# When is a hardtail better than a FS bike?



## MissDaisy (Sep 15, 2014)

I have a Giant Anthem X W (2013) and could not be happier with the FS and overall fit. However, I know there are some nice hard tails out there (El Mariachi for one). When would a hard tail be more beneficial than a FS? I'm about 138 pounds if that makes a difference. Wondering if I "need" a hardtail in my stable.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

I have a Trek Superfly 9.8 carbon hard tail. It's been engineered with enough compliance that I don't need a fs for comfort on my rocky rooty trails. 22 lbs. and no pivot or shock expense or maintenance. No creaks. With even more compliance from 30mm wide rims the rear feels the same as the 100mm suspension front. I wouldn't want anything fs unless I lived where 140mm+ bikes were needed.


----------



## Shakester (Jun 26, 2012)

I think with today's technological advancements in frame geometries, many FS bikes are just as pedal friendly going up a hill than a good HT. For me, I rarely ride my Marin Team Scandium HT anymore and its partly because I don't have the skills anymore to rip through technical sections with one because I've become so dependent on my FS to keep me grounded and in control. But, if you're like eb1888 and have the skills to maneuver a HT through those spots of the trails, then you have an advantage. I know friends that rip through rock gardens with their 100-120mm HT just as fast as I go through them with my 140mm FS. You get a lighter bike with less maintenance and in some cases, extremely lighter. My HT is in the 23lb range while my FS hovers around 30lb.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

IMO all depends on the type of trails you ride. In most XC trails, a hardtail will be more than enough and will feel faster than a FS bike.


----------



## xlash (Aug 6, 2012)

When I see these kinds of threads I am tempted to ask why wouldn't you just get rid of the front suspension and go with a compliant rigid bike and 18 speeds? If you're a weight weenie and don't ride in wet conditions, ditch the hydraulic discs for cable V-brakes. I had a HT and rigid but the FS and dropper post make me want to take on climbs and descends I wouldn't or couldn't do otherwise.


----------



## MissDaisy (Sep 15, 2014)

xlash said:


> When I see these kinds of threads I am tempted to ask why wouldn't you just get rid of the front suspension and go with a compliant rigid bike and 18 speeds? If you're a weight weenie and don't ride in wet conditions, ditch the hydraulic discs for cable V-brakes. I had a HT and rigid but the FS and dropper post make me want to take on climbs and descends I wouldn't or couldn't do otherwise.


Definitely not a weight weenie, just a mtb novice trying to understand the options that are out there. I have ridden on wide gravel paths and rooty singletracks in the woods and expect to spend quite a bit of time on both kinds of trails. I stick to beginner and intermediate singletracks. I don't see myself doing any jumps (on purpose anyway) or flying down steep slopes. The downhills are what intimidate me the most right now.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Yes, rail to trails are perfect for HTs.


----------



## xlash (Aug 6, 2012)

MissDaisy said:


> Definitely not a weight weenie, just a mtb novice trying to understand the options that are out there. I have ridden on wide gravel paths and rooty singletracks in the woods and expect to spend quite a bit of time on both kinds of trails. I stick to beginner and intermediate singletracks. I don't see myself doing any jumps (on purpose anyway) or flying down steep slopes. The downhills are what intimidate me the most right now.


I see what you mean. I prefer more of a challenge so keeping my butt on the seat during steep climbs mean I need rear suspension and climbing down means I need both the suspension and a dropped seat post. When I did the same with a HT I went over the bars despite going slower.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I personally think that a well tuned FS bike it going to be more fun for most beginners than a HT will in most trail conditions (granted I'm from New England, and our trails tend to be bony). 

I'd say, if you're happy w/ your bike in general, just ride it. If you're dying to spend some dough and buy another bike, and hardtails have struck your interest, then look into adding one to the stable. Jump on a few and try them out, see what you think.


----------



## TJay74 (Sep 26, 2012)

I ride an Anthem Advanced 27.5-1, FS and full carbon setup. I thought about picking up the HT version of the bike for some of the trails and races I have in my area. In the end if I need the extra firmness I just lock out the rear shock and add about 10psi more pressure in the rear shock.


----------



## MissDaisy (Sep 15, 2014)

TJay74 said:


> I ride an Anthem Advanced 27.5-1, FS and full carbon setup. I thought about picking up the HT version of the bike for some of the trails and races I have in my area. In the end if I need the extra firmness I just lock out the rear shock and add about 10psi more pressure in the rear shock.


Good point re. the rear shock. Nice bike by the way! I need to try a 27.5 FS. I had heard that if you are going to ride a 27.5, go with FS rather than hardtail b/c of the smaller tire size.


----------



## Glide the Clyde (Nov 12, 2009)

"Need"??

Just do it because you can and it's fun and makes new challenges of familiar trails. Some say it makes one a better rider (rolls eyes here).


----------



## tobimaru (Aug 29, 2014)

You can start out anywhere on a bike these days but I always thought the learning curve went something like Rigid -> Hard-tail -> Full suspension. As you advance as a rider you work your way up to more capable and forgiving suspension as you try more challenging terrain.
Learning "the basics" on a full suspension bike can lead to bad habits from the get-go while you let the bike make up all the slack. That's not to say you can't learn anything on a full suspension bike, I just think you'd understand the "why, how, when, where" behind it all if you learned it on a less forgiving bike at first.


----------



## Mr. 68 Hundred (Feb 6, 2011)

Of course you need one.


----------



## kyle242gt (Nov 12, 2012)

Glide the Clyde said:


> Just do it because you can and it's fun and makes new challenges of familiar trails.


Totally agree. And it makes you appreciate the FS more, instead of taking it for granted.


Glide the Clyde said:


> Some say it makes one a better rider (rolls eyes here).


Rolling eyes or no, my recent purchase of a HT has definitely made me a stronger and more technically capable rider. Gotta search out better lines, muscle the bike up and over rocks, really own the downhill.



Mr. 68 Hundred said:


> Of course you need one.


:thumbsup: I love my HT so much.

But if I had only one bike, I'd want a FS for where and how I ride.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tobimaru said:


> Learning "the basics" on a full suspension bike can lead to bad habits from the get-go while you let the bike make up all the slack. That's not to say you can't learn anything on a full suspension bike, I just think you'd understand the "why, how, when, where" behind it all if you learned it on a less forgiving bike at first.


This only matters if you care about picking up esoteric knowledge that has very little to do with the end result. I did the rigid-ht-fs and now back and forth between the three regularly. Unless you're riding in front of a 'purist' judging panel of some sort, I fail to see what sort of habits (ie-style) you could pick up that could be construed as 'bad' in any way. If you're having fun on an FS, or HT, or whatever, that is the one and only thing that counts for anything. I learned all the 'why, how, when, where' stuff on old-school bikes and it really doesn't mean anything unless I'm riding one of them. In which case, I adapt my style to the bike (and remember how much hardtails beat me up in the rocks).


----------



## zephxiii (Aug 12, 2011)

A HT is better when your FS has suspension problems lol.

I own both. I love both. I really enjoy the lighter and stiffer HT with nothing to think about as far as rear suspension goes. I like the FS for softening the rear at times and having a nice ride.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

N+1. 

Also, the maintenance is a little cheaper and easier. So far, my fork is still what dominates the cost of maintaining the suspension on my FS, but I've had it about 14 months, and the pivots haven't needed attention yet, so take that with a grain of salt.

Now that I have a good-pedaling XC FS, I don't really see a place in my stable for a hardtail. Except that having a bike that's behind my desk for lunch rides, so I don't have to shuttle something to my office, is very convenient.

If you can afford it and you think you might learn something, do it. I think the same skills apply, and the biggest difference for me with the FS is that the speed limit is higher for maintaining control and the level of roughness that I can pedal through efficiently is greater.

I don't make a profit riding my bike, and I don't ever expect to. I have a Real Job for making a living. So I don't see that there's that much reason to impose some ridiculous level of rigor on ourselves, or "pay dues" before getting the bikes we think we'll have the most fun on. That said, I'm not sure if I'd have chosen my current bike - Kona Hei Hei DL 29er - to start on. I love it, but it demands and rewards a certain cleanliness of handling. OTOH, a friend of mine started on one of the Giant FS bikes, I think a 26", several years ago, and was immediately more able to keep up with me and friends who'd been riding a while. I think that has some value.

Now, there are some circumstances in which 'cross bikes and road bikes are better...


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

maintenance easier and cheaper

If you race XC a hardtail climbs faster, typically.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

127.0.0.1 said:


> If you race XC a hardtail climbs faster, typically.


I don't think this is true enough to be useful even as a general statement anymore.

The thing that put me over the edge in terms of going out and buying a FS was that I PR'd a couple climbs when I was demoing one.

I do think that full suspension bikes used to suck. Sometimes I wonder how the technology got enough support for the bike companies to keep pursuing it. But now, full suspension bikes that are designed to climb well do. And I don't mean "like a hardtail." Because I have that with my hardtail - why buy a more expensive, heavier bike to achieve it?

Now, all full suspension bikes are not created equal. I don't like the way 160 mm monsters handle on twisty singletrack. I definitely notice some things I don't like when I climb on a 140 or a 120. But on a technical climb, I'd expect the Anthem to be the fastest bike Giant offers, including their hardtails. Assuming comparable specs, of course.

Now, my hardtail might be marginally more efficient on a fire road climb, and it's definitely a little more efficient on pavement. Though I think the compression damper on my FS takes care of what the linkage doesn't already filter out. But I only climb fire roads when there's not a route I like on trails and I only ride pavement because it's between my house and the trailhead. In my region, race courses typically have most of their climbing on singletrack. So I'm not about to give up better performance everywhere else in order to be able to climb a road slightly faster. It seems to me that most people who do most of their climbing on the road are doing that because they'd rather get back to descending sooner; they don't seem to be a group that cares terribly much about how fast they can climb a road either.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

If you have a nice FS, I don't know why you'd feel obligated to get a HT just to have more bikes. If you were looking to get into dirt jumping, a HT might be a better way to go, but you'd probably enjoy your current bike more for trail riding. I'd be afraid you'd never ride the hardtail.

The only trail bike I have is a HT. I don't feel it gives me an edge anywhere that matter. If anything, it makes me work harder, which I kind of like in a masochistic kind of way.


----------



## kyle242gt (Nov 12, 2012)

s0ckeyeus said:


> If you have a nice FS, I don't know why you'd feel obligated to get a HT ... If anything, it makes me work harder, which I kind of like in a masochistic kind of way.


And this is why having a HT is great!


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

It's not (for us Clydies...) I started off on a 29er HT (mid range according to LBS) and with the kind of riding I was gravitating towards, I ended up with taco's out back every 2nd or 3rd ride!?

I've been on FS for 10 months now and I've loosened (1/100 rides) 3 spokes when I accidently took a steep DH trail. But, wheel kept true despite 3 very loose spokes. I occasionally ride HT when out with kids. FS is just more fun, huckin and haulin a$$


----------



## brmeyer135 (Mar 1, 2013)

If I had to have just one bike, it would be a FS. To me, it is the do it all...most suspension can be locked out for road riding(wouldn't do that much) and you can sit and spin more.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

I have never really ridden a FS bike. I come from a BMX background and ride a hardtail, which is sometimes fitted with a rigid fork. because I am used to bunnyhopping and hucking my way over stuff on a bmx bike, that effects my style on the mountain bike. I am under the impression that a FS bike allows and prefers to be sat on and pedaled, allowing the suspension to do more of the work.

does a FS bike lend itself to that style of riding? does a hardtail require a more "dynamic" riding technique than a FS bike? does a FS rider need to learn a different technique to ride a hardtail, and is the same true for a HT rider moving to FS?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mack_turtle said:


> I have never really ridden a FS bike. I come from a BMX background and ride a hardtail, which is sometimes fitted with a rigid fork. because I am used to bunnyhopping and hucking my way over stuff on a bmx bike, that effects my style on the mountain bike. I am under the impression that a FS bike allows and prefers to be sat on and pedaled, allowing the suspension to do more of the work.
> 
> does a FS bike lend itself to that style of riding? does a hardtail require a more "dynamic" riding technique than a FS bike? does a FS rider need to learn a different technique to ride a hardtail, and is the same true for a HT rider moving to FS?


After ages on FS, I'm back on a HT (not rigid) lately. I also ride my BMX bike at least a couple times a week, fwiw. A HT does demand a more dynamic riding style on technical terrain. I find it requires a lot more precision wrt wheel placement and body english to cover a given section, in general. IME, a good FS bike will give you more leeway in these department, in addition to delivering a lot less chatter to your body. If you put the same amount of skill and 'dynamics' in on an FS bike that suits your style of riding, you will start to look at lines differently and see new possibilities as to how to ride them. Typically, I ride a lot more relaxed and looser on an FS than I do on a HT.

As far as FS just being for sitting and pedalling - have you not seen a single mtb video in the past 15 years?


----------



## Mason (Aug 8, 2014)

matadorCE said:


> will feel faster than a FS bike.


Just wondering why a HT will feel faster?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

I don't think "better" is the term...just different. I ride a XC HT and for the trails here, its fine. I feel more of the trail and certainly get beat-up more in some sections but the overall power-transfer and feel is what I like right now. Will probably go FS at some point as I get older and have had FS in the past (way past). The HT will be lighter and less overall maintenance..but I think most of the current FS crop is fairly maintenance free at this point. For most beginners, a HT will provide more bang-for-the-buck.


----------



## mack_turtle (Jan 6, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> As far as FS just being for sitting and pedalling - have you not seen a single mtb video in the past 15 years?


what I meant was, as you stated, a HT requires more body english to stay planted and upright on a given terrain. I have seen a lot of people sit and grind their way up a rocky climb on a FS bike where I had no choice but to stand and mash.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TiGeo said:


> I don't think "better" is the term...just different. I ride a XC HT and for the trails here, its fine. I feel more of the trail and certainly get beat-up more in some sections but the overall power-transfer and feel is what I like right now. Will probably go FS at some point as I get older and have had FS in the past (way past). The HT will be lighter and less overall maintenance..but I think most of the current FS crop is fairly maintenance free at this point. For most beginners, a HT will provide more bang-for-the-buck.


+1
I have chosen a hardtail because I want my bike to be good on the road and in the trails. I know I could get a full-suspension that's capable of the same riding efficiency as my HT, but I would have to spend around $2500 extra to achieve that.*


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> +1
> I have chosen a hardtail because I want my bike to be good on the road and in the trails. I know I could get a full-suspension that's capable of the same riding efficiency as my HT, but I would have to spend around $2500 extra to achieve that.*


If you want something that rides well on the road, or if you race XC on smoother terrain, yes a HT is a better choice. Of course, since most people don't race, and road riding performance has nothing to do with mtbing, I wouldn't recommend anybody buying a bike that's going to be dedicated to trail riding really give much weight to that reasoning.

And there's no way you 'have' to spend that much money to get decent performance out of a bike. That's sales hype.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

To the OP: If you want an HT, maybe go beyond just getting another bike that will serve a similar function as your current bike, only without rear suspension. A singlespeed would fit the bill. Riding a singlespeed has a whole new set of requirements, many of which will help you when you switch back to your FS.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

To me...
... the lower maintenance is one thing, but then it gets more philosophical :skep:

I went a couple of steps further and got myself a rigid singlespeed. Faster and easier don't really matter to me. 
Less suspension is more work in the bumpy parts of trail. My favorite thing!
I cope with the bumps with a minimum of mechanical assistance. My favorite thing!
My ridid fork doesn't dive at the bottom of the steep spot. My favorite thing!
My BB remains at constant height. My favorite thing!
When I pedal to get out of the tight spot, I get immediate acceleration. My favorite thing!

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1869120256/hA54EB682/


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...
> 
> And there's no way you 'have' to spend that much money to get decent performance out of a bike. That's sales hype.


I'm not talking about decent performance per se...I said same efficiency as my hardtail...same efficiency means same overall weight and drive train performance.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> I'm not talking about decent performance per se...I said same efficiency as my hardtail...same efficiency means same overall weight and drive train performance.


There's more to it than that.

A couple pounds here or there and a somewhat lower tier or older compenentry have very little bearing on how much fun you can have riding a particular bike. Personally, I never finish an awesome section of trail and get fired up along the lines of "Yeah! That was so friggin' efficient! I conserved 47 watts on that climb due to my 1 ounce lighter crankset! Lets do it again"


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> There's more to it than that.
> 
> A couple pounds here or there and a somewhat lower tier or older compenentry have very little bearing on how much fun you can have riding a particular bike. Personally, I never finish an awesome section of trail and get fired up along the lines of "Yeah! That was so friggin' efficient! I conserved 47 watts on that climb due to my 1 ounce lighter crankset! Lets do it again"


Obviously you haven't heard of sponsored XC pros who wouldn't race with a full-suspenion because the lightest FS available to them is slightly heavier than the HT bike they have been riding on.

I barely have more than a year of mountain biking experience. But experienced bikers on FS costing $$$$ more than my HT are still having trouble trying to keep up with me on flat sections and paved paths. Oh, they get dropped on climbs too.


----------



## xlash (Aug 6, 2012)

perttime said:


> To me...
> ... the lower maintenance is one thing, but then it gets more philosophical :skep:
> 
> I went a couple of steps further and got myself a rigid singlespeed. Faster and easier don't really matter to me.
> ...


Why is having a constant BB height important?


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

mtb_beginner said:


> Obviously you haven't heard of sponsored XC pros who wouldn't race with a full-suspenion because the lightest FS available to them is slightly heavier than the HT bike they have been riding on.
> 
> I barely have more than a year of mountain biking experience. But experienced bikers on FS costing $$$$ more than my HT are still having trouble trying to keep up with me on flat sections and paved paths. Oh, they get dropped on climbs too.


So this person nailed it... To answer the OP's initial question when is a HT better than a FS? When your a weight weinie. That is the only time. Modern FS systems are, with all equipment being equal, simply faster than HT. A couple of pounds will not make one racer faster than the other, as I am sure they themselves weigh different weights. On top of this the added traction will more than make up for a little loss (remember modern design) in pedaling efficency, especially on uphill climbs. Add the increase in downhill speed again due to traction, and stability afforded by full suspension. The outcome is there is no way a HT outpaces a FS.

Yes, you are probably faster than some on FS, you would most likely blow the doors of my old fat butt.... but that has nothing to do with how heavy my FS is versus your HT... You are simply more fit. If you were to make the same runs you do now with your HT, after getting used to a FS, you would find you would be faster.

This notion that you can compare yourself to someone of different weight and fitness levels to someone else, and then blame the difference on the bike is simply a logical fallacy.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> There's more to it than that.
> 
> A couple pounds here or there and a somewhat lower tier or older compenentry have very little bearing on how much fun you can have riding a particular bike. Personally, I never finish an awesome section of trail and get fired up along the lines of "Yeah! That was so friggin' efficient! I conserved 47 watts on that climb due to my 1 ounce lighter crankset! Lets do it again"


I suspect I actually have to put out marginally more Watts to maintain the same steady-state speed on my shiny new FS. I don't care. I train to put out Watts and MTB is dynamic. With the FS, I can carry more speed through rock gardens and root beds. Not losing energy there more than makes up for the little bit I lose to my shock damper.

Doesn't hurt that it's a 29er. I think it's a little less receptive to the high-frequency stuff. "Chatter" if I'm not being pedantic. ? But I could have spent the same money on a carbon hardtail. Nobody held a gun to my head. I chose to buy an aluminum FS.

To be fair, I already had a couple road bikes. So the FS bike's road performance is even less relevant to me. But when a $300 road bike can outperform a mountain bike costing ten times as much, I really don't get why people worry about it. If your mixed-surface race has that much road... well, one of my road bikes has 34 mm knobbies for those.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Dec 25, 2003)

Actually hardtails are always better as long as you know how to pick lines, otherwise pick a fs and senselessly ride through the middle of everything.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Phinias said:


> So this person nailed it... To answer the OP's initial question when is a HT better than a FS? When your a weight weinie. That is the only time. Modern FS systems are, with all equipment being equal, simply faster than HT. A couple of pounds will not make one racer faster than the other, as I am sure they themselves weigh different weights. On top of this the added traction will more than make up for a little loss (remember modern design) in pedaling efficency, especially on uphill climbs. Add the increase in downhill speed again due to traction, and stability afforded by full suspension. The outcome is there is no way a HT outpaces a FS.
> 
> Yes, you are probably faster than some on FS, you would most likely blow the doors of my old fat butt.... but that has nothing to do with how heavy my FS is versus your HT... You are simply more fit. If you were to make the same runs you do now with your HT, after getting used to a FS, you would find you would be faster.
> 
> This notion that you can compare yourself to someone of different weight and fitness levels to someone else, and then blame the difference on the bike is simply a logical fallacy.


I agree with you to some extent, but the bike itself isn't what is "fast"...the person either is or isn't so a FS isn't "faster" than a HT, but with the right motor it can be. In pro XC, lots of folks are riding shorter travel FS now (think Specy Epic or similar) b/c of the efficiency gained of keeping tires on the ground vs. a slight weight penalty (1-2 pounds). And as always, I like point out that this all comes down to what conditions/trails you ride...for me here in VA, a HT is plenty efficiency as the trails aren't particular rocky or rough and on smooth trails, a HT can put the power down. The roots get us here and a FS can help you not fight the bike as hard/take crazy lines to avoid wheel-hop which slows you down a bit. In last weekend's 18-Hour race that I did, the fastest course times were all on HTs...fact. But...I am sure those folks would have had the fastest times on FS as well (as long as they were light, shorter-travel XC type bikes).


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> Obviously you haven't heard of sponsored XC pros who wouldn't race with a full-suspenion because the lightest FS available to them is slightly heavier than the HT bike they have been riding on.
> 
> I barely have more than a year of mountain biking experience. But experienced bikers on FS costing $$$$ more than my HT are still having trouble trying to keep up with me on flat sections and paved paths. Oh, they get dropped on climbs too.


Obviously you haven't heard that the vast majority of mountain bikers don't race XC, or care the slightest what XC pros choose to ride or why. Most also don't consider performance on pavement a high priority, as riding a bike on pavement isn't mountain biking.

But yeah, if you're riding mainly asphalt and dirt sidewalks, there's no reason to get an FS whatsoever. Hell, there's really not much reason to get a mountain bike.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Phinias said:


> So this person nailed it... To answer the OP's initial question when is a HT better than a FS? When your a weight weinie. That is the only time. Modern FS systems are, with all equipment being equal, simply faster than HT. A couple of pounds will not make one racer faster than the other, as I am sure they themselves weigh different weights. On top of this the added traction will more than make up for a little loss (remember modern design) in pedaling efficency, especially on uphill climbs. Add the increase in downhill speed again due to traction, and stability afforded by full suspension. The outcome is there is no way a HT outpaces a FS.
> 
> Yes, you are probably faster than some on FS, you would most likely blow the doors of my old fat butt.... but that has nothing to do with how heavy my FS is versus your HT... You are simply more fit. If you were to make the same runs you do now with your HT, after getting used to a FS, you would find you would be faster.
> 
> This notion that you can compare yourself to someone of different weight and fitness levels to someone else, and then blame the difference on the bike is simply a logical fallacy.


Though I agree with most of the things you mentioned, I have to disclose one key information...my aluminum bike weighs 25 lbs. The FS bikes of same frame material but already cost more weigh at least 5 lbs. more. To get an FS to weigh at least that light would require a carbon frame. That's where the bulk of the extra $$$$ comes from.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

upstateSC-rider said:


> Actually hardtails are always better as long as you know how to pick lines, otherwise pick a fs and senselessly ride through the middle of everything.


Define 'better'.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> To get an FS to weigh at least that light would require a carbon frame.


No, actually it wouldn't.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> No, actually it wouldn't.


Can you give me an example to support your claim? Oh, and it has to be a 29er just like my hardtail.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I may finally have to weigh mine. I've been somewhat pointedly not doing that. But I have a digital bathroom scale..


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Apples to apples folks....

2 XC bike example from my buddy:

2015 Specy Epic Comp (aluminum). 25.9 pounds. $3000. Set up 1x which dropped some weight.
Bike it replaced (Kona aluminum HT), 1x, 23 and change pounds.

Call it 2 pounds for the comfort and efficiency of FS. Carbon would have knocked off another pound at most.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> Can you give me an example to support your claim? Oh, and it has to be a 29er just like my hardtail.


What does your frame weigh?


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Obviously you haven't heard that the vast majority of mountain bikers don't race XC, or care the slightest what XC pros choose to ride or why. Most also don't consider performance on pavement a high priority, as riding a bike on pavement isn't mountain biking.
> 
> But yeah, if you're riding mainly asphalt and dirt sidewalks, there's no reason to get an FS whatsoever. Hell, there's really not much reason to get a mountain bike.


I thought you were arguing about the cost of FS bikes with comparable efficiency for my style of riding. You seem to be lost now, eh?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> I thought you were arguing about the cost of FS bikes with comparable efficiency for my style of riding. You seem to be lost now, eh?


No actually I was making general points regarding choosing between FS and HT bikes, and that 'efficiency' as defined by you isn't the holy grail for every rider out there.

As far as you in particular and how efficient your29er HT is on the rail-trail, I could really give a ****.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> No actually I was making general points regarding choosing between FS and HT bikes, and that 'efficiency' as defined by you isn't the holy grail for every rider out there.
> 
> As far as you in particular and how efficient your29er HT is on the rail-trail, I could really give a ****.


I didn't say every rider do or should do my style of riding. Try reading that post again.

Yeah you could really give a "****". You've spent several posts to prove that.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> I didn't say every rider do or should do my style of riding. Try reading that post again.
> 
> Yeah you could really give a "****". You've spent several posts to prove that.


I spent several posts trying to help make sure no beginner trying to understand some of the overall advantages/disadvantages between HT and FS weren't thrown off by your opinions which are based on extremely limited experience and very narrow set of conditions.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TiGeo said:


> Apples to apples folks....
> 
> 2 XC bike example from my buddy:
> 
> ...


The new stock alloy Epic weighs 28 lbs. It would be great too if you could share info on how much $$$ was spent to get to that final weight.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I spent several posts trying to help make sure no beginner trying to understand some of the overall advantages/disadvantages between HT and FS weren't thrown off by your opinions which are based on extremely limited experience and very narrow set of conditions.


Your posts could actually mislead beginners into thinking FS bikes with similar efficiency as a good hardtail are cheap....totally wrong.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

mtb_beginner said:


> The new stock alloy Epic weighs 28 lbs. It would be great too if you could share info on how much $$$ was spent to get to that final weight.


Stock except for converting to tubeless (free) and converting to 1x which involved removing the front derailleur, shifter, and cable/housing (free). He replaced the double ring with a Wolf Tooth narrow/wide (~$75). 25.9 lbs for a medium on my accurate hanging gear scale. Included Crank Bros. Candy pedals, bottle cage, and SWAT tool.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

mtb_beginner said:


> Your posts could actually mislead beginners into thinking FS bikes with similar efficiency as a good hardtail are cheap....totally wrong.


I think the cost premium is around $500 lately. But it's always a tricky comparison. I probably would have spent the same on a fancier hardtail if I hadn't decided to go full suspension. So in one sense, I didn't pay any premium at all. One could also argue that if I hadn't wanted rear suspension, I could have kept a few hundred dollars in my pocket and bought a hardtail with a similar spec and fancy aluminum frame.

I think part of what always derails these threads is that it's really hard for people to agree on what "comparable" means. Is it the same price? I don't think that's fair to FS bikes because they always have to cost more to get the same spec. Is it the same construction and spec? That's sometimes unfair to hardtails because part of what's going for them is that for less money, I could have a fancier frame, fork, etc.

For me, I was never really thinking hardtail or full suspension last time I bought. The thing that pushed me over the edge into buying a new bike was that I rode a good-pedaling, good-handling FS 29er at a demo day. I wanted it. I could afford it. So I demoed one I had a line on, liked it too, and bought it. I wasn't even considering a hardtail at that point.

eb1888's constant evangelism for his hardtail actually has me somewhat curious about the latest carbon hardtails. But my new bike is 15 months old and I have some student loans to pay off; I promised myself this would be a five year bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> Your posts could actually mislead beginners into thinking FS bikes with similar efficiency as a good hardtail are cheap....totally wrong.


No, I said you don't need to spend $2500 more to get an FS bike that has an overall similar performance level, that your narrow definition of 'efficiency' doesn't really mean much when it comes to on-the-trail function for the most part, with a notable exception being your style of riding that involves a lot of pavement and smooth trails. Of course FS doesn't make any sense if your riding flat, smooth, hardpacked surfaces all the time. But I'd personally rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork than limit my riding to that type of terrain as I find it incredibly boring and just something that has to be tolerated along the way to more interesting riding. YMMV of course.

For perspective, this is a pic from my go-to loop out my front door. Though I regularly ride it on a both HT and FS bikes (I have a few of each at the moment, and have owned dozens of bike of all sort of styles through the years), an FS is definitely the overall a more 'efficient' way to cover the terrain, based on the fact that I almost always cover the same loops more quickly and with less overall effort.








[/QUOTE]


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> No, I said you don't need to spend $2500 more to get an FS bike that has an overall similar performance level, that your narrow definition of 'efficiency' doesn't really mean much when it comes to on-the-trail function for the most part, with a notable exception being your style of riding that involves a lot of pavement and smooth trails. Of course FS doesn't make any sense if your riding flat, smooth, hardpacked surfaces all the time. But I'd personally rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork than limit my riding to that type of terrain as I find it incredibly boring and just something that has to be tolerated along the way to more interesting riding. YMMV of course.


You seem to have an opposite definition of the word "narrow" every time you mention "narrow definition of efficiency". The fact that my hardtail is efficient on both techy trails and paved paths actually widened its efficiency. I don't find it boring when I can ride both with roadies and FS guys, and keep up with them. The only time FS guys can get away is when on rocky/rooty downhill. They could barely keep up on climbs. If that's your definition of boring, I'm enjoying it.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think the cost premium is around $500 lately. But it's always a tricky comparison. I probably would have spent the same on a fancier hardtail if I hadn't decided to go full suspension. So in one sense, I didn't pay any premium at all. One could also argue that if I hadn't wanted rear suspension, I could have kept a few hundred dollars in my pocket and bought a hardtail with a similar spec and fancy aluminum frame.
> 
> I think part of what always derails these threads is that it's really hard for people to agree on what "comparable" means. Is it the same price? I don't think that's fair to FS bikes because they always have to cost more to get the same spec. Is it the same construction and spec? That's sometimes unfair to hardtails because part of what's going for them is that for less money, I could have a fancier frame, fork, etc.
> 
> ...


I usually look at Scott and Specialized for easier comparison when it comes to specs. I also make sure to add overall weight into equation. That's how I come up with the $2500 difference.

I will no longer get a bike heavier than 25 lbs. after realizing what I can do with my 25-lb bike. And I won't go back to lower specd components.


----------



## kyle242gt (Nov 12, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> ...FS is definitely the overall a more 'efficient' way to cover the terrain, based on the fact that I almost always cover the same loops more quickly and with less overall effort.


That's some pretty beefy terrain there. Agree that FS is likely a better choice, though rocketing down in a HT would probably be an absolute hoot if you can keep it together.

I too ride FS/HT on the same loops several times a week.

The HT is faster, but more tiring - I prefer it for shorter rides as it gets me the same emotional zen. It also seems to have a higher optimum speed on the downhills.

The FS is more comfortable, making it easier to ride and climb long distances. It's also much more forgiving if I get tired and sloppy. But if I take it on a short ride, I feel like I'm missing out.

The problem with the use of a word like "efficient" is it seems objective at first glance. But it's used very subjectively here.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> You seem to have an opposite definition of the word "narrow" every time you mention "narrow definition of efficiency". The fact that my hardtail is efficient on both techy trails and paved paths actually widened its efficiency. I don't find it boring when I can ride both with roadies and FS guys, and keep up with them. The only time FS guys can get away is when on rocky/rooty downhill. They could barely keep up on climbs. If that's your definition of boring, I'm enjoying it.


I'm assuming you've never owned a full suspension bike? So your opinion is about as informed as someone saying that hot dogs are better than hamburgers having never tasted a hamburger. The fact that you found a couple local guys you climb faster than means zilch, as previously explained to you. So yes, for those like you with a XC-race/roadie/weight-weenie/limited-budget take on the sport, a hardtail is the best choice.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

mtb_beginner said:


> You seem to have an opposite definition of the word "narrow" every time you mention "narrow definition of efficiency". The fact that my hardtail is efficient on both techy trails and paved paths actually widened its efficiency. I don't find it boring when I can ride both with roadies and FS guys, and keep up with them. The only time FS guys can get away is when on rocky/rooty downhill. They could barely keep up on climbs. If that's your definition of boring, I'm enjoying it.


But your being able to get away on climbs is a factor of fitness..not the suspension on the bike. Are they riding longer-travel FS or XC-type FS?


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

And yes...I am a bit of a XC/race/weight-weenie and enjoy my 21 pound aluminum HT. But I know I want an Epic next go-around!


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm assuming you've never owned a full suspension bike? So your opinion is about as informed as someone saying that hot dogs are better than hamburgers having never tasted a hamburger. The fact that you found a couple local guys you climb faster than means zilch, as previously explained to you. So yes, for those like you with a XC-race/roadie/weight-weenie/limited-budget take on the sport, a hardtail is the best choice.


Never owned...just tried them.

I have only tried a Stumpjumper FSR (alloy), Camber 29 (alloy), Epic carbon, and a Niner Jet9 carbon. The one with the closest price to my Crave 29er is the Camber, and I'm very sure it limits my speed. Slightly more comfortable on the roots simulation track though.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

xlash said:


> Why is having a constant BB height important?


Important?
I just happen to like it. And I don't smash my chainring on logs and rocks as often as some guys on FS bikes.

OMG - OMG - OMG - OMG I'VE GONE AND POSTED IN ANOTHER FS vs. HT THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
:eekster: :madman: :eekster: :madman: :eekster: :madman: :eekster: :madman: :eekster:


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TiGeo said:


> But your being able to get away on climbs is a factor of fitness..not the suspension on the bike. Are they riding longer-travel FS or XC-type FS?


Most of them ride trail FS bikes.

Many of them have similar physique as mine (and younger), so I would not say it's just fitness. I'm 5'7" and weighs 142 lbs.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> eb1888's constant evangelism for his hardtail actually has me somewhat curious about the latest carbon hardtails. But my new bike is 15 months old and I have some student loans to pay off; I promised myself this would be a five year bike.


Don't be fooled by his ramblings, a hardtail is a hardtail.

Although I haven't ridden the particular bike he gushes over, I have demoed a couple carbon hardtails that supposedly have "compliance".....I've come to realize it's just clever marketing. I couldn't tell a damn bit of difference over my alloy ht. If you want a component that actually does improve ride quality, check out the syntace p6 hiflex posts. Yes they're expensive, but the difference is noticeable.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

8iking VIIking said:


> Don't be fooled by his ramblings, a hardtail is a hardtail.
> 
> Although I haven't ridden the particular bike he gushes over, I have demoed a couple carbon hardtails that supposedly have "compliance".....I've come to realize it's just clever marketing. I couldn't tell a damn bit of difference over my alloy ht. If you want a component that actually does improve ride quality, check out the syntace p6 hiflex posts. Yes they're expensive, but the difference is noticeable.


That doesn't surprise me.

I bumped into an article from an insider lately, talking about blind test results. Apparently in road bikes, people can feel differences in tire pressure and not much else. "Throwing the book" at making a super-stiff or super-compliant ride is equivalent to a change of maybe 4 psi in the tires. If people are running on the order of 100 psi, that's not very much.

However, I try to keep an open mind where this stuff is concerned. It took a while, but I did eventually go FS, after all. And I may go tubeless in another year or so. Would be sooner, but my rims really had no interest in it. Tried a dropper post too, though I didn't like it.

Of course, it's possible that I'd feel a little relief if I rode one of the latest, supposedly compliant, carbon hardtails and it was rougher than my bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> I usually look at Scott and Specialized for easier comparison when it comes to specs. I also make sure to add overall weight into equation. That's how I come up with the $2500 difference.


Probably a good portion of the $2500 goes towards the 'Specialized' sticker on the frame.

Also, I would never pay retail for a complete mountain bike, and very rarely for parts. Might as well just burn cash in the firepit. Yes, if you HAVE to be the guy who feels they can only buy the newest 'bestest' (and therefore, worst bang-for-the-buck) equipment, you're punishing your wallet of your own volition; not because you 'have' to spend that much to get equal or even better performance, but because you are totally limiting your choices to only whatever 'the industry' is pushing this week as the 'best thing ever'.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I bumped into an article from an insider lately, talking about blind test results. Apparently in road bikes, people can feel differences in tire pressure and not much else. "Throwing the book" at making a super-stiff or super-compliant ride is equivalent to a change of maybe 4 psi in the tires. If people are running on the order of 100 psi, that's not very much.
> 
> ...


I think the whole "compliant hardtail" ruse is just a way to get people to justify buying an outrageously expensive frame when in reality the only difference is a couple hundred grams of weight

Tubeless, however, is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. More traction and a noticeable improvement in ride quality. And dirt cheap! Definitely the best return on investment of any upgrade


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Probably a good portion of the $2500 goes towards the 'Specialized' sticker on the frame.
> 
> Also, I would never pay retail for a complete mountain bike, and very rarely for parts. Might as well just burn cash in the firepit. Yes, if you HAVE to be the guy who feels they can only buy the newest 'bestest' (and therefore, worst bang-for-the-buck) equipment, you're punishing your wallet of your own volition; not because you 'have' to spend that much to get equal or even better performance, but because you are totally limiting your choices to only whatever 'the industry' is pushing this week as the 'best thing ever'.


You're missing the point. I simply compared hardtails to FS bikes of the same brands. You could pick your brand and do the same math on specs and overall weight of the bike. It may not be exactly $2500, but you'll get the point.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

The FS has to be much higher-spec to achieve the same weight. So, I don't think that's a useful thing to require when coming to an understanding of "comparable." Anyway, I weigh 145 lb. What's a pound or two here and there? I used to put two water bottles on my hardtail pretty frequently. That's about 3 lb at the beginning of a ride. I can't say I noticed the weight loss over the course of the ride.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

mtb_beginner said:


> Most of them ride trail FS bikes.
> 
> Many of them have similar physique as mine (and younger), so I would not say it's just fitness. I'm 5'7" and weighs 142 lbs.


Trail FS wouldn't seem to be as good on the climbing (in my experience). I have ridden with a guy on a Stumpy FSR and he is about my speed on most sections but on climbs I can walk away. His is carbon with lots of weight-reducing bits and sits at 25ish lbs.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

8iking VIIking said:


> Don't be fooled by his ramblings, a hardtail is a hardtail.
> 
> Although I haven't ridden the particular bike he gushes over, I have demoed a couple carbon hardtails that supposedly have "compliance".....I've come to realize it's just clever marketing. I couldn't tell a damn bit of difference over my alloy ht. If you want a component that actually does improve ride quality, check out the syntace p6 hiflex posts. Yes they're expensive, but the difference is noticeable.


Agree....compliance is probably more related to seatpost, tires, and air pressure. I have a Niner RDO post (27.5 which helps too) which is supposed to be the same as the Syntace...love it.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I bumped into an article from an insider lately, talking about blind test results. Apparently in road bikes, people can feel differences in tire pressure and not much else. "Throwing the book" at making a super-stiff or super-compliant ride is equivalent to a change of maybe 4 psi in the tires. If people are running on the order of 100 psi, that's not very much.
> 
> ...


I believe the blind test bit.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

TiGeo said:


> Agree....compliance is probably more related to seatpost, tores, and air pressure. I have a Niner RDO (27.5 which helps too) which is supposed to be the same as the Syntace...love it.


Yeah I have a 31.6 but a lot of exposed post so it's pretty noticeable. Not so much right away, but you really notice it 2 hrs into your ride and your back DOESN'T hurt


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

Here is the way I look at the HT vs FS thing. 

For me its about speed...on how fast you want to go through a particular section or trail.

I have both...a 29er HT and a 26 FS.

Where I ride my 29er a FS bike isn't really needed. The single track where I ride my HT, riding a FS won't necessarily get you down the trail any faster than the HT would. There is a pretty popular shuttle trail locally...but the main trail isn't super technical. There are guys that bring their rigid single speeds over there and haul ass...I mean really haul ass down the trail.

Where I ride my FS...I would not ride my HT...well at least not at the speed of the FS.

The FS will give you more control over extremely rough sections where the HT would bounce you to the point to where you can't see straight. The FS will track straighter and pedal better over extremely rough terrain.

Again...this is just my take on the HT vs FS thing.

I think in the end...the most important thing is the FIT of the frame. If the frame don't fit you right...it won't matter what you're riding.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> eb1888's constant evangelism for his hardtail actually has me somewhat curious about the latest carbon hardtails. But my new bike is 15 months old and I have some student loans to pay off; I promised myself this would be a five year bike.


I wasn't thinking of buying either, I like to do demo days when they come around to my home trails. Niner is always fun. I don't like their ht geo but the Rip9 is a very good bike for the money. Riding new high spec bikes gets info on new components too.
I did 9 hours over the two days riding four different bikes and three sizes of the SF 9.8. Also in there was a Fuel Ex 9.8, a Remedy 9.8 29 and a Stache 8.
When you are hitting all the rocks, roots, climbs and turns you know by heart you can differentiate more easily. I go for fun over pure speed. I got more trail feel without being beat up from the carbon hard tail. The Fuel and Remedy smoothed out and "removed" the rocks better. That's not fun for me, but it may be a little faster.
My trail has a lot of ups and downs. The fs bikes might be a choice for higher speed less techy trails that I don't have.
Many newer riders look at fs as a blanket upgrade or because their aluminum hard tails are beating them up once they progress to the point of riding longer and relatively faster on more difficult usually rockier trails. 
They don't need a full suspension because of trail difficulty, they're riding those trails competently now. 
They want to ride longer without ending up tired and sore.
The compliance in the Trek SF is an alternative that could save weight, money and be more fun than a really good fs. The new geo is dialed too, unTreklike.
I think they brought R&D experience from putting compliance in their carbon road bikes into this bike. Other carbon hard tails may not come this far.
You can try also an Orbea Alma M50, which is in the same price range, or a Pivot Les which won't cost less.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

I think most are missing some practical physics here let’s start at the beginning, why do race cars have suspension? (and yes while F1 run nontraditional carbon strut like things it is still suspension)... better yet why do "fast" motorcycles have suspension? Why if a hard tail was in any way beneficial do you not see hard tails running the Baja? Mechanically the only difference is scale and engine between these examples and our mountain bikes... I repeat again the only time a HT is better than a FS is when you’re a weight wiener, and not concerned with actual efficiency vs perceived efficiency. 

We have, in this discussion, also not mentioned that any competent FS of decent equipment level can be turned into a HT or even a rigid at the push of a lever, thereby eliminating the non-existent pedal bob (modern competent FS remember), and then still have the upper hand on tech and downhill... all for the cost of a few pounds.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

Phinias said:


> I think most are missing some practical physics here let's start at the beginning, why do race cars have suspension? (and yes while F1 run nontraditional carbon strut like things it is still suspension)... better yet why do "fast" motorcycles have suspension? Why if a hard tail was in any way beneficial do you not see hard tails running the Baja? Mechanically the only difference is scale and engine between these examples and our mountain bikes... I repeat again the only time a HT is better than a FS is when you're a weight wiener, and not concerned with actual efficiency vs perceived efficiency.
> 
> We have, in this discussion, also not mentioned that any competent FS of decent equipment level can be turned into a HT or even a rigid at the push of a lever, thereby eliminating the non-existent pedal bob (modern competent FS remember), and then still have the upper hand on tech and downhill... all for the cost of a few pounds.


And why do you think pro racers who are on FS have to lock their rear suspension most of the time? And why put that locking feature in the first place? Lance Armstrong could have just converted his race bike to full-suspension instead of resorting to doping, right?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> And why do you think pro racers who are on FS have to lock their rear suspension most of the time? And why put that locking feature in the first place? Lance Armstrong could have just converted his race bike to full-suspension instead of resorting to doping, right?


Again, you're need to realize you're looking at an incredibly small subset of mountain bikers when you're talking about pro XC racers, or even XC racers in general. I don't see enduro or DH racers locking out their suspension, do you? And what the hell does road racing have to do even remotely with mountain biking? Answer: nothing, zero, zilch, nada.

Seriously, it's already been established - for racing XC on smooth trails and riding asphalt for god knows what reason, HTs rule. As far as the other 98% of typical mtb riding, FS in all it's myriad forms can be very viable technology. Maybe you need to expand your own riding so you're not so insistent on trying to project this little tiny niche corner you seem to have locked yourself into onto the rest of the world. There's a lot more to mountain biking than being a Lance Armstrong wannabe with flat bars flying down a rail trail, and there are a lot more ways to enjoy it than trying to be the first to the top of every hill in front of any random trail shmoe you run into.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I'm always hearing about smooth XC courses, but most of what I race on is pretty rough.

I sometimes wonder if it's that people have never raced, or if I'm just lucky that promoters in my region give us the courses we ask for - mountain bike trails.

If the timing and venue permit, we'll even go down some of the same stuff that the Enduro and Super D events use.

The big difference isn't that XC is on routes that aren't really mountain biking. It's a mountain bike discipline; as far as I'm concerned, that's doing it wrong. It's that XC bikes are supposed to be most efficient on a course where every vertical foot of descent has a vertical foot of climb somewhere else. Hopefully also technical, though local promoters tend to be more willing to put some climb on a logging road if they have to compromise somewhere.

Now, I know this is somewhat region dependent. I live in Western Washington. The trees are dense and the mountains are young here. Pretty similar to East Coast riding, maybe with more sustained climbs. I might feel different if I lived someplace with less dense trees and less rocky trails; something else that seems to derail these discussions.

But we're getting pretty far from the OP's context. She has a good XC FS. Adding a hardtail just doesn't seem to me that it would be that useful.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Again, you're need to realize you're looking at an incredibly small subset of mountain bikers when you're talking about pro XC racers, or even XC racers in general. I don't see enduro or DH racers locking out their suspension, do you? And what the hell does road racing have to do even remotely with mountain biking? Answer: nothing, zero, zilch, nada.
> 
> Seriously, it's already been established - for racing XC on smooth trails and riding asphalt for god knows what reason, HTs rule. As far as the other 98% of typical mtb riding, FS in all it's myriad forms can be very viable technology. Maybe you need to expand your own riding so you're not so insistent on trying to project this little tiny niche corner you seem to have locked yourself into onto the rest of the world. There's a lot more to mountain biking than being a Lance Armstrong wannabe with flat bars flying down a rail trail, and there are a lot more ways to enjoy it than trying to be the first to the top of every hill in front of any random trail shmoe you run into.


Well, F1 racing on supersmooth surface has nothing to do with mountain biking neither. 
Are you sure you're awake when you read the above posts?
I suggest you read the context of the post I replied to. 
Also, my arguments are based on facts. Yours are merely based on your personal opinions.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

^^^
What are you trying to get from your riding practice?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mtb_beginner said:


> Well, F1 racing on supersmooth surface has nothing to do with mountain biking neither.
> Are you sure you're awake when you read the above posts?
> I suggest you read the context of the post I replied to.
> Also, my arguments are based on facts. Yours are merely based on your personal opinions.


You're a funny little fella.

My input is based on 25+ years and 10's of thousands of miles of riding (even some racing) on all sorts of different types of trails, bikes, and styles. It's based on owning dozens of bikes and hundreds upon hundreds of components and riding them into the ground. It's based on decades of exploring and building all sorts of trails, and getting to know and riding with tons of riders from all different aspects of the sport. It's based on building and repairing many hundreds of bikes through decades of technological changes.

Your opinion seems to be based mainly on parroting what the sales guy told you a few months ago when you bought your first mtb. You're obviously too much of an arrogant little know-it-all to understand that your priorities are not necessarily the priorities of most. Enjoy KOMing the local sidewalks.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

AndrwSwitch said:


> ^^^
> What are you trying to get from your riding practice?


Fun, fun, fun....and exercise.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> You're a funny little fella.
> 
> My input is based on 25+ years and 10's of thousands of miles of riding (even some racing) on all sorts of different types of trails, bikes, and styles. It's based on owning dozens of bikes and hundreds upon hundreds of components and riding them into the ground. It's based on decades of exploring and building all sorts of trails, and getting to know and riding with tons of riders from all different aspects of the sport. It's based on building and repairing many hundreds of bikes through decades of technological changes.
> 
> Your opinion seems to be based mainly on parroting what the sales guy told you a few months ago when you bought your first mtb. You're obviously too much of an arrogant little know-it-all to understand that your priorities are not necessarily the priorities of most. Enjoy KOMing the local sidewalks.


Well, with that much experience under your belt, I expect better from you. I'm pretty much a rookie in comparison, with my just over a year of mountain biking experience. I'm just technically on my second bike (my wife's and daughter's 26ers don't count, though I use those at times to try something different and to qualify some claims by 26er fans).

I'm sorry to tell you I didn't listen to the sales guy when he was recommending a road bike when I was looking for my first mountain bike last year. If I did, I would not be having this much fun.

Yes, I can be arrogant too, especially when talking to a person who surprisingly give misleading info to newcomers after several years of experience. I'm not the type of person who would just parrot what other people say unless I have proven it myself.


----------



## Saladin (Sep 25, 2014)

HTs, no matter how fancy, don't look as expensive and are less likely to get stolen from the bike rack at a shopping mall? Other than that, I dunno. But I'm a noob, so don't take my word for anything.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Useful information was shared. You just chose to nitpick and argue the tiny little aspects that apply only to your narrow idea of what mountain biking consists of rather than accept the fact that what you think you know might not comprise the be-all and end-all for everyone else.

It's kinda weird that your signature basically makes the same point I've been trying to get through to you, but you insist on ignoring it. You throw up all these idiosyncratic 'it has to only apply to my personal exact equipment and situation and budget and only the latest models and only for this very specific type of riding' angles that basically take a general conversation and turn it into being all about you, you, you. If you'd stfu and maybe broaden your horizons a bit, you might learn something here and there.

I second the salesman's advice - a road bike would've been better choice for you.


----------



## Shakester (Jun 26, 2012)

I see a trend of XC pros switching, exclusively, to FS bikes these days. 

Todd Wells - Specialized S-Works Epic FS
Max Plaxton - Cannondale Scalpel 29er
Geoff Kabush - Scott Spark 900 FS

But none of us here are Todd Wells, who can probably beat a lot of people regardless, whether he's riding an HT or FS. Give Wells a Huffy and I think he could still beat people. Hard tails just doesn't seem as king, as it was 10 years ago, in the XC world.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I'm always hearing about smooth XC courses, but most of what I race on is pretty rough.
> 
> I sometimes wonder if it's that people have never raced, or if I'm just lucky that promoters in my region give us the courses we ask for - mountain bike trails.
> 
> ...


Yep...XC course here are the same trails that we ride all the time here...can be rough, can be smooth, can be up, can be down. HTs work great, shorter-travel FS work great. Do you want to feel more lively and feel the power hit the ground when you mash? HT. Do you want to feel less beat-up at the end of the ride and be able to do more point-and-shoot type riding? FS. Do 5" travel trail bikes work well for riding in my area? Sure. Would I race one? No. Am I going to switch from my 21 pound HT 29er to a shorter-travel XC FS next bike purchase? Likely.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

Shakester said:


> . Hard tails just doesn't seem as king, as it was 10 years ago, in the XC world.


That's because fs has become so good that the inefficient pedalling that plagued older fs bikes is pretty much a non factor


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Useful information was shared. You just chose to nitpick and argue the tiny little aspects that apply only to your narrow idea of what mountain biking consists of rather than accept the fact that what you think you know might not comprise the be-all and end-all for everyone else.
> 
> It's kinda weird that your signature basically makes the same point I've been trying to get through to you, but you insist on ignoring it. You throw up all these idiosyncratic 'it has to only apply to my personal exact equipment and situation and budget and only the latest models and only for this very specific type of riding' angles that basically take a general conversation and turn it into being all about you, you, you. If you'd stfu and maybe broaden your horizons a bit, you might learn something here and there.
> 
> I second the salesman's advice - a road bike would've been better choice for you.


You failed to disprove my argument about the cost of FS bikes that suits my riding style. You simply resorted to listing your credentials instead of giving a valid point.

You second the salesman's advice? There goes your years of experience, thinking a road bike would be good for bumpy trails with roots, rocks, and mud.

By the way, my apologies to the OP and others participating in this thread. It's not my intention to get this derailed.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

As to the cost, using Specialized as an example (b/c I am an admitted fanboy) and MSRPs off their website:

Stumpjumper Comp HT - $2000
Epic Comp - $3100

So $1100 for a comparably equipped (I believe they have exact same components) HT vs. FS. Just comes down to whether you want to sped the extra cash for the added benefits.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Probably a smaller difference if I choose to compare the comparable Camber. Which occupies a bit of a middle ground in terms of class, but I thought it pedaled well - it's the one that got me thinking seriously about a new bike.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^agree


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

My office chair is more efficient than yours. Just sayin'...


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

When you learn how to pick lines.
When you'd rather ride than wrench.
When you'd rather stand and mash up a climb instead of sitting and spinning.
When you get tired of doing maintenance and replacing bushings.
When you can't get parts for your latest and greatest rear suspension design which has become outdated after two years.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TiGeo said:


> As to the cost, using Specialized as an example (b/c I am an admitted fanboy) and MSRPs off their website:
> 
> Stumpjumper Comp HT - $2000
> Epic Comp - $3100
> ...


I would have to go all the way to the Epic Expert carbon ($6,300) to get the minimum weight and components I'm targeting, or the Epic Comp Carbon ($4,200 + cost of replacing the heavy and questionable Formula brakes).

I have to be particular about the weight, because my previous bike was just 4 lbs heavier and I could easily feel the big difference on my speed and endurance.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

What is your target weight?


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TiGeo said:


> What is your target weight?


No more than 25 lbs.

The lightness helps me also on switchbacks and twisty sections. Less weight carries less momentum, making a 29er flickable and more fun in those sections where 26er fans claim to have advantage in.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Epic Comp. 1x10. Tubeless. Roval control wheels. 25 lbs. $3700


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

mtb_beginner said:


> You seem to have an opposite definition of the word "narrow" every time you mention "narrow definition of efficiency". The fact that my hardtail is efficient on both techy trails and paved paths actually widened its efficiency. I don't find it boring when I can ride both with roadies and FS guys, and keep up with them. The only time FS guys can get away is when on rocky/rooty downhill. They could barely keep up on climbs. If that's your definition of boring, I'm enjoying it.


You don't sound like you have a lot of experience with different bikes.

Plain and simple, a FS will allow the back tire to track better on rocky, rooty tech climbs than a hard tail. Being able to clear the climb on the bike vs walking or starting over is more efficient.

Efficiency isn't as simple as HT vs FS, it's what the bikes allow you to do.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TiGeo said:


> Epic Comp. 1x10. Tubeless. Roval control wheels. 25 lbs. $3700


I was also tempted into going 1x10 for silly reasons. But then I would have to give up pedaling on downhills to keep enough low gear range for twisty climbs. Who knows, if my fitness improves further, I might reconsider.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

mtb_beginner said:


> I was also tempted into going 1x10 for silly reasons. But then I would have to give up pedaling on downhills to keep enough low gear range for twisty climbs. Who knows, if my fitness improves further, I might reconsider.


Lots of steep hills in Louisiana huh?


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

TwoTone said:


> You don't sound like you have a lot of experience with different bikes.
> 
> Plain and simple, a FS will allow the back tire to track better on rocky, rooty tech climbs than a hard tail. Being able to clear the climb on the bike vs walking or starting over is more efficient.
> 
> Efficiency isn't as simple as HT vs FS, it's what the bikes allow you to do.


Not a lot. But I got the idea by test riding them at the trail simulation test track at my LBS.

Yeah, I was having trouble in the rooty and rocky sections when I first started. I was tempted to get a Specialized Camber back then. But now, I no longer have to walk any sections except when there's a fallen tree too high for me to bunny hop.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

8iking VIIking said:


> Lots of steep hills in Louisiana huh?


You should visit us to see our trails in Shreveport. There is the Monkey trail to challenge even the experienced riders. I also like the Lakeshore trails. 

Some Texas guys come over because they couldn't find trails with good climbs like these over there.


----------



## 8iking VIIking (Dec 20, 2012)

mtb_beginner said:


> You should visit us to see our trails in Shreveport. There is the Monkey trail to challenge even the experienced riders. I also like the Lakeshore trails.
> 
> Some Texas guys come over because they couldn't find trails with good climbs like these over there.


From Wikipedia:

Driskill Mountain (also referred to as Mount Driskill) is the highest natural summit in Louisiana, with an elevation of 535 feet (163 m) above sea level

Sounds brutal


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

mtb_beginner said:


> I was also tempted into going 1x10 for silly reasons. But then I would have to give up pedaling on downhills to keep enough low gear range for twisty climbs. Who knows, if my fitness improves further, I might reconsider.


Thats not necessarily true. How fast and how long are you going for when you go "downhill"?

We have actual mountains here in So Cal. I've done runs where there is 5500ft worth of descending and I don't spin out my 30x11.

I was going 27 and I was still able to pedal the 30x11 without spinning out.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

8iking VIIking said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Driskill Mountain (also referred to as Mount Driskill) is the highest natural summit in Louisiana, with an elevation of 535 feet (163 m) above sea level
> 
> Sounds brutal


I've never been in that part of the state.

Whoever designed our trails are clever. The zigzaging layouts provide a lot of climbs and downhills.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

RS VR6 said:


> Thats not necessarily true. How fast and how long are you going for when you go "downhill"?
> 
> We have actual mountains here in So Cal. I've done runs where there is 5500ft worth of descending and I don't spin out my 30x11.
> 
> I was going 27 and I was still able to pedal the 30x11 without spinning out.


You're just making me envious, aren't you? Jerk! 

The longest straight downhill I have tried was no more than 300 ft. I couldn't go any faster than 20mph if I would not pedal using my highest gear combination (36 front x 11 rear). Twisty downhills are longer, but that's where I would not push my speed.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

mtb_beginner said:


> Whoever designed our trails are clever. The zigzaging layouts provide a lot of climbs and downhills.


Trails in my area of SE MI are probably similar.
That is one of my reasons for staying ht. I want them to be fun and challenging.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

mtb_beginner said:


> I was also tempted into going 1x10 for silly reasons. But then I would have to give up pedaling on downhills to keep enough low gear range for twisty climbs. Who knows, if my fitness improves further, I might reconsider.


If you can spin-out a 32x11 I would be impressed.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

One of my semi-regular rides lets me drop 1500' in a pretty sustained run.

I'm still planning to get rid of my 38 ring this winter.

I won't be going 1x anytime soon because I want the low gears. I'm planning to put a 22 on in the granny position. Stock is 24 on my bike, so it won't be a huge change. But there are a couple spots where I feel pretty badly over geared, long enough that just standing up for a while is a bit much for me.

I'll probably spin out on the road on my way home from my local riding spot. But, I'm not trying to optimize my downhill road riding with this bike. 

I got into riding as a sport when I was in college. I had a Schwinn Mesa GSX. Not a terrible bike, and of course I thought it was awesome. It was my One True Bike for a while. I rode it to class as well as on trails. I still kick myself for selling that bike, actually.

There were a few things I did in the name of road-going efficiency that I've let go of since then. I used a narrow rear tire at high pressure. I insisted on clomping around in crappy MTB shoes all the time. I've come to see my commute times as driven by traffic and stop lights, so when I was last able to commute by bike, I just wore running shoes. And I've come to see my road performance as being more of a riding position and air resistance thing than anything else. A mountain bike has to be mechanically terrible to really lose power that way. Some of the old full suspension bikes were pretty bad and if someone told me that such and such a 160+ mm bike didn't pedal very well, I'd believe him. But I feel like it's really matured in the last ten years or so. I've now ridden up to a 140 that pedaled fine. If I wouldn't want to race XC on that bike, it's because the geometry wasn't right for it.

The flickable thing, I dunno... What grabbed me when I demoed the Camber last year was that it had a smooth, carvy feeling on my same trails that made my hardtail chatter like crazy. Do I have to plan my lines better and commit more on my new bike? Sure. But I love how smooth it is. It reminds me of moving from my old all mountain twin-tips to a big honkin' free ride ski several years ago. And it's not like I can't turn on a dime when I want to. I just have to mean it.

I do think I had to be ready to move to a bigger bike. Same with the skis. But with where my riding (and skiing) have gone, something with a higher speed limit has been the right move.


----------



## mtb_beginner (Jul 20, 2013)

I have figured out why I tend to run out of fast gears on straight downhills...it became my habit to get off the saddle which tends to slow my cadence down. And I do it without thinking about it. I would probably need to re-train my muscle memory for that.

On the other hand, instead of spending that extra $$$$ just to get an FS that fits my taste, I would rather just get a more high-end hardtail. Heck, I would rather use that money to buy upgrades or new bikes for people I care about...and spread the fun, instead of getting a slightly better riding experience for myself.


----------



## Metal Made Fox (Sep 18, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Again, you're need to realize you're looking at an incredibly small subset of mountain bikers when you're talking about pro XC racers, or even XC racers in general.


Speak for your own area, out in my neck of the woods you see more hardtails in local XC races than you see full suspensions. And where did you get that most pro XC racers ride full suspension bikes? Take a look again.



slapheadmofo said:


> I don't see enduro or DH racers locking out their suspension, do you?


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this idiotic statement. Why would you need to lock out your suspension if you're racing downhill? :skep:



slapheadmofo said:


> And what the hell does road racing have to do even remotely with mountain biking? Answer: nothing, zero, zilch, nada.


The best XC racers in the world also train heavily in road biking. If you want to be a fast and strong climber (as is essential for racing in Cross Country MOUNTAIN BIKING) you're better off mixing in road bike rides into your training routine.



slapheadmofo said:


> Seriously, it's already been established - for racing XC on smooth trails and riding asphalt for god knows what reason, HTs rule.


Established by who exactly? :skep: Who decides what kind of bike works better for an individual other than him/her self? Just because you are a mediocre rider who isn't skilled enough to handle a hardtail on rocky and technical climbs/descents doesn't mean that hardtails are only made for smooth surfaces. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. We get it, you don't like hardtails because you're too weak and frail to handle the extra bumps. But please don't go around making up false bull sh!t about full suspensions being more efficient and what not, because last time I checked a bike is more efficient depending on rider skill not the bike itself.



slapheadmofo said:


> Maybe you need to expand your own riding so you're not so insistent on trying to project this little tiny niche corner you seem to have locked yourself into onto the rest of the world.


Maybe you need to WORK on your own riding so you can gain the skill necessary to ride technical trails on a hardtail so you won't have to lock yourself into depending on rear suspension to help you.


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

There is this big guy (no weenie) on our rides. He cleans everyone on the up ... and then cleans everyone on the down ... on a heavy Kona Honzo steel hardtail!! 

He makes a lot of the good FS guys and a lot of the HT guys look like amateurs ..

Go figure.


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

Nino schurter world XC champion last two years....on a hardtail most of the time, 'on a smooth trail'.


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

Has anyone noticed that world cup XC race courses are quite challenging? or are you stuck in the 90s? :nonod::nonod:


----------



## Metal Made Fox (Sep 18, 2014)

chubmackerel said:


> Nino schurter world XC champion last two years....on a hardtail most of the time, 'on a smooth trail'.


Nino is a huge fan of hardtails and always makes it to the podium in every race he does riding one. Here are some more of the best XC world champions who race with hardtails. Winners ride hardtails.

Julien Absalon









Marco Aurelio Fontana









Jose Antonio Hermida









Now, I am not disregarding full suspensions. Fully's do have a huge place in mountain biking but in the All Mountain, Downhill, and Freeride category. When it comes down to Cross Country racing a highly skilled athlete on a hardtail is an unstoppable force to be reckoned with.


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

Nino recently has been on a Scott fs. He locks the rear for the downhills where he is faster then his competitors.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Metal Made Fox said:


> Speak for your own area, out in my neck of the woods you see more hardtails in local XC races than you see full suspensions. And where did you get that most pro XC racers ride full suspension bikes? Take a look again.
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this idiotic statement. Why would you need to lock out your suspension if you're racing downhill? :skep:
> 
> ...


Not much on the ol' reading comprehension are ya?

In case you missed it, I ride a HT as my primary trail bike. In New England. And not some foofy carbon big-wheeled trail-flattener. If you can scrape together the brainpower to go back a little in this thread, you can see a pic from my neighborhood loop. Maybe a little less time gazing at your Nino poster and a little more time reading all the words would help.










I never said anything about what most XC racers use, nor do I care. Most riders don't race at all. Even fewer race XC. Why should the average rider give a damn? Did the OP ever ask "what is the best choice for racing XC at a high level"? No. Again, work on that reading comprehension. And stop identifying with your equipment on a personal level so much. It's childish.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

you can ride a HT on just about anything that you can on a FS....better or not is simply dependent the trail experience you want for that given day.

please stop the nonsense bickering ^^ and keep it on topic.

love,
CHUM


----------



## db440 (Jul 1, 2014)

Wow, I can't believe I read the whole thing. There is a bit too much bickering on this thread, but I know people take their beliefs personally, and that it doesn't matter too much. I appreciate those who try to save beginners from being overly influenced from an inexperienced opinion, though nobody is always right.

I am glad I have started out on a HT, whether or not it will make me a better rider will probably never be known. I do like the argument, however, and between that and the price increase I chose my HT. The reason I spend time reading everyone's opinions about this stuff is I have it in my mind that I will really enjoy having a FS bike to play on sometime in the next year or so. I am getting to the point I can ride a lot of difficult rocky stuff, but there are things that i'm not sure i'll ever really do on my HT. Even if I do it will still be fun to have a different ride for another approach. And if it will really soften the impact a bit and let me be able to ride more then fabulous!

This thread really did devolve, and I doubt the OP had any idea what she was stirring up, but perhaps she gained some insight. I'm a newb, but I think i'll always have a HT around. I wasn't sure how my body would respond when I started riding harder, but i'm getting stronger and think that will continue. 

It's hard to say what the ratios are on this forum, but those who say the vast majority of us are just out for fun and exercise are probably right, and it makes sense. Many of us still like to push ourselves in various ways, competitively or not, and end the end there will always be differing opinions. Thus all the fun, varied bike designs! I'd like a few different options, please. =)


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

Absalon takes a fifth world XC title, ahead of Schurter - VeloNews.com This is interesting, the world champ wins with a short travel full suss bike.His first race on a full suspension bike. What is noteworthy is that this bike has only 4" of travel in the rear and I bet it is set up rather stiff as to not stray too far from what a hardtail excels at....sprinting and climbing.Keep in mind what applies to a pro racer does not necessarily mean it is the best approach for a novice.This is an interesting debate,no disrespect to anyone......OK


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

It's actually been very simple for me. The question was answered back on 2000.

I've grew up BMXing, and then got into mountain biking, I have the technical skills, just not the fitness. I had a 98 Stumjumper (HT) and there used to be a lose, rocky, rootysteep climb on one of my local rides that I never cleared on it. No matter the line I chose, I'd get hung up or spin out in the lose stuff.

First time on my new Stumpjumper FSR and I cleared it easily. At that point everything I had read about a FS allowing the rear wheel to track the terrain and provide better traction clicked.

Ride what you want, but I won't go back to a hardtail. To many really good FS today to choose from.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

+1 What he said, might not be the fastest up a hill, but will consistantly get you up the hill. Also, while a HT as pointed previously can do most things a FS can do, some of them arguably lighter (faster?).... A FS can do anything a HT or rigid can do.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

Lots of discussion about what the *bike* can do...its not the bike that is doing anything...its the _*rider*_ on the bike.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

TiGeo said:


> Lots of discussion about what the *bike* can do...its not the bike that is doing anything...its the _*rider*_ on the bike.


Yes.... but only in the context of beginners, and only in context of no specialized builds... I am sure you could create a HT mountain bike that could handle some of the crazy jumps in the jump offs, but that would be an unweildly heavy beast. So that becomes an example of what a bike can or cant do without a rider. One could also take a full rigid down a current competitive Down Hill course, but it will take him a very long time compared to the purpose built machines regardless of how skilled the rider is.. example 2.

Yes, for the framework of discussion here, yes we a are talking about preference and individual rider skills in the percieved differences in preformance.... "I feel I am faster uphill on my HT..." or, "I am way faster than my buddies who all have FS..." are examples of differences in gearing, fitness, and skills. But remeber this is in context of "beginner" and for us beginners the only seemingly approipriate answer from this thread to the OP question is... "When you want a lighter bike, and to develop the skills it takes to manage technical trails without rear suspension."


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

I think what bothers me most about this thread is how beginners with such little experience give advice (bad advice) like theyre seasoned veterans...

Is a full suspension better than a hardtail? Sometimes

Is a hardtail better than a full suspension? sometimes

What?

It depends on the trail in which you ride. Pro XC racers were brought up in this thread because the majority of bikes sold are sold to be ridden in that sort of discipline. Downhill/freeride bikes make up a very small percentage of mountain bike sales, and if you look at manufacturer websites, in most cases, "XC" bikes are simply "trail" bikes that are equipped with better components. Manufacturers love to come up with new names, despite nothing changing in the type of riding we do.

Now if you go back and look at this past years MTB XCO, you'll notice pro racers picking HT/FS based on course design.. Neither suspension type has an advantage on every trail.

I ride both a Full suspension and Hardtail. I also race. On short punchy smooth climbs where I like to stand and hammer up a hill, I prefer my hardtail. One areas where my teeth are chattering because of lengthy roots and rocks and my rear tire would bounce around on a HT, I prefer my Full Suspension.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2014)

MissDaisy said:


> I have a Giant Anthem X W (2013) and could not be happier with the FS and overall fit. However, I know there are some nice hard tails out there (El Mariachi for one). When would a hard tail be more beneficial than a FS? I'm about 138 pounds if that makes a difference. Wondering if I "need" a hardtail in my stable.


It really depends where and how you ride. HT bikes are generally lighter, some folks can bunny hop better on an HT, you get less peddle bob when you're standing and peddling... Until you find yourself dissatisfied with your current bike for some reason, I'd stay put. When you do find some deficiency, you'll have sufficient experience to pick the right additional bike. I don't know what your current bike weighs compared to an El Mariachi, but if you're getting tired on climbs and the El Mar is heavier you may solve the wrong problem (example only).


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

TiGeo said:


> Lots of discussion about what the *bike* can do...its not the bike that is doing anything...its the _*rider*_ on the bike.


Nonsense. It's a combination of both.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

TwoTone said:


> Nonsense. It's a combination of both.


Agreed, just as there would be a difference comparing a $200 Wally world special to $2000 boutique custom.


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

If you doing this, you definitely need a full-squish dual-boinger:

Red Bull Rampage 2014: Just the Tip - Day 5 - Pinkbike

No exceptions there 

Anything else can be done on a hardtail or even a unicycle


----------



## dezzrat1 (Feb 28, 2014)

Just get one of each good flow trails I use my HT, it seems faster, on the tight more technical stuff its the FS.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Phinias said:


> .... A FS can do anything a HT or rigid can do.


Not quite true.

*I*'ve never had as much *fun* on a FS bike as I have on my HT and rigid bikes.
*You* might be the opposite.

I wish I could remember who I'm quoting in my signature


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Really, the reason you can't have much of a useful discussion in an open forum on this subject is because most people lack enough experience across a bunch of different equipment, terrain, and riding styles to have worthwhile opinions, yet many seem to feel a need to 'stick up for' whatever they swiped their credit card on, or whatever little niche of riding they've locked themselves into. 

The whole HT/FS difference is so broad as to impossible to do any sort of meaningful comparison in general terms. You can be pretty sure that a lot of the folks swearing by HTs don't actually have a lot of experience on many different types of bikes or terrain, and probably none (or close to it) on FS bikes. I'm sure that if you took almost any of HT cheerleaders in this thread off their cookie-cutter 29er XC style bikes and beginner/intermediate level, non-techy trails and stuck them on something like my bike and sent them out on some trails that are nothing but endless swaths of roots and rocks and abrupt transitions, and then had them ride the same trails back-to-back on a 27.5 120mm travel 'trail bike', every single one of them would be much faster on and wildly prefer the FS bike. 

Without real world experience and perspective, opinion means squat.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

perttime said:


> Not quite true.
> 
> *I*'ve never had as much *fun* on a FS bike as I have on my HT and rigid bikes.
> *You* might be the opposite.
> ...


Yes but it will still do it!


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

SandSpur said:


> I think what bothers me most about this thread is how beginners with such little experience give advice (bad advice) like theyre seasoned veterans...
> 
> Is a full suspension better than a hardtail? Sometimes
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you other than your opening paragraph I mean.....who are you referring to? my last post with the UCI link kind of implied what you have stated in regards to having the right bike for the terrain?I have owned numerous bikes, anywhere from an all mountain hardtail to a plush Santa Cruz Heckler and many bikes that fit somewhere between those two types of bikes.So other than a downhill rig I have owned many bikes.Yep, comes down to what terrain you choose to ride.It would be nice to have at least a few different types of bikes.My preference is a hardtail 650b, and a XC full suss bike with 4-5" of travel.


----------



## TiGeo (Jul 31, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Really, the reason you can't have much of a useful discussion in an open forum on this subject is because most people lack enough experience across a bunch of different equipment, terrain, and riding styles to have worthwhile opinions, yet many seem to feel a need to 'stick up for' whatever they swiped their credit card on, or whatever little niche of riding they've locked themselves into.
> 
> The whole HT/FS difference is so broad as to impossible to do any sort of meaningful comparison in general terms. You can be pretty sure that a lot of the folks swearing by HTs don't actually have a lot of experience on many different types of bikes or terrain, and probably none (or close to it) on FS bikes. I'm sure that if you took almost any of HT cheerleaders in this thread off their cookie-cutter 29er XC style bikes and beginner/intermediate level, non-techy trails and stuck them on something like my bike and sent them out on some trails that are nothing but endless swaths of roots and rocks and abrupt transitions, and then had them ride the same trails back-to-back on a 27.5 120mm travel 'trail bike', every single one of them would be much faster on and wildly prefer the FS bike.
> 
> Without real world experience and perspective, opinion means squat.


You can flip this around and say that if you took any of the FS-fanboys here and put them on smoother less technical trails with bits of steep climbing etc. and have them follow some super-fast XC folks that they would be tossing their 30-pound FS tanks for lighter weight HTs in a heartbeat so they could keep up. Yes, you are correct...would I rather have FS on v. technical rocky DH-type trails? No contest...sure! But for where I ride, my HT works great.

The last FS bike I rode was my '95 Stumpy FSR - one of the originals and it was quite great..short travel (2.5") and cooked over the roots. Wasn't too heavy. A bit noodlely. I realize that current crop of FS is leaps and bounds above what I and I plan on getting an Epic next go around to ease some of the beating...but for now...I like the 21 pound rocket I am on!


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

TiGeo said:


> You can flip this around and say that if you took any of the FS-fanboys here and put them on smoother less technical trails with bits of steep climbing etc. and have them follow some super-fast XC folks that they would be tossing their 30-pound FS tanks for lighter weight HTs in a heartbeat so they could keep up. Yes, you are correct...would I rather have FS on v. technical rocky DH-type trails? No contest...sure! But for where I ride, my HT works great.
> 
> The last FS bike I rode was my '95 Stumpy FSR - one of the originals and it was quite great..short travel (2.5") and cooked over the roots. Wasn't too heavy. A bit noodlely. I realize that current crop of FS is leaps and bounds above what I and I plan on getting an Epic next go around to ease some of the beating...but for now...I like the 21 pound rocket I am on!


 Buyer's Guide To Full-Suspension Bicycles - Wheel World Bike Shops - Road Bikes, Mountain Bikes, Bicycle Parts and Accessories. Parts & Bike Closeouts! this link sums up what a modern FS bike weighs, there are many other references out there in regards to how little a full sus bike can weigh.I am perplexed by your statement about '30- pound fs tanks' there are 21 pound FS bikes out there.Cant we all agree that maybe choosing the right bike for the terrain is the best choice? The Scott Spark would be my dream bike if I had to choose one bike to ride.The twin-loc turns it into a hardtail with the flip of a switch.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TiGeo said:


> You can flip this around and say that if you took any of the FS-fanboys here and put them on smoother less technical trails with bits of steep climbing etc. and have them follow some super-fast XC folks that they would be tossing their 30-pound FS tanks for lighter weight HTs in a heartbeat so they could keep up.


Totally agree with the sentiment, I just didn't really see the same sort of elitist sort of sentiment coming from the FS user camp (you can't learn to be a good rider on FS, if you ride FS, you're just making up for your shortcomings as a rider with it, etc).

I like and own all sorts of bikes myself. Gears, SS, HT, rigid, little wheels, big wheels, DH, AM, trail...they're all fun in their own ways. I don't lose or gain anything as far as overall skill level just from jumping on one or the other.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Phinias said:


> Yes but it will still do it!


Nope.
You are totally missing my point.

I have never had as much fun/enjoyment/pleasure riding a FS bike as I have riding my burly AM geometry 26er rigid singlespeed.
FS bikes don't do it for me - or haven't for many years, at least.

And this is all totally subjective. What is it you want out of a ride? If you want an easy way to get back home from trails in as few seconds as possible, I highly recommend an FS bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

perttime said:


> If you want an easy way to get back home from trails in as few seconds as possible, I highly recommend an FS bike.


A fine example of the type of 'advice' I was referring to.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> A fine example of the type of 'advice' I was referring to.


Are you saying that a FS bike isn't the easiest type of bike for getting through a ride in as few seconds as possible?

Doing just that is important for many. Just see all the posts about FS bikes being faster and allowing more direct lines without fatiguing the rider.

If something else is more important, I recommend considering other types of bikes too.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

...wow, so um i thought the OP wanted to know when a HT is better than a FS. Based on your almost fanatical views of the almighty HT, the answer would be anytime perttime wants to have fun? The OP was asking for advice as a fellow beginner, of in what circumstances a HT would be more appropriate that his/her current FS. Your responses would only be helpful to them or any other beginner in one circumstance... if they were for some reason to loan you a bicycle.

I am not arguing that you do not find your HT to be the end all of bikes, in fact anyone on here would be most willing to congratulate you on finding the best, most well fitting bike for you. You have hit bike nirvana. But, can we go back to answering the OP or debating the verifiable or measuable differences in the 2 bikes? 

Your opinion does bear weight, if you were to say, "in all my following circumstances I find this specific HT the best choice for me". Then the OP or others could consider and weigh the validity of your statement. 

dismounts soap box.....


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Phinias said:


> ...wow, so um i thought the OP wanted to know when a HT is better than a FS. Based on your almost fanatical views of the almighty HT, the answer would be anytime perttime wants to have fun? The OP was asking for advice as a fellow beginner, of in what circumstances a HT would be more appropriate that his/her current FS. Your responses would only be helpful to them or any other beginner in one circumstance... if they were for some reason to loan you a bicycle.
> 
> I am not arguing that you do not find your HT to be the end all of bikes, in fact anyone on here would be most willing to congratulate you on finding the best, most well fitting bike for you. You have hit bike nirvana. But, can we go back to answering the OP or debating the verifiable or measuable differences in the 2 bikes?
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure he was trying to emphasize the subjectiveness of the whole debate, not to say his experience trumps everyone else's. Not sure what you're getting so hyped up about.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

s0ckeyeus said:


> I'm pretty sure he was trying to emphasize the subjectiveness of the whole debate, not to say his experience trumps everyone else's. Not sure what you're getting so hyped up about.


I am not so sure, go back and read all of their responses. And yes one could only talk about suggestive, but I am sure most were trying to debate the actual merits of the 2 while comming up with an answer for the OP and all us other noobs.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Phinias said:


> ...wow, so um i thought the OP wanted to know when a HT is better than a FS. Based on your almost fanatical views of the almighty HT, the answer would be anytime perttime wants to have fun?


Nope.
I'm saying that *I* don't find FS bikes the most fun. It does not mean that somebody else will enjoy a rigid singlespeed as much as I do. Not considering myself special in too many ways, I must assume that there are others who will be happier with HTs or rigid bikes too.

So, when somebody tells you that a particular type of bike is better, it means that it is better for a specific purpose for a specific rider who has specific preferences.

How do I know what the OP wants and needs out of a bike? Well, I don't.
How do you know what the OP wants and needs out of a bike?

... I'm off to bed. Will check the situation in about 16 to 20 hours.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

perttime said:


> Are you saying that a FS bike isn't the easiest type of bike for getting through a ride in as few seconds as possible?


I'm thinking that there are way too many variables involved to even attempt to draw any sort of conclusion along those lines.

It's possible I mistook the intent of your wording as far as FS bikes being for those riders that want only the 'easiest way to get home from the trails in as few seconds as possible' as dismissive and elitist, as in, FS is not for those that want to go on long, hard rides, but for those looking for an easy roll and cheap speed. Which of course is ridiculous, but that kind of BS is very evident in the attitudes of many self-declared 'hardcore' HT riders.


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

You guys are all pussies. This gnarvester gets after all the 150mm full-squish stuff, all-mountain, on a frickin unicycle:

Imamountainunicyclist on Pinkbike

That's right. A unicycle.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

Phinias said:


> I am not so sure, go back and read all of their responses. And yes one could only talk about suggestive, but I am sure most were trying to debate the actual merits of the 2 while comming up with an answer for the OP and all us other noobs.


I'm just talking about perttime here, not all the other posters. Honestly, I don't even know why this thread is still going.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

TracksFromHell said:


> You guys are all pussies. This gnarvester gets after all the 150mm full-squish stuff, all-mountain, on a frickin unicycle:
> 
> Imamountainunicyclist on Pinkbike
> 
> That's right. A unicycle.


Yeah, but how efficient is that thing anyway? That guy is probably wasting energy left and right. rft:


----------



## TracksFromHell (Jul 9, 2014)

s0ckeyeus said:


> Yeah, but how efficient is that thing anyway? That guy is probably wasting energy left and right. rft:


Just looked at his entire album. It is unbelievable. He does slabs that are even too steep for me. He does alpine XC tours. He also has a nice lady friend, also with a unicycle.

Whatever you ride, just have fun


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

TracksFromHell said:


> Just looked at his entire album. It is unbelievable. He does slabs that are even too steep for me. He does alpine XC tours. He also has a nice lady friend, also with a unicycle.
> 
> Whatever you ride, just have fun


But can he juggle? 

We have a unicyclist who rides the trails around here. Judging by what I saw of him riding a paved path, I don't think he's that good. Definitely nowhere close to the guy above. Props to whoever can ride like that.


----------



## Phinias (Aug 28, 2014)

Agreed, he might want to get his wedding tackle checked on a regular basis too..... how do these guys walk after that beating....


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I should just leave this thread dead. But wtf, it got me curious about my bikes' weights and I'm hanging out inside with a nasty cough.

So my XC FS comes in at 30.8 lb. I'd been sort of assuming it weighed about that all along, but part of me also figured it was probably lighter. This is with pedals and everything, and some pretty heavy tires. But removable stuff removed - so no seat wedge, no water bottle. If I'm to believe Schwalbe and Continental's claims about the weights of their tires, switching to Conti caused this bike to gain 440g, so just shy of a pound.

My 'cross bike, currently set up with knobbies for reminding myself I'm not that into 'cross, weighs 23.2 lb.

My other road bike, which has disc brakes, fenders and a rack, comes in at 24 lb. I was a little surprised the difference in weight was that small. But, tires can be a huge swing in weight and this bike has 25 mm slicks; it also has a carbon fork while the 'cross bike has a steel one.

I think the biggest surprise was the weight of the 'cross bike. It cost a little under $1000 new and I haven't exactly been a weight weenie about the parts I've changed. It does have medium-fancy new wheels on it now, though, and I'm not usually super-thrifty about aftermarket parts when I do buy them - I figure if for a small amount more I can have what I really want, well, life is short.

The XC bike is getting a fancier crank this winter. I was thinking about new wheels and switching it to tubeless, but I still owe the Feds a bunch of money for my degree and that's more than I want to spend.

Still, the weight I've lost since finishing school and resuming some sort of ordered life is a lot more than what any of these bikes have the potential to lose.


----------

