why different bikes'

Realistically I feel you need both a ht and Susser. Ht is fast and good for local/natural trails, fs for more technical stuff and for fun, as much as you think you won't do drops and jumps trust me one day you will :-)

Northwind

bennett_346 wrote:

Bingo.

If you can't feel a 3lb difference in a bike then that's probably lucky, but I do and tbh I think most folks would, that's a lot. (also I'd notice the difference in the weight of my wallet!)

bennett_346

Northwind wrote:

bennett_346 wrote:

Bingo.

If you can't feel a 3lb difference in a bike then that's probably lucky, but I do and tbh I think most folks would, that's a lot. (also I'd notice the difference in the weight of my wallet!)

My FS wasn't hugely expensive at £1400 and is only 28lbs, any lighter and i wouldn't trust it to do half the stuff i do!

It's all personal really, but personally i'd always go FS because the weight doesn't bother me as much as the loss of traction might.

Northwind

Can't tell what it is from pics but I guarantee you it could be lighter without sacrificing strength. Just more expensive is all

Weight isn't everything o'course- my full suss is still hovering around 33lbs I think but it's been up to 37 and down to sub-30 and each time the difference is pretty obvious. And I'm not just talking about ease of climbing. (or putting on roofracks!)

bennett_346

Northwind wrote:

Can't tell what it is from pics but I guarantee you it could be lighter without sacrificing strength. Just more expensive is all

Weight isn't everything o'course- my full suss is still hovering around 33lbs I think but it's been up to 37 and down to sub-30 and each time the difference is pretty obvious. And I'm not just talking about ease of climbing. (or putting on roofracks!)

Tis a stumpjumper comp 2011. Not the thing in my profile pic that was my old pitch (32lbs). Weight wise i don't feel a difference really!

Roofracks are the main place you notice, agreed!