Who needs full suspension?
Discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv7TyakE8qw&fea...
Very impressive. Riding a Chromag hardtail from the comments. And very nice frames they are too after a quick browse of the website.
Very impressive. Riding a Chromag hardtail from the comments. And very nice frames they are too after a quick browse of the website.
Good question - was thinking of posting something similar following a ride last week. Went round my local course, which is fairly bumpy and stony, on my fully-rigid XTC. With 1.75 slicks. Made for an interesting ride, especially as I couldn't hold onto the brakes and steer at the same time in some places. Certainly reminded me as to what mtb'ing is about and retaught myself the lines around the place.
More interesting and a lesson in bike riding skills? Definitely. Doing it again? Yep, tomorrow. But faster? No way, not on this course. After just one lap my wrists were numb and my insides had the washing machine effect, but I put some of that down to lack of practice.
Great fun!
More interesting and a lesson in bike riding skills? Definitely. Doing it again? Yep, tomorrow. But faster? No way, not on this course. After just one lap my wrists were numb and my insides had the washing machine effect, but I put some of that down to lack of practice.
Great fun!
I think the margin for error is much bigger with full suspension.
I rode rigid for a long time, then hard tail for quite a long time before ending up at full suss and two things occurred:
Firstly, I'd be even worse if I'd gone straight to suspension. What little skill I have comes from going down rocky trails on a rigid bike.
Secondly, through that progression you notice how much more controllable the bike becomes. With a rigid bike, a sudden slip at either end can be a problem. With a hardtail you can slide one end around easily, but if the other end goes (or hits an unexpected ridge or something) you're in trouble. With full suspension you maintain a degree of stability even when both wheels are bouncing all over the place.
I rode rigid for a long time, then hard tail for quite a long time before ending up at full suss and two things occurred:
Firstly, I'd be even worse if I'd gone straight to suspension. What little skill I have comes from going down rocky trails on a rigid bike.
Secondly, through that progression you notice how much more controllable the bike becomes. With a rigid bike, a sudden slip at either end can be a problem. With a hardtail you can slide one end around easily, but if the other end goes (or hits an unexpected ridge or something) you're in trouble. With full suspension you maintain a degree of stability even when both wheels are bouncing all over the place.
I think JoePublic sums it up well.
I rode the black route at Llandegla last weekend on my FS Stumpjumper and there is no way on earth I'd have got away with the speed and severity of that ride on my rigid singlespeed. Landing a big jump and immediately having to brake full-on for a corner is not something I;d be comfortable doing on a rigid, especially on rocky/rooted trails.
That said, it is amazing how, if you're precise and considerate - pick your lines, 'help' the bike over obstacles and generally fulfill the role of the shockers yourself - you really can hustle a fully rigid bike. And it [i[does[/i] teach you a few things about handling that a FS can't.
I rode the black route at Llandegla last weekend on my FS Stumpjumper and there is no way on earth I'd have got away with the speed and severity of that ride on my rigid singlespeed. Landing a big jump and immediately having to brake full-on for a corner is not something I;d be comfortable doing on a rigid, especially on rocky/rooted trails.
That said, it is amazing how, if you're precise and considerate - pick your lines, 'help' the bike over obstacles and generally fulfill the role of the shockers yourself - you really can hustle a fully rigid bike. And it [i[does[/i] teach you a few things about handling that a FS can't.
A guy at work has gone headlong into the full suspension thing, he's one of those guys who has to have the best- even if his techinque is sadly lacking ( all the gear- no idea). His bike cost £k's and is made up of santa cruz this, hope that, etc.
My cacky standard hardrock (of 2004 vintage) sport on crossmarks with laccy band front suspension keeps up with him over most terrain apart from the really rocky stuff and basically woops him on the flat (well I do wear cleats - which is one of the reasons why he does better on some stuff as theres a confidence issue with not getting feet down quickly sometimes).
He's now looking to convert his original hardrock into a rigid for xc as he "doesnt get the most out his full suspension".
I think that technique rather than equipment for sports riding is more advantageuos, but then MTB'ing is a niche market full of companies ready to take your money and people who MUST have the latest gadget.
For comp use then maybe its different.
As a for instance, we were doing a fast down hill with ruts, I was leading and hit a wide rut which went 45 degrees across the hill.
I was descending (in the air) from jumping a rut further up the hill so hit the rut full speed with my back wheel (i'd lifted the front in time but not got the back wheel up), the bike rear snapped out 45-70 degrees to my right uncleating me in the process. at about 30 ish mph this was sure to end in disaster, but no!. I kept going straight and re-cleated to carry on at warp factor nine.
He was sure that even with full suspension and flat pedals he wouldnt have held that - I called him a girl and thanked my lucky stars that I'd just kept focused on where I was going and let the bike do its thing under me.
In reality the rear suspension probably would have soaked up the bounce which cause the back to step out - but he didnt understand how to use his set up properly...
My cacky standard hardrock (of 2004 vintage) sport on crossmarks with laccy band front suspension keeps up with him over most terrain apart from the really rocky stuff and basically woops him on the flat (well I do wear cleats - which is one of the reasons why he does better on some stuff as theres a confidence issue with not getting feet down quickly sometimes).
He's now looking to convert his original hardrock into a rigid for xc as he "doesnt get the most out his full suspension".
I think that technique rather than equipment for sports riding is more advantageuos, but then MTB'ing is a niche market full of companies ready to take your money and people who MUST have the latest gadget.
For comp use then maybe its different.
As a for instance, we were doing a fast down hill with ruts, I was leading and hit a wide rut which went 45 degrees across the hill.
I was descending (in the air) from jumping a rut further up the hill so hit the rut full speed with my back wheel (i'd lifted the front in time but not got the back wheel up), the bike rear snapped out 45-70 degrees to my right uncleating me in the process. at about 30 ish mph this was sure to end in disaster, but no!. I kept going straight and re-cleated to carry on at warp factor nine.
He was sure that even with full suspension and flat pedals he wouldnt have held that - I called him a girl and thanked my lucky stars that I'd just kept focused on where I was going and let the bike do its thing under me.
In reality the rear suspension probably would have soaked up the bounce which cause the back to step out - but he didnt understand how to use his set up properly...
I rode fully rigid 1991 to 1995. Then HT till now. Currently ride either 97 Litespeed Ocoee, 99 Kona Explosif (both HT), or 97 Kilauea rigid. The biggest concession is to have front disks on the Litespeed and Explosif.
I've ridden some top end FS stuff. It definitely takes the edge off the rough stuff and allows you to make more mistakes.
However, a HT with well set up front suspension, and correct technique, will get you over all but the most gnarly of surfaces as quick if not quicker. Uphill - forget it. There is no way that propedal etc can match a HT.
However, if you are riding long distance gnarl, the FS comes into it's own. You can actually get to sleep after the ride without using painkillers.
It's the heft and maintenance issues that deter me from fully accepting FS for anything bar Downhill.
I've ridden some top end FS stuff. It definitely takes the edge off the rough stuff and allows you to make more mistakes.
However, a HT with well set up front suspension, and correct technique, will get you over all but the most gnarly of surfaces as quick if not quicker. Uphill - forget it. There is no way that propedal etc can match a HT.
However, if you are riding long distance gnarl, the FS comes into it's own. You can actually get to sleep after the ride without using painkillers.
It's the heft and maintenance issues that deter me from fully accepting FS for anything bar Downhill.
A lightweight rigid can be hopped over many obstacles that a heavy FS bike would simply plough into/over. Also when you need to return back up the hill a light bike can be powered up in no time at all. A hardcore FS is good fun, when going down. But they are a real pain and worse in any other situation, ime.
A good compromise is a lightweight FS bike, say an s-works with xtr etc. But then your into high bills and maintainence. You can't win!
A good compromise is a lightweight FS bike, say an s-works with xtr etc. But then your into high bills and maintainence. You can't win!
FS for me. Was in the Peak District last weekend. and went up and over Cut Gate to Langsett and back. Going a very rocky/bumpy fast descent it felt very unusually bumpy. Getting near the bottom I realised I'd locked my forks down for a climb, and had left them there! Doh! Go back to a rigid? No bloody way.
The main benefit of FS that I see is the increased grip over the really rocky stuff. The suspension keeps the tyres on the trail rather than bouncing around in the air and actually allows you to turn/brake/accelerate.
Anything you can ride on a FS you can do on a rigid, it'll just be slower, and use a lot more energy (on a rough downhill trail
).
Anything you can ride on a FS you can do on a rigid, it'll just be slower, and use a lot more energy (on a rough downhill trail
).
Have to agree with joepublic aswell. I rode ridgid bike for years cause thats all i could afford, same with my neighbour, only in the last few years did we go and buy decent hard tails and yes, they are so more forgiving, but the skills we have and developed over the years in an attempt to be as fast as the more expensive stuff has really helped. Put it this way, the guy we buy the bikes off couldn't work out how we were breaking the bikes so often and going through consumables so fast but a few months ago he actually came on a trail that none of us had ever ridden before. Was a long jaunt so was a planned out day and all that. He took his latest greatest machine he had and all the slagging on the way down was how he'd be waiting for us. By the end of the day he was speachless, and this guy's ridden for years with some great guys, we're just upstarts, but he was agreeing that it had to be the fact that due to riding crap stuff for years, Our ablitiy to read the lines, and adjust accordingly is what made us so much faster than him. (Sorry if this sounds big headed but i'm kinda delighted all the same!!)
I had a fully rigid first of all, back in 1991, then a hard tail, and last year I bought a full susser, I'm glad I didn't start on the full susser, but whenever I ride it on rough/rocky/rooty trails, I'm glad I'm on it, and I am definately quicker on the same descents than on my hardtail. I'm sure my full susser is a talent compensator, but I'm okay with that, the only bad point, is that I will be going quicker when I have a bad tumble.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff