Originally Posted by PaulRivers

Right...

I bought a full suspension mountain thinking full suspension was inherently "better" around 10 years ago for $1,500. Was a bit shocked at how much power I was clearly losing when riding on flat ground with the shock on vs shock locked out. In a ride with other people I was biking as hard as I could and couldn't keep up with them without them slowing down for me.I remembered I could lock the shock out, and suddenly I had no problem keeping up with them without even trying very hard. It was that big of a difference.

You bring up up good points in your post, but -

I don't spend much time on racing so I googled it:
https://www.active.com/running/artic...ull-suspension
"...One thing is for certain: More than a decade after full-suspension bikes started popping up in World Cup cross-country competition—think Henrik Djernis and his BMW-Proflex team of the mid '90 - they're (full suspension) still the exception at the highest levels of cross-country racing."

They may have improved rear suspension but it sounds like hard tail is still usually a hair faster even on super expensive bikes with pro riders, for the most part.

For casual riding just pick whichever would make riding more enjoyable for you. But for me I wish I had gone with a hard tail, it would be less hassle when I go riding as I find needing to top off the air shock every time a bit annoying (needs an extra shock pump), and I prefer the more connected-to-the-ground feeling of a hard tail. Also hard tails are much cheaper to buy.