# Why do people buy full suspension bikes?



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I know this seems like a dumb question. And for guys riding serious downhill or enduro, I get it. 

But the trails in most of the midwest are flowy, relatively smooth, with a few roots here and there. Yet I see guys buying full squishers with 120-160mm of travel. And most mountain bikers that I've seen don't push their rig hard enough to really "need" the suspension. Plus, they typically run high sag (25-30%) in some cases so they have to deal with all the energy wasted on pedal bob. And I won't even talk about the maintenance......

It seems like it would make a lot more sense for the majority of the people to ride hard tails, at least in my area. Yet full suspensions seem to dominate. Is it simply the desire to smooth out the trails?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Some of us have arthritis or other medical conditions and the cushion supplied by a FS bike helps to relieve the harshness of the terrain. 

Others my also use that same bike for riding elsewhere where a FS is necessary.


----------



## the-one1 (Aug 2, 2008)

25-30% sag is not high. Its about the most recommended sweet spot for most frames.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

You can usually lock out the suspension for hard, smooth surfaces on a FS bike, effectively turning it into a hard tail.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

When I lived in Iowa a hardtail was the ideal ride. There were all of about three partially uncovered tree roots to bump over. FS bikes are more interesting and attractive though. If you mountain bike in a place with actual mountains (or anywhere outside of the midwest) the benefit is more apparent.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Hawg said:


> Some of us have arthritis or other medical conditions and the cushion supplied by a FS bike helps to relieve the harshness of the terrain.


Yup.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Suspension is fun.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

because you can ride further and longer.


----------



## abelfonseca (Dec 26, 2011)

For many reasons:

-Uses the same bike on other trails that call for a full squish (quiver killer)
- Likes how the bike rides on smooth trails regardless of overall speed. 
-comfort/age/back problems/joint problems
-likes how the bike looks 
-likes how other people like how the bike looks
-It was a gift from the wife and she didnt know any better
-A sneaky salesman sold it to a newb with cash 
-Length compensation
- Was passed on from his dead grandfather
- He stole it
- Was borrowed from a friend
- Because he can
..
..

any of these reasons are good if it makes someone ride and get out more. Except maybe the stolen one

Cheers


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

midwestmtb said:


> It seems like it would make a lot more sense for the majority of the people to ride hard tails...


I agree with you, I think you are exactly right.

Of course a lot of people genuinely benefit from a full-sus, for a multitude of reasons, so the real question is, why do people who don't need a full-sus buy one. I think there are two main reasons. The first is that they genuinely don't understand bike dynamics well enough to realise that a hardtail would be better for them. The second is ego.

I can't say too much as I nearly did it myself. Most men are little boys at heart and just love their toys, I'm no exception. We overestimate our abilities and the kind if riding we might be capable of doing in the future. I came very close to buying a 150mm bike before I realised that I will almost certainly never ride trails hard enough to need it. I saw sense and bought a 120mm bike but only as a second MTB, I still have a hardtail which is still fine for a heck of a lot of trails.

I regularly see guys riding tame trails with full armour and a GoPro on the noggin. We're men. Inside, we all think we're secret agents!


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

Why hard tails then? Front suspension is okay but rear is just overkill? How much suspension is acceptable?

It would make more sense for the majority of the people to ride! (and not worry about what other people are riding)


----------



## EBG 18T (Dec 31, 2005)

Cause we can 

Some of us have a selection of bikes that we ride on different days or for different locations. 

I really like my 27.5+ carbon full suspension (120mm F & R). But I do like riding my 27.5+ Titanium hardtail with 120mm front suspension a lot of the time. Variety is nice to have. 

For me I keep matching road bikes & fat bikes at both houses. Setup the same, but allows me to not drag bikes back and forth. I have not committed to a 2nd full suspension yet.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

I'm going back to a HT, All Mountain variety... 

I've seen dudes out on the trails shredding harder than I can on them.

One mitigating factor is they're half my weight o_0 

Us Clydes need a little more give.

I'll be running the widest tyres I have on my AM HT >.<

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

It's ENDURO BRO. :thumbsup:
Plus they make you more attractive to the lady's and guarantee happy good times. :ihih::cornut:
I'm old too and appreciate the comfort.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

The answer is pretty clear. Pick up and Mtn bike magazine and 95% of the ads and bike reviews or even stories about bike are FS bikes. In the 2016 bible of bike tests from "Bike" Mag I don't think there was even 1 HT bike. In the years before their might be 1 or 2 or 20 or 30 covered. 

So there is a media push for FS bikes that leads people to think HT are only for those that can afford a FS bike. Other think HT are only for XC racer wennies in lycra so they are not for them. The truth is that 70% of riders probalby would be just fine on HT bikes and probably 50% would be faster or have better overall bike on HT vs similar dollar spend on a FS bike. 


Pesonally I have 3 bikes. 2 HT and 1 FS bike. The HTs are best for long rides and I am happy taking them anywhere except a DH bike park. Now there are some trails that really FS is better that I why I have one. However if I have doubts on distance or how much climbing there will be the geared HT gets the nod every time. MY FS is heavier and does not pedal as well so it will wear me down much faster than my 6lbs lighter HT.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Old man back issues? Some people ride through rocks, rock gardens and such? Some people want beer or bourbon, I always want both. Because 6 in of suspension is madd keewl.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm in the midwest and don't own a FS. I do have a ht with a sus fork, but also have rigid fork when it suits me. I won't get a FS because I can't afford the price tag or the maintenance. I also don't think it's necessary for MY riding. 

That said, all the above answers to your query are correct...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

The maintenance 'issue' is wildly overblown IME (got my first of many FS bikes in '99).

Can't say anything riding on smooth trails; don't seem to run into many of those where I live.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Surly29 said:


> Why hard tails then?


Same answer. A lot of the people ringing hardtails don't even need those. On relatively smooth trails a fully rigid bike will be lighter, faster and more responsive. I'm thinking about putting a rigid fork on my hardtail for that reason. It no longer has to cope with really rough trails, I have the full-sus for that, so for long, smooth rides I reckon I can do without the suspension fork.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

A: Because they lack the skills to ride a bike without suspension.

B: Because they're buy'n what they're sell'n.

C: Because of a medical condition.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

_CJ said:


> A: Because they lack the skills to ride a bike without suspension.
> 
> B: Because they're buy'n what they're sell'n.
> 
> C: Because of a medical condition.


Oh, please...like every hardtail rider has more skill.
What a joke.


----------



## Boo Bear (Aug 11, 2008)

Variety. Needs. Preferences. Fun. Laziness. Delusion. All sorts of reasons. I have 4 mountain bikes. Why would anyone do such a thing?


----------



## alexdi (Jun 25, 2016)

I bought one to go downhill. It felt like riding pillows. I was sold.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> Some of us have arthritis or other medical conditions like my hemorrhoid issues and the cushion supplied by a FS bike helps to relieve the harshness of the terrain.
> 
> Others my also use that same bike for riding elsewhere where a FS is necessary.


Grody, TMI.


----------



## DualRollers (Apr 24, 2014)

I have always ridden rigid SS, and recently I have been trying to convince myself that I need a full squish in the stable. 

I just can't seem to justify it to myself. I haven't found anything I can't ride (locally) on a rigid SS, and full suspension bikes are insane in price. 

Sometimes I watch awesome videos in places like Moab and think that I really need something with 150mm of travel, and then the next day I go out to the local trails and see guys climbing 100' hills at a snails pace and riding their brakes downhill. I think to myself "what's the point?".


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Sometimes I ride smooth and flowy trails.

Sometimes I ride burly and chunky trails.

Right now, I only have one mtb, and that is a FS, because I have more fun more of the time on it.

I have a touring/gravel road bike, too, which is fully rigid steel, and it comes out a lot when temps are 40's to 50's and the trails are sloppy, so I can have more fun doing greenway distance rides. But the FS is more fun when doing urban MTB stuff like stairs and dropping off ledges and all of that.

My next mtb will probably be a hardtail, or possibly even rigid. Because there are times where I want something like that, too.


----------



## aerius (Nov 20, 2010)

Because I'm getting old and everything is starting to hurt.
Also, get off my lawn.


----------



## LiquidSpin (Mar 26, 2012)

_CJ said:


> A: Because they lack the skills to ride a bike without suspension.
> 
> B: Because they're buy'n what they're sell'n.
> 
> C: Because of a medical condition.


Disagree.

Also, reason B you listed includes you. You're buy'n what they're sell'n. Sorry to point that out to you.


----------



## PhillipJ (Aug 23, 2013)

midwestmtb said:


> all the energy wasted on pedal bob. And I won't even talk about the maintenance......


this actually made me laugh out loud. You're asking why people use full suspension bikes without ever having owned one? Or even ridden one for more than a roll around a car park?


----------



## AllMountin' (Nov 23, 2010)

DualRollers said:


> ... the next day I go out to the local trails and see guys climbing 100' hills at a snails pace and riding their brakes downhill. I think to myself "what's the point?".


Doesn't mean YOU should be riding your brakes downhill.

I live in the Midwest and ride a hardtail. There are a few trails, and sections on most trails, where a squishy bike would enhance speed and flow. There are steep, rooty climbs where active suspension would be tremendously helpful. Hardtail is a comprise, but an acceptable one. On the flip side, almost everywhere I've ridden in Pennsylvania would be markedly better on suspension.

The OP touched on sag and setup. EVERY single squishy bike I've tried(friends) has been ridiculously wallowy, to the point that you're throwing away energy, and killing the pump and pop factor. This leads me to believe that most run it for comfort, but man... what a price to pay. That kind of setup will absolutely inhibit your growth and improvement as a rider. And they may never even realize why.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

AllMountin' said:


> killing the pump and pop factor


I find the 'pump and pop factor' quite enhanced on full suspension bikes. It's a skill of its own, but once you learn to pre-load suspension and release it at the right moment to accentuate the trail it becomes a huge gain in momentum.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

The only downside to a full suspension bike is weight and cost. Maintenance on pivots is once a year. They are faster period. World champ/Olympic XC champ is on full suspension. You can get one to suit every riding style under the sun, including single speed. My bike has 100% anti swat and does not bob. It also reacts to rocky climbs and keeps traction where a hardtail would suffer. I can bomb hills at mach speed with confidence and control. It pops off lips and berms better then a HT. My back and wrist don't ache after a ride.
I love my dropper too. just saying.
Ride what you brung, but I'm will never ride a HT in the mountains around here.
I personalty like 100 to 120mm rear travel.

edit
Oh..................... Do you even ENDURO BRO!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AllMountin' said:


> . That kind of setup will absolutely inhibit your growth and improvement as a rider.


Or maybe you need to experience some more growth and improvement as a rider in order to learn how to utilize suspension better?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Because they don't give them away. What did I win?


----------



## lazarus2405 (Jul 16, 2011)

Even the Midwest has chunky stuff if you know where to look. If that's what you want to ride, and you have enough of it and ride it often enough, a full suspension bike can easily make sense as a main bike (or only bike). In those situations, at higher speeds, a hardtail just can't compare to the added traction and control of a full suspension bike.

For example, if I lived near BCSP, I'd probably still have a 120mm-140mm full suspension trail bike as my do-it-all. It isn't that you can't ride something like Schooner Trace without suspension, it's that I (personally) will go faster and have more fun on that type of trail with rear suspension.

Also, some people travel.

I live in an area where a 100mm-140mm full suspension trail bike is usually most appropriate tool for most local trail riding. My main bike is a 165mm AM/enduro/whatever bike, which is way overgunned for everything within an hour drive. I have that bike because in part because it's the one I travel with. Day and weekend trips two to four hours away, holiday weekends and road trips up to 8 (driving) hours away, lift-assist bike parks, flying to the western US one or even two times a year.

When I travel, I want my big bike, the one I know intimately and am completely comfortable with, set up exactly how I want it, with the exact components I like. I don't want to rent and end up paying $75/day to risk ending up on something with worn tires, thin grips and a painful saddle, and suspension I can't get to perform the way I want.



AllMountin' said:


> The OP touched on sag and setup. EVERY single squishy bike I've tried(friends) has been ridiculously wallowy, to the point that you're throwing away energy, and killing the pump and pop factor. This leads me to believe that most run it for comfort, but man... what a price to pay. That kind of setup will absolutely inhibit your growth and improvement as a rider. And they may never even realize why.


Most full suspension bikes have a pretty narrow range %sag and +/- about three clicks of rebound (for a given rider weight) where they perform (and pedal) well. If you're hopping on a friend's bike, and there's a weight difference between you and your friend (after accounting for water, gear, etc), you will end up with the wrong spring rate and the wrong amount of rebound damping, and it likely feel like crap.

That's of course assuming your friends have taken the time to properly set up their suspension in the first place, and check it regularly. It's surprising how many FS owners don't take the time to set it up, don't check their air spring pressure, or don't understand what any of the knobs and dials do.

They might indeed be better off on hard tails. ut:


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Oh, please...like every hardtail rider has more skill.
> What a joke.


That's not what I said.

But yeah, my post is kind of a joke.



LiquidSpin said:


> Also, reason B you listed includes you. You're buy'n what they're sell'n. Sorry to point that out to you.


Am I? Please explain.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

If you're going to ride a couch, why not just stay home?

(I'm getting ready to duck!!!)


----------



## RideTheSpiral (May 9, 2016)

1. I live in New England and it is root/rock galore.

2. I like them.

3. I come from a BMX background and was sick of rigid frames. (yes i know they're totally different disciplines)

4. who cares, its not your bike.

5. who cares x2


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

I like how every subject via mtbr and mountain biking becomes a big argument. Like a bunch of whiny little school girls fighting over room in the mirror.


----------



## RideTheSpiral (May 9, 2016)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> I like how every subject via mtbr and mountain biking becomes a big argument. Like a bunch of whiny little school girls fighting over room in the mirror.


Welcome to the 2017 internet. "Comments" section actually means "fight to the death".


----------



## QuickSilverZ (Oct 23, 2011)

Since a lot of people only own and ride one bike, buying a full suspension is almost a no brainer. Much more versatile and can help you get through a lot of different terrain that a hardtail may struggle through. I know that I don't ride the same trail network every time out. There are some spots where my bike might definitely be considered overkill but for most rides, its the perfect tool for the job. Most new bikes pedal so well that there isn't really a disadvantage at all. Shock and pivot maintenance is pretty cheap and basic anyways..


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Suspension's primary purpose on a mtb was to increase traction to permit one to ride faster and harder - not to make it easier, or "more comfortable".


Rides on my FS are not necessarily easier than on my rigid bike - I just ride the FS faster through the rough stuff. 

Why people buy 6" travel rigs to slow poke around on buffed out xc trails is a mystery to me. Riding buffed out, twisty single track on a rigid rig is about as fun as it gets. But, if you wish to ride warp speed on chunky trails and remain in control and not break your bike, suspension can be considered a necessary evil.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

I like it, so I can go bouncy bouncy at the trailhead and get all the chics


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

I live in Pennsylvania. That Appalachian rock and roots crap is everywhere. I have gone through a couple decent FS AM/enduro rides now and all I can say is 1.) They are critical for real rough stuff, 2.) What a PITA they are involving pivot point creak and squeak issues, 3.) More weight, 4.) More expensive.

Honestly, if you really don't need it, don't get one just for the cool factor. I remember a thread from a guy in Miami frikken Florida trying to convince himself he NEEDED big-hit FS and his pics from some park on a key justify nothing more than a full rigid '80s vintage mtb to crush it.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

OP here. Some really good points made in this thread. And for those of you who seemed offended, I honestly just wanted to know the various reason people have. It wasn't an underhanded way of telling you you should ride a hardtail. Heck, I ride a full squisher - a Top Fuel to be exact.

My question was prompted by a buddy of mine who insists he wants a full squisher and with a lockout no less. Some of you have probably seen my other thread. I have a hard time talking him out of it given his budget. That and all the full squishers I see on the local trail got me wondering.

As for why I ride a full squisher? Well, I have to admit I didn't have a good reason either. I loved the bike and the sales dude was convincing. So there you have it. A very lame reason. 

But the more I ride, the more I want to set it up to have as little squish as possible so it mimics a rigid bike. I currently run about 20 to 30 psi above oem recommendation which translates into about 5-10% sag on the front and 10-15% sag on the back. And I run very slow damping to avoid uncontrollable rear end kicks.

Yeah it's very firm but I find that I get the best of both worlds - a firm bike like a rigid but with some insurance when I hit logs and hard edge bumps fast and can still stay in control. This is the setup I have when I ride balls to the wall. I don't think I can ever go back to 20% + sag. I'd probably get a hardtail instead, though I prefer my current setup over a hardtail.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Lots of riders start on a $500-800 bike with two strikes against them. Crappy fork and aluminum frame. If they have rocks/roots by the time they get hooked they want something that works and doesn't beat them up. A real mt bike. FS does that. A carbon ht with a real fork does it for those who demo and think about things. Most don't.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

eb1888 said:


> Lots of riders start on a $500-800 bike with two strikes against them. Crappy fork and aluminum frame. If they have rocks/roots by the time they get hooked they want something that works and doesn't beat them up. A real mt bike. FS does that. A carbon ht with a real fork does it for those who demo and think about things. Most don't.


Watch it! The "aluminum frame" thing is offensive. Some of the best riders in the world STILL roll on aluminum frames.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

midwestmtb said:


> OP here. Some really good points made in this thread. And for those of you who seemed offended, I honestly just wanted to know the various reason people have. It wasn't an underhanded way of telling you you should ride a hardtail. Heck, I ride a full squisher - a Top Fuel to be exact.
> 
> My question was prompted by a buddy of mine who insists he wants a full squisher and with a lockout no less. Some of you have probably seen my other thread. I have a hard time talking him out of it given his budget. That and all the full squishers I see on the local trail got me wondering.
> 
> ...


Oh look, another genius who knows more than suspension engineers.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

richde said:


> Oh look, another genius who knows more than suspension engineers.


We are surrounded by them.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

The manual, which is written by the engineers, tell you their settings are a starting point not the final point. You are suppose to adjust it from there to your own tastes. That's why they offer you 12 clicks and 0 to 300 psi range. But I suppose those of us who actually do what they are telling us to do are trying to outsmart them right?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

midwestmtb said:


> I know this seems like a dumb question. And for guys riding serious downhill or enduro, I get it.
> 
> But the trails in most of the midwest are flowy, relatively smooth, with a few roots here and there.


Yes, I've been there. The trails do suck. Still, a low-travel FS bike can be built up around 22-23lbs relatively easy and make longer riding or more aggressive riding more fun. Heck, some people even like to take vacations!

My car is full suspension.


----------



## Skorp (Jul 20, 2009)

I love hardtails, i own a BTR Ranger ( 120mm all mountain ripper ) 

But my hands hurt and my teeth fall out if i ride it for some time downhill. 

Took it to a bikepark once. I didn't dare the "big stuff" i would love on my enduro.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

Miker J said:


> Why people buy 6" travel rigs to slow poke around on buffed out xc trails is a mystery to me. Riding buffed out, twisty single track on a rigid rig is about as fun as it gets.


Says YOU....I have a hardtail and for ME, I can't for the life of me figure out why anybody would choose to ride one when there are other, better (my opinion), more comfortable (again, my opinion) options available.


----------



## phreeky (Sep 25, 2015)

My current bike is my first FS (started live as 140/140 travel), and I didn't know whether that was the right amount before buying. I knew that a hardtail was damn hard work pedalling through the chunky stuff and the the rear end was thrown around through rock gardens. However after some time, with sag set to a typical 25%, I did manage to more or less use all of the travel (didn't feel it bottom out though) on a typical ride, so I guess it could be said that it's the right amount.

When you're talking about using all of 140mm+ of travel though, that typically means some drops and/or jumps.

Rear suspension (and in fact front suspension too), especially of the shorter travel variety, plays a big role in maintaining traction. When you're pushing through mid-corner in a rock garden, the more you can keep the tyre in contact with the rocks the less chance you'll end up with your body on the rocks.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

OK, it's time to break out this thread's most caotic post...

I ride BOTH, a hard tail, and full suspension. :devil:

What says you now? :???:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

phreeky said:


> Rear suspension (and in fact front suspension too), especially of the shorter travel variety, plays a big role in maintaining traction. When you're pushing through mid-corner in a rock garden, the more you can keep the tyre in contact with the rocks the less chance you'll end up with your body on the rocks.


Another place I notice this quite a bit is when standing up to power through the last bit of a climb you're geared a bit too low for. The first few times I stood up and put the power down I was expecting to have to catch myself as my hardtail always spun out in that situation. The full suspension bike keeps traction and walks right on up the hill.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Hawg said:


> OK, it's time to break out this thread's most caotic post...
> 
> I ride BOTH, a hard tail, and full suspension. :devil:
> 
> What says you now? :???:


Me too. Variety is good. 
There's something to be said, specially as a beginner, about having a bike that you're fired up to ride, even if it's not technically 'the right bike'.



midwestmtb said:


> As for why I ride a full squisher? Well, I have to admit I didn't have a good reason either. I loved the bike and the sales dude was convincing. So there you have it. A very lame reason.
> .


Good a reason as any.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

RideTheSpiral said:


> Welcome to the 2017 internet. "Comments" section actually means "fight to the death".


Funny.

Why can't someone just fess up to the OP and tell it like it is ?

" I bought my F S bike because it was the only blue bike in the store that day. "


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

QuickSilverZ said:


> Most new bikes pedal so well that there isn't really a disadvantage at all. Shock and pivot maintenance is pretty cheap and basic anyways..


I'm no authority on any FS bikes but this I believe.



QuickSilverZ said:


> Since a lot of people only own and ride one bike, buying a full suspension is almost a no brainer. Much more versatile and can help you get through a lot of different terrain that a hardtail may struggle through. I know that I don't ride the same trail network every time out. There are some spots where my bike might definitely be considered overkill but for most rides, its the perfect tool for the job.


IMO, This part above can be corrected to say that ideally, the one bike you have is the best set up for most of what you ride.

** In my case the HT gets me through everything quite well and something I'd need or prefer FS for isn't really a trail I wanted to be on.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

eb1888 said:


> Lots of riders start on a $500-800 bike with two strikes against them. Crappy fork and aluminum frame. If they have rocks/roots by the time they get hooked they want something that works and doesn't beat them up. A real mt bike. FS does that. A carbon ht with a real fork does it for those who demo and think about things. Most don't.


Yep, that's what I did. 
How much bike did I get 13 years ago for $500 to $650 retail on sale for $399 ? An alum frame bike, lower tier front fork by Kona/Rockshox. Not sure what that price range nets anyone these days on an entry level bike but in 1991 I started with a rigid steel Specialized. That's still rolling too.

Maybe budget is the strike against anyone just starting out. I think of it as a graduated system, paying some dues (to some degree) and experience the learning curve. When that next bike comes along, the rider is better suited to enjoy it, realize and use it's capabilities and wring some fun out of it. By then, they ought to have learned or better know what the next bike needs to be. Even if the learner bike wasn't the ideal, it's often just a stepping stone.

My old bikes still work well and do what I need or expect of them but after 13 years with the Kona, I feel like I'm ready to look at a newer HT. Something with disc brakes, steel frame and newer gen forks.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The first few times I stood up and put the power down I was expecting to have to catch myself as my hardtail always spun out in that situation. The full suspension bike keeps traction and walks right on up the hill.


I too was surprised by how well my full-sus climbs. It is not as fast on smooth, gentle climbs but it's not too far behind either and on rocky steeps I reckon it's better. Rough, fast descents it's obviously better.

Where it really looses is on flat, or undulating, smooth trails. It is significantly slower than the hardtail. I think it's these sorts of trail, where full-sus is too much bike, that the OP is referring to.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

As mentioned, a full suspension can help in a lot of ways. But some people buy them for the same reason people buy SUVs and Jeeps and never take them off pavement.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Who gives a rats (!). 
Ride whatever bike you have on whatever terrain you care to and stop ranting about others decisions on what they ride on what terrain. I've seen riders rip a downhill on a fully rigid where others on a full squish have problems. 


Next first world problem we need to debate:


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Hawg said:


> Watch it! The "aluminum frame" thing is offensive. Some of the best riders in the world STILL roll on aluminum frames.


Hardtails? Maybe with prosthetic knees if they're over 40. or aren't named Cam.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

eb1888 said:


> Hardtails? Maybe with prosthetic knees.


Yes, hard tails...

Take a typical nail hammer and strike your carbon fiber frame firmly (anywhere you'd like) and let me know what happens to it.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> There's something to be said, specially as a beginner, about having a bike that you're fired up to ride, even if it's not technically 'the right bike'.


That's true. Sometimes stoke is what's important.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Well for the majority of humans, ride enough rocks/roots hard enough and you get beat up after a couple hours on an aluminum frame hardtail. Enough to think you need fs just to be able to ride as much as you want every day. Just a physical fact. Lota guy post about needing fs just for that reason. And that's what the post was about..


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Aluminum hardtails will ruin your knees? Who knew?


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

eb1888 said:


> Well for the majority of humans, ride enough rocks/roots hard enough and you get beat up after a couple hours on an aluminum frame hardtail. Enough to think you need fs just to be able to ride as much as you want every day. Just a physical fact. Lota guy post about needing fs just for that reason. And that's what the post was about..


I agree. I ride my HT on smooth XC trails and fire roads, and I use my FS for bumps, drops, rocks, and other assorted gnar.

All of my bikes are alloy.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> I agree. I ride my HT on smooth XC trails and fire roads, and I use my FS for bumps, drops, rocks, and other assorted gnar.
> 
> All of my bikes are alloy.


The hard part is carrying one on your back [alloy being so heavy] and switching back and forth as the terrain changes.


----------



## TheGweed (Jan 30, 2010)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Who gives a rats (!).
> Ride whatever bike you have on whatever terrain you care to and stop ranting about others decisions on what they ride on what terrain. I've seen riders rip a downhill on a fully rigid where others on a full squish have problems.
> 
> Next first world problem we need to debate:


Agreed. And I was wondering why the OP didn't just ask the people he saw on his local trail if he was curious.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

TheGweed said:


> Agreed. And I was wondering why the OP didn't just ask the people he saw on his local trail if he was curious.


Because some cyclists are sensitive as you can see from this thread. I got a lot of quality answers here and took a few lumps from a couple of snowflakes. No big deal since I never have to interact with them in person.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

On a humorous note I almost wished I was on a hard tail today. Noticed my rear sag was off before I started the ride, no problem just air the shock up. Went off a drop about an hour later and had a massive pedal strike as the suspension compressed. Got lucky and didn't go down, hence the almost wished. Checked the sag and it was lower than it was before I added air. Wouldn't have had that issue on a hardtail and it ended my ride. Still had a blast though, I was riding. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## jimbowho (Dec 16, 2009)

For me thermodynamics comes into play, I can go longer with a dually. I have a steel Haro Beasley hardtail that I am in love with, but the efficiency gains are lost for me in the rough stuff, but I will admit the hardtail makes me stay within my limits. I tend to hang it out a tad with the fully. I have bad feet so I need to run flats and the FS keeps my feet on the pedals better and it's easier on the bod. Plus I'm getting dated and the FS is more forgiving in the handling skills that seem to fade.
People just getting into the sport that don't need the benefits of full suspension would do well with a hardtail. You can get a great bike for the money, as opposed to FS with lacking goodies.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2017)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Grody, TMI.


did he really say that??


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2017)

Hawg said:


> OK, it's time to break out this thread's most caotic post...
> 
> I ride BOTH, a hard tail, and full suspension. :devil:
> 
> What says you now? :???:


do either have a lefty fork??


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

midwestmtb said:


> The manual, which is written by the engineers, tell you their settings are a starting point not the final point. You are suppose to adjust it from there to your own tastes. That's why they offer you 12 clicks and 0 to 300 psi range. But I suppose those of us who actually do what they are telling us to do are trying to outsmart them right?


What that means is that you aren't very good at interpreting the manual. The suggestions are suggestions, because there's far too many variables to allow them to say "if you weigh this, use this psi." But if you want your suspension to work correctly, you should use the suggested RESULT in sag measurement.

Then there's the fact that most people can't interpret what their suspension is doing or what adjustments it needs, plus most stock suspension just doesn't have very good damping in the first place.

But you seem to have turned your FS bike into a hardtail and now you're wondering why everyone doesn't ride hardtails. Your wondering should be turned inward.


----------



## drwx (Jun 4, 2011)

Because when I started making my own money, I got to stop asking permission to buy what I want.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

nvphatty said:


> did he really say that??


I believe so. Hawg did you really say that?


----------



## passwordusername (Jul 4, 2016)

That's it's so rude, you did hurt my ego! Why you care, anyways? IT'S MY LIFE, OOKK!!!??, LEAVE ME ALONE WITH MY FULL SUSPENSION OR I WILL CRY!!!


----------



## mjkjr (Dec 4, 2016)

Some men just want to watch the world burn.


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

3 shoulder reconstructions and cracked vertebrae in my neck (another surgery for that)

I <3 full suspension



Nat said:


> That's true. Sometimes stoke is what's important.


unless you're a pro racer, stoke is ALL that's important in my opinion.


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

double post


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

richde said:


> What that means is that you aren't very good at interpreting the manual. The suggestions are suggestions, because there's far too many variables to allow them to say "if you weigh this, use this psi." But if you want your suspension to work correctly, you should use the suggested RESULT in sag measurement.
> 
> Then there's the fact that most people can't interpret what their suspension is doing or what adjustments it needs, plus most stock suspension just doesn't have very good damping in the first place.
> 
> But you seem to have turned your FS bike into a hardtail and now you're wondering why everyone doesn't ride hardtails. Your wondering should be turned inward.


I don't disagree with you about the goals of the engineers and I'm certainly not trying to "outsmart" them.
They have to aim for an acceptable baseline for the average rider because, as you say, there are far too many variables. They can't send each consumer home with a personalized suspension consultant.

But I disagree with you that you have to use the suggested sag. Why? Because customizing it for the individual rider is as much art as it is science. This is why for my bike, Trek recommends 155psi for my weight while Fox recommends 170 (not to mention a 3-4 click difference). Same shock. Explain that. Two sets of engineers, whom I'm sure are both highly qualified but probably working with different confidence intervals from different data samples.

As for me, I DID start with Trek's OEM sag suggestions. Didn't like it. Tried Fox's. Much better. Also tried going up and down in sag, up and down in damping. Experimented for a month. Ended up liking it riding like a hard tail for the tracks I ride.....mostly smooth, with a few nasty logs. The type of course that rewards low pedal bob but needs some protection against the occassional big kicks. If I rode a different course with a lot more continuous uneven terrain, I'd probably run something close to Trek's sag recs but I'm not in that situation.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

midwestmtb said:


> Because some cyclists are sensitive as you can see from this thread. I got a lot of quality answers here and took a few lumps from a couple of snowflakes. No big deal since I never have to interact with them in person.


" Nice Bike ! ,, I'm kinda new to this, tell me what you like about it if you have a minute. "

You'll learn more about bikes or what motivates decisions like that in three sentences than you'll get here in 5 100 word posts.

The question itself doesn't sound offensive (unless it's a set up to start a debate) so when you say ; " No big deal since I never have to interact with them in person. " it sounds suspiciously like you want to stir things up. I noticed later in the thread you "come clean" telling us what you ride. Again, that seems another tip to a tactical approach.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

midwestmtb said:


> I don't disagree with you about the goals of the engineers and I'm certainly not trying to "outsmart" them.
> They have to aim for an acceptable baseline for the average rider because, as you say, there are far too many variables. They can't send each consumer home with a personalized suspension consultant.
> 
> But I disagree with you that you have to use the suggested sag. Why? Because customizing it for the individual rider is as much art as it is science. This is why for my bike, Trek recommends 155psi for my weight while Fox recommends 170 (not to mention a 3-4 click difference). Same shock. Explain that. Two sets of engineers, whom I'm sure are both highly qualified but probably working with different confidence intervals from different data samples.
> ...


You explained the discrepancy between Fox and Trek yourself. Fox's engineers have to give an approximation over countless bikes and suspension designs. Trek's have narrowed it down even more by applying it to the specific way their design interacts with the shock.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Plains_Pedaler (May 12, 2014)

As a rider from Kansas, and an owner of a FS, I can honestly say I find it necessary at times. A lot of westerners are under the assumption that the most technical trail we have out here is the yellow brick road. I've taken my FS rig to Colorado and ridden some moderately to the lower spectrum of highly technical terrain. And I can honestly say that I was well prepared because of the trails I ride in Kansas. As far as extreme tech, I'm 23 and fairly conservative in my riding because I want to be able to do it for the rest of my life. Not beat myself up by pushing it too far on trails that a flatlander shouldn't really be on and have to find a new hobby in 10 years. 

What I'm definitely not prepared for as a Kansan goes is the longer climbs, I'll tip my hat to that. But, when it comes to climbing you typically don't want the most squishy rig anyway, so. 

There are a large majority of flat trails too. A lot of guys who take it seriously out this way have a HT and a FS. A lot of trails are definitely too mellow for a FS. But if you wanna scoff and believe your assumption that there's nothing technical in the Midwest, be my guest! It's a mixed bag, and I'm budgeting for a HT right now because the trails that are more fit for my FS are too far of a drive. But I'll end it with saying I understand both sides, but on certain trails, a FS is definitely an asset. 

Also, some of you folks need to crash a few more times and toughen that soft skin of yours up. Happy riding from Dorothy's land. 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

bachman1961 said:


> " Nice Bike ! ,, I'm kinda new to this, tell me what you like about it if you have a minute. "
> 
> You'll learn more about bikes or what motivates decisions like that in three sentences than you'll get here in 5 100 word posts.
> 
> The question itself doesn't sound offensive (unless it's a set up to start a debate) so when you say ; " No big deal since I never have to interact with them in person. " it sounds suspiciously like you want to stir things up. I noticed later in the thread you "come clean" telling us what you ride. Again, that seems another tip to a tactical approach.


I "came clean " because some poster accused me of never having ridden a FS bike. How he drew that conclusion, I don't know. And yeah, I was a little flippant with my response to the guy who asked me why I didn't just ask the guys on my local trail. I could have taken a higher road on that one, so I agree.

I dunno what to tell you beyond that. You can interpret my responses in context......Or not. Your choice. Just keep in mind I didn't argue with anybody about their reasons for riding a FS bike after they responded to my question. I wanted to hear the answers not to shoot them down.


----------



## astom22 (Aug 4, 2016)

I bought my 150 full suspension since it can do everything I would ever want to do on a bike. Ride local trails without taking a beating, handle great in the mountains during the summer when we spend a month or more up there, and be able to handle a downhill day or two on the lifts. 

I can't afford a stable of bikes, so I took the compromise of a do it all good, but nothing great. 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

astom22 said:


> I bought my 150 full suspension since it can do everything I would ever want to do on a bike. Ride local trails without taking a beating, handle great in the mountains during the summer when we spend a month or more up there, and be able to handle a downhill day or two on the lifts.
> 
> I can't afford a stable of bikes, so I took the compromise of a do it all good, but nothing great.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


And that's what the sport is all about, fun. Ride what you have and what you can afford and grin ear to ear while doing it.

These forums with riders bragging about the latest and greatest have lost touch with the roots of the sport. It's not always about the equipment but the experience.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You explained the discrepancy between Fox and Trek yourself. Fox's engineers have to give an approximation over countless bikes and suspension designs. Trek's have narrowed it down even more by applying it to the specific way their design interacts with the shock.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Even then, Trek (in this instance) has to deal with different sizes of bikes and people to come up with a suggested range in order to arrive at a result where the suspension component is designed to operate.

Unless your suspension design has a lot of anti-squat, which I don't think Trek's ABP design does, that bounciness that everyone loves to complain about is because you're bouncing on the bike. Stop bouncing and it'll stop being so noticable. But hey, the OP seems to know everything the people that design bikes and components do, maybe he should get into the bike design business and make a killing.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

richde said:


> Even then, Trek (in this instance) has to deal with different sizes of bikes and people to come up with a suggested range in order to arrive at a result where the suspension component is designed to operate.
> 
> Unless your suspension design has a lot of anti-squat, which I don't think Trek's ABP design does, that bounciness that everyone loves to complain about is because you're bouncing on the bike. Stop bouncing and it'll stop being so noticable. But hey, the OP seems to know everything the people that design bikes and components do, maybe he should get into the bike design business and make a killing.


This is true and I honestly feel that certain bikes will work better for people of different weights due to this, not sizes just mass.

As to the bounciness you bring up a good point. You don't have to ride a hardtail to develop these skills and not all hardtail riders will develop them, but it would be interesting for a survey to see if that complaint changed based on what someone learned on and how much time they spend on it. Part of being fast is being smooth, which you can learn on a full suspension but being fast over the rough on a hardtail teaches you to ride smoothly and use body suspension.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

He never said he knew more than anybody, richde. Stop being you. 

I grew up in the Midwest, and I owned just about every type of bike while I lived there. Rigid was fine for most trails, but not as much fun to get rowdy on whenever a drop or technical section presented itself. Hardtails were never my thing, because I don't like the suspension imbalance, but they are a bit easier on the wrists. Short travel full-suspension bikes were great as an only bike. Not too bad on the smooth, flat trails and capable of anything on the trails that wasn't man-made. Long travel was a lot of fun when looking for stuff to hit, but not so much fun on most trails. 

Long story short, it depends on how you ride and what you ride. Just because you see someone on a smooth trail does not mean they don't vacation, travel, ride gnarlier trails, or hit some jumps in their backyard. If you are strictly talking about the most efficient bike for most trails in the Midwest, then it's hard to argue against a hardtail or rigid bike.


----------



## Stealtharsenal1 (Jun 22, 2014)

For me, I rode a hardtail with front suspension for 10 years before making the switch to FS. For myself and I won't speak for others, learning how to ride rock gardens, technical features, etc on a hardtail made me an even better FS rider because I knew how to ride terrain properly. Now that's not the reason I ditched my hardtails for XC FS bikes. As it turns out, the constant abuse from the tech riding here in North Jersey and New York took a toll on my back and I just cannot take the rigid abuse anymore. I can ride a hardtail say once a week or so, but that's about it. I had long travel FS bikes, but ended determining that 100mm/100mm and 120mm/100mm was perfect for how I ride. 

just my .02 cents.


----------



## chipconstant (Sep 16, 2011)

aerius said:


> Because I'm getting old and everything is starting to hurt.
> Also, get off my lawn.


what he said
I love my hard tail and have really upgraded it, but my back loves my FS. Probably faster on the ht but I don't care


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

richde said:


> Even then, Trek (in this instance) has to deal with different sizes of bikes and people to come up with a suggested range in order to arrive at a result where the suspension component is designed to operate.
> 
> Unless your suspension design has a lot of anti-squat, which I don't think Trek's ABP design does, that bounciness that everyone loves to complain about is because you're bouncing on the bike. Stop bouncing and it'll stop being so noticable. But hey, the OP seems to know everything the people that design bikes and components do, maybe he should get into the bike design business and make a killing.


Ok richde. You raise an interesting point and I'm open to hearing you out. So tell me more about how to reduce bouncing. If I can eliminate the bobbing with more sag, I'm all ears.


----------



## sryanak (Aug 9, 2008)

midwestmtb said:


> Just keep in mind I didn't argue with anybody about their reasons for riding a FS bike after they responded to my question. I wanted to hear the answers not to shoot them down.


And thank you for that. It always amazes me when people post a question and then tell each person who responds why that answer is wrong for them.


----------



## MudSnow (Jun 30, 2013)

Because we like to ride sitting down.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

midwestmtb said:


> Ok richde. You raise an interesting point and I'm open to hearing you out. So tell me more about how to reduce bouncing. If I can eliminate the bobbing with more sag, I'm all ears.


Honest answer that's going to come off as a wise crack? Go learn to ride a hardtail with speed through rough terrain: rock gardens, roots, etc. Once you've got that learn to ride it with clipless while putting power down. It won't alleviate it all but it will help.

You can learn those things on a full suspension but the hardtail will force you to develop those skills to ride at speed over rough terrain.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## OldManBiker (Nov 5, 2016)

I am so glad that I found this thread on a boring Saturday night. lol. Why? I'm so glad you asked!

I am the proud owner of a 2016 (GASP!) Specialized Fuse Comp 6Fattie. And I say that in a funny way because all we hear nowadays is lots of folks being shamed or guilted into buying the latest and greatest _________ bike. Instead of remaining proud of what they currently have in the stable and doing some upgrades here and there. Being happy and content with what ya got and not going into (more) possible debt buying something not needed. Just like folks that list all of their bikes in their signature. Why? Really, why? Someone mentioned ego earlier so could that have something to do with it I wonder? I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would have 2 bikes that are both different (HT & FS) because that pretty much takes away the argument of needing a FS for health reasons. With that being said, and ego being put to the side I believe it just comes down to personal preference.

And our preferences are of course molded by our environments, history, financial stability, likes/dislikes, terrain of where we live and/or ride, recommendations, et al. For me all I've every ridden is a HT. I have buddies who ask me all the time why don't I buy a FS bike and then have the audacity to try and shame me for not buying one that it really gets on my doggone nerves. And you know what? I ALMOST bit the bullet just recently and was about to order a 2017 FSR Stumpjumper Carbon 6Fattie. They began to make me feel as though I needed FS like they had and it was ridiculous I was on a HT at 53yrs old. I'm not saying that FS is bad in any means. I just happen to think along the lines that mountain biking should be what it is - feeling every bump, crevice, rock and root to get the FULL experience. As weird as that thinking may be. haha. If I wanted to ride on a smooth surface I would have taken up road cycling you know? Kinda like when we crash. None of us WANT to crash but (and if it's not too serious) the next day we wear the scrapes, bruised, cuts, etc like red badges of courage. Same thing with those who are adamant about riding HT bikes when on gnarly trails. It's the "experience" and the sore butt following that lets you know the heck of the ride you were just on! 

If you have the money and a FS bike is your poison, more power to you! As for me and MY adventure in this mad, crazy, AWESOME hobby it's about being in the moment and I want to know I stayed as close to what the trail was meant to be that I can. 

That's my 2 cents on this.


----------



## Bigjunk1 (Sep 17, 2016)

Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role. The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role. The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


Not even close to being accurate.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role.  The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


Sure, if you're riding some F/S design from the 19th century.


----------



## 749800 (Jul 14, 2013)

My cynical view (based on my one data point of a 2008 Trek Fuel EX7 aluminum FS bike) is the full-suspension is needed to counter the harsh stiffness of the aluminum frame. When I ride it on the same trails I ride my steel gravel road bike, I find it hurts a lot more. I do need it for stuff in Utah, and occasionally closer to home, but the steel off-road bike has me re-thinking many of my original assumptions.

I am glad I had it 4 years ago after I broke my ankle. It made recovery a lot easier.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role. The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


The top 2 racers at the olympics were on full suspension bike. Must have really held them back wasting all that energy.

My XC bike is faster everywhere but the road ride to the dirt and even then just barely.


----------



## dannbike (Dec 12, 2006)

alexbn921 said:


> The top 2 racers at the olympics were on full suspension bike. Must have really held them back wasting all that energy.
> 
> My XC bike is faster everywhere but the road ride to the dirt and even then just barely.


To each his own. I've had a dozen or so mountain bikes over the years both FS and HT. For a 200 pound endurance guy, I found that a HT in either steel or Ti with more aggressive tires is the ticket. I have 2 HTs now, one being a Ti SS and the other steel geared. Our rides in SoCal involve 1-2 hour climbs on fireroad followed by technical rocky singles. I found the FS sucked the life out of my legs on those really long climbs and it wasn't worth the added advatage on the downhill. Aluminum is too rigid for me. Steel and Ti takes the edge off. If I lived in the desert or the rooted mess that I've seen in the east I would probably go back to a FS as my non-race bike.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

Just buy what makes you happy.

Most of us aren't pro racers, or even racers. A little slower here and there on the ups or downs doesn't matter.

This is a fun sport, and doesn't need to be overcomplicated by ideas of what bike is "needed" for casual rides and trail riding.

On my trails or in a group ride I'll see everything from XC race style hardtails to enduro rigs. Everyone still has fun...


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

I don't even know why this is a question. If you've got suspension forks, then why not rear suspension. I've got a hardtail commuter that I don't enjoy riding at all.
If you want to ride a rigid then go for it.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

dannbike said:


> To each his own. I've had a dozen or so mountain bikes over the years both FS and HT. For a 200 pound endurance guy, I found that a HT in either steel or Ti with more aggressive tires is the ticket. I have 2 HTs now, one being a Ti SS and the other steel geared. Our rides in SoCal involve 1-2 hour climbs on fireroad followed by technical rocky singles. I found the FS sucked the life out of my legs on those really long climbs and it wasn't worth the added advatage on the downhill. Aluminum is too rigid for me. Steel and Ti takes the edge off. If I lived in the desert or the rooted mess that I've seen in the east I would probably go back to a FS as my non-race bike.


I agreed we should all ride the bike we want and enjoy.
You're missing the point thought. Full suspension is faster.
People give up climbing for comfort and downhill speed. That's a personal choice and my new bike is heavier and much faster downhill. Thats a choice I made given the type of riding I enjoy. My XC bike is lighter and faster than 99% of hardtail bikes and more comfortable.
Most of my riding friends are over biked, but they also use the same bike at Northstar. I Have ridden long and short travel bikes and I prefer a snappy short travel trail bike.
THe main problem with this tread is the assumption that all full suspension bikes are downhill sleds. They are not. They run the gambit just like frame materials and the number of gears you have. Full suspension bikes are also faster in every mountain bike category. Pick your weapon and get with the times. Nothing wrong with rigid single speeds. They are cool in my book but I can't ride one without it beating the crap out of me.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Notched said:


> I don't even know why this is a question. If you've got suspension forks, then why not rear suspension. I've got a hardtail commuter that I don't enjoy riding at all.
> If you want to ride a rigid then go for it.


We've already discussed this in depth all over the forums this week.

It's not forks it's fork. :madman:


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> It's not forks it's fork. :madman:


How many suspension fork have you owned?


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

midwestmtb said:


> I "came clean " because some poster accused me of never having ridden a FS bike. How he drew that conclusion, I don't know. And yeah, I was a little flippant with my response to the guy who asked me why I didn't just ask the guys on my local trail. I could have taken a higher road on that one, so I agree.
> 
> I dunno what to tell you beyond that. You can interpret my responses in context......Or not. Your choice. Just keep in mind I didn't argue with anybody about their reasons for riding a FS bike after they responded to my question. I wanted to hear the answers not to shoot them down.


Well okay, that's a fair answer. 
Your original question was the context I wasn't certain about.

It seems a few here felt the need to justify what they have and why as if they were "called out" rather than sharing information for the sake of the topic.

It sounds like most of us ride the trails or terrain we like or prefer with the bike design/s we have. For those with a few design variations in the shed, it's a bit easier; Simply match the best bike for the riding venue that day. 
For the One Bike option, it's more of an adaptive process demanding a bit of finesse or a different riding menu altogether.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Notched said:


> How many suspension fork have you owned?


That would be have you owned A suspension fork? If you are asking it plural, then the intended answer is more than one. Do you ask for a "forks" at the dinner table? How about a "pair of forks"? Do you turn left at the "forks" in the road? I doubt it.

I did come up with this idea to install a pair of forks on a bike though:


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

Jayem said:


> That would be have you owned A suspension fork? If you are asking it plural, then the intended answer is more than one. Do you ask for a "forks" at the dinner table? How about a "pair of forks"? Do you turn left at the "forks" in the road? I doubt it.


I was being pedantic. I don't begrudge anyone saying their suspension fork, or forks, or their new pair of forks. My original context was plural.


----------



## Scottie5150 (Mar 10, 2004)

Location, location, location 

Sent from the UnderWorld via Nexus 6P 😜


----------



## Scott O (Aug 5, 2004)

Fork this.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Windigo (Jul 24, 2014)

OldManBiker said:


> I am so glad that I found this thread on a boring Saturday night. lol. Why? I'm so glad you asked!
> 
> I am the proud owner of a 2016 (GASP!) Specialized Fuse Comp 6Fattie. And I say that in a funny way because all we hear nowadays is lots of folks being shamed or guilted into buying the latest and greatest _________ bike. Instead of remaining proud of what they currently have in the stable and doing some upgrades here and there. Being happy and content with what ya got and not going into (more) possible debt buying something not needed. Just like folks that list all of their bikes in their signature. Why? Really, why? Someone mentioned ego earlier so could that have something to do with it I wonder? I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would have 2 bikes that are both different (HT & FS) because that pretty much takes away the argument of needing a FS for health reasons. With that being said, and ego being put to the side I believe it just comes down to personal preference.
> 
> ...


This is very confusing


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Notched said:


> How many suspension fork have you owned?


Enough to know a fork is s fork is a fork. Put all your forks and spoons in a drawer and go polish the fork on your bike.

Nice forks rendering Jayem. :thumbsup:


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I agree with the OP. I recently moved from his home state and felt many were over suspended but interestingly, under tired. Now, it seems that I run heavier tires than most where I live now but I hate flats and dislike reboundy tires. Just my 2c. I do feel strongly that the purchaser can ride anything he or she darn wants to and will not offer my opinion face to face unless asked. My 429 rocked it at Brown Co and O'Bannon including the rougher spots. I would consider 29+ for that type of terrain. Where I ride now, hard tails are a rarity. The trails have been here for years so at one time rigids and hardtails were the norm but when I broke my rigid SS when I first moved out here, I replaced it but then sold it unridden. My fear was that when I bought my Switchblade, I would be overbiked. I love it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ok OP, now you know exactly what your friend should buy! Aren't you glad you asked us?

You're welcome.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role. The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


I'm going to have to call your bluff here.

I'm a licensed "pro" XC racer, and I've tested my HT and FS back to back, on the same loop, and am faster both uphill and downhill on my FS.

The only time I prefer my HT is for fire road or super smooth single track climbs, and for low-grade descents. And that's basically because of weight.

If your FS bike is "bouncing" that means that you have a poor suspension design or don't know how to set suspension up in general.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

Q: Why do people buy full suspension bikes?

A: Everyone has a different opinion on things in life based on their experiences and no one person is right about everything except for what is right for themselves.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

midwestmtb said:


> I know this seems like a dumb question. And for guys riding serious downhill or enduro, I get it.
> 
> But the trails in most of the midwest are flowy, relatively smooth, with a few roots here and there. Yet I see guys buying full squishers with 120-160mm of travel. And most mountain bikers that I've seen don't push their rig hard enough to really "need" the suspension. Plus, they typically run high sag (25-30%) in some cases so they have to deal with all the energy wasted on pedal bob. And I won't even talk about the maintenance......
> 
> It seems like it would make a lot more sense for the majority of the people to ride hard tails, at least in my area. Yet full suspensions seem to dominate. Is it simply the desire to smooth out the trails?


In all seriousness, people buy FS bikes for a lot of reasons, even is their home trails are flat and smooth. Maybe they travel to rougher trails, want more comfort, or race in other places. I had a hard tail last year and everyone here asked my why I would have a hard tail and honestly the only reasons were reduced maintenance, cost, and to have something unique. Sure we have a few smoother trails where it could keep up, but on the majority it held me back a bit, not to mention the beating I was taking.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

midwestmtb said:


> Ok richde. You raise an interesting point and I'm open to hearing you out. So tell me more about how to reduce bouncing. If I can eliminate the bobbing with more sag, I'm all ears.


Pedal smoother, spin, don't smash and use the advantages of rear suspension to stay seated which allows you to pedal smoothly more easily.

Ride smarter, not harder.

The decrease in negative travel that you end up with when using less sag also decreases traction. Think about how low an off road racing truck/buggy sits in their long travel suspension. That's on top of the increased rolling resistance from the suspension not compressing from small obstacles forcing the entire mass of the bike to go up and over the countless small bumps instead of simply absorbing them and leaving the majority of the bike/rider mass undisturbed.

One inch is inconsequential, a thousand of those inches are pretty damn big when combined.

I have a 29+ HT and 6" travel bike, BTW, and the HT gets more usage on slow or smooth trails, but it can't even come close on fast and rough terrain.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> Q: Why do people buy full suspension bikes?
> 
> A: Everyone has a different opinion on things in life based on their experiences and *no one person is right about everything* except for what is right for themselves.


I think you left me out of that equation.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

midwestmtb said:


> I know this seems like a dumb question. And for guys riding serious downhill or enduro, I get it.
> 
> But the trails in most of the midwest are flowy, relatively smooth, with a few roots here and there. Yet I see guys buying full squishers with 120-160mm of travel. And most mountain bikers that I've seen don't push their rig hard enough to really "need" the suspension. Plus, they typically run high sag (25-30%) in some cases so they have to deal with all the energy wasted on pedal bob. And I won't even talk about the maintenance......
> 
> It seems like it would make a lot more sense for the majority of the people to ride hard tails, at least in my area. Yet full suspensions seem to dominate. Is it simply the desire to smooth out the trails?


Because all those people are dummies and you are the only one that knows better! :thumbsup:


----------



## sgtrobo (Aug 19, 2014)

wgscott said:


> My cynical view (based on my one data point of a 2008 Trek Fuel EX7 aluminum FS bike) is the full-suspension is needed to counter the harsh stiffness of the aluminum frame.


i'll agree with this part 100%. I won't consider an aluminum bike unless it is FS or has big fat tires


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

richde said:


> Pedal smoother, spin, don't smash and use the advantages of rear suspension to stay seated which allows you to pedal smoothly more easily.
> 
> Ride smarter, not harder.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I was so focused on adjusting the suspension that I hadn't thought about adjusting my riding style. Glad you called me out....can't say it was fun , but definitely useful.:thumbsup:

And thanks to tuckerjt too for his tips on how to ride smoother.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Jayem said:


> That would be have you owned A suspension fork? If you are asking it plural, then the intended answer is more than one. Do you ask for a "forks" at the dinner table? How about a "pair of forks"? Do you turn left at the "forks" in the road? I doubt it.
> 
> I did come up with this idea to install a pair of forks on a bike though:
> 
> View attachment 1118336


I think that's featured in the next Transformers movie. TriPod or Front Dually.


----------



## aveski2000 (Sep 10, 2004)

Who really cares what anyone else rides. Just get out and have fun.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

aveski2000 said:


> Who really cares what anyone else rides. Just get out and have fun.


Refer to post #63.


----------



## Speed Goat (Dec 31, 2013)

Q: Why do people buy full suspension bikes?

A: Because they are awesome.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

Q: Why do people buy full suspension bikes?

A: Because they make full suspension bikes.


----------



## paulmich (Jul 6, 2015)

I have been riding mountain bikes since around 1993 and have always ridden nothing but hard tails. I live around the middle part of Michigan (100 miles N of Detroit). There is really no practical reason for one. Since 1993 I have owned 7 hardtails:
Huffy Sledgehammer
Iron Horse MT50
Iron Horse AT150
Gary Fisher Wahoo
Specialized Rockhopper Comp
Giant talon 2
Giant XTC 3

I also had 2 Giant hybrids from 2009 to 2015. I wouldn't mind a FS bike but I would rather spend more on a high end HT.
Sure I could buy a FS bike (Giant Anthem 2 or 3 more than likely) - and keeping my hardtail; but I can always see myself grabbing the HT instinctively when I decide to go riding.


----------



## Zomby Woof (MCM700) (May 23, 2004)

Because I don't want to ride standing up the whole time. I have roots and rocks to contend with. I ride technical trails in addition to flow trails.


----------



## JonJones (Feb 12, 2012)

I've not read the entire thread so this might have been covered, but for me I love switching between the two. After riding the HT for a while I'm convinced I need nothing more... Then I get on the FS bikes and I never want to ride a HT again. 
Get back on the HT and it's "Wow - this is so direct and amazing...!"
Get on the HT and "Ahhh, so lovely and smooth" 

If you can, get both, if not, get either. Just ride and enjoy what you've got. :^)


----------



## muddytire (Aug 27, 2009)

I can't say why others buy them, but I can say why I did.

The area I ride has tons and tons of roots on the trails. Some are small, some are large, but there are long stretches where you're basically riding a jackhammer. 

I had lower back surgery about 15 years ago. On a hard tail my back was hurting after 10 miles on my normal trail. Along the way the bike sounded like it was going to shake the chain clean off because of the roots.

On the FS i can ride 20 miles and have no pain in my back. I get longer rides which equals greater fitness and more enjoyment. I don't do any big drops or anything like that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

OldManBiker said:


> I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would have 2 bikes that are both different (HT & FS) because that pretty much takes away the argument of needing a FS for health reasons. With that being said, and ego being put to the side I believe it just comes down to personal preference.


As s a guy with a number of bikes, I think what I think you're missing is that it's FUN to ride different bikes. There's absolutely no reason to lock in on one narrow sliver of bike set-up, or style of riding for that matter, to the exclusion of all others. Why would you? How many millimeters of suspension I'm running at the time, from zero right through 180, has never stopped me from having a good time on a bike. Ya don't go and ride the same trail every single time out, why ride the same (or only very similar) bikes?

I also think that spending some time on an FS bike can help develop skills that will end up applying to hardtails too, specially when it comes to carrying speed and particularly so though rough terrain. You learn to read the trail differently and lines open up that you may not have considered before. Then you can always take that experience and go back and make it work for you on a HT. Riding an FS definitely made me a better HT rider, and vice versa.


----------



## OwenM (Oct 17, 2012)

I've been riding a HT for the last 4.5yrs, my first mtb, and the only one I've actually ridden trails on. Demo'd several FS bikes last week, and I totally get it. I can very easily see why someone would *want* even a 5-6" travel + bike on the same trails I ride on a 100mm HT. Awesome, wonderful, plush-no doubt safer, faster and more stable on the downhills, planted rear on the climbs, comfortable seated on our rough "XC" trails where you're bumping over roots every few seconds(or several times per second).
Right now, the physical challenge and continuing to develop skills are the biggest part of the fun for me. Keeping things simple and affordable are good, too. A HT is the right bike for me at this point(ordered a new HT frame since riding those FS bikes), but when the day comes that I just want to get out and ride, there's gonna be some more shopping going on. And it's not gonna be for a hardtail.


Edit:
btw, you have to take into account that not everyone rides the same trails. I watch some of these videos from out West, and can't even begin to relate to their riding. Trails that look like sidewalks to me, and allow tremendous speed, followed by big chunky downhills or features that seem to call for a whole different set of equipment and skills. Strikes me as much more demanding of the bike than anything I've ridden on my HT.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Very few posters suggest the FS type bike is best or a must for everything/everyone including all trails, paths, or riding styles and I appreciate that, especially for the novice/new-to-biking or any reading a thread like this to learn a bit before test riding or buying. 
Most here are just sharing their preference or context and it really is helpful to see the more common benefits since the riding style, type of terrain and speedy progress relate to those benefits in such a big way. The tree roots everywhere, big drops and big boulders with speedy down hill flow is very little of what I see , ride or participate in but I'm of a differing tangent. 
At 55, I'm not pushing it faster, harder or into the dimension of such terrain that is so plentiful here in Colorado. The people I ride with and the areas I ride more fit the duty of a HT than any riding of my past 20 years so I may have cheated the LBS out of a FS sale back when I could have better justified one. 

I truly am in thought of getting a third bike or replacing my HT and that expense I'm willing to go just barely nudges the entry price point of full suspension so I've not too seriously considered FS. The GT Verb Expert looks like a nice contender and gets good press for that price tier offering FS and I wouldn't be stressing it on big hits but I'm still thinking a newer HT in the $800 to $1400 range will be a nice step from my current 13 year old bike that was essentially an entry level alloy Kona. 

I've been really anxious to ride and test fit a M or L Jamis Dragon Sport 27.5 (steel ht) but I'm slowing down my spending strategy for now as there are a few other things that came up. Chances are, that bike availability might dry up as the newer one is a Dragonslayer retailing at $1400 so I'm seeing it as an opportunity to not rush into something. I can use the time to better shop, test ride and consider.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

Notched said:


> I don't even know why this is a question. If you've got suspension forks, then why not rear suspension. I've got a hardtail commuter that I don't enjoy riding at all.
> If you want to ride a rigid then go for it.


it's all good. I just went from a 26 inch rigid with 2.3 tires to a full sus 29 and gained 3 or 4 pounds in the switch. Sometimes the better response and acceleration is missed but the rollover /stability and smoothness is pretty cool. A lightweight rigid 29 would be pretty nice


----------



## HELLBELLY (Jan 16, 2004)

I want to address a few things that caught my attention in this thread...

Number one: The opposite of what you believe is also true depending on the time, place, and circumstance. 

To the OP; If you wish to ride with lil' to no sag in you shock/fork, so be it. You really are not getting the best benefit from the suspension like this, but hey whatever turns you on.

If combating "bobbing" or squat is the number goal for you (your friend or whomever) riding a full suspension bike, there are numerous designs that will perform better than the Trek. The VPP suspension was designed with this goal in mind: to make a full suspension bike pedal like a hard tail. They succeeded in that effort, however having the suspension basically lock up under hard pedaling causes those bike to lose traction and speed. That said, due to many factors this is no longer their goal. Still, you can crank the pressure up on a VPP bike's shock and it will skip around just like a hard tail that others have said are so fast. Hard tails are not faster than dual suspension bikes as this has been proven incorrect a zillion times now. They "feel" fast, but are surpassed routinely by full suspension bikes in testing and in the real world. Again, as mentioned, if hard tails were the fastest choice XC pro's would ride them. 

As also noted in this post some point to the OP's and others inability to tune their suspension. This is still a huge issue that I come across even with guys who've been riding for some time. I personally have routinely ridden full suspension bikes since '98 and have spent time on many different brands of shocks and forks. I have ridden assorted Cane Creek Double Barrels since they debuted over ten years ago and know how to tune them well. My only point here is that taking the time to learn or have someone teach you how to set up and adjust your suspension will be invaluable.

At the end of the day ride whatever turns you on. In criticizing others who differ from you it is only you that looks foolish. 

:thumbsup: :devil:


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role. The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


 Ohio? Are there any rocks there? Faster? Not hardly. Ever pedal in New England or MA where I do? Lots of rocks, big and small, house sized ones too. Makes flatlanders like you cry. Pavement? This is a mt biking site. No wasted energy. Do you even shred Bro? Ripping on a 160 mm Spec enduro almost every ride.You seem to give a blanket statement, lots of trails all over, varied terrain as well.


----------



## acfsportsfan (Aug 13, 2004)

I here that the bike industry is working on a new "full suspension hardtail" I think Specialized filed for a patent?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

HELLBELLY said:


> I want to address a few things that caught my attention in this thread...
> 
> Number one: The opposite of what you believe is also true depending on the time, place, and circumstance.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:
This.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

I just bought a 130mm front and rear travel 29er last year, after riding a 29er hardtail for the previous three years, and I have to say the Full Suspension is a big improvement. Granted where I ride there are endless root and rock gardens that damper the performance of a Hardtail dramatically, and the suspension absorbs more of the bumps than a hardtail will. On some of the flowier trails I still think about a hardtail, but the responsiveness you lose on some of the smooth trails you make up tenfold on the rough trails.

P.S I am from Vermont, not the midwest, so I don't know what trails are like there. All I know is that in Vermont, the full suspension makes a big difference.


----------



## sweets (May 8, 2016)

Because I went to The Green Mountain Trails in VT and had to ride the brakes way too much on the descent. Because I want to ride places locally that would feel much better on a full suspension. Because I want to turn my hardtail into an all-road/monstercross/touring rig. Because I want to learn to jump better and the hardtail scares me and my middle aged bones. Because the Scott Genius looks like a quiver killer and that appeals to my minimalist senses. Because...


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Mostly for looks and status. Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension, but not as comfortable. Full suspension even when locked out still gives a lot so forget wasting your time riding them anywhere besides a trail. Hard tails can at least still be useful on pavement or cross country. For a second bike specifically to enjoy trails they are fine otherwise go with a hard tail because it will perform better in most any role. The wasted energy from all the bounce limits full suspension to one specific role.


Wrong. But don't get me wrong.A skilled rider can probably ride a chunky, rocky, drop off, kidney busting, steep trail faster than me but that rider will be faster on FS. The fact many racers in different types of mountain biking choose FS proves my point. BTW, there is nothing more beautiful than a steel hardtail.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

DrDon said:


> Wrong. But don't get me wrong.A skilled rider can probably ride a chunky, rocky, drop off, kidney busting, steep trail faster than me but that rider will be faster on FS. The fact many racers in different types of mountain biking choose FS proves my point. BTW, there is nothing more beautiful than a steel hardtail.


Exactly. People that equate suspension with comfort need to take a ride in a high performance car, Ultra 4 rig, or trophy truck. None of those are comfortable rides but are able to go stupidly fast over the terrain they are designed for due to their refined suspension.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Bigjunk1 said:


> Hard tails are going to be faster overall in almost every terrain than a full suspension,..


I knew it! This is why the World Cup downhill racers all use hardtails!

Because they are faster in almost every terrain!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> People that equate suspension with comfort need to take a ride in a high performance car, Ultra 4 rig, or trophy truck. None of those are comfortable rides but are able to go stupidly fast over the terrain they are designed for due to their refined suspension.


True, but they are still more comfortable than they would be with no suspension.

Sent from my house with tapatrotters.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> True, but they are still more comfortable than they would be with no suspension.
> 
> Sent from my house with tapatrotters.


Debatable, especially offroad, at maximum speed, with or without a suspension, acceleration forces are going to be the limiting factor no matter what so the ride is going to be similar irrespective of the choice.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Debatable, especially offroad, at maximum speed, with or without a suspension, acceleration forces are going to be the limiting factor no matter what so the ride is going to be similar irrespective of the choice.


Oh you are silly! ;0)


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> Oh you are silly! ;0)


Not silly it's physics. Lack of motor is hardly ever what stops Ultra 4 or Trophy Trucks, it's roughness of ride. Regardless of whether your going 90 or 120 those forces that stop you are going to be felt similarly by the passenger.

Real world example find you a rock garden and bomb it on the edge of control on a rigid, next of a full suspension. Both are going to feel quite similar if you're truly on the edge. One will be quite a bit faster than the other though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Not silly it's physics. Lack of motor is hardly ever what stops Ultra 4 or Trophy Trucks, it's roughness of ride. Regardless of whether your going 90 or 120 those forces that stop you are going to be felt similarly by the passenger.
> 
> Real world example find you a rock garden and bomb it on the edge of control on a rigid, next of a full suspension. Both are going to feel quite similar if you're truly on the edge. One will be quite a bit faster than the other though.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


What? I can't understand you with all that crazy. :madman::skep:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

alexbn921 said:


> What? I can't understand you with all that crazy. :madman::skep:


As I said the big logic leap in this thread is people equating suspension solely with comfort. Harshness of ride results in reduced traction. If you're pushing that threshold the ride is going to suck over any sort of rough terrain.

You're not going to be going anywhere near as fast in a non-suspended desert rig as a suspended one. That difference is where the similar feelings come in. Now if you're only going as fast in the suspended as the non-suspended you're absolutely going to have a more comfortable ride.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Debatable, especially offroad, at maximum speed, with or without a suspension, acceleration forces are going to be the limiting factor no matter what so the ride is going to be similar irrespective of the choice.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Yes and no. Putting around on rocky trails, yes. But bombing down and using all my suspension, I'm faster on my longer travel bike, but I'm just as sore as I would be on my short travel bike. Bigger grin though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

DrDon said:


> Yes and no. Putting around on rocky trails, yes. But bombing down and using all my suspension, I'm faster on my longer travel bike, but I'm just as sore as I would be on my short travel bike. Bigger grin though.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I think that kind of his point if I understand correctly. You ride down the same rough hill on both bikes at the same speed and the DH rig is more comfortable. You ride down the same hill much faster on the DH rig than the shorter-travel bike and you're just as beat up on either one.

Unless you ride the DH bike that I rented at Grand Targhee, then you get beat up far worse than a shorter travel trail bike, even going slow....


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

DrDon said:


> Yes and no. Putting around on rocky trails, yes. But bombing down and using all my suspension, I'm faster on my longer travel bike, but I'm just as sore as I would be on my short travel bike. Bigger grin though.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro





Curveball said:


> I think that kind of his point if I understand correctly. You ride down the same rough hill on both bikes at the same speed and the DH rig is more comfortable. You ride down the same hill much faster on the DH rig than the shorter-travel bike and you're just as beat up on either one.
> 
> Unless you ride the DH bike that I rented at Grand Targhee, then you get beat up far worse than a shorter travel trail bike, even going slow....


You both hit the nail on the head.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

I wasn't clear. I am in agreement with tuckerjt07. What I really need is to be 30 years younger. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

HELLBELLY said:


> I want to address a few things that caught my attention in this thread...
> 
> Number one: The opposite of what you believe is also true depending on the time, place, and circumstance.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on how to dial in suspension. This will probably help a lot of people if many people have an inability to dial their suspension in. But rather than send this thread into a tangent, I created a new thread 
about this

http://forums.mtbr.com/shocks-suspe...-become-suspension-tuning-wizard-1033403.html


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

DrDon said:


> What I really need is to be 30 years younger.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


You and me both, brother!


----------



## dddd (Jun 7, 2016)

I've been a hard-tail rider these past couple of seasons, exploiting the better roll-over offered by 27.5" wide rims/tires to make up for loss of the old squish effect.
I've started to tire of my riding buddies coming to me trying to get me to help solve the creaking issues with their Santa Cruz suspensions.
Between using expensive tools that still don't make bearing replacements easy, and seeing that local S.C. dealers couldn't even get the problems sorted, I'm not about to punish myself with mechanical gremlins of this sort.
I still have my Heckler and I'll refresh it's suspension one of these days for a re-visit to the F/S experience, since it never had such a creaking problem.
I'm 56-y-o and don't mind slowing down for the faster rough downhill sections, so I have no need for the most advanced suspension. But I can understand certain riders wanting nothing less than the best front and rear suspension available.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

My butt can't handle the rough terrain any more. 

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Terrain and desires varies a lot by region. 

I think that should be pretty obvious, but apparently not.

I've had my butt kicked on very rough terrain by an exceptional rider on a non suspension Ti bike. He was amazing.

But when I ride my local trails with people of similar skill level to me, they simply can't do it on their HTs, even the Fuse (which 2 of them have). They commonly say things like: it's just not fun when it's that rough, I bent another rim, my feet fly off the pedals if try and go fast (several of us ride flats, again due to gnarly terrain), etc...

Bikers are the snobbiest sons-of-*****es you'll ever encounter though. Always have something to say about someone else's gear choices or whatever.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Suns_PSD said:


> Terrain and desires varies a lot by region.
> 
> I think that should be pretty obvious, but apparently not.
> 
> ...


 You need to ride with different folks. On my group rides, you will see everything. 26er, 29ers, plus, fat, hardtails full sus, older ones, new crabon stuff. All that matters is to try to keep up. The mt bikers I ride with are some of the nicest, down to earth folks. It's a poor rider who blames the equipment.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

leeboh said:


> You need to ride with different folks. On my group rides, you will see everything. 26er, 29ers, plus, fat, hardtails full sus, older ones, new crabon stuff. All that matters is to try to keep up. The mt bikers I ride with are some of the nicest, down to earth folks. It's a poor rider who blames the equipment.


When I first began riding almost 4 years ago I started on a used $1600 older, but top of the line bike. I had no skills or fitness (at all!) and rode the local XC trails. I also bashed my face on my very first ride and wore an old MX full face helmet after that. Every day some one made a comment about my helmet or fancy bike along with my lack of skills. I finally came up with a standard retort that went like this: "If you had spent less time riding a bike and more time in college I guess you could afford whatever bike you wanted too. See you later!"

It took a solid 6 months before my skills had really progressed where the XC trails weren't enough and I started to branch out and now I ride by myself on trails that very few people ride and I like it that way. No pretentious spandex XC people. I rode about 2.5 hours yesterday and encountered 1 other rider (pushing his bike) the entire time. That's how I like it.

Now I do have a killer small group of people I ride with that ride the same hidden trails I do, some race local Enduro's, set KOM's, and ride similar 'Enduro' bikes to mine and wear similar gear to what I wear. So certainly there are great people participating. But for every 1 of those there are 3 at the standard trails that are going to comment on your bike having too much suspension, why do you wear pads, etc... I don't need them.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

dddd said:


> I've been a hard-tail rider these past couple of seasons, exploiting the better roll-over offered by 27.5" wide rims/tires to make up for loss of the old squish effect.
> I've started to tire of my riding buddies coming to me trying to get me to help solve the creaking issues with their Santa Cruz suspensions.
> Between using expensive tools that still don't make bearing replacements easy, and seeing that local S.C. dealers couldn't even get the problems sorted, I'm not about to punish myself with mechanical gremlins of this sort.
> I still have my Heckler and I'll refresh it's suspension one of these days for a re-visit to the F/S experience, since it never had such a creaking problem.
> I'm 56-y-o and don't mind slowing down for the faster rough downhill sections, so I have no need for the most advanced suspension. But I can understand certain riders wanting nothing less than the best front and rear suspension available.


Appreciate your comments. 
I'm 55 and (thankfully) not having the time or play money at this moment to go buying something new. I need more time and should slow down the 'fun' of going shopping and spending money. I see I could have already rushed into a purchase that may not have been my ideal.

Within the past year, I've been reading, searching and thinking of what is next and hoped the GT Verb Exp was going to impress me to cross over to my first full sus. As I read more and learn more about how I ride now than I did a few years ago when I was was more active, I'm almost certain a HT will continue to do it. It's just a matter of perfecting fit and riding some bikes to find what 'clicks'. It may be mind over matter but I'm thinking 27.5 is the way to go for me. I have an older rigid 26 and an older alum 26 ht. I'm one of those in between M or L on some bikes at 5' 10.75 so it's going to be some test rides and case by case per brands.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> It took a solid 6 months before my skills had really progressed where the XC trails weren't enough and I started to branch out and now I ride by myself on trails that very few people ride and I like it that way. No pretentious spandex XC people.


The fact that it only took you 6 months to master the XC trails in your area tells me that maybe MTB is just too easy where you live to filter out the posers, dirt-roadies and gear-weenies. Around here, I'm still challenged by XC trails after decades of riding them, and riders are mainly pretty damn cool.


----------



## smitty39 (Sep 8, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> I finally came up with a standard retort that went like this: "If you had spent less time riding a bike and more time in college I guess you could afford whatever bike you wanted too. See you later!"


I can think of a lot more mature ways to reply than that. Not sure if you're proud of that response or not.

-Fellow college graduate


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Suns_PSD said:


> :rant:


The irony is strong with this one.


----------



## bob13bob (Jun 22, 2009)

how can you poo poo on one or the other, that ridiculous. It depends on what you're riding and how you like to ride. I do think that for beginners looking to get in, unless they spending $1400+, stick to a hardtail.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> The fact that it only took you 6 months to master the XC trails in your area tells me that maybe MTB is just too easy where you live to filter out the posers, dirt-roadies and gear-weenies. Around here, I'm still challenged by XC trails after decades of riding them, and riders are mainly pretty damn cool.


Master? Nope. Lose interest in the mundaneness of relatively smooth trail riding? Absolutely.



smitty39 said:


> I can think of a lot more mature ways to reply than that. Not sure if you're proud of that response or not.
> 
> -Fellow college graduate


The idea was to bounce back their nasty attitude and demeanor, not to be friendly or mature. If they were being friendly or mature they wouldn't have started the convo with "well you must be really fast, I hope that I can keep up with you on your full suspension cf bike..."

I like to think of roadies and XC folks as like Polo players that at times, can be a bit pretentious. Enduro riders seem more like some guys that just ride their old horses out at a ranch over whatever. Both ride horses, but that's about where the the similarities end.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Suns_PSD said:


> Master? Nope. Lose interest in the mundaneness of relatively smooth trail riding? Absolutely.


Pretty much the same thing. We're lucky don't have much of that sort of trail around here, so posers get weeded out pretty quickly.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

Hardtails are far more capable in rough terrain than when I first started riding. Back then 1.95 tyres were standard issue and 2.1's were "big" and about the only bigger tyres were Panaracer's 2.2 Smoke and Dart "Magnum" tyres which were typical undersized Panaracers.... Couple that with rims about 19mm wide, bars that were around 500mm and flat, and stems up to 150mm long, and you get the idea. Forks that were said to have 2" of travel were lucky to have that much.

We didn't know any better and still rode all kinds of stuff, albeit probably a lot slower than what you will now, on a do it all 150mm dually.

Early duallies were more trouble than they were worth, generally. I stuck with light alloy hardtails until around 2010 at which time I got a Cannondale Rush and from there, there's no going back to HT's for me, though I still have two hanging up.

I still have fun on my HT from time to time but TBH the pounding my back end takes, kind of takes the shine off the light weight and it just feels so delicate compared to my 150mm Stumpy. (I am near 100kg kitted up...).

I would like to try a 27.5 Plus hardtail, all the same


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Squishy


----------



## dirtywragg (Oct 30, 2016)

Picard said:


> My butt can't handle the rough terrain any more.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk


I eat Doughnuts.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Curveball said:


> I knew it! This is why the World Cup downhill racers all use hardtails!
> 
> Because they are faster in almost every terrain!


That must also be why the 2016 Olympic XC race gold medal was won on a full suspension bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Sideknob said:


> Hardtails are far more capable in rough terrain than when I first started riding. Back then 1.95 tyres were standard issue and 2.1's were "big" and about the only bigger tyres were Panaracer's 2.2 Smoke and Dart "Magnum" tyres which were typical undersized Panaracers....


In the later 90's Tioga DH 2.3s were pretty good-sized tough and meaty treads. Early 90's, Ritchey WCS 2.35 (pink, of course) had some decent volume for the time. Smoke/Darts pretty much sucked IMO.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Nice trolling OP.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

midwestmtb said:


> Why do people buy full suspension bikes?


Same reason soccer moms by 4X4 SUVs.


----------



## DrDon (Sep 25, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> Same reason soccer moms by 4X4 SUVs.


Now that's just mean

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CaptDan (Jun 26, 2013)

I can't speak for everyone, but I buy F/S bikes because;

- I followed dirtbike evolution through their Suspension Revolution, so that gave me an appreciation for suspension designs.

- I like the engineering and the visual "mechanical-ness" of the components & geometry.

- I have ridden F/S bikes since 1991, so I’m familiar (and comfortable) with the various benefits & drawbacks of F/S bikes.

To the O.P.; your friend may have similar reasons for wanting a F/S bike. Hope that helps. :thumbsup:


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> That must also be why the 2016 Olympic XC race gold medal was won on a full suspension bike.


Oh, no, no, no. The poster I quoted claimed that hardtails are faster in almost every terrain and therefore the 2016 XC gold medal winner must have been riding a hardtail. Maybe disguised as a FS bike to fool the other competitors.

I'm sure that the top enduro racers are using hardtails too. How else could they possibly win?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

How is it that in 2017 this thread is 4 pages?


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Why is a tree good? 

Why is the sunset good? 

Why are boobs good?


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

Travis Bickle said:


> How is it that in 2017 this thread is 4 pages?


In a week!


----------



## drwx (Jun 4, 2011)

Travis Bickle said:


> How is it that in 2017 this thread is 4 pages?


It's 19 in Tapatalk


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Cornfield said:


> Why is a tree good?
> 
> Why is the sunset good?
> 
> Why are boobs good?


They supply oxygen to the earth.

They're pretty.

They're pretty.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Because some people have an inherent need to tell other people they are doing it wrong. 

I've ridden both, and wouldn't even consider a hardtail over a FS bike for any type of off-road riding. But some people do prefer hardtails, and I assume they have their reasons. And that doesn't bother me one bit.


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> They supply oxygen to the earth.
> 
> They're pretty.
> 
> They're pretty.


What else supplies oxygen to the Earth?

What else is pretty?

What else is pretty?


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

This begins a 5 minute ride from my house.






There are places that the pounding was just to much for a HT so I sold it.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

I haven't watched that for a while and they show a lot of smoother sections but a ride is never all smooth here


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> They supply oxygen to the earth.
> 
> They're pretty.
> 
> They're pretty.





Hawg said:


> What else supplies oxygen to the Earth?
> 
> What else is pretty?
> 
> What else is pretty?


You guys :nonod:... @1:04


----------



## 411898 (Nov 5, 2008)

^ He kind of look like DJ.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

DrDon said:


> Now that's just mean


Sorry, I couldn't resist, however, you know there is some truth in that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Looks like a hoot.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Hawg said:


> ^ He kind of look like DJ.


You didn't watch the video, did you?

Good one Korn.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Travis Bickle said:


> This begins a 5 minute ride from my house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very cool.


----------



## Velorangutan (Aug 28, 2012)

Want and Need aren't always the same thing.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

No one needs a mountain bike at all. If you want to exercise all you need is a loin cloth (so you don't get arrested), and a place to run. I do trail run a but, but it ain't nearly so much fun though. Shoes and clothes for me though.


----------



## paulmich (Jul 6, 2015)

This is an older post. People decide what to ride based on their geographic location. I live in central Michigan area and ride nothing but hardtails. However if I lived 60 miles north I would most definately need a FS.


----------



## COMTBR (Jul 18, 2016)

I have at least one of each. Always have at least one of each. All bikes compromise somewhere. 
I’d never take a hardtail downhill or across a bunch of the gnar trails around here. I’d die trying. 
I’d never take a FS on the higher speed XC style trails around. I’d die from boredom.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

midwestmtb said:


> But the trails in most of the midwest are flowy, relatively smooth, with a few roots here and there. Yet I see guys buying full squishers with 120-160mm of travel. And most mountain bikers that I've seen don't push their rig hard enough to really "need" the suspension. Plus, they typically run high sag (25-30%) in some cases so they have to deal with all the energy wasted on pedal bob. And I won't even talk about the maintenance......
> 
> It seems like it would make a lot more sense for the majority of the people to ride hard tails, at least in my area. Yet full suspensions seem to dominate. Is it simply the desire to smooth out the trails?


You're defining "need" based on _your_ experience riding mountain bikes in the Midwest. You can't really judge what other people "need".



SCR818 said:


> Some of us have arthritis or other medical conditions and the cushion supplied by a FS bike helps to relieve the harshness of the terrain.
> 
> Others my also use that same bike for riding elsewhere where a FS is necessary.


Yes, absolutely. I care far more about the comfort than I do the speed and handling of my bike. My Crossrip makes my wrists hurt from just hitting cracks in the asphalt of the local paved biking trails.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Was doing (literally) multiple 3'- 5' drops with total gnar run up yesterday and was totally thinking, "why do I even have a FS bike?". Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I dunno, replace your cars suspension with solid steel rods.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

midwestmtb said:


> ...But the trails in most of the midwest are flowy, relatively smooth, with a few roots here and there....


Come to Kansas City and ride the trails for a week.

A FS bike allows me and my blown L5/S1 disc to continue to ride the chunky, rocky trails in the Midwest and hit the mountains for vacation.


----------



## COMTBR (Jul 18, 2016)

Ken in KC said:


> Come to Kansas City and ride the trails for a week.
> 
> A FS bike allows me and my blown L5/S1 disc to continue to ride the chunky, rocky trails in the Midwest and hit the mountains for vacation.


I'm there with the L5/S1. Thudbusters or Ergon leaf posts on the hardtails.


----------



## solarplex (Apr 11, 2014)

Xc FS bikes roll over rocks and roots climbing vs bouncing around like a hard tail and losing traction.


----------



## brent701 (Sep 17, 2012)

Just own one of each, won't be a question after that. Ride HT one week, ride the FS the next.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

I have a full suspension, a hardtail, and three fully rigid bikes in my active fleet (plus a bunch of other bikes that I don't ride anymore).

I buy them because I have money, can afford them, and really like bicycles. Don't really need justification. It's a hobby. I actually enjoy spending money on it. That's why I bought a lauf fork.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

80% of my trails I can ride my AM HT 29er, the other I prefer my 650b FS Enduro rig.

I've ridden the trickier stuff on my HT ^^

It's harder on the fitness & the fillings, but still plenty of fun ;-)

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Why do people ride FS bikes?

Because they can be really fun.

Not much more to it.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Ailuropoda said:


> I buy them because I have money, can afford them, and really like bicycles. Don't really need justification.


Do you have one of these, a Trek Butterfly Madone?


----------



## R_Pierce (May 31, 2017)

Nat said:


> When I lived in Iowa a hardtail was the ideal ride. There were all of about three partially uncovered tree roots to bump over. FS bikes are more interesting and attractive though. If you mountain bike in a place with actual mountains (or anywhere outside of the midwest) the benefit is more apparent.


That sure has changed. I live in Iowa and there are PLENTY of tree root ridden trails here now. A couple local ones even. But still, nothing in comparison to the mountainous regions. I had a HT and never understood why anyone would want a full suspension here. Then i rode one and well... own one now.


----------



## justwan naride (Oct 13, 2008)

You can't really divide modern mountain bikes based on whether they have squishy rears or not. This oversimplification meant something in the early 2000's, but not now. 

There are stiff, light, responsive FS bikes meant to be ridden fast, cover hundrends of miles and win races. And then there are hardtails designed to be fun on steep, gnarly trails. 

Location and rider preference defines our equipment choices, unless you do this for a living.

Just compare it to surfing. Very big or very small waves call for specialized equipment, but for anything in between there's no right or wrong, people ride whatever feels most fun. Some like a responsive, snappy ride while others prefer something mellow and cruisy. It's the same with mountain bikes. 

BTW I ride an all mountain ht with beefy tires. It shouldn't make sense as the slack front end can cope with pretty gnarly trails, but the rear gets kicked all over the place. Somehow it's great fun though and it's my choice for a single bike quiver.


----------



## Gasp4Air (Jun 5, 2009)

I hadn't noticed this thread when it first came out. To the OP, the answer is yes, full squish make rough trails easier to ride. I not only ride full squish, I also have 3" tires, and it makes the never ending rocks and roots of central CT easier and more enjoyable to ride. If someone wants to ride full squish on smooth trails, well, a great big so what.

To the I'm-so-cool cuz I ride a hardtail crowd, don't be so silly. No one is impressed. Ride what suits you and what you can afford. Who cares what other people ride.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

Why not a rigid fork? Same argument "most mountain bikers don't push their rig hard enough to really need the suspension fork. Plus, they typically run high sag (25-30%) so they have to deal with all the energy wasted on pedal bob."

People ride full suspension because they are faster on it in basically any surface other than asphalt-like trails, the bike is way more versatile (those little, often blue, levers? they are lock outs), and you can ride way longer on them anywhere.

Bob? Get a DW-link ot VPP and there is no bob. Get most else and you'd live with a slightly stiffer suspension (again those blue levers: they adjust your compression) but again no bob.

Maintenance? A shock can go years with just a periodic checking of the air pressure?


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Honestly, I ride them for the chicks.

But seriously, ride whatever you like. Most trails don't require any suspension at all, but they are funner with it! I also found, in a surprising manner, that I am actually faster with more travel on even the non technical trails. Faster, less beat up, and funner. That makes for a winner in my book!


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

New England gnar rider here. Over our chunky terrain, you gotta be a superhero to ride a hardtail.


----------



## Zowie (Aug 3, 2013)

Davide said:


> Maintenance? A shock can go years with just a periodic checking of the air pressure?


Theoretically, maybe. 
I don't know of a manufacturer that would recommend it though.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Davide said:


> Maintenance? A shock can go years with just a periodic checking of the air pressure?


Yes it can, but it will be fecked afterwards.

And full sus is not faster on anything but tarmac. I did ten-miles on fire road today and I can tell you for a fact my hardtail would've been faster.


----------



## Brodino (Sep 15, 2008)

I rode a HT for 7+ years. I finally got tired of the beating my body took and switched over to FS and I have not looked back since. Although the trails I ride do not need a FS, my body certainly does especially now that I am older.


----------



## l'oiseau (May 5, 2015)

Because the more you spend on your bike, the better you are 


I notice the same thing locally where I am. I do see some people absolutely rippin' on FS bikes though, faster than I can with a HT. But that means nothing, they might just be way better than me and would rip just as fast with a HT.

I think a lot of people want a bike they can "take out west" whether that actually happens or not. I'm pretty sure my choice of bike would change dramatically based on geographical location. I've watched a lot of videos of **** I wouldn't want to ride on a HT.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> Do you have one of these, a Trek Butterfly Madone?
> 
> View attachment 1159474


The OP's question is silly as well as his premise. Mountain biking is a hobby, not a way of life. Buying a full-suspension bike to ride on paved roads is just as legitmate as buying one to ride the mythical gnarly trails of New England. Buy and ride whatever you can afford and whatever you want. I sometimes take my full suspension bike out for long gravel rides. It's a nice ride. I have fun.

MTBR is really going downhill. I've been on this site since 2009 (I think) and this topic keeps coming up with the usual answers and debate.


----------



## R_Pierce (May 31, 2017)

Ailuropoda said:


> I've been on this site since 2009 (I think) and this topic keeps coming up with the usual answers and debate.


December 2010 just for reference.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Ailuropoda said:


> The OP's question is silly as well as his premise. Mountain biking is a hobby, not a way of life. Buying a full-suspension bike to ride on paved roads is just as legitmate as buying one to ride the mythical gnarly trails of New England. Buy and ride whatever you can afford and whatever you want. I sometimes take my full suspension bike out for long gravel rides. It's a nice ride. I have fun.
> 
> MTBR is really going downhill. I've been on this site since 2009 (I think) and this topic keeps coming up with the usual answers and debate.


Good post


----------



## dmcmahan (Sep 13, 2017)

Because I am 51 and wanted a little comfort when I ride. I am not a young person anymore so why not?


----------



## DaveRider (Jul 14, 2014)

I have ridden both extensively. For me, the main benefit of FS was rear wheel traction on loose descents. I cannot afford n+1 or really want to invest in another FS since $2600 is about average for a decent one. My next mtb will be a 29er HT with 2.5 or wider tires set up tubeless. Kind of a balance regarding cost, comfort, traction, & efficiency. 

I used to ride with a guy who rode the Cape Epic. He had a 29er with rigid fork & suspension rear. He said that even when set up correctly, there are situations where the fork dives & he didn't really care about front end damping, just rear traction.


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

For the record. The op isn't the captain eh 

Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk


----------



## Picard (Apr 5, 2005)

I have a bony ass therefore I need a FS bike to have a softer ride 

Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Picard said:


> I have a bony ass therefore I need a FS bike to have a softer ride
> 
> Sent from my F3213 using Tapatalk


And the Captain is back!


----------



## terrasmak (Jun 14, 2011)

I have both, and most miles go on my Hardtail


----------



## gsmith462 (Feb 14, 2015)

I live in the Midwest and yes, many trails near me would be fine with a HT but the selection of HTs seems to be getting slimmer by the day unless you are looking for an XC race bike. I just ordered my new bike this past week (FS) but I must say I considered a HT until I saw how few that were available that wouldn't require me to buy it and tear it down to build it how I'd prefer.

Also, a new trail is being built near me where the final loop is supposed to be FS recommended, I like knowing that I will have the ability to hit those types of trails without thinking I should have went FS.


----------



## Muggsly (Nov 9, 2005)

I can never understand why some people are so consumed by what other people are doing with their lives be it what they eat, what they wear, what they choose to drink, or to where they decide to stick their purple headed paladin of passion. The only person you need to worry about is you and what you do and don't worry about what someone else choose to do to have fun. 

Want to ride a FS go nuts or think that mountain biking only belongs on a HT or single speed/29er/27.5/27.5+/insert whatever here then great enjoy the trails and enjoy the camaraderie. If you are out having fun on a bike than more power to you and if you are sitting at the trailhead passing judgement on other riders than stay the **** home because mountain biking community should stick together and enjoy the same trails.


----------



## CannondaleF9 (Nov 17, 2012)

I rode a hardtail today for the first time in a couple years.

I forgot how rigid the rear end is.


----------



## Kona0197 (Oct 19, 2004)

I can tell you why I don't ride a FS bike. I weigh close to 300 pounds. a 4 inch travel fork gives me around 1 inch of travel when I ride a hardtail, and every FS bike I have tried is the same story, my weight overpowers the suspension. I've even tried the stiffest springs front and rear with no good results. I've never tried an air based fork or shock, never could afford it. So I'm really happy riding a fully rigid hybrid bike.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

CannondaleF9 said:


> I rode a hardtail today for the first time in a couple years.
> 
> I forgot how rigid the rear end is.


It was brought sharply to my mind after putting a Bluto on my Fatboy. Otherwise, I liked that front suspension so much that I thought..."if a little is good, more must be better". So I bought the Farley EX8.

I rode my buddy's Salsa Mukluk yesterday for a bit. I was _shocked_ at how rough those trails actually were when riding an ordinary bike. I had forgotten.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

I was looking for a new XC bike and took out a niner air9 RDO. I rode it to the trail head and turned around. It was so rough that I didn't even want to ride it on real dirt.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

alexbn921 said:


> I was looking for a new XC bike and took out a niner air9 RDO. I rode it to the trail head and turned around. It was so rough that I didn't even want to ride it on real dirt.


It's all relative, feels pretty darn smooth compared to rigid steel.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Comfort, Speed, and traction come to mind for dual suspension. Is this a trick question?!


----------



## DeadGrandpa (Aug 17, 2016)

I recently got a rigid bikepacking touring bike with 29x3 tires. While on my first rides climbing up gravel forest service roads, I noticed riders on FS bikes exiting trails onto the road. They looked like they were having fun. Even with the Plus tires, my bikepacking bike was only fun and comfortable on gravel roads and smooth flowy trails, not the gnarly technical ones. 

Back at my lbs, I noticed a higher end FS mtb marked down 35%, a real deal and in my size. I bought it because 1) It filled a need I had just discovered that I had; 2) It was a quality bike at a bargain price; and 3) I liked the color.


----------



## 619er (Nov 15, 2005)

I ride a FS because it’s versatile- it does what I want and why jackhammer my gluteus when there is no need to. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## @[email protected] (Aug 25, 2017)

I do it so i can feel like a monster truck crushing cars as I roll over rocks.


----------

