Hardtil vs full sus

[GilesM]

I stuck with a hardtail for years and used all the same arguments to justify doing so.

But then I found a Santa Cruz Superlight second hand and the difference is unbelievable! The improvements are not just on the downhills but on the ups and cross country as well. There is nothing that it doesn't do better than a hardtail.

As for maintenance, there is almost nothing in it. The rear shock is tucked away out of the crap and the swing arm bearing are not only durable but also cheap and really easy to replace when needs be. In fact, this 'designed for California' bike is infinitely easier to look after than those 'designed for the UK' ridden by some others in our group.

So don't knock FS; they are simply better in every way for riding cross country. They are as fast and at 24lbs, there is not really a weight penalty either. But you need to look at individual models and choose accordingly because it is true, there are some dogs out there!

Couldn't agree more, unless you're having a dig at Orange, then I'll be very upset.

Most Full suss bikes are easy to work on and need no more regular maintenance than hardtails, the only good brand I would steer clear of is the Scott Genius range, the rear shock is badly placed for British conditions, and some full suss bikes do have just too many bearings and bushes at the rear end, I've had my Orange 5 for 2 years now, ridden virtually every week and never had to look at the swing arm bearings, but I have replaced shock bushes once.

 

[User482]

Your riding style is important - climbing on a full suss works better in the saddle, spinning a smaller gear.

I went full suss in the late '90s and would never go back - you get so much more control over the bumps. But they cost more, are heavier, and need more maintenance. The degree of extra cost, weight and maintenance will obviously vary.

Mind you, I still have a laugh on my rigid '92 Breezer, but at a more sedate pace.

 

[AndyCarolan]

Your riding style

lol - i dont have a 'style' its all random

I guess the closest thing I follow is XC though

 

[Globalti]

There's truth in all of those arguments for FS but I came to MTBing from mountaineering and ski touring so for me a mountain bike has to be just that, a mountain bike. You can't shoulder a FS bike and carry it 2000 ft up a mountain to find the best trails; you need a simple reliable lightweight bike for remote mountain travel.

 

[spence]

And why isn't a FS reliable?????

 

[lukesdad]

I don t think he was saying a full bouncer was unreliable.

 

[spence]

Certainly read like it. Had my 5-spot for about 5 years now and starting to worry as nothing’s gone wrong with it, no play in the bushes or knocking noises...............................
And what’s considered lightweight? My FS is about the same as my HT, lighter depending on the wheels and fork fitted. Mates Rize 1 and Blue XC are both about 21lbs.

 

[lukesdad]

I remember a few year s ago talking to Nick Craig before an XC race,when,we were discussing my bike,HT fitted with pace RC 30 s (so to all intents and purposes a rigid 16.5lbs by the way). He said that the fastest he could ride XC was on a rigid (in certain respects I tend to agree. So I asked him why he was using suspension. His answer...." because I m paid to."

As a Scott supported rider about the same time, A team mate switched from the pro racing HT to the new Scott Full bouncer,(can t remember what it was called.) his thoughts were quite revealing, The FB was far quicker through the bends and nadgery stuff and a little quicker on the downhills, but lost out on the climbs and the flatter fast stuff. Where the real difference came was in the wet. The FS could not compete with the HT. The reason being you cannot get as much bite at the rear wheel.( Ive explained the reasons for this before in threads on tyre pressures and sizes when riding in the wet.) After a poor season,he went for the new Scandium HT.

Of course a lot depends on the ability of the rider,you will find that if you put a good rider, on the 3 types of bikes his lap times will be very similar.
As a rider becomes more skilled and faster the type of bike tends to dimmish and the importance of weight and geomtrey increase. Single chainrings were very common when I raced for this very reason 36 or 38 being the favoured choice and V brakes as opposed to discs.

In summary a FB could be the answer for most riders needs especially on very rough tight runs, and Speshbikes with the brain would be my choice.
If you want to be fast and especially in the wet get yourself a good HT.

 

[marzjennings]

I think a full susser's performance in the wet is more a relfection of the type of suspension than of all full sussers compared to hardtails. Scott seem to run a pretty low pivot point so very active during pedaling, but a lot of dependence on shock technology to minimize pedal bob. Same with horst and 4-bar linkage, very active, which is great for absorbing bumps while pedaling but not the best for pedaling efficiency. But for bikes with higher single pivot designs like orange and cannondale, I've found, they actually provide more grip on loose climbs and in muddy and wet conditions than a hardtail. There's a digging in sensation as you pedal in a low gear, extending the suspension and pushing the tyre into the ground.

I switched to a horst linkage a couple of years back and while I like how active the suspension is, I miss how a single pivot used to feel while sprinting and climbing. I'm thinking of switching back this year. I do also ride and race a hardtail and my criteria of which bike is better for riding is usually based on the length of ride planned. 1-2 hours probably the hardtail, +2 hours the full sus. The full sus is just easier on my body for longer rides.

 

[Tim Bennet.]

they (FS) actually provide more grip on loose climbs and in muddy and wet conditions than a hardtail.

My experience every time.

 

[mountainrider]

Im very happy with my hardtail MTB and have no intentions of changing for a full sus bike anytime soon, but after seeing a few full suspension bikes recently being ridden on the trails, im wondering how much better than hardtails they are.

I remember hearing sometime back that they can take more energy to pedal due to losing some through compression of the rear shock, but I dont know how true this is?

Depends where you ride. I am from scotland and full suss is awesome. But living in Dorset and its a waste of time there. Although I have just bought a specialized epic and it gives best of both worlds.