Hardtail over full suspension

[wa-loaf]

Originally Posted by ski_resort_observer

As many serious mountain bikes with full suspensions used in east have only 9 gears they are not practical for much else than downhill mountain biking. As mentioned they are very heavy.

You are confusing downhill bikes with XC full suspension. Big difference.

[gmcunni]

Originally Posted by bvibert

I'm confused by this statement. What do you mean by 'serious mountain bikes'? As in heavy duty, like the ones that are meant for DH anyway? Most of the FS bikes I see around here are XC or AM rigs with the typical 3x9 setup and aren't nearly as heavy as a DH bike (but still heavier than a decent HT).

i'm having trouble keeping up with the lingo.

I get HT = hardtail - no "rear" suspension, rougher ride, "entry level" MTB
FS = full suspension, better ride, more $$
DH = downhill (i assume) but how is it designed differently?
XC = cross country ? not sure what this "style" of riding is
AM = all mountain? not sure what this "style" of riding is

wtf is a 3x9 setup?

[Greg]

Originally Posted by gmcunni

i'm having trouble keeping up with the lingo.

I get HT = hardtail - no "rear" suspension, rougher ride, "entry level" MTB
FS = full suspension, better ride, more $$
DH = downhill (i assume) but how is it designed differently?
XC = cross country ? not sure what this "style" of riding is
AM = all mountain? not sure what this "style" of riding is

wtf is a 3x9 setup?

I'm a MTB newbie for the most part, but:

• I don't know that HTs are "entry level". I think some HT riders might also prefer a lighter ride.
• More expensive doesn't always equal better.
• 3x9 - 3 chainrings (front gears), 9 sprockets (rear gears)

[cbcbd]

Originally Posted by gmcunni

so, if i read all this correctly, given a fixed $$ budget. as a non-competitive, casual rider who will occasionally venture off into the woods on single-track in CT i'm probably better off getting a higher quality HT over a lower quality FS, right?

If you are casually riding, don't want to spend more than $X on the hobby and are not into fast downhills and drops then I agree that an HT makes more sense.

But I wouldn't generalize "single-track in CT" as not needing FS at all - it's all up to what you want to ride and where you are - in my local park I can find a couple 3-4' drops, drive 30 minutes and I can ride stuff with tons of 4,5,6+ foot drops and crazy terrain. You don't have to take these drops, but they are there in CT trails if you are looking for it, and in that case I recommend you get a FS, at least so your rear wheel won't have that many dates with the truing stand.

It was definitively weird going from an HT to FS at first but now I don't think I could go back... but I'd love to have an HT and hit some dirt jumps and hang out at the HS jumping stairs and pulling manuals


My advice - test ride a HT, test ride a XC FS, test ride a DH FS, then test ride an all mountain FS - one right after the other.

[wa-loaf]

I get HT = hardtail - no "rear" suspension, rougher ride, "entry level" MTB
Yes, but not necessarily entry level. You can still spend several thousand on a HT

FS = full suspension, better ride, more $$
Yes and covers all of the below.

DH = downhill (i assume) but how is it designed differently?
Lots of travel in the suspension, heavy and with big gears. Mainly for lift served downhill. set back geometry for downhilling

XC = cross country ? not sure what this "style" of riding is
Next step from HT, least amount of travel in suspension and meant for riding single track. Probably best for the "one bike" quiver.

AM = all mountain? not sure what this "style" of riding is
Could be XC or the gap between XC and DH.

wtf is a 3x9 setup?
Just the gear set-up 3 chain rings in the front and a 9 gear cassette on the back wheel.

[gmcunni]

Originally Posted by cbcbd

in my local park I can find a couple 3-4' drops, drive 30 minutes and I can ride stuff with tons of 4,5,6+ foot drops and crazy terrain.

cbcdb, i grew up in stamford but didn't ride at all when i lived there. Just curious, what do you consider the "local park" and where do you go for the 30 minute drive?

[cbcbd]

Originally Posted by gmcunni

cbcdb, i grew up in stamford but didn't ride at all when i lived there. Just curious, what do you consider the "local park" and where do you go for the 30 minute drive?

What I consider my local park is Mianus River Park, 15min from downtown, half in Stamford, half in Greenwhich. 30 minutes up the Merritt is Trumbull's Old Mine Park - a lot of scary stuff (for me) can be found there.
http://www.bikerag.com/mountain%20bi...%20reviews.htm

Plenty of stuff like this:
http://pics.bikerag.com/showphoto.ph...&size=big&cat=
http://www.crankfire.com/galleries/p...eid=3141&f=1|9
http://www.crankfire.com/galleries/p...eid=2995&f=1|9
http://www.crankfire.com/galleries/p...eid=3009&f=1|9

[tjf67]

I have two friends that race Mountain Bikes and they are both on FS bikes.

I don't understand what people are talking about with all the extra weight. The differance in weight between light hardtail and a light FS is 2lbs. You can go much faster over rough terrain with a fs bike so I would think the extra weight would be negated.

As far as climbing you get better traction on a fs bike.

[cbcbd]

Originally Posted by tjf67

I have two friends that race Mountain Bikes and they are both on FS bikes.

I don't understand what people are talking about with all the extra weight. The differance in weight between light hardtail and a light FS is 2lbs. You can go much faster over rough terrain with a fs bike so I would think the extra weight would be negated.

As far as climbing you get better traction on a fs bike.

I'm full on with you. Don't know what the fuss is all about when you get that much more control. My FS bike is lighter than my no suspension bike I got in '92.

Try this - go moderately fast downhill on a regular rocky/rooty CT trail on a HT and then on an FS. The HT will bump off obstacles and want to buck you off - your legs will have to be the active suspension, your rear wheel will spend less time in contact with the ground and you'll have a fun time trying not to get bucked off. The FS will help keep the rear wheel on the ground by compressing and rebounding = a lot more control, a lot more fun.

Originally Posted by Greg

More expensive doesn't always equal better.

In bikes I think it does, but you have to figure out if it's worth it to you. More expensive frames will be lighter, better built. More expensive components will be lighter and perform better - brakes will be more responsive, stronger, more features. Shifting will be a lot smoother from Deore to XTR. But unless you're racing for time or are a serious enthusiast with $$ then top component sets are just way more expensive and probably not worth it.

[cbcbd]

Great example of riding where it's preferred/better to have a hardtail: