Hardtail v's Suspension

[jethro10]

Hi,
I have a basic hardtail mountainbike as do most of my friends and were not performance cyclists. We do canals, lake district, bridalways and use it as a social thing / exercise and to take photo's etc.
Performance isn't an issue and I'm not a 'real' biker.
I came across hartails at wiggle I think at approaching £2K well into full suspension prices and being naturally inquisitive, I have no idea why you would buy a hardtail at this price.

I'm just so intrigued as I thought Hartail = Cheaper end, Full Suspension = Top end.
Anyone explain?

thanks
Jeff

 

[mr Mag00]

hardtails at that price, as with all things, start to get lighter and have more top end componentry. you are starting to get into the racing quality bikes, or put another way bikes which would be more suitable for racing and longer demanding rides. Carbon will be more moe evident too. it maybe a great frame with average components or average frame and great components.

Hartail = Cheaper end, Full Suspension = Top end

this is the opposite of buying a BSO with full sus from the sunday glossy, are athey any good, not really. at then end of the day you truely get what you pay for, which ideally should be determined by what you intend to use it for.

 

[Globalti]

I ride what would be considered a top mountain bike, a titanium Global hardtail. But recently I jumped on a Specialized carbon hardtail and rode it round the car park. It felt absolutely fantastic, it fitted perfectly, weighed nothing and the ride was sensational, even just blasting around and hopping a couple of kerbs. I also ride a carbon road bike and it is simply miles ahead in comfort and handling than the old 1990 steel bike I had before, again, a good frame in Columbus SLX. There's just no comparison between carbon and the older materials.

Added later: I ride with a bunch of blokes who all have the latest FS bikes. Without exception they are heavy to ride and constantly needing attention to the suspension bushes and the shocks, which is never cheap. On my hardtail I can beat them up hills and recently I beat one of them down a rocky bridleway, much to his shock. He was on a big heavy FS downhill bike so should have creamed me. Maybe on a 1000 ft Alpine descent, yes, but for nippy UK trails I really wouldn't want a FS bike.

 

[jethro10]

Ok,

Is this getting closer,
Bigger money on a lighter HT gives weight and handling/poise if you keep off the really bad surfaces. Or if you are not too bothered on total speed if on really rough stuff.

But a FS bike for superfast speed on really bad terrain - almost a racing scenario.

Well if I ever spend that kind of money, it will be a HT for me by the sounds of it.
thanks
Jeff

 

[Browser]

I know nowt about this but a bod on an airgun forum I'm in was asking about which full sus bike to get for £400 and one reply said that unless you are doing a lot of downhill racing you don't need full sus as all it does is add weight?

 

[Globalti]

It certainly adds weight at £400.

FS bikes are for pose value on the car boot rack and for overweight MTBers who spend too much time in the pub. My opinion only.

 

[gaz]

It certainly adds weight at £400.

FS bikes are for pose value on the car boot rack and for overweight MTBers who spend too much time in the pub. My opinion only.

I've done a few down hill runs on hardtails and full suspension ( £800+ jobbie for each) and you know why you need the full suspension! saying that, doing jumps i have cracked a few frames on FS as well.

 

[amnesia]

Old skool is where it is

I can't imagine ever needing / wanting a FS bike. Front suspension would be nice on my Sunn though.

 

[mr Mag00]

It certainly adds weight at £400.

FS bikes are for pose value on the car boot rack and for overweight MTBers who spend too much time in the pub. My opinion only.

ouch