Steve B.

No, not thinking that. A suspension fork keeps the F wheel on the ground and takes hits. R suspension adds that to the rear, thus the bike is able to steer and climb better due to better traction, as well as stop better as the wheels can stay planted, thus you have better braking. The trade off with any suspension is added weight. You could build a 19 lbs carbon rigid that'll climb like a cat but you'd get bounced around in rocks, roots, etc... so terrain dependent and you can often times climb better on a 30 lbs FS just as the suspension deals with the terrain obstacles that you'd otherwise need skill to deal with, which you don't have as yet. An example of this is learning how to best "pick a line" thru a set of obstacles. With FS you have options to go thru and over stuff you'd have to maneuver around on a rigid. That takes much less effort and at the end of a long ride, when your arms and shoulders are tired from needing to steer for 2 hrs., your brain is toast from fatigue. That's when a FS can be a better choice as the bike can cover your mistakes.

Your suspension needs are driven by the terrain and I would recommend maybe sticking to easier terrain in terms of technical features until you master the handling techniques. I no longer ride my FS as it's 4 lbs heavier than my HT on terrain that has no rocks, only roots, really twisty ST with man made obstacles (stumps, logs) and find an HT faster.

It's unfortunate that the current crisis prevents you from riding with some experienced rider who could show you handling tips, but YT has good stuff and you've got time to practice.

And as note to the OP, mt. biking IS harder than road riding, IMO. An hour on a mt. bike is a much more anaerobic activity, equiv. to 1-1/2 to 2 hrs. on a road bike. I do put out sustained effort on a fast road ride, where as a mt. bike has many short intense bursts, as well as a harder workout on the upper body a result of steering the bike thru obstacles, trees, etc... When I can, I swim to keep my upper body in shape.