Moving to full sus.....??

philofcas2

Hi all,

I have an HT 29er and love the way it rides, it feels sharp and fast, with a good dose of ruggedness about it, I can chuck it about and think it’s ace , yes, there’s a firmness to the ride, but it feels alive and entertaining.

Anyway, a mate of mine has recently gone full sus, I had a quick ride and couldn’t believe how comfy the back end was, it’s a high spec Scott Spark btw. Got me thinking that I ought to make the move myself.

What I’m wondering is if I can retain the fun of the hard tail but mix in some a good dose of plushness, i.e. best of both worlds.

Appreciate any feedback from people who have had experience of both HT and FS.

I’d say XC is my bag, I like mile munching and climbs, but love the downhills bits too, but nothing too extreme.

Cheers,

Phil.

billycool

PhilofCas2 wrote:

Hi all,

I have an HT 29er and love the way it rides, it feels sharp and fast, with a good dose of ruggedness about it, I can chuck it about and think it’s ace , yes, there’s a firmness to the ride, but it feels alive and entertaining.

Anyway, a mate of mine has recently gone full sus, I had a quick ride and couldn’t believe how comfy the back end was, it’s a high spec Scott Spark btw. Got me thinking that I ought to make the move myself.

What I’m wondering is if I can retain the fun of the hard tail but mix in some a good dose of plushness, i.e. best of both worlds.

Appreciate any feedback from people who have had experience of both HT and FS.

I’d say XC is my bag, I like mile munching and climbs, but love the downhills bits too, but nothing too extreme.

Cheers,

Phil.

Phil - you still riding that Boardman? (I think that's what you had)

I've done the whole XC HT to FS thing and your statements above very much echo how I feel/felt.

HT does give you that responsiveness and almost instant feedback. It's great fun to find those fast lines and really ride a trail. I love my HT, in the right places.

Having said that - After 20 years on HT's, I never thought I'd get a FS bike "what's the point" etc etc. I was wrong.

A FS allows me to ride the same terrain differently, and the harder, bumpier, more technical stuff, faster. I rode Pines at the weekend on my FS and had a ball. You could easily ride it on a HT but you get more trail chatter and bounce off roots a bit more etc. The FS is just more planted and gives you a great degree of control and therefore you carry more speed. You probably lose a bit on the climbs and flats (mine is about 28lbs so actually not that bad).

A FS really comes into it's element (for me) on anything vaguely downhill - doesn't have to be knarly bikepark DH but just a good fast trail with little drops offs, lips and berms. You can ride it all on a HT but on a FS it's just a bit smoother and you can push things a bit harder and I'm finally getting a tiny bit of air. I find my HT tried to throw/buck/chuck me off at times. The FS is far more forgiving. The geometry is slacker so that helps but having 140mm travel really makes a difference.

I now have a HT and FS. Both give me equally as much pleasure.

Places I've ridden both:

Bike Park Wales (uplift) HT - blues were quick and really fun (lots of trail chatter). Reds were not very enjoyable -too harsh.
FS - blues were even quicker (no trail chatter), Reds were mental (in a good way)
Cwncarn(uplift) HT - Twrch was good fun - if not a bit rocky in places and bounced off a lot of stuff - massve arm pump.
FS - Rode `over` most rocks and just more composed and carried more speed - great fun
Cwmcarn DH HT - not great - rode it by accident - less said the better
FS - still quite scary but so much more fun
Cannock Chase HT - great fun - fast and flowing, climbs really well. Final DH run limited in what I could do
FS - hooligan - fast and jumped off stuff - whoop whoop!
Pines HT - also great fun - natural environment - some trail chatter and roots kicking me off line
FS - what trail chatter, what roots?
South Wales (Afan) HT - climbs really well - loves the technical single track - limited a bit with trail chatter/roots at times
FS - hooilgan part 2 - the DH sections were nuts, faster, more grip/control and just mental I was whooping like a 5 year old. - climbs ok but not the same was as the HT.

I did Afan 2 weeks ago and Pines last weekend. At Afan I gained more on the DH than I `lost` on the climbing (I can lock out forks and stiffen rear shock). At Pines I got round in under an hour on my FS and beat my HT time.

Not sure if that helps.

You've ridden a HT so you'll get this - you said it above - for me, when I go back to my HT I enjoy it differently and almost ride it differently when I hve been on my FS. I rode pines recently on my HT and got some air, drops offs and stuff I wouldn't normally do - because I'd learnt it on my FS and didn't think my HT could do it. I had new skills and confidence in my HT I'd not had before.

Both are awesome but I've been pleasantly surprised by how much a FS bike has enriched my MTB, even at the tender age of 44.

Have both - I would struggle to make a choice but suspect FS would win.

philofcas2

Wow, cheers Billy! Will read in a mo. Yes, still have Boardman, it really is a great bike. Speak soon.

philofcas2

Top write up Billy, much appreciated, well, you’ve sold it to me!!!!! Was always thinking of keeping the HT, too good to let go. So yes, will have to start saving, though must admit, the reviews of the Bossnut make me think a FS is doable on a budget??? Upper limit would be double that and seeing what Canyon have to offer, then a brilliant bike awaits! (Btw, it was my mate Lee who came to the off-piste ride last year who’s moved to the Scott, he got an ex demo one, not far off half price, if I could repeat that deal I’d be in for one).

billycool

PhilofCas2 wrote:

Top write up Billy, much appreciated, well, you’ve sold it to me!!!!! Was always thinking of keeping the HT, too good to let go. So yes, will have to start saving, though must admit, the reviews of the Bossnut make me think a FS is doable on a budget??? Upper limit would be double that and seeing what Canyon have to offer, then a brilliant bike awaits! (Btw, it was my mate Lee who came to the off-piste ride last year who’s moved to the Scott, he got an ex demo one, not far off half price, if I could repeat that deal I’d be in for one).

Phil - I'm glad I've done such a good sales pitch.

You're very competent on your HT (I remember you going down the bike park drop offs on it - no fear!). I think you'll enjoy a FS bike.

If you want an `entry level` FS then the usual suspects are:
Boardman
Vitus
Calibre

The only think I would want to check is the weight. Personally, I don't want anything too heavy for XC type riding. The Norco I got from Steve Sordy is arguably an enduro bike, but he's fitted lots of bits and it's lighter as a result. c.13kg.

Rutland Cycles are doing some good deals right now to shift demo/display and some returns stock.

They have Scott bikes:

https://www.rutlandcycling.com/bikes/sc ... ock/onsale

You can get a half decent bike for under £2k, particulalry with the deals that can be had.

Make sure you try a few as we all like different things.

Happy shopping!

3wheeler

Look out for anything that has 'too much' suspension and too slack geometry for where you plan to ride since it might just soak up everything and make your fun rides feel a bit dull and boring! I would have thought up to 140mm would be about right from what you've said but definitely try to get a demo if you can.

philofcas2

Thanks lads

tallpaul_s

3wheeler wrote:

Look out for anything that has 'too much' suspension and too slack geometry for where you plan to ride since it might just soak up everything and make your fun rides feel a bit dull and boring! I would have thought up to 140mm would be about right from what you've said but definitely try to get a demo if you can.

100% this, something too long/slack will be sluggish on tight, flat singletrack, I'd be looking for a 120-140mm travel bike with 66-68HA, and not too long a wheelbase/reach.

Long, low and slack bikes are great when pointing downhill but they not the best when going slow or on tight, flat trails.

kajjal

I recently bought a Camber and it is very different to my previous XC hard tail. Both are 29er's.

It is a much smoother ride and over the rough ground I have much more control. The downside is the hardtail is noticeably better up hill I am guessing due to weight and also power is not lost into rear suspension. I thought I might find it robs you of the feel and fun of the trail but it is just a different approach and equally good to ride.

philofcas2

Cheers all again, yes, want to avoid a sloppy, wallowing ride that’s mega comfy but lacking feel. Must admit, I’m really liking the idea of a Bossnut to put my foot in the water so to speak. We’ll see.

tallpaul_s

I test rode 2 Whyte bikes back to back, one was the S-150 C-works - a £5500 29er with 150mm travel and very slack and long. Then I rode the T-130s, a 27.5 130mm travel bike with a bit steeper HA, not as long and half the price. On the trails I ride I picked the T-130 over the S-150 without a moment's thought. It was just too slack and long ad gravity orientated for flat, pedally, twisty trails. If anything my Escarpe is a little too long for the trails I ride - if I bought it again I'd think about getting the L size rather than XL, I'm right in between sizes.

As a comparison, my current bike is 495 reach, 1234 wheelbase and a 66 HA. My next FS bike may well have a 458 reach, 1189 wheelbase and 66.5 HA, so a fair bit shorter and a tiny bit steeper. I found it to be brilliant on fast, tight trails, so agile and eager to turn. Both have the same travel but feel quite different.

philofcas2

TallPaul_S wrote:

I test rode 2 Whyte bikes back to back, one was the S-150 C-works - a £5500 29er with 150mm travel and very slack and long. Then I rode the T-130s, a 27.5 130mm travel bike with a bit steeper HA, not as long and half the price. On the trails I ride I picked the T-130 over the S-150 without a moment's thought. It was just too slack and long ad gravity orientated for flat, pedally, twisty trails. If anything my Escarpe is a little too long for the trails I ride - if I bought it again I'd think about getting the L size rather than XL, I'm right in between sizes.

As a comparison, my current bike is 495 reach, 1234 wheelbase and a 66 HA. My next FS bike may well have a 458 reach, 1189 wheelbase and 66.5 HA, so a fair bit shorter and a tiny bit steeper. I found it to be brilliant on fast, tight trails, so agile and eager to turn. Both have the same travel but feel quite different.

Appreciate your help Paul, that’s the kind of feedback I’m looking for, I’ve ridden HT all my life (big 5, 0, birthday last month) and have obviously been happy with it, I will continue but definitely now want to have full sus too. Just don’t want to go too far though, as you explained and others have too, it’s obvious you can take it too far, having said that, I do want comfort/benefits if I’m going to spend the money, so want a middle ground I suppose, 130mm seems to be fine for me, btw that’s what my mates Scott Spark is, I think it’s described as a XC bike but maybe towards the upper end of travel in that category?

JBA

Have a look at the Giant Anthem, PhilofCas2.
The 2017 models have 120mm front and 110mm rear suspension and the 2018 models are 130mm F and 110mm R.

There are some good deals to be had on the 2017 models. e.g. Anthem 2 for £1,700.

(You can increase the fork travel by changing the airshaft in the Fox Rhythm forks if you want 130mm)

billycool

PhilofCas2 wrote:

TallPaul_S wrote:

I test rode 2 Whyte bikes back to back, one was the S-150 C-works - a £5500 29er with 150mm travel and very slack and long. Then I rode the T-130s, a 27.5 130mm travel bike with a bit steeper HA, not as long and half the price. On the trails I ride I picked the T-130 over the S-150 without a moment's thought. It was just too slack and long ad gravity orientated for flat, pedally, twisty trails. If anything my Escarpe is a little too long for the trails I ride - if I bought it again I'd think about getting the L size rather than XL, I'm right in between sizes.

As a comparison, my current bike is 495 reach, 1234 wheelbase and a 66 HA. My next FS bike may well have a 458 reach, 1189 wheelbase and 66.5 HA, so a fair bit shorter and a tiny bit steeper. I found it to be brilliant on fast, tight trails, so agile and eager to turn. Both have the same travel but feel quite different.

Appreciate your help Paul, that’s the kind of feedback I’m looking for, I’ve ridden HT all my life (big 5, 0, birthday last month) and have obviously been happy with it, I will continue but definitely now want to have full sus too. Just don’t want to go too far though, as you explained and others have too, it’s obvious you can take it too far, having said that, I do want comfort/benefits if I’m going to spend the money, so want a middle ground I suppose, 130mm seems to be fine for me, btw that’s what my mates Scott Spark is, I think it’s described as a XC bike but maybe towards the upper end of travel in that category?

You'll have to come to Pines again and have a go on my Norco Phil.

"XC bike but maybe towards the upper end of travel in that category"

That sort of describes my bike. It's just under 13kg so not too heavy but also does the DH stuff quite well. I'm sure I'd be quite happy with 120/130mm travel but at 140mm it just seems to be a good compromise. Before I bought the Norco I was looking at a Specilaized Camber as that was 130mm. The Stumpjumper was 150mm and I felt it was over biked. I've also ridden a Whyte T-130 (130mm) that felt no `smaller`. It can depends on the bike design and how they use the travel on offer.

I don't think I ever fully utilise the travel on my bike, so it certainly isn't essential.

philofcas2

BillyCool wrote:

PhilofCas2 wrote:

TallPaul_S wrote:

I test rode 2 Whyte bikes back to back, one was the S-150 C-works - a £5500 29er with 150mm travel and very slack and long. Then I rode the T-130s, a 27.5 130mm travel bike with a bit steeper HA, not as long and half the price. On the trails I ride I picked the T-130 over the S-150 without a moment's thought. It was just too slack and long ad gravity orientated for flat, pedally, twisty trails. If anything my Escarpe is a little too long for the trails I ride - if I bought it again I'd think about getting the L size rather than XL, I'm right in between sizes.

As a comparison, my current bike is 495 reach, 1234 wheelbase and a 66 HA. My next FS bike may well have a 458 reach, 1189 wheelbase and 66.5 HA, so a fair bit shorter and a tiny bit steeper. I found it to be brilliant on fast, tight trails, so agile and eager to turn. Both have the same travel but feel quite different.

Appreciate your help Paul, that’s the kind of feedback I’m looking for, I’ve ridden HT all my life (big 5, 0, birthday last month) and have obviously been happy with it, I will continue but definitely now want to have full sus too. Just don’t want to go too far though, as you explained and others have too, it’s obvious you can take it too far, having said that, I do want comfort/benefits if I’m going to spend the money, so want a middle ground I suppose, 130mm seems to be fine for me, btw that’s what my mates Scott Spark is, I think it’s described as a XC bike but maybe towards the upper end of travel in that category?

You'll have to come to Pines again and have a go on my Norco Phil.

"XC bike but maybe towards the upper end of travel in that category"

That sort of describes my bike. It's just under 13kg so not too heavy but also does the DH stuff quite well. I'm sure I'd be quite happy with 120/130mm travel but at 140mm it just seems to be a good compromise. Before I bought the Norco I was looking at a Specilaized Camber as that was 130mm. The Stumpjumper was 150mm and I felt it was over biked. I've also ridden a Whyte T-130 (130mm) that felt no `smaller`. It can depends on the bike design and how they use the travel on offer.

I don't think I ever fully utilise the travel on my bike, so it certainly isn't essential.

Cheers Billy, thanks for the offer mate.

Look forward to trialling/researching and getting one.

steve_sordy

I moved to a FS to save my back and knees. Never regretted it.

I ride with about 28% sag front and rear on my Whyte T130. And about 30% front and rear on my Capra. Some riders would be aghast at such high levels of sag. I met one guy on his Capra who rode with 15% sag, and he still used 90% of his travel! I would get shaken to bits at that sag%.
When I first get a new bike, I spend a lot of time dicking about with the suspension settings to get the ride I like. If that requires me to add or remove air volume spacers then I do so. One of the things that you can do with a FS is that you can run the rear suspension with less sag to stiffen it up to mimic (after a fashion) the feel of your hardtail. It may sound like a good solution, but I would advise caution. If you have radically different sag levels front and rear, you will alter the bike geometry and you will experience problems with descending as you will feel as though you are about to go OTB. It would be better to set the suspension in a balanced way and then use a lockout or low speed compression lever to stiffen up the rear as and when you need it.

Personally, I do a jump to flat and tune the suspension so that the same amount of suspension travel is consumed front and rear. I consider that "balanced". Alternatively, ride fast over level but bumpy terrain to see whether the suspension is balanced. These tests have shown to me the need for air volume spacer changes (add or remove at either end). On the Capra I had to add spacers to the fork, but on the Whyte it was the shock that needed them.

philofcas2

Ta Steve

philofcas2

Thanks oxoman

philofcas2

Well, I had a more extended ride on my mate’s Scott, o dear, back to square one, felt comfy as hell, but lacked any feedback, (though I did really wonder if the shock was too low in pressure?) It had the feeling of being able to tram along with little care of what you’re riding over and on that front I could see it being a less fatiguing ride, but it just felt soggy and devoid of much need to take control and ‘ride’ the bike if you get my drift.

I suppose it reinforces the fact of needing some demo rides.

The Rookie

Not ridden a recent FS Scott, but yes some prefer a more mushy rear suspension so you can't feel anything (many Treks are like that and I really dislike them) others a more dialled in feeling more like a 'comfortable hardtail' which is how I prefer it.

billycool

The Rookie wrote:

Not ridden a recent FS Scott, but yes some prefer a more mushy rear suspension so you can't feel anything (many Treks are like that and I really dislike them) others a more dialled in feeling more like a 'comfortable hardtail' which is how I prefer it.

That is the phrase I've been searching for to describe how is have my FS set up.

I've ridden HT's for 20+ years and find it hard to explain how I have my FS set-up as some friends have that `mushy` set up and seem to like riding an arm chair. I like trail feedback and have firmer suspension and your phrase explains it really well.

Thanks for that!

JGTR

Air pressure and rebound can also affect feel. I like the Bird Aeris with the pedal platform setting on the rear shock, feels solid until you hit a big bump.

steve_sordy

i have found this document from Bike Rumour to provide as much information about suspension set up as you could possibly want to know in an easy to understand format. Download and save!

https://bikerumor.com/2014/10/30/bikeru ... -download/

JGTR

steve_sordy wrote:

i have found this document from Bike Rumour to provide as much information about suspension set up as you could possibly want to know in an easy to understand format. Download and save!

https://bikerumor.com/2014/10/30/bikeru ... -download/

Cheers for this, have been looking for an article like this for a while

RichardSmart

PhilofCas2 wrote:

Well, I had a more extended ride on my mate’s Scott, o dear, back to square one, felt comfy as hell, but lacked any feedback, (though I did really wonder if the shock was too low in pressure?) It had the feeling of being able to tram along with little care of what you’re riding over and on that front I could see it being a less fatiguing ride, but it just felt soggy and devoid of much need to take control and ‘ride’ the bike if you get my drift.

I suppose it reinforces the fact of needing some demo rides.

What Scott was it? I've got a Genius, and it certainly isn't soggy...

jamski

Riding someone’s full suss and not liking how it feels is like swapping pants with your mate and complaining they’re warm. Every setup will be unique, especially with the rear shock. I have the RT3 deluxe and love it. I Use all three settings far more than my old Monarch and it’s rebound, small bump sensitivity and pedal platform is so much better. Did you set the sag on the Scott, that’s the least you need to do for any sort of test?

kajjal

jamski wrote:

Riding someone’s full suss and not liking how it feels is like swapping pants with your mate and complaining they’re warm. Every setup will be unique, especially with the rear shock. I have the RT3 deluxe and love it. I Use all three settings far more than my old Monarch and it’s rebound, small bump sensitivity and pedal platform is so much better. Did you set the sag on the Scott, that’s the least you need to do for any sort of test?

This is fair point it took me a few rides to setup my FS mountain bike to suit me. Luckily for me the shop went through the suspension setup with me and it was pretty much spot on straight away. Had they not done that it could have taken me longer to sort out.

RichardSmart

Why not get yourself a Scott Genius or a Specialized Brain? I have a Genius MC10, and it's brilliant... You can lockout the rear suspension or use either of the travel modes.

philofcas2

Thanks all, cheers lads.

Yes, love that description of ‘comfy hard tail’, could be where I’m heading :?:

It’s a Scott Spark, Fox front and rear suspension, very good spec throughout, the shop set the sag for him and he’s 2 stone heavier than myself.

Totally agree on the setup, I did say to him I’d like to spend time tweaking it to suit me, but we were out on a ride so wasn’t really practical, I only wanted a longer ride than I’d had before just to take in different types of terrain.

It’s looking like it’s more of a change than I was expecting (?], I’ll get some test rides under my belt and take it from there.

So far, my limited research has led me to considering either a Giant Anthem or a Bossnut Evo.

Thanks again.

The Rookie

I firm pedal platform helps get to the ‘comfy hardtail’, my last FS had an adjustable pedal platform and that worked nicely, the Whyte wasn’t quite as good on a Monarch RL but now I’ve added an RP23 it feels great, I use setting 2 for more XC type use and 1 at trail centres. At the front I have an RCT3 damper which is in pedal mode mostly and only in open for rougher faster DH work.

RichardSmart

What Scott was it? I've got a Genius MC10 and it feels absolutely great.