# Hardtail vs. Full Suspension



## lthomas52 (Oct 24, 2016)

Of course a full suspension is better, but what do you guys like about riding a hardtail?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

I ride both.

How does that suit you?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

lthomas52 said:


> Of course a full suspension is better, but what do you guys like about riding a hardtail?


About three.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

lthomas52 said:


> Of course a full suspension is better, but what do you guys like about riding a hardtail?


It makes me like my full suspension bike more.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

stochastic said:


> This is just as bad as your previous videos. Sad.
> 
> At least you're consistent!


isn't it the same video from another post? Is it Picard?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

How about the right tool for the job? Depends on trail, weather and the ride.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

lthomas52 said:


> Of course a full suspension is better, but what do you guys like about riding a hardtail?


"Better"?
50% better? 16-3/4" better? 8 dB better? More flavor? Less filling?

Needs more data.

...and correct units of betterness.

-F


----------



## 2old (Aug 31, 2015)

100% better


----------



## A1an (Jun 3, 2007)

Tough crowd. Keep em coming, lt.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I'm old and I like technical trails. A hardtail would just be uncivilized.


----------



## Br80 (Sep 10, 2013)

lthomas52 said:


> [video]https://youtu.be/uVdiD7U1kC8[/video


He didn't even say thank you to the hiker that forfeited their ROW!


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

lthomas52 said:


> what do you guys like about riding a hardtail?


Not much.

I spent many years riding everything on a full rigid. Then many more years on a HT. Now, many years on a squishy and I ain't going back.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Hawg said:


> I ride both.
> 
> How does that suit you?


If you mean at the same time, that's impressive!


----------



## cookieMonster (Feb 23, 2004)

I paid my dues on fully rigid bikes back in the 80s. Spent the 90s on crappy hardtails with jokes for forks. Finally got a real suspension fork from a company that knew something about suspension (ie -- NOT Rock Shox or Manitou). Anyway, the Marz. Z-1 made the hardtail more tolerable by a long shot. Even raced DH on that bike...

Annnnnd, then I finally got a real full suspension bike, and the rest is history. Riding hardtails and rigid bikes made my line-selection sense better than most. I'm still able to find smooth lines through most anything. Though, what I prefer to ride now, most people would be afraid to walk down. My current bike weighs 36 pounds, features 7" of travel at both ends, and has a 65 degree head angle. Best bike I've ever owned, hands down. I'll never go without a bike like it.

But...what I noticed with the modern bikes is that I don't do the kind of riding that got me into mountain biking in the first place. Long, epic rides that didn't necessarily have to be the gnarliest terrain imaginable. I borrowed a friend's 22 pound carbon 29er hardtail a year ago and discovered that I need one of those again. That bike beat the ever-loving **** out of me, but damn if it wasn't a blast to maintain 18+ mph up long fireroad climbs and go 25+ mph on low-angle, smooth singletrack. Long XC rides, though not my #1 choice, are something I'd like to get back into.


----------



## Choice Cut Nutrition (Nov 9, 2016)

I have only ridden full suspension a hand full of times. I much prefer my hard tail for the stiffness. But honestly, I think that has a lot to do with the type of trails I am usually riding. 
I consider myself a climber, so rear suspension isn't really needed for going up hill. And the lighter weight sure is nice. Descending, I have felt like I could hit the corners of switchbacks more quickly on the hard tail. 
True, full suspension is more comfortable for bombing it down hill, and with that comfort comes confidence and a faster overall descent for the most part.
So I think it totally depends on the trails, and your forte. 
That trail in the video... that guy had to be miserable on a hard tail. Lol. He probably had tremors the rest of the day.


----------



## racebum (Mar 13, 2013)

Hawg said:


> I ride both.
> 
> How does that suit you?


x2

and a road bike to boot


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

racebum said:


> x2
> 
> and a road bike with boots


What?


----------



## terrasmak (Jun 14, 2011)

I have one if each, both are all mountain builds


----------



## misterbill (Aug 13, 2014)

I've only ridden a hardtail. Kind of like knowing I am riding over rocks and roots, I enjoy it. I think that your video is really great, looks professional.


----------



## esku (Jul 26, 2005)

20-30 years ago I started with HT
I ride and race from XC to DH
I can't remember how many bikes I owned 
Now I own 
FS - Knolly, Intense, Ibis 
HT - EPO, Yelli, Yeti, Titus and Cotic
Most of my rides are HT, I just feel a better rider with HT.


----------



## Solo-Rider (Sep 15, 2013)

1) Hardtails are a better value. 
2) Hardtails open more doors into the world of Moutain Biking.
3) Hardtails will force you to improve your skillset.
4) Hardtails are still extremely capable bikes.
5) Hardtails are better climbers.
6) Hardtails are generally lighter.


----------



## Fuzzle (Mar 31, 2015)

After many years riding a HT it was difficult to make the switch. I'm a climber and the extra weight is not good. I'm happy I did purchase a FS because it has opened up a lot of doors in the confidence area. I hung the bike up for a long time and during that break all this new tech hit the market and the trails and Cross Country races have become more techy too. FS was there and I bought one. Glad I did.

It is weird that when I switch back to my old retro HT I feel very comfortable and not held back as much as I thought I would be. I like the feeling of not being so far far from the ground and the ability to use more body english. So I guess I can say that riding a FS has helped give me the confidence to ride more stuff and have a lot of fun. 

I do want a HT with modern geo and new 650B since my FS is a 29er and I'm small.

So that my 2 cents.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Solo-Rider said:


> 3) Hardtails will force you to improve your skillset.
> .


Only one thing improves your skillset, riding...and if anything, a MORE capable bike is what improves your skills, not a less capable bike. The more capable bike improves your skills by increasing the size of your comfort zone (which, when it comes down to it, is what people are referring to as "skill").

The basic skills never change, you just have to be willing to do it and not lock up in a panic, which is where confidence comes in.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Choice Cut Nutrition said:


> I have only ridden full suspension a hand full of times. I much prefer my hard tail for the stiffness. But honestly, I think that has a lot to do with the type of trails I am usually riding.
> I consider myself a climber, so rear suspension isn't really needed for going up hill. And the lighter weight sure is nice. Descending, I have felt like I could hit the corners of switchbacks more quickly on the hard tail.
> True, full suspension is more comfortable for bombing it down hill, and with that comfort comes confidence and a faster overall descent for the most part.
> So I think it totally depends on the trails, and your forte.
> That trail in the video... that guy had to be miserable on a hard tail. Lol. He probably had tremors the rest of the day.


It's the climbs where I need rear suspension. I like it on the downhill, but my arms and legs do most of the suspension work there.


----------



## Solo-Rider (Sep 15, 2013)

richde said:


> Only one thing improves your skillset, riding...and if anything, a MORE capable bike is what improves your skills, not a less capable bike. The more capable bike improves your skills by increasing the size of your comfort zone (which, when it comes down to it, is what people are referring to as "skill").
> 
> The basic skills never change, you just have to be willing to do it and not lock up in a panic, which is where confidence comes in.


Yes and No. A bike that maKes you more conscience and how you're riding because it's not as easy will help you improve faster than a bike that lets you get away with being sloppy.

However, once you're not sloppy then, moving over to a bike that will let you focus on doing bigger will be a lot easier.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Solo-Rider said:


> Yes and No. A bike that maKes you more conscience and how you're riding because it's not as easy will help you improve faster than a bike that lets you get away with being sloppy.
> 
> However, once you're not sloppy then, moving over to a bike that will let you focus on doing bigger will be a lot easier.


First of all, that's a massive myth that you will ride sloppily with a more capable bike and get away with it. You can get away with riding a HT sloppily just as easily, people have been doing it since forever. You're just a sloppy rider regardless.

The main difference between how I ride any bike is speed. Same line, unless speed is a necessity for that line, just different speed. Smooth is smooth, sloppy is sloppy. Whether I'm on my HT, a CX bike, or my 6" travel bike.

But what makes you a better rider is to be able to come up on something new, see the line and know that it's no big deal because you've done things bigger and faster before. You have to grow your comfort zone, and the easiest way to do that is on a more capable bike. Once you've done it the easier way, it's easier to do it the harder way. Only riding a HT makes that a much slower process, which is why pros ride more capable bikes to get used to what they'll run into during the course of competition. DH racers don't ride HTs in order to be smooth, once they've gotten to a certain point they're already smooth, all the HT would teach them is how to ride slower.


----------



## Awesomecat18 (Nov 2, 2016)

I ride an E-bike 


Lol jk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Solo-Rider (Sep 15, 2013)

richde said:


> First of all, that's a massive myth that you will ride sloppily with a more capable bike and get away with it. You can get away with riding a HT sloppily just as easily, people have been doing it since forever. You're just a sloppy rider regardless.
> 
> The main difference between how I ride any bike is speed. Same line, unless speed is a necessity for that line, just different speed. Smooth is smooth, sloppy is sloppy. Whether I'm on my HT, a CX bike, or my 6" travel bike.
> 
> But what makes you a better rider is to be able to come up on something new, see the line and know that it's no big deal because you've done things bigger and faster before. You have to grow your comfort zone, and the easiest way to do that is on a more capable bike. Once you've done it the easier way, it's easier to do it the harder way. Only riding a HT makes that a much slower process, which is why pros ride more capable bikes to get used to what they'll run into during the course of competition. DH racers don't ride HTs in order to be smooth, once they've gotten to a certain point they're already smooth, all the HT would teach them is how to ride slower.


I don't wish to get into a pointless argument over who is right. It's the internet, and I stand by my opinion. To each his own. Enjoy the ride.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Solo-Rider said:


> I don't wish to get into a pointless argument over who is right. It's the internet, and I stand by my opinion. To each his own. Enjoy the ride.


Oh man, I've been waiting for your reply and then this. Don't tell me you're one of those civilized internet posters.


----------



## yakkoTDI (May 4, 2011)

I ride full suspension, full rigid or cyclocross. I have never ridden a hardtail.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Solo-Rider said:


> I don't wish to get into a pointless argument over who is right. It's the internet, and I stand by my opinion. To each his own. Enjoy the ride.


That's been my experience, switching back and forth between my Mach 6 and a hardtail after over a decade on FS exclusively. The hardtail gets overwhelmed a little more easily, so I go a little slower, but a good line is a good line.

Maybe you can explain your experience with highly capable FS bikes and what caused you to draw that conclusion.


----------



## Deerhill (Dec 21, 2009)

A1an said:


> Tough crowd. Keep em coming, lt.


They must ride hardtailz:thumbsup:



JACKL said:


> If you mean at the same time, that's impressive!


Your avatar looks like peckerwood throwing up a hail 5: p



Awesomecat18 said:


> I ride an E-bike
> 
> Lol jk
> 
> Sent from my iPoon using Arnoldtalk


----------



## bunnykiller (Sep 16, 2015)

I have my butler right behind me uphill on my F/S and we switch at the the top or turnaround... life is good. He insists on wearing his suit despite my best efforts though. You don't want to see my cleaning bill...

Ok proper answer: The lightweight and "nimblicity" of the hardtail is awesome... no you can't just "make a line" with it you have to pick it. Satisfaction level = high though when done properly. Also there is less maintenance and it's much easier to clean. 

Having said that there is something nice about scaling rock walls (or so they would seem on the hard tail) and being able to basically ride almost anything on the downhill. 

Basically if you rip up a climb passing F/S laden buddies at ease you will say to yourself... "F*ck full suspension ...I am going to be a purist" ... of course a short time later as they catch you either babying your way down some techy line or lying in a pile of poison oak or cactus... you might say to yourself "f*ck this hardtail POS"...


----------



## RajunCajun44 (Aug 12, 2012)

Its funny how the consensus in this thread is that full suspensions make so much more sense on singletrack than hardtails.... and in the same forum there is a thread with many posts of how cool it is to ride cross bikes on singletrack... 

wtf... people... 

I will agree that the FS technology is so awesome now compared to the 90's/2000's... we are very fortunate to have such incredible bike technology now...


----------



## 7daysaweek (May 7, 2008)

Solo-Rider said:


> 5) Hardtails are better climbers.


I've heard mixed reviews on this one. Seems like with the more efficient suspension designs on newer bikes and the ability to get better traction on the rear wheel, off-road climbing may be better on a FS bike.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Still riding the HT and loving it. Nothing overly technical here but does just fine everywhere I ride. I like that its light (22 lbs). I like that it responds to my input. I like feeling the bumps. Next bike will be FS for sure but for now, my HT is just fine. The biggest thing I notice is that after a 20-30 mile ride over several hours, I am beat up the next day and that is where I think FS would probably help out.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

yakkoTDI said:


> full rigid


Serious peeve. Wth is a "full rigid" bike? It's either rigid or its not.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^100% agree. hahahahaha Its a rigid. Its a HT. Its FS.


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

Hardtail or fully? I like both. I like the hardtail for winter and ice biking. The full-susser seems to be my go-to bike in most situations, but I always miss riding a hardtail.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

I like my HT when I am climbing, I like my full suspension when I am descending.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

Silentfoe said:


> Serious peeve. Wth is a "full rigid" bike? It's either rigid or its not.


Bike with a flexstem, an allsop, a slingshot...?


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Why do I find this conversation sexy?


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

55 years old and I race XC several times a year. I usually choose the 21 lb HT F-Si for racing, and prefer my 22 lbs Spark for most everything else. The Spark is just easier on my body, and seems plush after riding the HT. I will use the Spark for some longer races or if there is not a lot of climbing. The HT climbs like a goat. For more social rides I prefer the Spark. There is a saying in golf; drive for show, put for dough" meaning most win or lose on the green. In XC I think races are won and lost on the climbs. Obviously you need to be able to descend well, but climbing fast can help you make up more time. YMMV


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

7daysaweek said:


> I've heard mixed reviews on this one. Seems like with the more efficient suspension designs on newer bikes and the ability to get better traction on the rear wheel, off-road climbing may be better on a FS bike.


Agreed. If the climbs are really rocky or super loose, I find the FS to be better. The rear end squats down and the bike's traction increases big time, but it takes a lot of watts. On the HT if it's really rocky there is a lot of deflection and wasted power and stress trying to stay on your line. On fairly smooth climbs the HT wins hands down.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

My kidneys hurt just from watching that vid. I think I would ride much less trail if I only had my HT these days...


----------



## Bike Travel (Nov 30, 2016)

I choose a full-suspension because I'm a lazy ass and it's more soft on a downhill session, but hardtail should be also a good option if you want a cheaper bike with stronger pieces than a full suspension on the same price.


----------



## yakkoTDI (May 4, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> Serious peeve. Wth is a "full rigid" bike? It's either rigid or its not.


I consider it a full rigid bicycle if it was not design around a suspension fork. YMMV


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Then it's rigid. "Full rigid" is a bastardization of full suspension. As I said, it's either rigid or it's not.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I spent many years on a 'Full Rigid' on some significantly on technical terrain. A bike that was designed as a 'Full Rigid' from concept. Then more years on a hard tail, followed by a full squishy. I'm not going back to anything other than a full squishy.


----------



## xavierp (Jan 18, 2011)

I like my hardtail because it makes me ride at "my limits". Not within my bike's limits. I also ride a full suspension, I'm undoubtedly faster, but it's polished, it's smooth. Good to go fast, not to have fun.

And I disagree anyway with the whole point of that video. I can easily find spots where my full-suspension cannot go but the hardtail can. And on the other, I regularely ride my hardtail on bike parks just for the sake of proving I can also drop 6' features without too much effort and smash roots. But at 65deg of headangle and still capable of climbing, that may not be the average hardtail


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

One of each. Obviously.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

95% of my rides are on my HT. I'm faster on climbs than on my full suspension, but slower on rocky descents. The HT does force me to choose better lines, though.


----------



## ryguy79 (Apr 12, 2007)

lthomas52 said:


> Of course a full suspension is better, but what do you guys like about riding a hardtail?


Haha, Ute Valley. I've ridden that on everything from rigid fat bike to 7" FS.


----------



## HTR4EVR (Jun 15, 2007)

I have both. I'm using my HT right now, she is getting all the rain and the mud. But I must say the FS is a better bike.


----------



## OldManBiker (Nov 5, 2016)

I am new to this MTB world and thankfully I have been blessed with having a really good friend to help me get started (beat me over the head every day to get a bike and join him! lol) by not only making sure I knew what to expect physically, financially, mentally, etc etc but, choosing the RIGHT bike to get started. 

I must have spent 5-6 months doing my own research and studying before I ever graced the door of my LBS. I guess my biggest decision to make on purchasing my first ever mountain bike was whether I would go with FS or HT. I had other friends who also were adamant about their own beliefs and they were almost totally opposite of my good friend! 

My good friend has ridden for 25 years and had owned both FS and HT bikes both at one time or another and when it came down to it became a 110% true believer that HT was the overall best way to go (for a myriad of reasons). So obviously now into my 2nd bike they both have been HT and have not once regretted not going with a FS bike. I mean, how can you miss something that you've never had before right? lol

Even on my 29er with 2.1" and 2.3" tires it never was an issue on the trail. And in fact, some of the obstacles you were MEANT to run over made riding what it was - EXCITING. I didn't want a bike that once I went over some rocks, roots, limbs, etc made it feel like I was riding over my smooth garage floor. lol. After all, this IS Mountain biking, right?!

I just recently purchased a new 27.5+ HT bike with 3" tires and could probably run over armadillo's and squirrels now without noticing them. haha. This bike has essentially sealed my fate about ever owning a FS bike I assure you. 

Now, with all that being said I will go on record to say this as a valid reason and/or excuse for one to buy a FS bike. If you have current medical issues, i.e. lower back, 'roids, lumbar, bulging discs, etc. then by all means get a bike that will help minimize and/or alleviate as much discomfort and pain as possible.


----------



## Montrealrider (Dec 13, 2016)

I love hardtails, but I can ride longer on my double suspension. I would love to try a 27.5+ hardtail.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

I get blog posts from BetterRide.com and this month Gene Hamilton makes a case for slack geometry, 27.5+ bikes. Comments are interesting too. 
Blog post: The Most Confidence Inspiring Mountain Bike (most fun too!)


----------



## Just J (Feb 14, 2005)

It depends. Not all hardtails are equal, I've had some of my best riding on steel hardtails, I find them more fun, faster (up and across) and more addictive than a lot of bikes I've owned. A good steel hardtail has taken me away from full suspension many times over the years. Three bikes always strike me as my firm favourites, a Dekerf Implant, Orange P7 and more recently my Waltworks Ultimate Warrior. I always end up going back and trying another FS BUT having tried and owned at least one hardtail in every material readily available I have to say that my current Waltworks has been able to keep me off my Cannondale Habit for the past 4 months and counting. 

On the other hand my Ti Hummer 650bj was too flexy up front, a Trek Stache 29 I had was a great bike but ultimately uncomfortable and punishing and the geometry of a Stanton Slackline had me cursing it.

With the advent of larger tyres hardtails make a pretty decent alternative to a FS even on rougher stuff, my Trek Farley ripped and the Waltworks convinces me that I don't need a full suspension full stop with the plus or fat tyres I run on it!


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

I was a longtime hardtail holdout - I watched friends have various headaches with FS bikes (linkage problems, creaks, blown shocks) and didn't like the extra weight and TBH some that I tried felt sluggish and draggy to pedal. I ended up on a Cannondale Rush with 110mm and actually liked it, and found I could keep spinning over parts that I had to coast or struggled on, on my XC style HT's. So I guess I'm an FS convert for trail riding now.

Lastest purchase is a 150mm travel Stumpy and TBH I don't find it inefficient either, in fact the rougher terrain, the better it all works.

That said, whacking crank tips is more an issue on an FS as far as I can tell.

HT's nowadays are far more capable than the skinny, light things of days gone by - larger wheels, high volume tyres, tubeless, bigger and stiffer forks and dropouts mean that they can be more comfy and more capable.

I rode my HT the other day and enjoyed that - except for the rear end chop in some places.


----------



## MattMay (Dec 24, 2013)

I recently decided to go to a one-bike quiver, and the one bike is an Open Cycle OPEN+ 29er hardtail that was specifically designed to take 27.5x3.0. It's a boost frame, paired with a 2017 Fox Float 32 boost 120mm fork. So I have one bike, two wheel sets. The plus tires are my suspension for choppier stuff, 29 x 2.0/2.2 for xc rides and racing. In the 29er form it's 18 lbs, in the 27.5+ config it's 20.5 lbs. I love the blend of simplicity and flexibility. Maintenance is a no-brainer.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Let me start by saying both types of bikes are great and fun. The luxury of bikes allows us to select for our preferences.

Lots of chatter about skill building here and thought I'd throw out my personal, somewhat glib take:

To build a skill you lack, typically a bike (like a FS) with a lot of margin of error built-in is a better aid.

To refine a skill you already have, a bike that requires a high degree of precision (such as a HT) helps round the rough edges.

^Disclaimer: As with all rules-of-thumb, there are glaring exceptions to both these statements.


----------



## OldManBiker (Nov 5, 2016)

Carl Mega said:


> Let me start by saying both types of bikes are great and fun. The luxury of bikes allows us to select for our preferences.
> 
> Lots of chatter about skill building here and thought I'd throw out my personal, somewhat glib take:
> 
> ...


Well said Carl....well said indeed!


----------



## bill33 (Dec 28, 2006)

I've ridden all and prefer a 150-160mm all mountain FS. I favor downhill and not worried about getting passed on a climb. I'm happy to make it to the top! With that said, I currently ride a hard tail for a simple reason. I have two sons that ride with me and there is no way I can afford 3 good FS bikes. I can, however, afford three good hardtails. Maybe once they are through college and making big bucks they'll buy me a new FS bike 😄


----------



## mr_chrome (Jan 17, 2005)

Fully rigid and full suspension; depends on the ride I'm in the mood for....some days, it's training on the single-speed rigid 29er, other days, it's fun on the full suspension.....


----------



## sgltrak (Feb 19, 2005)

My first 20 years of mountain biking were on rigid bikes, followed by another 10 almost exclusively on a ti soft-tail. Now that the soft-tail has been relegated to gravel grinder status, I split my mileage and time pretty evenly between the HT and the FS, with about 1500 miles YTD on each. I like them all, but some trails are more fun on one or the other. Often for me, the choice of which bike to ride on a given day comes down to mood or which bike has air in the tires when I get to the garage.


----------



## xcbarny (Jun 10, 2009)

I regularly switch between a Full suss, Geared hardtail, and a SS Hartail. All 29er XC bikes. I'd describe myself as a competitive XC racer.

I have a local 3 1/2 min XC downhill track near me, my quickest time on this was on the singlespeed, also on most climbs I'm quicker on the SS too, so long as it doesn't get so steep I don't have to walk.

I don't really like to race on the Singlespeed though, as I find I spin more in races (recovering up climbs). Last few years I've been racing on the Full suss, and have gone well. However the trails here are tight 'n' twisty on losse over hard, so finding grip in the corners is at a premium. I find the full suss, having a longer wheelbase, does not corner as well as my SS (which has the shortest chainstays 435mm) or my geared hardtail. Next season I think i'll race on the geared HT.

I also found that the front wheel on the full sus kept washing out. I put this down to the slacker, than I was used to, head tube angle. I have corrected this somwhat by lengthening the stem 10mm, and riding with my weight more over the bars. I never had this issue on a hardtail.

Another issue with the full suss is that when you're really hamering, you stand up less, which can cause lower back pain. Obviously on the singlespeed, I stand up more, releiving the stress in my lower back, and so I get less pain. This isn't an issue on group rides where I'm less on the rivet, and have more chat stops.

Had thought about selling the full suss, but I still like to use it at trail centres that are rockier than my local trails.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

I have 3 bikes as well

Geared 29HT - Carbon, light and fast. Fast on short rides and fast on long rides. If I want to cover alot of distance, cover it fast or tackle unknown trails I will take the geared HT. It will do anything I need to. 

5" FS bike - Alu, kind of heavy and squishy. Perfect for techy days and for ripping downhills. It will climb stuff, but I am faster on the HT even on techy climbs. 

SS - Soon to be 29er Steel (replacing Alu 26er) - Good for rides with other SS and changes of pace. I like SS and think it forces me to ride more efficiently overall. It also helps with balance and is fun. Can be as fast as my geared bike, but only within certain limits. 


Last week I rode the FS and ripped some rocky descents. Then yesterday I rode many similar trails on the Geared HT. Slight slower on the descents, but faster on the climbs. Today I will be riding my SS on a different set of trails. I don't need suspension there and I could ride the geared HT, but I would rather do SS today. Just because. 


So what is better? Depends on my mood and the trails. There is no one size fits all.


----------



## Osco (Apr 4, 2013)

I got me a Plus bike,
A Hard Tail without the Harshness.
Wonderful ride It Is.

Selling my FS not because I am done with full squish but because when I look at those skinny 2.35" wide tires I think, Why?, I have a PLUS bike and It's a HARD TAIL ~


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

JoePAz said:


> SS - Soon to be 29er Steel (replacing Alu 26er)


Gotta ask, whatcha getting?


----------



## Cavermatthew (Apr 9, 2015)

HT all the way!!!!!!!!


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

chazpat said:


> Gotta ask, whatcha getting?


Vassago Verhauen. Going to start running it 29er with a fork, but the frame also will fit 29+ up to 3.0. I might change over to those at some point, but for now I have extra set of 29er wheels so plan to start there. Plus I like the idea of being able to run the same wheels on my Carbon geared bike and SS.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

I have both and definitely think riding each improves your riding simply by line selection. I try to take the fastest line wherever I ride but when I'm on the HT it's "Fastest + Smoothest" which is definitely not always the same.


----------



## TomFL (Feb 6, 2004)

I don't think all hardtails can be lumped into one bunch, even XC oriented ones. I have two HT frames, an Intense Hard Eddie and a Niner Air 9 RDO both built up similarly and can say without reservation the Hard Eddie is immensely more comfortable. I believe it has to do with the sloping top tube and longer seat tube and accompanying "more open" frame design on the Eddie. 

However, it's doesn't steer quite as fast as the Niner and it's a bit heavier. I think the Niner is a better pure XC race bike. But I'd hesitate to ride it on a 50+ mile ride where the Hard Eddie is a no brainer. 

I also switch back and forth between a 4" travel XC rig, with ICD fork/shock lockout. Similar drivetrain, wheel size, and tire choices on all 3 bikes. It's 4.5 lbs heavier than the Niner hardtail. Certainly more comfortable, faster over a long chattery section, and lots more grip in corners especially sketchy ones. Body English is not as important as on the hardtail. You do not feel as "beat up" as you do after a long ride on it as you do on the hardtails. 

But, every time I switch back to the hardtail bikes, they feel like rockets compared to the FS bike. Whether it's the weight, or the lack of whatever slight movement in the shock that might be happening even with the ICD closed, you just don't get the pure acceleration out of the FS bike that you feel on the hardtails. 

My $.02


----------



## Mr.Hanky (Oct 19, 2005)

Well, from my limited experience (I've only owned 3 mountain bikes, all hardtails) all hardtails are not created equally. 

My new Stache 9.6 is a 29+ carbon HT, I can tell you it is a completely different bike from my 2000 Stumpjumper M2. That old aluminum 26" would rattle your fillings out.

The 29+ is a different beast, very plush yet very stiff with gobs of grip. Tire pressure is very important I have learned. I think the carbon frame helps take some of the sting out too.

Having said that, I have never owned a FS but would love to one day. My next mountain bike will either be a true FAT bike, or a FS, I'm not sure yet. 

I would assume a FS would be better for climbing technical stuff, no?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Mr.Hanky said:


> I think the carbon frame helps take some of the sting out too.


Are you indicating that the carbon has taken some of the harshness out? Care to elaborate?

My experience and reason for going to carbon was for the increased rigidity and less flex.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Carbon can be designed to have stiffness and compliance in the right places.


----------



## Mr.Hanky (Oct 19, 2005)

Cleared2land said:


> Are you indicating that the carbon has taken some of the harshness out? Care to elaborate?
> 
> My experience and reason for going to carbon was for the increased rigidity and less flex.


I was generalizing, overall I think carbon has a more muted, dead feel compare to aluminum.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Mr.Hanky said:


> My new Stache 9.6 is a 29+ carbon HT, very plush yet very stiff with gobs of grip. Tire pressure is very important I have learned. I think the carbon frame helps take some of the sting out too.
> 
> Having said that, I have never owned a FS but would love to one day. My next mountain bike will either be a true FAT bike, or a FS, I'm not sure yet.
> 
> I would assume a FS would be better for climbing technical stuff, no?


With 29+ tires at the correct pressure plus good riding technique your current bike will get you up most ridable technical climbs. The weight of a fs bike is a negative factor is many cases.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

Mr.Hanky said:


> I was generalizing, overall I think carbon has a more muted, dead feel compare to aluminum.


I agree but prefer dampened feel.  My carbon HT and FS bikes definitely rattle me less than my aluminum ones but I've gone up a tire size or two so I'm sure that plays a part.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Mr.Hanky said:


> I was generalizing, overall I think carbon has a more muted, dead feel compare to aluminum.





upstateSC-rider said:


> I agree but prefer dampened feel.  My carbon HT and FS bikes definitely rattle me less than my aluminum ones


I agree about carbon dampening compared to alloy. My comment was mis-thought in reference to flex/stiffness.


----------



## breed007 (Nov 19, 2012)

I've been all over the spectrum, but I've come back to riding hardtails over the last few years. I just prefer a lighter, simpler ride. I feel more connected to the trail. Power goes straight from your pedals to the ground. No pedal bob. And even on really technical trail, I like the stability of a hardtail. Less capable, but more predictable. If I were racing, I'd go back to FS. But for all other purposes, I'll take a hardtail. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

One of the things that is interesting to me as someone who is weighing options and gathering information about what equipment is best for riding less technical trails and XC and endurance racing is that most people seem to agree that FS technology has really reached a point where it's hard to argue that they aren't the best choice if you are going with only one bike for most people most of the time, yet when I watch footage of amateur races, almost everyone appears to be on a HT. Why is that (it's a serious question, btw)? Is it an economics thing, a I don't want to risk crashing my expensive FS rig thing, or is there really a preference for HTs amongst racers?

I have pretty much made up my mind to go with a FS Orbea Oiz btw, but this question pops up regularly up when I step back and look at the big picture (racing for fun and fitness, enjoying the woods and trails, saving some dough, and keeping it simple). I love the Oiz, but I don't want to waste money on technology I don't really need either or lug around extra weight for no reason. Just curious....


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

Since you're talking less-technical trails AND amateur races then HT is the way to go...Less expensive, lower weight, and shorter duration races makes a HT a no-brainer IMHO.
Crashing is a non-issue for the most part, maybe a rear der. or handlebars...same thing on either bike.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

From someone who spent many years on a full rigid, then years on a hardtail before ending the last 6 years on a full squishy...a HT will influence you to learn how to read the trail and pick more efficient lines. And, perhaps enhance your trail skills if you let it.


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

Interesting. What about all of the chatter suggesting HTs unnecessarily beat a rider up and that FS bikes can be almost as light as HTs today, are more comfortable, and track better on descents, etc? Is that all fiction or just irrelevant/less relevant for amateur XC racers (than it is for more technical trail oriented folks)? Finally does HT make less sense if you are interested in endurance events in addition to XC racing?


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

A XC/trail terrain hardtail can be carefully set up so that you aren't beat up over a several hour distance. Just about every part has some impact even the midsoles in your shoes. And with wider rims and Plus tires a hardtail is even more of an option for techy terrain if you aren't competing at the top level. If your riding is primarily fun and fitness oriented a much less expensive simpler to maintain bike is a logical choice. And if you don't race and have decent skills the case for fs becomes more about a waste of money unless you live where there's a lot of vertical on your primary trails. Even then guys with skill and Plus are going everywhere.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

RashadF said:


> Interesting. What about all of the chatter suggesting HTs unnecessarily beat a rider up and that FS bikes can be almost as light as HTs today, are more comfortable, and track better on descents, etc? Is that all fiction or just irrelevant/less relevant for amateur XC racers (than it is for more technical trail oriented folks)? Finally does HT make less sense if you are interested in endurance events in addition to XC racing?


HT's can beat a rider up more if you're talking longer events and more technical trails (because you tend to use more body english) but less technical and shorter events make that a non-issue unless you have back/body issues.
As far as weight, I know there are many FS bikes lighter than HT's but go to any shop and weigh a $3K HT and a $3k FS (or any equivalent $) and I don't think they'd come up within 3 pounds of each other. To get a nice sub 22lb FS would cost more than a typical amateur is willing to spend I'd guess.



eb1888 said:


> A XC/trail terrain hardtail can be carefully set up so that you aren't beat up over a several hour distance. Just about every part has some impact even the midsoles in your shoes. And with wider rims and Plus tires a hardtail is even more of an option for techy terrain if you aren't competing at the top level. If your riding is primarily fun and fitness oriented a much less expensive simpler to maintain bike is a logical choice. And if you don't race and have decent skills the case for fs becomes more about a waste of money unless you live where there's a lot of vertical on your primary trails. Even then guys with skill and Plus are going everywhere.


:thumbsup:


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

Thanks, this gives me some things to think about. The perspectives some of you have shared also make a bike like the new Giant XTC Advanced a bit more appealing. It's a fairly lightweight carbon HT that allows you to run 29er wheels or 27.5+ and it's SS compatible as well. It's also priced decently with a complete bike starting around $1800 at my lbs or a frameset for around $1500 if you want to do your own build. I am still leaning toward the Orbea Oiz, but this has the old wheels turning as well.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

RashadF said:


> Thanks, this gives me some things to think about. The perspectives some of you have shared also make a bike like the new Giant XTC Advanced a bit more appealing. It's a fairly lightweight carbon HT that allows you to run 29er wheels or 27.5+ and it's SS compatible as well. It's also priced decently with a complete bike starting around $1800 at my lbs or a frameset for around $1500 if you want to do your own build. I am still leaning toward the Orbea Oiz, but this has the old wheels turning as well.


If you tend to keep bikes for a good while, there is a lot to be said for the versatility of that bike.


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

The new Trek Procaliber is another interesting option. You can get a nicely equipped carbon bike for around $2300.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2114986/six-month-review-trek-procaliber-sl


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

BMC has a similar bike that might be even more comfortable, but it is also basically double the price:


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

RashadF said:


> One of the things that is interesting to me as someone who is weighing options and gathering information about what equipment is best for riding less technical trails and XC and endurance racing ....yet when I watch footage of amateur races, almost everyone appears to be on a HT. Why is that (it's a serious question, btw)? ..


Some of it is econmics. A good light fast HT is cheaper than as a simliar FS bike. So for a given checkbook you can get a racier bike HT than FS. Plus consider the courses. Some courses are faster FS, but alot are not that much different. Depends on the terrain. HT bike are simpler in that there are no pivots to deal with. Also nothing climbs like HT. FS can descend faster, but only if the rider wants to. Remember everyone wants to climb faster. For endurance racing HT are great because they have less stuff to break.

Now from a general riding perspective the HT is just fun. I like they way they climb and go over stuff. I have both a geared HT and SS HT and they are fun for general riding. My FS bike is fun too, but really the most fun on the rockiest of terrain. Now racing my geared HT is fastest in large part due to my FS bike being set-up more trail than XC. My Steel SS is really fun, but steel is heavier than carbon and for me SS is not as fast overall. That said I could race my SS if I want and I really like the feel of it.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

RashadF said:


> Interesting. What about all of the chatter suggesting HTs unnecessarily beat a rider up and that FS bikes can be almost as light as HTs today, are more comfortable, and track better on descents, etc? Is that all fiction or just irrelevant/less relevant for amateur XC racers (than it is for more technical trail oriented folks)? Finally does HT make less sense if you are interested in endurance events in addition to XC racing?


The issue is that FS bikes that are plush are not as snappy as HT bikes. That plushness that takes prevents you from getting "Beatup" costs you when climbing. The FS bike that is almost HT like in climbing is not going to be plush. So consider the sources of who is riding and relaying their experiences.


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

JoePAz said:


> Some of it is econmics. A good light fast HT is cheaper than as a simliar FS bike. So for a given checkbook you can get a racier bike HT than FS. Plus consider the courses. Some courses are faster FS, but alot are not that much different. Depends on the terrain. HT bike are simpler in that there are no pivots to deal with. Also nothing climbs like HT. FS can descend faster, but only if the rider wants to. Remember everyone wants to climb faster. For endurance racing HT are great because they have less stuff to break.
> 
> Now from a general riding perspective the HT is just fun. I like they way they climb and go over stuff. I have both a geared HT and SS HT and they are fun for general riding. My FS bike is fun too, but really the most fun on the rockiest of terrain. Now racing my geared HT is fastest in large part due to my FS bike being set-up more trail than XC. My Steel SS is really fun, but steel is heavier than carbon and for me SS is not as fast overall. That said I could race my SS if I want and I really like the feel of it.


Very helpful. Posts like these are starting to make a lot of sense to me given what I want to do.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

JoePAz said:


> The issue is that FS bikes that are plush are not as snappy as HT bikes. That plushness that takes prevents you from getting "Beatup" costs you when climbing. The FS bike that is almost HT like in climbing is not going to be plush. So consider the sources of who is riding and relaying their experiences.


That's what 'on the fly' shock settings do for you.

Sometimes, you can have your cake and eat it too. But, it'll cost you more than a HT.


----------



## HPIguy (Sep 16, 2014)

Riding more will gain you more skills than buying a fancy new squishy bike. Skills are learned, not purchased, and I have myself have a lot left to learn. As for climbing efficiency, depends on what you're climbing in addition to modern shock settings. I find leaving my suspension in the most open mode when climbing tech keeps the rear wheel glued to the ground rather than skipping around. For me that's more efficient than a super firm rear end that loses traction momentarily skipping off of rocks and roots.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

for me manging traction is not a concern. What is a concern is losing pedaling power from suspension movement. I can manage the rocks/roots and loose stuff while clmbing with HT. Where I lose out is lack power transfer. Part of this down to technique. I have climbing technique based on HT feel. SS climbing is similar in that you have to be very active on the bike and moving in and out of the saddle. For me when I do technical climbs I have to constantly transferring weight. Unloading the front to loft over and edge and then unloading the rear to get it to move. And in other places simply powering through. If I am on my geared HT on loose rocks I have learned to let the rear wheel slip and still keep putting power down and grind up. FS won't help here because the tire slip is not from lack of contact to the ground, but the ground moving under the tire.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

OldManBiker said:


> I mean, how can you miss something that you've never had before right? lol


The same way you can pass judgment on something you've never had before.
Saying FS is only useful as a crutch for injuries is ridiculous.

I've owned scores of bikes, both FS and HT bikes, and currently have a half dozen of each, at least. Individual FS or HT bikes vary so much even from each other that it's usually only people with quite limited experience that think they can definitively say which is 'better'. Typically, it's people that have locked into one thing from the beginning and just like to say that their choice is 'the best' for everyone. There are also a lot of marketing victims that tend to tout the 'latest and greatest' fads, and also those who choose their bikes based on some kind of goofy gear=identity thing.

For me, it comes down to what sort of mood I'm in as to how I want to experience particular trails on a particular day, and of course, what bikes are running best at the moment.


----------



## tomfitz (Apr 23, 2012)

I like Fully cuz it's more comfortable. I ride a hard tail when I go to the store or a rainy day.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

JoePAz said:


> for me manging traction is not a concern. What is a concern is losing pedaling power from suspension movement. I can manage the rocks/roots and loose stuff while clmbing with HT. Where I lose out is lack power transfer. Part of this down to technique. I have climbing technique based on HT feel. SS climbing is similar in that you have to be very active on the bike and moving in and out of the saddle. For me when I do technical climbs I have to constantly transferring weight. Unloading the front to loft over and edge and then unloading the rear to get it to move. And in other places simply powering through. If I am on my geared HT on loose rocks I have learned to let the rear wheel slip and still keep putting power down and grind up. FS won't help here because the tire slip is not from lack of contact to the ground, but the ground moving under the tire.





slapheadmofo said:


> The same way you can pass judgment on something you've never had before.
> Saying FS is only useful as a crutch for injuries is ridiculous.
> 
> I've owned scores of bikes, both FS and HT bikes, and currently have a half dozen of each, at least. Individual FS or HT bikes vary so much even from each other that it's usually only people with quite limited experience that think they can definitively say which is 'better'. Typically, it's people that have locked into one thing from the beginning and just like to say that their choice is 'the best' for everyone. There are also a lot of marketing victims that tend to tout the 'latest and greatest' fads, and also those who choose their bikes based on some kind of goofy gear=identity thing.
> ...


I think that both of you nailed these.


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

For someone like me (a guy climbing a steep learning curve), what the last few posts say is, despite all of the assertions to contrary that are out there, a nice HT can still be a legitimate choice if other factors line up (budget, health, terrain ridden, length of rides, interest in racing XC, etc.). That's helpful to know. Some folks tell a very different story (basically unless you are an elite XC racer, HTs are worthless).


----------



## taprackbang (Jun 5, 2014)

Please select below:

If you are this guy:







Then-> Hardtail/Singlesppeed

If you are this guy:







Then -> Full squish


----------



## RashadF (May 26, 2016)

taprackbang said:


> Please select below:
> 
> If you are this guy:
> View attachment 1115071
> ...


Lol!


----------



## HPIguy (Sep 16, 2014)

I call BS, the first guy screams fixie.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I have spent my time on full rigids and hardtails before finding my way to a full suspension ride. Perhaps everyone should start out on a hardtail. They can make a significant contribution to your riding skills and provide an opportunity to hone your trail instincts to a point that comes with more time and difficulty than on a squishy. I think an experienced HT rider can adapt more quickly and efficiently to a full suspension than a full suspension rider can adapt to a HT on any given trail. 

I think a hardtail is a very legitimate choice. Even more so as an early mountain bike choice to develop some crucial trail skills. An example is line selection. This is far more important on a hard driving hardtail than a full suspension bike. A poor line selection on a HT can cost you far more in terms of momentum, speed and maintaining control than a squishy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Choosing good lines on an FS requires just as much 'skill' as choosing good lines on a HT, it's just that the actual lines chosen may be different.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^^ You defiantly have a solid point. However, a full suspension can usually blow over a line that might be somewhat marginal or unacceptable to a HT. All of this would be contingent on the rider's skill level.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> ^^^^ You defiantly have a solid point. However, a full suspension can usually blow over a line that might be somewhat marginal or unacceptable to a HT. All of this would be contingent on the rider's skill level.


True. Also one of the reasons I think FS bikes can also be a good choice for beginners.


----------



## breed007 (Nov 19, 2012)

The second guy looks slow. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## taprackbang (Jun 5, 2014)

*burp*


----------



## taprackbang (Jun 5, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Choosing good lines on an FS requires just as much 'skill' as choosing good lines on a HT, it's just that the actual lines chosen may be different.


Ha..true 'dat.


----------



## taprackbang (Jun 5, 2014)

Cleared2land said:


> .. A poor line selection on a HT can cost you far more in terms of momentum, speed and maintaining control than a squishy.


More the reason to get the squishiest of squish bikes..no worries.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm really not conscience while riding of any difference between riding my hardtail and riding my full suspension. I'm sure I'm subconsciously making adjustments. All my bikes are short travel and I ride XC trails so I'm not hitting super chunky stuff but there are rocks and plenty of roots. I also ride in the attack position on both bikes, not planted on the saddle just because it is a full suspension. But I never notice my fully is soaking up some of my energy climbing or my hardtail isn't as glued to the trail. I just ride.


----------



## Mr.Hanky (Oct 19, 2005)

Screw you guys, I'm going FULL RIGID!!

With 700X20c's

So there!

ô¿ô


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Mr.Hanky said:


> Screw you guys, I'm going FULL RIGID!!
> 
> With 700X20c's
> 
> ...


What is "full rigid"?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> What is "full rigid"?


I can't help but think that you must be trolling.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Maybe. Full rigid is a serious pet peeve. It's either rigid or it's not.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Like Hot Water Heater?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Exactly.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Never go full rigid.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

If you go full rigid for more than 4 hours go see a doctor.


----------



## Mr.Hanky (Oct 19, 2005)

I'm talking FULL RIGID, like waking up in the morning when you were 18 years old!


----------



## robinfisk (Mar 10, 2007)

Mr.Hanky said:


> I'm talking FULL RIGID, like waking up in the morning when you were 18 years old!


Lol, underneath this post Tapatalk is showing me adverts for "naughty dates"

Seems somehow appropriate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

When my 2012 fs 29er frame gives up the ghost, I'm going AM HT - 65/66 HTA, 419mm CS, 470mm reach, 658mm stack etc. might even go plus tires o_0

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk


----------

