why not hardtail?

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

Riding FS doesn't have to mean "lazy lines". Sometimes the best line that allows a clean exit from a series of rock features is over the big rock to set you up for around the tree stump and over the short side of the root. Maybe you can make this with the added traction from rear suspension and you can't regularly do this on a hardtail. Maybe you can do it 50% of the time on a hardtail, but there are 30 or 40 such features over the course of your 15 mile ride.

Both types of bike have their place. Most of the good bike handlers here are riding FS, but would crush me even on a mid 90s 26er.

This. I ride FAR more difficult (but faster) lines on the FS bike with good tires. It's not less work, and doesn't require less skill.

[dancinkozmo]

am currently in the market for a new mtb. on the fence between a hardtail and FS. some interesting viewpoints here, thanks all !

[sparky33]

Originally Posted by josephr

there's a cougar at the top waiting for his lunch!

That's grim.

[sandyrs]

There's nothing wrong with liking hardtails. Hardtails absolutely have their place and the ones I've ridden have been fun. The outright dismissal in some of these replies of full suspension as a concept (never mind the fact that full suspension these days means anything from a cross country racer to a DH bike) is silly, though.

Steve, I've ridden everywhere you name except NTF (which by reputation is the most technical of those spots) and agree that even my XC/trail FS 29er would be overkill if those were my main trails. Just a few miles away, though, I ride multiple times weekly at the Fells and wouldn't give up my rear suspension there for anything. It changes the riding there from kind of miserable to really fun. Like others have said, it's still hard work and the huge improvements I've made riding there go to show that riding a full suspension bike doesn't immediately put the trail in easy mode.

The other place I really am glad to have a full suspension bike is on really long or intense rides (like XC races or the occasional 40-60 mile trail rides I do). Even on relatively smooth courses, if there is any chunkiness at all the energy that the rear suspension saves is worth any nominal weight penalty, and modern full suspension bikes pedal so well that I really don't think there is any significant loss of "efficiency" to speak of compared to a HT. This isn't just about speed; it's about comfort and fun too.

All this said, I still really want a Canfield Brothers EPO

[BikeNY]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

This. I ride FAR more difficult (but faster) lines on the FS bike with good tires. It's not less work, and doesn't require less skill.

It most certainly is less work and requires less skill on a FS bike.

You're still missing the point that it's not everyone's goal to go faster.

[sandyrs]

I should also add that ideally, I would own three mountain bikes, not one

[sparky33]

Making sense here, and I agree that any marathon ride would be more manageable with a more forgiving bike.

That Canfield EPO is intriguing. Appears to be the rowdy hardtail I imagined.

Originally Posted by sandyrs

There's nothing wrong with liking hardtails. Hardtails absolutely have their place and the ones I've ridden have been fun. The outright dismissal in some of these replies of full suspension as a concept (never mind the fact that full suspension these days means anything from a cross country racer to a DH bike) is silly, though.

Steve, I've ridden everywhere you name except NTF (which by reputation is the most technical of those spots) and agree that even my XC/trail FS 29er would be overkill if those were my main trails. Just a few miles away, though, I ride multiple times weekly at the Fells and wouldn't give up my rear suspension there for anything. It changes the riding there from kind of miserable to really fun. Like others have said, it's still hard work and the huge improvements I've made riding there go to show that riding a full suspension bike doesn't immediately put the trail in easy mode.

The other place I really am glad to have a full suspension bike is on really long or intense rides (like XC races or the occasional 40-60 mile trail rides I do). Even on relatively smooth courses, if there is any chunkiness at all the energy that the rear suspension saves is worth any nominal weight penalty, and modern full suspension bikes pedal so well that I really don't think there is any significant loss of "efficiency" to speak of compared to a HT. This isn't just about speed; it's about comfort and fun too.

All this said, I still really want a Canfield Brothers EPO

[Hilltopperny]

I recently picked this up to try out the isospeed decoupler for the xc trails around my house and cabin. I have to say it is the smoothest riding hardtail I’ve ever ridden and really love how light it still is.

The second most comfortable hardtail I’ve ever ridden is my 2015 superfly which is super comfortable even without the decoupler. It is fast,
efficient and comfortable over some pretty rough single and double track as well as the old Jeep trails here in the Adirondacks.

Horses for courses...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by BikeNY

It most certainly is less work and requires less skill on a FS bike.

You're still missing the point that it's not everyone's goal to go faster.

Respectfully, you’re incorrect. I have a pro license and I can’t ride the same lines at the same speeds on my hardtail, though I began racing XC in 1992 and was on and off hardtails ever since. BMX and DH racing as well.

Yes, riding the FS bike as if it were a hardtail is certainly easier. But that’s a waste of the bike’s capabilities.

I already stated multiple times that the HT is fun and a valid option, it’s just not faster, nor is it a better tool for the job. Just like a singlespeed isn’t a better tool than a geared bike, it’s just different.

As I said before, if going faster or riding harder lines or terrain is not your goal, then any bike you can actually get down the trail will do.

[72gmc]

^^^ All I can say is, based on my demo rides a schmoe like me can get away with even less skill than the minimal amount I already have when riding an FS bike. But I'd imagine my lines are an embarrassment regardless, and a pro level rider just gets awesome-r.

I'm trying out hardtails with the idea of adding skill.

[Jaybee]

[Broad brush on/]

I think there are a couple common lines of thought regarding skill development and hardtail/FS.

1) I have to be a better rider on this hardtail or X technical feature will kill me.

2) I have this FS, so I don't have to actually pay attention, I'll just monstertruck everything and let the bike do the work.

both of these are largely false, in my experience. First, HT riders tend (not all, but most) to stick to trails where riding said HT is actually fun. Most people don't think a surprise 30" drop to flat or an endless series of techy stairsteps is that fun. The people that do think that's fun are on a minimum of 4-5" front and rear. It's the right bike for those kind of trails.

Second, though a good bike can save you in a few situations, you get so much more out of staying just as active and engaged on the FS - you now just have two or three times the possibilities for line choice that you did before.



[/broad brush off]

[BikeNY]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

Respectfully, you’re incorrect. I have a pro license and I can’t ride the same lines at the same speeds on my hardtail, though I began racing XC in 1992 and was on and off hardtails ever since. BMX and DH racing as well.

Yes, riding the FS bike as if it were a hardtail is certainly easier. But that’s a waste of the bike’s capabilities.

I already stated multiple times that the HT is fun and a valid option, it’s just not faster, nor is it a better tool for the job. Just like a singlespeed isn’t a better tool than a geared bike, it’s just different.

As I said before, if going faster or riding harder lines or terrain is not your goal, then any bike you can actually get down the trail will do.

Respectfully, you're not hearing what I'm saying. I never said you or I or anyone can ride techy tearrain just as fast on a hardtail. I stated a couple of times, as have you, that FS will be faster over techy tearrain, I think we are all agreed on that. The fact that you have rear suspension makes it easier, allowing you to go faster.

But my main point is that for most people, speed is not the goal. Since you are a racer, speed is your goal, so FS makes sense.

Personally, I like the simplicity of a rigid or hardtail bike, knowing full well that it's slower through some sections. But it's also faster though some sections. I challenge myself often to ride harder lines and terrain, and that results in better skills that most certainly can be applied to a FS bike. People who have grown up only riding FS bikes are often amazed what can be ridden on a hardtail or rigid bike.

Oh, and most people with FS bikes are not using them to their capabilities. Sounds like you're not one of them though!

[Tony]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

Yes, riding the FS bike as if it were a hardtail is certainly easier. But that’s a waste of the bike’s capabilities.


As I said before, if going faster or riding harder lines or terrain is not your goal, then any bike you can actually get down the trail will do.

Well said, very true!

[superbowlpats]

I own a hardtail (Stumpjumper Evo) and often ride in the Freetown State Forest (aka the birthplace of all rocks in Mass). I'd give anything to own a FS to make that place more enjoyable but just can't justify the $4K+ for a bike that i ride maybe a dozen times a year. But if I was to do it again I'd be all in for FS bike. In the mtb races I do I'd say its 90% FS, 10% HT.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by BikeNY

Respectfully, you're not hearing what I'm saying. I never said you or I or anyone can ride techy tearrain just as fast on a hardtail. I stated a couple of times, as have you, that FS will be faster over techy tearrain, I think we are all agreed on that. The fact that you have rear suspension makes it easier, allowing you to go faster.

But my main point is that for most people, speed is not the goal. Since you are a racer, speed is your goal, so FS makes sense.

Personally, I like the simplicity of a rigid or hardtail bike, knowing full well that it's slower through some sections. But it's also faster though some sections. I challenge myself often to ride harder lines and terrain, and that results in better skills that most certainly can be applied to a FS bike. People who have grown up only riding FS bikes are often amazed what can be ridden on a hardtail or rigid bike.

Oh, and most people with FS bikes are not using them to their capabilities. Sounds like you're not one of them though!

I agree with lots your saying, however I don't think this statement is correct. My personnel experience speed is one of the goals for most people I ride with, and only a few of those folks race. We all want to improve, speed over a familiar trail is one way to gauge that improvement. I see this all the time with strava, regardless of riding a FS or HT.