Hard Tail vs Full Suspension?

rockmonkeysc

Comfort from suspension is important and really helps with control, probably more from the front than the rear. The rear only improves comfort when seated but the front removes the harshness from the front end which really helps you to control the bike. You cant steer or brake properly if your arms are getting battered by repeated shocks and on long descents arm pump is going to be a problem a lot quicker with no front suspension.
I have ridden a couple bikes belonging to expert/pro level DH racers and they run extremely stiff suspension but they are an awful lot more talented and fitter than I am and the hit things harder than I do so still bottom out.

robertpb

I decided after 23 years of riding rigids that my knees were not going to take the level of punishment anymore that's why I went FS 7 years ago.

Also I think the rattling of my brain and neck wasn't doing me a lot of good.

My rigid did give a greater sense of speed along with the blurry vision.

The question is would I take my rigid down the black runs I've done on my FS,well yes, it would be a bit slower but still a hoot, but also very different.

Given a decent bike with decent tyres you can get get around most stuff whether it's a rigid, hardtail or full susser.

rockmonkeysc

I can't remember what bike it was but I remember a full suspension bike that I rode in the early-mid nineties which had the rear suspension between the bottom bracket and saddle. It was a horrible device, my mate kept it for a week before selling it.

robertpb

Known as a spacehopper on wheels.

batmo

After 15 years owning a rigid and then HT bike and buying my first FS last May, the difference I notice most is the improved traction on pedally sections that were chattery on the HT. These can be ridden sitting or standing dependent on what I'm calling Chatter Amplitude.
I should say that my riding is primarily to explore the countryside, so I take on technical sections because I want to go where they lead, the roller-coaster thrill aspect is secondary for me.

njee20

Yes, that was what I always noticed when I went back to hardtails - it's climbing and on the flat there was a bigger difference. Downhill you just skip over stuff more, but when climbing or on the flat you have to be a lot more active to keep the power down. With FS you can just sit and turn the pedals over.

29er hardtail seems to be much more like a 26" FS in this respect though, which is nice!

paul.skibum

Ferrals wrote:

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!

I said I stand up on my FS wherever I would stand up on my HT - I am still seated for long climbs, cruisy flats, roads etc. I might stand up more for climbing on the HT to work the bike over trickier terrain but the gearing is different too so maybe its because of that.

batmo

Batmo wrote:

After 15 years owning a rigid and then HT bike and buying my first FS last May, the difference I notice most is the improved traction on pedally sections that were chattery on the HT. These can be ridden sitting or standing dependent on what I'm calling Chatter Amplitude.
I should say that my riding is primarily to explore the countryside, so I take on technical sections because I want to go where they lead, the roller-coaster thrill aspect is secondary for me.

I do apologise, I've just realised I've lied to you all. My first FS is the one in my avatar pic and there is no standing while riding that!

The Rookie

paul.skibum wrote:

I said I stand up on my FS wherever I would stand up on my HT - I am still seated for long climbs, cruisy flats, roads etc. I might stand up more for climbing on the HT to work the bike over trickier terrain but the gearing is different too so maybe its because of that.

You'll spot the very obvious contradiction in there?

paul.skibum

The Rookie wrote:

paul.skibum wrote:

I said I stand up on my FS wherever I would stand up on my HT - I am still seated for long climbs, cruisy flats, roads etc. I might stand up more for climbing on the HT to work the bike over trickier terrain but the gearing is different too so maybe its because of that.

You'll spot the very obvious contradiction in there?

Well my HT has 36x36 as its lowest gear but my FS has 30x42 so ocassionally I have to muscle the HT on climbs I dont have to on the FS where I am still spinning - if the gearing was the same I probably wouldnt.

Angus Young

Not trying to prove my point but I just happened to come across this which is relevant given that people are saying that a HT is as fast or even faster than FS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVHwoM ... freload=10

Personally, I don't care too much about speed – as long as I'm going fast enough for it to be exciting, that's enough for me, so the conclusions in the vid are not really relevant to my riding.

rockmonkeysc

Would be interesting to see where a FS racey xc bike and a long travel trail hardtail would come in those results.
As it was that test proves that a trail bike is faster than an xc race bike and an enduro tank on that one trail.

paul.skibum

Angus Young wrote:

Not trying to prove my point but I just happened to come across this which is relevant given that people are saying that a HT is as fast or even faster than FS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVHwoM ... freload=10

Personally, I don't care too much about speed – as long as I'm going fast enough for it to be exciting, that's enough for me, so the conclusions in the vid are not really relevant to my riding.

If we call that a definitive answer we may as well get Cody in here to remind us about a healthy diet and the current thinkings of modern scientists.

Angus Young

paul.skibum wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

Not trying to prove my point but I just happened to come across this which is relevant given that people are saying that a HT is as fast or even faster than FS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVHwoM ... freload=10

Personally, I don't care too much about speed – as long as I'm going fast enough for it to be exciting, that's enough for me, so the conclusions in the vid are not really relevant to my riding.

If we call that a definitive answer we may as well get Cody in here to remind us about a healthy diet and the current thinkings of modern scientists.

Did anyone call it a definitive answer, then?

rockmonkeysc

It proves that on that trail for that rider a full sus trail bike is faster than a hardtail xc race bike which is near enough as fast as a big full sus enduro bike.
I don't really see the relavence to the full sus vs hardtail debate. For it to be relavent it would need to be a test between a full sus and hardtail bike of comparable style.

Angus Young

I'm guessing you'd be liking the result a whole lot more if the HT had been the fastest.

paul.skibum

Angus Young wrote:

I'm guessing you'd be liking the result a whole lot more if the HT had been the fastest.

Where as you like the result because it "proves" what you want.

But its about as convincing as their bit about flats vs clipless.

On a short blue section of local trail my best time on Strava is 2.13 - I have that time set twice, once on my hardtail and once on my Bronson - very different bikes and a very different feel to ride but on not overly taxing terrain neither is quicker - the climbing times on the same trail are within a gnats chuff of one another too. If that was the measure of difficulty of trails local to me (and they compare to Welsh trails and similar) I would be looking at a longer travel hardtail as my main bike for the direct pedalling feel and connection to the trail.

Thankfully the riding here gets a wee bit more gnarly and the Bronson definitely gets a time advantage on the downs one we start throwing in rock slabs, drops and root carpets.

Angus Young

paul.skibum wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

I'm guessing you'd be liking the result a whole lot more if the HT had been the fastest.

Where as you like the result because it "proves" what you want.

As I said, I wasn't trying to 'prove my point' and if you read the rest of the thread you'll see that my point isn't about speed. It was just one of the random things that came up on my second screen while I was working and seemed on point for this thread.

BloggingFit

Based on Strava times I have found the following on average:

Bird HT - Quickest on smooth climbs, equal with my Remedy FS on most downhills and tech trails, slowest on bumpy flat.

Remedy FS - Quickest on tech climbs, equal with my Bird HT on most downhills and tech trails but quicker once it gets more rough, quickest on bumpy flat.

Nomad FS - Only a touch behind the Remedy on tech climbs although I have been quicker on some, quickest on most downhills and most tech trails, slightly behind the Remedy on bumpy flat.

What this says to me (and rings true with what I feel when I ride the bikes) is that point to point my Remedy is the quicker bike while the Bird and Nomad are probably level pegging. If the overall terrain gets more severe then the Nomad would close in on the Remedy, especially as conditions get drier. I've not had a true dry run with the Nomad yet but with the drier conditions we have had it has started to pick up more pace.

stubs

I ride my bikes because they are fun. One feels faster than the other.

Daz555

People often ask "do I need full suss".

When I bought my current mountain bike I asked the opposite question..... "do I need a hard tail."

I could not think of a single thing I needed a hard tail for. I therefore went for what to me is now the "default" form for a mountain bike - full suss. I love full suss for the comfort when seated pedalling and for the combined control and comfort when heading downhill at speed.

I have no idea if it is faster or not and nor do I care.

Maro

The main reason I bought a FS was so that I could remain seated to ride the rooty singletrack in the local woods. The thing I found during my first ride was how much more the rear stayed in contact with the ground enabling me to pedal when sometimes I couldn't before.

I too watched the bike comparison on GMBN and thought a more slack trail HT was missing from the mix, I rekon that would have done well on that trail.

Clockworkmark31

Interesting points of views here.

So now here is mine, after this thread has answered all the questions I had.

First got in to mountain biking on a Saracen Raw 2 and well it was bouncy, really got in to mountain biking on a Cube Acid and loved every minute, since then I have always had a HT.

But I still yearn for the bike when I got in to mountain biking a Specialized Stumpjumper FSR love the curves even to this day. For me it would be a dream build.

But the questions I ask myself, Do I want it....hell yeah, Do I need it....hell yeah, have I got one....no. As much as I want it, for what I ride solo or even with the local group, I don't see the advantages of FS.

I still want it though, even if it is just another for the collection.

My opinion personal preference. I actually like the light rear end on a HT and the skittering under hard braking and trying to learn but failing the Scandinavian flick for me this is all extra bonus points.

I'm no famous DH rider just an average joe, but when I go for it DH on my HT and the front end dives in and the rear bumps and skitters around due to the forward lateral movement. For them brief milliseconds I feel like the donkey, eg, Rossi.

Just my thoughts on this.

Angus Young

You might want to employ an editor there, chief. Or, perhaps, someone who knows how to write in the first place. And a little more research on your subject might not go amiss, too. Well written, well researched spam always goes down better.

rockmonkeysc

Theres a lot of inaccuracies in that. A bit more research is required and a LOT of editing. It's not a good read at all with lots of spelling and grammar errors.
Downhill coil suspension is some of the most expensive suspension units, certainly not cheap. £1000+ for a fork and £500+ for a shock is about normal for downhill.

poah

I couldn't be arsed reading it

Angus Young

The writing on the site at the link is even worse.

rockmonkeysc

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19781201#p19781201]POAH[/url] wrote:

I couldn't be arsed reading it

I wish I hadn't bothered. That's a part of my life I'll never get back.

Herdwick

why always argue about something so obvious?

Angus Young

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19782120#p19782120]Herdwick[/url] wrote:

why always argue about something so obvious?

Something so obvious? O.K., what's the answer, then?