Hard Tail vs Full Suspension?

cooldad

In castle cooldad are approx 15 bikes in various states, including AM and XC FS, hardcore and XC HT, some rigids, a couple of road bikes and even an old rigid Diamondback currently being turned into a drop bar SS rigid MTB/CX bike. (Shared between my son and myself, many are a continually changing mix and mess of random bits.)
Just for the hell of it.

My personal favourites and most used by me - a nice light modern FS XC for longer/bumpier stuff, and an old (1997) Kona Explosif with Magura rim brakes and Judy SLs coverted to coil. Absolutely lovely on twisty singletrack. But there again I am old and ride like a pussy.

But all are fun, some are just more competent (sometimes boring?) and faster than others. But I'm rarely in a big rush.

Angus Young

Chunkers1980 wrote:

for you......

For anyone except those who think there might be a few extra seconds of race pace to be squeezed out on a HT.

Chunkers1980

pace has nothing to do with it for me. It's the direct connection, knowing exactly what's going on. Fully ridged would be even better but suspension forks outweigh the negatives, in the rear it doesn't for me and my general trail riding.

Dirtydog11

Any terrain you stand up to ride on a hardtail you should be standing up to ride on a FS.

Absolutely, the point I'm trying to make is that on a FS you have the choice, on the HT you have no choice, that's the reason I say it's easy to become lazy on an FS.

(sometimes boring?)

Yes, can be on the FS unless I make the effort, as above, on the HT you have to make an effort.

Conclusion, I'm a lazy bastard.

njee20

I swear the idiot:common sense poster ratio is truly sending this place to the dogs. No wonder no one posts these days.

rockmonkeysc

njee20 wrote:

I swear the idiot:common sense poster ratio is truly sending this place to the dogs. No wonder no one posts these days.

The second Cody joins in on this idiotic debate the forum should be switched off.

Dirtydog11

Someones had a bad day.

njee20

It took you 4 days to think of that?

paul.skibum

Dirtydog11 wrote:

Any terrain you stand up to ride on a hardtail you should be standing up to ride on a FS.

Absolutely, the point I'm trying to make is that on a FS you have the choice, on the HT you have no choice, that's the reason I say it's easy to become lazy on an FS.

No, you don't have a choice. If you ride properly you stand up and work the suspension on a FS. You don't get lazy on a FS you just ride to use the suspension. If you are riding about sat down then you are just wrong and must be on such an easy trail you may as well be on a rigid bike.

As for Angus's continued assertion that FS is better for everyone he is also wrong. A HT is different from a FS but on any given trail I could ride it on either of my bikes and enjoy the ride. One is not MORE enjoyable they are just differently enjoyable.

BloggingFit

paul.skibum wrote:

No, you don't have a choice. If you ride properly you stand up and work the suspension on a FS. You don't get lazy on a FS you just ride to use the suspension. If you are riding about sat down then you are just wrong and must be on such an easy trail you may as well be on a rigid bike.

As for Angus's continued assertion that FS is better for everyone he is also wrong. A HT is different from a FS but on any given trail I could ride it on either of my bikes and enjoy the ride. One is not MORE enjoyable they are just differently enjoyable.

Totally agree.

Using my Hardtail over Winter bought home just how capable a decent one is and that at times we can get complacent just riding FS. I would recommend anyone serious about their riding to have a Hardtail if they own an FS if budget allows.

Riding my FS allows me to plough through trails and hit jumps with gay abandon knowing the margin for error is far greater which gives it's own unique buzz. Weighting and unweighting the suspension to pop off of roots and other trail features is also a lot of fun. With a Hardtail it's more about dancing with the bike through the trail with every section pretty much being an event. A good Hardtail can still mix it up when things get rough but you just need to be a little more on the ball with your handling skills and body positioning around the bike.

Dirtydog11

you don't have a choice. If you ride properly you stand up and work the suspension on a FS. You don't get lazy on a FS you just ride to use the suspension. If you are riding about sat down then you are just wrong and must be on such an easy trail you may as well be on a rigid bike

I know it's wrong, I'm still able to remain seated longer and able to grab a rest more often on my FS than hardtail and generally ride the same trail centers as everyone else.



@Njee No, my initial thoughts wouldn't have been repeatable on here.

If you have a problem with idiotic posts why not take it up with the poster in question rather than make a sweeping comment aimed at forum users in general.

rockmonkeysc

If you are seated for anything other than spinning away on the flat or winching up a climb whether you are on FS or a HT then you are riding like an old woman.
You can't control a bike when seated, your body weight is in the wrong place for cornering or any sort of technical riding. You need to be out of the saddle to control the bike, comfort doesn't come in to it.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

You need to be out of the saddle to control the bike, comfort doesn't come in to it.

Not to mention that the suspension isn't actually for comfort. Like a car, it's primarily there to keep your wheels in contact with the ground. So, if your using it for comfort, as you say, you're using it wrong.

The Rookie

Having just swapped, it is clear there is a level of chattery pedally bits that I can sit and spin on the FS, which I couldn't on the HT, but it's not trail centre stuff, that said the FS does fatigue me slower (important at my age) allowing me to enjoy the ride more without having to 'pace myself' so much.

First time at Cannock on the FS and I set 102 PB's, OK there are other variables (and a lot of overlapping segments!) but that's still a lot, same forks, wheels, tyres, brakes etc.

Dirtydog11

@The Rookie Do you ride in work type boots by any chance, was talking to someone at Cannock last summer at the top of one of the switchback climbs, bloke was on a carrera, vaguely remember he'd modified his Shimano hub to take a grease nipple, think it might have been you?

I was with my brother at the time, I was on my 2011 green Orange Five, would have been wearing white POC knee/shinpads, my brother was on his Green 2005 Orange Five, we chatted for 10-15 mins, ring any bells?

rockmonkeysc

Im positive I would ride cannock faster on a hardtail. There is nothing there which would be easier with rear suspension.
The whole hardtail vs full suspension is retarded. They are different. One is not better than the other, in the right situation either could be better than the other. Some people prefer full suspension, some prefer hardtails, some prefer rigid bikes.

The Rookie

Dirtydog11 wrote:

@The Rookie Do you ride in work type boots by any chance, was talking to someone at Cannock last summer at the top of one of the switchback climbs, bloke was on a carrera, vaguely remember he'd modified his Shimano hub to take a grease nipple, think it might have been you?

I was with my brother at the time, I was on my 2011 green Orange Five, would have been wearing white POC knee/shinpads, my brother was on his Green 2005 Orange Five, we chatted for 10-15 mins, ring any bells?

Wasn't me as I ride in Shimano SPD's, my Carrera was respayed (no logo's) and I didn't add a weighty grease nipple!

You're a better rider than me RM (see I can admit it!), but I found the biggest difference was on braking bumps and the like where I could attack them with much more confidence, bearing in mind that my FS is just 0.5Kg heavier than my HT was, so it's not like I have to offset the significant weight increase of a 'bigger' FS bike.

Chunkers1980

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

You need to be out of the saddle to control the bike, comfort doesn't come in to it.

Not to mention that the suspension isn't actually for comfort. Like a car, it's primarily there to keep your wheels in contact with the ground. So, if you're [sp] using it for comfort, as you say, you're using it wrong.

Angus, I find your views on suspension a little odd.

Having suspension is also for comfort. Reducing fatigue is comfort.

Did you ride bikes back in the day of no suspension at all? Particularly front?

Angus Young

You are correct, "also for comfort". Comfort is secondary benefit. The prime function of suspension is to keep the wheels in contact with the ground. Same with cars, the prime concern is keeping all four wheels in contact with the ground, comfort is a byproduct. You have no control over any wheel that is not in contact with the ground.

And yes, I spent 2 years mountain biking on a fully rigid bike. I enjoyed every minute of it, but would I want to go back there? No.

Chunkers1980

And that's where I'd say you're incorrect. "comfort is a secondary benefit"

I don't think there's a hierarchy. Comfort and keeping the wheel on the ground is the overlap on a Venn diagram. How much they overlap is personal.

The Rookie

In many parts of Europe FS is bought almost solely for comfort, as their norm for MTBing is an all day 100+km 'treck', no part of it REQUIRES full suspension, but it makes life a lot easier over the whole day.

Angus Young

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I don't think there's a hierarchy.

Yes and no. Strictly speaking, there is - you have no control over any wheel that is not in contact with the ground. On the other hand, in the real world, it's all in the hands of the designer and therein lies the art of suspension design, finding a balance. No doubt the marketing department will also have a say on where their priorities lies, and they will be well aware that many buyers are thinking 'comfort' before 'handling' (as is evidenced by this thread). Of course, get the first right and you're likely to be doing pretty good on the second.

In the end, though, the above is moot. As Rookie points out and as has been said in this thread any times, regardless of why suspension is really there, people see it in terms of comfort first and handling a distant second, if at all.

One thing that has surprised me in this thread is so many guys saying "I'm 45...", "I'm 48...", "I'm 51..." "and I can't take it anymore, I need the comfort of FS." I'm 52 and the comfort angle has never even occurred to me. Comfort wasn't even on the list when I was deciding on my FS. Are you guys really feeling that old after 45?

The Rookie

I didn't get it for comfort but fatigue reduction....I know there is a connection (more comfortable means less fatigue) but it's not the same thing!

Angus Young

The Rookie wrote:

I didn't get it for comfort but fatigue reduction....I know there is a connection (more comfortable means less fatigue) but it's not the same thing!

Same thing in terms of my last point. I'm sure I must get fatigued more easily than when I was 22 but it's not something I particularly notice. I could ride just as far and hard on my rigid as on my FS.

Chunkers1980

Angus Young wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I don't think there's a hierarchy.

Yes and no. Strictly speaking, there is - you have no control over any wheel that is not in contact with the ground. On the other hand, in the real world

What you're not mentioning is tyres. Tyres especially high volume ones provide a lot of the keeping the tyre in contact/comfort regardless of any suspension. Tyres are suspension too.

Ferrals

I just find it bizarre that people profess to rarely sitting down - I'd say well over half the time I'm sitting even riding a hardtail. Must get bloody exhausting standing up most of the time for a 2-4hr ride!

Angus Young

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I don't think there's a hierarchy.

Yes and no. Strictly speaking, there is - you have no control over any wheel that is not in contact with the ground. On the other hand, in the real world

What you're not mentioning is tyres. Tyres especially high volume ones provide a lot of the keeping the tyre in contact/comfort regardless of any suspension. Tyres are suspension too.

True. Although that is one of those 'all other things being equal...' type of things. But, yes, tyres do a lot of the work and are suspension components in themselves. Even on a decent FS like mine with a Pike up front and a PUSHed Fox Float X at the back there is a distinct difference to how it rides even just by changing pressures.

The Rookie

Angus Young wrote:

I'm sure I must get fatigued more easily than when I was 22 but it's not something I particularly notice. I could ride just as far and hard on my rigid as on my FS.

Could or can?

Angus Young

The Rookie wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

I'm sure I must get fatigued more easily than when I was 22 but it's not something I particularly notice. I could ride just as far and hard on my rigid as on my FS.

Could or can?

Can. It was only about 7 months ago that I got the FS.

I'm not super fit but I don't find that the rigid bothers me from a fatigue point of view. It's not something I'd even given a thought about until I read this thread. For me I just love the feeling of the wheels on the FS tracking the rise and fall of the ground. There's a wonderful feeling of efficiency compared to pinging all over the place on the rigid, or even a HT.

kajjal

I prefer XC hardtails but once my body waves the White flag and decides it needs less bashing around I will swap to FS. At the moment for me FS takes some of the fun out of it but that's just personal preference.