# Hardtail over full suspension



## Greg (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

gmcunni said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

gmcunni said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

gmcunni said:


> 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 said:


> Yes



I agree with that too.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> 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).


----------



## wa-loaf (Jun 6, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

bvibert said:


> 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?  
:dunce:


----------



## Greg (Jun 6, 2008)

gmcunni said:


> 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 $$
> ...



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 (Jun 6, 2008)

gmcunni said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

cbcbd said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

gmcunni said:


> 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 bike trail reviews.htm

Plenty of stuff like this:
http://pics.bikerag.com/showphoto.php?photo=7244&size=big&cat=
http://www.crankfire.com/galleries/picture.php?imageid=3141&f=1|9
http://www.crankfire.com/galleries/picture.php?imageid=2995&f=1|9
http://www.crankfire.com/galleries/picture.php?imageid=3009&f=1|9


----------



## tjf67 (Jun 6, 2008)

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 (Jun 6, 2008)

tjf67 said:


> 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.



Greg said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

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


----------



## bvibert (Jun 6, 2008)

cbcbd said:


> 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.



I always wondered how much difference there could be.  My HT has a Deore rear der. and Alivio shifters (2005 vintage), when I got it a few years ago it shifted so good I couldn't imagine it getting any better.  It still shifts as good, but now I'm riding on a bike with older a Deore LX rear der. and Deore shifters (2002 vintage) and the difference is quite noticeable.  I'd like to try out a bike with XT or XTR components to see just how good those are.  That said the Deore Alivio combo is more than adequate for the riding I do, it's never caused me any problems.


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 6, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I always wondered how much difference there could be.  My HT has a Deore rear der. and Alivio shifters (2005 vintage), when I got it a few years ago it shifted so good I couldn't imagine it getting any better.  It still shifts as good, but now I'm riding on a bike with older a Deore LX rear der. and Deore shifters (2002 vintage) and the difference is quite noticeable.  I'd like to try out a bike with XT or XTR components to see just how good those are.  That said the Deore Alivio combo is more than adequate for the riding I do, it's never caused me any problems.



I personally dont notice to much difference bwteeen LX level stuff and XT/ XTR level. They seems to perform just as well, the XT/XTR just weigh less. I am a bif fan of LX or X7 (SRAM equivilant) becuase the perform well, and are MUCH cheaper to replace. If you ride technical trails you WILL have to replace a rear der one day and I would rather pay $60 over $100 any day. The LX / X7 stuff is also more durable IMO. All that said the lowest level I would ever consider is Deore, and that would only be on a front der. Anything lower than Deore is junk. Randi's bike came with Deore and Alivio ders and I had to replace them with in one month of riding. She now as full XT


----------



## MR. evil (Jun 6, 2008)

when considering the componets on a bike, I would consider suspension quality before all else. To upgrade to a decent fork is very pricy. To upgrade some deore level components to LX or XT would be a fraction of that cost. So if you have the choice go with better suspension with lower components vs. low end suspension with high end components.

If your on a budget HT are the way to go. For under a grand you can get a kick ass HT. But you cannot touch a good FS for less than $1500. To get a FS with the same level of stuff on the $1000 HT will cost around $2000. HT are also better for leaning basic bike handling skills.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 6, 2008)

> 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?



Yup, I'm talking about heavy duty downhill mountain bikes. If your doing lift served mountain biking at a ski resort that what's your going to want to be on. Since Greg is a mogul guy I figured that's the type of mountain biking he should be doing. :lol:


----------

