# Choose a hardtail over fs?



## Joe Schmoe (Sep 22, 2010)

does anyone ever choose a hardtail over full suspension? why? under what circumstances are hardtails better? Do lockouts make hardtails obsolete for xc / climbing?

thanks

Joe Shcmoe


----------



## monstertiki (Jun 1, 2009)

I like my hardtail on fast & smooth flowy trails.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Tons of racers who have a choice are still on hardtails. They think they climb faster, and it's easier to get them to lower weights.

At the other end of the spectrum, dirt jump kid and some trials dudes are on hardtails too. There are even still a few DH hardtails in production. BMX too, of course, but that's kinda different.

I test-ride FS rigs from time to time, and always find them a bit underwhelming. They feel like big, heavy bikes to me and it takes more work to get them in and out of corners. That said, I'd want to demo some race-oriented ones on trails before buying my next bike - I may just not have been on the right FS rig for me.

Try some of everything and buy your favorite.


----------



## Oatbag (Jun 25, 2010)

Price is a factor. For the same $$ you get a better hardtail than a FS.


----------



## jackspade (Jul 23, 2010)

The price is no matter but the maintenance are.

FS is pretty though to maintain because there's a lot thing to adjust, while HT is easier and the good thing is with HT you can learn to control your bike better since your body work as suspension.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

On the rougher trails, I enjoy my hardtail and rigid bike for the challenge. I make it go, not all the technology. Also, when I need quick acceleration "NOW!", it is not damped by a rear suspension.


----------



## Biohazard74 (Jul 16, 2009)

Lol @ the responses in this thread !


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Looks like nobody has anything good to say about FS bikes  

 

They make it easier to go fast when the ground is rough. Less tiring too. But that is not why I ride.


----------



## Biohazard74 (Jul 16, 2009)

perttime said:


> Looks like nobody has anything good to say about FS bikes
> 
> 
> 
> They make it easier to go fast when the ground is rough. Less tiring too. But that is not why I ride.


This is a joke right? I wouldn't bother with this subject because it's a never ending flame war. But all i will say is i have both. 2009 Trek 6000(hardtail) and a 2009 Giant Trance X3(FS). And although i do enjoy the hardtail here and there on a flowing track with not much technical stuff. There is nothing that is easier on the hardtail than there is on my full suss bike. Not to mention my FS is lighter than my hardtail. So there goes that theory  :thumbsup: To the OP. If you have the cash for a descent FS ($1600 and up) i say go for it :thumbsup:


----------



## JonathanGennick (Sep 15, 2006)

Joe Schmoe said:


> does anyone ever choose a hardtail over full suspension? why?


I've a rigid bike that I often ride on smoother trails. I've a full-suspension model for rough trails, for when I want to be able to slam into things. I've not ridden a front-suspension-only bike in a long time, to be honest.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Biohazard74 said:


> This is a joke right?
> ......
> ...
> There is nothing that is easier on the hardtail than there is on my full suss bike.


Of course it is a joke :thumbsup:

And you have the key word right there: *easier*. FS makes most things *easier*, as long as the trail has any interesting features.

If I wanted easy, I'd just stay in bed. Others will feel differently.


----------



## hazdxb (Oct 11, 2008)

Simply, a FS bike will be able to do more crazy stuff than a HT, such as bigger drops, jumps etc, it mainly depends on what you want to do.

Dirt jump: A lot of people use HT because the FS bikes soak up momentum, but if you have the $ for a nice FS bike, it works great as well.

Slopestyle/Downhill: A FS bike will hander rougher trails than a HT also a light FS bike is going to cost you a lot more than a HT of the same weight so keep that in mind since manoeuvring will require more skill and muscle with a heavy FS bike.

Anything with climbing: A HT will do great but a FS can do the exact same if you have the $ to buy such a bike.

The best way though is to go out and test as many hardtails and FS bikes as you can, decide what feels better to you, buy it and best of all RIDE


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

hazdxb said:


> Anything with climbing: A HT will do great but a FS can do the exact same if you have the $ to buy such a bike.


A FS bike can make climbing *easier* too, if the trail is at least a bit rough, and the bike is not a DH sled.


----------



## Mike Gager (Jul 30, 2010)

ive never ridden a FS bike. if i did im sure id probably want one


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

So if having a rear shock makes it too easy, but what about front suspension? And how about gears while we're at it? Shouldn't we say that those riding SS rigid bikes are the only pure riders, and everyone else should just stay in bed?

I'd say if you're a racer, weight weenie, on a tight budget, or you ride a lot of smooth trails, HT is a no brainer. But if you can afford a well-equipped FS that isn't too heavy, they are a lot of fun. And for what it's worth, I can make several climbs on my FS that I wasn't able to do with a HT due to the increased traction. I've never understood all the talk about FS not climbing, unless you spend a lot of time out of the saddle blasting up fire roads or surface streets. For the average rider, a FS can make technical climbs as easy or easier than a HT.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

gabe23 said:


> So if having a rear shock makes it too easy, but what about front suspension? And how about gears while we're at it?


Exactly.

I am not quite crazy enough to go fixed yet. Then, maybe I could leave out the brakes too


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

I can ride faster, farther, and longer on my FS bike than I can on my hardtail. It's not that I don't like the HT, I really do, but when I'm headed for a multi hour ride, it will usually be on my FS bike. There's situations for both, but don't let anyone tell you that riding a FS is cheating or less core. Those are the people who are probably not riding hard enough trails at high enough speed


----------



## svmike (Sep 23, 2007)

Joe Schmoe said:


> does anyone ever choose a hardtail over full suspension? why? under what circumstances are hardtails better? Do lockouts make hardtails obsolete for xc / climbing?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Joe Shcmoe


1) Yes.
2) Lots of reasons ranging from personal preference to terrain/type of riding to price/budget...
3) Smoother trails (probably more situations but that's all I could manage).
4. Absolutely not.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

When I ride my rigid singlespeed, the trails are hard enough and the speed is enough for me. A fit guy (or girl) on a FS bike would certainly go much faster and further.

But yeah, people like different things.

After several years of riding trails, I have some clue of what kind of a bike I like and what I like to do on it. Others frequently prefer something else but there's no rule that says everybody will prefer a FS bike. There's no rule that says everybody will prefer a rigid fixie for trails either.


----------



## valleyscum (Aug 29, 2010)

This is AMERICA, the land of opportunity, we have the opportunity to chose between the 2 based on our choice, Freedom of Choice. And I for one will not sit here reading this forum, naked, eating fried chicken out the bucket and listen to you badmouth America!!!

Valleyscum


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

Biohazard74 said:


> This is a joke right? I wouldn't bother with this subject because it's a never ending flame war. But all i will say is i have both. 2009 Trek 6000(hardtail) and a 2009 Giant Trance X3(FS). And although i do enjoy the hardtail here and there on a flowing track with not much technical stuff. There is nothing that is easier on the hardtail than there is on my full suss bike. Not to mention my FS is lighter than my hardtail. So there goes that theory  :thumbsup: To the OP. If you have the cash for a descent FS ($1600 and up) i say go for it :thumbsup:


A Trek 6000 vs. a Giant Trance 3? Yeah, (a HT bike that is heavier and costs 55% of the FS bike you're comparing it to) that's a valid comparison for the HT vs. FS question. . . . . :skep:

I have had FS bikes since 1999 and currently have a Giant Reign. I would estimate that 75%+ of my riding buddies ride FS bikes (Ibis Mojo, Blut LT, RM Slayer, Giant Anthem, Chumba XCL, you get the idea). On all but the most technical of trails, I prefer my HT 29er. On the stuff we ride day in and day out, I'm WAY faster on my current HT (that was similar in total cost to the Reign) than I ever was on my Reign, and that includes going DH. In fact, DH is where I am the most improved and every bit as fast headed DH as those on the FS bikes. My buddies used to gap me by quite a lot on the Reign, but now I'm every bit as fast as they are, sometimes a little faster.

It's much like boxers vs. briefs. To each their own. The bottom line is that I highly recommend that each rider should try as many different bikes as possible and get what works for yourself, not necessarily what works others. Definitely listen to suggestions for bikes to try, but get what works for for you.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

You need one of each .


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

AZ.MTNS said:


> You need one of each .


At the very least.


----------



## c0ld (Jun 29, 2010)

Why do the FS get soo buthurt when people sometimes critique the cons of a FS??


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

Why do you feel the need to defend the HT position from the FS hordes?


----------



## c0ld (Jun 29, 2010)

Im not, just wondering why the FS get soo butthurt lol.


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

i'm around 215 pounds, but trying to get back down to 200.

i really couldn't find an affordable FS bike that could support that weight. i'd have to inflate the hell out of the rear shock just to keep bobbing like a wal-mart bike, and by that time it was as rigid as a hard tail with the added benefit of pedal bob and wobbly handling.

now i just ride hardtail steel.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

eat_dirt said:


> i'm around 215 pounds, but trying to get back down to 200.
> 
> i really couldn't find an affordable FS bike that could support that weight. i'd have to inflate the hell out of the rear shock just to keep bobbing like a wal-mart bike, and by that time it was as rigid as a hard tail with the added benefit of pedal bob and wobbly handling.
> 
> now i just ride hardtail steel.


I rode a Trance X @ 250 lbs. and did not encounter these problems that you speak of .


----------



## zebrahum (Jun 29, 2005)

I don't really see even a single instance of butt-hurt here.

I have a feeling that most people who really have a decent opinion of the whole FS v HT issue have ridden both and probably own both. I count myself as the latter; I actually own two hardtails and have the good fortune to also own a very nice FS, there's certainly times where I enjoy my HT, but I'd never choose it as my only bike. Perhaps it has something to do with geography, maybe something to do with my primary HT is a SS converted steel beast but I wouldn't pick it as my main ride. That being said, I will soon be replacing my steel SS with another steel SS. HTs are fun, but FS is just fantastic. Up is better, down is way better, very little down side.


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

AZ.MTNS said:


> I rode a Trance X @ 250 lbs. and did not encounter these problems that you speak of .


i think you missed the "affordable" part.

if i have over 3.5 grand to drop on a bike (which is actually low-end for FS) i'll let you know if it performs as you say.


----------



## roxnroots (Aug 12, 2010)

AZ.MTNS said it best. If you're experienced, ride a variety of terrain, and you have the coin, you probably ought to own both a nice HT and a solid full-squish rig. IMO these HT-FS debates are fun (I own both but like my full-suss better) but they're probably not that helpful for noobs on a budget who really should just go get a decent HT that fits and which they'll enjoy riding while building their skills.


----------



## insanitylevel9 (Sep 23, 2009)

i only ride hard tails and rigids i just prefer them over fullys


----------



## Clones123 (Apr 29, 2010)

Out where I regularly ride, probably 4 out of 5 riders fall into one of two groups; people who can afford a full-squish bike - a surprisingly large percentage of people BTW - and people who can't. Most of the rest ride junk bikes just because. I suppose there is a very tiny minority that shun FS bikes because that's truly their preference (maybe one day I'll meet him on the trail - LOL).

Personally, I ride a 29er hardtail (because I can't afford to go full-squish). The FS bikes I've trail demoed were all pretty awesome. Around my area, the local shops regularly bring out their FS bikes for demo days at the major trails. My guess is that a fair percentage of people riding a $$$$ FS bike for the first time come away thinking, "If I stop eating out so much...and don't take that vacation trip....and I don't really _need_ to buy a new car any time soon...crap, we were probably gonna get divorced anyway..."


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

eat_dirt said:


> i think you missed the "affordable" part.
> 
> if i have over 3.5 grand to drop on a bike (which is actually low-end for FS) i'll let you know if it performs as you say.


A Trance X3 comes in well below that figure , affordable is a relative term anyway .


----------



## Biohazard74 (Jul 16, 2009)

eat_dirt said:


> i'm around 215 pounds, but trying to get back down to 200.
> 
> i really couldn't find an affordable FS bike that could support that weight. i'd have to inflate the hell out of the rear shock just to keep bobbing like a wal-mart bike, and by that time it was as rigid as a hard tail with the added benefit of pedal bob and wobbly handling.
> 
> now i just ride hardtail steel.


I also ride a Trance X and don't have this problem at 210 lbs. I don't get mad at the whole hardtail vs full suspension debates on here. What makes me laught are all the bs myths about FS bikes. Can't climb, bob too much, weigh a lot more etc. If you know what to do and you set your rear shock right then you are in for a treat. Grant it a FS cost more. Of course it does. Its harder to make plus it has an extra shock than a hard tail and 2 more than a rigid. And btw when I bought my bike it was right at 28 lbs out the bike store. I paid $1400 for it since the 2010 were coming in soon at the time. So the price is well worth it. I have a light enough bike with descent components etc.


----------



## nodaksvt (May 16, 2010)

my car isnt a hardtail and that stays on flat smooth road. why should my bike be then?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

nodaksvt said:


> my car isnt a hardtail and that stays on flat smooth road. why should my bike be then?


Take your full-suspension rig on a flat, smooth road (or a steep, smooth road) and someone on something fully-rigid, with narrower tires and goofy narrow handlebars will own you unless you've got about 30% more watts/kilo.

Your car has more power to spare than you do.


----------



## svmike (Sep 23, 2007)

AZ.MTNS said:


> *You need one of each .*


:thumbsup: best answer yet


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Clones123 said:


> Out where I regularly ride, probably 4 out of 5 riders fall into one of two groups; people who can afford a full-squish bike - a surprisingly large percentage of people BTW - and people who can't. Most of the rest ride junk bikes just because. I suppose there is a very tiny minority that shun FS bikes because that's truly their preference (maybe one day I'll meet him on the trail - LOL).


I'm on a trail somewhere.
Norco Six
RM Slayer
GF Mamba

I had all 3 for a year. I sold the 2 fully's. I didn't need the money. I didn't need the space. I just didn't need full suspension.

I ride this.

View attachment 573120


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

I bought a hardtail because of price.. you can get a really well equiped hardtail for about 1/2 the price of the full susp bike. Eventually Im sure Ill buy a full susp bike..prolly when I start doing more downhill stuff


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Take your full-suspension rig on a flat, smooth road (or a steep, smooth road) and someone on something fully-rigid, with narrower tires and goofy narrow handlebars will own you unless you've got about 30% more watts/kilo.
> 
> Your car has more power to spare than you do.


I humbly suggest that most MTBing is not done on flat nor smooth , if it was I would use my road bike .


----------



## nachomc (Apr 26, 2006)

roxnroots said:


> AZ.MTNS said it best. If you're experienced, ride a variety of terrain, and you have the coin, you probably ought to own both a nice HT and a solid full-squish rig. IMO these HT-FS debates are fun (I own both but like my full-suss better) but they're probably not that helpful for noobs on a budget who really should just go get a decent HT that fits and which they'll enjoy riding while building their skills.


Agreed.

But I prefer my rigid bike to my full suspension bike (seriously)


----------



## zdiggler (Aug 24, 2010)

I had 2 FS bikes before and I spend most of the time adjusting damn springs try to get it right. Bushing keep going out, finding what's sqeeking. They were both under 1K I didn't know any better back than.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

zdiggler said:


> I had 2 FS bikes before and I spend most of the time adjusting damn springs try to get it right. Bushing keep going out, finding what's sqeeking. They were both under 1K I didn't know any better back than.


Mate, the expensive ones do it too. 

I've got both, and TBH I would not own a dually unless I was good with the tools - I'd live at the LBS otherwise.

Duallies can be good, but the concept that you _need_ one for XC or trail riding is rubbish.


----------



## qreeek (Sep 22, 2010)

c0ld said:


> Im not, just wondering why the FS get soo butthurt lol.


Yea... they are the ones with the sofa-rigs, why do their butts hurt? :skep:

This post is in the Beginner's Corner...

If you are a beginner who can go to the shop and buy a decent FS without having much riding experience, go ahead. You obviously have more spare cash than the average Joe and you will accomplish part of your mission by buying the best FS in the shop (the part about having the top notch gear for your new hobby).

Like all hobbies, most people should not go all-in from day 1.

Which boils down to the practical issue of getting a better HT than a similarly priced FS in the lower price ranges. Once you get the pricy stuff, the difference is less. As you go up in price the rear suspension will make up less and less of the total price and those extra few bearings and a shock will drown in the cost of carbon, wheels, and drivetrains.

Buying a carbon FS with XTR groupset as your first mountain bike is a bit like buying a Ferrari the week after you get your driver's license. Sure, some rich dudes do it, but most people cannot.

And do you really want to learn how to ride mountain bike trails on a bike where a crash can cost you thousands of $ in broken parts?

Sure this is not really HT vs FS comments, but seriously... anyone who does not know the difference has not ridden enough to justify spending hard earned money on a FS (anyone not spending hard earned money, buy what you want).

Newcomers to the sport, I would suggest buying a decent HT (not too cheap parts, but not blowing the budget either). Once you find out what all the accessories will set you back you might think back and appreciate that you did not blow your whole budget getting a shiny bike.

Then ride some trails, get yourself in shape and get a good feel of your bike. You will soon enough find out what parts on your "cheap" bike annoys you. And when you go back to the shop in a year or two you will be much better prepared to test-ride the FS bikes and get the one that is best for you.
Plus you will have a HT that can be used for winter riding (if your area has it), so you do not bust up your new expensive bike by doing mudfests. Or even worse, if your area salts the roads and you ride to the trails...


----------



## eat_dirt (May 26, 2008)

the way i ultimately see it is i can have a FS that i spend a lot of money on, tweak as much as i ride so i can actually get some use out of the rear suspension without sacrificing the performance of the bike, tear the whole thing down to service the suspension bearings... i had an el santo that did all the bad things a FS shouldn't do and none of the purportedly awesome things it should. i rented a pitch (the first one they made) and a fuel and found the spec was best suited for drops and the trek performed decently but the one with the components i wanted costed over 4 grand. 

or just have a real good steel hardtail that requires me to air up the tires, fork and tweak the derailers now and then.

and if someone can point me to a trance x that costs less than the msrp of 3600, a local LBS once quoted me for an older model at 3200, please be my guest.


----------



## Biohazard74 (Jul 16, 2009)

A friend of mine just got a 2009 Anthem X2 (which are better spec'd better than the following year models) for $1500. You can find great deals out there. And as far as the maintanence on the fs bike goes. Well I've had my bike for a year. Been riding it hard. And I have yet to get any crazy sounds out of my bearings or suspension pivot etc. FS bikes have come a long way. A lot of the bad stuff you hear about FS bikes usually pertain to older models that were not as good as todays bikes. And most of the comments either come from people who tried out a fs bike years ago or people who rode one that wasn't set up correctly.


----------



## jtyler05si (Sep 12, 2010)

I'm a noob, I bought a $500 HT as my first actual trail bike. My next bike will be a FS, but I have yet to break my current bike enough to look into researching/saving/buying the next bike. 

I am definitely happy with my purchase. If I had bought a $$$$ FS, I would not have progressed as far as I have by now because I would have held back in many situations in fear that I would scrape or damage the bike.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Biohazard74 said:


> FS bikes have come a long way. A lot of the bad stuff you hear about FS bikes usually pertain to older models that were not as good as todays bikes. And most of the comments either come from people who tried out a fs bike years ago or people who rode one that wasn't set up correctly.


Just like 29er's.


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

qreeek said:


> Buying a carbon FS with XTR groupset as your first mountain bike is a bit like buying a Ferrari the week after you get your driver's license. Sure, some rich dudes do it, but most people cannot.
> 
> And do you really want to learn how to ride mountain bike trails on a bike where a crash can cost you thousands of $ in broken parts?


How the heck did you make the jump to beginners buying carbon bikes with XTR groupsets?  There are plenty of good FS options without going in that direction. Around here, you can get a well equipped 2010 Trek Fuel or something similar in the $1500 range. Granted that's not chump change, but it's not 5 grand either.


----------



## roxnroots (Aug 12, 2010)

Sideknob said:


> Mate, the expensive ones do it too.
> 
> I've got both, and TBH I would not own a dually unless I was good with the tools - I'd live at the LBS otherwise.
> 
> Duallies can be good, but the concept that you _need_ one for XC or trail riding is rubbish.


Agreed. Taking a serious full-squish XC/trail riding is ridiculous - all it would do is make your day feel heavy, slow, and unfun.  I know, I got roped into that type of XC group ride by friends on great HTs once - no rockgardens, drops, etc. to slow 'em down so I was trailing everyone all day.


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

gabe23 said:


> There are plenty of good FS options without going in that direction. Around here, you can get a well equipped 2010 Trek Fuel or something similar in the $1500 range. Granted that's not chump change, but it's not 5 grand either.


 but you can a similarly epuipped HT for $800.


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

Kingsnake said:


> but you can a similarly epuipped HT for $800.


Of course a comparably equipped HT will cost less than a FS. I was referring to the comments deriding beginners for buying carbon frame FS bikes, when nobody in this thread has suggested that was a good idea.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

I really like riding hardtails. My local trails are steep and smooth, so a slack hardtail works beautifully. No cush in the rear means the crazy happens at lower speeds; i get the same rush, but a high speed dismount is less of a tragedy. It's also cheaper, although i spend what it costs to buy what i want.


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

I have the money for an FS (or two), but I don't have the will to buy one at this point. I have a lot of fun on my hardtail and enjoy the challenge. I don't mind the HT on technical terrain. The only times I might wish for an FS is on a consistently choppy or rutted trail. Sometimes It'd be nice to sit comfortably in those sections.


----------



## JeffRock (Aug 23, 2010)

without going into the flame war. Which is stupid, because everyone has their own opinion. their own likes and dislikes.
Only thing to do is test both. Maybe you have a friend who has a FS who will let you ride it around a little? Its your choice. 
Techniques for both will vary slightly between the two.. but overall, Price can be a factor.
$1,500 is what you will pay for a decent FS entry level. (Although the only ones I've seen at the LBS all cost $2,000 and up) For a bit less money you can get a HT with the same entry level components. From what I've seen that is.
but as I said, different people like different stuff. and to say ones opinion about a bike is the truth, is a lie.

does anyone remember the time before and suspension?
I do, And i still have a rigid bike that used to fly down trails..


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

JeffRock said:


> does anyone remember the time before and suspension?
> I do, And i still have a rigid bike that used to fly down trails..


Man, you're old! In the early 60's I rode a 1959 Henley with springer forks. It had about 2" of travel.


----------



## S_Trek (May 3, 2010)

I really like it when talking to FS guys in the parking lot about how HT's cannot go there or do that when comparing bikes. I really love seeing their faces on the trail "You came up here?""You went down that?" with a HT?


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

S_Trek said:


> I really like it when talking to FS guys in the parking lot about how HT's cannot go there or do that when comparing bikes. I really love seeing their faces on the trail "You came up here?""You went down that?" with a HT?


Only a tool would assume a trail is rideable on a FS but not on a HT. In almost all cases it's more about the engine than the bike. There have been plenty of times that I've come across some kid shredding the trail on a sh*tbike wearing sneakers and gym shorts.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)




----------



## tshulthise (Apr 23, 2010)

I've owned both. The FS is easier on my back and more enjoyable to ride over jumps and rough stuff. The HT was easier to climb with and maneuver because its lighter. Overall, I like my FS quite a bit better for the kind of riding I do.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

tshulthise said:


> Overall, *I like my* FS quite a bit better *for the kind of riding I do.*


There's the answer for almost all the "what should I get?" questions.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Trail Ninja said:


> There's the answer for almost all the "what should I get?" questions.


I suppose it won't help the OP much: try them all and then make up your mind.

We'd have to know what the OP likes. As this is in the Beginner's Corner, it is not at all sure he knows what he likes.


----------



## Kingsnake (Sep 27, 2010)

gabe23 said:


> Of course a comparably equipped HT will cost less than a FS. I was referring to the comments deriding beginners for buying carbon frame FS bikes, when nobody in this thread has suggested that was a good idea.


 My point wasnt to take you to task or anyone else on here for thier comments... I dont have anything against FS bike... havent riden one for anything more than a test spin.

My point is that unless the OP is on atleast a $2000+/- budget and knows that he is for sure wants FS. His money will be better spent on a higher end HT


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

I love steel and Ti hardtails. Which is why I have 6 of them. I sold all of the FS bikes I've ever owned because they didn't make me faster overall, and I didn't like the thought of maintenance on the pivots and rear suspension. Keep it simple, and I'm happy.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

SteveUK said:


>


i disagree with the first and last point.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I mainly went with a HT because I knew I'd get a top performing bike without needing to spend so much. I personally narrowed down my choice to a $1200 alu HT with X9, $2000 for a Ti 29er HT with XO, an used FS for $2000 or less with SLX/X7 or better, or about $3500 for a Blur LT built up from the frame and rear shock only with a X7/SLX kit, Thor or Reba 140 fork, and a solid wheelset.

I have fairly high confidence on the trails going 20MPH or less and don't consider any bumps under 8" as obstacles nor any drops less than a 18" as challenges--I consider them trail features that make the ride fun. That's mainly from rider experience. A good bike may get you to this point, or beyond, faster. I just simply believed technique and attitude were more of a factor.

I'm actually relatively clueless about FS, since I never rode one on a trail, but I'm used to stiff alu bikes under 25 lbs and I'm sure I'd be shocked by the extra weight and flexiness of FS bikes. I went with the Ti 29er ultimately. I only need more confidence going much faster on gnarly descents and I'm aware big travel bikes help with that, but I'm fine living with that shortcoming for now. Being overwhelmed by the choices of FS and the tech advancements kind of made me go conservative. If I go shopping for a bike again, it'd probably be for an used FS.

Choose what fits your budget and your riding style. I'm happy with my HT.


----------



## mfrench2013 (Jun 20, 2010)

i love my hardtail, i ride alot of dh on it and every time i hop on a fully at the mountain a friend rents, i have anew appreciation for my ht, it handles alot faster and feels smaller on the trail, less like a monster truck


----------



## Silver-Bolt (Sep 23, 2010)

I just ventured back intnd went with a hardtail. My thought process is this, the last riding I did was on a hardtail so it will be easier for me to get the feel once again. I do some road riding so the HT is better in that area. Less to maintain. I will likely buy another bike next year that will be FS.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

roxnroots said:


> Agreed. Taking a serious full-squish XC/trail riding is ridiculous - all it would do is make your day feel heavy, slow, and unfun.  I know, I got roped into that type of XC group ride by friends on great HTs once - no rockgardens, drops, etc. to slow 'em down so I was trailing everyone all day.


I had to chime in so your saying all FS are slow and heavy


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

From reading this thread this weekend, I tried riding my bike locked out. My butt got sore. I'm sticking with fs 

I would have never bought a full squish, coz its just too much money for a frugal person like me. But I lucked out. I was offered a NOS Fuel EX7 for 1200 out the door, with a helmet and a shock pump. Duhno it that was luck or a curse. Coz I'm not going back. Before this purchase, I had an upper limit of 1200 for bikes. I'm now looking at 3 to 5 grand for me next purchase. 

The only thing I dont like about my full squish bike is that it climbs like chit without propedal. And its really hard to reach for that lever when I can barely balance due to exhaustion. But that not a big problem now. Fox released a new remote controlled RP2. I can't wait to get one.


----------



## roxnroots (Aug 12, 2010)

bdundee said:


> I had to chime in so your saying all FS are slow and heavy


Nope, not at all. I accidentally left out the relevant fact that the ride in my story's a light FR rig with a big ol' heavy 160mm Talas 36 fork out on what I was unaware to be a no more than a moderate XC trail that I had never ridden before . It was a rider judgment-of-appropriate-trail-for-bike issue rather than a pure rig weight problem.

Didn't mean to suggest or generalize that all FSs are slow and heavy. Obviously, there are plenty of FS's that roll just fine.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

bing! said:


> From reading this thread this weekend, I tried riding my bike locked out. My butt got sore.


You sit too much  :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> You sit too much


The vast majority of people do, by my observation.


----------



## gabe23 (Aug 28, 2010)

SteveUK said:


> The vast majority of people do, by my observation.


Just what do you mean by that?


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

bing! said:


> From reading this thread this weekend, I tried riding my bike locked out. My butt got sore.


Most butts are sore the first time around, but with time and a little adjustment in technique, it can become quite enjoyable. :eekster:


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

SteveUK said:


> The vast majority of people do, by my observation.


What? Sit too much? Yeah, they do.


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

Trail Ninja said:


> What? Sit too much?


Yes. I don't get it at all. People fighting their bike over what are essentially simple obstacles because they won't just lift their arse a few inches off the saddle. Uphill, downhill - doesn't matter; they're staying seated. Baffles me.


----------



## bing! (Jul 8, 2010)

SteveUK said:


> Yes. I don't get it at all. People fighting their bike over what are essentially simple obstacles because they won't just lift their arse a few inches off the saddle. Uphill, downhill - doesn't matter; they're staying seated. Baffles me.


Take it easy. Don't pop a vein sweating about what other people do.


----------



## Sid Nitzerglobin (Sep 17, 2010)

SteveUK said:


> Yes. I don't get it at all. People fighting their bike over what are essentially simple obstacles because they won't just lift their arse a few inches off the saddle. Uphill, downhill - doesn't matter; they're staying seated. Baffles me.


Yeah, this is why I don't understand things like the Thudbuster. In my noobish opinion it seems like if you're going over something big enough to need seatpost shock absorption you're probably going to be better served up on the pedals in attack position, behind the saddle, or at least unweighting the saddle from a weight distribution perspective. I kind of enjoy using the rear suspension that came as stock equipment w/ my body.

I guess it's a matter of different strokes for different folks though. I know there have been many instances where my legs were feeling tired where it feels like a chore to get up on the pedals for the bumpy stuff. Could be nice if I screw up a jump or a drop as well or if I was taking a lot bigger hits over the course of an average day on the trails.

I could see getting a burlier FS trail bike at some point down the line, but I have plenty of fun and get a great workout on my HT as it is.


----------



## floydlippencott (Sep 4, 2010)

s0ckeyeus said:


> Most butts are sore the first time around, but with time and a little adjustment in technique, it can become quite enjoyable. :eekster:


 :yikes:


----------



## SteveUK (Apr 16, 2006)

> Take it easy. Don't pop a vein sweating about what other people do.


You seem to have misread the tone of my post: I'm confused, not stressed. I'm very calm about it, it's merely an observation - I just don't understand why so many people ride in a way that actually makes what they're doing more difficult.


----------



## gingus (Sep 27, 2004)

I ride a HT, Trek 6500 Disc because a good FS costs too much to get a decent one for me.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

I've read this flame war, but I'll try to stay on topic.

1. does anyone ever choose a hardtail over full suspension? why? 

I have chosen a hardtail over a full suspension because a hardtail accelerates much better. When you stomp on the pedals you can feel the bike snap underneath you and it gets up the trail or hill. I rode an anthem x last week and it got up the trail very fast, but it didn't have the snap. I also race and most race courses are what I call groomed. 

under what circumstances are hardtails better?

Smooth trails, cost, weight. 

Do lockouts make hardtails obsolete for xc / climbing?

No, most lockouts are not mounted on the bars. Not to mention you have to try and remember if your bike is locked out or not. 

I'll add a question.

When are full suspension bikes better?
In rough terrain. You go over rocks and obstacles like they're not even there. The anthem I was riding I just left it in propedal and the difference was still amazing. 
After very long rides you won't feel as beat up. You will not have a sore back from riding the full suspension bike on a 25 mile or longer ride. When people fatigue they have a tendency to sit more and this causes them to feel "beat up" when riding their hardtails on long rides.


----------



## mfrench2013 (Jun 20, 2010)

agreed! i never sit. unless its smooth and flat other wise im pedaling like mad man looking for the next thing to get air off!


dysfunction said:


> You sit too much  :thumbsup:


----------



## boxman12 (Jun 13, 2004)

Rod said:


> I've read this flame war, but I'll try to stay on topic.
> 
> 1. does anyone ever choose a hardtail over full suspension? why?
> 
> ...


Excellent post. There are many determining factors for whether or not to go with FS. Cost. Weight. Type of riding. Trail type. Where I do the majority of my riding I'd say the split is close to 50/50, but the FS bikes are pretty much all XC oriented. There are a few AM-worthy sections, but you never see those guys slugging aroung the xc sections. I currently ride what I'd consider a xc fs bike. A single-pivot KHS with 100mm front and rear travel. With the air shock set at 20% sag it pedals very efficiently, climbs well and still absorbs the bigger "hits" and the rare drop. It's not "xc light", but at two-and-a-quarter neither am I. That being said, I am currently amassing parts for a hardtail build so I can relive the mash-n-go and billygoat climbing of days gone by. I started riding this network fully rigid, then hardtail and I know from experience I'll appreciate the lighter weight and quicker handling. But I'll still ride the kHS there as well as other places.

Bottom line is that there is no clear "winner" provided your bike is being ridden for it's intended purpose. It's alot of preference and opinion.


----------



## glister (Oct 17, 2011)

i had the option between the 2 as well! I've got a £1000 budget and looking at the boardman pro and boardman team fs..

bm pro ht - better brakes, mech and lighter, bm team fs - wont have a sore arse after, have more fun downhill but have to put more effort in uphill. If u want return for your hard effort go for full suss, if you want an easy smooth amateur ride and your slow downhill then ht will suit you


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

glister said:


> If u want return for your hard effort go for full suss, if you want an easy smooth amateur ride and your slow downhill then ht will suit you


Uhh...ok... ut:


----------



## glister (Oct 17, 2011)

s0ckeyeus said:


> Uhh...ok... ut:


Ha! maybe an irrational comment now i read that back


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

glister said:


> Ha! maybe an irrational comment now i read that back


Yeah. The thread is a bit on the old side as well. No worries though. :thumbsup:


----------



## BillyMagnum (Sep 28, 2011)

Ht is just more comfortable for me...FS is nice but I'm just more comfortable with a HT and I ride some pretty rough stuff.


----------



## ubado (Oct 5, 2011)

The biggest reason why I chose a HT over a FS was familiarty. All the bikes I've owned from BMX - Road - Mountain (first MTB) all had rigid frames. So when I started researching MTB's ... I knew I wanted something that I would be familiar with the feel, response, and the control of ... for me, that was a HT. 
_(all the plus' of a HT, as well as, getting more bike for the buck was just a bonus ... besides it leaves me some extra $$ to put into my HT when things break or when I just want to upgrade ) _

Although the next bike I plan to get will be a 29" steel HT ... I'm sure a FS is somewhere in my future.


----------



## P-Tron (Oct 19, 2011)

Just bought my first-ever mountain bike 3 months ago (I'm 34), a 2011 Kona Kula.
It's a hardtail...I figured $1300 was plenty to dip my toe in the pool but still get something good - a light bike with good components. The same money would've barely gotten an entry-level FS bike. 
I've been enjoying myself and can see myself getting a FS sometime down the road, but not until I can afford for it to be a really good one.


----------



## pattongb (Jun 5, 2011)

eat_dirt said:


> i think you missed the "affordable" part.
> 
> if i have over 3.5 grand to drop on a bike (which is actually low-end for FS) i'll let you know if it performs as you say.


^^ how about this?

I have a Giant NRS3, $1500 in 2005 and I dont have any of the problems you seem to have.


----------



## Hooch (Jun 30, 2006)

i ride a fs because my lower back is totally screwed. not sure it could handle the beating a hardtail would 
give it.


----------



## Colo Springs E (Dec 20, 2009)

I only have one bike, a hardtail steel-framed Voodoo Hoodoo w/front suspension. I'm on the lookout for a singlespeed fully rigid bike; once I find that, I'll be set. I briefly owned a FS and took it back. I simply prefer hardtails, not sure I can say why, I just do.


----------



## Cormac (Aug 6, 2011)

I bought a hardtail instead of FS for 3 reasons. 1. Less maintenance, yes I am lazy and 2. I see no need for FS as I don't ride downhill exclusively. Only XC so my legs are all the suspension I need for the trails I ride. 3. Lower price.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

jackspade said:


> The price is no matter but the maintenance are.
> 
> FS is pretty though to maintain because there's a lot thing to adjust, while HT is easier and the good thing is with HT you can learn to control your bike better since your body work as suspension.


LOL do you own a FS


----------



## milkbaby (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm a newbie who bought a HT because my budget was right around $1k. I don't think there are any FS bikes worthwhile at that price?

I also decided not to go 29er because I rode both the big hoops and traditional size, and the 29er seemed sluggish to me, not as enjoyable. But I don't race or really plan to, so I just went by feel.

Being a newbie, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference what bike I got? I feel that I'm way more limited by my mind and skills right now rather than by the bike I ride.


----------



## Jimbo_Aus (Oct 20, 2011)

I've opted to go FS largely because the guys I ride with have FS, and even if I only use it occasionally, it'd peeve me off if I needed it and didn't have it.


----------



## hardwarz (Jun 12, 2009)

So... $3.5k is a low end full suspension?

WTF do you guys do for a living? I'd hate to see what you specify as a mid end components or even entry level components.


----------



## pnautilus (May 4, 2009)

Hardtails accelerate so quickly. There's nothing quite like a solid linkage for putting the power down.


----------



## pnautilus (May 4, 2009)

That being said, out west FS is so necessary b/c of the jeep roads, etc. that connect trails.


----------



## pnautilus (May 4, 2009)

Being able to simply sit and spin is sometimes more efficient than getting pounded on a hardtail and have to constantly change your body position


----------



## pnautilus (May 4, 2009)

If you have the means, I have friends who swear by carbon HT w/ 29er Carbon wheels for almost every kind of ride (except dirt jumps, big downhills, etc.)


----------



## Estral (Sep 24, 2007)

I don't think my opinion can really be of much value here, but I'll say my 2 cents anyways. I only ride a hard tail mainly because I don't do DH and I don't have enough money to buy a decent XC FS. For XC, I have relatively no desire to get a FS,either. I do this sport because it's fun and challenging. I like to push myself and don't need a FS to help me in any way... It's obviously all opinion.


----------



## bardynt (Oct 11, 2011)

well i think it go more do with were you ride it

it you have serious trails with big jumps and always doing that stuff then fs but if like me most of the time you be on the road then go to the trails for fun i would buy a hardtail

esp considering decent fs bikes are at least 2k plus but if money inst a option then get both


----------



## StarXed (Aug 5, 2008)

My Trance 1 needed yet another bearing overhaul in the rear suspension and I was looking at around $700 in parts for a complete overhaul (drivetrain, headset, rear suspension, etc.) so I said screw it and threw down for a new Steel HT. I love my Trance. I may rebuild it some day. But for the aggressive XC riding I do, it is unnecessary and it truly is far more maintenance then I am willing to put up with any longer. As fun as it is to ride it is a moneypit.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

You realize only the rear suspension is different.

TBH, a part of me wants to say "to hell with it" and put a rigid fork on the front of my MTB so I don't have to worry about slaughtering the bushings.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

AndrwSwitch said:


> You realize only the rear suspension is different.
> 
> TBH, a part of me wants to say "to hell with it" and put a rigid fork on the front of my MTB so I don't have to worry about slaughtering the bushings.


Tis what I did, fully rigid. Much less maint. Sold my squishy bike and didn't look back.


----------



## vk45de (Feb 1, 2009)

Price, weight, & strength.

For $120 I would've had a 45lb FS that's still dangerous.

Of course switching from an FS to an HT, I crashed the first day pedaling out of a turn... I had quite a bit more ground clearance on my FS.


----------



## BR1GHTMAN (Dec 2, 2011)

for climbing arnt hardtails better?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Meh.

Bikes aren't good at climbing. People are good at climbing. Some FS bikes screw it up, but there are also some excellent and highly competitive riders who choose FS bikes. I think the price and technology threshold you have to reach to get a competitive FS bike is a lot higher than for a hardtail, though.


----------



## drivengsxr1000 (May 5, 2011)

where did Joe Schmoe go? He probably got so confused after the first page he unsubscribed	:???:


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Meh.
> 
> Bikes aren't good at climbing. People are good at climbing. Some FS bikes screw it up, but there are also some excellent and highly competitive riders who choose FS bikes. I think the price and technology threshold you have to reach to get a competitive FS bike is a lot higher than for a hardtail, though.


100% correct.


----------



## DannyHuynh (Sep 13, 2011)

i have both. my FS is a better bike than my hardtail so i ride my FS all the time. it climbs just fine as long as i am seated. i can ride any of these trails i ride on a fs or a ht. the only time u need a fs is when the terrain is super chunk im told. its fun and reassuring to have though i have to admit.


----------



## Jaybcycle (Apr 5, 2011)

BR1GHTMAN said:


> for climbing arnt hardtails better?


I think it depends on the bike. I own both an HT and a fully. My fully, a Turner Flux, out climbs my HT any day. it also depends on the terrain. I can climb much steeper, rougher stuff on my Flux than I ever could on my HT


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

One question, if full suspension bikes are so much slower, why is it that people who ride full suspension bikes win races over those who use hardtails? I suppose the opposite could be true too...


----------



## Loudviking (Oct 23, 2011)

Is the original OP still reading this? My Dad can beat up your Dad-blah, blah. Who really cares
anymore, I ride a HT because that's what I ride and prefer, I have rode nice FS bikes and it's just
a personal choice. To the OP, just by a bike that you can afford and like it,and get out there and
RIDE. If it's FS-great, if a HT-great. Have fun and enjoy yourself, and not to date myself, but in
the late 80's there were no forums to get advice from, we just bought what we liked and could afford
and made due with it and had fun.:thumbsup:


----------



## Airman8 (Dec 1, 2011)

My wallet made the choice for me, Hard-tail it is.


----------



## AndyTomlin (Oct 6, 2011)

I can think of rides where I could have left the saddle at home and not even noticed... I only sit down when I'm taking a drink at the end of the trail! =P


----------



## ricky916 (Jun 7, 2011)

I ride a HT mostly due to less maintenance due to more moving parts on a FS rig, also for my first bike I didn't want to spend a ton of money on a bike, with all the parts I've bought on my GT I could have bought a decent low-mid FS rig (no more then $2k).
I've ridden on some chunky trails on my GT, I just lower my seat down before hand and it doesn't bother me too much, just use my arms and legs as suspension like they are made to be


----------



## Okultis (Dec 8, 2011)

I have HT because of price, I could spend around 1000US$. Entry level Cannondale 29er but its very fast.


----------



## wyumez (Oct 26, 2010)

I chose a HT because I wanted a 29er and didn't want to spend over $1000 on my first bike. I then got ticked off that a 27.5 full suspension sold for the same price I paid for mine on ebay  

Oh well, I love my Fuji.


----------



## Mint_Sauce (Dec 11, 2011)

From what I've gathered from recently getting back in the scene (take this as a n00bs view) is:

I think it comes down to what you're riding and how much you have to spend. If you have £1800+ to spend then FS is worth looking in to seriously IF you're looking to get in to doing more gnarly xc, trails or downhill and want to be faster and have more comfort.

If you have less than around £1800 then probably better to get a higher end HT. You'll still be able to do everything (anything flatish will be slightly more efficient) but it will just be a little more challenging and that might even appeal to you.


----------



## webb-o (Nov 16, 2011)

Personally I prefer HT because...
-prices are generally lower
-less maintenence and fewer moving parts than FS
-versatility (I use my MTBs for trail riding, road riding, and rides with the fam). HTs seem more efficient for pavement riding.
-for the type of trails I ride and my riding style, I find HTs more manueverable and responsive.


----------



## velomanct24 (Apr 21, 2009)

Hardtail is good for low cost, low maintenance, and the rigidity for the power transfer that some like myself crave. The best part of riding is just laying it all out, accelerating like a madman, with minimal power loss. The FS is nice to just cruise and feel smooth.


----------



## drivengsxr1000 (May 5, 2011)

velomanct24 said:


> Hardtail is good for low cost, low maintenance, and the rigidity for the power transfer that some like myself crave. The best part of riding is just laying it all out, accelerating like a madman, with minimal power loss. The FS is nice to just cruise and feel smooth.


i don't want to jump into the whole HT vs. FS but I don't agree with that last statement at all both bikes have there strong points but FS bikes are not just for cruising and feeling smooth, if thats the case DH/FR/AM is the bumpiest "smooth cruise" ive seen yet


----------



## velomanct24 (Apr 21, 2009)

drivengsxr1000 said:


> i don't want to jump into the whole HT vs. FS but I don't agree with that last statement at all both bikes have there strong points but FS bikes are not just for cruising and feeling smooth, if thats the case DH/FR/AM is the bumpiest "smooth cruise" ive seen yet


You're right, I just forgot to add in that that's for my riding interests.


----------



## KVW (Aug 11, 2011)

If I knew I could get a decent full squish bike at my price point, I would've gone with that route. My damaged knees could really use the give, at least on the lazy/chill descent. My buddy bought a kona 2+2 on chainlove for 15 hundred bucks (cheaper than my hardtail!) and it's effing sweet! Really love the looks, componentry and technology on that bike. Oh well, hard tail has it's perks, as pointed out in this thread but a full suspension bike will definitely be on my wishlist for quite some time.


----------



## Sideknob (Jul 14, 2005)

I rode my alloy XC HT a couple of times recently when my FS was back in the shop again with a busted Lefty. You know, the HT is just so much lighter and effortless to pedal over moderate terrain and it just urges you to hammer as there's that immediate, snappy response. And my FS is no slug, either.

I think if you set up the right sort of HT with the right sort of components that it can make a great trailbike. Good fork, wide bars, large and supple tyres (esp. tubeless) and maybe a carbon or suspension post for some give, and the ride can be pretty forgiving.


----------



## wyumez (Oct 26, 2010)

There is also the thudbuster to help out the back a little.


----------



## SIruZ (Dec 16, 2010)

Nothing beats the 0.5 - 1 inch of gluteus maximus travel on a hardtail


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Do you have a neurological deficit? 

I get a lot more than 1" of travel out of my legs...


----------

