Single speed Rigid, I cant believe what I have been missing!

brindlescoops
brindlescoops Posts: 465
edited June 2013 in MTB general
So, my beloved Full Suss has pretty much reached the level of evolution I can provide (without getting really silly), with all components selected and tweaked over the past year or so, pampered and pretty i would be gutted to lose it and would never sell it in a hurry. However. . . . I picked up a rigid singlespeed Genesis IO last week on a whim and spent friday evening and today out playing with it, Oh, my, God, i cant believe what utter fun such a basic simple bike can be, light, agile and full of feel, I was actually laughing out loud as I flew down some local singletrack today, its also harder work of course uphill, but instead of sitting and spinning, it has you out of the saddle stomping to the top, giving you a great work out in the process, it really is like a big boys BMX. It just makes me realise that when new guys are looking for their first MTB, a simple rigid bike is more than adequate to get you going on unless you want to be straight into big drops and will defo very quickly get your fitness up and running! I cant remember my first hardtail being so much fun!

The. Moral is, big suspension and cutting edge tech, isn't always better than back to basics for £ per smile factor! :D
My biggest fear is that should I crash, burn and die, my Wife would sell my stuff based upon what I told her I paid for it.
«1

Comments

  • No Sweat
    No Sweat Posts: 103
    Couldn't agree more!

    I have had a SS Inbred with rigid forks for 7 years now - I've got a geared bike with suspension too, but the Inbred is much more involving somehow. The hills do hurt, and so do your wrists after a while, and you have to concentrate so hard on every little line choice (or you're off) that you cannot think much about the trivia in your life.

    Easily as fast as the geared bike too, probably because of climbing every hill out of the saddle!
  • gt-arrowhead
    gt-arrowhead Posts: 2,507
    Wow, i thought i loved my rigid cause i havent been on a decent bike with suspension, and cause i cant afford one :lol: Seems not! Which is good to see.

    Makes me want to get out on my bike now.
    The GT Owners Thread - Show us your GTs!

    GT Arrowhead

    GT Chucker XS1

    Raleigh Mirage (Commuter)
  • nferrar
    nferrar Posts: 2,511
    I was rather underwhelmed by mine (Genesis Fortitude SS), I get what you're saying - they can be a lot of fun but that's mainly on fairly smooth trails. Start throwing rocks and roots into the mix and the enjoyment factor just plummets for me, it becomes more about avoiding trail obstacles rather than attacking them and after a couple of hours my wrists have had enough. OK I may have been cosseted and got into bad habits from years of FS riding but I started MTBing back in the early 90's on rigid bikes so it's not like I haven't done my apprenticeship - I just think the fun element of them needs to be clarified with "under certain, limited circumstances".
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    I wouldn't go singlespeed but yeah, rigid bikes are mint.
    Uncompromising extremist
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    BrindleScoops wrote:
    a simple rigid bike is more than adequate to get you going on unless you want to be straight into big drops
    Suspension isn't there for drops.
    My photos
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    It is if the landing zone is rough or uneven.
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    Only as a side effect, it's really there for traction - it keeps your wheels in contact with the ground for more of the time.
    My photos
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    It's primarily for traction but i think i'd want suspension for landing on rough ground from any real height. Not so much fun landing a rigid bike on rocks from 6ft up!
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    It's really not that much difference, your arms and legs are the "long travel" suspension components anyway.
    My photos
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    I don't honestly know how you can claim that suspension has nothing at all to do with drops or jumps. Are you saying if there was a trail that was completely straight and had no corners but had large drops onto rough rocks or roots, that you'd choose to ride a rigid bike?
  • Chunkers1980
    Chunkers1980 Posts: 8,035
    IMO front suspension is must.
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    Chunkers1980 wrote:
    IMO front suspension is must.

    What's that coming over the hill...

    p4pb8461849.jpg
    Uncompromising extremist
  • stubs
    stubs Posts: 5,001
    Hadnt ridden my F/S for about 3 weeks till last night when we went for a quick spin up Rivvi. The F/S felt wrong compared to the rigid S/S all squashy, flexible and wobbly. Got used to it again but you forget how easy things are on a bouncer just sit there and pedal. None of that bouncing around looking for the ideal smoother line and grunting up climbs wondering when your kneecaps are going to go bang.

    Both fun and different but now keep looking at the On-One Fatty bike if I buy one do I have to become an Audi driver as well.
    Fig rolls: proof that god loves cyclists and that she wants us to do another lap
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    bennett_346 wrote:
    I don't honestly know how you can claim that suspension has nothing at all to do with drops or jumps. Are you saying if there was a trail that was completely straight and had no corners but had large drops onto rough rocks or roots, that you'd choose to ride a rigid bike?
    Rough rocks or roots? I'd choose full suss anyway, because of the rough ground, and increased traction.
    No suspension system copes with large drops, without the use of your arms and legs, which do the bulk of the work. Suspension just smooths out the smaller details of the trail.

    Trials riders and BMX riders hit huge huge drops without suspension. Snowboarders hit MAAAAAASIVE drops without suspension. It's not needed for drops. Hell, it doesn't really work that well for drops. And if it DID work well on drops, then it wouldn't be doing it's job well the rest of the time.
    My photos
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    stubs wrote:
    you forget how easy things are on a bouncer just sit there and pedal.
    You can do, yeah. Or... you can use it as it's intended, and go much faster.
    My photos
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    YeehaaMcgee wrote:
    bennett_346 wrote:
    I don't honestly know how you can claim that suspension has nothing at all to do with drops or jumps. Are you saying if there was a trail that was completely straight and had no corners but had large drops onto rough rocks or roots, that you'd choose to ride a rigid bike?
    Rough rocks or roots? I'd choose full suss anyway, because of the rough ground, and increased traction.
    No suspension system copes with large drops, without the use of your arms and legs, which do the bulk of the work. Suspension just smooths out the smaller details of the trail.

    Trials riders and BMX riders hit huge huge drops without suspension. Snowboarders hit MAAAAAASIVE drops without suspension. It's not needed for drops. Hell, it doesn't really work that well for drops. And if it DID work well on drops, then it wouldn't be doing it's job well the rest of the time.
    Once again you're talking utter nonsense. It's fair enough choosing to use rigid for jumps and drops but are you seriously saying it isn't made easier and more comfortable by having a suspension bike? It's just a fun hobby at the end of the day, i'm not out there to risk breaking an arm because i landed a big drop on a rigid and wasn't skilled enough not to buckle under the pressure on my arms. I know you like to think of yourself as a the guru of technique but at the end of the day if something is made more enjoyable by using a mechanical advantage what's the harm.

    Again, what makes you think there's no advantage to suspension for drops? If there's an advantage, whether or not its intentional to the design of the device, it's there and can't really be disagreed with.
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    I'm just saying, drops are not the reason to have suspension. You can have suspension, you can have a rigid bike, whatever. That doesn't change what the suspension is meant to do.
    I'm not claiming to be a guru of technique, I'm just telling you how it is.
    My photos
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    My suspension is meant for drops because that's what i have it for. Is that simpler to understand? Who cares what the manufacturer or suspension nerd in rockshox's basement says its for?
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    Oh you know what? Believe whatever the frikk you want to believe. I haven't the energy for this.
    My photos
  • bennett_346
    bennett_346 Posts: 5,029
    Don't bring up a topic for debate if you can't finish it then lol.
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    It's not up for debate.
    My photos
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    Northwind wrote:
    Chunkers1980 wrote:
    IMO front suspension is must.

    What's that coming over the hill...

    p4pb8461849.jpg

    is that fort William? :shock:
  • Thewaylander
    Thewaylander Posts: 8,594
    Actually Yee is right,

    its for traction, (bit of comfort from vibration too) Jumps well go look at a jump bike its a not sespension rig, and as for big huge drops watch a Danny vid.. sus is for grip. it allows you to plough over rough terrain and carry speed as you bike will hug the ground rather than bounce all over the place.
  • Northwind
    Northwind Posts: 14,675
    welshkev wrote:
    is that fort William? :shock:

    Yup- I post that pic in every rigid thread, that's Jesse who works in fort william alpine bikes... not just riding a rigid down the world cup route, that wouldn't be hard enough, he was racing it in the endurance downhill for 6 hours! He was 40th overall out of 150, with 13 runs... I beat him by a place, on my downhill bike (which is quite good at drops, with all its spunshinsz.)
    Uncompromising extremist
  • welshkev
    welshkev Posts: 9,690
    Northwind wrote:
    welshkev wrote:
    is that fort William? :shock:

    Yup- I post that pic in every rigid thread, that's Jesse who works in fort william alpine bikes... not just riding a rigid down the world cup route, that wouldn't be hard enough, he was racing it in the endurance downhill for 6 hours! He was 40th overall out of 150, with 13 runs... I beat him by a place, on my downhill bike (which is quite good at drops, with all its spunshinsz.)

    that is nuts! fair play to him. was he beaten up after it? I ache like a biatch after a day on the DH bike :lol:
  • homers_double
    homers_double Posts: 8,232
    Thewaylander wrote:
    Actually Yee is right,

    its for traction, (bit of comfort from vibration too) Jumps well go look at a jump bike its a not sespension rig, and as for big huge drops watch a Danny vid.. sus is for grip. it allows you to plough over rough terrain and carry speed as you bike will hug the ground rather than bounce all over the place.

    He, well they, are right.

    You might have entered a world of 6 & 8" long travel bikes but back when it was being developed there was no way you'd think your elastomer sprung Manitous would soak up a decent drop. They were designed to take the trail buzz out of your arms and improve traction.

    Things have improved, sports have evolved, we go bigger and its all because of a rubber in a telescopic tube that moved (if you were lucky) about 20mm.

    Sorry bennett_346 but you're talking our of your bleed valve.
    Advocate of disc brakes.
  • pesky_jones
    pesky_jones Posts: 2,890
    I dont see why he was "wrong" - yes, primairly suspension is for traction but I think it is ridiculous to suggest that it doesn't play a massive part in jumps & drops.

    he states that he understands that pretty clearly
    bennett_346 wrote:
    It's primarily for traction but i think i'd want suspension for landing on rough ground from any real height. Not so much fun landing a rigid bike on rocks from 6ft up!
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    Jumps? Wait, what?
    My photos
  • pesky_jones
    pesky_jones Posts: 2,890
    What do you mean?
  • YeehaaMcgee
    YeehaaMcgee Posts: 5,740
    My sentiments exactly.
    Dirt jumpers and slopstylzzorzzz riders are (I hope I'm not insulting your skills by making assumptions here) probably better at riding jumps than you are. BMX riders too, and 4X riders.
    They stick almost exclusively to hardtails.

    I could explain, or I could just leave it at that.
    My photos

Categories