Hardtail over full suspension

[Greg]

Just curious - are there any specific reasons why someone would choose a hardtail mountain bike over one with rear suspension, other than price obviously?

[tjf67]

If you are going to driving the bike around the city then a hardtail would be ideal.

Most of the old school holdouts have been switching over to the full suspension. They are just a smoother ride. The gripe about them is that you loose enegry with the rear shock. I think the trade off is well worth it, esapecially when you are going through some bumpy terrain. There is nothing like full suspension riding through rock gardens.

[bvibert]

With FS you get a little added weight and loose some pedal efficiency due to the suspension flexing while pedaling (though newer shock/suspension designs are making that less of a big deal). If you're not doing a lot of hairy stuff then the added cost/weight of the FS probably isn't needed.

[cbcbd]

If you do lots of dirt jumps, tricks, urban riding, trials riding, city riding... then hardtails are preferred.

Other than that then there is no reason not to consider a FS, especially with NE rocky and rooty trails.
I think some folks that are opposed to FS think there's only one category of FS. There are also many different types of rear suspension - different geometries, different shocks, different travel (some with travel adjustment and/or a lock) - so in the FS category you can pick something that will fit your riding style and won't feel too sloppy.

These are both FS but would ride completely differently being at the ends of the FS spectrum, the former being great for 6'+ hucks, the latter good for XC style avoiding big air but still making it through rock gardens with happy nuts:




IMO, as far as the "climbing" argument that FS is too heavy, won't pedal as efficiently, etc... well, show me a plethora of CT trails where you wouldn't be able to climb in your granny with a FS. Unless you are racing and weight will cost you time, you can probably make it up most CT hills on "heavy" FS bikes. And even then, there are some hills where you just can't ride up and have to hikeabike.

[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?

[wa-loaf]

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?

Yes

[tjf67]

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?

Probably. I would come up with the extra couple hundred bucks to get the FS. They last a heck of a lot longer than a pair of skiis.

I have been riding mine for ten years and its still treating me well.

[bvibert]

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?

Originally Posted by wa-loaf

Yes

I agree with that too.

[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.

[bvibert]

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.

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).