Limits of a Hardtail

ali266

hi, im am the owner of a 140mm travel hardtail. i am wondering if it wiould be worth upgrading to a full susser for a more capable bike. if not what would be good parts to upgrade on my hardatail to make into more of all mountain machine?

Chunkers1980

Full susing is not upgrading - just different. If it's relatively hard hitting then it already is 'all mountain'

rockmonkeysc

There's nothing you can't ride on a hardtail.
I did a season downhill racing on an On One 456 built up with dh wheels and a set of Rockshox Domain forks lowered to 140mm. It was possibly more fun than my full sus dh bike but not as fast or as forgiving.
Some people prefer full sus some prefer hardtails. One isn't better than the other, just different.

passout

Limits will be with you, not the choice between FS and HT.

nicklouse

passout wrote:

Limits will be with you, not the choice between FS and HT.

Exactly.

Wily-Quixote

nicklouse wrote:

passout wrote:

Limits will be with you, not the choice between FS and HT.

Exactly.

Not true. A hardtail is limited in the terrian that it will cover, at speed, in comparison to a dual suspension bike. That is why downhill racers switched to dual suspension in the 90s. To say that the only difference between capability between a hardtail and a full susser is the rider is absolute nonsense.
A great rider on a hardtail will beat a crappy rider on a full susser every single time, true. A great rider on a full susser will outperform a great rider on a hardtail every single time. If you're not racing it's a moot point, ride what you want for your terrain and riding style, but lets not pretend for a minute that it's 'all about the rider dude' a full suspension bike makes an enormous difference. I'm presuming that's why so many get sold anyway.

I ride a hardtail , I used to have a full suspension bike. I descend slower on my hardtail because it is not as stable, as smooth and it has less traction.

supersonic

A great rider on a full susser will outperform a great rider on a hardtail every single time

I disagree with that, is not true for all situations - again, depends on terrain. Full sus is always heavier (like for like), and some riders really respond to weight changes on the bike.

Wily-Quixote

supersonic wrote:

A great rider on a full susser will outperform a great rider on a hardtail every single time

I disagree with that, is not true for all situations - again, depends on terrain. Full sus is always heavier (like for like), and some riders really respond to weight changes on the bike.

sure, what i was referring to (but didn't make clear) is that a full suspension bike is superior in conditions referred to by the OP (ie where 140mm suspension is required). Full suspension bikes descend faster. Full suspension bikes are heavier and more complicated. Whichever one that you choose is related to the relative merits/deficits of descending/cornering speed and weight. Saying that it 'is all about the rider' is shite, Otherwise we'd all still be on penny farthings.

paul.skibum

Ride a hardtail. They rock.

rockmonkeysc

I know a couple downhill racers who are faster on a hardtail than full suspension. One of them can get his hardtail down the hill faster than most racers on full sus. He has been known to get fastest time of the day occasionally.
Full suspension takes less skill to ride fast and is more forgiving when you make mistakes.

Wily-Quixote

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I know a couple downhill racers who are faster on a hardtail than full suspension.

There is that and there's also the 100% of pro-downhillers who ride full suspension - who's anecdote wins?

If hardtails were faster for all applications than everyone would ride one, just like the 1980s.

welshkev

Wily-Quixote wrote:

supersonic wrote:

A great rider on a full susser will outperform a great rider on a hardtail every single time

I disagree with that, is not true for all situations - again, depends on terrain. Full sus is always heavier (like for like), and some riders really respond to weight changes on the bike.

sure, what i was referring to (but didn't make clear) is that a full suspension bike is superior in conditions referred to by the OP (ie where 140mm suspension is required). Full suspension bikes descend faster. Full suspension bikes are heavier and more complicated. Whichever one that you choose is related to the relative merits/deficits of descending/cornering speed and weight. Saying that it 'is all about the rider' is shite, Otherwise we'd all still be on penny farthings.

I used to ride a long travel hardtail and I could keep up with most of my mates who were riding full suss bikes. yes I'm faster on my DH bike on a DH track, but as for general trail riding I'd say I'm not far off the same speed on my nomad now as I was on my cove.

ride_whenever

ride the hardtail til the chainstays snap or the headtube comes off then buy a full susser.

fielonator

It's not all about speed is it? Unless you're racing it's about having fun on your bike. Granted fast is usually fun, I've always found it more fun to ride a full suss 'cos they bounce, descend better allowing me to pick harder lines, and don't break (me or the bike) when I land a jump badly or get out of shape through a rough section.

brucie45

fielonator wrote:

It's not all about speed is it? Unless you're racing it's about having fun on your bike. Granted fast is usually fun, I've always found it more fun to ride a full suss 'cos they bounce, descend better allowing me to pick harder lines, and don't break (me or the bike) when I land a jump badly or get out of shape through a rough section.

I'm the same, riding for me is all about fun but, I've had numorous FS & HT and have always found the HT to be a lot more fun. I am back on HT now and loving it!

nick-gti

anyway...... OP you haven't said what spec your hardtail is so we can't comment on upgrading it

Angus Young

On the weekend I rode a Scott HT (not sure which one) back to back with a Giant Trance over the same steep forest tracks. The HT was hard work with the back bouncing round while the FS felt like something out of that Star Wars film where they have the race through the forest on those flying motorbike things. The extra speed that just came naturally on the Trance and the complete abandon with which I was able to throw it down the same track that had required brain bursting concentration on the Scott was just a thing of wonder.

fielonator

I think you should either:

- Upgrade to a wider bar + shorter stem, stronger wheels, bigger brake rotors (at least the front), wider tyres (2.35/2.4), dropper seatpost, and a stiffer fork.


- Get on Ebay and start looking for full sussers. You won't need to spend a fortune, and it'll give you the chance to see the difference for yourself on the trails you ride.

You could probably spend as much on upgrades as on a decent used bike, if you're not too picky.

rockmonkeysc

Wily-Quixote wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I know a couple downhill racers who are faster on a hardtail than full suspension.

There is that and there's also the 100% of pro-downhillers who ride full suspension - who's anecdote wins?

If hardtails were faster for all applications than everyone would ride one, just like the 1980s.

They are also sponsored by factories who want to promote their £5000 full sus race bikes.
Im not saying that full sus isn't better for most people. The main advantage is that they are more forgiving when you make mistakes and when you are at the limit of your ability you will make mistakes.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

They are also sponsored by factories who want to promote their £5000 full sus race bikes.

And yet they are likely to make far more of their revenue by selling their more reasonably priced models so if they were as likely to win races on their HTs then they'd be sticking their riders on the models that we can all afford so that we can all kid ourselves that we'll be able to ride like the pros.

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The main advantage is that they are more forgiving when you make mistakes and when you are at the limit of your ability you will make mistakes.

No, the main advantage is that the back wheel stays in contact with the ground for more of the time offering more grip and control.

kajjal

The early 1990's MTB's I started on had no suspension and we were OK over very rough tracks. Front suspension and V brakes improved things a lot and more recently disc brakes helped again. It is just personal preference HT v FS, I have tried both going faster on FS but prefer HT due to being able to feel the trail and bike better. For me FS is like riding on a big cushion and takes the fun away. If you have injuries, prefer downhill etc. FS can be a better choice.

rockmonkeysc

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

They are also sponsored by factories who want to promote their £5000 full sus race bikes.

And yet they are likely to make far more of their revenue by selling their more reasonably priced models so if they were as likely to win races on their HTs then they'd be sticking their riders on the models that we can all afford so that we can all kid ourselves that we'll be able to ride like the pros.

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The main advantage is that they are more forgiving when you make mistakes and when you are at the limit of your ability you will make mistakes.

No, the main advantage is that the back wheel stays in contact with the ground for more of the time offering more grip and control.

Elite racers generally run their rear suspension so stiff that its not in contact with the ground as much as it should be. Its fairly normal for them to run a spring 50-100lb heavier than recommend.
Running suspension soft enough to track the ground causes more drag.

The Rookie

Wily-Quixote wrote:

There is that and there's also the 100% of pro-downhillers who ride full suspension - who's anecdote wins?

Rockmonkeysc wins, pro cyclists ride what the sponsor tells them to ride, which is most definitely not always the fastest (see rigid rear triangle FS bikes of yor......)

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Elite racers generally run their rear suspension so stiff that its not in contact with the ground as much as it should be.

Most of us are not elite racers.

Angus Young

The Rookie wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

There is that and there's also the 100% of pro-downhillers who ride full suspension - who's anecdote wins?

Rockmonkeysc wins, pro cyclists ride what the sponsor tells them to ride, which is most definitely not always the fastest (see rigid rear triangle FS bikes of yor......)

Yes, because having your rider finish last would be a great return for all the sponsorship spend, right? That's the way to attract the masses to your brand. No, they put their racers on bikes that they think are going to help them win races, not simply the most expensive bike in their range in the hope that they'll shift one or two more of the bike that's likely to sell the least out of their range due to its prohibitive cost. Getting your man on the podium is what sponsorship is all about because we all want to ride what the winner is riding.

rockmonkeysc

The Rookie wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

There is that and there's also the 100% of pro-downhillers who ride full suspension - who's anecdote wins?

Rockmonkeysc wins, pro cyclists ride what the sponsor tells them to ride, which is most definitely not always the fastest (see rigid rear triangle FS bikes of yor......)

A lot of the riders at Antur Stiniog on 27.5 bikes seemed to be struggling (Gee Atherton, Joe Smith & others) yet they have to ride them because thats the latest thing.

The Rookie

Angus Young wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Wily-Quixote wrote:

There is that and there's also the 100% of pro-downhillers who ride full suspension - who's anecdote wins?

Rockmonkeysc wins, pro cyclists ride what the sponsor tells them to ride, which is most definitely not always the fastest (see rigid rear triangle FS bikes of yor......)

Yes, because having your rider finish last would be a great return for all the sponsorship spend, right? That's the way to attract the masses to your brand. No, they put their racers on bikes that they think are going to help them win races, not simply the most expensive bike in their range in the hope that they'll shift one or two more of the bike that's likely to sell the least out of their range due to its prohibitive cost. Getting your man on the podium is what sponsorship is all about because we all want to ride what the winner is riding.

To be that naive you must be really young......getting your rider seen in the right light is all that counts, being unknown/disliked etc but on the podium is not what they want at all.......

Angus Young

The Rookie wrote:

getting your rider seen in the right light is all that counts

So your idea of 'the right light' is at the back of the field? Your idea of smart marketing is to publicly demonstrate that your kit is slower than everyone else's? Your idea for promoting your brand is to associate your bikes with losers? There's a future for you in marketing.

welshkev

Angus Young wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

getting your rider seen in the right light is all that counts

So your idea of 'the right light' as at the back of the field? Your idea of smart marketing is to publicly demonstrate that your kit is slower than everyone else's? Your idea for promoting your brand is to associate your bikes with losers? There's a future for you in marketing.

Brendan fairclough, cedric gracia........

The Rookie

Not my idea, it's marketing, it's having the 'right people' on the bike, not necessarily winning, it's what sells and that's a fact.

cooldad

If they'd pay me to ride I'd happily pootle along at the back. Everyone loves me, and fans would relate to me much more than some gnarly riding god. Being rubbish has it's upside.