# FS vs. HT?



## RVbldr (Sep 10, 2015)

I'm 51 and still pretty engaged with some tech diving (still able to hump 90 lbs of doubles out of the water) and other stuff, and have been riding a Spec Rockhopper 29r hardtail for a while, but am considering a move to a 2016 Stumpy 27.5 FSR Fattie for a potentially smoother ride on our rocky/rooty trails here in Washington as well as better performance on the twisty stuff. The 29r hardtail kicks butt on the smooth flowy trails, forest service roads and the rails to trials, but I find it lacking on the more technical stuff and really needs to be hoarse'd around a bit. Any pro's / cons / experience in moving to the FS as a not-so-young-anymore guy?


----------



## watts888 (Oct 2, 2012)

This question has been commented on many times, but soley from a 50+ forum perspective, I'd so go full suspension. As long as you get a good bike with good fork/shock, you don't loose anything by going full suspension other than money.


----------



## glesoine (Jan 26, 2006)

Second the full suspension. The only downside for me is you have the fuss of keeping it feeling proper as well as the fuss/cost of maintaining another shock. But worth it in my opinion.


----------



## stoplight (Mar 8, 2009)

x3, it will make you better more confident rider and will be easier on them old bones......give the 29'er FS crowd a look also...depending upon your preferences of course.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

I have both and enjoy both. Big fat tires (Racing Ralph 2.35's on 35mm wide rims for the HT) helps take some of the sting out of the HT. But the real cushion comes from a nice full suspension bike. Demo or try some out and you will know right away if you like it or not.


----------



## Osco (Apr 4, 2013)

glesoine said:


> Second the full suspension. The only downside for me is you have the fuss of keeping it feeling proper as well as the fuss/cost of maintaining another shock. But worth it in my opinion.


I learned the ropes for two and a half seasons on a 29er Hard Tail and loved It BUT I was getting tired of the beatings.
Actually when I got tired I sometimes would fail to 'Pop' up off the seat fast enough and the bike would spank me saying wake up !
I Also found too many other limits mostly due to my physical condition.
Nothing wrong with me at all but at 56 I am just not a young 'Rubber' person 

On my Very first ride on my new full squish I was considerably faster on every single segment of a 15 mile X country style Loop I work out on, Per Strava...

Full squish allowed me to stay seated on rougher meaner climbs and that allowed me to get more power down.
When nearing the end of a workout ride I would not get beat when I failed to get off the saddle for that surprise root because I was tank empty, from the Intensity of the ride.

Full squish allowed me to run at and maintain much higher speeds going down steep choppy drops and that speed helped me get up the next hill in a major way... I am done with Hard Tails...
I tried a full suspension Fat Bike on real trails, a light good one, the Bucksaw.
I came away thinking,,why ? 
Too much tire, Too much traction, Rolling mass,,,well you get the picture.

I wore out a 2.35 wide tire on the back of my bike, swapped to a 2.25 wide and loved the felt speed boost.
As for the added work of the rear shock,, after a full year of riding most every week I had done nothing to my low end X Fusion 02RL rear shock other than
adding and removing a little air as the weather changed from cold winter to HOT summer. 
Am starting my second year this month and that little rear shock still needs nothing.

I deal with lots of sugar sand and would consider a 27.5+ bike but not 4.0" or more tire'd fat bike.
The only place fatter tires would help me Is on the Sandy fire roads.
But with full suspension I now can stay seated, move my tail a bit back on the saddle and spin spin spin In a slightly lower gear.
Can you Imagine getting Mud all up In a fat bike tire ? the thing would be so stupid heavy right ?


----------



## Brisk Eddie (Jun 23, 2014)

Another vote for full squish. I had one years ago ('98) and hated the pedal bob, drove me nuts.
Next bike ('11)was a hard tail, loved it, tons of fun. Then I got curious about what had changed in susp. design.
My last two bikes have been modern full suspension, what an improvement. I couldn't imagine going back. My old bod thanks me.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

27+ Scott and 29+ Stache could be options. If you want something light in fs you will be spending much.
Is it possible to set up a ht comfortable like a fs? No, I don't think you can.
Can you set one up so you aren't beat up riding rocks and roots? I think you can with the right frame and parts. Every piece makes a contribution. Should be a lot cheaper and light.


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

Unless you're living paycheck to paycheck, do yourself a favor and get a full-susser. You owe it to yourself. Seriously. Hardtails are fun on the right trail, and/or for shorter rides, but anyone in the 50+ realm deserves a plush ride. We can't afford to abuse our bodies anymore!


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

I'll go against the trend.

I still ride fully rigid. There's 10" of suspension in your arms and legs, and if you learn how to use it it will keep you fitter and give you a better core than a squelchy bike.

My accent while riding is going places rather than speed but I still manage to maintain a reasonable average speed. (However when I do want to go fast, it's on a fully rigid singlespeed for 24 hour races).

Yesterday's ride, 56miles, 2 sets of ranges.

Looking forward (the Corrieyairack Pass)



Looking back



Looking back (pylons are where I crossed the range)



BTW The trail I was following was an ancient military road (1720s) to enable the British govt to subjugate my ancestors.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Velobike, you are a tough old lad. That is about as bad a road I will ride rigid. I use gears and clip-in pedals, about all we would differ on. Perhaps in respect to the OP, some people will look at technology to help a physical need, like an injury and we by comparison have been spared and are well preserved. But I know little about the terrain the OP rides on, so will defer on a viewpoint. Having viewed some you-tube clips, we all have wide variations of terrain that though respectfully, you have shown, may be completely different to those of the inquirers location.

I will add though, I am really interested in your 'rides', the Landscapes of my home area are similar, and we are literally half a world apart. I have been told that the Highlands of Scotland and southern New Zealand are very much alike.

Eric


----------



## santacruzer (Nov 30, 2004)

I started riding full suspension in 96 on a GT LTS and currently have a Salsa Spearfish. The Spearfish has only been ridden a handful of times in the past year since I started riding 29+ bikes, first a Krampus and now a Carver Gnarvester. At 23lbs with a Fox 27.5+ fork and set up single speed it's my go to bike. 
With the 3.0 tires at 11psi, it soaks up all the chatter and gives you great traction I've raced it in 24 hour races, XC races and cross races I like it so much
Here's a pic from a cross race, set up rigid:thumbsup:


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Eric Malcolm said:


> ...That is about as bad a road I will ride rigid...


I usually ride much worse, but that ride was on slicks. 

The point I didn't make very well was that suspension is all very well - especially if you have an injury to protect - but if you are still in one piece, learning to ride rigid will benefit you much more.

It could also help bone density because your body responds to impacts (certainly my wife thinks my skull is particularly dense  ).

But more than anything your core benefits.

People who have been riding a long time will have their own evolved tastes, but new or returning riders can be misled by the emphasis on speed, and generally have a lower budget.

For many folk this is self defeating and leads to the wrong choice of bike if they don't realise it's not the bike that's fast, it's the rider. Being fast doesn't just happen, you have to adapt your body and reactions to it.

I'm more interested in a decent average speed, eg if there's a long steep hill you spend more time climbing than descending. It's hard to find a full suspension bike on a budget that can climb well IMO, yet any hardtail will, and fully rigid will do it even better (and lighter) for about the price of a good quality suspension fork.

If you spend the money to get a top quality full suspension bike, you get something that's tailored around the needs of an xc athlete, and adopting that riding position is guaranteed pain for older new/returning riders.


----------



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

Another trendbucker here. Maybe a few years down the line my next rig will be a fs but for now a simple/light hardtail is just too fun. I really enjoy moving the bike around under me and out of saddle climbs so I think a ht fits my style nicely. I know I'm a little slower on fast chunky descents than I would be on a fs but I think I make that back up in other areas. I don't feel at all limited by my bike as far as trails I can ride.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

santacruzer said:


> ...and currently have a Salsa Spearfish. The Spearfish has only been ridden a handful of times in the past year since I started riding 29+ bikes, first a Krampus and now a Carver Gnarvester. At 23lbs with a Fox 27.5+ fork and set up single speed it's my go to bike...


That's interesting. I've ridden a Spearfish, it's one of the few full suspension bikes that I thought was good for climbing (but I still prefer my usual rigid hardtail). That the 29er+ format is even better than it, is demonstrated by your preference - you have an iron in each fire so no bias.

As for the singlespeed, folk who haven't ridden 24 hour races often don't get that it's "easier", especially at stupid o'clock, and you don't have to worry about mechanicals thus saving valuable riding time.


----------



## coyotegulch (Jun 25, 2008)

Still have the HT fatty and was using it a lot on the local trails here in the CO front range, but the rain we had in the spring exposed a lot of rocks and I find myself choosing the FS for most rides now. I do have a short travel FS for endurance racing as well. 

At 51 I do not think I will be investing in another HT.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

One of each.

You're over 50, so you can afford two high end bikes. I love my HT SS and ride it 4x as much as my FS but I like having both. There are trails where I prefer one over the other and days where I prefer one over the other.

Additionally, having two bikes is a good idea if you're more than a few-times-a-month rider. With two bikes, you're never shut out of a ride due to a bike being down for maintenance.


----------



## Kofaram (Oct 20, 2014)

I've only been riding about a year on a hard tail. I just bought my first fs and I absolutely love it. I wish I had started on a full-sus. 
I had one bike shop tell me they only recommend fs for people over 35.
Good luck on whatever you choose


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Where in WA are you?

For me, for a fit, athletic person, buying a full suspension bike is about having the bike help me to be smoother and faster. I'm not in it to work out, though I appreciate that riding is a workout, I'm in it for the riding itself. So if I get hammered on less when I ride through a rock garden or a root bed, that's a plus. I can enjoy longer days in the saddle more.

You also don't really need to ask us. Bike demo and rental is getting better and better around WA. Just try one. If you know how to set up your suspension fork, roughing in rear suspension isn't a whole lot different.


----------



## RVbldr (Sep 10, 2015)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Where in WA are you?


I'm in Redmond, so lots of Duthie Hill, Tiger Mt., Cascades, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, but also a lot of Iron Horse (rails to trails) for easy fun stuff with family - although my 12 year-old is starting to get the bug.

Great responses for sure! I'm in no rush to get rid of my Rockhopper 29r HT, but looking to adapt to some of the more technical rides without the beating!


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

At 51 myself, I rode a hardtail for many years. It gave me skills and fitness to handle trail riding. I went with a FS in 2010 and never looked back. Your bones will thank you. A fatbike FS is not even necessary, as 2.30 tires easily cushes-out the ride comfort.


----------



## Sinker (Feb 3, 2007)

I was very happy with my HT Niner EMD, but really love my Salsa Spearfish. It feels very similar to my EMD, but with just a little give. It's hard to explain, but I'm almost unaware of the rear suspension while riding, but can go much longer without feeling fatigued.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

Great to hear the 50+ perpsective on this age-old this-vs-that topic. 

When I began mountain biking 7 years ago, I'd never owned or ridden one. (I was a roadie first.) At the dealer, I demo'd both HT and FS bikes. And for me it was a total no-brainer: the FS bike was WAY smoother and more comfortable. So that was my first bike and I've never looked back.

I'll also add that maintaining the suspension hasn't really been an issue for me. For several years I maintained my own fork and shocks—just following Fox's good online step-by-steps to disassemble things, clean, replace fluid and seals, etc. Then more recently, I just had the LBS ship everything to Fox for a rebuild at a cost of around $300. Considering I'll probably only do that every 18-24 months, that's no big deal.

@VeloBike: I was intrigued by your points about riding a fully rigid bike improving your core. Though I wonder: can't you ride the same way on a FS bike? Seems like you could (e.g. standing more, still using your arms/legs as shock absorbers, etc.) I think I do that even now on my FS (though maybe not to the extent I would on a rigid bike).

Scott


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

RVbldr said:


> I'm in Redmond, so lots of Duthie Hill, Tiger Mt., Cascades, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, but also a lot of Iron Horse (rails to trails) for easy fun stuff with family - although my 12 year-old is starting to get the bug.


OK, now I have some context. 

Much of the new stuff on Tiger can benefit from a full suspension bike. I just ride a XC bike, but I'm not done competing and I clicked the topic out of idle curiosity; I'm well under 50.

Duthie's kind of an interesting case. Since the trails there have so much work in them, I don't think rear suspension is as big a deal as on longer, lower-traffic trails. But if you're riding Step It Up or Braveheart, there are some spots where rear suspension is nice.

Nobody's saying you have to get rid of your Rockhopper. n+1. 

I haven't ridden Middle Fork or Iron Horse. My impression is that a mountain bike is already overkill for Iron Horse.

Do you know the Thrilla route?


----------



## dovebiker (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm 50 and still ride and race rigid - I get comments during races that I shouldn't be going that fast... I've got two bikes, a 29+ and 5" fatty, plus a couple of CX. The rigid bikes work me harder, but it keeps me stronger - longest ride this year was 200 miles in 21 hours. What it does mean is you learn to ride smooth even on the roughest terrain. I'm riding as fast as I was in my 30s...


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

FS though I rode my HT today and it wasn't that bad but I had to ride smart. 
One bike? 
Old man? 
FS!


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

SWriverstone said:


> [email protected]: I was intrigued by your points about riding a fully rigid bike improving your core. Though I wonder: can't you ride the same way on a FS bike? Seems like you could (e.g. standing more, still using your arms/legs as shock absorbers, etc.) I think I do that even now on my FS (though maybe not to the extent I would on a rigid bike)...


I do see full suspension riders doing just that, so you're right. However the majority of riders have the habit of using their saddle as a seat rather than as a support.

I have no doubt a full-on downhiller is using his core more than me though.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

The progression for a lot of the 'originals' of this genre started rigid, and progressed through to full susser's as we are the privileged generation that grew with these bikes.

The unfortunate thing that I see happening with the late bloomers is that they see MTB as Downhill that was presented via the media of TV etc. Rigid to these types are road/CX and FS is off-road and they go off to the LBS and after a short ride on a HT and FS, they buy a FS. The problem is that while the sale was made on the basis of 'softness' (comfy/plush), it was not necessarily based on terrain. So, many of these bikes end up doing double service as commuters and rail trail bikes and are way over-spec'd for the end purpose. I have had riders my age (57 young) wonder why these bikes don't work for them. I have also had riders who started on FS who floundered while racing and woke up to the fact that guys on HT's were winning the enduro's and XC events, so they traded in and purchased HT bikes. Without the experience of building up their core strength and with no intuitive stand up out of the saddle techniques, they give up riding as they injured themselves (backs mostly). I personally believe that a newb should start on a SS rigid and work up to what is appropriate to your majority of ride conditions. I have not progressed from rigid, I simply don't have the need for 98% of my riding. If I lived where it is justified, I would. Riding is for enjoyment so select the right horse for the course.

My rant for the day...

Eric


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Sensible rant though. 

My first reaction was to recommend an FS because for the majority of my trail riding, that is the best choice. Of course the rider has a lot to do with that. I'm 66. So is my back!

However, at a certain point, many of us are able to have more then one bike so my real recommendation would be to have the proper bike for where you are riding that day. I have a road bike for the road, my hard tail works on rail trails and the like and my 5" travel FS is for the majority of places I ride.

In the end, ride what is most fun for you.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Velobike said:


> I'll go against the trend.
> 
> I still ride fully rigid. There's 10" of suspension in your arms and legs, and if you learn how to use it it will keep you fitter and give you a better core than a squelchy bike.
> 
> ...


That road looks like smooth pavement from where I ride. Here in New England we have rocks, big and small, of all sorts of shapes and sizes. I ride both, my enduro is much more comfortable at the end of the day. Full sus most of the time for me. Another option, plus sized tires. Very popular now. Check out something like the Trek stache, 29er with 3" tires for some give for the backside.


----------



## nbwallace (Oct 8, 2007)

Riding a fully made me a lot faster. I would also say that it saved me in some places where fatigue could have been pretty dangerous. I can't imagine coming off 20+ miles of hike a bike and riding a sketchy descent with my old hardtail. Plus the TallboyC is my dream bike.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

leeboh said:


> That road looks like smooth pavement from where I ride. Here in New England we have rocks, big and small, of all sorts of shapes and sizes. I ride both, my enduro is much more comfortable at the end of the day. Full sus most of the time for me. Another option, plus sized tires. Very popular now. Check out something like the Trek stache, 29er with 3" tires for some give for the backside.


Couldn't afford to stop on the trickier bits - I was on road tyres and grip was marginal. 

For rougher stuff I tend to ride my fatbike



... or something more interesting (did a loop of local xc course on my 1935 rodbrake roadster) 



EDIT: generally speaking my pics are taken to show the view rather than the tracks, but we have quite a lot like this around here because our countryside alternates between moorland bog and rock.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

N+1

I would try to find a Trek demo day. Once you've decided you want to go full suspension, then you have to decide how much. 100mm 27.5", 120mm 27.5", 100mm 29", 120mm 29", 120mm 27.5"+? Trek's full suspension bikes are pretty similar to each other so you can decide what size of suspension and wheels you like. Then you can decide which brand to get. Theoretically you could do the same at a Specialized demo, but I've never been able to figure out how their various model lines are named. When I got back into riding mountain bikes after a long hiatus, I assumed that I would want a 100mm 29" bike, but I liked the 120mm 26" bike best.


----------



## GraniteRash (Jun 3, 2006)

I bought a 27.5" full suspension bike this year after 10 years on 26" hardtails.

I'm having a terrible time adjusting. The bike is heavier and I'm really struggling to get it uphill. It's great going downhill, but I find I'm not enjoy riding as much because of the increased suffering. So I ride less, fitness fades, and the suffering increases.

It's only been a couple of months, one of which doesn't count because I couldn't ride due a broken rib acquired in a crash. But I'm really second-guessing the purchase and wondering if I should go back to a hard-tail.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

All full suspension bikes are not created equal. What do you have?

Do you feel comfortable tuning your suspension? Rear suspension?


----------



## GraniteRash (Jun 3, 2006)

Kona Process 134.

Not comfortable adjusting the suspension yet. I did slow the shock's rebound a little because I think it is bucking. Haven't messed with the fork.

Also fooling with tire pressure. I think I'm running too much right now-- too bouncy. But I pumped it up to decrease rolling resistance.

And I switch to flats from clipless. Maybe I'm making too many changes.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The Process is reviewed as being a really fun descender and having kept a couple of Kona's Enduro racers on their previous platform for a little while because of its climbing.

Did you want an enduro bike?

That said, I don't think it's fair to judge a full suspension bike when it's not tuned. It's sort of like saying a drivetrain sucks if the barrel adjuster is half a dozen clicks off where it needs to be. You really need to get the tune right. I found that a bit intimidating when I bought my FS a couple years ago, but in retrospect, it's not that much harder than tuning the suspension on a hardtail. Devoting a ride to tuning the suspension got me very close, I think, and I've probably moved a couple clicks from that setting on my rebound damper since then.

I've found the best rear suspension climbing and flat to rolling trails performance on my Hei Hei with the compression damper on the shock in the 'T' position, but it's a fairly climbing-oriented linkage. So you may also find you need to use the lockout more actively on the Process. I haven't ridden one, so I don't really know if it can be tuned to climb well with medium compression damping, or if it really needs to be locked out.

FWIW, my Hei Hei, while heavier than my 26" hardtail, is easily a faster climber.


----------



## GraniteRash (Jun 3, 2006)

Thanks-- I'll start experimenting with it. So far I was blaming myself more than the bike, but I'll try some tweaking.

I did want more of an enduro or trail bike. My hard-tail was more of a cc set-up-- a stumpjumper with a very modest entry-level marzocchi fork that couldn't be adjusted very much.


----------



## golden boy (Oct 29, 2008)

GraniteRash said:


> Kona Process 134.
> 
> Not comfortable adjusting the suspension yet. I did slow the shock's rebound a little because I think it is bucking. Haven't messed with the fork.
> 
> ...


Definitely too many changes at once! I would only change one thing per ride, so you can isolate that one thing and really understand the effect it has.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

GraniteRash said:


> Thanks-- I'll start experimenting with it. So far I was blaming myself more than the bike, but I'll try some tweaking.
> 
> I did want more of an enduro or trail bike. My hard-tail was more of a cc set-up-- a stumpjumper with a very modest entry-level marzocchi fork that couldn't be adjusted very much.


It's good not to expect the bike to turn you into something you're not. But they can definitely shoot you in the foot. 

I'll be curious to hear if it grows on you after you put in a little more time on the suspension setup.


----------



## GraniteRash (Jun 3, 2006)

Pre-crash and my month off the bike I felt like it was maybe just maybe starting to come together for me on the Kona, but I went for a ride yesterday that was horrible-- it was always a tough, but mostly doable ride on the old hard-tail, but I had to walk the Kona way too much. Frustrating! But I'm gonna keep trying.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

GraniteRash said:


> Pre-crash and my month off the bike I felt like it was maybe just maybe starting to come together for me on the Kona, but I went for a ride yesterday that was horrible-- it was always a tough, but mostly doable ride on the old hard-tail, but I had to walk the Kona way too much. Frustrating! But I'm gonna keep trying.


Keep at it. The increased heft of the new Kona will soon be a thing of the past. Your body just needs to be conditioned for it....that's all. Problem with light bikes, is that the body actually gets "lazy" riding them. That comfort zone can also be a detriment. Look at the benefit of much faster and confident DH and let the rest fall into place.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Something else I notice about some of Kona's 1x offerings in particular is that, to me, they have really high gearing.

On my 26" hardtail, I have 22/32 or 22/34 granny gears. Let's pretend, because I'm a little lazy, that a 26" wheel really has a 26" OD and a 27.5" wheel really has a 27.5" OD. That 22/34 granny on a 26" hardtail is 16.8 gear inches. The same gear on a 27.5" wheel is 17.8 gear inches, which is over 5% higher - enough to notice. It's about the same as a 24/36 granny if that's what you've got. But if you've got a 1x system with a 34/42 granny, on a 27.5" rear wheel, you're up to 22.3 gear inches, which is quite a lot higher, like 30%.

It's really easy to figure gear inches. It's just (chainring/cog)*(rear wheel diameter in inches.) If the new bike gives you a number that's a lot higher, it's probably more that than the weight of the bike or the linkage that's giving you trouble on climbs. I'm sometimes shocked at how math-phobic people are about this - stated this way, it's not even algebra! And I think it can give some valuable insight.


----------



## GraniteRash (Jun 3, 2006)

well, even though I'm pretty good at math, I haven't done the calcs.

I have 2X10 on the Kona, but I've been thinking it is geared higher than my old hard-tail. I thought I'd get used to it sooner plus I'm too proud to go back to the whippersnappers at my LBS to gear it down.


----------



## SWriverstone (Sep 3, 2009)

I think trail conditions make a HUGE difference. Many (in fact most) trails I learned to ride on in the Appalachian mountains look like this...









I could be wrong...but I'm guessing there aren't many people riding HT's on trails like this. And while I've only been living in the west (Oregon) for 6 months (and so haven't seen many trails yet)...most of the trails I see around here look more like this:









If all I rode were trails like this, I'd probably have a HT!

Scott


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

GraniteRash said:


> well, even though I'm pretty good at math, I haven't done the calcs.
> 
> I have 2X10 on the Kona, but I've been thinking it is geared higher than my old hard-tail. I thought I'd get used to it sooner plus I'm too proud to go back to the whippersnappers at my LBS to gear it down.


Who cares? The singlespeed guys already think you're a wimp, and nobody's going to stop you and count your gear teeth.

I mentioned earlier that I stumbled into this thread based on title and don't really belong on the Fifty+ forum. I'm also Sport class in XC, tend to finish above median among men doing endurance races, and climb in a pretty high percentile among Strava users.

I love my granny gear. There are many things I love about it. I use a 22/36 on my 29er and I went out and spent a bunch of money to have 170 mm crank arms and that granny rather than 175 mm crank arms and a 24t small ring.

It's a tool. An expensive one, even. I don't want my bikes set up for someone else, I want them set up for me. And, even more so at the higher pricepoints, they really need to be set up right.


----------



## JakeCB (Jul 11, 2011)

Or you can just learn to wrench your bike yourself, that way you don't really have to worry about a bike being down.

51 and I still ride HT and hope to always ride a HT. Marin, 29, 2.4 front and back. Rocks, roots, doesn't really matter. What I love about the HT is what I have always loved about it is that it forces you to be a better rider. I do a lot of longer rides with hours of climbing. I have never found a FS that can climb like a HT.

Plus, when I'm told that I'm over 50 and need to get a FS to "protect" my body I just laugh. I'm in way better shape today than I was when I was in my 30s.



KevinGT said:


> One of each.
> 
> You're over 50, so you can afford two high end bikes. I love my HT SS and ride it 4x as much as my FS but I like having both. There are trails where I prefer one over the other and days where I prefer one over the other.
> 
> Additionally, having two bikes is a good idea if you're more than a few-times-a-month rider. With two bikes, you're never shut out of a ride due to a bike being down for maintenance.


----------



## watts888 (Oct 2, 2012)

JakeCB said:


> Or you can just learn to wrench your bike yourself, that way you don't really have to worry about a bike being down.


Second. I think the intent was focused more on having a second bike if your bike is down. Not necessarily for scheduled maintenance, but because you broke something. Plus, having a second (or 7th) bike is always a good thing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

GraniteRash said:


> Kona Process 134.
> 
> Not comfortable adjusting the suspension yet. I did slow the shock's rebound a little because I think it is bucking. Haven't messed with the fork.
> 
> ...


So, tires. What size, running tubeless? Rider weight? Tires pressure? I'm 235 lbs and use 28-30 in the front and 30 -32 psi for the rear tire, 29 x2.3 tires set up tubeless. 
Too much tire pressure will make you slower. Too bouncy and not griping the rocks and such. Take it back to your shop to get some pointers for shock and fork set up and pressures. Kona and the shock makers( Fox?) will have some instructional videos on their web sites. Start there


----------



## tubbnation (Jul 6, 2015)

For me, it's neither...

I'm close enough to 50, and bought a rigid 2mos ago. It's my only bike and I just came back from Pisgah/Dupont area last week - loved every nook and cranny of it!

Sorry I was of no help, OP. Good luck.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

I've got both. For me, the FS is funner. WAY funner!

Also faster, but that's an argument for another day.


----------

